Curse

Gift3d · Apr 01, 2009, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Every time i played a class other than monk i'd never get a monk.
Then when i decided okay, no monks are out today, i'll play monk i'd get usually 1-2 other monks almost every time. So i did some testing for laughs to see what the numbers came out to. I thought it was bad luck but i'm convinced, it's a systematic shitstorm.

Main Entry: ran·dom
Pronunciation:
\ˈran-dəm\
Function:
noun
: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method

Oh i'll put the bars i was running here since i know it'll be a gigantic issue. When i was doing this i was sure to play wiki bars so nobody could bitch and whine and everyone at guru could accept it.

[magehunter's smash][crushing blow][hammer bash][bull's strike][lion's comfort][flail][enraging charge][resurrection signet]

[visions of regret][backfire][wastrel's worry][empathy][cry of frustration][power drain][ether feast][resurrection signet]

[word of healing][patient spirit][guardian][dismiss condition][holy veil][signet of rejuvenation][shield bash][spotless mind]

[blinding surge][lightning bolt][enervating charge][glyph of lesser energy][rip enchantment][aura of restoration][air attunement][resurrection signet]

Killed u man · Apr 01, 2009, 08:49 PM // 20:49

I love the sig on that Monks bar.

Gift3d · Apr 01, 2009, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

I love the sig on that Monks bar.

i like signet of rejuvenation, too.

by the way this isnt an arrogant build criticism thread so if that's the only bullshit you can manage to spew just quit while you're ahead. sweet thanks.

Bloodseeker · Apr 01, 2009, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

I love the sig on that Monks bar.

I hope wiki didn't suggest to put a sig in it, you should maybe note you aren't referring to signet of Rejuv.

EDIT: on-topic: that same issue bothered me a while back as well, I think it deserves some more research

lutz · Apr 01, 2009, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Those are poorly thought-out bars. For the most part, Random Arena is more dependent on skill than ever, so if you're bad, chances are you won't win.

Gift3d · Apr 01, 2009, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

Those are poorly thought-out bars. For the most part, Random Arena is more dependent on skill than ever, so if you're bad, chances are you won't win.

Quote:

by the way this isnt an arrogant build criticism thread so if that's the only bullshit you can manage to spew just quit while you're ahead. sweet thanks.

Hi there big guy! Please take the time to read the above bolded quote very slowly, and very carefully. Use some reference websites if you must, my favorite is www.m-w.com! (Short for merriam-webster, the dictionary!

) Good luck and i hope you have a coherent future.

elypta · Apr 01, 2009, 09:23 PM // 21:23

I can completly see the OP's point

pls stop bitching about his builds, 1. its RA and 2. Its not the topic

besides tnx for re research been thinking of it a while and I come across it all the time..hmm aint getting a monk, I play one. Hmm hey now we are a 3 monk team Yeej!
It annoys me but not much you can do. Maybe enlarge the sample to have a better result, I hope so

Elypta

Bob Slydell · Apr 01, 2009, 09:23 PM // 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

Those are poorly thought-out bars. For the most part, Random Arena is more dependent on skill than ever, so if you're bad, chances are you won't win.

And that was a poorly though out post. Think about what you posted, then maybe edit it a bit. Random arenas.

Rofl. have a nice day.

NotJustAnothaNinja · Apr 01, 2009, 09:26 PM // 21:26

lmao Gifted i love you and your sarcasm + Arrogance (This is sincere, no sarcasm intended) And I've had the same problem. I would play many many matches non synced and i would hardly ever luckout and get a monk

Gift3d · Apr 01, 2009, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by elypta

I can completly see the OP's point

pls stop bitching about his builds, 1. its RA and 2. Its not the topic

besides tnx for re research been thinking of it a while and I come across it all the time..hmm aint getting a monk, I play one. Hmm hey now we are a 3 monk team Yeej!
It annoys me but not much you can do. Maybe enlarge the sample to have a better result, I hope so

Elypta

Yeah, i know that the numbers are kind of small but i don't play as much as i used to. Still i'd always wondered if it was just bad luck, or maybe i was overlooking something, but when i really sat down and recorded the results i was kind of surprised, haha.

I decided to put it all together and stop when i got dishonorable from people reporting me for leeching for not healing a 3 woh monk team to death... two times in a row

Bob Slydell · Apr 01, 2009, 09:27 PM // 21:27

I think Gifted and I share the same views.

Quote:

I decided to put it all together and stop when i got dishonorable from people reporting me for leeching for not healing a 3 woh monk team to death... two times in a row

They should get banned then, thats abusing the system....

Icy The Mage · Apr 01, 2009, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Ouch that sucks... I always thought that when I monked I'd get another monk and when I played War i wouldn't get any monks

MasterSasori · Apr 01, 2009, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Lol.

This explains everything.

snaek · Apr 01, 2009, 10:59 PM // 22:59

all information presented in op is purely coincidental.

its called random for a reason. the only thing you can say that is not coincidental is that if you rarely get a monk, and rarely play vs monks, then rarely anyone is playing a monk at the moment.

you see more wars than you do monks for a simple reason: more people play warrior than they do monk. you want to know why you barely see a para on your team? thats right, because barely anyone plays them. you want to know why you don't qq when there isn't a para on your team? thats right, because they suck. the system is hardly at fault.

one last note... your win % is seriously low.

Eddie Frenzy Spam · Apr 01, 2009, 11:22 PM // 23:22

Before delving into the OP's post in more detail I would like to point out that yes, I have noticed an increase the amount of monks I get, however I am not yet sure if this is purely a figment of imagination brought about by all the rumours.

However saying this considering the amount of data you have taken, and really how unfair the tests are, I wouldn't really take this "analysis" seriously.

The first major point to note is:
You have played a different number of matches with each of the different professions. Considering this is meant to be at least a scientifically based analysis this is extremely poor scientific practice and results in the data being uncomparable.

The main point to note here is, you want to keep everything constant apart from the variables being tested, which is here the profession played vs the amount of times you get a monk(s). So the only thing that should change is your profession, the number of matches played on each of the professions should remain equal, the point of entry should be made equal and ideally the time frame should remain the same i.e conducting all of the tests during the evening and not half in the evening and half in the morning. This ensures that, yes it is the profession you are playing that is influencing your results and not some other factor that you are not keeping constant.

The 2nd major thing to note here is the amount of data taken. Even a low level knowledge of probability should make why this is so important quite apparent.

Lets imagine a coin, being flipped and the result, heads or tails, is recorded. The expected probability is 50/50 (0.5) each, however if we only flip the coin twice there is a very reasonable chance of H-H or T-T. Flip the coin three times and the chances of H-H-H or T-T-T decreases, with H-T-T or H-H-T etc being sligtly more likely. However you will notice a trend appearing. The more times we flip the coin, the closer we get to the true probability of getting heads or tails. Flipping the coin 1000 times we result in a quite close approximation of the true proibability, and flipping it say a million times we result in say a probability very very close to 0.5.

How does this tie in to GW and these results?
Well taking a small amount of data will result in a untrue probability of getting monks when you are or are not playing one yourself, thus resulting in an incorrect conclusion.

I am not entirely sure how the results would turn out but the amount of data taken here is definitly not enough.

Another thing wrong with the test is the amount of professions used. Since we do not know exactly how ANET sorts RA, it's pretty stupid to only take data for 4 out of 8 professions. Granted you may not be able to play them well but the outcome of the match is pretty irrelevant when the only data you need is the amount of monks in your team.

The final and possibly most absurd thing about your data is not including smiting monks there. This completely voids the data of all credibility. Yes I realise that the chances of him having 16 smiting monks while he was playing Warrior is very small but it skews the results massively. The fact is that the bars the RA'ers are running is IRRELEVANT, we assume it to be constant. Although I do not know how the game sorts RA, I am nearly positive peoples bars have NOTHING to do with it. A monk is a monk and if the game really does give you more monks when you play a monk, the fact that it is a smiting monk does not matter.

If you wanted to do this properly, in summary here is what I would change:
A) Gather a lot more data than this, I would say that 150-200 matches on each profession would result in much more reliable data, as although we would not get 100% accuracy, we should be able to see a trend.
B) Play the same amount of matches on each profession, a stated above, 150-200 matches on each profession.
C) Conduct the test on ALL professions, not just 4 random ones. This could also help us see what happens when we say play a non-monk healer e.g. a Rit.
D) Include ANY monk in your team. (Apart from yourself obviously)

IMMORTAlMITCH · Apr 01, 2009, 11:39 PM // 23:39

Which such low values, all you can really determine from these statistics, is that you're very bad at RA.

wlafeen · Apr 02, 2009, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Dudes - it's RA. Seriously, a low win % in RA provides no testament to a lack of skill. Pfft, if you don't know that then you have not been in RA. C'mon...

Rak Orgon of Beowulf · Apr 02, 2009, 12:52 AM // 00:52

i think the point you make about it being "random" is working exactly against you...

random does not mean balanced.
random does not mean, "you will get different professions for every person"
it means its random.
random...sometimes your team shitty, sometimes not. just sync and save yourself the
time

maybe when you play other classes, you are just unlucky.

and btw Rits are not included your Mo category, but are potent (if not better) healers in RA

everyone just decides that A-net is out to get everyone and says..oh its not random they're just messing with us.

@everyone else-those build are perfectly fine RA builds. stop being retarded and think for a second.

lutz · Apr 02, 2009, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gift3d

Hi there big guy! Please take the time to read the above bolded quote very slowly,(unnecessary comma) and very carefully. Use some reference websites if you must, my favorite is www.m-w.com! (run-on sentence, consider revising - consider changing the comma to a semicolon, or splitting up the sentence altogether. Unnecessary exclamation.)(Short for Merriam-Webster (proper nouns should always begin with capitalized letters), the dictionary!

) Good luck and I ("I" when referring to yourself, the author, should always be capitalized. Didn't we learn this in second grade?) hope you have a coherent future Consider revising "coherent future"; the context is not appropriate. (if there even is an appropriate context for "coherent future", anyway).

We may need to talk about your writing skills. Please see me after class.

I can be David the Grammar as well. In addition, my aforementioned post does not exactly conflict with your standards of reply which attempt to avert the introduction of posts whose discussions completely exclude none other than complaints about skill choice. In my specific case, the overt theme and essence of the message was to unequivocally define the means by which success in Random Arenas can possibly be achieved. The particular method discussed was to improve the personal control of skill usage and movement and to gain an overall more thorough view of the game to execute what is necessary to reach a desired end result (which, in most cases, is/are [consecutive] victory/victories).

It is, therefore, of importance to discuss the role that, independent of skill choice, (under the initial assumption that the skill choice was, although not perfect, is adequately selected [we can choose to define "adequate" in terms of ratings granted by top players who have both played against and played with specific builds (we can choose to define "top" by any player who has achieved top 16 in the monthly automated tournament in the past 6 months)]) the factor by which teams achieve their desired end result is largely determined by knowledge and application of game mechanics. It is my advice, therefore, to achieve a greater understanding of game mechanics before you continue to engage in writing nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrisworld

And that was a poorly though out post. Think about what you posted, then maybe edit it a bit. Random arenas.

Rofl. have a nice day.

No, I know what I said. Random Arenas is highly dependent on skill. If you aren't very good, you are simply playing a game of probability. If you are pretty good, then chances are you have a high probability of winning. If you are very good, it becomes much, much less of a game of probability: it becomes just a matter of time before you gain 10 wins, or whatever you want.

Let us take a measure of skill on range of zero to infinity.
Let us define zero to be a player who has never touched a game/computer in his life, and let us define infinity to be an infinitely intelligent entity who is guaranteed to at least draw, if not win the game (if two infinitely intelligent entities play each other, they will draw; otherwise, the infinitely intelligent entity will win).

Ignoring the synergy factor in Random Arenas (which is largely negligible, except for the "synchronized teams", which we can ignore), we can write an introductory function to define skill of players.

S_total = S_1 + S_2 + ... + S_n
where n is the number of players on your team.

In Random Arenas, let us define the skill level at Random Arenas to be "10", on average, for each player. So, S_total_average = 40 for Random Arenas.

In top Guild vs. Guild battles, let us define the skill levels of each player to be "150". Thus, S_total_average = 1200 for top Guild vs. Guild battles.

These numbers are not that significant. The only postulate that must hold true is: S_random_arenas < S_most_other_forms_of_pvp.

If we define an "above average" player to be "twice the skill level" of a person on the regular level, and if this "above average" player participates in Random Arenas, then the Random Arenas total skill level will be defined as:

S_random_arenas_total = 10 + 10 + 10 + 20 = 50
We notice that this is a 25% increase.

S_guild_vs_guild_total = 150 + 150 + ... + 150 + 300 = 1350.
We notice that this is a 12.5% increase.

These percentage increases will remain constant so as long as "twice the skill level" is maintained. You can change these numbers to draw an even more noticable difference. This "difference of percentage skill increase" is emphasized further if it is an additive increase (that is, 10 points above the skill level).

Regardless, the point is: because Random Arenas only has 4 members on a team, a better player in Random Arenas will affect the team much more than in other forms of PvP.

tl;dr: Nobody cares what build you run. People only start caring about your build if you suck with it. If people are whining about your build, it's probably because you suck.

Therefore: I am correct, as always.

Sankt Hallvard · Apr 02, 2009, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

Lots of smack.

Why do you write so much smack?

If you want people to read your posts keep them short and simple. If you want to "flame" someone or sound superior to your peer group don't bother to post at all.