Jump to content

stan_stilpleeze

Members
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good

Personal Information

  • Location
    San Diego, CA
  1. The Coruscanti Skeptics Society would remind these "experts" of Rig Neoken's eponymous first law of prediction. The C.S.S. is fully prepared to launch a formal inquiry unless said "experts" fully disclose their containment report to the Senate Bureau of Intelligence.
  2. I don't think the rate of occurrence actually matters that much. The mere fact this can happen once means it can happen any other number of times (given whatever circumstances lead to this). The problem I think that's being illustrated is that because this happened at least once, there's nothing preventing this from happening again and that's a big problem. Speaking only from personal experience (which is really the only thing any player can do since we don't have access to the metric the devs do) there seems to be poor matchmaking. I can only offer up my own ranked queue history (as a healer, mind you) as a data point in the sea of player data points, but the fluxuation in my rating, I think, is far greater than it should be. The time between each match is consistently lengthy (save for the first days of the season), which would indicate the pool of players queueing is low, yet the average rating of each team is never the same between matches nor close to each other within the match (I check everyone's ranking before the match, but you don't have to take my word for this). Though this propels me to think that the matchmaking system throws the first 8 players of compatible roles together if there's not a match up in rating, this is purely conjecture. As queue times are getting longer with each day (on my server, at least) something is clearly disenfranchising or dissentivizing people from queuing with the frequency they did at the start of the season. If the goal of rating is to create a normal bell curve with most players being average (which is presumably 1200, but would need developer insight to know their adaptation of the Elo rating system), the current implementation seems horrendous. If I'm in a queue population of similarly skilled players, my rating shouldn't change very much over the course of the day (~50% win-loss ratio), but being able to drop (or gain) 150 points in one sitting should only be possible if the I'm against players well above (or below) their relative skill. Statistically speaking, a random person has a ~68% chance of being one σ away from μ. But out of the 911 players on The Harbinger, 568 are below 1200, which means either the μ is lower than I thought (for instance, the median rating of all USCF members is 657) or the Elo isn't normally distributed (which is certainly possible, as USCF uses a logistical distribution). Any way about it, the system of scoring seems to have been a significant factor in discouraging people from playing. Elucidation on the part of a dev or community manager seems paramount in order to either clarify how their Elo rating system works, or possibly give examples as to how players might work their way up in rating (which actually gets harder the more games you play in the USCF system). I have a lot of problems with the current state of pvp beyond just these issues, but I think the OP is bringing light to something that needs to be addressed.
  3. While I understand the intent to make Hindered a separate effect from Slowed and other controlling effects (though there is still the begged question of why Hindered isn't a Controlling effect), it seems to still conflict with the tool tip of Force Barrier. (Emphasis added) What kind of effect is Hindered considered? Is it a positive or neutral effect? Or perhaps I should be asking: what is a negative effect?' If Hindered is not considered a negative effect, what is it considered? Perhaps (and I don't mean to sound flippant) these terms could be more precisely defined so confusion isn't created in the future.
×
×
  • Create New...