Bios paydays changes

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:34 pm

Win/loss stats are not reliable indicators of balance, because they do not take into account stack, relative strength of the comms, map, settings, or anything else.

And even if they did, the number of games is often too small to be statistically meaningful. With a sample size of 100 events, a 10% win advantage is still within the margin of error.

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:45 pm

Cable wrote:QUOTE (Cable @ Feb 3 2011, 03:54 PM) Thanks for the reply Spidey... and while you make logical sounding points. It does not answer my question . I know I can be thick headed on occassion.

Why the faction that losses so much would need a nerf and not a perk. My main point being "why balance down a faction that is not winning?" based on the win loss stats. I understand your passion about bios miners and the faction but in my opinion I do not see that most people play bios the way you suggest. If that were the case , I would think we would see a higher not lower game win percentage. I do not see that the faction was winning more games because of it. My thought on a balance change would be to make a faction that was not doing so hot get more play time.

The proposed change makes bios less playable. How is that a good balance change . ?

I didn't answer anything besides the quoted portion because I agree with everything else

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:00 am

Elzam V. Branstein wrote:QUOTE (Elzam V. Branstein @ Feb 3 2011, 03:27 PM) That data is cc10

Right..... CC10 data shows Bios getting its ass kicked. CC11 shoudl be trying to balance that IMHO.

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:05 am

Cable wrote:QUOTE (Cable @ Feb 4 2011, 12:00 AM) Right..... CC10 data shows Bios getting its ass kicked. CC11 shoudl be trying to balance that IMHO.

But as cash pointed out the sample size is so small as to be statistically meaningless, especially f you factor in that you know nothing about the teams etc.

You just need 3 bios games to swing the other way for Bios to have one of the highest win percentages. This could have been easily caused by a poor commander deciding to fly bios for a few games......

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:17 am

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Feb 3 2011, 04:34 PM) Win/loss stats are not reliable indicators of balance, because they do not take into account stack, relative strength of the comms, map, settings, or anything else.

And even if they did, the number of games is often too small to be statistically meaningful. With a sample size of 100 events, a 10% win advantage is still within the margin of error.

Cashto i don't know that I agrree or disagree I can only tell you that Nior was able to use those stats effectively on DN . He used them as a gauge or base line effectively in MY opinion.

If we can not have stats that are usefull we have no way to really gauge the need for changes or thier effects. I hate bad science. We need to make sure abpove all esle..

The stated reason for a change is needed. The change will bring about a sane result. Try and think thru the possible down stream affects of the change... test it. Revaluate if it worked .

While I recognize people's insticnts have merit. Suspicions of imbalance issues should be followed up with some base lininng before mucking with @#(!. Other wise your worse than a newbie mechanic tinkering with throttle settings becuase it sounds better but in fact makes the cCar run worse because you missed the corresponding timming and airflow issues .....

I see this happen every day with new server admins. They have the best intention. The are excited to help and make a mark. But they lack the experinece and they make multiple changes to systems and then can not expalin which change fixed the problem and why. I have trained over 8 admins now and countles other techs. My techs take a little longer to fix a problem.. But they fix it for good and can explain what was really going wrong.

So back to my main issue. Before you make changes , get the concensus for if the change is needed. Just becuase one person things something is too powerfull or not powerfull enough is an opinion. Game stats and faction/ tech path win loss analysis and testing would get you a better look. You would be suprised how wrong you could be about the real root cause of an issue.

Sorry for the wall of text but every time some one new does this I do not see a rhytme or reason.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:04 am

Cable, you are on the right track, I don't really have any disagreements with what you are saying.

But the devil is in the details. Others are right, the win/loss stats are meaningless. We don't have the ability to get meaningful win/loss stats. You would have to have a very accurate ranking system and results adjusted by relevant team strength(we don't), either fixed game settings or some way to compensate for variable game settings (we don't), and no random elements in the game (there are). Or failing all that you need very large sample sizes (we don't have those either).

Similarly, there is no scientific way of changing a core, nor there is any way to achieve "community consensus". As far as I can see, this whole CC idea came about because you guys were stuck with DN, and you had to find a to resolve the problems with DN and move forward. Just because it's called CC doesn't mean it somehow magically reflects some magical will of the community - something that doesn't exist. It's just a core developed under the supervision of a zone leader, with feedback from a group of players he picks.

You can't expect much from the community at large except state what they feel is an important balance problem with the game. Look at my thread with the exact subject. Count the number of responses in that thread that one (say the CC team) could actually act on. You won't find many. In fact, I can't find a single one (sure, a few good ideas in there could be turned into extended projects that may bear fruit sometime next year...maybe...but nothing related to prioritizing an existing balance problem, of which there are many)

So who are you going to get this consensus from? Your BIOS payday nerf is the result of polling. I mean... LOL.

But again, I agree with you. The process can be improved, done in a more orderly, more transparent fashion. In fact, there is a thread in CC office forum discussing just that right now.

NightRychune · Post by **NightRychune** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:22 am

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Feb 3 2011, 06:04 PM) Similarly, there is no scientific way of changing a core, nor there is any way to achieve "community consensus". As far as I can see, this whole CC idea came about because you guys were stuck with DN, and you had to find a to resolve the problems with DN and move forward. Just because it's called CC doesn't mean it somehow magically reflects some magical will of the community - something that doesn't exist. It's just a core developed under the supervision of a zone leader, with feedback from a group of players he picks.

that isn't true at all. DN was abolished and CC brought about because someone decided they didn't want one person being in control of gameplay for everyone - when that one person had a consistent design vision that he was working towards while addressing short-term issues that kept cropping up, and didn't accept feedback or balance suggestions from the same idiots that make PUGs such a pain in the ass to play - you know, the people who won't follow directions, who command games and expand with TPs as expansion, who try to put their entire team on bomb runs while there are easily accessible miners to be slain.

CC has been plagued with this problem from its very start: all it has tried to do is address minor issues that were present in DN (after the last version of DN, 4.60, wasn't ready when it was released anyway) by making minor adjustments here and there based on what fools like Adept think is best for the game.

It's been two and a half, almost 3 years since this project was put into action and there really hasn't been much to come out of it aside from a bunch of knee-jerk changes designed and implemented based on the fact that people are incapable of improving themselves such that they can beat a turtling Bios team, or deploy figs properly against ints, or fly stealth fighters, or any number of other issues, when instead people should be pushed to improve their skills. It's created some very harmful issues in terms of organized squad play.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:34 am

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Feb 4 2011, 06:22 AM) CC has been plagued with this problem from its very start: all it has tried to do is address minor issues that were present in DN (after the last version of DN, 4.60, wasn't ready when it was released anyway) by making minor adjustments here and there based on what fools like Adept think is best for the game.

Stop eating those crazy pills Virulence. CC is based on what I think is best for the game over the last three years?

NightRychune · Post by **NightRychune** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:03 am

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Feb 3 2011, 09:22 PM) CC has been plagued with this problem from its very start: all it has tried to do is address minor issues that were present in DN (after the last version of DN, 4.60, wasn't ready when it was released anyway) by making minor adjustments here and there based on what fools like Adept think is best for the game.

operative word there chief

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:43 am

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Feb 4 2011, 09:03 AM) operative word there chief

Fair enough