Jump to content

eae

Community Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eae

  1. @Boudica my key point was to provoke thought, not to point fingers at people. Let people try events and improve.
    In responses to my intial message, you bring little value to the discussion and do various rhetoric such as pointless question. You are also trying to discredit me with false accusations. I keep note that you admit making no effort to read previous message and that you prioritise your beliefs over data, facts and arguments. You are not proving your credibility at all.
    (A detail: I used the quote button and my original quotes were skipped each time. Hopefully the original one is still unmodified above in the thread.)

    The bet thing is a relevant point. Let's say you consider T1 is the "strongest" team and T2 the "weakest" team and you bet 1000$ on T1. If T2 wins, you lose 1000$. If T1 wins, what is your net profit? I am also asking this question to @MarcusAureliu#s

    • Confused 1
  2. 5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    You've just made an explicit assumption. ;)

    I rather made observations than assumptions.

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    I think it's been already mentioned that the purpose of the rating is to put players in a relative order by their averaged performance over many games and different conditions.

    You mention rating based on averaged performance over many games and different conditions. There is no such data in this thread. The proposed ratings are (average of) assessments, this is a different thing.

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    These assumptions are correct if you use this definition.

    Do you believe these assumptions are also correct for team games?

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    Also, I'll bet you $1000 that the weakest team won't win a single game against the top rated teams. I'm not saying that my prediction was easy to make but still.

    The bet thing is interesting. You say you would bet 1000$, but it does not tell us much. The point is: how much would you win the bet?

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    Thanks, but this has already been addressed too. Have you read the thread, or are you just trying to argue with a straw man here? I mean, it's not bad to list these as a warning, but as @PhyZik said, the 0 A.D. community is a bunch of nerds.

    Please show us where it was addressed in this thread.

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    We aren't dumb.

    This is just an assumption.

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    Yes, good observation, these really are some questions we've been discussing above.

    Those two are not observations, those are assumptions.

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    Do you have any arguments to add? Because I've played a few games and I quite know this community.

    What an argument.

    5 hours ago, Boudica said:

    No one watches a pro playing a noob. No one likes to play in an inferior team.

    Do you have any argument or data to back these assumptions?

  3. Some of you make more or less implicit assumptions. I let you think about these assumptions, below are some of them.

    1. A player strength (or skill level or whatever you call it) can be reduced to just a number.
    2. Thus, if player A is stronger than B, and B stronger than C, then A is stronger than C.
    3. This number does not fluctuate (time, computer, internet, game settings such as civs, map, starting resources, positons, etc).
    4. You can always easily predict the outcome of a match just based on these numbers.
    5. The strength of a team is just the sum of the individual strengths. A variation of this assumption is: the strength of a team is just the sum of the four best individual numbers.
    6. Players and observers won't have fun with the current teams.
    7. Any player would accept to team up with any other player.
    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...