Why are there so many NC UP threads?

Completely agree, their playerbase is pretty uncoordinated and they are not used to having to rely on skill and organisation to win.

Oh man, don't even say that. I hear even mentioning Acebookfay and OPSECay in the same sentence will summon mandatory social media briefings from the bowels of hell. And the Tavor will definitely be common-pool...SOE will never release ES content again from the looks of things!!

Lol you got those too, huh? Guess some things are alike in all militaries.

edited your quote too?

Do you even know what a bigot is?

I never said that my theory was cogent. The challenge was made that no one could think of a reason why. I accept and thought of a reason.

Yup, it's always the same in every MMO there's ever been factional PvP in (and PvE sometimes too).

There's always some underlying game balance issue (albeit sometimes subtle) there in the end.

This game will likely be hell to balance for "MLG" as WoW was for the Arena (even though WoW was largely the same apart from racials), in fact it may be impossible if they don't just use NS weapons.

The 'Western Allies' invented the concentration camp, burned countless thousands of soldiers and civilians alike to death with flamethrowers, leveled entire cities and their civilian populations, and had orchestrated half of the necessity for war in the first place.

You cannot brand a whole race/religion/creed 'evil'. Period. It's beyond shortsighted and ignorant, sitting firmly in the 'evil' territories itself.

Remember that if the Japanese had not been quicker than you had to join the ****'s call to arms, you'd have waded into the war fighting arm in arm with those 'Evil' people, and never had a single issue with the other 'evil' island-dwellers, either.

So we agree your reason in nonsense, fair enough.

I never said it wasn't cogent either. So stop trying to assume things.

It can't be "not cogent" and "cogent" at the same time....... unless it is GhostAvatar's Cat.

It can when it has not been proven to be one or the other. It was a simple response to a challenge that no one can think of a reason. I thought of a reason and put it down in words. It like making a statement that GhostAvatar's cat is black, when no one has opened the box to look. It is neither a true statement or a false statement, it is just a statement. So until you open the box and find out, it is both and neither a false statement and true statement.

NC weapons are not noob-friendly. High recoil, low RoF. But they take a little getting used too. I remember when I first started out, I though the NC recoil was ridiculous, but it's just a matter of getting a feel for it.

Well, the Reaver is an exception. Supposedly its higher vertical thrust makes its reverse maneuvers better, but for any non super good pilots who can't fly in reverse all day, it's not a helpful advantage at all.

I take it you put cat in a box with a radioactive source and poison lol.

Pretending to understand the Schrodinger's Cat problem while not understanding basic mathematical concepts like the law of large numbers is the epitome of pathetic.

No, he was pointing out that a statement without supporting evidence is nothing more. It had nothing to do with Schrodinger's cat. It was the next poster who mentioned that in jest.

And your "Law of Large Numbers" is worthless without the numbers themselves being posted. I've yet to see any hard data come from you.

No hard data comes from me, it comes from the API and it is pretty irrelevant who posts those figures. Also, it's not my law of large numbers, it is the law of large numbers.

Here:

Happy?

What exactly is the point of posting API data when anyone who disagrees with it just discounts it anyway? Look at every other thread that uses API data and take a look at the reactions.

How about this, you promise right here that you will accept what is suggested by the API data and then I will go through the trouble of posting it?

You post sufficiently clean API data with enough depth to draw proper conclusions and I'll accept it. I always accept good data because a) good data is rare and valuable and b) you can't argue with raw data. Hell, I'll even defend it on your behalf. My problem is people posting numbers and saying "SEE? THIS IS THE PROBLEM!" when the data shows nothing of the sort. Generally, people manipulate statistics or draw conclusions that support their prejudices. Case in point is the KPU metric. It is nothing more than a curiosity right now, indicating a combination of popularity and versatility. Yet people are holding it up as the balance equation, which is utter nonsense. Or PS2Stats, which is just a useless aggregation, yet people hold it up as "a clear sign of 'x' being OP"

I know about the law of large numbers, but I'm not the one invoking it here. The law of large numbers refers to the purity of datasets. have no idea how you're trying to invoke it, hence I referred to it as "your". Without the dataset, you cannot invoke the law of large numbers. It doesn't make sense.

You clearly do not work with data, but it sounds like you are asking in good faith so I will be sure to do this soon.

This also sounds like you have not been looking at the API data that has already been posted very well. If you genuinely are interested, you can always sort back through postings. I suggest you look through CupBoy's postings because he was probably the best at doing this on a regular basis until he caught flak from SOE.

What exactly do you mean by "useless aggregation"?

See, here is my problem, people have often gone out of their way to deal with the very unfriendly API requesting system and have spent time- time, mind you, doing things I usually get paid fairly handsomely for- for free to post data that people who know very little about statistics and data analysis then just dismiss and this is absolutely not something I am interested in doing.

I would gladly take a job with SOE and do this data management and analysis for reasonable pay- doing it for free for people who will only be convinced if the data confirms preexisting biases is the last thing I am interested in doing.

There is also a big difference between convergent evidence and "proof". For starters, let me just remind of you of something- if I pull data on the entire population of characters in PS2 then inferential statics is already out of the question because we have the entire population. Ergo, if I pull the data of the entire population of characters and find X > Y, then X > Y is a simple fact and, by definition, Y is under performing compared to X.

I just want to be upfront about a couple of these things because 1) I am really being serious when I say I get paid handsomely to do this exact kind of work IRL and 2) I am really going to be upset if I invest time in this only to have you comeback like a lot of other posters with nonsense. Of course, if you do then my time is already wasted as have other have had their time wasted doing the exact same thing.

Seriously, please pardon me if this comes across as condescending but honestly it is exactly what I have seen happen every time someone tries to post facts that contradict someone's personal opinion.

So, first off, this is the exact thing I am talking about.

You ask me to post "sufficiently clean API data" and then remark that "you can't argue with raw data". Right there I have to pause because "clean" and "raw" in the data management world are two very different things and are, in fact, opposites.

What, exactly, do you think would be "sufficiently clean" in terms of the API data? You do realize that anyone who deals with the API deals with the API on its own terms.

For instance, if I had my druthers, I would have data organized with items nested within characters and characters nested within players and this data would be long format over time- I have serious doubts I can get that hierarchical structure out of the API.

So you see, when I see this post of yours it sounds a lot like you have some expectations about what you want the data to do and I would need to know, in a fairly technical manner, what exactly you have in mind.

I'm not saying I will not do some digging and honestly I am not trying to be combative but I have to say that someone who works with data for a living will look at what you have posted here and get the feeling that you do not really know what you are talking about. That is a bit worrisome for me because, as I said, I have no interest in investing time into an analysis that you are neither willing or capable of really appreciating.

If I am mistaken and you do know a few things about data management and analysis then please forgive me and I hope you understand my concerns and why I would like a little more clarification.

I do not work with data. I'm fairly clever though, and I understand statistics well enough. I also understand plenty about manipulation of data, and have more than a little experience with this...both on this site and in real life.

I have been looking through the API data that has been posted, and I've seen little of any value. Cupboy's data was brilliant. It had enough info that it could be filtered into something useful. The problem with most other APIs is they filter out key information, such as period, or kills/hour, or even k/d (which is an important point of discussion when you're talking high-risk, high-reward weaponry).

In the case of PS2-Stats, it is a running total of all kills since launch and therefore filters out key information; period. It's not broken down by game update, or week, or day, and thus gives you no useful time periods to work with. I've seen people use PS2-Stats to try and argue that the Lynx is the best carbine in the game, when post-attachment changes it became nearly useless.

The problem with people pulling ANY kind of information is the interpretation. People are idiots, such is the way of the world.The problem is in the interpretation. You say X > Y. You don't say why. This is the important question. It's like saying "this bridge is dangerous". Why is this bridge dangerous? Dangerous to cars? Bikes? People? Elephants? Simply saying one thing underperforms in regards to another misses the point entirely. I find it's a common theme with people that work with data that they don't read too far into it. This is a good thing in some regards, as it tends to keep bias out of it. The problem is that it's utterly useless when it comes to rectifying the situation, because you can't fix a problem unless you know what you're trying to fix.

The reason this game's balance situation is so screwy is (in my opinion) because they attempted to fix problems without properly understanding what caused the problem. In the case of the bridge analogy, they attempted to make the bridge safe by putting up bigger pedestrian safety rails, not realising that the bridge couldn't support the weight of trucks. They just heard the bridge was unsafe and acted on their prejudice.

I get what you mean though about being annoyed that people dismiss proper evidence. I am skeptical of your numbers because I've yet to see a dataset on this site which has been used in any way properly. I find healthy skepticism beats blind faith any day. People jump on single numbers as definitive proof without considering the whole range of factors contributing to the value they're holding up. An example would be someone accusing sniper rifles of being OP because they have a high K/D. This misses the point that they're a low-risk weapon, and the k/d would likely be balanced out by a low SPM. If your numbers are good, you have nothing to worry about. Other people may call b/s, but I respect good numbers. But I don't take data at face value. I dig. No number exists in a vacuum etc.