Official Survey about item power

[Tydeus]

You're being silly, for two reasons.

a) 125 votes for no change, yes, but out of 973. I don't know about you, but to me that suggests most people still want to see something changed. Now, we have how many poll options? 19. So what you're trying to do is to count each of those "no change" votes no less than 18 times. The correct number to subtract would be seven votes from each other option. Hardly much of an issue, and honestly a pretty pointless thing to do in the first place.

b) You don't have access to that data, so it's useless to speculate about. Best thing to do is assume it's more or less equal for all cases and look at the balance of nerf/buff votes, like Cosmos did -- at least while we wait for what Vargas has to say.

A) This entire part makes zero sense to me, for multiple reasons. First, and the least important reason, I'm not sure where you're getting 17. With how you're suggesting to weigh the "no change" votes, there is no way that these votes could have an effect on the poll anyway. You're adding 17 to both sides of an equation. There can't be a change unless one vote already has fewer than 17 votes to begin with. These votes mean nothing because of how you're weighing them. Also, no less than 18 votes? A "no change" vote would be more accurately examined by simply adding a "no change" option for all 9 classes. Thus it's 9 votes, not 18, it's not the same as having both a buff and a nerf vote.

A better way would be: A "buff" vote representing a 1, a "nerf" as -1 and a "no change", as 0. Cosmos already did this with his graph, he just left out the 0 part.

Using throwing as an example to see the significant impact:
(264(1)+89(-1)+125(0))/(264+89+125) = 0.37 37% in favor of a throwing buff
If you ignore the "no change" options, you get:
(264-89)/(264+89) = .50 50% in favor of a throwing buff
Quite a bit different, though it's still easy to see either way, that throwing needs a buff.

B) You're right. I was merely suggesting that people should keep that in mind when they look at his graphs. I don't actually see where I was speculating about these things either, just bearing mention to the fact that his graphs are obviously missing this data. The problem with pretty graphs like that, is that people don't do their own analysis of the data and just assume that what a graph shows, is final.

[okiN]

Okay, let's see here...

A) This entire part makes zero sense to me, for multiple reasons. First, and the least important reason, I'm not sure where you're getting 17.

I'm not sure where you're getting 17. I don't see myself using that number even once in the entire post.

With how you're suggesting to weigh the "no change" votes, there is no way that these votes could have an effect on the poll anyway. You're adding 17 to both sides of an equation. There can't be a change unless one vote already has fewer than 17 votes to begin with. These votes mean nothing because of how you're weighing them

Yes, that's why I said it was pointless, because I thought that was what you were trying to do. Now you're still wrong, just for different reasons.

Also, no less than 18 votes? A "no change" vote would be more accurately examined by simply adding a "no change" option for all 9 classes. Thus it's 9 votes, not 18, it's not the same as having both a buff and a nerf vote.

Sorry, I was confused by your wording: "Subtract 125 from all the buff/nerfs of each option and it's a much more telling picture." Let's say you were only trying to count each "no change" vote nine times, then. What I don't get is why, after making this clarification, you go right on doing it, and insist on applying the total number of general "no change" votes individually to each of the specific item types. TBH, nothing about the next part is very clear.

A better way would be: A "buff" vote representing a 1, a "nerf" as -1 and a "no change", as 0. Cosmos already did this with his graph, he just left out the 0 part.

Using throwing as an example to see the significant impact:
(264(1)+89(-1)+125(0))/(264+89+125) = 0.37 37% in favor of a throwing buff
If you ignore the "no change" options, you get:
(264-89)/(264+89) = .50 50% in favor of a throwing buff
Quite a bit different, though it's still easy to see either way, that throwing needs a buff.

This just doesn't work no matter how I look at it. Are you trying to calculate the total percentage of voters who support buffing throwing? That's 264/973 for 27%. If you wanted the total percentage of people who wanted some kind of change to throwing, that'd be 353/973 for 36%. But what's this you're trying to do? It's nonsense math.

I mean, let's look at what you're actually doing here: it looks like you've tried to calculate the percentage of throw buff voters out of the people who either voted for one of the throwing changes or for no change at all. Except you didn't even do that right, because the -89 and the +125 don't belong in the dividend. Anyway, it's a number, but it's not really meaningful or relevant on any level.

The second part doesn't make any sense, either. If it was 264/353 then you'd have 75%, which is the percentage of people who voted to buff throwing out of those who wanted some kind of change. This, at least, would be something. But adding the -89 to the first part means you don't even get that.

[Tydeus]

I'm not sure where you're getting 17. I don't see myself using that number even once in the entire post.

I meant 7.

I failed to realize one simple thing, that is: If someone casts only one vote to buff their class, they're actually voting 8 other times for "no change".

Indeed I was being silly, the whole issue to begin with was silly. The focus should have been on the fact that there were indeed 973 total voters but only, technically, 353 relating to throwing. So indeed, my issue with the 125 votes not being counted was flawed from the start, I should have simply focused on all of the votes that weren't placed for either buffing/nerfing a specific item type. So it should be (264-89)/973(as this is the true total vote number).

The reason it's necessary to have it in this form, rather than Cosmos' (264-89) to show the effective votes, is that this doesn't put the numbers in perspective at all, it doesn't relate them to anything. Basically the difference is that were you to make a graph on my formula(simply taking his totals and dividing by the total number of voters) is that it actually relates the same data to the total votes, thus taking into consideration the "no change" votes.

Sorry for being an idiot initially, but the problem still remained, I was just forgetting that one detail.

so it would be (264-89)/973 = 18% votes for a buff after taking into consideration the nerf votes, which offset some of the buff votes.

[okiN]

so it would be (264-89)/973 = 18% votes for a buff after taking into consideration the nerf votes, which offset some of the buff votes.

No, like I said, that's a mistake. The nerf votes are already included in the total, that step leads to a wrong result. The correct way to do it is 264/973 for 27%.

The reason it's necessary to have it in this form, rather than Cosmos' (264-89) to show the effective votes, is that this doesn't put the numbers in perspective at all, it doesn't relate them to anything. Basically the difference is that were you to make a graph on my formula(simply taking his totals and dividing by the total number of voters) is that it actually relates the same data to the total votes, thus taking into consideration the "no change" votes.

The real point of Cosmos' graphs is to compare the relative voting strengths of the various proposed changes. Their relation to the total is secondary.

[Cosmos_Shielder]

I meant 7.

I failed to realize one simple thing, that is: If someone casts only one vote to buff their class, they're actually voting 8 other times for "no change".

Indeed I was being silly, the whole issue to begin with was silly. The focus should have been on the fact that there were indeed 973 total voters but only, technically, 353 relating to throwing. So indeed, my issue with the 125 votes not being counted was flawed from the start, I should have simply focused on all of the votes that weren't placed for either buffing/nerfing a specific item type. So it should be (264-89)/973(as this is the true total vote number).

The reason it's necessary to have it in this form, rather than Cosmos' (264-89) to show the effective votes, is that this doesn't put the numbers in perspective at all, it doesn't relate them to anything. Basically the difference is that were you to make a graph on my formula(simply taking his totals and dividing by the total number of voters) is that it actually relates the same data to the total votes, thus taking into consideration the "no change" votes.

Sorry for being an idiot initially, but the problem still remained, I was just forgetting that one detail.

so it would be (264-89)/973 = 18% votes for a buff after taking into consideration the nerf votes, which offset some of the buff votes.

Your way of calculating shows nothing.
Because if you sum all category you don't obtain 100% . You can't make percentage if the totall is not 100%. This is manipulating people .
You just make me think of Michael E Mann : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
If you want to make percentage do it in the right way (classbuf/Sum(buff)*100) or call it Score and not percentage.
My graph as says okin are to compare the difference between classes. I could have normalised that with a linear transformation to put throwers vote to 100 and relate the other to this.
Anyway admin have more date than us , since they know who voted for what. 
I'll add a graph with buff+nerf to show how people are concerned by each class

[Cosmos_Shielder]

How Much do people care of each class.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

If we take this in consideration we can see that people care about thrower and moreover they want them to be buffed. Where as people care less about one handed

I've made a few charts to help people have a better overview of the survey. Moderatormay you put the chart in main page?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


And some stats :
Buff-Nerf = 182 out of 2632  so people didn't vote only to nerf or only to buff
Total buff vote=  1407 out of 2632
Total Nerf vote = 1225 out of 2632

Throw = 175 big buff ( more than 150)
One handed = 116 good buff (more than 100)
Armor = 82 middle buff (more than 50)
Horses = 48 Little buff ( more or less equal to 50 )
Shield and bows = 3 and -2 nothing to do
two handed weapon = -40 middle nerf
Crossbow = -89 good nerf
Polearm = -111  good nerf

[Vibe]

TOP:
Buff one handed
Nerf 2h & pole


okay.jpg

[Kenouse]

What is it with all the hate for shielders.
Is it not obvious that archers cant shoot a shielder at the front? I thought that was the idea with the shield.
Its fairly easy to hit, even a huscarl, shielder at the sides and back (with ranged that is).
I dont see needs to buff shielders atm - but nerfing it seems odd.
They have been nerfed alot in the previous patches, and they arent swinging faster then other weapons.
Sure steel pick is faster and give alot of damage, but its anoyingly short.
Polearms users are chrushing shielders like a knife through warm butter.
This game is about picking your enemy, instead of chosing the closest to you.

[Kafein]

Edit : was in the wrong topic, go there instead :

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,7305.30.htm

[_GTX_]

I think that there is a easy solution to the 2h/polearm hate. And as Kafein wrote in another post, the polearms is dominating the 2h's atm. I could get a list of reasons why polearm is better, but i will make this easy.

2h:
- Fix the stab animation (it moves like its only 3 fps)
- Remove the stun after your stab gets blocked (which means enemy can hit you, without you having a chance to block it)

Polearm:
-Remove the polearm stun. (you can get hit twice without having a chance to block)

That is from my point of view, the only big problems.

[Lezard]

I think that there is a easy solution to the 2h/polearm hate. And as Kafein wrote in another post, the polearms is dominating the 2h's atm. I could get a list of reasons why polearm is better, but i will make this easy.

2h:
- Fix the stab animation (it moves like its only 3 fps)
- Remove the stun after your stab gets blocked (which means enemy can hit you, without you having a chance to block it)

Polearm:
-Remove the polearm stun. (you can get hit twice without having a chance to block)

That is from my point of view, the only big problems.

I agree. Also we could do without the polearms hitting through teammates with overheads. :/ But most of this is hardcoded I believe?

Edit: Actaully, there's no need for 2h stab fix. Just get rid of polearm stun, faulty hitboxes and melee is fine.

[_GTX_]

Edit: Actaully, there's no need for 2h stab fix. Just get rid of polearm stun, faulty hitboxes and melee is fine.

No the stun after the stab needs to get fixed. A sword should be a fast weapon(other than flammy). And the fact that the big ass polearms doesnt get stunned like the 2hs does is retarded.

[Vibe]

I'm pretty sure polearms get stunned too at blocked thrusts.

[Paul]

Every melee weapon gets stunned when their thrust is blocked. It is a Native mechanic. Here is Armagan commenting about it:

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,88556.msg2286430.html#msg2286430

[_GTX_]

I'm pretty sure polearms get stunned too at blocked thrusts.

Idd they do, but the durotion isent as long as on the 2h, and the 2h's stun shouldent last as long because its a smaller weapon in general.