K/D All servers all factions.(repost from reddit).

I made VS/TR not to show what is OP I went in to find out why the hell are NC loosing across the board against TR/VS. I am an observer and I have proof that the reason why VS/TR wins the most is because of their ES category. It not due to skill or tactics I can assure you that all 3 factions has the exact same play style anyone attacks you? defend then zerg attack the area where they came from and repeat.

While the statistics may be solid, I'd rather not see any rebalancing of NC weaponry till we see new statistics following the nanoweave balance patch.

As it currently is, nanoweave most heavily affects NC's hard hitting but slow shooting weaponry, each increase in health requiring even more from an NC player in terms of time to kill. This alone can explain the disparity between NC and the other factions despite higher accuracy.

That said, on a side note for those talking about the gauss SAW, my weapon of choice, it really comes down to whether the guy holding it knows how to use it or not. The way it's used makes a significant difference for the SAW's performance in combat, much more so than any other weapon I've used so far.

I will totally confess I barely remember any of statistics. I remember the useful bits, and T-testing is not one of them.

With that, I'll say that from a common sense and logic stand point, your statement is ludicrous, and only makes sense if you were sampling your population, which you are not.

Exactly what evidence would you like to suggest the average K/D of the NC for the population of the Planetside 2 servers is less than the average K/D of the TR or VS for the population of the Planetside 2 servers? How about the average K/D of the NC, TR, and VS populations?

Because we have them. We don't have a sample. We have the entire dataset. Thus, we don't need to hypothesise, we simply check.

The average K/D of the NC is 0.8somethingsomething, the average K/D of the VS and TR is 0.95somethingsomething (or similar, I can't be bothered to check at 1am ).

There is no more necessary evidence to support your hypothesis.

If you would like to get into hypothesising about whether that evidence could have been produced by random chance, that's a whole different hypothesis.

If I could remember the more complicated stats tests, I'd take on that last hypothesis (Aegie might get in here, as if I recall, he's quite gifted with these sorts of things), but I can't. From an instinctive perspective, with data spanning ~300,000 participants, and what must be literally millions of hours, hundreds of millions of kills and deaths, and every imaginable situation in game, I absolutely don't believe a difference of 0.5-1, whilst the other factions sit on a difference of 0.01-0.02 can be discounted so easily, given that we do not have the opportunity to produce meaningful data in any other way.

Ah, yes, you are correct in stating we have the whole population of the Planetside 2 playerbase...but I never was looking at that specific data.

If you read my post you'll see that I reject that specific data as a good summation of what Bunneh is implying: that the NC's K/D is worse because it is imbalanced. I reject it on the notion that a compilation of all the servers K/D will NOT be an adequate explanation for such a statement; this is because a standard deviation is necessary to finish a test. The data can read that the NC K/D is lower for the playerbase but it won't matter one bit because the standard deviation could throw off the true numbers, which is why it is included in t-distributions. For example, if the standard deviation of the NC was 4.5 then the deviation is going to be spread out over a larger range of numbers than if it was 1.5. When you get a large playerbase you can get a VERY large standard deviation because the majority of players tend to have higher K/D or lower K/D than the average. It's an average, but the standard deviation can seriously skew the data so that the majority of players may NOT have the average, but in fact may have a higher K/D or lower K/D and are thrown off by players who are either ****e or don't play enough. Think of it like a perfect bell curve like you're probably thinking it looks like; now think of it having random bell curves, one skewed to the side, or multiple curves. If all the players of the NC are bomb-diggity or complete ****e but there are a few that are the opposite but on the extremes then that will throw off the data. That's what I'm suggesting it could look like, and so hypothesis testing IS NECESSARY.

Of course to compute this would require some nasty number crunching, specifically the close to 300,000 player's K/D which then would get pumped into the standard deviation equation. If you want to do this be my guest: it's easy to put up in an Excel spreadsheet, but the sheer volume of time it'd take to copy/paste these numbers makes it terribly not worth it. Instead I opt for changing the hypothesis to something more measurable in a small amount of time: the average K/D of the NC for the population of the Planetside 2 servers, which gives us a workable population (the SERVERS) that won't require a huge amount of time.


Now it's true that this is NOT the same as the population of the Planetside 2 playerbase, but that's not a good indicator of imbalance comparatively to servers. Hell, K/D just isn't a good indicator at all of imbalance. There's so many factors from SPM to BR rank to population per server to caps/defenses that it's mind-boggling anyone would think a slightly lower K/D makes for imbalance, especially once the playerbase itself starts coming into play (who chooses what faction, how often they play, how casual they like to play, etc). Even if it can be conclusively proven that the average K/D is lower for the NC per server, playerbase, and that the standard deviation is managable, and all this is put properly into a hypothesis test; EVEN IF ALL THIS WERE DONE it wouldn't prove anything beyond that the average K/D for the NC is lower...which doesn't refer itself to balance because of a huge amount of other factors that would also need to be statistically analyzed and qualitative data from the players given before even an inkling can be done.

So start cracking, I guess

My TR character.

You have gotten like 4 br in 8 months if I am to believe your sig. You post more here than you play your NC toon.

Yes, I am BR47 atm. I have gotten quite a bit more then 4BRs in 8 months though. I was like BR20 8 months ago. Of course, during this year ive been doing other stuff but PS2. Did trucking school, was otr driving for 12 weeks, doing training for another 2 months...that tends to cut play time lol. I was posting on my phone otr most times....sooo, yeah haha. Then ive also been playing my TR toon, CptGier, hes BR38 now I think.

Do you know what this means? Statistical inference is not appropriate in the case of population wide figures because you have the population average and thus there is no need to perform the kinds of tests that you mention. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that this data comes from the entire population of players in PS2 and, if so, then the results are the population wide figures. Statistical inference is only valid when you are trying to generalize from a sample to a population. Also, there is a big and real difference between "statistically significant" difference and effect size in that you can have a very large (or very small) effect size and this can be independent from tests of statistical inference. Finally, this last statement about seeing whether "it" can be found as a random occurrence does not really make much sense if these figures are coming from the entire population.

You are yelling in CAPS but I do not think you fully understand the concepts you are relying upon.

If you included stats from all servers for K/D and those included all players on those servers then you know what the population K/D is and can state as a fact what the rankings are- no statistical inference is necessary or valid because you have the population figures.

Also, you are looking at 1 categorical variable (faction) with 3 levels (TR, VS, NC) and as such you would really want to perform an ANOVA and run t-tests for you post-hoc multiple comparison. The ANOVA will give you the results of an F test and this will only say that somewhere within these three groups there is likely to be a significant difference- the post-hoc multiple comparison of means will tell you what comparisons reach significance (i.e. TR compared to VS, TR compared to NC, VS compared to NC = 3 t-tests, not one).

Whatever though, I digress.

If you found a that = .11 then you are effectively saying that in approximately 90% of all similar samples (if you took a sample and not the entire population) you would likely to find a similar difference. You're basically saying here that these stats are irrelevant because only 90% of the time the samples will reveal the difference instead of 95% of the time (the difference between a critical alpha of .10 and .05). So, basically, you are saying that it everything is fine so long as only 90% of similar samples show NC dead last but there is suddenly an issue if 95% of them show this- hopefully you realize how silly that sounds because either 1) you are looking at the entire population and therefore know that NC is last and running any kind of inferential statistics just exposes that you do not really understand the nature or purpose of statistics (i.e. referring to samples) as opposed to parameters (i.e. referring to populations) or 2) you are well versed enough to know this difference and thus are looking at samples yet this just shows that you a) are not aware that we have population wide figures available so it is unnecessary to do this or b) actually think that balance is fine because only 90% of the time will you find a similar difference and not 95% of the time.


Let me ask you a question- if I told you that you could 50/50 odds and choose between Heads or Tails but then told you that heads had a 60% probability and tails 40% then what would you choose and why? Note that we are not talking about 90% probability here, just 60%.

Just trying to show you that "critical" values are arbitrary absolutes in that a p-value still reveals worthwhile information even if it is just outside your arbitrary cutoff.

It's the sheer weight of data these days.

Total K/D ratio, WDS (however you look at it), KPU, aKPU, all puts the NC at the bottom, mostly constantly at the bottom as well.

People argue relentlessly about all those issues individually and how it proves "nothing" about the NC...... yet it is always the NC coming last, never the TR or VS in all those aspects.

It's quite amazing the effort people put into trying to discredit something that shouldn't even be occuring (if they were indeed correct).

This right here sums it all up. The naysayers are grasping at straws and arguing just for the sake of it, or even ouright laughing while they continue to troll.

Even Higby's come out and said all is not right with the NC according to their (SOEs) own figures now, even though he then goes on to probably put a very positive spin on it.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...nding-this-correctly-no-nc-buffs-soon.160868/

I do understand statistics and I most definitely understand P-Values and Hypothesis testing as person with a degree in Environmental Engineering and I also understand all of the flaws and traps that come with it, especially in placing significant value in P-values.

Everything wrong with P-Values, under one roof.

The Problems with P-Values, how significant are they, really?
The F Problem With The P-Value Sciences


Here is a good statistic & analytical thinking blog I like to read William M. Briggs.
- If you are interested in statistics and analytical thinking, you may find his posts very informative and interesting on a variety of subjects.

Now, not to knit pick, but you did use a simple 2-sample T Test, when you had 3 samples to test, but that is neither here nor there. While I commend you on your statistical work it really does not prove or disprove anything, and my disagreement with your results is primarily because I disagree with the methods used to achieve them, nor do I think they are even necessary.

If we look at the three factions and they each populate 8 different servers that are independent of one another, yet on all 8 of the servers one faction finishes last on each of them, while the other two factions alternate between 1st and 2nd places, then that clearly shows a problem and as I said before I don't necessarily care what the P-Value says, that result alone speaks volumes. On top of that, this result has technically occurred in two independent & unrelated tests, the first being the results from the WDS Series (pre-doctered results) and now it is showing itself in the K/D values for all factions across all servers.

I've said it before and I will say it again, there is a minor issue with the NC, the results from both the WDS and the K/D coupled with the experiences of numerous veteran players and outfits support this argument. The real problem is determining exactly where the problem lies and how do we fix it, since it probably requires a series of tweaks across numerous weapons.

your clearly missing the purpose of everything being presented here....its not that any one list of stats is PROVING anything....its the fact that we have MULTIPLE lists of stats all saying the same thing for the most part...its called a trend...and taking into account that some of the data is probably wrong there is STILL a CONSIDERABLE TREND.....

troll elsewhere...

Truly, the most enjoyable posts on the Internet are when someone who thinks they know what they are talking about runs into someone who ACTUALLY knows what they are talking about, and the smack is laid down. Bravo Aegie.

This is where I'd hope their data comes in......... although it's a bit disheartening when you see the difference between the Marauder and Enforcer on the Harrasser, that should have sent alarm bells ringing months ago.

Decided to jump over to NC for an alert. See how things really are.
I ran into Bape a few times actually. Hi Bape! You accidentally TK'd me, but rez'd afterward with a v-8, so its cool. I like seeing familiar names. Ran with some enforcers; and man those things are nice. Vanguards are pretty durable, I like that.
However, the general experience of picking up a pug squad (as I usually do VS side) is as follows:

-You have a billion medics. Like, 5-6 link chain of Green Mage.
-There are very rarely engineers around, I found myself yelling for ammo frequently. Never had this issue VS or TR side.
-"Suicide Gal" is apparently something that happens frequently. 8 of them were utilized in a single battle. (Tech plant @ Indar)
-Vanguards are used as battering rams. See those 3 entrenched Prowlers? Those 6 Mags coming up the hill? (Hi DaPP!) Better ram them. Don't trade shots, don't defend your position. Full bore (what, 35kp/h?) toward them in an open field and ram that! Then complain over platoon voice chat for the next 20min that whatever you crashed into is op and didn't die. (Guy was actually complaining about a lightning that he ran into the side of; but was shot in the back and died. The platoon was agreeing. >:| A lightning.)
-MAXes come in two flavors; charge an open field with shotguns. Or doorway camping with ravens.
-After every 'battle' they scatter like ants in all directions. We lost 3 squads of people to a base we didn't have a link to. Come on guys.
-I saw exactly 0 blue sensor darts over the course of 3 hours that were not my own. Which were pulled because no one was using them. Intel guys. You need more of it. Always.

So I can't speak for everyone. But looking at Matherson NC's map movement last night... you guys need commanders. Badly. The general populous is so lost and directionless its no wonder you get picked off, then pushed back only two links out of the WG.

No, what should've set alarm bells off is when you make an AI weapon have lower sustained anti-infantry DPS than an AV weapon, while said AV weapon is just as effective in close range, but more effective as range increases, vastly more effective against MAXes, and insanely more effective against vehicles and aircraft.

Thats not a minor 'oopsie'.

Actually, Koldorn, not being a matherson NC (Connery here), most of the times, people are just plain idiots. I got killed by a TR Prowler while I was in the back... Cause he drove past 3 vanguards and flanked me. A lot of the players, in general, are f-in idiots when it comes to putting up defensive lines in general or watching the flanks.

I see it with VS and TR as well... Not many 'sharp' people.

Koldorn, let me be frank. You were playing with what is left of the NC, the rest of us left for more fun in another faction or game. Much better use of what the NC has was employed in the past with much organization ... for slightly better results than what you experienced. Don't believe me? UES and WDS results are readily available.

In general though, it hasn't just been the NC that have been losing players, player numbers for the whole game have been dropping since launch. My observation from the past year was that the leadership capability of a lot of Outfits and Outfit Alliances has steadily, gradually burnt out as the players they were leading weren't having fun. I don't even mean winning, I mean just not having fun winning, losing, whatever. Some think it started with UES, others Alerts, and still others WDS - all served to highlight a consistent *** kicking by the other factions that perhaps got ignored because region to region that gets captured the NC could have a good skirmish here and there in times gone past. Some servers the NC still do have good skirmishes, good on them, but apparently yours wasn't one of them that evening.

Edit: If the rest of the NC are not too stubborn or unaware of the situation that the faction finds itself in across the entire game, it should bring the wreckoning already and walk out the door.