|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2016-12-23. : 7:43 am]  O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: well I should say, will tend towards reflecting that distribution, not that it will reflect it exactly ... which is why I was asking ideally  [2016-12-23. : 7:43 am]  Lanthanide -- well I should say, will tend towards reflecting that distribution, not that it will reflect it exactly[2016-12-23. : 7:43 am] Swampfox -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: if your set of games conists of, or includes, other arrangements, where individual games can sometimes result in more losers than winners, or more winners than losers, then your total population will reflect whatever that distribution is ok thats the right way to put it right there[2016-12-23. : 7:42 am] Lanthanide -- if your set of games conists of, or includes, other arrangements, where individual games can sometimes result in more losers than winners, or more winners than losers, then your total population will reflect whatever that distribution is[2016-12-23. : 7:42 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: like I said, if your set only consists of 1v1 games, then wins will always equal losses, because the only possible outcome from any individual game is win = loss that was already established, with any equal size teams (2v2, 3v3, etc.)[2016-12-23. : 7:41 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: the rules of a particular 7 FFA game might be that the first player loses and everyone else wins; has nothing to do with teams, just the rules of who wins and loses I was suggesting that arrangement as a way to always generate more wins than losses[2016-12-23. : 7:41 am] Lanthanide -- like I said, if your set only consists of 1v1 games, then wins will always equal losses, because the only possible outcome from any individual game is win = loss[2016-12-23. : 7:41 am] Lanthanide -- the rules of a particular 7 FFA game might be that the first player loses and everyone else wins; has nothing to do with teams, just the rules of who wins and loses[2016-12-23. : 7:41 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- we're not trying to compare scores between different team arrangements, I was just wondering if it's possible to always generate more wins than losses over many games[2016-12-23. : 7:40 am] Lanthanide -- talking about 'teams' is a distraction; you just have to talk about how many people can win or lose in any one game[2016-12-23. : 7:40 am] Lanthanide -- if your set of individual games includes games that are 3 FFA or 3vs2, then you'll generate more losses or wins respectively than the set of individual games that only includes 1v1[2016-12-23. : 7:39 am] Lanthanide -- talking about "teams" is irrelevant, because if you're in a 2 vs 2 game, the 'teams' are even. if you're in a 3 vs 2 game, the teams are uneven -> but as I said, it just depends on the possible outcomes of individual games[2016-12-23. : 7:38 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: FFA doesn't have teams, that's what FFA means It still yields fewer or equal wins than losses[2016-12-23. : 7:38 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- team isn't irrelevant. Because with equal team size or FFA, wins will always be <= losses. If teams are uneven, then it can be different (if the larger team won every time, wins would be > losses)[2016-12-23. : 7:37 am] Lanthanide -- if the rules of your game say that there can be at most 3 winners and multiple losers, then you'll have more losers than winners in the population as a whole; note I am saying that if 1 person loses 100 times, there could be 100 other people who won once each[2016-12-23. : 7:36 am] Lanthanide -- no, it comes down to the possible outcomes in any individual game[2016-12-23. : 7:36 am] Swampfox -- because all players will eventually play on the OP af side eventually[2016-12-23. : 7:35 am] Swampfox -- if you have a match with equal number of players but one side always wins more[2016-12-23. : 7:35 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- so basically unless you're doing some crazy thing, wins will always be less than or equal to losses ;o[2016-12-23. : 7:35 am] Lanthanide -- but if there's a slim chance for more losses than wins in an individual game, or more wins than losses, then your population as a whole would trend towards that[2016-12-23. : 7:35 am] Lanthanide -- if that set includes results where wins ALWAYS equal losses, then your entire population will be in balance, always[2016-12-23. : 7:35 am] Swampfox -- call of duty does it so that the top 3 players are considered winners  [2016-12-23. : 7:34 am] Lanthanide -- basically you just have to look at the set of possible outcomes for any individual game[2016-12-23. : 7:34 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- make it so the first person to lose is the only person to lose lol[2016-12-23. : 7:34 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: now if you're talking a game of 3 players FFA, then there would be 2 losses for every 1 win  I hadn't considered FFA's[2016-12-23. : 7:33 am] Lanthanide -- and in that case, the population would even out to 2x losses per win[2016-12-23. : 7:33 am] Lanthanide -- now if you're talking a game of 3 players FFA, then there would be 2 losses for every 1 win[2016-12-23. : 7:33 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- swampfox already said it's pretty much only possible with uneven team sizes (so a different number of wins vs. losses)[2016-12-23. : 7:33 am] Lanthanide -- but in 2v2, if you always have 2 winners and 2 losers, then it's the same again[2016-12-23. : 7:32 am] Lanthanide -- well the only way to get a mis-match between wins and losses, is if it is possible in any one game to have more wins than losses, or more losses than wins[2016-12-23. : 7:32 am] Lanthanide -- if you have 1 million iterations of such a balanced and equal outcome, you'll always get an equal number of wins and losses across the whole population[2016-12-23. : 7:32 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: farty, in a 1 v 1 game, one player must lose, and one player must win, assuming there's no 'tie' dynamic I never said it had to be 1v1[2016-12-23. : 7:31 am]  LoveLess -- That is also where the consistency factor comes in, sometimes people are actually not THAT bad, but several things lead them to that point.[2016-12-23. : 7:31 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I don't like playing games I'm not good at (which tbh is probably most of them), but people always insist I play with them ;o[2016-12-23. : 7:31 am] Lanthanide -- farty, in a 1 v 1 game, one player must lose, and one player must win, assuming there's no 'tie' dynamic[2016-12-23. : 7:30 am] Swampfox -- its like, damn, youre 0-20 right now. im sure theres a game youre much better at![2016-12-23. : 7:29 am] Swampfox -- why some people are even playing at all because of how bad theyre doing[2016-12-23. : 7:29 am] Swampfox -- while i never believe you should never play again if youre losing[2016-12-23. : 7:28 am] LoveLess -- And yet is a majority of public queue'd players in most matchmaking systems.[2016-12-23. : 7:27 am] Swampfox -- LoveLessLoveLess shouted: Competitive players can see losing as a source of inspiration, meanwhile there are some who believe losing means you should never play again. well that second group of people is stupid! [2016-12-23. : 7:26 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- SwampfoxSwampfox shouted: more players on attacking side which is what I meant by FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: ok, Team A is people who win most often, team B is people who lose & are more average, uneven split FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: I meant on either side. Like if there are enough people to outweigh the skill of team A, it'd be cool to have like a mass of people going against an elite few |