xTW bidding broken?

eirghan

would be better I you wrote
Like a Shakespearean spoke @sin20

keihan007#7641

sin20 wrote: »

Im curious last week when we fought karma , were u guys on full power or ?

We should of been but we really werent. When I say this, ppl are gonna try to troll me for coming up with excuses but as you asked I`ll answer. We had 56 man roster, which was terrible in first place. Out of that roster 10 ppl noshowed. If faction doesnt want to put in the effort to win, not much we can do bout it. The numbers on instance were pretty similar as we had closer to 10 buffer alts in there.

dingo488

saxroll wrote: »

We should of been but we really werent. When I say this, ppl are gonna try to troll me for coming up with excuses but as you asked I`ll answer. We had 56 man roster, which was terrible in first place. Out of that roster 10 ppl noshowed. If faction doesnt want to put in the effort to win, not much we can do bout it. The numbers on instance were pretty similar as we had closer to 10 buffer alts in there.

So what about your Swirling Dragon Camp lands (tier 2) did not a single one of your 3 lands get attacked? Since you're saying you all went to Crisis, you also didnt lose any Tier 2 lands.

keihan007#7641

dingo488 wrote: »

saxroll wrote: »

We should of been but we really werent. When I say this, ppl are gonna try to troll me for coming up with excuses but as you asked I`ll answer. We had 56 man roster, which was terrible in first place. Out of that roster 10 ppl noshowed. If faction doesnt want to put in the effort to win, not much we can do bout it. The numbers on instance were pretty similar as we had closer to 10 buffer alts in there.

So what about your Swirling Dragon Camp lands (tier 2) did not a single one of your 3 lands get attacked? Since you're saying you all went to Crisis, you also didnt lose any Tier 2 lands.

Thats correct.

sin20

saxroll wrote: »

dingo488 wrote: »

saxroll wrote: »

We should of been but we really werent. When I say this, ppl are gonna try to troll me for coming up with excuses but as you asked I`ll answer. We had 56 man roster, which was terrible in first place. Out of that roster 10 ppl noshowed. If faction doesnt want to put in the effort to win, not much we can do bout it. The numbers on instance were pretty similar as we had closer to 10 buffer alts in there.

So what about your Swirling Dragon Camp lands (tier 2) did not a single one of your 3 lands get attacked? Since you're saying you all went to Crisis, you also didnt lose any Tier 2 lands.

Thats correct.

Hm if this is true that makes it at least 3 weeks out of last month that you guys basicly didnt have any major wars on t2 and were free to focus on t3 right? Since last and 3 weeks ago u fought us im curious who u fought 2 weeks ago on t2?
But still 3 weeks no major fights on any of t2 lands is really lucky.

keihan007#7641

sin20 wrote: »

saxroll wrote: »

dingo488 wrote: »

saxroll wrote: »

We should of been but we really werent. When I say this, ppl are gonna try to troll me for coming up with excuses but as you asked I`ll answer. We had 56 man roster, which was terrible in first place. Out of that roster 10 ppl noshowed. If faction doesnt want to put in the effort to win, not much we can do bout it. The numbers on instance were pretty similar as we had closer to 10 buffer alts in there.

So what about your Swirling Dragon Camp lands (tier 2) did not a single one of your 3 lands get attacked? Since you're saying you all went to Crisis, you also didnt lose any Tier 2 lands.

Thats correct.

Hm if this is true that makes it at least 3 weeks out of last month that you guys basicly didnt have any major wars on t2 and were free to focus on t3 right? Since last and 3 weeks ago u fought us im curious who u fought 2 weeks ago on t2?
But still 3 weeks no major fights on any of t2 lands is really lucky.

I cant remember who we fought on T2 last, its been a while. I do think its just rng though as our Tier 1 got hit 2 weeks ago. Our last 3 weeks of T3 has been Crisis, Tempest and Crisis. Rng giveth and rng taketh.

dingo488

I dont think its RNG, I think there's most definately a bias, but I dont have enough recorded data to draw any conclusions from it, which is a shame.

This entire season every single week Hoorah got attacked in Swirling Dragon Camp by almost all the strongest opponents that bid on Swirling Dragon Camp that week. Now of course they dont always show up, but matchmaking doesnt account for that. So this is all based on purely Swirling Dragon Camp, I most definately dont have any data on Vile Dragon Camp and Dragon's Meet works completely differently. The factions that held lands in Swirling Dragon were

Crisis
Tempest
Hoorah
Hoorah
Hoorah
Karma
Karma
Karma
Vindicate
Vindicate

those were the 10 lands (theres 16) held by the strongest factions in Swirling Dragon Camp in that exact order. (I say strongest, but thats based on ranking so bare with me, all matchmaking knows is ranking, not actual strength)

The factions that attacking Swirling Dragon Camp in that same order are

1 Hoorah
2 GoldDgrz
3 Vindicate
4 Dynasty
5 Infamous
6 Drakon (?)
7 Origin (?)
8 Requiem (?)
9 Reign (?)
10 effiance

I dont know for sure about all faction who they attacked it, but I know which lands didnt get attacked so that shud be enuff info to fill it.

Crisis Not attacked
Tempest ?
Hoorah GoldDgrz (2)
Hoorah Vindicate (3)
Hoorah Elysium
Karma Not attacked
Karma Not attacked
Karma Not attacked
Vindicate Dynasty (4)
Vindicate effiance (10 or 6)

(Tempest help me! Gimme info!)
Now I dun want to be Mr conspiracy theory... but thats looks an awful lot like matchmaking bias to me

Not enough info to draw any conclusion as to what caused this bias tho or if there even is one, Im personally also very biased anyway, cuz I really want Vindicate to succeed, but it seems matchmaking is out to stop them.

Potential causes could be:

Server origin (They both from Sanctuary - not unlikely, be weird tho, but if you list all the 8 original servers in alphabetical order Sanctuary is the last one, but ye...not too likely)
Their attack (They both attacked Swirling Dragon - unlikely cuz we got a stacked line-up when we bid Dragon's Meet too)
Their placing in the first week of xTW (Hoorah started the season in 1st place -unlikely cuz Vindicate started in 7th place)
Random (always possible... - unlikely due to match-ups we've had this whole season, but I dont have any proof to show)

Who knows... not so much QQing here, mostly interested what caused it, the way I understood it PWI is looking into it. Wish all this info was more transparent like in any other game/tournament, but thats too bad. Good luck figuring it out yourselves if you're curious, better not abuse it tho

sin20

Well saxroll id say you guys got really lucky that for 1 month (if im correct?) u didnt end up having any major fights on t2 right? Thats really lucky considering u guys had 3 t2 lands, talk about RNG

And Dingo we can say its all about RNG unless they release some data on how it goes we will never know , maybe there is a formula that calculates the bids depending on the number of the land u own (vile dragon 15,18 etc) or who knows.

dingo488

We can always collect our own data and discover patterns ^^

eirghan

@dingo488 i seem to remember you mentioning sample size on my thread about puri proc. Remember you need to wait for 1mill xtws at least before mentioning conlusions

dingo488

eirghan wrote: »

@dingo488 i seem to remember you mentioning sample size on my thread about puri proc. Remember you need to wait for 1mill xtws at least before mentioning conlusions

Well like I said, my sample size is too small to draw any conclusions, so I didnt draw any. On top of that detecting a pattern or a bias is very different from calculating a percentage, its all in the detail. Just like chemists arent allowed to claim they calculate something down to 0.005g if the tools they used to weigh can only differentiate on 0.1 or 0.2. Claiming a percentage while only testing something 100 times would be insufficient for a conclusion. Depending on how obvious the bias is I assume we wont need a much bigger sample size than 1 xTW season to draw accurate conclusions, and if the bias isnt obvious then its not worth fixing, because that was the whole point, its only a problem if its noticably bad.

but ye... totally

dregenfox

dingo488 wrote: »

eirghan wrote: »

@dingo488 i seem to remember you mentioning sample size on my thread about puri proc. Remember you need to wait for 1mill xtws at least before mentioning conlusions

Well like I said, my sample size is too small to draw any conclusions, so I didnt draw any. On top of that detecting a pattern or a bias is very different from calculating a percentage, its all in the detail. Just like chemists arent allowed to claim they calculate something down to 0.005g if the tools they used to weigh can only differentiate on 0.1 or 0.2. Claiming a percentage while only testing something 100 times would be insufficient for a conclusion. Depending on how obvious the bias is I assume we wont need a much bigger sample size than 1 xTW season to draw accurate conclusions, and if the bias isnt obvious then its not worth fixing, because that was the whole point, its only a problem if its noticably bad.

but ye... totally

What does that even mean...the pury proc tests over 300+ attempts was at something like 12% vs 4%...that's not enough to detect a pattern but 10 samples of X-TW is?

eirghan

Eh im not arguing cuz i dont even think you actually believe what you say. just pointing out your trolls

capnk

Wow Eirghan got her first forum PK, good job!

dingo488

dregenfox wrote: »

4%

Well damn! The stats are in and the stats do not lie!
Looks like I got to swallow me sum words... what was I thinking, claiming 300 tries isnt enough to do any percentage-based calculations with, boy was I wrong, you guys pulled it off. Im so happy you showed me the light, I guess I didnt know anything after all.

4% huh, sweet! I can not wait to tell me friends about that! There was someone in the faction saying it was around 5%, AROUND roflmaokai, do u even statistic buddy, did you not see Eirghans sweet conclusive results, its 4%!

There was also an idiot in World Chat claiming it was only 3%... Like wut?! He was basically claiming we were off by 25%, 25%!!! There's no way we'd be off by that big of a margin, so I called him a fraud n took his lunch money. He went on to claim he tried it 300 times and his purify only procced 9 times, like do you believe this guy, everyone knows its gonna proc 12 times if you try it 300 times. He told me he has it on video n asked me to watch it... Ok buddy... you're not the only person that knows about microsoft paint, amirite!? I kept cool n was about to walk away n thats when he told me we should combine our results, he said something about a bigger sample size and more accurate statistics... Thats when I got mad, I kicked him in the groin and told him we dont need his fabricated statistics, we already know its 4% because of Eirghans sweet research. Lmao, people these days, Im so happy you guys saved me.

dregenfox

dingo488 wrote: »

dregenfox wrote: »

4%

Well damn! The stats are in and the stats do not lie!
Looks like I got to swallow me sum words... what was I thinking, claiming 300 tries isnt enough to do any percentage-based calculations with, boy was I wrong, you guys pulled it off. Im so happy you showed me the light, I guess I didnt know anything after all.

4% huh, sweet! I can not wait to tell me friends about that! There was someone in the faction saying it was around 5%, AROUND roflmaokai, do u even statistic buddy, did you not see Eirghans sweet conclusive results, its 4%!

There was also an idiot in World Chat claiming it was only 3%... Like wut?! He was basically claiming we were off by 25%, 25%!!! There's no way we'd be off by that big of a margin, so I called him a fraud n took his lunch money. He went on to claim he tried it 300 times and his purify only procced 9 times, like do you believe this guy, everyone knows its gonna proc 12 times if you try it 300 times. He told me he has it on video n asked me to watch it... Ok buddy... you're not the only person that knows about microsoft paint, amirite!? I kept cool n was about to walk away n thats when he told me we should combine our results, he said something about a bigger sample size and more accurate statistics... Thats when I got mad, I kicked him in the groin and told him we dont need his fabricated statistics, we already know its 4% because of Eirghans sweet research. Lmao, people these days, Im so happy you guys saved me.

I don't think anyone claimed it was exactly 4%. That's why we asked the GM's to look into it and confirm with China whether it was 4 or 12%. What did you expect people to say?

"I tested 300 times but I'm not going to post results because it can't be confirmed. Just believe me when I say china pury proc is a lot worse."

You're taking the one tiny part of your argument that you know you're still right on, and trying to focus on that...I'd hope anyone who has passed statistics in college already knows about those basic concepts you're arguing about...that's why no one brought it up.

Why do you think we wanted to ask the GM's to do some official testing in the first place?

kalystconquerer#0876

Not to derail this thread any further, but as I've said before, I was the one who did multiple isolated videos with a larger sample size than players were reporting their results on, and did minor video editing to track how many total procs and hits were being done. Lets not get into how much time that took or how many videoes I recorded...

eirghan

kalystconquerer#0876 wrote: »

Not to derail this thread any further, but as I've said before, I was the one who did multiple isolated videos with a larger sample size than players were reporting their results on, and did minor video editing to track how many total procs and hits were being done. Lets not get into how much time that took or how many videoes I recorded...

*bows down*
Just know that no matter how many it was, if it wasn't 1million it wasn't accurate enough to point out a concerning trend ​​

dingo488

eirghan wrote: »

*bows down*
Just know that no matter how many it was, if it wasn't 1million it wasn't accurate enough to point out a concerning trend ​​

Man even the GM realised how useless your sample size was n felt the need to step in and help you out, you made her waste time for you! I hope you feel bad!

On a more serious side-note, why doesnt China want transparency regarding all of this stuff (% on weapon procs/matchmaking). It gets in the way for things to be fair, because it means people can abuse things that arent public knowledge. While you can make a fair argument that its ''part of the game'' I personally think its stupid n preferred if everyone was operating on the same knowledge and can instead focus on actually playing the game correctly.

hoshichan

dingo, you need some time off these forums man...you are the next Joe/walpurga.

kalystconquerer#0876

@dingo488 Nah, I wouldn't say that. It's part of my job description, to make sure to double check things, so it's not a waste of my time at all. If it happens on live, it should follow that it happens on test servers as well. I did shoot them all the videos players made in addition to my own testing, so it wasn't just coming from one source. Players were requesting us check internally, so I picked up the task.

As far as percentage on proc rates, maybe they sincerely believe it to be the same. After we pestered them during that whole boundless situation, they shut the door on that discussion and we never raised it again. Not that I wouldn't mind disclosing certain things, but last thing I'd want to do is blow myself up on accident.

eirghan

@dingo488 is just a big troll . I dont even hold it against him. Don't fret friends.

I do appreciate the time you put into it though @kalystconquerer#0876 so in all seriousness thank you.

just know @dingo488 expectations are high for your video detailing the issue with xtw ​​

dingo488

eirghan wrote: »

just know @dingo488 expectations are high for your video detailing the issue with xtw

Im looking forward to it

valdisman

dingo488 wrote: »

I dont think its RNG, I think there's most definately a bias, but I dont have enough recorded data to draw any conclusions from it, which is a shame.

This entire season every single week Hoorah got attacked in Swirling Dragon Camp by almost all the strongest opponents that bid on Swirling Dragon Camp that week. Now of course they dont always show up, but matchmaking doesnt account for that. So this is all based on purely Swirling Dragon Camp, I most definately dont have any data on Vile Dragon Camp and Dragon's Meet works completely differently. The factions that held lands in Swirling Dragon were

Crisis
Tempest
Hoorah
Hoorah
Hoorah
Karma
Karma
Karma
Vindicate
Vindicate

those were the 10 lands (theres 16) held by the strongest factions in Swirling Dragon Camp in that exact order. (I say strongest, but thats based on ranking so bare with me, all matchmaking knows is ranking, not actual strength)

The factions that attacking Swirling Dragon Camp in that same order are

1 Hoorah
2 GoldDgrz
3 Vindicate
4 Dynasty
5 Infamous
6 Drakon (?)
7 Origin (?)
8 Requiem (?)
9 Reign (?)
10 effiance

I dont know for sure about all faction who they attacked it, but I know which lands didnt get attacked so that shud be enuff info to fill it.

Crisis Not attacked
Tempest ?
Hoorah GoldDgrz (2)
Hoorah Vindicate (3)
Hoorah Elysium
Karma Not attacked
Karma Not attacked
Karma Not attacked
Vindicate Dynasty (4)
Vindicate effiance (10 or 6)

(Tempest help me! Gimme info!)
Now I dun want to be Mr conspiracy theory... but thats looks an awful lot like matchmaking bias to me

Not enough info to draw any conclusion as to what caused this bias tho or if there even is one, Im personally also very biased anyway, cuz I really want Vindicate to succeed, but it seems matchmaking is out to stop them.

Potential causes could be:

Server origin (They both from Sanctuary - not unlikely, be weird tho, but if you list all the 8 original servers in alphabetical order Sanctuary is the last one, but ye...not too likely)
Their attack (They both attacked Swirling Dragon - unlikely cuz we got a stacked line-up when we bid Dragon's Meet too)
Their placing in the first week of xTW (Hoorah started the season in 1st place -unlikely cuz Vindicate started in 7th place)
Random (always possible... - unlikely due to match-ups we've had this whole season, but I dont have any proof to show)

Who knows... not so much QQing here, mostly interested what caused it, the way I understood it PWI is looking into it. Wish all this info was more transparent like in any other game/tournament, but thats too bad. Good luck figuring it out yourselves if you're curious, better not abuse it tho

GD had at 2 tier 2 fights 3 weeks running then 1 every week as well as multiple tier 1s every week for the past 2 months almost, until we finally lost both tier 2 defence to Hoorah. I've no Idea how its generated but since this QQ thread, Karma have only had their Tier 3s albeit the random Tier 1 they had.

Maybe that is their compensation for the *glitched bid*. Worth making a note of for next season so we know wat to say and do when we need easy points kaly! @kalystconquerer#0876