ChatGPT also had the feedback for you when I asked how you could improve your posts, based the two I gave it.
Sure, here are a few suggestions for how “Goramier” could improve his writing:
Clearly state the main point or question in the beginning of the post. This will make it easier for readers to understand the topic and the point of view.
Use proper grammar and spelling. This will make the post easier to read and understand, and will also convey a sense of professionalism and credibility.
Avoid using overly emotive language or making personal attacks. This can come across as aggressive and make it harder for others to take the writer’s point of view seriously.
Be more specific and Provide more context. it helps the readers to understand the context and the main point of the post.
Use of bullet points and numbers can make it more readable.
Try to be more persuasive in the language rather than aggressive or attacking.
Lastly, it would be great to see if the writer could provide some evidence or examples to back up their claims, as this would strengthen the argument and help to build credibility.
Where did I talk about those? I recall some people in the past pointing out that deck choice led to them facing different decks, and I gave them a method that would give them strong evidence to support their claims if they were correct.
You linked a general Q and A that doesn’t explictly state the rules and exceptions (if any). For all the so called experts on here, that should be obvious.
At this point, I think some of our so called and self named experts are really just trolling. They claim all these expertise and knowledge on rules… they don’t actually know.
I think this must be what winning feels like because I feel like I am absolutely schooling people right now and I barely graduated high school and these experts and being schooled by me!
Yeah I think you’re making this stuff up. I never heard any “black and white rules with exceptions” (I assume you mean a design doc, or some use case scenarios?) I have heard a bunch of dumb theories that didn’t get any support from analysis of hsreplay data.
Like chatGPT said, you need to provide more context if you want people to be able to assist you.
It is a general over view. It is not written rules stating what matchmaking is, nor does it cover the exceptions, ifs, and, or buts meaning that while people say “Blizz isn’t lying because they would be held responsible!” is a lie because they don’t know what lying is because they do not know the actual rules.
Simple.
I am not trying to fight Swamp. I am making a clear point. The Q and A does provide the over view. I know. I get it. It has been out there a long time. It is not actual rules stating how the matchmaking rules including exceptions and the like, therefore, you and I do not know how it actually works as played over all games. We only know a generality.
Yes it is an overview but it isn’t the concrete written rule system. I think the problem is that people don’t read this like a lawyer. A lawyer would read this and get it.
If you cannot show a rule set with exceptions stated (or saying, without exception) then the rule set is not defined. You know the over view but you do not know the exceptions, you do not actually know what happens when X or when Y happens or what changes when Z occurs.
Exactly right, so what you do if someone puts forward a theory, is that you look at the available data and ask how would this theory impact the data if it were correct? Then you look at the data and see if the expected impacts are present.
It is concrete. They literally told you how MM works. It doesnt matter that it waws a Q&A, the rules were stated by the devs. Period.
If you believe the rules as stated are wrong, give me evidence of how they are wrong. Preferably in the form of something I can test myself, not just anecdotes.
What makes you think there are exceptions to the rules stated?
I don’t believe that was wrong nor lying. I believe it was incomplete. There in lays the rub.
I can say, “you can legally drive as long as you have a drivers license.” And it is factually correct (in the US). But what about if you are impaired? What about if you have no car you own or are authorized to drive?
Come on man you are smarter than that.
“owning a gun is legal” is a correct statement except … and the devil is in those details.
Edit: not actually saying you are wrong either Swamp. Just so we are clear. You may be right. I just want the most basics of proof that people who are stating such hardcore opinions as fact, actually have a basis
ChatGPT proposes the following analysis after I told it what data hsreplay had.
Here is one possible way to analyze the available data to investigate this relationship:
1. Divide the dataset into subgroups based on the archetype of the deck used. For example, if the data includes information on control warrior, aggro paladin, and rogue decks, you would create separate subgroups for each archetype. 2. For each subgroup, calculate the percentage of games played against each other archetype in the meta. Compare this to the percentage of the entire meta that each archetype represents. 3. Use statistical analysis to determine whether there is a correlation between the archetype of the deck used and the archetype of the opponent’s deck faced. 4. To control for the skill level of the player, you could also look at the win rate of players using a specific archetype against the other archetype, this would give you an idea of the matchmaking balance between different decks. 5. Use the percentage of each archetype in the meta as a baseline, and compare the results of each subgroup to it. If a specific archetype faces a different archetype more or less often than expected, that might indicate that the matchmaking is adjusted for that archetype.
This has been done a bunch of times on these forums