jakub_czyli_ja, on 09 May 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:
And these thingies with planes accumulating cap points?
"The stats were compared over-all, not on an individual basis, when you had planes that had higher maneuverability on stats, but actually turned slower, it was the roll rate that caused them to be shown to be more maneuverable. "
Broken indicators.
I've seen. Not my fault that there are much less statpadders and because of that issues aren't so clarly visible as they were in 1.9.
Much less than in 1.9.
Starting from initial spreading.
How is hard work of checking players in HoF "estimation"?
Every day when HoF works you can check exact numbers og players having 20 battles last week or 5 battles last day.
Nice to know that you have no idea in things you are trying to discuss about.
If you'd check the thread I linked, you'd find, how they are gathered.
How did you come to such conclusion that I enjoy? I don't like landslides or artificial equaling chances.
This game is PvE in most of cases. With a big issue with retention.
I didn't. If that MM is based on number of won battles, it ain't skill based. Bernoulli scheme does the trick.
I also wonder why do you put so much emphasis on free to play model. Probably another mutatio controversiae.
Without addressing obvious issues? Yes, it's really selective.
Flights, OP planes, lack of endgame, lack of team mode - all present in 1.9, all present in 2.0.
Plus even more unclear gameplay.
I see some difference.
Yep the alt tells you your cap points currently, it will also state on the log above mini map what points you are earning as you go.
I said stats were inaccurate over-all vs individual representation. Not broken, there's a significant difference.
Nor did i say it was your fault, but if you see less of it, then clearly there's less opportunity for it, otherwise new players would do so, there are PLENTY of people who are very worried about their stats post 2.0.
People complained bots all lemming trained, you can have one or the other not both. You can reduce the spread by stating attack a sector, but l prefer spreading out than a giant furball of doom that circles around waiting for someone to engage.
As for "hard work" I have yet to see anyone provide actual play time, actual amount of games over-all for the playerbase. I'm waiting for people to provide actual comparative numbers vs other years. For example, at any given time between 1.5 and 1.7 i don't remember the game server numbers going above 1k the whole day, usually settling at an average of 200. But that's what I remember, I generally reduced my play time to when tournaments were on and others started too. This is all before anyone gives exact numbers of payment from players now vs before. Look at the number of goblin packages sold now vs before, just to start with.
And another attempt to be antagonistic because you know I'm right, as I stated in your thread, you use the words guess, estimate and "average" and your data is not factual or valid. It's already manipulated before anyone gets to look at it. Anyone who works with data knows that, I'm sure you know this as you clearly "Know the things you are trying to discuss about."
The act of playing against new players or those of lower skill and thus winning.You don't want to be matched against those whom are more skilled than yourself, you don't want to learn to adapt or dogfight or spend the game being challenged. Your reasoning is saying something like CSS is PvE because the emptier servers are filled with bots until players come online, would you say that game is PVP or PVE?
I put emphasis on F2P games as I said repeatedly, I will re-emphasise for you; Free to play games, generally attract a different proportion of player demographics. Let alone a niche game like WoWP vs Fortnite. You then further compound that with the fact a person can just re-roll their account for free, then can reset for free. Everything is free and doesn't cost them anything. You compare that to someone who plays a game who just spent a premium price tag and try ranked, they're not going to go and play a "re-roll" or "smurf" account to get easier games unless they're willing to expend money. Any skilled player in this game and re-roll start a-fresh and go clubbing, thus affecting skill based mm. When you have that, you also get those willing to ogle and over emphasise stats for clan based situations, thus again getting people power-levelling and selling account services. All of the above affect skill based mm, especially in a F2P game and have a HUGE impact on small populations.
As for your mathematical formula, how would that work based on only having analysis on 2 outcomes when there are other factors to involve? It's not just whether you win or lose, it's whether you lose at the top of your team or win at the bottom of your team etc. You have missions that affect whether you want to win or not, I know when i play for tokens of marathon missions, winning is something i don't care of, it's maximising efficiency on my objective. So it's not based on the number of won battles at all, the bernoulli scheme is designed to work with the principle of equal chance of outcome each and every time, it is simply a formula that is too rigid and does not work when put against variables and criteria that are not reductive and quantifiable as a failure/success.
They did address an obvious issue, just like you state AW made a "manly" decision, but they didn't address the issue at all, they merely shifted it. The artillery class didn't change, it didn't affect the way people would use arti etc. The decision didn't change camping spots, sniping spots of map tactics. Lack of endgame is no different, but there's more objective now than before. As for unclear gameplay, that's rather subjective as I know plenty of people who find the game intuitive and it's obviously clear to those picking up the game anew that such as Jingles stated he was able to easier understand the game now vs before. So like i said, it's subjective, overall i hear more voices of clear gameplay with my own opinion (just press tab) and you get clarification.
Dr_Ar_MG, on 10 May 2018 - 01:07 AM, said:
I have my own paradox?! Awesome!
In my mention of tactics I don't mean stay high all game and dive. More than BnZ tactics both horizontal and vertical can work in 2.0. They're not going to carry a game like before but they can work. I don't see WG controlling my games, granted I lose games I stomp and there's not much I could do, but that's an element of RNG and I dont' want to win all my games, when i was winning all my games I got so very bored. If you look at the HoF the winrate of people went up 10-20% overall from the Albion event when it was mostly players vs bots. To test it I would actively play as axis and I still probably lost 1 game in the entire event. The big thing now to before is mini-map awareness and being able to relocate on the map. I have the advantage of WoT to help me with constantly looking at the mini map.
As for the Ta 183... I HATED absolutely despised that plane pre 2.0. In 2.0 i found it far less cumbersome, it excels at certain jobs. I think this is one limitation of 2.0 but seems to be designed that way, that certain planes have very specific jobs and roles in games. This i personally enjoy, but planes such as the F2G though great in the role of GAA killer and defensive expert suffer heavily if there's no GAA on the enemy team. The Ta 183 now is built around speed, and I kinda see it a lot like a meteor in gameplay, you can out turn a lot of things, and you're more designed for bullying heavy fighters, while running away like a monster from everything else that out-turns you. You need to be far more cautious than before, but the respawn mechanic should allow you to be somewhat more reckless if you want more action. BnZ not requires far more discipline than before, not just picking your target but picking it at the right time and being so disciplined on your terminal velocity, energy retention etc, it's about not wasting anything and never letting yourself get pulled into the enemies game, even letting yourself get dragged at their optimum altitude.
If it helps the swift and the ta183 are more horizontal and heavy fighter bullies now than they used to be. The Javelin is a plane I love and loathe at the same time, the guns can troll you so hard because of their long range convergence, but I hope planes like this become monsters when more higher tier bombers are in the game. But I love the Javelin and handle it way better than I do the HG3 or the XF90, preferring it to any of the tier 10 heavy fighters. I think a lot comes down to own personal play style and feel of planes, for instance I know so many who love the se100, me and that plane do not get along at all.
The idea of learning tactics is not a new problem, it's something i began streaming for and went around helping people for. It's something I would like this forum to be more focused on than what it focuses more on now. Strategy is something you get with experience, holding tab and looking at the mini map. But again I would LOVE for the forums to be more about that than the torrential complaints (not meaning yourself) that the forums seems to be mostly these days.
Like I said and I don't mean to be antagonistic, but i worked in statistics and experimental data analysis. As soon as you guess, estimate or manipulate your raw data in any way before actually analysing it, it's no longer valid. We simply do not have the raw data required to analyse and compare numbers like we would like to. And the reason we don't get that is because developers said that people spent more time focusing on player numbers than the game, perhaps they had a point?
If we had the data that was available for 1.9 and before then I would readily and happily work with you to compare those numbers, but like you, yourself stated "So I estimated the maximum possible for 2.0".