Devs are fooling us (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance



Message

shadow.bane -> Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 10:16:58)

quote:

Effective level system for Legendary Ranks has changed. This affects First Strike and Underdog calculations
Dev Note: This change should better reflect the fact that the higher Legendary Ranks are not as powerful as early Ranks, stopping the Underdog buff from penalizing higher Legendary players.


They said they will address first strike the last update which as they said they did but i saw no difference... Higher levels still starting first while am only level 30 matched up with only 33's and 34's who started 75 % of the time even with same support. You kidding me ??? Either am so unlucky or they haven't done a thing to first strike and fooled us in the design notes...



8x -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 10:25:39)

Maybe devs are fooling us, maybe you are fooling us. Neither of you gave us any actual numbers. (The "75%" that you just made up doesn't mean anything)



shadow.bane -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 13:24:48)

mad up ? explain to me then how did i start in 3 battles out of 11 versus level 33 - 34 ? why would i fool about this ? show some respect ^^



Digital X -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 13:41:18)

I suppose video proof would be the only other option?

I can say "Oh I started 0 times out of 10 as a level 30 vs 34 with higher support" and expect to be believed.

Has to be seen. Luck could be mentioned.. but that'd be a spanner in the works.



nowras -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 13:44:51)

They did increase the first turn chance. Someone who was a level 40 rank 5 started first with 74+33 support. My support was 117+35+6.



8x -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 14:24:00)

1. Nowhere in your first post did you mention that you performed 11 battles and started first in 3 of them. And just to be clear, that is 73% (if rounded up) of not going first. If you are trying to prove something, the least you can do is be precise, especially when it comes to something like this.
2. Saying "I started first in 3 out of 11 battles" means nothing. Each battle had its own conditions. Considering how tiny your sample size was, you could have provided levels and support for each of those battles.
3. "show some respect ^^" says the guy who made this post:
quote:


Title: Devs are fooling us

They said they will address first strike the last update which as they said they did but i saw no difference... Higher levels still starting first while am only level 30 matched up with only 33's and 34's who started 75 % of the time even with same support. You kidding me ??? Either am so unlucky or they haven't done a thing to first strike and fooled us in the design notes...

You receive as much respect as you give.



WhiteTiger -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 14:52:40)

A sample size of 11 is so small that any findings would be statistically meaningless. If you want a more statistically sound argument for "devs are fooling us", then you should battle at least 100 times against the same person, then compare the actual first strike results versus the theoretical first strike chances.



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 16:09:11)

What 8x and WhiteTiger said are both very accurate.

If you want to make a claim that it's not working, you will either need a ton of people all agreeing it is actually happening (which might still not be enough because of mob mentality and bias) or you'll need a video with an actual statistically significant sample size. We're not asking for a formal significance test or anything, but I would say at MINIMUM 100 recorded battles is an appropriate sample size, preferably more.



shadow.bane -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 16:58:50)

ill just say 1 thing and hope i be clear :)

1 battle or 10000 battles having first strike is important and a game changer i play a 45 + 10 + 6 support while others either go 35 + (number) or 40 + (number) or base support + (number) and i should know for a fact that i had the right to start all the way in those 11 matches due to the fact that my build is unique and rely on this little more support i have to win, i care if i lose and i care if i win so this simple feature is important to me they said they fixed it and i saw no change yet... the only thing i didn't mention is when support players start cause duh they have more support by tons. but as a level 30 with 45 + 10 + 6 support i honestly think that i should be the one starting in a match versus a level 34 with 40 + 11 support.
so my point is it does not matter 1 or 10000 battles all i see is that nothing has been changed.
i'll keep u posted if something comes up and i am sure i'll be recording during war to prove my point even more.



WhiteTiger -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 17:44:22)

We're not saying that starting first is only important when you battle at least 100 times, we're saying that your claims are baseless unless you have the statistical data from 100+ battles against the same build proving that there is a difference between the actual first strike chance and the theoretical first strike chance. It doesn't matter if you "feel" you should have gone first because unless your first strike chance is 100%, there will always be a chance that you don't go first. No matter how small that chance is, it could always happen and just because it happens more than once doesn't prove anything (take a stats course if you want to learn more about hypothesis testing).

There's always anomalies whenever you're dealing with chance and probabilities, so having a small sample size of 11 results in your data being more error prone than a larger sample size of 100. For example, yesterday I fought 2 battles in a row, used my auxiliary twice in both battles and ended up stunning my opponent with the 3% stun blast core in both of those battles. Using that small sample size of 4, you would wrongly conclude that the skill core is broken because the stun chance is 50% (2 stuns / 4 times used). However, I ended up doing approx. 30 more battles after that and my aux didn't stun at all in those battles, thus giving a much closer 3.125% stun chance (2 stuns / 64 times used).

Also, following the same instance above, the actual probability of my aux stunning in both those battles is 0.085% (3% * 97% * 3% * 97%), which is highly improbably to happen, but clearly not impossible since it did happen.



dfo99 -> RE: Devs are fooling us (1/7/2017 17:48:47)

pics, or didn't happens



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
9.179688E-02