|
it could have easily been fluctuation in numbers, some people play on different days or get on at different at. but the real increase occured when blizz announced sc2, that is when sc sales gone up!
|
I couldn't ask for a better farewell then this thread.
|
Osaka27166 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:56 Hot_Bid wrote:Poll: Ban?( Vote): Yes ( Vote): No
These numbers are obviously inflated -_-
|
On February 13 2009 21:55 Sanity. wrote:Show nested quote +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 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. Show nested quote +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.
Oh my god he's not trolling?
|
On February 13 2009 21:58 Manifesto7 wrote:These numbers are obviously inflated -_-
i was gonna say. 200+ people voted QUICK
|
On February 13 2009 21:59 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:55 Sanity. 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 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. Oh my god he's not trolling?
no.
|
Dammit, I accidentally voted Yes on the poll.
|
On February 13 2009 22:02 Doctorasul wrote:
Dammit, I accidentally voted Yes on the poll.
Heh it's a fake poll anyways.
|
United States43620 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:59 Sanity. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 21:58 Manifesto7 wrote:On February 13 2009 21:56 Hot_Bid wrote:Poll: Ban?( Vote): Yes ( Vote): No These numbers are obviously inflated -_- i was gonna say. 200+ people voted QUICK
I guess everyone really wanted to ban InReach.
|
On February 13 2009 21:56 Hot_Bid wrote:Poll: Ban?( Vote): Yes ( Vote): No
This is the first poll ever to make me jump.
|
On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 18:18 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 18:04 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this phenomenon is easily explained by the concept of player inflation, the number of players naturally inflates over time, if you look at the inflation-adjusted numbers its pretty much the same as last year, so its not really signifying anything Is this guy serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationeducate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH
I THINK I FOUND THE SECRET.
If what I think just happened happened, then this is the most creative thread I've seen in a while. Hats off, Hot Bid.
|
|
|
Yeah, not sure what that was about, I was agreeing to HB in my post. If you actually do the research, the variation in statistical accuracy only goes one way, and that's because older statistics are almost always underestimates - some might wrongly say modern statistics are overestimates. The difference is the latter is on purpose and therefore conventionally correct, and that's precisely to compensate for inflation, which is exactly what Hot_Bid is trying to explain.
So if you do the math I suggested earlier, I'm sure you'll find the numbers fit those predictions.
|
"ban The_Australian?" hell, i voted yes.
|
On February 13 2009 21:56 Hot_Bid wrote:Poll: Ban?( Vote): Yes ( Vote): No
you got me good, hb
edit:facebook thread #2, sup?
|
On February 13 2009 21:58 Manifesto7 wrote:These numbers are obviously inflated -_-
What, i don't understand! Please nooo...Have mercy  ....what did i do....
Tbh, I was just going to post about how maybe looking at the growth of internet users last year compared to growth of starcraft playing would put the nail to the coffin to the argument. But I would imagine it's no where near a 20% increase.
|
Netherlands13554 Posts
rofl
I pressed quote the moment I saw that poll.
|
On February 13 2009 18:04 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this phenomenon is easily explained by the concept of player inflation, the number of players naturally inflates over time, if you look at the inflation-adjusted numbers its pretty much the same as last year, so its not really signifying anything
Phew, after gathering my shit back rereading these posts, I understand Hb's points but this is like jumping into conclusion and this kind of explanation would be simplifying the reasons for OP observation. This might possibly be wrong, as it is damn complicated to prove it to be "pretty much the same".
I am not talking about the term inflation but the way HB used it is hilarious
|
jeez this could have been a very good facebook#2 material thread
|
funny poll hb lol
On February 13 2009 22:13 DeepGreen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote:On February 13 2009 18:18 inReacH wrote:On February 13 2009 18:04 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this phenomenon is easily explained by the concept of player inflation, the number of players naturally inflates over time, if you look at the inflation-adjusted numbers its pretty much the same as last year, so its not really signifying anything Is this guy serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationeducate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH I THINK I FOUND THE SECRET. If what I think just happened happened, then this is the most creative thread I've seen in a while. Hats off, Hot Bid.
explain, yO
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
