EPTRed winning more than Blue in FPS games - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jeebuzzx
Canada365 Posts
| ||
|
StateSC2
Korea (South)621 Posts
On March 18 2011 02:58 Ecrilon wrote: In Starcraft you can't make yourself red. You can only make your enemy red and put yourself at a disadvantage. Blizzard should patch this soon! | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
Slakkoo
Sweden1119 Posts
| ||
|
StateSC2
Korea (South)621 Posts
On March 18 2011 03:08 Shiragaku wrote: But quick question, aren't the Yankees blue and the Red Socks red? They have been since 2004. ^^ | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
On March 18 2011 03:08 Slakkoo wrote: de_dust2 is clearly a terrorist map! But I agree on the TF2 part, defending is waaay funnier. It's also significantly easier. You should see the map stats for defense vs offense on most of the maps. | ||
|
Jinsho
United Kingdom3101 Posts
First let's look at the possible explanations : "testosterone-driven domination" and "focusing on individual encounters". Good god, what a wash. Then let's work our way back to "we observed only the top 10 deathmatch players". So did they actually account for which side they were playing on? Were they all clan members and thus on the same side? Possibly red? Can't you switch sides during TDM? Seeing nothing in the article here, maybe the original study has some info on how they tracked the players. Did they observe random TDMs? I think a more likely explanation is that players prefer the red color and switch to red when they can, leaving the blue team undermanned until a new random guy joins, has to sit in blue, and eats the loss. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On March 18 2011 03:11 Jinsho wrote: The study is complete nonsense. First let's look at the possible explanations : "testosterone-driven domination" and "focusing on individual encounters". Good god, what a wash. Then let's work our way back to "we observed only the top 10 deathmatch players". So did they actually account for which side they were playing on? Were they all clan members and thus on the same side? Possibly red? Can't you switch sides during TDM? Seeing nothing in the article here, maybe the original study has some info on how they tracked the players. Did they observe random TDMs? I think a more likely explanation is that players prefer the red color and switch to red when they can, leaving the blue team undermanned until a new random guy joins, has to sit in blue, and eats the loss. Did you read some of the other studies? One of them is published in Nature. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
in objective games pre like the second game patch the red team had a massive advantage. red always attacked first, and if they did but the game was drawn, red was still awarded the win. if they failed to score, then blue score, red scored on their second attack, then blue failed - the game would be a tie even though blue scored first. | ||
|
Kinetik_Inferno
United States1431 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
| ||
|
Ayush_SCtoss
India3050 Posts
It is probably psychological...I don't believe the testosterone boosting and all those claims though, seems a bit farfetched and just doesn't seem possible. Either way blue fighting! | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
I usually don't trust anything that infested with ads, but the studies it links to seem very reputable, even if its own study is not. | ||
|
NecroSaint
England102 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
| ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
| ||
|
SeeDLiNg
United States690 Posts
On March 18 2011 02:51 Superouman wrote: Most players play as green and opponent always red(that mode you select near the minimap. I don't think your article can be verified for sc2. being red green colorblind is a bitch. | ||
|
superjoppe
Sweden3683 Posts
On March 18 2011 03:17 Sufficiency wrote: Did you read some of the other studies? One of them is published in Nature. OMFG Nature!!1 Well, here's another Nature article for you http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7063/full/nature04306.html where they show statistical significances from the same data pool (Olympia 2004) as the other nature article, and no red shirts. | ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
On March 18 2011 03:11 Jinsho wrote: The study is complete nonsense. First let's look at the possible explanations : "testosterone-driven domination" and "focusing on individual encounters". Good god, what a wash. Then let's work our way back to "we observed only the top 10 deathmatch players". So did they actually account for which side they were playing on? Were they all clan members and thus on the same side? Possibly red? Can't you switch sides during TDM? Seeing nothing in the article here, maybe the original study has some info on how they tracked the players. Did they observe random TDMs? I think a more likely explanation is that players prefer the red color and switch to red when they can, leaving the blue team undermanned until a new random guy joins, has to sit in blue, and eats the loss. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/cpb.2007.0122 | ||
| ||
