Since my last answer to coldnapalm seems to have been eaten by the forum, and I have no intention to rewrite it, I just want to point out that everything coldnapalm uses to discredit the graph presented in this thread is actually refuted by the graph itself.
How could it be that the graph shows a very high population of low dpsers, if what he claims is only a samplesize out of mostly DPSers? If the data was really mostly from runs with 5 out of 5 high dps players, why does it show that most players are below the DPS channel thrashold?
Perhaps there were people in that instance who were being carried, rather than carrying their own water... Trying to discredit the observation, fails, because it's a valid one: The graph's a flawed sample, because it was taken in an instance used primarily by DPSers. Anyone who knows a mission inside out, and who can hit each checkpoint and target on autopilot, is going to achieve a better score than someone who isn't so familiar with it, and, everyone attempting said instance, is more likely to be a DPSChaser, so the use of ISA as a benchmark instance, is flawed. As coldnapalm said, to get accurate views of DPS output across the playerbase, parses need to be run in many different instances, such as Red Alerts, Deep Space Encounters, even just in regular solo mission replays (my personal favorite to run as a 'test mission', is Stranded in Space. For pure ground, I would suggest Facility 4028) That would give a broader sample size, with a variety of results, and give a more accurate view as to 'player averages'
Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide
Your analoge does not fit...if your guess about people being carried were true those people would make up the majority of people in that graph, by a huge factor. Hardly likely. The graph clearly shows that most people are around 15k dps (that's where it peaks)
If it were only people from the DPS channel, then why are there so many people around that kind of DPS...a graph with only members from those channels would have a peak somewhere around 30k dps (probably way more even), because you can't really join them if your build is far below that.
How can an instance be primarely be used by DPSers, when the graph clearly shows that most people are far below the treshold of those channels?
Statistics don't really work the way you and coldnapalm describe them...
One instance can very much be a representative sample size...it is called a sample. The problems you guys have is, that it contradicts your preconceptions.
"Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide "
let me explain to you why this analogy is utter BS. You assume, that ONLY (or mostly) DPSers play the ISA queue...which is proovably wrong, since the post with the graph clearly states, those are all uploads combined pugs and private queues. Were it only private queues (or setup in any way), the numbers around the 40k mark would probably be the peak (since much more high DPS people would be present in each game), but we see the peak at ONLY 15k. This is evident simply by looking at the peak at the lower end of the DPS scale. SO the assumption that ISA is mainly populated by DPSers is based on a false preconception that all DPSers are joining public queues to test their builds...which the graph itself can show, can't be the case with a peak at such low numbers.
Is it 100% accurate, no of course not, but dismissing it completely as biased, based on reasons that can be refuted by simply looking at the graph even, makes ZERO sense. Hell, if anything the majority would probably be even at a much lower DPS value.
Fact is, that the peak is at a very low end, too low for most elites to have a guaranteed success.
.. preferable the short ones like Crystal Entity (love that que - wish all grind content is that short)
Not sure what there is to 'love' about CCA. A mission where the biggest challenge is often getting into weapons range before the target is already dead.
This. A 2 hour AFK penalty for not quite getting there in time is no good. I'll be passing on that endeavour in future, bad lag and less than spectacular hardware at my end are not conducive to productive queuing, at least in CCA or even normal.
With regards to gear, as long as the overall build is solid the actual mark numbers of the gear making it up barely matter for advanced. Besides if John Rambo 30K edition is annihilating everything in a matter of seconds it hardly matters.
Since my last answer to coldnapalm seems to have been eaten by the forum, and I have no intention to rewrite it, I just want to point out that everything coldnapalm uses to discredit the graph presented in this thread is actually refuted by the graph itself.
How could it be that the graph shows a very high population of low dpsers, if what he claims is only a samplesize out of mostly DPSers? If the data was really mostly from runs with 5 out of 5 high dps players, why does it show that most players are below the DPS channel thrashold?
Perhaps there were people in that instance who were being carried, rather than carrying their own water... Trying to discredit the observation, fails, because it's a valid one: The graph's a flawed sample, because it was taken in an instance used primarily by DPSers. Anyone who knows a mission inside out, and who can hit each checkpoint and target on autopilot, is going to achieve a better score than someone who isn't so familiar with it, and, everyone attempting said instance, is more likely to be a DPSChaser, so the use of ISA as a benchmark instance, is flawed. As coldnapalm said, to get accurate views of DPS output across the playerbase, parses need to be run in many different instances, such as Red Alerts, Deep Space Encounters, even just in regular solo mission replays (my personal favorite to run as a 'test mission', is Stranded in Space. For pure ground, I would suggest Facility 4028) That would give a broader sample size, with a variety of results, and give a more accurate view as to 'player averages'
Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide
Your analoge does not fit...if your guess about people being carried were true those people would make up the majority of people in that graph, by a huge factor. Hardly likely. The graph clearly shows that most people are around 15k dps (that's where it peaks)
If it were only people from the DPS channel, then why are there so many people around that kind of DPS...a graph with only members from those channels would have a peak somewhere around 30k dps (probably way more even), because you can't really join them if your build is far below that.
How can an instance be primarely be used by DPSers, when the graph clearly shows that most people are far below the treshold of those channels?
Statistics don't really work the way you and coldnapalm describe them...
One instance can very much be a representative sample size...it is called a sample. The problems you guys have is, that it contradicts your preconceptions.
"Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide "
let me explain to you why this analogy is utter BS. You assume, that ONLY (or mostly) DPSers play the ISA queue...which is proovably wrong, since the post with the graph clearly states, those are all uploads combined pugs and private queues. Were it only private queues (or setup in any way), the numbers around the 40k mark would probably be the peak (since much more high DPS people would be present in each game), but we see the peak at ONLY 15k. This is evident simply by looking at the peak at the lower end of the DPS scale. SO the assumption that ISA is mainly populated by DPSers is based on a false preconception that all DPSers are joining public queues to test their builds...which the graph itself can show, can't be the case with a peak at such low numbers.
Is it 100% accurate, no of course not, but dismissing it completely as biased, based on reasons that can be refuted by simply looking at the graph even, makes ZERO sense. Hell, if anything the majority would probably be even at a much lower DPS value.
Fact is, that the peak is at a very low end, too low for most elites to have a guaranteed success.
Oh dear, you're doing it again with loaded questions and complex questions...
I never said ONLY, or even 'mostly'. I said 'is more likely to be a DPSChaser'. So you're trying to disprove (or more accurately, you're 'simply arguing against') something I never actually said.
As I said with the language example and Reykjavik. Chances are, most people in Reykjavik are going to be speaking Icelandic. But it's also the capitol, so there are also going to be tourists from the world over. But the majority, most likely going to be Icelandic and speakers of Icelandic.
Is EVERY player in ISA going to be a DPSer? No. Statistically though, given that ISA is widely acknowledged as the DPS test-track, it's certainly reasonable that the people running it are indeed there to measure their DPS against the acknowledged standard. It's certainly a more plausible statement that, 'someone is running ISA as a DOS test/for sh*ts and gigs with friends', than, 'someone running it to get any rewards' (because as has already been pointed out, people after rewards and marks farm the Red Alerts, and the people running the other queues like ISA, aren't (running it for the marks)
But none of that actually matters, or disproves what coldnapalm initially said (and which I repeated):
That to get an idea of average player DPS, the parses are going to have to be run on multiple maps across the game, rather than just looking at one map in isolation, and pretending that that constitutes an average.
Is there an average for ISA? Sure. That doesn't make it the average for the game, or the average of the average player. That figure, could only be ascertained by a much wider sampling and observation across the game and playerbase
PS: Oh, and just because there were players on the graph doing below the threshold for a seat at the Cool Kidz Table, all that means, is that they were contributing very little DPS to the instance. Perhaps they were AFKing the map, letting the team carry them, and just hitting BFAW enough times when close to something to make it look like they were making the effort to participate. Who knows. Who cares. It's an irrelevant factor, which doesn't influence the primary point coldnapalm was making, about a wider sample being needed than just parses of one map.
*ExtraForTheEditMonster
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
[...]I play STO because I want to have fun, not constantly respawn because my ship isn't geared for elite queues (and I can't be bothered to even try to gear it, even IF I had the means, which I don't).
I prefer to run some RAs when I need marks. They're more fun and I don't 'die' as much, if at all. I also enjoy the battlezones once in awhile.
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Not in the least. As I said somewhere in here, I don't come for the battles. I come to have fun and battles are a part of that which is unavoidable. Therefore I want them to go away as quickly as possible. Which means Normal for most playing.
If your fun is to test how much you can take or dish out, that's fine for you. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to escape the real world for awhile and just have fun with one of my captains. If that means I'm mostly target practicing, then okay.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
[...]I play STO because I want to have fun, not constantly respawn because my ship isn't geared for elite queues (and I can't be bothered to even try to gear it, even IF I had the means, which I don't).
I prefer to run some RAs when I need marks. They're more fun and I don't 'die' as much, if at all. I also enjoy the battlezones once in awhile.
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Some people like to play target practice. There is nothing wrong with that. If that is what they want to play, you should not shame them into playing something else.
Well, he tried to shame. I didn't bite it. I'm proud of the way I play MY STO. That's what I love about it, each player can play however they want and it won't affect everyone else.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
[...]I play STO because I want to have fun, not constantly respawn because my ship isn't geared for elite queues (and I can't be bothered to even try to gear it, even IF I had the means, which I don't).
I prefer to run some RAs when I need marks. They're more fun and I don't 'die' as much, if at all. I also enjoy the battlezones once in awhile.
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Not all of us put effort into min/max. If you grind and gear for elites, yes, the normal stuff will be target practice. For me, with my Mark XI-XII very rare gear and loads of characters, Normal is just fine.
Exactly! While my *favorite* toons have mkXIV VR, UR or Epic equipment, they still only pull an average of just over 10k. And I'm good with that. I'm not here to show everyone else how big my epeen is, I just come here to escape and have fun. Sometimes I don't even play any missions/queues/RAs or DSEs, I simply craft or go play on Nimbus for some dil or go mining.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
Problem is Elite Space mostly cause they've made it far to difficult even for 95% of player base. Elite ground is something else entirely - as many end game players with Mk XIV Ultra or better gear had a fair chance at success...
Elite Space however they've taken to the level of being a bit absurd. An Advanced Space mission offers almost if not more challenge than many Elite Ground missions... Honestly I think the biggest reason many queue's are so quite is solely because they've made far too many too difficult in my opinion.
While people can play the normal queue's those aren't as busy either simply because they don't offer any REP token's you get in Advanced or Elite runs.
I don’t think that elite space maps are too difficult. Not from a challenge point of view. I made numerous HSE runs with my fleet and the moment a group sums up 150k (so 30k/player) the timer can be beaten. I don’t know the figures for the other maps as far as the DPS checks are concerned but technically far more players in game than you think can do most of them. Judging from the DPS data given and with the exception of fez it would not surprise me if 25% of the players who happened to have been parsed in ISA have a fair shot at most them.
The only thing that makes them difficult, and much more difficult than elite grounds, is economic aspects. The combination of hard DPS checks linked to fails together with minute long, tedious tasks to do is what makes them to be simply ignored by everybody. In my opinion most ground maps have a much more appealing stage design as well. Few hard DPS checks, more soft DPS checks where alternatives are given; Time gates more fun integrated in the terrain to cover instead of do something stupid for X minutes.
Adding to that a cost comparison between ground and space builds is what settles the situation. You simply get more for your buck on ground and that from all perspectives, hence why more peeps go for it.
Well prior to Season 14 I use to average about 35-42k among my 7 different toons in Space. Now realize 7 of my 8 characters 3 are ENG and 4 are SCI with only 1 TAC, I've always loved Engineers and Science Captains more but that's me. I would agree with your comment that Advanced or Elite Ground is designed better and I know far more who enjoy doing ADV or Elite Ground far more than Space Queues.
Now even in DPSLEAGUE (Space) the top 5 TAC in ISA scored 259k and the lowest of the top 5 was 219k; while a SCI toon did earn 261k possibly lucky Critical, the 2nd quickly dropped to 169k with ENG being 164k if memory serves. So SCI/ENG quickly have their 2nd, 3rd or 4th and 5th values drop significantly lower than most TAC captain down to as low as 134k with an average of about 170k for SCI/ENG while the lowest any of the TAC Top 5 got no less than 219k. So most TAC captain's even after Season 14 still easily do almost 50% more damage than most SCI/ENG.
So I'm clearly in the respectable DPS range but no where close to the DPS monster like some achieve getting upwards of 134k - 270k. But being realistic the values showing many in the 134k - 270k often won't occur in a PUG either as each specialization and captain's abilities are closely monitored to maximize buff/debuff effects and coordinated or well planned out who does what - when or after whom.
Still, while you doing Mirror Advanced during the event, the amount of enemies spawn can quickly overrun you, and damage they can put out given often being outnumbered 10-15x to 1. Now realize when in PUG people don't know everyone specializations, abilities, training or how to maximize buff/debuff and few hardly make the effort to coordinate or work as a team like someone else said above - stating he had 1 or 2 players doing 3-4k DPS and they were not being very helpful or reading or watching team chat.
Also realize, there is many ADV Space Queues that are made a lot harder the last 2-3 years; they often 'can' do good damage but also 'can' greatly outnumber you, all while having 5x-50x or more the Hitpoints you have just in an Advanced Queue. Anyone doing Omega ADV will see the Borg Cube with likely 6.5m Hitpoints or Donata's Scimitar also having a crazy amount; even the little tiny Borg Sphere's have almost +600k Hitpoints each while players have but 92k-125k depending on class. You go to Elite Space missions and you see the Hitpoints for most Enemy exceed 1m Hitpoints and bigger bosses having 10's of Millions of Hitpoints.
Just click one then right click and hit INFO to find out.
Since my last answer to coldnapalm seems to have been eaten by the forum, and I have no intention to rewrite it, I just want to point out that everything coldnapalm uses to discredit the graph presented in this thread is actually refuted by the graph itself.
How could it be that the graph shows a very high population of low dpsers, if what he claims is only a samplesize out of mostly DPSers? If the data was really mostly from runs with 5 out of 5 high dps players, why does it show that most players are below the DPS channel thrashold?
Perhaps there were people in that instance who were being carried, rather than carrying their own water... Trying to discredit the observation, fails, because it's a valid one: The graph's a flawed sample, because it was taken in an instance used primarily by DPSers. Anyone who knows a mission inside out, and who can hit each checkpoint and target on autopilot, is going to achieve a better score than someone who isn't so familiar with it, and, everyone attempting said instance, is more likely to be a DPSChaser, so the use of ISA as a benchmark instance, is flawed. As coldnapalm said, to get accurate views of DPS output across the playerbase, parses need to be run in many different instances, such as Red Alerts, Deep Space Encounters, even just in regular solo mission replays (my personal favorite to run as a 'test mission', is Stranded in Space. For pure ground, I would suggest Facility 4028) That would give a broader sample size, with a variety of results, and give a more accurate view as to 'player averages'
Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide
Your analoge does not fit...if your guess about people being carried were true those people would make up the majority of people in that graph, by a huge factor. Hardly likely. The graph clearly shows that most people are around 15k dps (that's where it peaks)
If it were only people from the DPS channel, then why are there so many people around that kind of DPS...a graph with only members from those channels would have a peak somewhere around 30k dps (probably way more even), because you can't really join them if your build is far below that.
How can an instance be primarely be used by DPSers, when the graph clearly shows that most people are far below the treshold of those channels?
Statistics don't really work the way you and coldnapalm describe them...
One instance can very much be a representative sample size...it is called a sample. The problems you guys have is, that it contradicts your preconceptions.
"Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide "
let me explain to you why this analogy is utter BS. You assume, that ONLY (or mostly) DPSers play the ISA queue...which is proovably wrong, since the post with the graph clearly states, those are all uploads combined pugs and private queues. Were it only private queues (or setup in any way), the numbers around the 40k mark would probably be the peak (since much more high DPS people would be present in each game), but we see the peak at ONLY 15k. This is evident simply by looking at the peak at the lower end of the DPS scale. SO the assumption that ISA is mainly populated by DPSers is based on a false preconception that all DPSers are joining public queues to test their builds...which the graph itself can show, can't be the case with a peak at such low numbers.
Is it 100% accurate, no of course not, but dismissing it completely as biased, based on reasons that can be refuted by simply looking at the graph even, makes ZERO sense. Hell, if anything the majority would probably be even at a much lower DPS value.
Fact is, that the peak is at a very low end, too low for most elites to have a guaranteed success.
Oh dear, you're doing it again with loaded questions and complex questions...
I never said ONLY, or even 'mostly'. I said 'is more likely to be a DPSChaser'. So you're trying to disprove (or more accurately, you're 'simply arguing against') something I never actually said.
As I said with the language example and Reykjavik. Chances are, most people in Reykjavik are going to be speaking Icelandic. But it's also the capitol, so there are also going to be tourists from the world over. But the majority, most likely going to be Icelandic and speakers of Icelandic.
Is EVERY player in ISA going to be a DPSer? No. Statistically though, given that ISA is widely acknowledged as the DPS test-track, it's certainly reasonable that the people running it are indeed there to measure their DPS against the acknowledged standard. It's certainly a more plausible statement that, 'someone is running ISA as a DOS test/for sh*ts and gigs with friends', than, 'someone running it to get any rewards' (because as has already been pointed out, people after rewards and marks farm the Red Alerts, and the people running the other queues like ISA, aren't (running it for the marks)
But none of that actually matters, or disproves what coldnapalm initially said (and which I repeated):
That to get an idea of average player DPS, the parses are going to have to be run on multiple maps across the game, rather than just looking at one map in isolation, and pretending that that constitutes an average.
Is there an average for ISA? Sure. That doesn't make it the average for the game, or the average of the average player. That figure, could only be ascertained by a much wider sampling and observation across the game and playerbase
PS: Oh, and just because there were players on the graph doing below the threshold for a seat at the Cool Kidz Table, all that means, is that they were contributing very little DPS to the instance. Perhaps they were AFKing the map, letting the team carry them, and just hitting BFAW enough times when close to something to make it look like they were making the effort to participate. Who knows. Who cares. It's an irrelevant factor, which doesn't influence the primary point coldnapalm was making, about a wider sample being needed than just parses of one map.
*ExtraForTheEditMonster
It is not just that there were players below the threshold, THEY ARE THE MAJORITY ON THAT GRAPH! Which means your assumption and argument that the graph is diluted by DPSers can be dismissed, since the vast majority of the people on that graph are below their threshold.
you are still coming up with a lot of "perhapses" just to refute the obvious presented by that graph, which is that the vast majority of the playerbase has just enough DPS to get through advanced and therefore is not even remotely capable of any elite content without extreme struggles.
the problem with parsing multiple maps is, that they don't pop that frequently...there are only 3-5 maps that pop frequently, and low and behold, they are the easy ones no matter the rewards actually. The whole BORG stf set is run pretty consistently by a big portion of the population either as private or public, that is shown by simply joining the queue, which pop rather frequently, or at least have no "n/a" at the end. It literally has nothing to do with rewards, or DPS benchmarking...
Sample statistics are relevant, somehow you and Coldnapalm dismiss them as inherently inaccurate (without giving a reason btw, other than "I think so")
If they were inaccurate, any statistics intitute would have severy credibility problems, just saying.
The fact that the graph shows the vast majority of players at the low end refutes your counter argument...if your argument was true, and DPSers would make up the majority of the ISA population, the graph would have its peak at around 10-40k, since that is what the DPS channels are set around...yet the grap shows the peak at 8-20k only, hence prooving that the majority of recorded players are within that range...not really the DPS crowd I know.
I assume, that the actual playerbase...of which many don't even join any group content regularely, is even below that, below 10k. Can't really measure that anyway, unless your are Cryptic...But those people are irrelevant for that statistic anyway, since they do not join group content and therefore their preformance is irrelevant.
Since my last answer to coldnapalm seems to have been eaten by the forum, and I have no intention to rewrite it, I just want to point out that everything coldnapalm uses to discredit the graph presented in this thread is actually refuted by the graph itself.
How could it be that the graph shows a very high population of low dpsers, if what he claims is only a samplesize out of mostly DPSers? If the data was really mostly from runs with 5 out of 5 high dps players, why does it show that most players are below the DPS channel thrashold?
Perhaps there were people in that instance who were being carried, rather than carrying their own water... Trying to discredit the observation, fails, because it's a valid one: The graph's a flawed sample, because it was taken in an instance used primarily by DPSers. Anyone who knows a mission inside out, and who can hit each checkpoint and target on autopilot, is going to achieve a better score than someone who isn't so familiar with it, and, everyone attempting said instance, is more likely to be a DPSChaser, so the use of ISA as a benchmark instance, is flawed. As coldnapalm said, to get accurate views of DPS output across the playerbase, parses need to be run in many different instances, such as Red Alerts, Deep Space Encounters, even just in regular solo mission replays (my personal favorite to run as a 'test mission', is Stranded in Space. For pure ground, I would suggest Facility 4028) That would give a broader sample size, with a variety of results, and give a more accurate view as to 'player averages'
Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide
Your analoge does not fit...if your guess about people being carried were true those people would make up the majority of people in that graph, by a huge factor. Hardly likely. The graph clearly shows that most people are around 15k dps (that's where it peaks)
If it were only people from the DPS channel, then why are there so many people around that kind of DPS...a graph with only members from those channels would have a peak somewhere around 30k dps (probably way more even), because you can't really join them if your build is far below that.
How can an instance be primarely be used by DPSers, when the graph clearly shows that most people are far below the treshold of those channels?
Statistics don't really work the way you and coldnapalm describe them...
One instance can very much be a representative sample size...it is called a sample. The problems you guys have is, that it contradicts your preconceptions.
"Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide "
let me explain to you why this analogy is utter BS. You assume, that ONLY (or mostly) DPSers play the ISA queue...which is proovably wrong, since the post with the graph clearly states, those are all uploads combined pugs and private queues. Were it only private queues (or setup in any way), the numbers around the 40k mark would probably be the peak (since much more high DPS people would be present in each game), but we see the peak at ONLY 15k. This is evident simply by looking at the peak at the lower end of the DPS scale. SO the assumption that ISA is mainly populated by DPSers is based on a false preconception that all DPSers are joining public queues to test their builds...which the graph itself can show, can't be the case with a peak at such low numbers.
Is it 100% accurate, no of course not, but dismissing it completely as biased, based on reasons that can be refuted by simply looking at the graph even, makes ZERO sense. Hell, if anything the majority would probably be even at a much lower DPS value.
Fact is, that the peak is at a very low end, too low for most elites to have a guaranteed success.
Oh dear, you're doing it again with loaded questions and complex questions...
I never said ONLY, or even 'mostly'. I said 'is more likely to be a DPSChaser'. So you're trying to disprove (or more accurately, you're 'simply arguing against') something I never actually said.
As I said with the language example and Reykjavik. Chances are, most people in Reykjavik are going to be speaking Icelandic. But it's also the capitol, so there are also going to be tourists from the world over. But the majority, most likely going to be Icelandic and speakers of Icelandic.
Is EVERY player in ISA going to be a DPSer? No. Statistically though, given that ISA is widely acknowledged as the DPS test-track, it's certainly reasonable that the people running it are indeed there to measure their DPS against the acknowledged standard. It's certainly a more plausible statement that, 'someone is running ISA as a DOS test/for sh*ts and gigs with friends', than, 'someone running it to get any rewards' (because as has already been pointed out, people after rewards and marks farm the Red Alerts, and the people running the other queues like ISA, aren't (running it for the marks)
But none of that actually matters, or disproves what coldnapalm initially said (and which I repeated):
That to get an idea of average player DPS, the parses are going to have to be run on multiple maps across the game, rather than just looking at one map in isolation, and pretending that that constitutes an average.
Is there an average for ISA? Sure. That doesn't make it the average for the game, or the average of the average player. That figure, could only be ascertained by a much wider sampling and observation across the game and playerbase
PS: Oh, and just because there were players on the graph doing below the threshold for a seat at the Cool Kidz Table, all that means, is that they were contributing very little DPS to the instance. Perhaps they were AFKing the map, letting the team carry them, and just hitting BFAW enough times when close to something to make it look like they were making the effort to participate. Who knows. Who cares. It's an irrelevant factor, which doesn't influence the primary point coldnapalm was making, about a wider sample being needed than just parses of one map.
*ExtraForTheEditMonster
It is not just that there were players below the threshold, THEY ARE THE MAJORITY ON THAT GRAPH! Which means your assumption and argument that the graph is diluted by DPSers can be dismissed, since the vast majority of the people on that graph are below their threshold.
you are still coming up with a lot of "perhapses" just to refute the obvious presented by that graph, which is that the vast majority of the playerbase has just enough DPS to get through advanced and therefore is not even remotely capable of any elite content without extreme struggles.
the problem with parsing multiple maps is, that they don't pop that frequently...there are only 3-5 maps that pop frequently, and low and behold, they are the easy ones no matter the rewards actually. The whole BORG stf set is run pretty consistently by a big portion of the population either as private or public, that is shown by simply joining the queue, which pop rather frequently, or at least have no "n/a" at the end. It literally has nothing to do with rewards, or DPS benchmarking...
Sample statistics are relevant, somehow you and Coldnapalm dismiss them as inherently inaccurate (without giving a reason btw, other than "I think so")
If they were inaccurate, any statistics intitute would have severy credibility problems, just saying.
The fact that the graph shows the vast majority of players at the low end refutes your counter argument...if your argument was true, and DPSers would make up the majority of the ISA population, the graph would have its peak at around 10-40k, since that is what the DPS channels are set around...yet the grap shows the peak at 8-20k only, hence prooving that the majority of recorded players are within that range...not really the DPS crowd I know.
I assume, that the actual playerbase...of which many don't even join any group content regularely, is even below that, below 10k. Can't really measure that anyway, unless your are Cryptic...But those people are irrelevant for that statistic anyway, since they do not join group content and therefore their preformance is irrelevant.
Do you deny that a larger, more varied sampling, is going to provide a more accurate average? Y/N
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Since my last answer to coldnapalm seems to have been eaten by the forum, and I have no intention to rewrite it, I just want to point out that everything coldnapalm uses to discredit the graph presented in this thread is actually refuted by the graph itself.
How could it be that the graph shows a very high population of low dpsers, if what he claims is only a samplesize out of mostly DPSers? If the data was really mostly from runs with 5 out of 5 high dps players, why does it show that most players are below the DPS channel thrashold?
Perhaps there were people in that instance who were being carried, rather than carrying their own water... Trying to discredit the observation, fails, because it's a valid one: The graph's a flawed sample, because it was taken in an instance used primarily by DPSers. Anyone who knows a mission inside out, and who can hit each checkpoint and target on autopilot, is going to achieve a better score than someone who isn't so familiar with it, and, everyone attempting said instance, is more likely to be a DPSChaser, so the use of ISA as a benchmark instance, is flawed. As coldnapalm said, to get accurate views of DPS output across the playerbase, parses need to be run in many different instances, such as Red Alerts, Deep Space Encounters, even just in regular solo mission replays (my personal favorite to run as a 'test mission', is Stranded in Space. For pure ground, I would suggest Facility 4028) That would give a broader sample size, with a variety of results, and give a more accurate view as to 'player averages'
Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide
Your analoge does not fit...if your guess about people being carried were true those people would make up the majority of people in that graph, by a huge factor. Hardly likely. The graph clearly shows that most people are around 15k dps (that's where it peaks)
If it were only people from the DPS channel, then why are there so many people around that kind of DPS...a graph with only members from those channels would have a peak somewhere around 30k dps (probably way more even), because you can't really join them if your build is far below that.
How can an instance be primarely be used by DPSers, when the graph clearly shows that most people are far below the treshold of those channels?
Statistics don't really work the way you and coldnapalm describe them...
One instance can very much be a representative sample size...it is called a sample. The problems you guys have is, that it contradicts your preconceptions.
"Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide "
let me explain to you why this analogy is utter BS. You assume, that ONLY (or mostly) DPSers play the ISA queue...which is proovably wrong, since the post with the graph clearly states, those are all uploads combined pugs and private queues. Were it only private queues (or setup in any way), the numbers around the 40k mark would probably be the peak (since much more high DPS people would be present in each game), but we see the peak at ONLY 15k. This is evident simply by looking at the peak at the lower end of the DPS scale. SO the assumption that ISA is mainly populated by DPSers is based on a false preconception that all DPSers are joining public queues to test their builds...which the graph itself can show, can't be the case with a peak at such low numbers.
Is it 100% accurate, no of course not, but dismissing it completely as biased, based on reasons that can be refuted by simply looking at the graph even, makes ZERO sense. Hell, if anything the majority would probably be even at a much lower DPS value.
Fact is, that the peak is at a very low end, too low for most elites to have a guaranteed success.
Oh dear, you're doing it again with loaded questions and complex questions...
I never said ONLY, or even 'mostly'. I said 'is more likely to be a DPSChaser'. So you're trying to disprove (or more accurately, you're 'simply arguing against') something I never actually said.
As I said with the language example and Reykjavik. Chances are, most people in Reykjavik are going to be speaking Icelandic. But it's also the capitol, so there are also going to be tourists from the world over. But the majority, most likely going to be Icelandic and speakers of Icelandic.
Is EVERY player in ISA going to be a DPSer? No. Statistically though, given that ISA is widely acknowledged as the DPS test-track, it's certainly reasonable that the people running it are indeed there to measure their DPS against the acknowledged standard. It's certainly a more plausible statement that, 'someone is running ISA as a DOS test/for sh*ts and gigs with friends', than, 'someone running it to get any rewards' (because as has already been pointed out, people after rewards and marks farm the Red Alerts, and the people running the other queues like ISA, aren't (running it for the marks)
But none of that actually matters, or disproves what coldnapalm initially said (and which I repeated):
That to get an idea of average player DPS, the parses are going to have to be run on multiple maps across the game, rather than just looking at one map in isolation, and pretending that that constitutes an average.
Is there an average for ISA? Sure. That doesn't make it the average for the game, or the average of the average player. That figure, could only be ascertained by a much wider sampling and observation across the game and playerbase
PS: Oh, and just because there were players on the graph doing below the threshold for a seat at the Cool Kidz Table, all that means, is that they were contributing very little DPS to the instance. Perhaps they were AFKing the map, letting the team carry them, and just hitting BFAW enough times when close to something to make it look like they were making the effort to participate. Who knows. Who cares. It's an irrelevant factor, which doesn't influence the primary point coldnapalm was making, about a wider sample being needed than just parses of one map.
*ExtraForTheEditMonster
It is not just that there were players below the threshold, THEY ARE THE MAJORITY ON THAT GRAPH! Which means your assumption and argument that the graph is diluted by DPSers can be dismissed, since the vast majority of the people on that graph are below their threshold.
you are still coming up with a lot of "perhapses" just to refute the obvious presented by that graph, which is that the vast majority of the playerbase has just enough DPS to get through advanced and therefore is not even remotely capable of any elite content without extreme struggles.
the problem with parsing multiple maps is, that they don't pop that frequently...there are only 3-5 maps that pop frequently, and low and behold, they are the easy ones no matter the rewards actually. The whole BORG stf set is run pretty consistently by a big portion of the population either as private or public, that is shown by simply joining the queue, which pop rather frequently, or at least have no "n/a" at the end. It literally has nothing to do with rewards, or DPS benchmarking...
Sample statistics are relevant, somehow you and Coldnapalm dismiss them as inherently inaccurate (without giving a reason btw, other than "I think so")
If they were inaccurate, any statistics intitute would have severy credibility problems, just saying.
The fact that the graph shows the vast majority of players at the low end refutes your counter argument...if your argument was true, and DPSers would make up the majority of the ISA population, the graph would have its peak at around 10-40k, since that is what the DPS channels are set around...yet the grap shows the peak at 8-20k only, hence prooving that the majority of recorded players are within that range...not really the DPS crowd I know.
I assume, that the actual playerbase...of which many don't even join any group content regularely, is even below that, below 10k. Can't really measure that anyway, unless your are Cryptic...But those people are irrelevant for that statistic anyway, since they do not join group content and therefore their preformance is irrelevant.
Do you deny that a larger, more varied sampling, is going to provide a more accurate average? Y/N
No, ofcourse not, a larger sample size will give you more accurate result, but that is not how statistics and sample sizes necessarely work...you can still very accurately make a statement by only looking at the data from the graph. In fact, samples are often the only measurement in statistical research and widely accepted to be accurate enough.
And my main problem with your refusal of the data, was that the graph clearly showed that the vast majority of people in that graph were far away from any optimized build or gameplay skill with less than 20k dps. That alone should have shown that the graph showed a pretty accurate picture of how the community at large is performing, which means that Elite queues is way out of their reach.
Also the dismissal that ISA is mostly populated by DPSers is also highly debateable, and not at all a fact. The queue at least is populated almost exclusively by random people, not even close to be considered a DPSer. I urge you to run the queue 10 times and count the people below 10k dps...they are the majority. After all, it is the queue that still pops after a few seconds even on a Sunday morning. Hard to buy that these people are all DPSers, checking their performance, yet are unable to get past 10k.
Also, why would the data from one of the most alive queues not count as a measurement of the community as a whole? The statement that this specific queue is mostly populated by a specific sub group of the community is just fabricated and is demonstrably wrong, by only looking at the very graph, as I already tried to explain 2 times.
Doing 10 runs of said queue will conclusively show you, that DPSers are not even close to the main group running this queue on a regular basis, and that the population of ISA queue is rather diverse.
Another reason why the queue is a pretty good representation and can deliver accurate measurements is, that it is one of the or even the most played instance in STO over all those years.
So a measurement from this queue is relevant...how accurate it is, is debateable...but since it clearly shows a trend towards the lower end of the DPS scale, the result can't be dismissed by the claims brought up so far, since those claims would mean that there would be a shift into a much higher bracket of DPS among the community.
Since my last answer to coldnapalm seems to have been eaten by the forum, and I have no intention to rewrite it, I just want to point out that everything coldnapalm uses to discredit the graph presented in this thread is actually refuted by the graph itself.
How could it be that the graph shows a very high population of low dpsers, if what he claims is only a samplesize out of mostly DPSers? If the data was really mostly from runs with 5 out of 5 high dps players, why does it show that most players are below the DPS channel thrashold?
Perhaps there were people in that instance who were being carried, rather than carrying their own water... Trying to discredit the observation, fails, because it's a valid one: The graph's a flawed sample, because it was taken in an instance used primarily by DPSers. Anyone who knows a mission inside out, and who can hit each checkpoint and target on autopilot, is going to achieve a better score than someone who isn't so familiar with it, and, everyone attempting said instance, is more likely to be a DPSChaser, so the use of ISA as a benchmark instance, is flawed. As coldnapalm said, to get accurate views of DPS output across the playerbase, parses need to be run in many different instances, such as Red Alerts, Deep Space Encounters, even just in regular solo mission replays (my personal favorite to run as a 'test mission', is Stranded in Space. For pure ground, I would suggest Facility 4028) That would give a broader sample size, with a variety of results, and give a more accurate view as to 'player averages'
Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide
Your analoge does not fit...if your guess about people being carried were true those people would make up the majority of people in that graph, by a huge factor. Hardly likely. The graph clearly shows that most people are around 15k dps (that's where it peaks)
If it were only people from the DPS channel, then why are there so many people around that kind of DPS...a graph with only members from those channels would have a peak somewhere around 30k dps (probably way more even), because you can't really join them if your build is far below that.
How can an instance be primarely be used by DPSers, when the graph clearly shows that most people are far below the treshold of those channels?
Statistics don't really work the way you and coldnapalm describe them...
One instance can very much be a representative sample size...it is called a sample. The problems you guys have is, that it contradicts your preconceptions.
"Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide "
let me explain to you why this analogy is utter BS. You assume, that ONLY (or mostly) DPSers play the ISA queue...which is proovably wrong, since the post with the graph clearly states, those are all uploads combined pugs and private queues. Were it only private queues (or setup in any way), the numbers around the 40k mark would probably be the peak (since much more high DPS people would be present in each game), but we see the peak at ONLY 15k. This is evident simply by looking at the peak at the lower end of the DPS scale. SO the assumption that ISA is mainly populated by DPSers is based on a false preconception that all DPSers are joining public queues to test their builds...which the graph itself can show, can't be the case with a peak at such low numbers.
Is it 100% accurate, no of course not, but dismissing it completely as biased, based on reasons that can be refuted by simply looking at the graph even, makes ZERO sense. Hell, if anything the majority would probably be even at a much lower DPS value.
Fact is, that the peak is at a very low end, too low for most elites to have a guaranteed success.
Oh dear, you're doing it again with loaded questions and complex questions...
I never said ONLY, or even 'mostly'. I said 'is more likely to be a DPSChaser'. So you're trying to disprove (or more accurately, you're 'simply arguing against') something I never actually said.
As I said with the language example and Reykjavik. Chances are, most people in Reykjavik are going to be speaking Icelandic. But it's also the capitol, so there are also going to be tourists from the world over. But the majority, most likely going to be Icelandic and speakers of Icelandic.
Is EVERY player in ISA going to be a DPSer? No. Statistically though, given that ISA is widely acknowledged as the DPS test-track, it's certainly reasonable that the people running it are indeed there to measure their DPS against the acknowledged standard. It's certainly a more plausible statement that, 'someone is running ISA as a DOS test/for sh*ts and gigs with friends', than, 'someone running it to get any rewards' (because as has already been pointed out, people after rewards and marks farm the Red Alerts, and the people running the other queues like ISA, aren't (running it for the marks)
But none of that actually matters, or disproves what coldnapalm initially said (and which I repeated):
That to get an idea of average player DPS, the parses are going to have to be run on multiple maps across the game, rather than just looking at one map in isolation, and pretending that that constitutes an average.
Is there an average for ISA? Sure. That doesn't make it the average for the game, or the average of the average player. That figure, could only be ascertained by a much wider sampling and observation across the game and playerbase
PS: Oh, and just because there were players on the graph doing below the threshold for a seat at the Cool Kidz Table, all that means, is that they were contributing very little DPS to the instance. Perhaps they were AFKing the map, letting the team carry them, and just hitting BFAW enough times when close to something to make it look like they were making the effort to participate. Who knows. Who cares. It's an irrelevant factor, which doesn't influence the primary point coldnapalm was making, about a wider sample being needed than just parses of one map.
*ExtraForTheEditMonster
It is not just that there were players below the threshold, THEY ARE THE MAJORITY ON THAT GRAPH! Which means your assumption and argument that the graph is diluted by DPSers can be dismissed, since the vast majority of the people on that graph are below their threshold.
you are still coming up with a lot of "perhapses" just to refute the obvious presented by that graph, which is that the vast majority of the playerbase has just enough DPS to get through advanced and therefore is not even remotely capable of any elite content without extreme struggles.
the problem with parsing multiple maps is, that they don't pop that frequently...there are only 3-5 maps that pop frequently, and low and behold, they are the easy ones no matter the rewards actually. The whole BORG stf set is run pretty consistently by a big portion of the population either as private or public, that is shown by simply joining the queue, which pop rather frequently, or at least have no "n/a" at the end. It literally has nothing to do with rewards, or DPS benchmarking...
Sample statistics are relevant, somehow you and Coldnapalm dismiss them as inherently inaccurate (without giving a reason btw, other than "I think so")
If they were inaccurate, any statistics intitute would have severy credibility problems, just saying.
The fact that the graph shows the vast majority of players at the low end refutes your counter argument...if your argument was true, and DPSers would make up the majority of the ISA population, the graph would have its peak at around 10-40k, since that is what the DPS channels are set around...yet the grap shows the peak at 8-20k only, hence prooving that the majority of recorded players are within that range...not really the DPS crowd I know.
I assume, that the actual playerbase...of which many don't even join any group content regularely, is even below that, below 10k. Can't really measure that anyway, unless your are Cryptic...But those people are irrelevant for that statistic anyway, since they do not join group content and therefore their preformance is irrelevant.
Do you deny that a larger, more varied sampling, is going to provide a more accurate average? Y/N
No, ofcourse not, a larger sample size will give you more accurate result
That's all that needed to be said
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
[...]
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Not in the least. As I said somewhere in here, I don't come for the battles. I come to have fun and battles are a part of that which is unavoidable. [...]
STO is a combat game. What else is there that means fun to you? Seriously the space barbie?
I refer you to the screenshoots I posted on Pg 4...
Just to clarify, Space Barbie isn't just about the characters...
Post edited by silverlobes#2676 on
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
[...]
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Not in the least. As I said somewhere in here, I don't come for the battles. I come to have fun and battles are a part of that which is unavoidable. [...]
STO is a combat game. What else is there that means fun to you? Seriously the space barbie?
Combat is a big part of STO. I wouldn't call it a combat game, though. There are plenty of action games that feed the need for some to have near-constant combat. There's a lot of role play potential in this game, and managing assets (like DOffs and such). I enjoy a non-combat mission just as much as a combat one, and there are some non-combat missions in the game.
[...]
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Not in the least. As I said somewhere in here, I don't come for the battles. I come to have fun and battles are a part of that which is unavoidable. [...]
STO is a combat game. What else is there that means fun to you? Seriously the space barbie?
Combat is a big part of STO. I wouldn't call it a combat game, though. There are plenty of action games that feed the need for some to have near-constant combat. There's a lot of role play potential in this game, and managing assets (like DOffs and such). I enjoy a non-combat mission just as much as a combat one, and there are some non-combat missions in the game.
I'd recommend pen&paper RPG for that.
I would suggest that STO is better designed for someone like me than someone like you. If grinding raids for gear is your thing, there are many games that do it much better. STO is my current favorite game. There's more than enough content to keep me busy without ever touching raids or PvP.
[...]
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Not in the least. As I said somewhere in here, I don't come for the battles. I come to have fun and battles are a part of that which is unavoidable. [...]
STO is a combat game. What else is there that means fun to you? Seriously the space barbie?
Combat is a big part of STO. I wouldn't call it a combat game, though. There are plenty of action games that feed the need for some to have near-constant combat. There's a lot of role play potential in this game, and managing assets (like DOffs and such). I enjoy a non-combat mission just as much as a combat one, and there are some non-combat missions in the game.
I'd recommend pen&paper RPG for that.
And why can't somebody do both? I know I do. Also many P&P RPG are more combat intensive and have better combat system than STO. So once again...not really. Just because people don't have the same priorities than you have in this game does not mean they are doing it wrong. At least until they start to demand that you change to suit them. I know I don't like it when a leecher comes on here and demands that the DPS people do less damage or the AFK system gets changed so they don't get AFKed...and you are doing the exact same thing by demanding that people not interested in DPS to DPS or they are doing it wrong. ASKING for bodied in elite queues so they pop is one thing...but you are crossing the line of demanding that people play your way or they are wrong. Once again...no, just no.
This. There is plenty to do to keep me occupied rather than joining some elite queue that I would not find fun at all. To say that Space Barbie is wrong is a joke. It may be wrong for you, but plenty of others love it. And so do I. Many come on to RP, there are even fleets whose sole purpose is to run RPs. There's one going on right now that a friend of mine is in. Fleet called the Watchmen (KDF) run RPs every Saturday around now. I would join them but I don't have my desktop right now, only an inferior laptop that only lets me do my Winter Event Fastest Game on Ice for the Breen ship.
Stop telling people they're wrong for not playing like you play and just do what makes you happy.
It's like a knitter coming up to me to say I was knitting wrong because I'm not knitting just like s/he does.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
You might not have said it was 'wrong' in those exact words, but you most definitely were scorning Space Barbie. Thus suggesting it wasn't a valid reason for someone to want to play the game. If that's your opinion, fine, but there's no need to be disingenuous about it...
I'm not an RPer, but if it wasn't for Space Barbie, I wouldn't've even wanted to play the game. The customization, the ability to have my own crew and ship just as I wanted, was what made me want to play
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
[...]I play STO because I want to have fun, not constantly respawn because my ship isn't geared for elite queues (and I can't be bothered to even try to gear it, even IF I had the means, which I don't).
I prefer to run some RAs when I need marks. They're more fun and I don't 'die' as much, if at all. I also enjoy the battlezones once in awhile.
And it doesn't bother you that the opponents in Advanced just melt away, and on Normal are basically just target practice?
Not in the least. As I said somewhere in here, I don't come for the battles. I come to have fun and battles are a part of that which is unavoidable. Therefore I want them to go away as quickly as possible. Which means Normal for most playing.
If your fun is to test how much you can take or dish out, that's fine for you. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to escape the real world for awhile and just have fun with one of my captains. If that means I'm mostly target practicing, then okay.
This! Omg so much this!
Thank you By the way, I enjoy reading your posts, they can be very informative.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
I explicitly said it is part of the game. But throwing away the one thing that is arguably where most of STO's code execution happens, most of the development effort gets put into and most of the game activity is geared towards, which is combat, that just means you are not playing the game.
Which, yes, is perfectly fine, but a waste.
Besides, playing the role of a starship captain will involve managing and improving the ship for all its tasks, including combat.
And I do improve my ship where I am able to. I do play the story when I feel like it. There are many ways to play this game and any number of games. I most certainly AM playing the game even when I'm not involved in combat. However I have nothing to 'prove' to you, so I won't go into any explanations of what I do when I log onto the game. Every time anyone logs onto STO, they are most certainly 'playing' the game. That they're not involving themselves in combat in no way diminishes the fact that they are still 'playing the game'.
Only you see any other aspect of the game except for combat as a waste. Which is also perfectly fine for you. I do not see it that way and both of us are right when it comes to the way that *WE* choose to play our games. There is no right or wrong way to play any game, in my opinion.
That is the beauty of this one. I can play it my way and be just as 'right' in how I play it as you are whenever you log on.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
Comments
Your analoge does not fit...if your guess about people being carried were true those people would make up the majority of people in that graph, by a huge factor. Hardly likely. The graph clearly shows that most people are around 15k dps (that's where it peaks)
If it were only people from the DPS channel, then why are there so many people around that kind of DPS...a graph with only members from those channels would have a peak somewhere around 30k dps (probably way more even), because you can't really join them if your build is far below that.
How can an instance be primarely be used by DPSers, when the graph clearly shows that most people are far below the treshold of those channels?
Statistics don't really work the way you and coldnapalm describe them...
One instance can very much be a representative sample size...it is called a sample. The problems you guys have is, that it contradicts your preconceptions.
"Sit someone in the middle of Reykjavik, with a questionaire of what language people speak as their first language, and no prizes for guessing what most people there qould be speaking as their first language. Does that mean everyone worldwide speaks Icelandic. Of course not. What it does mean, is that the sample used is biased in one direction, and so not an overall representation of language spoken worldwide
let me explain to you why this analogy is utter BS. You assume, that ONLY (or mostly) DPSers play the ISA queue...which is proovably wrong, since the post with the graph clearly states, those are all uploads combined pugs and private queues. Were it only private queues (or setup in any way), the numbers around the 40k mark would probably be the peak (since much more high DPS people would be present in each game), but we see the peak at ONLY 15k. This is evident simply by looking at the peak at the lower end of the DPS scale. SO the assumption that ISA is mainly populated by DPSers is based on a false preconception that all DPSers are joining public queues to test their builds...which the graph itself can show, can't be the case with a peak at such low numbers.
Is it 100% accurate, no of course not, but dismissing it completely as biased, based on reasons that can be refuted by simply looking at the graph even, makes ZERO sense. Hell, if anything the majority would probably be even at a much lower DPS value.
Fact is, that the peak is at a very low end, too low for most elites to have a guaranteed success.
This. A 2 hour AFK penalty for not quite getting there in time is no good. I'll be passing on that endeavour in future, bad lag and less than spectacular hardware at my end are not conducive to productive queuing, at least in CCA or even normal.
With regards to gear, as long as the overall build is solid the actual mark numbers of the gear making it up barely matter for advanced. Besides if John Rambo 30K edition is annihilating everything in a matter of seconds it hardly matters.
I never said ONLY, or even 'mostly'. I said 'is more likely to be a DPSChaser'. So you're trying to disprove (or more accurately, you're 'simply arguing against') something I never actually said.
As I said with the language example and Reykjavik. Chances are, most people in Reykjavik are going to be speaking Icelandic. But it's also the capitol, so there are also going to be tourists from the world over. But the majority, most likely going to be Icelandic and speakers of Icelandic.
Is EVERY player in ISA going to be a DPSer? No. Statistically though, given that ISA is widely acknowledged as the DPS test-track, it's certainly reasonable that the people running it are indeed there to measure their DPS against the acknowledged standard. It's certainly a more plausible statement that, 'someone is running ISA as a DOS test/for sh*ts and gigs with friends', than, 'someone running it to get any rewards' (because as has already been pointed out, people after rewards and marks farm the Red Alerts, and the people running the other queues like ISA, aren't (running it for the marks)
But none of that actually matters, or disproves what coldnapalm initially said (and which I repeated):
That to get an idea of average player DPS, the parses are going to have to be run on multiple maps across the game, rather than just looking at one map in isolation, and pretending that that constitutes an average.
Is there an average for ISA? Sure. That doesn't make it the average for the game, or the average of the average player. That figure, could only be ascertained by a much wider sampling and observation across the game and playerbase
PS: Oh, and just because there were players on the graph doing below the threshold for a seat at the Cool Kidz Table, all that means, is that they were contributing very little DPS to the instance. Perhaps they were AFKing the map, letting the team carry them, and just hitting BFAW enough times when close to something to make it look like they were making the effort to participate. Who knows. Who cares. It's an irrelevant factor, which doesn't influence the primary point coldnapalm was making, about a wider sample being needed than just parses of one map.
*ExtraForTheEditMonster
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Not in the least. As I said somewhere in here, I don't come for the battles. I come to have fun and battles are a part of that which is unavoidable. Therefore I want them to go away as quickly as possible. Which means Normal for most playing.
If your fun is to test how much you can take or dish out, that's fine for you. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to escape the real world for awhile and just have fun with one of my captains. If that means I'm mostly target practicing, then okay.
Well, he tried to shame. I didn't bite it. I'm proud of the way I play MY STO. That's what I love about it, each player can play however they want and it won't affect everyone else.
Exactly! While my *favorite* toons have mkXIV VR, UR or Epic equipment, they still only pull an average of just over 10k. And I'm good with that. I'm not here to show everyone else how big my epeen is, I just come here to escape and have fun. Sometimes I don't even play any missions/queues/RAs or DSEs, I simply craft or go play on Nimbus for some dil or go mining.
Well prior to Season 14 I use to average about 35-42k among my 7 different toons in Space. Now realize 7 of my 8 characters 3 are ENG and 4 are SCI with only 1 TAC, I've always loved Engineers and Science Captains more but that's me.
Now even in DPSLEAGUE (Space) the top 5 TAC in ISA scored 259k and the lowest of the top 5 was 219k; while a SCI toon did earn 261k possibly lucky Critical, the 2nd quickly dropped to 169k with ENG being 164k if memory serves. So SCI/ENG quickly have their 2nd, 3rd or 4th and 5th values drop significantly lower than most TAC captain down to as low as 134k with an average of about 170k for SCI/ENG while the lowest any of the TAC Top 5 got no less than 219k. So most TAC captain's even after Season 14 still easily do almost 50% more damage than most SCI/ENG.
So I'm clearly in the respectable DPS range but no where close to the DPS monster like some achieve getting upwards of 134k - 270k. But being realistic the values showing many in the 134k - 270k often won't occur in a PUG either as each specialization and captain's abilities are closely monitored to maximize buff/debuff effects and coordinated or well planned out who does what - when or after whom.
Still, while you doing Mirror Advanced during the event, the amount of enemies spawn can quickly overrun you, and damage they can put out given often being outnumbered 10-15x to 1. Now realize when in PUG people don't know everyone specializations, abilities, training or how to maximize buff/debuff and few hardly make the effort to coordinate or work as a team like someone else said above - stating he had 1 or 2 players doing 3-4k DPS and they were not being very helpful or reading or watching team chat.
Also realize, there is many ADV Space Queues that are made a lot harder the last 2-3 years; they often 'can' do good damage but also 'can' greatly outnumber you, all while having 5x-50x or more the Hitpoints you have just in an Advanced Queue. Anyone doing Omega ADV will see the Borg Cube with likely 6.5m Hitpoints or Donata's Scimitar also having a crazy amount; even the little tiny Borg Sphere's have almost +600k Hitpoints each while players have but 92k-125k depending on class. You go to Elite Space missions and you see the Hitpoints for most Enemy exceed 1m Hitpoints and bigger bosses having 10's of Millions of Hitpoints.
Just click one then right click and hit INFO to find out.
It is not just that there were players below the threshold, THEY ARE THE MAJORITY ON THAT GRAPH! Which means your assumption and argument that the graph is diluted by DPSers can be dismissed, since the vast majority of the people on that graph are below their threshold.
you are still coming up with a lot of "perhapses" just to refute the obvious presented by that graph, which is that the vast majority of the playerbase has just enough DPS to get through advanced and therefore is not even remotely capable of any elite content without extreme struggles.
the problem with parsing multiple maps is, that they don't pop that frequently...there are only 3-5 maps that pop frequently, and low and behold, they are the easy ones no matter the rewards actually. The whole BORG stf set is run pretty consistently by a big portion of the population either as private or public, that is shown by simply joining the queue, which pop rather frequently, or at least have no "n/a" at the end. It literally has nothing to do with rewards, or DPS benchmarking...
Sample statistics are relevant, somehow you and Coldnapalm dismiss them as inherently inaccurate (without giving a reason btw, other than "I think so")
If they were inaccurate, any statistics intitute would have severy credibility problems, just saying.
The fact that the graph shows the vast majority of players at the low end refutes your counter argument...if your argument was true, and DPSers would make up the majority of the ISA population, the graph would have its peak at around 10-40k, since that is what the DPS channels are set around...yet the grap shows the peak at 8-20k only, hence prooving that the majority of recorded players are within that range...not really the DPS crowd I know.
I assume, that the actual playerbase...of which many don't even join any group content regularely, is even below that, below 10k. Can't really measure that anyway, unless your are Cryptic...But those people are irrelevant for that statistic anyway, since they do not join group content and therefore their preformance is irrelevant.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
No, ofcourse not, a larger sample size will give you more accurate result, but that is not how statistics and sample sizes necessarely work...you can still very accurately make a statement by only looking at the data from the graph. In fact, samples are often the only measurement in statistical research and widely accepted to be accurate enough.
And my main problem with your refusal of the data, was that the graph clearly showed that the vast majority of people in that graph were far away from any optimized build or gameplay skill with less than 20k dps. That alone should have shown that the graph showed a pretty accurate picture of how the community at large is performing, which means that Elite queues is way out of their reach.
Also the dismissal that ISA is mostly populated by DPSers is also highly debateable, and not at all a fact. The queue at least is populated almost exclusively by random people, not even close to be considered a DPSer. I urge you to run the queue 10 times and count the people below 10k dps...they are the majority. After all, it is the queue that still pops after a few seconds even on a Sunday morning. Hard to buy that these people are all DPSers, checking their performance, yet are unable to get past 10k.
Also, why would the data from one of the most alive queues not count as a measurement of the community as a whole? The statement that this specific queue is mostly populated by a specific sub group of the community is just fabricated and is demonstrably wrong, by only looking at the very graph, as I already tried to explain 2 times.
Doing 10 runs of said queue will conclusively show you, that DPSers are not even close to the main group running this queue on a regular basis, and that the population of ISA queue is rather diverse.
Another reason why the queue is a pretty good representation and can deliver accurate measurements is, that it is one of the or even the most played instance in STO over all those years.
So a measurement from this queue is relevant...how accurate it is, is debateable...but since it clearly shows a trend towards the lower end of the DPS scale, the result can't be dismissed by the claims brought up so far, since those claims would mean that there would be a shift into a much higher bracket of DPS among the community.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Just to clarify, Space Barbie isn't just about the characters...
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
What? you think its not elite? Try killing 100% of the snowmen while NOT getting frozen even once. :P
Well, yes, it's a winter event thing so it's not going to be as hard as a "real" elite, but it's not easy.
My character Tsin'xing
Combat is a big part of STO. I wouldn't call it a combat game, though. There are plenty of action games that feed the need for some to have near-constant combat. There's a lot of role play potential in this game, and managing assets (like DOffs and such). I enjoy a non-combat mission just as much as a combat one, and there are some non-combat missions in the game.
I would suggest that STO is better designed for someone like me than someone like you. If grinding raids for gear is your thing, there are many games that do it much better. STO is my current favorite game. There's more than enough content to keep me busy without ever touching raids or PvP.
This. There is plenty to do to keep me occupied rather than joining some elite queue that I would not find fun at all. To say that Space Barbie is wrong is a joke. It may be wrong for you, but plenty of others love it. And so do I. Many come on to RP, there are even fleets whose sole purpose is to run RPs. There's one going on right now that a friend of mine is in. Fleet called the Watchmen (KDF) run RPs every Saturday around now. I would join them but I don't have my desktop right now, only an inferior laptop that only lets me do my Winter Event Fastest Game on Ice for the Breen ship.
Stop telling people they're wrong for not playing like you play and just do what makes you happy.
It's like a knitter coming up to me to say I was knitting wrong because I'm not knitting just like s/he does.
I'm not an RPer, but if it wasn't for Space Barbie, I wouldn't've even wanted to play the game. The customization, the ability to have my own crew and ship just as I wanted, was what made me want to play
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Thank you
And I do improve my ship where I am able to. I do play the story when I feel like it. There are many ways to play this game and any number of games. I most certainly AM playing the game even when I'm not involved in combat. However I have nothing to 'prove' to you, so I won't go into any explanations of what I do when I log onto the game. Every time anyone logs onto STO, they are most certainly 'playing' the game. That they're not involving themselves in combat in no way diminishes the fact that they are still 'playing the game'.
Only you see any other aspect of the game except for combat as a waste. Which is also perfectly fine for you. I do not see it that way and both of us are right when it comes to the way that *WE* choose to play our games. There is no right or wrong way to play any game, in my opinion.
That is the beauty of this one. I can play it my way and be just as 'right' in how I play it as you are whenever you log on.