[SUGGESTION] Tie PvP Experience to Point Results

[Nixxe]

Nixxe, I've said several times that the GC you're on does NOT matter. It's not the reason you're winning or losing more.

Maybe you've learned a thing or two? Maybe pure RNG luck is putting you with other skilled players? Freelancer is literally a deck shuffle. In the past, I won more games as an Adder, but that was entirely because there were a lot of good players I got to know on the Adders. And when we all switched to Flames, guess what we continued to do? And when Freelancer was added and we just teamed up with each other anyways, guess what we continued to do?

Your GC affiliation matters as much in PvP now as it does in PvE.

And I already explained to you why you're wrong. The only situation in which GC affiliation does not matter is one in which all persons are required to use Freelancer at all times, provided the game distributes all participants in a truly random fashion. In any other situation, GC affiliations can come into play.

[Dizhonor]

And I already explained to you why you're wrong. The only situation in which GC affiliation does not matter is one in which all persons are required to use Freelancer at all times, provided the game distributes all participants in a truly random fashion. In any other situation, GC affiliations can come into play.

Your "argument" is purely anecdotal https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal. Here are some examples:

Premise: A black dog just bit me.
Premise: The only dog that has ever bitten me was black.
Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs must be biters.

The conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.

Premise: I was losing nearly all the time as an Adder
Premise: I win more often as a Maelstrom
Conclusion: It must be the case that Maelstrom wins more than Adder

Again, the conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.

[Nixxe]

Your "argument" is purely anecdotal https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal. Here are some examples:



The conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.



Again, the conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.

We're dealing with inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. By definition, inductive reasoning is invalid, but that doesn't make it worthless. For instance, science is based entirely on inductive reasoning, while math, aside from statistics, is based on deductive reasoning. So of course the premises don't necessarily lead to the conclusion. They aren't intended to. They are intended to strongly suggest the conclusion is the case, the exact strength with which they do so depending on the specific instance. Indeed, deductive reasoning is rarely able to be applied in any useful fashion in our day to day lives, as typically it doesn't tell us anything new. For instance, most syllogisms simply spell out things people would generally intuitively understand if they're aware of the premises. Most of the reasoning we use is inductive in nature. Since all inductive reasoning is invalid and depends on cogency rather than soundness, it must be evaluated for the specific content, not merely the form, and therefore saying that the premises do not necessarily lead to the conclusion is a waste of everyone's time, unless perhaps you need to remind someone to entertain other suggestions. I am not failing to entertain other suggestions. I am failing to see anything else more plausible than that there is not even distribution between all three GCs under the current game structure. Indeed, as the conditions are not right for even distribution, it would be virtually miraculous if there were.

As for the specific fallacy, the issue isn't that it's an anecdote at all. The fallacy they're calling "anecdotal" is actually a hasty generalization, which is when you are too quick to jump to conclusions after a single event. However, this is not what I am doing and indeed my argument is statistical in nature, being based on the ever growing improbability that my result is simply RNG, especially when taken together with the fact that the game setup should not be expected to produce an even distribution. If it really doesn't matter what GC you are on, then all GCs should have a 33.33333% win rate and my 40% win rate should eventually converge with that, as per the Law of Large Numbers. Less competent persons who seem to have neither even a rudimentary understanding of statistics nor the ability to do more than attribute anything they don't understand to RNG, are instead disregarding my arguments in favor of repeating that I must be wrong over and over and over.

If I take my two sets of trials (ie Freelancer w/l and Maelstrom w/l) and put them in a contingency table and run a χ2 test, my p-value is 0.0262. By convention, anything under 0.05 is generally considered significant, though you can select a bit lower or higher based on your own needs. Provided this win rate is maintained, the p-value will continue to shrink, until it's even less than 1. As this shrinkage occurs, the likelihood that it is merely RNG likewise decreases. It is of course possible that's merely RNG, but given the game design, we shouldn't expect even distribution to begin with, so it's a bit strange to see everyone insist that it's the only possible explanation, even without any statistics whatsoever of their own to back up that contention.

So all the good people are in Maelstrom right now then? And if they all switch out to the Flames tonight you'll still win as much, right? What if they all only start queueing Freelancer? What about strong premades that don't even get to choose which team they'll be on? What if your team is filled with bots consistently for days?

I'm not calling you out but that's spoken like someone who really didn't PvP before, so you're not aware just how much GC imbalance impacted queues. I win far more than I lose, and I always queue Freelancer. What GC I'm on doesn't matter even remotely as much as whether what team I land on will focus objectives or players properly, communicate, coordinate, and actively play and play well. Neither my strategy, nor ability changes purely because of what GC I'm on, and neither should yours or anyone's.

Your post reads like it was written by someone who neither understands my argument nor even basic statistics. Like no kidding what your team does is what matters the most. That's my entire point: Your team is what matters and at least on Aether, most of the cooperative and productive teams seem to be flying the Maelstrom flag, whatever the reason may be. If those players all start playing for Flames, I'd expect Flames' win rate to likely go up accordingly. You seem to have this bizarre idea that I think the increased win rate is an intrinsic property of the GC, rather than a product of who happens to play for the GC generally speaking, which is just a baffling way to interpret anything I've said.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Your team is what matters and at least on Aether, most of the cooperative and productive teams seem to be flying the Maelstrom flag, whatever the reason may be.

So again, what happens when those cooperative and productive teams go Freelancer? What happens when a bunch of knowledgeable, long-time PvPers just randomly end up on a NOT-Maelstrom team?

Seriously, I'm just going to be blunt in saying if you think you're winning more because you're on one GC over another now, you're wrong.

Also GC affiliation still matters because everyone who unlocked frontlines before the freelancer default on change (aka the vast majority of the people playing) have theirs default to off, and the majority of people (especially the ones who do not read patch notes) do not even know the freelancer option even exists.

And what about those of us who were PvPing well before that? Pretty sure any of us could swap GCs tonight, turn off Freelancer, and still win. That is unless somehow us not being in one GC over another makes us play worse, despite our experience?

[TankHunter678]

And what about those of us who were PvPing well before that? Pretty sure any of us could swap GCs tonight, turn off Freelancer, and still win. That is unless somehow us not being in one GC over another makes us play worse, despite our experience?

Then go right ahead and do so, maybe you will improve the experience of those people in the GCs that consistently lose. You will just trade one consistently winning GC out for a different one and the same complaints will keep going, just the GC names will be different.


Seriously, if they want serious pvp then they should just make a damn ranked version and leave the unranked version for those just looking to grind xp. Where win or loss does not affect your xp gains. After all, true pvpers should be competing with each other right? For bragging rights? Then they should do it in a mode where it is tracked and ranked against everyone else also trying to push to prove they are the best.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Then go right ahead and do so, maybe you will improve the experience of those people in the GCs that consistently lose. You will just trade one consistently winning GC out for a different one and the same complaints will keep going, just the GC names will be different.


Seriously, if they want serious pvp then they should just make a damn ranked version and leave the unranked version for those just looking to grind xp. Where win or loss does not affect your xp gains. After all, true pvpers should be competing with each other right? For bragging rights? Then they should do it in a mode where it is tracked and ranked against everyone else also trying to push to prove they are the best.

We call it the Feast. But unfortunately people are trying to grind XP there too.

I should also note that the Feast DOES have an unranked mode, but currently the ranked 4v4 still gives XP, and that should really change before the official 5th season starts. How bad would it sting if you get a teammate - and note, there's nothing but solo queue now for ranked - who doesn't care if they win or lose during one of your promotion matches?

P.S. I think an equally large issue is the rather awful perception that Frontlines isn't serious PvP.

[TankHunter678]

We call it the Feast. But unfortunately people are trying to grind XP there too.

That is... baffling, since match length is supposed to increase the amount of xp one gets.

I actually would not mind xp being removed from feast to give back a place for hardcore pvpers to compete, but that opinion is born from me never feeling like running feast to begin with.

[Nixxe]

So again, what happens when those cooperative and productive teams go Freelancer? What happens when a bunch of knowledgeable, long-time PvPers just randomly end up on a NOT-Maelstrom team?

Seriously, I'm just going to be blunt in saying if you think you're winning more because you're on one GC over another now, you're wrong.

The evidence says otherwise, your inability to grasp the argument notwithstanding.

You're wrong on multiple accounts. No offense, but don't use "Google" as a basis for your knowledge. You don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not what you think you know is right. "Inductive" arguments depend upon probability, and therefore are evaluated based upon strength and cogency. You were using "deductive" reasoning, which depends on necessity, and is evaluated in terms of validity & soundness. In fact, you were drawing your conclusion from personal experiences, which is by definition an anecdotal argument. But I can understand your confusion between that and a hasty generalization. Again, someone who doesn't know enough about the subject can make easy mistakes here. Here's a very simply difference:




While both examples draw a conclusion from a small sampling, the difference is that anecdotal reasoning employs personal experiences as evidence of something. Again, it's very easy for someone who only uses Google as a basis for their knowledge to make this mistake.

In any case, it doesn't follow necessarily from your personal experiences with X grand company that X grand company is good or bad. It doesn't matter how often you had those experiences. You can flip a coin a hundred times and get "heads" and it doesn't follow necessarily that "heads" will turn up the next time you flip it.

You have no idea what you are talking about and it isn't clear that you even read my post. Please don't hassle me with your ignorance again.

[Dizhonor]

snip

You're wrong on multiple accounts. No offense, but don't use "Google" as a basis for your knowledge. You don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not what you think you know is right. "Inductive" arguments depend upon probability, and therefore are evaluated based upon strength and cogency. You were using "deductive" reasoning, which depends on necessity, and is evaluated in terms of validity & soundness. In fact, you were drawing your conclusion from personal experiences, which is by definition an anecdotal argument. But I can understand your confusion between that and a hasty generalization. Again, someone who doesn't know enough about the subject can make easy mistakes here. Here's a very simply difference:

Below is an example of anecdotal reasoning (note the subjective "me"):
Premise: A black dog just bit me.
Premise: The only dog that has ever bitten me was black.
Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs must be biters.

Below is an example of a hasty generalization:
Premise: A (insert political candidate) supporter believes X
Conclusion: Therefore, all (insert political candidate supporter) must believe X

While both examples draw a conclusion from a small sampling, the difference is that anecdotal reasoning employs personal experiences as evidence of something. Again, it's very easy for someone who only uses Google as a basis for their knowledge to make this mistake.

In any case, it doesn't follow necessarily from your personal experiences with X grand company that X grand company is good or bad. It doesn't matter how often you had those experiences. You can flip a coin a hundred times and get "heads" and it doesn't follow necessarily that "heads" will turn up the next time you flip it.

[Dzian]

We're dealing with inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. By definition, inductive reasoning is invalid, but that doesn't make it worthless. For instance, science is based entirely on inductive reasoning, while math, aside from statistics, is based on deductive reasoning. .

Science isn't entirely inductive. it's only inductive as far as the hypothesis or theoretical conclusions (or predictions) are concerned. the actual science is nearly always deductive. because generally what scienteists actually do is aim to prove a theory or hypothesis to be wrong instead of prove it to be right. by going against inductive reasoning scientists avoid conformation bias.

more on topic though. I think tying exp to actual points might help a lot in pvp.. along with some system that filters effort. if players have spent most of the match afk they should get nothing even if you finish second with 1599 points..