Still no balance a year later - with facts

http://i.word.com/idictionary/underperform

Apparently if you're 15% behind another class, on these forums you are not underperforming yet. Who knew.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

http://i.word.com/idictionary/underperform

Apparently if you're 15% behind another class, on these forums you are not underperforming yet. Who knew.

Let me clarify then for you. You are not convincing the general audience that shadows are somehow doing worse than other classes because: a) you are merely citing percentages that don't mean much statistically and b) as others and I just stated, shadow is merely a starting point. I personally have experienced a few builds that I could have gone with another starting point and it would still be the same build because the starting nodes are usually the earliest ones taken so being high level 80+ means both a ranger and shadow would already include each others starting areas in the passives.

I will reiterate. Yes 15% sounds daunting but it still doesn't mean shit without an appropriate alpha level. At this point I will assume that you may not have even statistics 101 under your belt so I can see why percentages look convincing. But given enough time, I could find an old study from EBSCOHost that my research methods class discussed which showed that a huge percentage like 98% difference still could be not statistically significant. So by your standards, shadow could probably be falling behind percentage-wise 50+. Statistically, it is possible (and with all the variables present, very likely) that the percentage doesn't mean anything is wrong.

"

PleiadesBlackstar wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

http://i.word.com/idictionary/underperform

Apparently if you're 15% behind another class, on these forums you are not underperforming yet. Who knew.

Let me clarify then for you. You are not convincing the general audience that shadows are somehow doing worse than other classes because: a) you are merely citing percentages that don't mean much statistically and b) as others and I just stated, shadow is merely a starting point. I personally have experienced a few builds that I could have gone with another starting point and it would still be the same build because the starting nodes are usually the earliest ones taken so being high level 80+ means both a ranger and shadow would already include each others starting areas in the passives.

I will reiterate. Yes 15% sounds daunting but it still doesn't mean shit without an appropriate alpha level. At this point I will assume that you may not have even statistics 101 under your belt so I can see why percentages look convincing. But given enough time, I could find an old study from EBSCOHost that my research methods class discussed which showed that a huge percentage like 98% difference still could be not statistically significant. So by your standards, shadow could probably be falling behind percentage-wise 50+. Statistically, it is possible (and with all the variables present, very likely) that the percentage doesn't mean anything is wrong.

Looks a lot more likely to me that you're finding as many excuses as possible to make these facts meaningless when they are in, significant. Especially when it's been this way since March.

Whether you find a 15% performance drop acceptable or not is your opinion, but There's no company in the world who would accept a producer to perform 15% below that of a competitor for the same investment.

Also, before you take your stats class stuff and try to apply it to POE you might want to learn when you use alpha and when you don't.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

PleiadesBlackstar wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

http://i.word.com/idictionary/underperform

Apparently if you're 15% behind another class, on these forums you are not underperforming yet. Who knew.

Let me clarify then for you. You are not convincing the general audience that shadows are somehow doing worse than other classes because: a) you are merely citing percentages that don't mean much statistically and b) as others and I just stated, shadow is merely a starting point. I personally have experienced a few builds that I could have gone with another starting point and it would still be the same build because the starting nodes are usually the earliest ones taken so being high level 80+ means both a ranger and shadow would already include each others starting areas in the passives.

I will reiterate. Yes 15% sounds daunting but it still doesn't mean shit without an appropriate alpha level. At this point I will assume that you may not have even statistics 101 under your belt so I can see why percentages look convincing. But given enough time, I could find an old study from EBSCOHost that my research methods class discussed which showed that a huge percentage like 98% difference still could be not statistically significant. So by your standards, shadow could probably be falling behind percentage-wise 50+. Statistically, it is possible (and with all the variables present, very likely) that the percentage doesn't mean anything is wrong.

Looks a lot more likely to me that you're finding as many excuses as possible to make these facts meaningless when they are in, significant. Especially when it's been this way since March.

I am merely pointing out the reasons why many of us are having trouble with your aggressive attitude about your opinion. I'm almost done with my bachelor's in college. Psychology requires a lot of statistics. And in those classes I have had to learn about issues that you are presenting very clearly to everybody who is reading this. Some of these issues are plain to see even without statistics. I am expressing the base reason why people will continue to having problems with what you say.

"

P-values are often coupled to a significance or alpha (α) level, which is also set ahead of time, usually at 0.05 (5%). Thus, if a p-value was found to be less than 0.05, then the result would be considered statistically significant and the null hypothesis would be rejected.

In your argument, you would have to find that the difference between classes is different enough that there is only a 5% or in some cases 1% likelihood that the numbers occurred because of chance. Until you present this type of data you can cite you percentages all day. It statistically means nothing, and you need statistical significance to even presume that the data is giving you facts.

Edit: To give you more info into the above quote, the null hypothesis in your argument would be: There is no difference between the performance of Shadows to another Class(es). That would be up to you to choose one class or multiple. If only one class .01 would be preferred. If not .05 is plenty.

The difference now is 12%, you're wasting our time. It's been this way since March.

Additionally, I'm 32 years old, I have a degree and I work in engineering. I've been doing stats for as long as I can remember, just not a focus of my job. Im glad you're so interested in our real lives on a videogame forum though.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

The difference now is 12%, you're wasting our time. It's been this way since March.

Additionally, I'm 32 years old, I have a degree and I work in engineering. I've been doing stats for as long as I can remember, just not a focus of my job. Im glad you're so interested in our real lives on a videogame forum though.

I was only expressing my experience with statistics. And if you have had this much statistics in your life then you should know what I am asking for alpha levels is correct and wouldn't be so concerned with my "finding excuses." By using both my own and your background in statistics you should know this is a legitimate claim, but this is the first time you acknowledge knowing that p-values are important so I am confused. Explain to me how these important factors of statistics are not necessary for your argument please. I am not trying to be antagonistic I am seriously asking.

"

PleiadesBlackstar wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

The difference now is 12%, you're wasting our time. It's been this way since March.

Additionally, I'm 32 years old, I have a degree and I work in engineering. I've been doing stats for as long as I can remember, just not a focus of my job. Im glad you're so interested in our real lives on a videogame forum though.

I was only expressing my experience with statistics. And if you have had this much statistics in your life then you should know what I am asking for alpha levels is correct and wouldn't be so concerned with my "finding excuses." By using both my own and your background in statistics you should know this is a legitimate claim, but this is the first time you acknowledge knowing that p-values are important so I am confused. Explain to me how these important factors of statistics are not necessary for your argument please. I am not trying to be antagonistic I am seriously asking.

Because the gap is too large and too consistent. 15% for marauders and 13% for shadow and Duelist and has been that way since March.

Additionally nobody seems to be interested in mortality rates in those brackets which is yet another form of performance drop.

The amount and consistency of the data along with how long it has been this way makes it nearly impossible to disagree as a reasonable person. I simply do not believe a reasonable person can see it and think it's not significant. At some point the amount, length, and consistency of data has to overcome any concerns about scientific method.

And since I've been posting this data since March there's not really an excuse from my perspective. It looks to me like an obfuscation attempt like I've seen here so many times in past.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

PleiadesBlackstar wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

The difference now is 12%, you're wasting our time. It's been this way since March.

Additionally, I'm 32 years old, I have a degree and I work in engineering. I've been doing stats for as long as I can remember, just not a focus of my job. Im glad you're so interested in our real lives on a videogame forum though.

I was only expressing my experience with statistics. And if you have had this much statistics in your life then you should know what I am asking for alpha levels is correct and wouldn't be so concerned with my "finding excuses." By using both my own and your background in statistics you should know this is a legitimate claim, but this is the first time you acknowledge knowing that p-values are important so I am confused. Explain to me how these important factors of statistics are not necessary for your argument please. I am not trying to be antagonistic I am seriously asking.

Because the gap is too large and too consistent. 15% for marauders and 13% for shadow and Duelist and has been that way since March.

Additionally nobody seems to be interested in mortality rates in those brackets which is yet another form of performance drop.

The amount and consistency of the data along with how long it has been this way makes it nearly impossible to disagree as a reasonable person. I simply do not believe a reasonable person can see it and think it's not significant. And since I've been posting this data since March there's not really an excuse from my perspective.

But you are again denying basic statistics by stating that. Yes the gap is concerning enough to do research, no that gap is not statistically significant just because it is a few percentages off unless there is an alpha level to suggest it. And even then we have to, especially you have to acknowledge the potential of Type I error with how many variables are present.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

The amount and consistency of the data along with how long it has been this way makes it nearly impossible to disagree as a reasonable person. I simply do not believe a reasonable person can see it and think it's not significant. And since I've been posting this data since March there's not really an excuse from my perspective. It looks to me like an obfuscation attempt like I've seen here so many times in past.

And yet, here is a thread full of folks who don't see it your way.

We get it. FAAAAAAAAAACTS. You've made your point. You came here, clearly looking for a fight, got one, got put in time-out, and are still regurgitating the OP.

What's your endgame here? Just to keep screaming your original point at various people? To keep trying to convince people who understand that there's more to balancing than the top of the iceberg?

What the fucking fuck is the point after all this time?

"

Antnee wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

The amount and consistency of the data along with how long it has been this way makes it nearly impossible to disagree as a reasonable person. I simply do not believe a reasonable person can see it and think it's not significant. And since I've been posting this data since March there's not really an excuse from my perspective. It looks to me like an obfuscation attempt like I've seen here so many times in past.

And yet, here is a thread full of folks who don't see it your way.

We get it. FAAAAAAAAAACTS. You've made your point. You came here, clearly looking for a fight, got one, got put in time-out, and are still regurgitating the OP.

What's your endgame here? Just to keep screaming your original point at various people? To keep trying to convince people who understand that there's more to balancing than the top of the iceberg?

What the fucking fuck is the point after all this time?

Depending on his answer to my last post or yours I will throw in the towel. The last few pages I've posted on were fun at first because I know what I am asking from OP is appropriate and trying to make some perspective change even slightly. But now I am ready to throw in the towel. Making it pretty clear he doesn't intend to change his stance even if he personally acknowledges his faults in his argument.