{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Scorpius XX1:
12/29/2015 7:39:57 PM
3
Interview was fine. There were a couple of things I heard that didn't make sense to me.One being the auto rifle damage drop off. I don't care if they lied, if it was a typo or whatever, 0.03 is still ridiculous, and I understand what they said, but the problem is you have to get into the bottom half of the magazine for this very niche effect to take place. And we all know, going head to head against scouts and pulses, that those fights are over long before you can empty an AR mag. So while the explanation made sense, the overall logic behind this very negligible increase did not.
Secondly Mida, the portion of that discussion bugged me a little bit. I don't understand why they feel like they have to do something every time a weapon or perk becomes popular. This is the game working the way you intended. Let the meta play out. I don't care how good players think Mida is, eventually they will become bored as f##k with it and move on to something else. You can't say in one breath that we want players to figure out the playstyles that work for them, then in the next turn around and say, well we need to look at these things more closely if these very same players wind up...figuring out the playstyles that work for them. So I had some issues with that
I did agree that the game could benefit from slowing down maybe just a tad depending on the game mode. But it's nitpicking because I also enjoy the aspect of random chance in a chaotic encounter.
Oh wait, just heard the 100 yard stare segment. I don't care what the data is saying as far as kd, it's still accounting for 20% of Trials kills and that is not balance. Overuse can be attributed to this partly, but it's ridiculous to say that is the only reason, you still have to have success with the weapon, whether it's easy to obtain or not, and just about everyone does. As the numbers clearly show. This is a case of actually letting the meta play out as I stated above, and seeing that there is actually a problem. Saying that the weapon only results in a 1 kd is missing the point, these are 3v3 game modes that it becomes an issue, and kd is not indicative in 3v3 if revealing a problem with a weapon type. I thought this was purposeful hyperbole.
English
-
Edited by bobswerski: 12/31/2015 2:59:08 PMBut that's [u]exactly[/u] how it should be done! You're contradicting yourself. If you've ever heard the term "regression to the mean" (been hearing it on ESPN a lot lately, to their credit they use it mostly in the correct manner) it's a related concept. Look at 2 scenarios in which a weapon becomes very popular. Let's say that nobody really used it until a bunch of streamers and youtube vids from top 1% players say they love this gun, everyone needs to try it. Since mostly top 1% players use the gun at first, the K/D is quite high, 1.8 or whatever. 1) Scenario 1: Usage goes from 5% to 30% overnight. K/D drops from 1.8 to 1.0. What happened? It's a vendor weapon and everyone grabs one and starts using it. Since it's mathematically impossible for 30% of players to be in the top 1%, the skill of the average user goes down, bringing the K/D along with it. The initial K/D of 1.8 was high but was also the average K/D of the player using it at the time. [u]The gun is not OP[/u] as it does not alter the K/D of the people using it. 2) Scenario 2: Usage goes up to around the same amount but K/D drops only a little, from 1.8 to 1.5. What happened? The average skill of the user has gone down but the K/D has remained high. Since it's still mathematically impossible for 30% of people to be that good, [u]the gun is OP[/u]. It is inflating the K/D of the people using it.
-
First of all I did not contradict myself. Second of all I already pointed out that KD is not a useful barometer when measuring the state of the weapon. So you are being redundant. Both scenarios in which you seem to cling your logic to, are dependent on skewed numbers. You are trying to argue both sides of an opinion based on a 1 KD, and it's all beside the point.
-
Edited by bobswerski: 1/1/2016 5:31:00 PMOne, it (K/D) is not beside the point in any way. It may not be perfect but to suggest its valueless is nonsensical. Two, it's a grossly oversimplified scenario based on me not wanting to spend an hour typing up some 1000 word treatise on weapon balance on the forums. The logical assumption is that they didn't want to do that sort of thing during a podcast either. You can take K/D out and substitute any metric or group of metrics you like, be it team wins in a mode like ToO, whatever you think is important, and the process still holds.
