|
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. : 7:49 am]  Lanthanide -- so if you're only looking at L and W, then an outcome that generates L in a different ratio to W would skew the total population[2016-12-23. : 7:47 am] Lanthanide -- as opposed to a 3FFA where 1 player loses early, and the remaining 2 players go on to tie[2016-12-23. : 7:47 am] Lanthanide -- so long as whenever 1 player gets a tie, all other players in the game also get a tie[2016-12-23. : 7:46 am] Lanthanide -- if it's a mixture of game types, the population's win:loss ratio will proportionally reflect that mix of games[2016-12-23. : 7:45 am] Lanthanide -- or if everyone always plays 3FFA and never 1v1, then the win:loss ratio will always be 1:2[2016-12-23. : 7:45 am] Lanthanide -- if it is possible to play 3FFA games, but no one ever does, then the win:loss ratio will always be 1:1[2016-12-23. : 7:45 am]  O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LanthanideLanthanide shouted: no, it only depends on the proportion of games played with each possible outcome .. or that[2016-12-23. : 7:45 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- well in the ideal scenario it doesn't, but in practice it will[2016-12-23. : 7:45 am] Lanthanide -- no, it only depends on the proportion of games played with each possible outcome[2016-12-23. : 7:44 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- it wouldn't because we don't live in an ideal world. There are going to be players that are always way better (or worse) than everyone that will skew it[2016-12-23. : 7:44 am] Lanthanide -- if 50% of all games are 1v1 with win = loss, and 50% are 3FFA where 1 win = 2 loss, then for every 1 win there would be 1.5 losers in the total population[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 |