Vehicles vs infantry

Aurmanite · 2013-01-16, 08:52 PM

Kills by infantry in red.
Kills by vehicles in blue.

james · 2013-01-16, 08:56 PM

Source for stats anyone can go make a graph

Aurmanite · 2013-01-16, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by james

Source for stats anyone can go make a graph

www.twitter.com/mhigby

Soothsayer · 2013-01-16, 08:59 PM

how about kills by infantry of vehicles, kills by infantry of infantry, kills by vehicles of infantry, kills of vehicles by vehicles.

Would be way more informative.

Aurmanite · 2013-01-16, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Soothsayer

how about kills by infantry of vehicles, kills by infantry of infantry, kills by vehicles of infantry, kills of vehicles by vehicles.

Would be way more informative.

The graph shows that for the most part, infantry kills infantry, and infantry kill vehicles.

It wouldn't be possible for the graph to look like that if that weren't the case.

Mordelicius · 2013-01-16, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Kills by infantry in red.
Kills by vehicles in blue.

Great. Now we have the ratio of vehicle kills vs infantry kills.
Now, we just need the ratio of number of vehicle vs infantry used for those kills.

The ratio for the first seems to be 3 : 1.

Also, they can add:

Vehicle kill vs Vehicle kill
Infantry vs. Infantry kill

Lastly, they can compare Magrider, Vanguard, Prowler kills for Infantry/Vehicles. I know Prowler is more anti-infantry and Vanguard is more anti-vehicle. But, I won't be surprised if the Magrider is double-dipping.

That is not to mention Faction K/D ratio.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-16, 09:14 PM

A better graph would be kills per vehicle versus kills per infantry. Or something with a rate.

Otherwise that graph is pointless since we cannot know how many vehicles are typically around versus infantry. 40 infantry fighting with 80 deaths amongst them over thirty minutes looks higher than one vehicle killing 20 people over that same time frame.

These guys fail at statistical analysis.

OCNSethy · 2013-01-16, 09:18 PM

Guys, Some context...

Higby just threw this out on Twitter as a "Guess what the graph shows?" type of guessing competition. I dont think there was any deep and meaningful intent behind it

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-16, 09:58 PM

You guys suggesting more info is needed to make even a general conclusion are deluded.

If you dont comprehend that the vast majority of deaths in game are of infantry then you arent even playing the game.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-16, 10:05 PM

Good observation genius.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-16, 10:17 PM

What I find funny is that such a stunt is typical of Sony; spinning it to the very end. Not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance.

If they believe in something, then don't change a thing. Why even worry and produce such a graph and publish it on twitter??? That's how I see, a defensive ploy to their decisions and reasoning to-date on the entire vehicle VS infantry "mess."

Stick to your "guns" and let it play out. Don't blame us for what you have now as the fundamental core is what was spewed out of beta; if it is truly successful, leave it be.

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-16, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

What I find funny is that such a stunt is typical of Sony; spinning it to the very end. Not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance.

If they believe in something, then don't change a thing. Why even worry and produce such a graph and publish it on twitter??? That's how I see, a defensive ploy to their decisions and reasoning to-date on the entire vehicle VS infantry "mess."

Stick to your "guns" and let it play out. Don't blame us for what you have now as the fundamental core is what was spewed out of beta; if it is truly successful, leave it be.

That doesnt even make sense.

If his twitter post means anything its obviously making a case for why they are going to try to reduce the infantry kills by vehicles.
Maybe you disagree with that or maybe you misunderstood that - I cant tell - your post just rambles.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-16, 10:43 PM

I don't know how to respond to that, so I'll leave it there...

But, I learned a lot nonetheless with Higby's tweet. Something murky became much more clearer to me, and that's fine as it's their prerogative.

OCNSethy · 2013-01-17, 12:06 AM

Why does everything Higby does have to have a double meaning or some conspiratorial intent?

Goodness me, I took it as a good natured, throw away tweet for some fun... sigh.

maradine · 2013-01-17, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by OCNSethy

Why does everything Higby does have to have a double meaning or some conspiratorial intent?

Once you start assuming ill intent, you pretty much can't ever come back. It's self-fulfilling.