Still no balance a year later - with facts

"

Antnee wrote:

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

To show wannabes like infinity or acuity gurl how to troll people properly.

"

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.

I'm not denying anything, I've already said before that is debatable whether 15% is an acceptable performance difference. I say it's not; and in certain most reasonable people would agree.

More important though, is the fact that what you are saying isn't what happened. If the people here had said "do more research" I would be OK. However, 90% of the people here are immediately dismissing the idea and they have shown no legitimate reason for doing so.

That's the fault with your position. I have supporting data, your side does not. And yet your view is the more common one? No, not buying it. This is obfuscation.

"

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?

The point is to make this game better. You don't have to help if you don't want to. You're free to be satisfied with a half assed unbalanced game, I'd rather POE become the game it could be.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

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.

I'm not denying anything, I've already said before that is debatable whether 15% is an acceptable performance difference. I say it's not; and in certain most reasonable people would agree.

More important though, is the fact that what you are saying isn't what happened. If the people here had said "do more research" I would be OK. However, 90% of the people here are immediately dismissing the idea and they have shown no legitimate reason for doing so.

But when you claim the data as a fact for your opinion that shadows are under-performing you are denying debating. And I am specifically asking you to find the actual p-level that supports the claim that the difference qualifies as under-performance. Unless I am missing something here, you finally acknowledged that no matter what data you had for your OP, you don't really have proof of under-performance.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

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.

I'm not denying anything, I've already said before that is debatable whether 15% is an acceptable performance difference. I say it's not; and in certain most reasonable people would agree.

More important though, is the fact that what you are saying isn't what happened. If the people here had said "do more research" I would be OK. However, 90% of the people here are immediately dismissing the idea and they have shown no legitimate reason for doing so.

That's the fault with your position. I have supporting data, your side does not. And yet your view is the more common one? No, not buying it. This is obfuscation.

And now that you edited your post I have to add. I don't have a strong position. From my statistical background I am presuming your claim is likely wrong. There are too many variables that you didn't or maybe cannot due to time and energy constraints account for. There is reasonable chance your claim is correct and I am not denying that. I am simply referring to the basics of statistics that your data is lacking despite claiming your argument is the only interpretation.

"

PleiadesBlackstar wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

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.

I'm not denying anything, I've already said before that is debatable whether 15% is an acceptable performance difference. I say it's not; and in certain most reasonable people would agree.

More important though, is the fact that what you are saying isn't what happened. If the people here had said "do more research" I would be OK. However, 90% of the people here are immediately dismissing the idea and they have shown no legitimate reason for doing so.

But when you claim the data as a fact for your opinion that shadows are under-performing you are denying debating. And I am specifically asking you to find the actual p-level that supports the claim that the difference qualifies as under-performance. Unless I am missing something here, you finally acknowledged that no matter what data you had for your OP, you don't really have proof of under-performance.

The fact that shadows are under performing is not an opinion. The expected value is that they perform at the level of their selection. Any class performing below this value is under performing. This isn't a case where we don't know the expected and must find it. It's the level of selection.

The opinion part is whether you believe 15% is an acceptable margin.

May I ask why believe that an offensive class should fare better in terms of *surviving* in a HC league compared to other more defensive aligned classes?

Or the *fact* that the game isn't balanced around HC anyways? So bringing up class balancing issues from stats based in a HC league is moot anyways.

"

And now that you edited your post I have to add. I don't have a strong position. From my statistical background I am presuming your claim is likely wrong. There are too many variables that you didn't or maybe cannot due to time and energy constraints account for. There is reasonable chance your claim is correct and I am not denying that. I am simply referring to the basics of statistics that your data is lacking despite claiming your argument is the only interpretation.

In your own post you demonstrated the problem. There is reasonable chance my claim is correct, you said yourself. But you also presume it's not. Why? What have you seen to make you think otherwise? It is not a reasonable position to think that with nothing showing you otherwise. You are allowed to be skeptical and desire more data, but denying the claim with no evidence otherwise? Not a reasonable position in the least. Even without conclusive data, all the data we DO have shows I'm right. Therefore you have no ground to stand on saying I'm wrong, even if you think I might not be right.

And yet look what people are saying. It's not normal unless it's obfuscation.

"

SL4Y3R wrote:

May I ask why believe that an offensive class should fare better in terms of *surviving* in a HC league compared to other more defensive aligned classes?

Or the *fact* that the game isn't balanced around HC anyways? So bringing up class balancing issues from stats based in a HC league is moot anyways.

Because:
1: POE is a hard core game and hard core is how it is intended to be.

2: Show me where the shadows are dominating in SC. If the class is not performing better in SC, it's not relevant how offensive it is designed because it still performs poorly.

3. The game's hardcore mode is a much better measure of class performance because dying every 5 seconds with a billion dps is not an effective design.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

And now that you edited your post I have to add. I don't have a strong position. From my statistical background I am presuming your claim is likely wrong. There are too many variables that you didn't or maybe cannot due to time and energy constraints account for. There is reasonable chance your claim is correct and I am not denying that. I am simply referring to the basics of statistics that your data is lacking despite claiming your argument is the only interpretation.

In your own post you demonstrated the problem. There is reasonable chance my claim is correct, you said yourself. But you also presume it's not. Why? What have you seen to make you think otherwise? It is not a reasonable position to think that with nothing showing you otherwise. You are allowed to be skeptical and desire more data, but denying the claim with no evidence otherwise? Not a reasonable position in the least. Even without conclusive data, all the data we DO have shows I'm right. Therefore you have no ground to stand on saying I'm wrong, even if you think I might not be right.

And yet look what people are saying. It's not normal unless it's obfuscation.

1)There is no account for the fact that was pointed to earlier that the "class" is fairly interchangeable. Your argument shouldn't be solely shadows but any builds that use the shadow area with this interchangeability.

2) There is no account for differences in players skills. The people who are getting into the top 40 as shadows may possibly be more reckless or new to being the top and dying as a result.

3) Other variables are not considered (people falling asleep trying to rush to the top for example).

These issues would effect any class chosen not just shadow. The point I am making is that you need to eliminate these variables to claim that it is the shadow nodes in particular that are the issue especially 1. These are my reasons for presuming incorrect opinion. Yes the percentages show shadows dying more often, does that mean that the shadow class aka the nodes and area is under-performing? You have not given reasonable evidence to suppose the second answer is yes. Only that shadows have died more. Shadows dying more =/= the shadow's nodes are weaker than any other class unless you control for the above variables and do the analyses.