|
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. : 7:34 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 [2016-12-23. : 7:25 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- 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. such as pubbies in donuts regarding TS[2016-12-23. : 7:25 am] LoveLess -- Competitive players can see losing as a source of inspiration, meanwhile there are some who believe losing means you should never play again.[2016-12-23. : 7:25 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- like is there a way so that people win most often (because it's more fun), but while still having losers (because otherwise it's not a contest)[2016-12-23. : 7:24 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LoveLessLoveLess shouted: Most of the people who play video games see winning as the only source of enjoyment. which is what originally made me think of it [2016-12-23. : 7:24 am] Swampfox -- i think if youre playing a game that comes down to winning and losing[2016-12-23. : 7:24 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- 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[2016-12-23. : 7:24 am] LoveLess -- Most of the people who play video games see winning as the only source of enjoyment.[2016-12-23. : 7:23 am] LoveLess -- It depends on the mindset of players. Are they seeking purely enjoyment, or interested in competition?[2016-12-23. : 7:22 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Team A continues to dominate, everyone else has terrible scores[2016-12-23. : 7:22 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- ok, Team A is people who win most often, team B is people who lose & are more average, uneven split [2016-12-23. : 7:18 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- SwampfoxSwampfox shouted: nah the people with most wins would carry their team resulting in wins that's the idea of balancing it that way, but I was saying ideally so each team has an equal chance [2016-12-23. : 7:18 am] Swampfox -- nah the people with most wins would carry their team resulting in wins[2016-12-23. : 7:17 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- because if you balance it by putting people with the most wins teamed with the most losses against everyone with the most equal scores, that would tend to balance it out[2016-12-23. : 7:15 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- LoveLessLoveLess shouted: Would games ever end if both teams are evenly balanced and distributed? I was just saying ideally, for like an extremely perfect hypothetical[2016-12-23. : 7:14 am] LoveLess -- Would games ever end if both teams are evenly balanced and distributed? |
