112 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

rtizz6446 wrote...

Being an economics major...

<snip>

Ridiculous that you are trying to apply economics to ME3 multiplayer.

An econ major that doesn't see all human selection as a form of economics?

[rtizz6446]

I also love how every example used is straight off wikipedia....

[Peer of the Empire]

Ha!  Like the OP.  Children should be taught that jumping through hoops, however pointless, ignoble, worthless, lame and g-ay, so long as they are not innately unbecoming, is a matter of subterfuge necessary to achieve power and mastery in the world, and against their enemies and the forces of darkness.

That this present society is built on perversions and lies, and to acknowledge and accept that.  Else they risk being disillusioned, unmotivated to join the crowd of losers and jump through the hoops of thieves and liars, and never bring the fight to the enemy, being content with being awesome only

That is, unless they're exceptional-exceptional, bold, charismatic, well rounded, with opportunity and good judgment and never a drunken episode or spell of sleep deprivation.  Then they can waltz through everything

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 30 avril 2012 - 05:34 .

[derheidi]

Psyche-grad would prob talk about the innate pleasure people get on imposing standards on others and feeling superior.

No.

[Maria Caliban]

derheidi wrote...

Psyche-grad would prob talk about the innate pleasure people get on imposing standards on others and feeling superior.

No.

Then what would a psyche grad talk about?

[Tangster]

Maria Caliban wrote...

rtizz6446 wrote...

Being an economics major...

<snip>

Ridiculous that you are trying to apply economics to ME3 multiplayer.

An econ major that doesn't see all human selection as a form of economics?

I'm a physics grad and I don't look at everything as a form of applied maths.

[DarkAedin]

awesome read op, very well put

[A Wild Snorlax]

It's a matter of not wanting to waste time on playing with bad randoms that will either make you wipe or make you having to try your butt off in an attempt to carry them, both are annoying and a lot less fun than playing with good teammates.

[Aimi]

I expected the topic to be about the average length of time needed to wait for a new player to join a Gold lobby after one has been kicked given time of day, location, settings, choice of platform, and other useful variables, and comparing that to the potential viability of simply soldiering on with the lower-level or perceivedly less desirable character, perhaps eventually coming up with some very general ideas about what sort of situations would be least efficient to kick, for farming purposes. Highly theoretical, of course, but at the very least thought-provoking.

Instead I got something out of an introductory micro course. 

Modifié par daqs, 30 avril 2012 - 05:20 .

[PluralAces]

neurovore wrote...

*snip*

Oh well. It's not like I play Gold anyways. I don't find it interesting, as it favors a strategy where you spend 80%+ of your time stationary. On Silver, you can at least move around and even solo a little (eh, I know people can solo Gold, but that doesn't really seem very interesting either. Just a lot of covering and kiting.)

you must be referring to FBW:Geth in terms of your Gold comment, because if you do unknown/unknown on gold you are never stationary (unless its a terminal)...

[Father Alvito]

Too many words and incomplete, but on the right track. The distilled and precise form of your argument that I've been using around here:

- I can't know if you're good or you suck before we play.
- Your profile (N7, class, loadout) says something about how good you are likely to be
- I am constrained by the time cost of kicking you, so I can't just boot everyone that joins
- Whether or not I kick you is therefore a function of whether I believe I can on average replace you with someone that will save enough time to make it worth waiting for that hypothetical replacement to join.

It's worth noting that signaling functions outside the game such as your online presence here exist and are meaningful.

rtizz6446 wrote...

Way to over-analyze such a simple problem. Being an economics major, the topics covered above do not seem to relate to the problems at hand. The reason you get booted from a game is not due to adverse selection, but the fact that most people are so uneducated about the game that they do not know how to judge a players worth.

Neither of you has bothered to think about how the problem could properly be modeled, so it's inappropriate for either of you to comment upon which characteristics of the problem are more important than others. Both analyses are imprecise and insufficient to the task of drawing substantive conclusions.

To put it another way, an undergraduate degree in economics qualifies you to identify prospective problems, but does nothing to qualify you to solve them. You're both batting out of your league without knowing it.

[Bravenu3]

Great read, thank!

[Maria Caliban]

Tangster wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

An econ major that doesn't see all human selection as a form of economics?

I'm a physics grad and I don't look at everything as a form of applied maths.

Human selection is not analogous to everything.

[BazoozooTV]

I thought it was very interesting. I love Economics and this made some good points.

[Terraflare]

Thanks for all the comments (both good and bad).

Just to address some stuff: @rtizz6446: The point of whatever I wrote is simply to help some players (who havent realised all of this themselves) just an outlet for them not to get angry over small things. The examples are simple and taught at every introductory microecons courses (daqs yup!) for a reason - its easy to relate and understand them. No one would be interested in reading about anything remotely technical/advanced, so why should I write anything about it? Were you expecting some panel data?

@derheidi : Yup sorry! Didnt mean to sound condescending on psyche grads, if that's how it turned out.

@Father Alvito: You are right, I simply wrote this to let the random bored forum goer have something (hopefully) interesting to read about. Any further requires going into loss functions, risk aversion and insurance, preferences... all nice and good but I'm not going to bother writing anything about those.

Modifié par Terraflare, 30 avril 2012 - 05:30 .

[SuperHamzah]

I think it's an unconscious impulse based on the sum of probabilities.

N760 = No proficient experience with half the classes.

It's not a certainty, however the risk/probability is taken into account.

Best solution is to just level up to 120 or close enough, it doesn't take long. Few bronzes and silvers and you're done.

Sometimes I exit a game if there's like an N7300 infiltrator, no sniper rifle and with an SMG and no equipment and clicks ready on gold, along with some other odd layouts. I have gone into matches before thinking that's strange, I wonder what their technique and skill is, only to die on wave 2. My guess is they're retarded or intoxicated.

Sometimes a unique layout, is just uniquely stupid.

[THE NOOBIE NOOB WHO TYPES IN CAPS]

Sir, you are a fine student of Gaming Psychology and I hereby award you the Gold* Star for your efforts.


* Its not actually gold but a link to the Nyan Cat song:

*

[january42]

Alot of this "kicking" argument comes from people not understanding some facts.

1)A good player can do well with a weak class/setup.    That doesn't mean it's a good setup. It's mean the player is good. IF your good with a Drell adept, you could probably help your team even more with a Justicar.

2)Obvioulsy the information that people get is indicative but not conclusive.  If anyone can mount a real argument, in general, players low N7 ratings are no worse than players with higher ratings, I'd like to hear it.  Yeah, it's not true of everyone, but I've never heard anyone argue that that the general trend is wrong.

Yeah, I'm just summarizing a bit of what the OP said, but it bears repeating.

Hell, even from the numbers in your nickname, I can tell your age (MrDog94 vs MrCat85)

If people think this, I gotta change my username.

[THE NOOBIE NOOB WHO TYPES IN CAPS]

SuperHamzah wrote...

I think it's an unconscious impulse based on the sum of probabilities.

N760 = No proficient experience with half the classes.

It's not a certainty, however the risk/probability is taken into account.

Best solution is to just level up to 120 or close enough, it doesn't take long. Few bronzes and silvers and you're done.

Sometimes I exit a game if there's like an N7300 infiltrator, no sniper rifle and with an SMG and no equipment and clicks ready on gold, along with some other odd layouts. I have gone into matches before thinking that's strange, I wonder what their technique and skill is, only to die on wave 2. My guess is they're retarded or intoxicated.

Sometimes a unique layout, is just uniquely stupid.

I do very well with an SMG infiltrator, great for cooldowns
I never use equipment unless playing with friends, still some people enter a game with a lvl 20 GI with BW 4-8 and STILL fail...

[Eriseley]

Terraflare wrote...

@ Misaka: Well, it's the same reason. Lets say for example a bad class = Quarian Engi or Drell Vanguard (Not going to argue with anyone over this). Good players in general tend NOT to use these, preferring classes like GI,AA, SI etc. So if you use one of that, again your segmenting yourself into the poor player market. Now, you MIGHT be a GOD with the Drell Vanguard, but again no one knows that.
As this happens over time, less and less people USE drell vanguard, until a point where the market of drell vanguards consist of only new players that dont know much. As such, when you pick it (even with N7 500), I can only conclude that you dont know much.

On the other hand it is just a game, the risk/reward at stake here is much less severe, and the investment to appear good is relatively small compared to work and cars, so I think both mechanics you've brought up, while still present because hey, humans categorize mega-fast, are more flexible. For instance, though I don't see the "bad" classes too frequently (especially beyond Bronze), it often seems to be a player who has a grasp of the game and wants something new/fun/challenging. On the flip side, as time goes on here, there are plenty of blah people aping good builds (which gets into inflation, yay!).

Modifié par Eriseley, 30 avril 2012 - 05:51 .

[rtizz6446]

Father Alvito wrote...

Neither of you has bothered to think about how the problem could properly be modeled, so it's inappropriate for either of you to comment upon which characteristics of the problem are more important than others. Both analyses are imprecise and insufficient to the task of drawing substantive conclusions.

To put it another way, an undergraduate degree in economics qualifies you to identify prospective problems, but does nothing to qualify you to solve them. You're both batting out of your league without knowing it.

You preach in such a condicending tone that its obvious you think you are smarter than everyone here. What are your qualifications? I did not offer a solution to the problem because i simply do not care enough. Do you really believe that there is a solution to this problem? Explain to me how to change the minds of ignorant players out there who boot others. Maybe your supreme wisdom could enlighten us Mr "I have a PhD from MIT" when you probably are no moer qualified than anyone else here.

Modifié par rtizz6446, 30 avril 2012 - 05:43 .

[Father Alvito]

Terraflare wrote...

@Father Alvito: You are right, I simply wrote this to let the random bored forum goer have something (hopefully) interesting to read about. Any further requires going into loss functions, risk aversion and insurance, preferences... all nice and good but I'm not going to bother writing anything about those.

I'm glad to see that you're thinking about risk aversion here.  That makes me smile, since it will influence the equilibrium result.

Since we treat risk aversion as purely preference-based, a fun implication is that anyone claiming there is an objective answer to when people should or should not kick is simply uneducated.

Modifié par Father Alvito, 30 avril 2012 - 05:45 .

[Terraflare]

@Eriseley - Well definitely the risk/reward is far less here than in real life. But in some situations it might actually translate into real life costs! For eg, working man has 1 hour to play each night, 1 bad game = 30 minutes of pure disutility. Of course again this will differ from person to person, since the marginal costs of that 1 hour differs. What you said about the self selection into "weird" classes may also be true though - only people truly confident/able might play those classes. But then again, I myself have seen FAR more poor vanguards than good ones. Maybe that will change as the game evolves (hopefully)

@Alvito : Maybe multiple stage Stackelberg on the use of consumables? This actually happened once: I saw no salarian engi, so i swapped to salarian engi at the same time someone else did. Then I swapped back (didnt really want to play it), and the other person swapped out again! And this repeated for a few iterations until i stopped swapping and we reached an equilibrium with me as the salarian engi

Modifié par Terraflare, 30 avril 2012 - 05:52 .

[Eriseley]

Terraflare wrote...

@Eriseley - Well definitely the risk/reward is far less here than in real life. But in some situations it might actually translate into real life costs! For eg, working man has 1 hour to play each night, 1 bad game = 30 minutes of pure disutility. Of course again this will differ from person to person, since the marginal costs of that 1 hour differs. What you said about the self selection into "weird" classes may also be true though - only people truly confident/able might play those classes. But then again, I myself have seen FAR more poor vanguards than good ones. Maybe that will change as the game evolves (hopefully)

Oh yeah, I'm not dismssing it, we apply it to everything, in varying degrees.

[andysdead]

TL;DR, but having just come from a gold lobby in which I saw someone I immediately wanted to kick, I have to say that if you're a level 17 Krogan soldier or sentinel and you've got a shotgun equipped with a blade attachment, you probably don't belong in gold.

Gold is, simply put, not melee friendly.

This belief is reinforced by the fact that said player seemed to relish running off solo on the opposite side of the map from the rest of the team and then proceeding to die in the worst possible locations, causing anyone wishing to revive him to get killed in similarly horrible circumstances.

I did not vote to kick this player, but looking back on it, I wish I had gone with my gut instinct and done so before wasting 20 minutes in a gold match that didn't get past round 6.