The Elephant in the Room - Page 281

Are you saying that there is no difference between an A-Team player, a B-Team player and a random iCCup player? If being better at BW has no relevance then you’re already agreeing with me.



So Flash possibly beating SC2 players—despite there being no evidence of it—makes SC2 a farce but Flash beating BW players—which we have evidence of—is not the same thing? Um… and your proof for this other than you disagreeing is what?



????

Do you have another definition of correlation where saying something is true despite what the data reveals makes it true? Because I prefer sticking to the facts.

Here’s how it works.

You take data.

You find trends in the data.

You see any correlations occurring in the trends.

If there is no consistent correlation, then you stick to analyzing the overall generic trends. If, however, you wish for there to be a degree of variance so that you don’t just throw the data away, you give yourself an arbitrary margin of error. Applying this margin of error doesn’t *make* correlations appear—it simply means you purposefully ignore sections of the data in order to make your argument more sound.

Here it is in action.

The Data: SC2 pros

The trend: Almost all SC2 players have played an RTS of some kind in the past.

The correlation: None. It doesn’t seem to matter how good the players were, how long they played the previous game, or even what that game was. They all played some kind of video game though.

Conclusion: Either accept that most SC2 pros have played videogames before—or ignore sections of the data that doesn’t agree with your argument.

You have chosen to accept that if a player played BW at all in the past—that that is the reason why that player is winning. Now, this is despite WC3 players also winning tournaments, despite that not all the players who played BW were pro gamers when they switched, and it also ignores the fact that not all the BW players who switched were even pros to begin with. You prefer to ignore the data where being good at BW does not translate to being good in SC2. You ignore the data where in cultures where BW and WC3 was more evenly split—that both groups are represented in the SC2 demographic. You ignore a lot of data in your quest to say that being good in BW makes you good in SC2 when the data simply shows that having played an RTS is the only consistent thing present.

So please, actually place down an argument-one that has facts and evidence to support it.



I’ve never changed my claim. How well you’ve played in BW has not mattered—per the evidence available. When exactly have I said otherwise?



I’m glad you agree that you don’t have to be an experienced player (like Flash) to show up and do well in a pro game environment. So maybe you can stop saying that BW pros transferring will beat SC2 players simply because BW pros played a lot of BW when BW is currently ruled by someone who started playing BW without any prior RTS experience.