THIS. IS NOT. A FAIR. MATCHUP.

I wasn't looking for unfairness, it came and found me of its own volition.

It wasn't so much the pair of fixers that made it feel skewed. It was the pair of the mk4 shooters with doubled up shields, versus mk2 shooters.

Even if we said a mk2 shooter is worth more than a mk3 fixer. It would have to be worth a lot more to put two mk4 shooters against a mk3 speeder and defender.

 

I do not believe you. Dont take it personal but I am keeping tabs of my own data. oddly I happen to face teams with a fixer while not having one quite a bit recently and the outcomes prove having a fixer greatly increases your chance of winning.

This may change when you get higher infamy and mix with mk6 ships, I m currently around 1900, but at this level it is undeniable

 

I am a ship with 1800 hp doing 8200 damage and of course we still lose. Totally fair matchup.

 

Sorry to inject some reality into your situation, but your findings are a microscopic sample of the entire mk5 player base. So your "findings" statistically mean nothing

 

Don't apologize for your own ignorance of statistics and what comprises a meaningful sample size.

 

You are simply wrong. I have comprised a sample of 100 matches which one team has a fixer, 68 of those matches the fixer team wins. Given I have a 50% win ratio according to a 1-proportion Z test with the null hypothesis p = 0.5, it would be statistically significant to have 68 wins out of 100 matches.

 

I wanna go into explanation why that data means nothing, but I'm not gonna bite the bait

 

I am so confused. If you have ALL the data EVER, then that is obviously perfectly representative of the population. It doesn't matter what sample size you take, the population data is always correct. You don't NEED any tests or confidence intervals to determine the true values, as they are already known! Calm down, and listen to what the devs are trying to tell you. They are not your enemy, they are your friends. We all want to help you. It may seem unfair or horrible sometimes, but I promise that it will get better. If you truly try your hardest, then you win more games. I hope you take these arguments into consideration and try to work with all people, devs included.

Cheers!

 

Perhaps I'm playing devils advocate here, but statistics can be problematic regardless of the sample size, because there are always so many variables that people just see what they want to see.

If people don't want to see a problem then they won't see a problem. As soon as they find data that might corroborate that belief, they'll stop looking... satisfied that they were right along. That's how bias conformation works.

If you really want to discuss the true value of a fixer, then you have to discuss them in terms of 'perfect play'. I.E. If both teams play perfectly, does the fixer constitute an overwhelming advantage.

A statistical analysis of all BB games isn't going to help you answer that question, because the vast majority of games are ridiculous circus acts, with crazy noobs, and floaters.

In all the videos I've watched with high level players commentary, they are always ALWAYS talking about fixers, and how important they are. That's a pretty big clue that there might be something going on with fixers.

 

This is correct there are numerous variables which is why i used 100 games which is a significant sample size to factor out statistical noise that may happen on any one given match.

Another clue is people who play fixer tend to be higher in infamy on average for the number of battles played, I increased infamy pretty quickly when I switched to fixer. I am more likely to win a matchup where unfriendlies do not have a fixer.

 

Step 1: Accept that the overall 1fixer vs 0fixer is roughly a 50% mátchup.
Step 2: Consider for yourself if 100 games is a large enough sample to Draw personal conclusion from.
Step 3: Adjust playstyle/setup accordingly (unless you think this will lower your effectiveness in other more common matchups)

Double mortar is trash against a Fixer team, its not hard to sit back and heal up again. If you play an assasin style build you have the ability to dive in and kill the fixer.
Noone is doubting your numbers, but your absurd claim to hold the absolute truth (when you have been given estimates from people with access to all data that contradicts your small sample size). I also have matchups that I do poorly in, so I try to look at what I could change (and consider if its worthwhile to do so).

---
Your argument that Fixers on average holding higher infamy (which might be the case, until mk6 where Fixers are the worst class) is proof of your claim is another headacre causing fallecy. Everyone hovers around 50% winrate despite some boats having a higher/lower delta. Fixers at mk4/5 have higher infamy because they have a much easier time being useful in mk6 games. A mk5 fixer can hide and heal the big guys, a mk5 speeder gets 2 shot when he tried to go near the unfriendlies, resulting in the "cap" being higher as a lower level Fixer. This has nothing to do with your (wrong) claim that 1 Fixer vs 0 Fixer is an unbalanced matchup.

 

1) Accepting a faulty premise in the face of contradictory data would be illogical.

2) I have 5000 battles total, over the course of that I suspected having a fixer gives a team an advantage, I then tested this hypothesis using a random sample of 100 games, again according to a 1-proportion Z test with the null hypothesis p = 0.5, it would be statistically significant to have 68 wins out of 100 matches. I admit there are other variables but none are consistent enough throughout the sample, they are insignificant variables.

3) my play style and setup consistently does more damage than average, targeting a fixer is not always preferable, in fact I would say its a noob mistake especially when ships are more scattered, its much more beneficial to take out the lowest hanging fruit first then engage a fixer surrounded by several unfriendlies which can quickly heal.


Having a 50% win rate does not negate the hypothesis that you win more often when having a fixer and lose more when against a team with a fixer. If its easier for a fixer to make it into a league with higher level players, then obviously it means they have a higher win ratio in order to get there.

I agree though the dynamic of damage to healing ratio probably changes with mk6 ships, which is why fixers become less common at the highest leagues, this also changes the data set as my sample is all below 2000 infamy

 

1) It's hardly a faulty premise when the entirety of the data set supports it. It's your miniscule sample that contradicts the whole. Sampling error is on your part.

2) Your total battles are still a drop in the bucket as compared to the tens of millions of battles total, which have already been referenced by devs in this very thread. Perhaps your personal play style synergizes better with a fixer, or suffers more in the presence of one as an opponent (I'm willing to bet this, seeing as how your primary ship runs 2x mortar and nothing else).

3) See 2. Maybe you've found the least bad way to fight fixers with your setup, maybe not. In either event, it's not generally considered favorable to face them with mortar spam.

 

Alright I give up. If you insist that your 100 game sample outweight complete data of all games played, then nothing anyone says will make you change your mind.

I'll leave your nonsense thread with a quote from Einstern: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former"

 

Dont you ruin his argument by using facts!!

 

Thank you for doing this. I used games where I played fixer against teams who did not have a fixer in my sample, I suppose having a win streak as fixer gave me an unusual data set.