EPTIncreased player numbers recently - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36387 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:10 randomKo_Orean wrote: Are you kidding me? Inflation defines the nominal and real value of [insert numerical unit, such as $]. can players in starcraft not be numerical units? when i go on battle.net.net. i log onto a gateway called "east" and the first thing i do after answering some of those bots or even before i join a 4v4 no clutter game, i type /users, and it gives me a numerical number of users. so i just insert that into your sentence and boom, i win the argument. obviously starcraft players can be measured numerically, just today bisu played july, that's so easy to count. bisu counts as 1, july as like 3, so 4. GPA inflation, for example, is when the school gives out better GPA scores (by forcing them to take more AP classes) to most students so that their students might seem smarter compared to other school, while in fact, they might not be. The number of players, however... WTF this is whole level of stupid. if you replace "GPA" with "number of starcraft players" then its an easy analogy to make, and easily analized. in fact, the number of starcraft players playing is probably directly re-inversely proportionate to the number of schoolkids with high GPAs. so there. | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
computer games usually decline in popularity with age , this is a proven fact.it is stupid to compare a computer game with chess , since after 11 years a computer game is dated whereas chess is timeless. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27156 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:27 PobTheCad wrote: computer games usually decline in popularity with age , this is a proven fact.it is stupid to compare a computer game with chess , since after 11 years a computer game is dated whereas chess is timeless. Watch what you say about my beloved StarCraft... | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36387 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:27 PobTheCad wrote: hot_bids argument is not a total dud since the number of 'gamers' has increased exponentially in the past 10 years but what i am saying is the recent spike has only been for the last couple of months.i'm certain that the early 2003 BW numbers would have been higher than the early 2007 BW numbers for example. exactly thank you, though your agreement is a bit of a backhanded compliment "not a total dud" but i accept it and will learn to appreciate it as if it was inflation, it gets greater value over time. computer games usually decline in popularity with age , this is a proven fact.it is stupid to compare a computer game with chess , since after 11 years a computer game is dated whereas chess is timeless. its not really timeless, not if you play speed chess, that is timed pretty hardcore. also: "Around 1200, rules of chess started to be modified in southern Europe, and around 1475, several major changes made the game essentially as it is known today." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Origins_of_the_modern_game_.281450.E2.80.931850.29 so chess is like 550 years old, but if you take into account inflation of those years, it's not nearly that old, more like 200ish years old. who knows if brood war will be older than chess eventually? it is a question we all would like to ask to be answered, as many people call chess the "StarCraft: Brood War of board games". | ||
|
QuickStriker
United States3694 Posts
And I can see that inflation can be used besides money values, number values and etc. It can basically be used for everything and # of SC player is indeed a # value... | ||
|
SnowFantasy
4173 Posts
You are awesome. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36387 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:45 QuickStriker wrote: hahaha, after reading the posts of this, I have to say I am amazed with using Starcraft players in battle.net of inflation. I will have to agree fully with Hot_Bid on this one along with few more factors to add with the rising # of players in SC since he does have a point and a logic rather than others who only object/deny without real details as well as no other explanation except him explaining all! And I can see that inflation can be used besides money values, number values and etc. It can basically be used for everything and # of SC player is indeed a # value... we must be careful of using inflation as an explanation though, as its usefulness and truth may eventually also become inflated, and thus create a dangerous vortex of exponentially increasing inflation, to the point where a single starcraft player is essentially worthless. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:08 Hot_Bid wrote: probably because they realize i am truly relying on lowly legal inferences, now go into dictionary, it oughtta teachya obviously more people on earth = more people doing any given thing. let me give you an example, if there are 10 people on earth breathing, and instead there are 15 people, that's 5 more people breathing. another example would be if there are 15 people, and then there are 20 people, that's another 5 more people breathing, or 10 more than 10 people breathing. because there's a PS2 and PS3? I can think of a few examples, there are more people playing Chess now than the 1800s. And there are more people in the 1800s playing chess than in the 400s. And more people playing in the 400s than in 65million BC, because there were no people back then, only dinosaurs. Your posts seem to have inflation too, every one of them is worth less as you continue on this site. I think you need to re-read the wikipedia definition of inflation. Let me spell it out for you. If you replace "prices" with "people playing on bnet" then what does it read? "This article is about a general rise in the people playing on bnet." Case closed. You're trolling right? I would be 100% sure you are trolling but some people are actually agreeing with you which means that in fact people can be that dumb. I'm going to just assume they are not actually reading closely enough to what you are saying to have an opinion and just read like 1 random sentence that isn't completely retarded(of which there are few) and basing their opinion on that. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:45 QuickStriker wrote: I will have to agree fully with Hot_Bid on this one Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36387 Posts
| ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27156 Posts
I mean, what about technological inflation. More people have computers and internet, thus more people have a chance to play the game. Final, language inflation. English continues to spread around the world, and it is the default language of battle net. As more people are comfortable with that, then they will obviously play more. I think it is a pretty simple reason tbh, I don't know why you take such umbridge to it. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
can players in starcraft not be numerical units? when i go on battle.net.net. i log onto a gateway called "east" and the first thing i do after answering some of those bots or even before i join a 4v4 no clutter game, i type /users, and it gives me a numerical number of users. so i just insert that into your sentence and boom, i win the argument. obviously starcraft players can be measured numerically, just today bisu played july, that's so easy to count. bisu counts as 1, july as like 3, so 4. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:02 Manifesto7 wrote: Why would he be trolling? Doesn't it make sense that as more people exist there is more of a chance they will play SC? I mean, what about technological inflation. More people have computers and internet, thus more people have a chance to play the game. Final, language inflation. English continues to spread around the world, and it is the default language of battle net. As more people are comfortable with that, then they will obviously play more. I think it is a pretty simple reason tbh, I don't know why you take such umbridge to it. I ws 90% sure he was trolling on page 1.. but just read his posts on page 2.. Numerical numbers?? 4v4 no clutter... LOL hilarious. I don't get how mani missed that he was trolling, go read his posts slowly and report back please. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36387 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:04 inReacH wrote: I ws 90% sure he was trolling on page 1.. but just read his posts on page 2.. Numerical numbers?? 4v4 no clutter... LOL hilarious. whats wrong with 4v4 no clutter? its just a different type of game than low low money, it focuses more on macro than micro. its a different skill. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
| ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36387 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:08 inReacH wrote: I feel like upon clicking this thread I've entered an alternate dimension. the feeling is mutual when i see your name in the sc2 forum | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:08 Hot_Bid wrote: probably because they realize i am truly relying on lowly legal inferences, now go into dictionary, it oughtta teachya obviously more people on earth = more people doing any given thing. let me give you an example, if there are 10 people on earth breathing, and instead there are 15 people, that's 5 more people breathing. another example would be if there are 15 people, and then there are 20 people, that's another 5 more people breathing, or 10 more than 10 people breathing. because there's a PS2 and PS3? I can think of a few examples, there are more people playing Chess now than the 1800s. And there are more people in the 1800s playing chess than in the 400s. And more people playing in the 400s than in 65million BC, because there were no people back then, only dinosaurs. Your posts seem to have inflation too, every one of them is worth less as you continue on this site. I think you need to re-read the wikipedia definition of inflation. Let me spell it out for you. If you replace "prices" with "people playing on bnet" then what does it read? "This article is about a general rise in the people playing on bnet." Case closed. I guess what Hot_Bid wants to point out is the fact that the player number increases even though the percentage of players playing decreases. Let me put it like that: 500 people live on earth and 250 are playing Starcraft in 2008. (50% playing) 1000 people live on earth and 300 are playing Starcraft in 2009. (30% playing) You have more players playing Starcraft, but still you have a lesser percentage of people playing in total. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27156 Posts
Was that so difficult to understand? | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36387 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:10 G.s)NarutO wrote: I guess what Hot_Bid wants to point out is the fact that the player number increases even though the percentage of players playing decreases. Let me put it like that: 500 people live on earth and 250 are playing Starcraft in 2008. (50% playing) 1000 people live on earth and 300 are playing Starcraft in 2009. (30% playing) You have more players playing Starcraft, but still you have a lesser percentage of people playing in total. this man understands simple inflationary mathematics. seriously was that so hard inreach? i even linked you to wikipedia. | ||
| ||
