Nerf Thread on General

[DIONGWON-1224]

@MicroRNA-1507

It would be more accurate to say that a different dataset was used rather than a math error.

A math error is 1+1=3

A difference in dataset is saying 1+1=2; but another group choosing to analyze 2+1

For the dataset that I used and clearly defined, the calculations were mathematically correct.

It doesn’t matter how good your math is and doesn’t matter how you nitpick Nev’s word, your analysis was flawed as pointed out by a blue. Yet you keep trying pushing those flawed analysis down people’s throat, which is just mind blowing. I guess troll is gonna troll.

@Nevalistis

With your math, (1) you’re taking an aggregated snapshot far later in the Era than when we took ours (our data was from roughly early December), and (2) you only have a small slice of overall player data. You’re also (3) excluding players who aren’t within your chosen range, as well as (4) from other regions, rather than accounting for them by adjusting their performance numbers to fit that range. This is important to account for many factors, including a wide variety of skill, build differentiation, and other balance considerations like augment levels.

@Nevalistis

Data can be very easily manipulated to prove one thing or another by changing only one or two factors. This is part of the reason that raw Leaderboard data is often very misleading and shouldn’t be taken in a vacuum. It’s easy to say one class is over-performing and supply information by excluding any number of details to prove it. Any data analyst will tell you that taking as much data as possible is the best way to get the closest absolute “truth,” and the Leaderboards really don’t provide enough on their own to give the full picture since they only ever represent the highest level of play. Imposing too many filters will always produce a biased result, and so must be used judiciously.