- Congratulations on that, even that you don’t have to be better now, you’re maybe just more used to it.
- I didn’t say zero, I said the same chance. So in your 100 billion different lotteries, the chances to win every single one of them is the same.
Statistical assumptions are not a bad basis for decision making. This is how insurance companies operate. They use statistical reasoning. They don’t know every single detail about you, they only have a limited amount of information. Like all of us, none of us know everything.
i think you are missing the point here. if this particular surgeon has a track record of lousy surgeries, i wouldn’t want him as my doctor even if he has done a thousand surgeries.
i guess what we are trying to say is that, for some people, they don’t improve their skills even after doing it many times over.
1 Like
I agree. But if we only have one piece of information (for example how many surgeries have been completed) we have to make a judgment base on that. And for most aactitvities, people improve the more they practice.
Correct. Doing something many times doesn’t mean you’ll get good at it.
Improve, maybe. Get good at it, not necessarily.
What? Now you are arguing semantics. How much does one have to “improve” to get “good?” By most logic, if you keep improving, you will eventually get “good.”
I’m just arguing about your point of view. You can be bad at something, do it 1 million times and still be bad.
And I’m arguing that on average, you are not correct. If we ask 1 million people to play 500 Vermintide games, a huge majority of them will play better at game 500 than they played game 100 or game 1. I am going to bed right now. I will continue to discuss this with people when I wake up if people still care.
1 Like
You cannot talk about average, if you don’t know any numbers. Everything you say is fictional, thus cannot be disproved, so it is invalid. If 1% of the world population owns 50% of the wealth, then on average everyone is fine, but that doesn’t make it better for the poor.
No, this doesn’t have to be the case.
Again, as this is a fictional statement, based on your assumption, that everyone will get better at something over time, makes it completely false.
All my statements have been based on logical reasoning. If you could show that there is no or a negative correlation between the number of hours someone plays Verminitde and their “skill,” you would disprove my argument. There are a lot of good ways to define skill in Verminitde - Damage taken, damage delt… You can’t just call something invalid. There is a reason that we value experience in most fields. You get promoted as you get more experience and expertise in a subject. There is a huge correlation between how much time students spend studying and how they preform in their courses. There have been innumerable studies that show a strong correlation between music skill and practice per week. People have shown the same for CS:GO skill as a funciton of hours spent playing. All I have been doing is extrapolating this data to Vermintide. My own personal experience in V1 has also match this conculsion.
1 Like
There should atleast be a possibility to check other characters from players you play with. I mean I carried trash level 30 players on champ and soloed Rak Okri with my lvl 1 Saltzpyre… Level doesn’t mean anything skillswise, BUT it would be a nice thing to see if this low lvl player knows what he is doing before you start a game and wipe. Same goes with these lvl 30 ”pros” who think they are godlike when they reached 30 with 1 character and then they can’t survive a single trash horde from chaos…
I agree. I would actually like the game to simply display the combined total of all the characters levels like in V1. I think the skills developed in one character translate extremely well to all the others. But since I know the Devs won’t do this, I didn’t bother requesting it in the beginning
So what is the TRUE level or skill of a player then?
The level of all 5 heroes added together?
The level of a single hero + amount of times they got to level 30 again?
The level of all 5 heroes + amount of times they go to level 30 again?
The level of all 5 heroes + amount of times they go to level 30 again + their level from Vermintide 1?
What exactly constitutes the TRUE level of a player?
If they got to level 30 with a hero that should be enough for you. No further stats is really needed.
If you wonder if that level 5 Sienna has a high or low power level all you gotta do is go to the matchmaking board, select a higher difficulty and it will tell you whether or not anyone in your group has an insufficient power level to do the difficulty setting you are testing.
Why do you need to know more?
And if you want to know the real SKILL of the PLAYER then displaying levels will not tell you this nomatter which combinations of levels you add together or how you choose to visualize it.
To figure out a players actual skill in the game you would need to aggregate data using a large amount of variables compiled over a long period of time, or use some form of ELO system (even though you aren’t really playing against an opponent to have such an ELO adjusted properly).
Bottom line:
Player level does not reflect player skill since levels can easily be gained over time, therefore any visualization of levels would still be meaningless as far as knowing how good a player is.
hmmm my experiences in life have been the opposite. not trying to argue here, just sharing.
in my previous job we had to interview a 55 year old guy that had an impressive resume. but after 2 weeks had passed it was clear he was very slow and did not do proper work. we had to let him go after a month. interns were churning out better quality work than he did.
i put in a lot of practice playing the piano over the years. my fingers, however, are not as nimble as many of my friends. i’ve seen a little girl dance over the ivories with much more grace and potential than my years of practice. i’m sure you have gawked at natural born prodigies at some point in your life.
it’s true though, that with practice comes a certain familiarity over a subject matter. it’s one of the factors that define expertise - like martial artists practicing a kick for thousands of times. i feel however that skill isn’t defined by the number of hours put into practicing something. it’s how well you understand and apply it.
well, it also helps if you have young fingers =(
1 Like
omg. this would be awesome. HAHAHAH
So, if I only show you one guy with many hours and bad skill your argument is false? Seems legit, even if your argument is invalid from the beginning, as you state your logical reasoning on assumptions. Damage taken is the only measurement in skill. There is a reason for everything. And we value experience too much, because we have no other characteristic factor for showing us how skilled someone is.
Time spent on something =/= experience =/= skill
Thanks, that you’ve shown your inability to understand simple statistics, as correlation does not imply causation. This is what you got wrong in this whole conversation.
It would be a disaster, but I’m throwing it out there to make people think about what they actually want to see visualized in the game and how much meaning it actually has with respects to knowing how good a player is.
I might have a level 30 Bardin, but I can tell you right now that I suck at playing Ranger but I do a good job with Ironbreaker.
So what is my skill with “Bardin” then? A combination of how well I do with Ranger + Ironbreaker?
I’m just asking the critical question: What do you want to see visualized and would it really tell you anything about how good a player is or not?
Until that is answered we can have a 500 page discussion about this or that and end up with a whole lot of nothing.
No, you need more than one example. We are talking in statistical terms. What you would need to do is assemble a data set containing data from about 10000 players and then preform the necessary analysis. Also, I see I made some errors in the statement you quoted. I don’t know you if you misunderstood but what I was trying to say is it has been established that the amount of time (an average) students spend studying effects their final grades in the class. I think it has been demonstrated in the scientific literature that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between practice and skill in most disciplines.
Damage taken as a statistic is meaningless without context.
If you play as Pyromancer Sienna then damage taken means you are failing at avoiding hits, which would be a failure on your part.
If you play as Ironbreaker Bardin then damage taken means you are drawing heat away from your team, which would be a success on your part.
Granted: I’m not entirely sure if Damage Taken also includes damage blocked, or explicitly only lists how much damage you take.
Either way, a high damage taken is in the first case a fail, and in the second case a success (as you being hit means others are not which is the objective for a tank).