So there was one thread. ONE thread. For the whole last months, where ppl started to agree maybe kf is not so op, while some other non KF champs or factions are OP. What happens? Quickly this popular and creative discussion thread is locked. And then they keep telling us devs and council and those admins are not biased against or for certain factions? Right. lol
I believe you are the start of the reason the thread was locked. Instead of providing an argument, you called another poster an ass.
I think the thread being trashed was the best thing that could happen, because now you can re-write history!
It was too bad, because I thought that polltroy's last post on the thread was actually a fairly reasonable basis for discussion.
polltroy's obvious baiting is never the basis of a good discussion. The entire basis of his thread proved it. "discussion"
Well we can continue the discussion here instead then? i too liked some of the posts in that thread, but the start of it and some bad comments were not so good...
I doubt this statement was the basis for the thread closing. If so I apologize to the mods for repeating it here. 1) That is possible, but I am unsure if that is something that they can prove or identify with the data they have available. A lot of "top players" tend to focus on a smaller number of factions, and even if they branched out it is uncertain if this would result in a clear indicator of their relative skill as their is a problem of learning curve with particular faction styles. Your also making an assumption that they are nerfing KF based on the actions of the top players. We don't actually know the basis for their nerfing decisions. 2) It is also possible that the problems with the faction are due to fundamental structural issues, and only by dealing with those structural issues are they able to open the design space enough that they can afford to increase faction diversity. As it is the +1 spd to everything that KF gives now is fundamentally more powerful than the other factions, and puts some strong limits on what they can do with new runes in the faction without throwing it out of whack. (Note, I agree that UD's bonus is also strong, but it is not quite as good as KF's. APs just let you do so much stuff, from giving you more control, to enabling power turns, to giving you more flexibility in giving fonts. Damage is important from the perspective of giving you an ability to kill champs, but it does not pervade everything like bonus APs do.) 3) How would you suggest correcting for player skill? It is not like we have a concrete indicator of it that is seperated from the particular runes and faction they are using. This sort of runs into the same problem as identifying whether the top KF players are better or not.
I always assumed long ago whe they started to make nerfs and buffs that thwy have some strong statisitcal tool to be able to see how different runes perform corrected for different things. To correct for player could be difficult, but from lots of games, u could prob compare how a rune affects win ratio for a player if it included in a BG or not. Like with this rune a player has win ratio 0.6, without 0.5. So this rune is positive 1.25 Then add all those together for lots of players who use this rune and you can get some kinds of number of how good a rune is corrected for player skills. I would assume they have some kind of program with setcalculations that they can run like weekly and get rine data to make decisions on buffs and nerfs. But now, im more worried, they dont have any of this and instead they arbitrarily make decisions based on their own preferences and what other players, council etc tell them and on what they read in forums. If this is the case, i would guess instead of getting the game more and more balanced with each nerf round, instead they just move "goodstuff" around. Unfortunately, when i see how nerfed runes totally dissapear from play, i can only assume its not by the statisitcal way, but by the arbitrary way they make these decisions. If this is true, it could mean best faction to choose would be the one with most forum active players or with players with least game play skills.
Well the problem with making decisions like this entirely on statistical analysis is that we may simply not have enough players or uses of a rune or whatever to make statistically significant decisions. Similarly you should not always make your decisions entirely based on statistical analysis. The analysis is just another tool to be used to identify if there is a particular problem. Them hearing player feedback is important and can point to problem areas, for example, that the tools may not have been able to pick up on yet due to a small sample size. Like since the expansions has been released how many games have been played? How many games have been played with particular rune combinations in a bg? How many game have been played with different runes being deployed at a particular time? It would be really difficult to draw anything statistically meaningful. They probably don't have nearly enough data yet to have it say anything decisive and so player feedback is important in filling in gaps that the statistics may not be able to tell them yet. And I say this as someone who is a graduate statistics student.
I'm imagining a huge sixties sci-fi machine where you press lots of buttons and then it makes beeping and whiring sounds for a while until a paper feed comes out with 'nerf kf' on it.
KF is superior to other factions in nearly every way (Ranged, Spells, Mobility, Noracost, speed), I mean you have even overtaken IS for the ''Who has the most irrational zealots'' award. But making a new thread every couple of hours is not going to alter the general populations perception on KF's power-level and you really just need to admit that KF is absolutely nuts currently. I mean everytime you make a post it just seems like you're trying to force feed us your opinion and convert us away from our unholy beliefs.
Of course they can not make decisions purely on statistics, then it could be converted to an automatic nerf mechanism instead, like adjust nora cost up and down each week depending on the rune statistics. And then this could become manipulated. But i think they could get lots lots of info about individual runes between nerfs by using statistics. Take the AA for example. How many games did he see play during the weeks or months between revamp last nerf and ronin? Must have been many thousands of games at least. This is a huge number for statistical comparison. I really dont like how a rune can be seen in almost every kf deck at one point and then they nerf it and you cant see this rune at all for weeks or months. They should nerf/buff in smaller steps to find a balance where a good rune is no longer goodstuff but still runnable. U can see this happen too often. Just some examples could be wizard of the ways, garu den mother, aa etc. Totally goes from frequent uses to nonexisitng at all.
Four out of five statisticians agree that ninety-seven percent of statistics are made up on the spot.
