| Forum Index > BW General |
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
In my experience i would say BW numbers are 10,000-20,000 higher than they were this time last year.I assume this is mostly old players returning , with a few newer players discovering the game ; the increased activity due to imminent beta of SC2. This is Brood Wars renaissance.I'll be playing more than usual myself due to the slump in brood war gaming that will sadly come with the release of SC2. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
| ||
|
extracheez
Australia151 Posts
| ||
|
MoRe_mInErAls
Canada1210 Posts
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 Yes, because the rise in cost of goods and services cause people to play Starcraft. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:09 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: Yes, because the rise in cost of goods and services cause people to play Starcraft. no, it causes a rise in player numbers of people who play starcraft just like real inflation other than that your statement is true | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:13 Hot_Bid wrote: no, it causes a rise in player numbers of people who play starcraft just like real inflation other than that your statement is true You lost me at "real inflation"  oxymoron? | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
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? | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
Absolutely - don't you know the difference between real and nominal player numbers? | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation educate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation educate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH Ok that took a certain amount of talent to pull off properly. I have to clap to this one. | ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
Since the bw leagues won't go away in korea for some time i quess. And there are a lot of people who have said similar things, that they really wanted to play bw instead of sc2. Of course when sc2 gets released, there will be a significant drop in bw players activity but i quess many players will come back to bw after some time Unless of course starcraft2 is somehow a lot better than bw. and i don't understand that inflation thingy... More players are more players... I don't know how you can say that it is the "same" if there are more players :o I think he is joking. | ||
|
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
| ||
|
Underwhelmed
United States207 Posts
| ||
|
lakrismamma
Sweden543 Posts
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 Best post in a long time! | ||
|
liosama
Australia843 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:22 Jayme wrote: Ok that took a certain amount of talent to pull off properly. I have to clap to this one. More like luck, as his alias happens to be inReach..... | ||
|
ffswowsucks
Greece2291 Posts
| ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:25 MuR)Ernu wrote: ... and i don't understand that inflation thingy... More players are more players... I don't know how you can say that it is the "same" if there are more players :o the concept is quite simple, players nowadays are not worth as much as players several years ago. there are more people on the earth so more computer gamers and thus more people playing starcraft and before there were less, that's how inflation works. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation educate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH lol...very, very, very nice. I salute you, Hot_Bid. ahahaa. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 19:19 Hot_Bid wrote: the concept is quite simple, players nowadays are not worth as much as players several years ago. there are more people on the earth so more computer gamers and thus more people playing starcraft and before there were less, that's how inflation works. Holy fuck this is like a new level of dumb, how has noone called you out on this yet. So according to your logic, more people on earth = more people doing any given thing? Do you actually think this subject is so cut and dry? So why aren't there more people playing ps1 games than there were when ps1 was the current generation console? Could it possibly be because as games age, people look for newer sources of entertainment and move on from games that are say.. 10 years old? Inflation, that's your answer. I literally am right now discovering that I don't want to click post until I have fully expressed my awe that someone could be so absurd. But also I am discovering that I can't, with all the words in the dictionary(inflation being one of them), there isn't one for the way I feel about your posts. And the condescending way you linked me to that wikepedia page that is about economic inflation as confident as could be... Let's just look at this quote by itself for a moment: "there are more people on the earth so more computer gamers and thus more people playing starcraft" Wow. So to break it down, more people = more people playing starcraft And this can be explained by 'inflation', which is a generic term that I'm gathering you think means, as the worlds population grows, everything grows. Not only is this not what inflation means, it's not even true. There are more people on battle.net for a ton of reasons, most prominent of course is starcraft2's imminent release. If blizzard had announced they were never making a sequel every year would be a record low SCbnet users. EDIT: This is at the top of the article you linked me: "This article is about a general rise in the level of prices." Yeah that has a lot to do with the number of people playing on battle.net I'm sure. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
On February 13 2009 19:50 inReacH wrote: Holy fuck this is like a new level of dumb, how has noone called you out on this yet. probably because they realize i am truly relying on lowly legal inferences, now go into dictionary, it oughtta teachya So according to your logic, more people on earth = more people doing any given thing? 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. Do you actually think this subject is so cut and dry? So why aren't there more people playing ps1 games than there were when ps1 was the current generation console? because there's a PS2 and PS3? Could it possibly be because as games age, people look for newer sources of entertainment and move on from games that are say.. 10 years old? 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. Inflation, that's your answer. I literally am right now discovering that I don't want to click post until I have fully expressed my awe that someone could be so absurd. But also I am discovering that I can't, with all the words in the dictionary(inflation being one of them), there isn't one for the way I feel about your posts. Your posts seem to have inflation too, every one of them is worth less as you continue on this site. And the condescending way you linked me to that wikepedia page that is about economic inflation as confident as could be... Let's just look at this quote by itself for a moment: "there are more people on the earth so more computer gamers and thus more people playing starcraft" Wow. So to break it down, more people = more people playing starcraft And this can be explained by 'inflation', which is a generic term that I'm gathering you think means, as the worlds population grows, everything grows. I think you need to re-read the wikipedia definition of inflation. Not only is this not what inflation means, it's not even true. There are more people on battle.net for a ton of reasons, most prominent of course is starcraft2's imminent release. If blizzard had announced they were never making a sequel every year would be a record low SCbnet users. EDIT: This is at the top of the article you linked me: "This article is about a general rise in the level of prices." Yeah that has a lot to do with the number of people playing on battle.net I'm sure. 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. | ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 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
Osaka27128 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
Braavos36372 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
Braavos36372 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
Braavos36372 Posts
| ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27128 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
Braavos36372 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
Braavos36372 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
Osaka27128 Posts
Was that so difficult to understand? | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 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. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
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. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 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. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 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. 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. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:31 Jayme wrote: 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. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote: so you admit you do know how to use wikipedia. 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. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:33 inReacH wrote: 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? | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:38 Hot_Bid wrote: 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. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27128 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. | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote: 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. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote: 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 | ||
|
SnowFantasy
4173 Posts
| ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
| ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:42 Manifesto7 wrote: 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? | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:46 inReacH wrote: 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 | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:46 inReacH wrote: 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. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
| ||
|
Sanity.
United States704 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:39 inReacH wrote: 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. | ||
|
| ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
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. | ||
|
ilovehnk
475 Posts
| ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
| ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27128 Posts
These numbers are obviously inflated -_- | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:55 Sanity. wrote: 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. not because of some relative form of inflation. Oh my god he's not trolling? | ||
|
Sanity.
United States704 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:58 Manifesto7 wrote: These numbers are obviously inflated -_- i was gonna say. 200+ people voted QUICK | ||
|
Sanity.
United States704 Posts
no. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 13 2009 22:02 Doctorasul wrote: Dammit, I accidentally voted Yes on the poll. Heh it's a fake poll anyways. | ||
KwarK
United States42128 Posts
I guess everyone really wanted to ban InReach. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
This is the first poll ever to make me jump. | ||
|
DeepGreen
United States175 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation educate 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. | ||
|
economist_
Vietnam719 Posts
| ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
So if you do the math I suggested earlier, I'm sure you'll find the numbers fit those predictions. | ||
|
The_Australian
Australia458 Posts
| ||
|
Sanity.
United States704 Posts
you got me good, hb edit:facebook thread #2, sup? | ||
|
Jimtudor
Canada259 Posts
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. | ||
Twisted
Netherlands13554 Posts
I pressed quote the moment I saw that poll. | ||
|
economist_
Vietnam719 Posts
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 | ||
|
Elvin_vn
Vietnam2038 Posts
| ||
|
MasterReY
Germany2708 Posts
On February 13 2009 22:13 DeepGreen wrote: 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 | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
Hot_Bid is probably the best mod ever; This thread is amazing AND he's a sAviOr fan. | ||
|
Mannequin
Canada131 Posts
| ||
|
Mannequin
Canada131 Posts
| ||
|
Puosu
6984 Posts
On February 13 2009 22:57 Mannequin wrote: Ah i get it hehe almost tricked me there hm? your posts (that were deleted already..) were highly offensive towards the other races, I don't see why you shouldn't be banned and wtf tricked? .. ;; + Show Spoiler + hotbid is a god | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
anderoo
Canada1876 Posts
| ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32269 Posts
On February 13 2009 22:57 Mannequin wrote: Ah i get it hehe almost tricked me there hahah :D | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4611 Posts
| ||
|
Icysoul
Canada254 Posts
y me ;_;... im just a veteran lurker T_T | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
|
UbRi
Italy603 Posts
| ||
|
StRyKeR
United States1739 Posts
LOLLLLLL | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
I'LL START MY OWN STARCRAFT FORUM... WITH BLACKJACK... AND HOOKERS. IN FACT, FORGET THE STARCRAFT FORUM. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
|
pum
Sweden306 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
geez inreach cant u understand some simple theories... | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
I'm surprised there's even any question over whether to ban him or not. He's had it coming for a long time now. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
I vote perma ban. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
and rofl I pooed a little when I saw the poll | ||
|
Empyrean
16953 Posts
| ||
|
Sourdough
Germany92 Posts
(taken from wikipedia) I propose to extend this definition and add the "discussion" in this thread to the materials that can be used to "inflate" said object. Considering this, the term: "inflation" could be referred to as the process that has been happening here. Hot_Bid and inReach have "inflated" this thread to a far bigger size then it was originally. Both have put in their share of "hot air". Also I want to note that this post (mine) will also increase the size of the thread and thereby cause "inflation" I want to see the bubble burst! | ||
|
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation educate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH My, my, my. I have to say that this is just amazing. *applause*  Anyways, an alternative theory to inflation could simply be SCII. But besides that, inflation is your best bet. | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
| ||
|
hazz
United Kingdom570 Posts
| ||
|
ArC_man
United States2798 Posts
| ||
|
StRyKeR
United States1739 Posts
| ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
| ||
|
dekuschrub
United States2069 Posts
| ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
| ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
don't ban me ^_^ | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
banana
Netherlands1189 Posts
| ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
I'm not looking at numbers at all and don't care about the semantics of the situation, but regardless of whether or not there are more players playing bw, I find it harder and harder to get decent "low money melee" games, on battle.net atleast. Seems that most people I see are the same people I've been running into for the past few years, the growing battle.net populace isn't really allocating itself evenly through the various communities within bnet. So then from a less technical definition of "inflation", there's apparently more players, but fewer games in the "low money melee" community, so we aren't seeing much effect from the "rise in players", if anything we're seeing a diminishing player-base within this community, relative to the amount of players on bnet, = inflation. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
err? why does this poll have my name in it? is this a new poll feature or did i piss off Hot_Bid when i sleeped typed or something... | ||
|
Racenilatr
United States2756 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
feathers
United States236 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:58 Manifesto7 wrote: These numbers are obviously inflated -_- lol | ||
|
SnowFantasy
4173 Posts
If you review your post history carefully enough it should be obvious. | ||
|
neshima
37 Posts
then i realized i wasn't logged in. self-deceptionfail | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
GJ Hotbird | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36372 Posts
| ||
|
Carefree
United States1571 Posts
| ||
|
Thavg
United States35 Posts
Edit: I am a fool. Nothing to see here. | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
| ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
| ||
|
Ozarugold
2716 Posts
| ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
| ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
Ken I love you. | ||
|
NonFactor
Sweden698 Posts
Anyways, the majority has spoken, cya. | ||
|
Sanity.
United States704 Posts
On February 14 2009 10:30 NonFactor wrote: savor your last moments at tlOk wtf, I register on the forums not too long ago, and I'm like browsing this random thread, and what do I see. Anyways, the majority has spoken, cya. | ||
|
xmShake
United States1100 Posts
lol got me.. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
| ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
On February 14 2009 10:30 NonFactor wrote: Ok wtf, I register on the forums not too long ago, and I'm like browsing this random thread, and what do I see. Anyways, the majority has spoken, cya. Best post in the thread imo. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On February 13 2009 21:31 Hot_Bid wrote: 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. sure they do You never wondered why there are so many protoss? | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32269 Posts
On February 14 2009 10:30 NonFactor wrote: Ok wtf, I register on the forums not too long ago, and I'm like browsing this random thread, and what do I see. Anyways, the majority has spoken, cya. looool | ||
|
hazz
United Kingdom570 Posts
On February 14 2009 10:30 NonFactor wrote: Ok wtf, I register on the forums not too long ago, and I'm like browsing this random thread, and what do I see. Anyways, the majority has spoken, cya. ahaha | ||
|
Pyro]v[aniac
United States147 Posts
On February 13 2009 20:08 Hot_Bid wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 13 2009 19:50 inReacH wrote: Holy fuck this is like a new level of dumb, how has noone called you out on this yet. probably because they realize i am truly relying on lowly legal inferences, now go into dictionary, it oughtta teachya So according to your logic, more people on earth = more people doing any given thing? 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. Do you actually think this subject is so cut and dry? So why aren't there more people playing ps1 games than there were when ps1 was the current generation console? because there's a PS2 and PS3? Could it possibly be because as games age, people look for newer sources of entertainment and move on from games that are say.. 10 years old? 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. + Show Spoiler + Inflation, that's your answer. I literally am right now discovering that I don't want to click post until I have fully expressed my awe that someone could be so absurd. But also I am discovering that I can't, with all the words in the dictionary(inflation being one of them), there isn't one for the way I feel about your posts. Your posts seem to have inflation too, every one of them is worth less as you continue on this site. And the condescending way you linked me to that wikepedia page that is about economic inflation as confident as could be... Let's just look at this quote by itself for a moment: "there are more people on the earth so more computer gamers and thus more people playing starcraft" Wow. So to break it down, more people = more people playing starcraft And this can be explained by 'inflation', which is a generic term that I'm gathering you think means, as the worlds population grows, everything grows. I think you need to re-read the wikipedia definition of inflation. Not only is this not what inflation means, it's not even true. There are more people on battle.net for a ton of reasons, most prominent of course is starcraft2's imminent release. If blizzard had announced they were never making a sequel every year would be a record low SCbnet users. EDIT: This is at the top of the article you linked me: "This article is about a general rise in the level of prices." Yeah that has a lot to do with the number of people playing on battle.net I'm sure. 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. its funny sometimes how people challenge an argument and get shut down so badly ^^ after reading this thread alittle further and see'ing this On February 14 2009 10:30 NonFactor wrote: Ok wtf, I register on the forums not too long ago, and I'm like browsing this random thread, and what do I see. Anyways, the majority has spoken, cya. LOL | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9102 Posts
| ||
|
SilverskY
Korea (South)3086 Posts
| ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
| ||
| ||
Online Event
Rex April Madness: Group A
herO vs Lemon
Solar vs GuMiho
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Code For Giants Cup
The PondCast
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
Online Event
Clem vs Nice
SHIN vs Classic
Replay Cast
Clem vs Dark
ByuN vs herO
OSC
Online Event
Creator vs GuMiho
Percival vs Dark
Zoun vs ByuN
Lemon vs Ryung
WardiTV Spring Champion…
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
