Forums-->General game forum-->
<<|<|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|>|>>
| Author | Whiner theme |
|---|
who the hell cares so yes i helped griffin by losing 20 battle first round but then i help manticore by losing only 10 battle in round 2? So end conclusion I didnt help either team what kind of snow are u on bro? U clearly dont understand simple math.
I win 30/60 battles so end result statistically i didnt help either team win | but then i help manticore by losing only 10 battle in round 2? So end conclusion I didnt help either team what kind of snow are u on bro? U clearly dont understand simple math.
I was saying it all depends on how many players actually participate in each round that affects the total score. For example, in round 3 a lot of players wouldn't play right? If you'd play round 2 and round 3 instead of round 1 and round 2, then your score would have a different meaning. In the end, your team lost badly but go ahead genius, teach me more math. | my team lost badly is due to RNG and not my skill.
U have no clue what you're talking about. U=Nobody cares how many players participate in each round or how many games were played. I won 30/60 battles thats 50% win rate. Sure I lose 20 battles for round 1 and win 10, so yes, i brought my team down in Round 1 but I won 20 and lost 10 in Round 2 so thats 50% win rate too, and i brought my team up.
Do u understand basic math 10+20=30? 30x2= 60
Win rate 30/60 = 50%?
So yes of course I didn't help any team WIN or LOSE statistically u don't know what ur talking about | for kchong:
Players who complain about RNG are losers. But leave that point aside.
The thing is, it is not simple math. You are looking too much at your score instead of the total score. Read the whole thing before commenting again.
Suppose there are 20 players in rounds 1 and 2, but only 10 players in round 3. Then your 20 wins in round 2 that actually helped manticore have less value than if you would have got them in round 3. Why? Because with more players in round 2, it's more likely that a good griffin player has a good score like yours in round 2 and there is more opportunity for griffins to catch up in that round than round 3. In round 3, with fewer players, your score would have been more decisive. Yes, statistically your entire participation was pointless but in practice, there are additional factors to consider that make a squad win or lose.
And, before you say that round 3 will not have fewer players than rounds 1 and 2, let me say beforehand that it is besides the point. You cannot argue that there are precisely equal number of players in each round and that much is enough for my argument.
Again, correct me if I am thinking of this the wrong way. I admit I'm not a mathematician in fact my friends know that I have a much better aptitude for science. | I also lose due to RNG doesn't give me luck on every hit, morale every move, and sometimes it gives my opponent(s) luck/morale.
If it wasn't for that, I'd probably always win. Nothing wrong with my skills... | | My whine against RNG! :) | Why u keep bringing out round 3 which hasn't happen yet? Your argument is irelevant and not even logical, yes if we look at a smaller distribution for example, then of course with less players/games played, a good score would be more beneficial for ur team rather than a good score during a round where more games are played.
The reason your argument is not valid is because round 3 has NOT started. So why do u keep bringing round 3 for an example when it hasn't even started? My contribution this event = 0 because i played in round 1 and 2, even if i did play in round 3, the contribution is still 0. Sure, having a better win rate in round 3 would be more beneficial for my team vs a score in round 1/2 due to less games played (2days for round 3 and 4 days round round 1/2 respectively), i get your point but ur making points that are IRELEVANT and NOT VALID. Round 3 hasn't happened so why do u keep bringing round 3 out?
U think this is some sun tzu war of art huh nobody gives a crap who wins theres nothing i can do, i can win all 30 of my battles in round 1 and manticore would still lose, unless u can command all players in manticore to let all the shitty players win round 1 and lose a crap ton of battles and all the good players to wait for round 2 before playing all their battles, then your argument is pointless. Nobody cares about strategy or whatever u claim in your post, so yes i read and understand and I can agree that there can be some strategy to win rounds BUT only if u can command all the players on your team and cooperate but can u? no u cant, so yes it is indeed RNG.
Who has better players (via RNG) in their team wins, there is not strategy taking place and whatever u do doesn't matter in the event, i repeat even if i win 30 battles out of 30 my result would be irelevant indeed in the event, and in fact i won 30/60 which is indeeed the TRUE IRELEVANCY in the event since 50% WR makes no impact whatsoever, and even if your round theory which has such a small tiny irelevant margin of score adjustment is considered, it is so slight and tiny that it is negligible and not relevant | Lol.
I am talking about the probability of your result being decisive or not in each round. It is not clear yet because we don't have even have the numbers for round 2. In any case, this probability depends on the total number of players. That's all I'm saying. But you are the one who keeps saying your total score means nothing to griffins or manticores just because you have a 50% win rate overall.
If your result contributed decisively to round 1 in a negative way, but also contributed decisively to round 2 positively, then you can say that you did not help either side.
If your result contributed decisively to round 1 in a negative way, but not decisively for round 2 positively. Then realistically, you made manticores lose.
You say I don't understand simple math, but who is overly reliant on simple math here? If you want to claim you did not help either side, wait until the end of event. That's it. | post 362, 364, 368,
Disagree 100%
U don't know what ur talking about bro, degree from trump university | Did you just agree with vv in the first part of 367 and then go on a rant about some unrelated garbage?
Your 30/60 contribution is not net neutral (with a high degree of certainty) in a system with finite trials ( and here we have a small number of trials) that is a mathematical fact.
Vv is not wrong about this and he is more qualified than you ever will be so take a chill pill and stop whining for once in your miserable life. | Here comes more so called "qualified mathematicians" when they don't even have a degree in a math/science field haha.
Your 30/60 contribution is not net neutral (with a high degree of certainty)
Did u not read or are u delusional? I said and in fact i won 30/60 which is indeeed the TRUE IRELEVANCY in the event since 50% WR makes no impact whatsoever, and even if your round theory which has such a small tiny irelevant margin of score adjustment is considered, it is so slight and tiny that it is negligible and not relevant. It is NOT net zero, that is true but the tiny disparity is NEGLIGIBLE and IRELEVANT. I repeat, NEGLIGIBLE and IRELEVANT.
IT's the same as using Pi = 3.142 or g=9.81m/s^2. When calculating forces do u take into account air resistance 100% of the time? Use your brain, we don't count air resistance because it is negligible, unless u want really, really absurd precise datasets, which u don't. Please bro, if u are not educated in the field dont try to talk math
Maybe u need a life bro that can't understand english or do simple math, so called qualified peeps lmaoo | This is absolutely hilarious. I have not had a laugh this good in ages. Never change kchong.
You agree with the math and you still somehow think that you calling the math wrong initially was not stupid. I dont really care about the ‘impact’ or whatever, just by the fact that you wasted all your attemps before the last round with a higher weight should be enough counters all your delusions and whatever you tell yourself. I know that the picks are random and the competition can be modelled as a random but the point is that you are not playing optimally with your own attempts no matter how you slice it.
If you think i need math to call you a whiney nincompoop you are mistaken, this thread is proof enough and i can do it with or without reason.
I just wanted to state that the mat being spouted was correct and nothing more, i don't really need opportunities to roast you, also someone talking so much smack about english should at least have the basics of grammar down in his own words before he choses to attack others for it. | | Lol major screw up by me there in the previous post, cant wait for the vultures to come :p. | Dear Admins,
I wasn't expecting the exact same Order of Griffin and Manticore this time around.
Please use some imagination and provide us with new arts.
Its no fun getting the exact same item again! -_- | Here comes more so called "qualified mathematicians" when they don't even have a degree in a math/science field haha.
I don't see why u would need a data science degree for this but ok | Wow didn't expect statistics bullying in lwm forums xD
My 2 cents:
1) As VV said, kchong's score alone doesn't really matter. And it ESPECIALLY doesn't matter with 30/60 (0/60 or 60/60 may somewhat matter). VV is right that theoretically 10/30 and 20/30 is not net 0 impact, but it's very close to it.
2) When it comes to statistics like this, the answer depends on what and how good your assumptions are. The obvious assumption is round 2 has fewer total points than round 1, so it has greater "impact" per game. However, here's another perspective. Before round 1 results are out, there is no information about what the results will be like so we naturally expect 50-50 and can guess it'll be a tight game. However, by the time round 2 starts the expected result for round 2 is not 50-50 as manticore won last time (players don't shuffle sides, some just drop out). In fact as we see unsurprisingly, they won the 2nd round and are leading the 3rd. What this means is that kchong's individual impact in round 2 is probably slightly lower as the expected result is no longer a tight 50-50. Note that none of this is in hindsight, in hindsight his net impact would be zero even if he got all losses or all wins.
Your 30/60 contribution is not net neutral (with a high degree of certainty) in a system with finite trials ( and here we have a small number of trials) that is a mathematical fact.
Unnecessarily fancy language to bully poor kchong, and it doesn't even make sense
(with a high degree of certainty): Confidence, not certainty
in a system with finite trials ( and here we have a small number of trials): 30/60 would have 0 impact if there are finite trials, as long as it's just one round. Even with multiple rounds it can have 0 expected impact if each round has the same number of points, so this discussion has very little to do with "finite trials". The flaw lays elsewhere, which VV explained accurately without "mathematician" language.
that is a mathematical fact: Cherry on top of the mathematician's cake :P | | Missed the way you explain things Randomr1 <3 | I will take the bullet randomr1. but please don't call my language fancy it was half wrong as your pointed out.
What this means is that kchong's individual impact in round 2 is probably slightly lower as the expected result is no longer a tight 50-50.
this is exactly was I was trying to explain however I could not get it across properly and certainly not as clearly as you.
the point about finite trials was there because if the rounds were to continue infinitely, assuming a uniform distribution of skill of players among both teams, the score would tend closer and closer to the 50-50 mark. in which case the contribution of each player would be closer to net neutral irrespective of score.
the problem is that i am unwilling to put too much effort into forum arguments. name calling is far easier and the outrage per unit effort is way higher. | As randommr 1 said VV is right that theoretically 10/30 and 20/30 is not net 0 impact, but it's very close to it.
and I agreed Did u not read or are u delusional? I said and in fact i won 30/60 which is indeeed the TRUE IRELEVANCY in the event since 50% WR makes no impact whatsoever, and even if your round theory which has such a small tiny irelevant margin of score adjustment is considered, it is so slight and tiny that it is negligible and not relevant. It is NOT net zero, that is true but the tiny disparity is NEGLIGIBLE and IRELEVANT. I repeat, NEGLIGIBLE and IRELEVANT.
Clearly this player with pirate flag beside their name is just a troll and don't know simple math. Only look to argue for no reasons at all lol!
I repeat. When calculating forces do u take into account air resistance 100% of the time? Use your brain, we don't count air resistance because it is negligible, unless u want really, really absurd precise datasets, which u don't. | | see how easy it is to rile you up even though all of us are in agreement about the math :P. Stay frosty kchong :* keep flipping those burgers |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
<<|<|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|>|>>Back to topics list
|
