|
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year.
Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been from a different time but you'll see it won't matter.
So 60000 up from 50000 is a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
And he just said this was his original point despite not mentioning it..
And Mani and this other random are backing him up..
Like I said, I feel like I've been transported to another dimension.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year.
so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia.
Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME.
do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know.
|
On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year.
Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been from a different time but you'll see it won't matter.
So 60000 up from 50000 is a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
And he just said this was his original point despite not mentioning it..
And Mani and this other random are backing him up..
Like I said, I feel like I've been transported to another dimension.
1.4% of 6 billion is a pretty big number sir.
|
On February 13 2009 21:31 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year.
Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been from a different time but you'll see it won't matter.
So 60000 up from 50000 is a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
And he just said this was his original point despite not mentioning it..
And Mani and this other random are backing him up..
Like I said, I feel like I've been transported to another dimension. 1.4% of 6 billion is a pretty big number sir.
Oh my lord..
Not the point at all, the actual number is irrelevant, I was refuting a claim that the percentage of people playing starcraft out of the whole world is lower, despite there being more players.
|
On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Show nested quote +Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know.
Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this.
For those of you who don't get it yet, he just completely refuted his own original claim.
His original claim was that there are more people on bnet because there are more people in the world since last year.
And now he has just said that the population growth in the last year has no effect on player activity because they are all babies.
Though both arguments have other flaws of there own, you should now be able to see that he is trolling.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know. Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this.
if you think i'm not being serious why do you continue to argue and reply to my posts? what are you some sort of troll?
|
On February 13 2009 21:38 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know. Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this. if you think i'm not being serious why do you continue to argue and reply to my posts? what are you some sort of troll?
Because people are agreeing with you... like mani and that naruto guy who is pulling random shit out of nowhere just to agree with you.. I'm not even talking to you anymore I'm talking to people who can't see your posts for what they are.
|
Osaka27174 Posts
His original claim was that there are more people on bnet because there are more people in the world since last year.
And now he has just said that the population growth in the last year has no effect on player activity because they are all babies.
Fathers can no longer go out, they must stay at home and care for their young. And, when the children go to sleep they play on battlenet. That is why I am here.
|
Germany18839 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:38 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know. Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this. if you think i'm not being serious why do you continue to argue and reply to my posts? what are you some sort of troll? Because people are agreeing with you... like mani and that naruto guy who is pulling random shit out of nowhere just to agree with you.. I'm not ever talking to you anymore I'm talking to people who can't see your posts for what they are.
Seriously I agree because in my opinion he is right - there's no need to offend me. Maybe you should just post your opinion without offending people. Just take a look at your post count. You don't even have 500 posts which doesn't mean you can't be right about something, but it means that you can't act like you actually own Teamliquid. I have more than 6000 posts and have learned my lessons on Teamliquid and I'm a established and well-known poster now. You probably should learn some manners before getting all childish in a discussion in which someone has another opinion.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:38 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know. Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this. if you think i'm not being serious why do you continue to argue and reply to my posts? what are you some sort of troll? Because people are agreeing with you... like mani and that naruto guy who is pulling random shit out of nowhere just to agree with you.. I'm not ever talking to you anymore I'm talking to people who can't see your posts for what they are.
you act like i'm some sort of sith lord bent on controll of the forums or something. here is what happened: OP comes in with a huge statistical analomy. i point out that due to player inflation the statistical increase in players isn't that big a deal. i link to many sources, including wikipedia. then you come in here completely outraged because you disagree with what wikipedia says about inflation, even though i didn't write the wikipedia article and they have one of the best error checking methods available. sure there's issues sometimes with people screwing around with the entries, but its usually very accurate. at least in the inflation wiki i saw no problems. can't you just accept that there's different interpretations for the same data? its called relativism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
|
Hot_Bid's explanation makes sense. I'll go with it.
|
|
|
On February 13 2009 21:42 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +His original claim was that there are more people on bnet because there are more people in the world since last year.
And now he has just said that the population growth in the last year has no effect on player activity because they are all babies. Fathers can no longer go out, they must stay at home and care for their young. And, when the children go to sleep they play on battlenet. That is why I am here.
Mani..
So for this one very specific example.. Can you tell me why this phenomenon happened a great deal more than kids getting old enough to take care of themselves from the year 2008-2009?
|
He's right, you'd have to look at the population increase from 14 to 25 years ago or so, because those are the people that are bnet players now. Then you have to adjust the numbers because back then proper statistics weren't available in many countries, yet those countries produced future bnet players anyway (or that's what statistics seem to indicate).
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:46 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:42 G.s)NarutO wrote:On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:38 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know. Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this. if you think i'm not being serious why do you continue to argue and reply to my posts? what are you some sort of troll? Because people are agreeing with you... like mani and that naruto guy who is pulling random shit out of nowhere just to agree with you.. I'm not ever talking to you anymore I'm talking to people who can't see your posts for what they are. Seriously I agree because in my opinion he is right - there's no need to offend me. Maybe you should just post your opinion without offending people. Just take a look at your post count. You don't even have 500 posts which doesn't mean you can't be right about something, but it means that you can't act like you actually own Teamliquid. I have more than 6000 posts and have learned my lessons on Teamliquid and I'm a established and well-known poster now. You probably should learn some manners before getting all childish in a discussion in which someone has another opinion. He's right about WHAT? Explain it without using the word inflation.
how can he explain without using the term i've spent so long trying to teach you what it means? what you want him to do is not with inReach
|
Germany18839 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:46 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:42 G.s)NarutO wrote:On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:38 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know. Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this. if you think i'm not being serious why do you continue to argue and reply to my posts? what are you some sort of troll? Because people are agreeing with you... like mani and that naruto guy who is pulling random shit out of nowhere just to agree with you.. I'm not ever talking to you anymore I'm talking to people who can't see your posts for what they are. Seriously I agree because in my opinion he is right - there's no need to offend me. Maybe you should just post your opinion without offending people. Just take a look at your post count. You don't even have 500 posts which doesn't mean you can't be right about something, but it means that you can't act like you actually own Teamliquid. I have more than 6000 posts and have learned my lessons on Teamliquid and I'm a established and well-known poster now. You probably should learn some manners before getting all childish in a discussion in which someone has another opinion. He's right about WHAT? Explain it without using the word inflation.
Why would you use a different kind of word if the exact defintion of what happens is explained by the word inflation? I admit that its not easy to explain with just pointing out the increase of the populations and the increase of broodwar players, because there are many more factors.
|
At first I thought Hot_Bid was full of it, but after reading wiki on inflation it's clear he was spot on.
|
On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:38 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 21:28 inReacH wrote:
A. I think if that was his main point, he would have mentioned it.
B. It's not even true.
A quick wikipedia search shows that the population has grown by a mere 1.4% in the last year. so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. Now given that in the OP he said there are 10-20k more people, even if you take his low estimate of a 10k increase, go onto bnet and find there are about 60000 people online right now... I know his example could have been different but ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So 60000 up from 50000 us a 20% increase..
Compared to 1.4%..
WAY TO GO GUYS YOU REALLY GOT ME. do you know anything? 1.4% population increase is in babies, anytime a population increases its because of new children. those new children can't play on battle.net yet because they are newborns and don't have the proper motor skills. the 1.4% population growth is not 1.4% of computer playing capable adolescents and adults, but rather in newborns. the computer playable population could've grown by 40%. you don't know. Hahaha, see.............. Please dear god tell me everyone can see that he is trolling from this. if you think i'm not being serious why do you continue to argue and reply to my posts? what are you some sort of troll? Because people are agreeing with you... like mani and that naruto guy who is pulling random shit out of nowhere just to agree with you.. I'm not even talking to you anymore I'm talking to people who can't see your posts for what they are.
i dont agree with hb either to be honest. think he was just trying to sound smart (which he pulls off well) in an argument about a question already correctly answered.
On February 13 2009 18:08 extracheez wrote:
I know I started playing again because of starcraft 2. In fact I'm quite annoyed that starcraft 2 will come out because I would like more time to play starcraft.
not because of some relative form of inflation.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
|
Ok here's an example of him trolling...
Actually read this.
On February 13 2009 20:17 Hot_Bid wrote:
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.
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.
Tell me if this makes sense:
Number of starcraft players inflation, for example, is when the school gives out better number of starcraft players 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.
He is a funny troll, it's so absurd that so many people are backing him up and it's blowing my mind right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
