Why, it almost seems like these attempts of yours to quantify the unquantifiable are doomed before they begin!
Solo times on the same difficulty against the same faction on the same map with the same objectives are quantifiable. Whether or not others put merit in the numbers is their choice.
Solo times on the same difficulty against the same faction on the same map with the same objectives are quantifiable. Whether or not others put merit in the numbers is their choice.
...by the same 10 people in the entire freaking world...
(apologies if there are 11 or more of you, I didn't go to look)
...by the same 10 people in the entire freaking world...
(apologies if there are 11 or more of you, I didn't go to look)
For science it would be better if all solos were done by the same person. What I'm alluding to is the concept of variable isolation - a necessary condition for performing sound research. Of course, even that would not be ideal, as the single player would inevitably improve over time.
Solo times on the same difficulty against the same faction on the same map with the same objectives are quantifiable. Whether or not others put merit in the numbers is their choice.
Only very roughly, because even if you mod the objectives to remove that element of randomness (which can only be done on one platform), you still have the issue of RNG choosing the location. Getting two pizzas 20m from the LZ is different from getting both across the map.
Then there's the problem of this game's netcode. By shooter standards, it is very basic and therefore very inconsistent and imprecise. Rounds go missing, shots don't register, bugs like incendiary glitching are rampant, and other random nonsense happens all the time. It's really not good at all to make comparisons with. It wasn't designed with that in mind.
Only very roughly, because even if you mod the objectives to remove that element of randomness (which can only be done on one platform), you still have the issue of RNG choosing the location. Getting two pizzas 20m from the LZ is different from getting both across the map.
Then there's the problem of this game's netcode. By shooter standards, it is very basic and therefore very inconsistent and imprecise. Rounds go missing, shots don't register, bugs like incendiary glitching are rampant, and other random nonsense happens all the time. It's really not good at all to make comparisons with. It wasn't designed with that in mind.
Correct you are. It is far from a perfect science.
It's a good point QMR, there are to many random variables in this game for making such comparisons. The pizza objective is a good example, take Gigant as an example - getting pizza no 2 on wave 10 right by the LZ instead of on the other side of the map in the Control room makes a great difference.
The probability that two different soloers get exactly the same objectives and locatios on the same map vs the same faction is really small.
The reason why I bring up the solo times is not because I think it is a perfect science, but rather that it is the only somewhat quantifiable data available that isolates certain variables. And like I said before, it is better to compare solos done by the same player. So if I look at two of Techno's solos for a certain kit, like the Asari Vanguard vs. Cerberus on Glacier, I can isolate the weapon as a variable to measure relative effectiveness.
Using the Talon, Techno completed in 14:37. With Raider she completed in 16:58. Given the fact that the objectives were similar, as can be seen by watching the video - one can quantitatively come to the logical conclusion that Talon > Raider on the Asari Vanguard vs. Cerberus. Note that I dropped the [map = Glacier] as a constraint from this particular conclusion - reason being that the range on the raider is more limited than the talon, so presumably the only map it would fare better on is Glacier, which it did not.
*edit: QED
Yes but many of the speed run PC solos are modded to only give certain objectives and automatic hack uploads etc, that makes an enormous difference in time completion from not modding (no need to save missiles for wave 10 targets etc).
I hear you brother, and trust me, you are preaching to the choir (see my posts in TNS's Drell Assassin Solo thread). I agree that no modding should be allowed in competition (except for the stuff that Heldarion mentioned in his last ME3-F Tournament thread post). Of course, I did mod objectives on most of my runs simply because it is allowed in the speedrun thread as per Techno's guidance. I know I probably seem like I'm contradicting myself - but I'm a competitor too - and if other competitors are using some allowed method/mod/technique to better their time/score, then I will do the same. Not that my times/scores are very competitive at this moment, LOL - still striving for sub-20!
Since you seem to put a lot of stock into the methodology of your research, I will point out that your last example - comparing two solo runs - is a qualitative study, not a quantitative one. All you can empirically say by comparing two data points is that one is faster than the other. You can, of course, draw inferences as to why that might be, and you do that; nothing wrong there! But you are running scenarios in your head and coming out with a most likely explanation for the discrepancy in time, not having your data back you up. Again, I do not mean to say you are wrong in your approach, only that it is not a quantitative, but rather a qualitative, one.
A quantitative analysis implies a number of empirical cases (in this case, runs), through which you can build confidence intervals and test your hypothesis: in this case, that weapon A is more powerful than weapon B; as many people, including you, have mentioned, there are a number of variables that cannot be controlled here: player, map, objective, ... each of those variables would need an additional set of multiple runs to be included in a quantitative analysis, before you could make reliable statements about your hypothesis; in other words, a purely quantitative approach to this problem is quite simply impossible to achieve IMO, at least with the resources at your disposition.
I am also a bit confused as to what you are trying to say... are you now referring to the acolyte's influence in solo runs, or in pugging? Your argument started in reference to the latter, but seems to have moved to the former. They are, however, quite different beasts, and I don't think you should mix them up. People approach them differently, as they impose different requirements on kits, loadouts, and playstyle: you yourself point out only few runs in the solo HoF include Harriers, and yet I doubt I am the only one who sees Harriers in most pug lobbies.
Additionally, only a sub-population of those who pug also does solos and speedruns - so you are dealing with a (likely) skewed subsample of the entire population (SMR pointed this out to you already btw).
Trying to use data from solos to buttress your hypothesis on the Acolyte's OPness in pugs, on the grounds that it is the only data available to you, does not make it relevant. After all, we don't use rally drivers' performances to set speed limits on our roads 
LOL. Um stock in the methodology of my research? I isolate one variable and make the assumption that any changes in the output metric (time) are at least partially related to the variable that was changed. It is simply assuming that the player is consistent.
I just read the first line of your response. As for the rest: tl;dr
Apologies for the length of my previous post, and thanks for your feedback, I will keep that in mind in the future. Your post explains your research strategy quite well, and we will have to agree to disagree on your methods and goals 
I neither love nor hate the acolyte, or even find it particularly useful on the vast majority of kits I play on a regular basis.
I only use it on Krogans and Juggernaut.
Acolyte + Siege Pulse = boom!
Sweet marauder tears. 
I only use it on Krogans and Juggernaut.
Acolyte + Siege Pulse = boom!
That is very girlish. A small Asari toy on a big robot. Soo...good for you 
That is very girlish. A small Asari toy on a big robot. Soo...good for you
Or hipster. Or both. 
LOL. Um stock in the methodology of my research? I isolate one variable and make the assumption that any changes in the output metric (time) are at least partially related to the variable that was changed. It is simply assuming that the player is consistent.
I just read the first line of your response. As for the rest: tl;dr
I would advice you to actually read that post through, as it was very thoughtful and well put.
As for the question you asked me before, I don't think you could possibly find any number(s) which it would be good to base the gameplay balance on. You might find some numbers which the devs would probably want to keep in mind, but they probably belong to statistics they do on the game themselves. I hardly think they would/should ever take into consideration numbers brought up in any thread here on bsn - much much less a thread about solos, as I explained.
What balance should really be based on, in my opinion, is experience and the (hopefully civil) exchange of opinions on this boards. They are not, and could not, be quantitative opinions, but more qualitative ones. Simply because of the many arguments others have explained better than I would have in the last posts.
My 2 cents at least.
...buttress your hypothesis...
I liked what you were saying anyway, but seriously, I'm a little bit infatuated with you now for your use of that phrase. 
Asari Buttress sighted on Sur'kesh:
LOL. Um stock in the methodology of my research? I isolate one variable and make the assumption that any changes in the output metric (time) are at least partially related to the variable that was changed. It is simply assuming that the player is consistent.
I just read the first line of your response. As for the rest: tl;dr
So: You've offered an opinion framed in scientific jagon to conceal the fact that it wasn't actually arrived at via correct use of the scientific method, followed immediately by a refusal to engage in conversation on a topic you began (said refusal neatly sidestepping the points made by people pointing out the flaws in your methods).
Obviously, your opinions are welcome here. But dressing them up as being based on false authority and then teal-deering counterarguments is a bullshitty way to present them.
So: You've offered an opinion framed in scientific jagon to conceal the fact that it wasn't actually arrived at via correct use of the scientific method, followed immediately by a refusal to engage in conversation on a topic you began (said refusal neatly sidestepping the points made by people pointing out the flaws in your methods).
Obviously, your opinions are welcome here. But dressing them up as being based on false authority and then teal-deering counterarguments is a bullshitty way to present them.
Tbh, it just boils down to time. To endlessly debate the merits of this and that on BSN when it is clear that progress/resolution is not being made...what's the point? Besides it is clear that the use of numerical metrics is not welcome here.
Side note: The acolyte has been used on more plat solo hof entries than any other weapon. Of course, some weapon has to make this claim, but did it have to be the god-forsaken acolyte of all things? lol... and the bantering continues...
Besides it is clear that the use of numerical metrics is not welcome here.
You're using the wrong metrics. It's like saying the Alaskan King Crab is an endangered species because I can't find any in the Ohio River.
^^ this is why it makes no sense to continue posting in this thread.
Retour en haut
