And like you said here:
There’s no reason for the data to change. Now you’re welcome to believe whatever narrative you want, but the data is there.
I don’t have access to the numbers, only Blizzard does.
No – my argument is based off of the actual data from Blizzard themselves. No opinions, anecdotes, or feelings here. Just the stats.
I gave a reason and you just keep ignoring it.
really? show your proof then… like i said.
A baseless hypothetical attempting to discredit the data. Definitely going to pass on that.
That data comes from the first test. Not test #2. I don’t understand what you don’t get.
You just assume the data will be exactly the same.
Have you even read my posts? I cited the data here:
yeah. that’s the initial testing. she asked about any possible changes from then to the latest.
comprehension’s hard, i tell u what!
Because there’s no reason for it not to be. You admitted this yourself initially and now you’re trying to create this baseless hypothetical that causes the data to be significantly skewed.
It’s not happening. The win rates are 50%. What you feel like is something different.
Stop clinging to your “data” that was only pooled during a test.
The novelty of the new feature and people queing up to try something new is not a factor that might change over time?
The win rates might still be 50%, they may not be. There is no data for the latest HvH test. That is all I’m saying.
Just because you can’t imagine a reason for the data to change between tests doesn’t mean there isn’t one or that it didn’t. We will have to wait and see.
Show me the numbers of how this skews the data. Until then, it’s all speculation, which I am not interested in.
I’m not trying to prove that.
I’m trying to make the point that it could have changed and nobody knows if it has.
The novelty of the new feature and people queing up to try something new is not a factor that might change over time?
Edit: please don’t cherry pick and trim my posts.
Until this changes to “it did” I don’t think I’ll continue this discussion. I only care about the numbers and data – not speculation and what we feel.
For the last time. There are no #s or data that are available to us for the 2nd test.
Why do you think blizzard did a second test?
I’ve never encountered so much resistance to the idea that something may have changed over time.
I’m not even taking a stance on whether it changed.
They didn’t provide the data. They provided the results that were overwhelmingly biased by premades on both factions. They say that it was 50/50, however, it was likely something more along the lines of 80% winrate w/ premade and 20% without. Since then, they have nerfed premades… Its really not particularly helpful to reference that out dated blue post.
We’d need to know the win rates for the second test, ideally by BG, to make anything of it.
There are no numbers at all is the problem, his cited “source” is a guy telling us its 50/50 and that’s before the premade nerf. The whole “50/50” thing is very weird to me, no one in the history of the planet ever asked what bg win rates were, they just randomly gave them to us and extremely conveniently they showed exactly what blizzard wanted them to show. There seems to be some sort of weird attempt to make a giant pvp change that only helps the horde, appear as it somehow helps the alliance (less alliance died in the open world, the win rates were 50/50 honest)
“During the test, the 8,000 horde that were previously murdering you in hellfire temporarily went to another place so they could get better gear to murder you better next time they encounter you”
wow thanks, what happens when they finish the honor grind?
<this message was unable to be delivered, try again later>
dear Kaivax, I wrote you but still ain’t callin’
I left my cell, my pager, and my home phone at the bottom
I sent two letters back in autumn, you must not-a got ‘em
There probably was a problem at the post office or somethin’
So, i’m not trying to cast doubt on Blizzard.
I’m just saying the results from the first test may not match the 2nd test, we don’t know b/c Blizzard hasn’t told us.
I came up with a hypothetical reason for why it may have to illustrate that point.
I’m done arguing about it now.
It seems like you mention a buzzword like feelings, anecdotal, or even maybe… and the pseudo-scientists start foaming at the mouth pretending to know something they don’t because there is data for something similar– even if that thing was at a different point in time and under different circumstances.
100%, and i doubt they would report any results that aren’t 50/50. They’ll just never tell us if its 40/60 or something that players will just complain about
well he said “its close to 50/50” also - what “close” means is anyone’s guess, some people consider 60/40 to be a balanced realm so…
fair enough. could easily have been 45/55 or something. Anybody that played a single pug game experienced a nearly unplayable winrate though.