Mrw0lf, performace in anything is at least partially due to luck. The fact that SOE treated their customers like crap wasn't due to luck, but the fact that so many people reacted the way they did--far more than expected, every time SOE did something that was against the majority of the gaming community--was. And the fact that the things they changed sometimes happened to ruin the game unexpectedly is also a chance factor.
If there's a greater than 0% luck factor in something, regression to the mean can apply. The Wiki article itself says that.
The problem is when you say 'partially' what you should say is 'in the whole system of development a very small part of'. Practically the parts left to luck are mainly to do with things (or at least should be) beyond the control of the devs, such as timing, the fickle nature of gamers etc, in the case of SOE there will always be a portion (albeit small) of the MMO community that these elements are no longer down to luck they have themselves created a situation where the randomness of nature is no longer relavent.
Look I'm not saying The Agency won't be a good game, I have a stion pass and hope it is, despite NGE I still play all their games, I just fail to see how regression plays any significcant part in the ongoing success of an mmo.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
It could succeed in spite of SOE. I like to be optimistic.
The greatest challenge that I think SOE faces is probably poor management. Because they have money and they have manpower. The problem is those resources are not being utilized efficiently, and that could have a direct bearing on The Agency's development.
But like I said, they could succeed in spite of themselves.
What? How about a different theory. Until company proves they have a clue about making/maintaining a good game why don't we just assume everything they put out will be crap> Past performance "is" a good indicator of the future in the case of game makers.
EQ1 = Great Game
EQ2 = Great Game
SOE is a good game making company, they made a few bad choices with some games, SWG but overall SOE is a good company. I dont know why everyone seems to hate them, I never had an issue with SOE ever in 5 + years of EQ1 and 2+ of EQ2.
Past Performance "IS" a good indicator of the future in the case of game makers and SOE has made some great games in the pass. Everquest and Everquest 2.
Keep in mind that SOEs biggest success post Brad-EQ1-no other competition era is a game that lost half of its population and merged servers in a little over a year.
Nothing leads me to believe this company is going to change its stripes by refocusing on a younger audience, adding another platform to support with consoles and switching revenue models to micro transactions. SOE might make more money than it does now, but I fully expect more of the same.
This concept can be easily applied to SOE's record to predict their future. Since SOE screwed up lots of their games to the point where they were unplayable, that gives us a really extreme set of data. The principle of regression toward the mean says that the next game they release won't be messed up anywhere nearly as badly. Just based on statistics, their next game will probably be screwed up somewhat, but not to the point where it's unplayable.
...
SOE has had a really bad record in the past, but The Agency will be virtually flawless; it will be the game they use to redeem themselves and develop a new, better reputation.
This is my first post on these boards. I'm an avid gamer, and a statistician - so the subject matter of the post caught my eye.
This is a poor understanding of regression to the mean and saying that you have evidence that based on SOE's "bad record in the past" that The Agency will be "virtually flawless" based on regression to the mean borders on the absurd. This statement is based in no way on any statistical analysis of performance.
- - -
First, I'll give you an example that someone gave me as an undergrad. Let's say you went to a parachuting contest. Everyone jumps and tries to land as close as they can to a target and their distance is measured. The someone offers a bet - pick one person that you think will get closer on their second jump. Regression toward the mean leads you to pick the person that landed the furthest away on the first jump. All other things being equal, and with no other knowledge, that is the safest bet.
But let's imagine the bet was who will be closest to the target on the second jump. In that case the appropriate bet would be the person who was closest on the first jump. You presume there are underlying factors (such as skill) that would be predictive.
If I were going to pick a game I would think would be "virtually flawless", I'd pick a developer whose last game was virtually flawless.
- - -
Secondly, you make note of "extreme scores". There are many times when you are doing an analysis of data (descriptive or inferential) where you would pay special attention to extreme scores in your data as these are outliers. In many cases outliers are removed prior to a statistical analysis because they may not reflect the population of interest. Let's say you are at the parachuting contest and on the first jump one of the contestants lands FAR away - like 100 miles away in another city. If you looked at the variance in landing distances, this person would be several (lets say 3 or more) standard deviations away from the mean. In such a case, I might make the assumption that this person was not drawn from the same population as other jumpers (that silly prankster!) and I would exclude them from the analysis.
Outlier analysis is performed and outliers are removed to help ensure that the data being analyzed is drawn from a homogenous population.
If I were going to build a predictive model of the state of games in the future, I would exclude extreme examples.
- - -
Thirdly, by applying the concept of regression toward the mean in this manner you are assuming a normal distribution (which may not be the case for game developers / publishers). What if the distribution was bimodal (drawn from two populations with different means). For example, what if the parachuting contest was pro-am with some being professional parachuting contest applicants and the others as amateurs. Imagine that the distributions of the two do NOT overlap. Imagine that even out of 100 tries, an amateur jumper would never get closer to the target than a professional. This would be an extreme bimodal distribution but it would be possible if there are factors (again, skill) that are predictive of performance and the sample was drawn from two different populations.
If I were going to look at the performance of gaming companies, I would not assume performance was unimodal - there may be a group of "good" companies, and a group of "bad" companies.
- - -
Lastly, if I were going to build a predicitive model of future game performance, I would not use regression toward the mean to do so. Regression toward the mean is a concept, but it is not a statistical model. Linear regression and analysis of variance are statistical models (in fact analysis of variance can be seen as a special case of regression). I'd identify factors that I thought may be predictive of future performance (such as prior performance, budgets, assets, etc.) and include them in the model. These would include endogenous (company specific) and exogenous (outside of company - for example the state of the economy, demand for games in general, demand for certain genres, etc.) factors. In such a model regression toward the mean is NOT a factor - it's just a concept that describes the most likely direction of movement of extreme scores *when all other factors are equal*.
To put it another way, if I was going invest money in a company I wouldn't just pick the ones the were the worst performers of the prior year. I'd look at the fundamentals.
From the OP: This concept can be easily applied to SOE's record to predict their future. Since SOE screwed up lots of their games to the point where they were unplayable, that gives us a really extreme set of data. The principle of regression toward the mean says that the next game they release won't be messed up anywhere nearly as badly. Just based on statistics, their next game will probably be screwed up somewhat, but not to the point where it's unplayable. ... SOE has had a really bad record in the past, but The Agency will be virtually flawless; it will be the game they use to redeem themselves and develop a new, better reputation.
This is my first post on these boards. I'm an avid gamer, and a statistician - so the subject matter of the post caught my eye. This is a poor understanding of regression to the mean and saying that you have evidence that based on SOE's "bad record in the past" that The Agency will be "virtually flawless" based on regression to the mean borders on the absurd. This statement is based in no way on any statistical analysis of performance. - - - First, I'll give you an example that someone gave me as an undergrad. Let's say you went to a parachuting contest. Everyone jumps and tries to land as close as they can to a target and their distance is measured. The someone offers a bet - pick one person that you think will get closer on their second jump. Regression toward the mean leads you to pick the person that landed the furthest away on the first jump. All other things being equal, and with no other knowledge, that is the safest bet. But let's imagine the bet was who will be closest to the target on the second jump. In that case the appropriate bet would be the person who was closest on the first jump. You presume there are underlying factors (such as skill) that would be predictive. If I were going to pick a game I would think would be "virtually flawless", I'd pick a developer whose last game was virtually flawless. - - - Secondly, you make note of "extreme scores". There are many times when you are doing an analysis of data (descriptive or inferential) where you would pay special attention to extreme scores in your data as these are outliers. In many cases outliers are removed prior to a statistical analysis because they may not reflect the population of interest. Let's say you are at the parachuting contest and on the first jump one of the contestants lands FAR away - like 100 miles away in another city. If you looked at the variance in landing distances, this person would be several (lets say 3 or more) standard deviations away from the mean. In such a case, I might make the assumption that this person was not drawn from the same population as other jumpers (that silly prankster!) and I would exclude them from the analysis. Outlier analysis is performed and outliers are removed to help ensure that the data being analyzed is drawn from a homogenous population. If I were going to build a predictive model of the state of games in the future, I would exclude extreme examples. - - - Thirdly, by applying the concept of regression toward the mean in this manner you are assuming a normal distribution (which may not be the case for game developers / publishers). What if the distribution was bimodal (drawn from two populations with different means). For example, what if the parachuting contest was pro-am with some being professional parachuting contest applicants and the others as amateurs. Imagine that the distributions of the two do NOT overlap. Imagine that even out of 100 tries, an amateur jumper would never get closer to the target than a professional. This would be an extreme bimodal distribution but it would be possible if there are factors (again, skill) that are predictive of performance and the sample was drawn from two different populations. If I were going to look at the performance of gaming companies, I would not assume performance was unimodal - there may be a group of "good" companies, and a group of "bad" companies. - - - Lastly, if I were going to build a predicitive model of future game performance, I would not use regression toward the mean to do so. Regression toward the mean is a concept, but it is not a statistical model. Linear regression and analysis of variance are statistical models (in fact analysis of variance can be seen as a special case of regression). I'd identify factors that I thought may be predictive of future performance (such as prior performance, budgets, assets, etc.) and include them in the model. These would include endogenous (company specific) and exogenous (outside of company - for example the state of the economy, demand for games in general, demand for certain genres, etc.) factors. In such a model regression toward the mean is NOT a factor - it's just a concept that describes the most likely direction of movement of extreme scores *when all other factors are equal*. To put it another way, if I was going invest money in a company I wouldn't just pick the ones the were the worst performers of the prior year. I'd look at the fundamentals.
I think I just fell in love.
It excites me when someone actually knows what the f*** they are talking about.
From the OP: This concept can be easily applied to SOE's record to predict their future. Since SOE screwed up lots of their games to the point where they were unplayable, that gives us a really extreme set of data. The principle of regression toward the mean says that the next game they release won't be messed up anywhere nearly as badly. Just based on statistics, their next game will probably be screwed up somewhat, but not to the point where it's unplayable. ... SOE has had a really bad record in the past, but The Agency will be virtually flawless; it will be the game they use to redeem themselves and develop a new, better reputation.
This is my first post on these boards. I'm an avid gamer, and a statistician - so the subject matter of the post caught my eye. This is a poor understanding of regression to the mean and saying that you have evidence that based on SOE's "bad record in the past" that The Agency will be "virtually flawless" based on regression to the mean borders on the absurd. This statement is based in no way on any statistical analysis of performance. - - - First, I'll give you an example that someone gave me as an undergrad. Let's say you went to a parachuting contest. Everyone jumps and tries to land as close as they can to a target and their distance is measured. The someone offers a bet - pick one person that you think will get closer on their second jump. Regression toward the mean leads you to pick the person that landed the furthest away on the first jump. All other things being equal, and with no other knowledge, that is the safest bet. But let's imagine the bet was who will be closest to the target on the second jump. In that case the appropriate bet would be the person who was closest on the first jump. You presume there are underlying factors (such as skill) that would be predictive. If I were going to pick a game I would think would be "virtually flawless", I'd pick a developer whose last game was virtually flawless. - - - Secondly, you make note of "extreme scores". There are many times when you are doing an analysis of data (descriptive or inferential) where you would pay special attention to extreme scores in your data as these are outliers. In many cases outliers are removed prior to a statistical analysis because they may not reflect the population of interest. Let's say you are at the parachuting contest and on the first jump one of the contestants lands FAR away - like 100 miles away in another city. If you looked at the variance in landing distances, this person would be several (lets say 3 or more) standard deviations away from the mean. In such a case, I might make the assumption that this person was not drawn from the same population as other jumpers (that silly prankster!) and I would exclude them from the analysis. Outlier analysis is performed and outliers are removed to help ensure that the data being analyzed is drawn from a homogenous population. If I were going to build a predictive model of the state of games in the future, I would exclude extreme examples. - - - Thirdly, by applying the concept of regression toward the mean in this manner you are assuming a normal distribution (which may not be the case for game developers / publishers). What if the distribution was bimodal (drawn from two populations with different means). For example, what if the parachuting contest was pro-am with some being professional parachuting contest applicants and the others as amateurs. Imagine that the distributions of the two do NOT overlap. Imagine that even out of 100 tries, an amateur jumper would never get closer to the target than a professional. This would be an extreme bimodal distribution but it would be possible if there are factors (again, skill) that are predictive of performance and the sample was drawn from two different populations. If I were going to look at the performance of gaming companies, I would not assume performance was unimodal - there may be a group of "good" companies, and a group of "bad" companies. - - - Lastly, if I were going to build a predicitive model of future game performance, I would not use regression toward the mean to do so. Regression toward the mean is a concept, but it is not a statistical model. Linear regression and analysis of variance are statistical models (in fact analysis of variance can be seen as a special case of regression). I'd identify factors that I thought may be predictive of future performance (such as prior performance, budgets, assets, etc.) and include them in the model. These would include endogenous (company specific) and exogenous (outside of company - for example the state of the economy, demand for games in general, demand for certain genres, etc.) factors. In such a model regression toward the mean is NOT a factor - it's just a concept that describes the most likely direction of movement of extreme scores *when all other factors are equal*. To put it another way, if I was going invest money in a company I wouldn't just pick the ones the were the worst performers of the prior year. I'd look at the fundamentals.
I think I just fell in love.
It excites me when someone actually knows what the f*** they are talking about.
I second that. Very nice reply Mahni and well written. I look forward to reading some more of your replys/posts and welcome to mmorpg.com.
What? How about a different theory. Until company proves they have a clue about making/maintaining a good game why don't we just assume everything they put out will be crap> Past performance "is" a good indicator of the future in the case of game makers.
EQ1 = Great Game - Decent game, DAOC was superior IMO. Besides, most of the folks who made it are gone. Look at all the folks who cry to this day for a classic server.
EQ2 = Great Game - Was crap at release, better now by all accounts. Their one decent game atm.
Matrix Online - Sure, they didn't make it, but they sure didn't do much to improve it. Maintenance mode.
Planetside - Got off to a good start, but by all accounts I've read, they screwed it up and the player base fled in droves.
Vanguard - Again, the didn't make it, but game is progressing far too slowly. Maintenance mode again.
SWG - What apparently started out as a game with great potential (despite its terrible launch) they managed to totally destroy the game and unleash a horde of damaged gamers who apparently will never, ever forgive them until Smedley is burned on a cross.
Nonsense, their track record is pretty poor, and its perfectly valid to expect their next game to be released early, incomplete and not be a commercial success.
But that's OK, The Agency is probably going to be F2P anyways, so it will certainly be worth the "price"
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
lol...I just checked out their site and I gotta say...when they show a bullet crossing the screen in the flash, and the casing is still attached to the bullet, I wonder if they have ever shot a gun before in their lives, and just how screwed up their game can possibly be if they don't even know that the projectile leaves the casing before leaving the gun.
Just struck me as humorous is all, may not really have any impact on the game...but come on...duh!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean Regression toward the mean refers to the fact that those with extreme scores on any measure at one point in time will, for purely statistical reasons, probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested. Many extreme scores happen to fall with or against the initial score depending on whether your extreme score is extremely high or extremely low. Consider an extreme example: a class of students takes a 100-item true/false test on a subject on which none of the students knows anything at all. Therefore, all students choose randomly on all questions leading to a mean score of about 50. Naturally, some students will score substantially above 50 and some substantially below 50 just by chance. If one takes only the top 10% of the students and gives them a parallel form of test on which they again guess on all items, the mean score would be expected to be close to 50. Thus the mean of these students would "regress" all the way back to the mean of all students who took the original test. No matter what a student scores on the original test, the best prediction of their score on the parallel form is 50. If there were no luck on the test then all students would score the same on the parallel form as they scored on original test, and there would be no regression toward the mean. Real situations fall between these two extremes: scores are a combination of skill and luck. If you choose a subset of people who score above the mean, they will be (on average) above the mean on skill and above the mean on luck. On a retest their previously above-average luck will revert to about average. They will therefore score above the mean due to their above-average skill, but not by as much as they did the first time because they will not be as lucky as they were the first time. This concept can be easily applied to SOE's record to predict their future. Since SOE screwed up lots of their games to the point where they were unplayable, that gives us a really extreme set of data. The principle of regression toward the mean says that the next game they release won't be messed up anywhere nearly as badly. Just based on statistics, their next game will probably be screwed up somewhat, but not to the point where it's unplayable. But that's just based on the numbers; that's not taking into account the fact that SOE has probably learned from their mistakes, because when the community hates a game developer, that game developer earns far less money. I'm sure that by now SOE has learned to listen to what the majority of players want, so that they can make more money off of their games. Couple that fact with the principle of regression toward the mean, and you get a pretty clear prediction: SOE has had a really bad record in the past, but The Agency will be virtually flawless; it will be the game they use to redeem themselves and develop a new, better reputation.
Interesting theory but I doubt they learned. If they listened to the people they would have fixed SWG by rolling it back, deleting all new content and starting new content from there and not screwing up. Sony is a Japanese company thats run like an American company. Instead of listening to what people want they just do what they think we want which is usually wrong. I'll still try The Agency, its free, and I'm hoping for the best but you never know. Sony screws up on their games, and on their electronics, which is why I don't own anything Sony. Its funny Sony use to be a top notch company and companies like Panasonic and Samsung use to sell crap, now Panasonic, Samsung and LG make some top notch stuff and Sony is making crap.
Until Sony changes their ways (probably when they get rid of their CEO), to me Sony will only be a second rate company.
Originally posted by Mahni This is my first post on these boards. I'm an avid gamer, and a statistician - so the subject matter of the post caught my eye. ... To put it another way, if I was going invest money in a company I wouldn't just pick the ones the were the worst performers of the prior year. I'd look at the fundamentals.
Well stated.
As others have also made known; SOE's only greatest success (in terms of revenue from users) was with EQ. All other titles have sustain less performance than projected. That is SOE's track record.
And those words of "virtually flawless" was a good chuckle, as indeed there is a bullet with a shell casing still together in flight. I'm surprised that has not been corrected as of yet. Oh right, that is just the website and not of any indication of how the game will turn out...
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I'd like to think that I can judge games by their content, not who makes it. I find it hard though, considering the fact I'm really afraid of Crytic getting STO, (I'm judging them by CoX). I don't mean to, but I am. I HOPE this game will be great, I think SOE can do great things (speaking as an EQ2 player). They can also do very bad things (speaking as a SWG, MXO player). I think they just have an apathetic view toward improving games they have because...people still play them.
Where am I going with this?
I don't know, the bouncy red ball in my room just caught my attention.
TO SUM UP- Its gonna suck. I hope it doesn't, but it will. And people will still pay for it. MONTHLY. Meaning that it WILL make a profit anyway it goes, and SOE will make more.
ALSO: Anyone know if PotBS is any good? Just sounds like another dumb idea but, I've been surprised before.
Anybody who thinks that Smed's new item mall, microtransaction scam of a game will be any good whatsoever is, in my professional opinion, clinically insane.
I'll try this game only since I think it has a decent concept. I won't hold the past against SOE because I think they'll never be able to become a reliable developer if they aren't given a chance. I am willing to bet they have some pretty talented people in their company seeing as how many gamers liked SWG before. However if this game flops alot of faith will be lost and though I won't completely shun their games I will drop them way down in my queue.
I'll try this game only since I think it has a decent concept. I won't hold the past against SOE because I think they'll never be able to become a reliable developer if they aren't given a chance. I am willing to bet they have some pretty talented people in their company seeing as how many gamers liked SWG before. However if this game flops alot of faith will be lost and though I won't completely shun their games I will drop them way down in my queue.
Come on...how many chances does a company like SOE deserve? If SWG had been their only mistake that would be one thing but they have screwed people over in just about all of their games.
Originally posted by Puffles Originally posted by Stuhero Originally posted by Puffles Originally posted by Stuhero Even if they do produce a flawless game it is unlikely to become a commercial success due to rapant bad word of mouth over their past.
Regardless of whether or not The Agency is a commercial success, I'll still be playing it as long as it's fun. I wont be playing as it sends the message to the industry as a whole that you can screw your customers without paying a price. If that is the message you want to send thats cool, freedom of choice is a wonderful thing, It is a poor choice in my opinion. So you're saying that SOE should be permanently boycotted, even if they get their act together and stop screwing the customers that want to give them a second chance?
if you can stop a mass murderer from killing ppl then ill go buy a SOE MMORPG...deal?
Anybody who thinks that Smed's new item mall, microtransaction scam of a game will be any good whatsoever is, in my professional opinion, clinically insane.
Exactly he has show YET AGAIN..that he is out of touch with reality.
Item Mall = FAIL!
Microtransaction Content = FAIL!
Being out of touch with potential customers = Epic FAIL!
This is the last nail in the coffin for SOE MMOs, they are beyond help and doomed to failure. This will be their last forte into the genre for a long time.
Comments
Mrw0lf, performace in anything is at least partially due to luck. The fact that SOE treated their customers like crap wasn't due to luck, but the fact that so many people reacted the way they did--far more than expected, every time SOE did something that was against the majority of the gaming community--was. And the fact that the things they changed sometimes happened to ruin the game unexpectedly is also a chance factor.
If there's a greater than 0% luck factor in something, regression to the mean can apply. The Wiki article itself says that.
The problem is when you say 'partially' what you should say is 'in the whole system of development a very small part of'. Practically the parts left to luck are mainly to do with things (or at least should be) beyond the control of the devs, such as timing, the fickle nature of gamers etc, in the case of SOE there will always be a portion (albeit small) of the MMO community that these elements are no longer down to luck they have themselves created a situation where the randomness of nature is no longer relavent.
Look I'm not saying The Agency won't be a good game, I have a stion pass and hope it is, despite NGE I still play all their games, I just fail to see how regression plays any significcant part in the ongoing success of an mmo.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
It could succeed in spite of SOE. I like to be optimistic.
The greatest challenge that I think SOE faces is probably poor management. Because they have money and they have manpower. The problem is those resources are not being utilized efficiently, and that could have a direct bearing on The Agency's development.
But like I said, they could succeed in spite of themselves.
EQ2 = Great Game
SOE is a good game making company, they made a few bad choices with some games, SWG but overall SOE is a good company. I dont know why everyone seems to hate them, I never had an issue with SOE ever in 5 + years of EQ1 and 2+ of EQ2.
Past Performance "IS" a good indicator of the future in the case of game makers and SOE has made some great games in the pass. Everquest and Everquest 2.
Sooner or Later
I don't really understand the need for the thread I guess.
If you got so pissed off over SWG that you never play a SOE game. That would be a persons right and the only thing they could really do I guess.
There is no reason a game has to fail just because SOE is involved.
They bought MxO and Vanguard so I don't count those. The only game they ruined "for me" was SWG.
EQ2 is probably one of the better MMO's out (tho I hate to admit it).
Plus The Agency is being made by The Seattle studio so who knows..
It may not appeal to people that EQ1 did.. but there is no reason it will "fail" just because of SOE.
How many MMO's that launch are really successful? regardless of developer?
I've actually and I hate to admit it.. been somewhat impressed from what I've seen of The Agency. I certainly don't think I've ever been a SOE fan.
Keep in mind that SOEs biggest success post Brad-EQ1-no other competition era is a game that lost half of its population and merged servers in a little over a year.
Nothing leads me to believe this company is going to change its stripes by refocusing on a younger audience, adding another platform to support with consoles and switching revenue models to micro transactions. SOE might make more money than it does now, but I fully expect more of the same.
From the OP:
This concept can be easily applied to SOE's record to predict their future. Since SOE screwed up lots of their games to the point where they were unplayable, that gives us a really extreme set of data. The principle of regression toward the mean says that the next game they release won't be messed up anywhere nearly as badly. Just based on statistics, their next game will probably be screwed up somewhat, but not to the point where it's unplayable.
...
SOE has had a really bad record in the past, but The Agency will be virtually flawless; it will be the game they use to redeem themselves and develop a new, better reputation.
This is my first post on these boards. I'm an avid gamer, and a statistician - so the subject matter of the post caught my eye.
This is a poor understanding of regression to the mean and saying that you have evidence that based on SOE's "bad record in the past" that The Agency will be "virtually flawless" based on regression to the mean borders on the absurd. This statement is based in no way on any statistical analysis of performance.
- - -
First, I'll give you an example that someone gave me as an undergrad. Let's say you went to a parachuting contest. Everyone jumps and tries to land as close as they can to a target and their distance is measured. The someone offers a bet - pick one person that you think will get closer on their second jump. Regression toward the mean leads you to pick the person that landed the furthest away on the first jump. All other things being equal, and with no other knowledge, that is the safest bet.
But let's imagine the bet was who will be closest to the target on the second jump. In that case the appropriate bet would be the person who was closest on the first jump. You presume there are underlying factors (such as skill) that would be predictive.
If I were going to pick a game I would think would be "virtually flawless", I'd pick a developer whose last game was virtually flawless.
- - -
Secondly, you make note of "extreme scores". There are many times when you are doing an analysis of data (descriptive or inferential) where you would pay special attention to extreme scores in your data as these are outliers. In many cases outliers are removed prior to a statistical analysis because they may not reflect the population of interest. Let's say you are at the parachuting contest and on the first jump one of the contestants lands FAR away - like 100 miles away in another city. If you looked at the variance in landing distances, this person would be several (lets say 3 or more) standard deviations away from the mean. In such a case, I might make the assumption that this person was not drawn from the same population as other jumpers (that silly prankster!) and I would exclude them from the analysis.
Outlier analysis is performed and outliers are removed to help ensure that the data being analyzed is drawn from a homogenous population.
If I were going to build a predictive model of the state of games in the future, I would exclude extreme examples.
- - -
Thirdly, by applying the concept of regression toward the mean in this manner you are assuming a normal distribution (which may not be the case for game developers / publishers). What if the distribution was bimodal (drawn from two populations with different means). For example, what if the parachuting contest was pro-am with some being professional parachuting contest applicants and the others as amateurs. Imagine that the distributions of the two do NOT overlap. Imagine that even out of 100 tries, an amateur jumper would never get closer to the target than a professional. This would be an extreme bimodal distribution but it would be possible if there are factors (again, skill) that are predictive of performance and the sample was drawn from two different populations.
If I were going to look at the performance of gaming companies, I would not assume performance was unimodal - there may be a group of "good" companies, and a group of "bad" companies.
- - -
Lastly, if I were going to build a predicitive model of future game performance, I would not use regression toward the mean to do so. Regression toward the mean is a concept, but it is not a statistical model. Linear regression and analysis of variance are statistical models (in fact analysis of variance can be seen as a special case of regression). I'd identify factors that I thought may be predictive of future performance (such as prior performance, budgets, assets, etc.) and include them in the model. These would include endogenous (company specific) and exogenous (outside of company - for example the state of the economy, demand for games in general, demand for certain genres, etc.) factors. In such a model regression toward the mean is NOT a factor - it's just a concept that describes the most likely direction of movement of extreme scores *when all other factors are equal*.
To put it another way, if I was going invest money in a company I wouldn't just pick the ones the were the worst performers of the prior year. I'd look at the fundamentals.
It excites me when someone actually knows what the f*** they are talking about.
It excites me when someone actually knows what the f*** they are talking about.
I second that. Very nice reply Mahni and well written. I look forward to reading some more of your replys/posts and welcome to mmorpg.com.
EQ2 = Great Game - Was crap at release, better now by all accounts. Their one decent game atm.
Matrix Online - Sure, they didn't make it, but they sure didn't do much to improve it. Maintenance mode.
Planetside - Got off to a good start, but by all accounts I've read, they screwed it up and the player base fled in droves.
Vanguard - Again, the didn't make it, but game is progressing far too slowly. Maintenance mode again.
SWG - What apparently started out as a game with great potential (despite its terrible launch) they managed to totally destroy the game and unleash a horde of damaged gamers who apparently will never, ever forgive them until Smedley is burned on a cross.
Nonsense, their track record is pretty poor, and its perfectly valid to expect their next game to be released early, incomplete and not be a commercial success.
But that's OK, The Agency is probably going to be F2P anyways, so it will certainly be worth the "price"
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
lol...I just checked out their site and I gotta say...when they show a bullet crossing the screen in the flash, and the casing is still attached to the bullet, I wonder if they have ever shot a gun before in their lives, and just how screwed up their game can possibly be if they don't even know that the projectile leaves the casing before leaving the gun.
Just struck me as humorous is all, may not really have any impact on the game...but come on...duh!
Until Sony changes their ways (probably when they get rid of their CEO), to me Sony will only be a second rate company.
As others have also made known; SOE's only greatest success (in terms of revenue from users) was with EQ. All other titles have sustain less performance than projected. That is SOE's track record.
And those words of "virtually flawless" was a good chuckle, as indeed there is a bullet with a shell casing still together in flight. I'm surprised that has not been corrected as of yet. Oh right, that is just the website and not of any indication of how the game will turn out...
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I'd like to think that I can judge games by their content, not who makes it. I find it hard though, considering the fact I'm really afraid of Crytic getting STO, (I'm judging them by CoX). I don't mean to, but I am. I HOPE this game will be great, I think SOE can do great things (speaking as an EQ2 player). They can also do very bad things (speaking as a SWG, MXO player). I think they just have an apathetic view toward improving games they have because...people still play them.
Where am I going with this?
I don't know, the bouncy red ball in my room just caught my attention.
TO SUM UP- Its gonna suck. I hope it doesn't, but it will. And people will still pay for it. MONTHLY. Meaning that it WILL make a profit anyway it goes, and SOE will make more.
ALSO: Anyone know if PotBS is any good? Just sounds like another dumb idea but, I've been surprised before.
Terrible company that is completely out of touch with gamers ran by old school failing ideas.
The problem is that i dont think this game will fail.....
I AM SURE.
SOE has shown no respect for customers.
Company must be closed, and change name (in secrecy: maybe the Agency could help...)
That's all folks. bye bye.
Anybody who thinks that Smed's new item mall, microtransaction scam of a game will be any good whatsoever is, in my professional opinion, clinically insane.
I'll try this game only since I think it has a decent concept. I won't hold the past against SOE because I think they'll never be able to become a reliable developer if they aren't given a chance. I am willing to bet they have some pretty talented people in their company seeing as how many gamers liked SWG before. However if this game flops alot of faith will be lost and though I won't completely shun their games I will drop them way down in my queue.
Come on...how many chances does a company like SOE deserve? If SWG had been their only mistake that would be one thing but they have screwed people over in just about all of their games.
I wont be playing as it sends the message to the industry as a whole that you can screw your customers without paying a price. If that is the message you want to send thats cool, freedom of choice is a wonderful thing, It is a poor choice in my opinion.
So you're saying that SOE should be permanently boycotted, even if they get their act together and stop screwing the customers that want to give them a second chance?
if you can stop a mass murderer from killing ppl then ill go buy a SOE MMORPG...deal?
Don't feel like fueling the fire, nevermind.
Exactly he has show YET AGAIN..that he is out of touch with reality.
Item Mall = FAIL!
Microtransaction Content = FAIL!
Being out of touch with potential customers = Epic FAIL!
This is the last nail in the coffin for SOE MMOs, they are beyond help and doomed to failure. This will be their last forte into the genre for a long time.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.