|
On March 25 2015 00:36 Seuss wrote:Theorycraft Rant: + Show Spoiler +
Math is the least important part of theorycrafting, and people who don't realize that get into dumb arguments because they equate correct math with correct conclusions.
Sound theorycrafting does not exist outside of sound scenarios and sound analysis. If your facts are wrong or unrealistic then your resulting numbers and any analysis there of will be garbage. Even with good numbers your analysis needs to be thorough and thoughtful to be meaningful, and bad analysis will easily ruin what was otherwise promising theorycraft. You obviously need correct math for correct theorycrafting, but it's the set up and analysis that makes theorycrafting useful.
90% of arguments between theorycrafters end up going like this:
Theorycrafter A: My math shows that X is better than Y.
Theorycrafter B: My math shows that Y is better than X.
Argument commences between A and B regarding why each other's math was wrong.
These sorts of arguments end up dancing around the truth of the conflict; those involved have different scenarios, assumptions, and analyses which lead them to different conclusions. Unfortunately each person is convinced they are right because math told them so and as a result the gap between them is never bridged.
That's the tragedy of theorycraft because it, like all science, is best when done collaboratively. Nobody is perfect, nobody will draft perfect scenarios, nobody will catch every variable, nobody will get it right the first time. The point of showing off your math and your analysis isn't to flex your computational muscles or establish your authority, it's to get other people to review it and tell you what you missed and where you might have gone wrong. The best theorycrafters are those who work with other theorycrafters to find the right answer, whatever it may be.
So remember that the next time you try theorycrafting. You are only as good as your ability to work with, not argue with, others.
As an addendum youtube theorycraft videos are horrible; they are the epitome of everything wrong with theorycraft. You can rarely actually see all the assumptions/equations/math/analysis, you have to flip through rambling and various time stamps to get what little there is, and it's impossible to collaborate meaningfully through that medium alone.
The main issue I think is people completely overlook the assumptions done where as the assumptions should be the focal point of the theorycrafting. The actual calculations after that point are often rather rudimentary but designing a system with accurate assumption is far more challenging. It's often why when modelling a system you'll spend most of your time trying to describe it so you can get an accurate set of assumptions.
|
Okay, so people that don't mind hipster crap... unless something comes up I'm going to stream Life is Strange E1 today before Iris comes on. E2 came out today and I intend to play it tomorrow.
|
I prefer it when people do LoL theorycrafting by looking at the damage you do in one full spell rotation. I don't really see the point of the let's just afk hit this target for a while.
|
On March 25 2015 01:01 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 00:59 Eppa! wrote:On March 25 2015 00:36 Seuss wrote:Theorycraft Rant: + Show Spoiler +
Math is the least important part of theorycrafting, and people who don't realize that get into dumb arguments because they equate correct math with correct conclusions.
Sound theorycrafting does not exist outside of sound scenarios and sound analysis. If your facts are wrong or unrealistic then your resulting numbers and any analysis there of will be garbage. Even with good numbers your analysis needs to be thorough and thoughtful to be meaningful, and bad analysis will easily ruin what was otherwise promising theorycraft. You obviously need correct math for correct theorycrafting, but it's the set up and analysis that makes theorycrafting useful.
90% of arguments between theorycrafters end up going like this:
Theorycrafter A: My math shows that X is better than Y.
Theorycrafter B: My math shows that Y is better than X.
Argument commences between A and B regarding why each other's math was wrong.
These sorts of arguments end up dancing around the truth of the conflict; those involved have different scenarios, assumptions, and analyses which lead them to different conclusions. Unfortunately each person is convinced they are right because math told them so and as a result the gap between them is never bridged.
That's the tragedy of theorycraft because it, like all science, is best when done collaboratively. Nobody is perfect, nobody will draft perfect scenarios, nobody will catch every variable, nobody will get it right the first time. The point of showing off your math and your analysis isn't to flex your computational muscles or establish your authority, it's to get other people to review it and tell you what you missed and where you might have gone wrong. The best theorycrafters are those who work with other theorycrafters to find the right answer, whatever it may be.
So remember that the next time you try theorycrafting. You are only as good as your ability to work with, not argue with, others.
As an addendum youtube theorycraft videos are horrible; they are the epitome of everything wrong with theorycraft. You can rarely actually see all the assumptions/equations/math/analysis, you have to flip through rambling and various time stamps to get what little there is, and it's impossible to collaborate meaningfully through that medium alone.
What are you referencing since you brought it up? I'm guessing the Luden/Rabadon posts.
Link?
HS stuff:
+ Show Spoiler +I like the current Meta in HS its kinda RNG but its not overly so and there are good variation in decks for pretty much all classes. Boom still a little to RNG and decently strong. Games play out more interestingly than in previous expansion.
|
On March 25 2015 01:09 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 01:01 Ansibled wrote:On March 25 2015 00:59 Eppa! wrote:On March 25 2015 00:36 Seuss wrote:Theorycraft Rant: + Show Spoiler +
Math is the least important part of theorycrafting, and people who don't realize that get into dumb arguments because they equate correct math with correct conclusions.
Sound theorycrafting does not exist outside of sound scenarios and sound analysis. If your facts are wrong or unrealistic then your resulting numbers and any analysis there of will be garbage. Even with good numbers your analysis needs to be thorough and thoughtful to be meaningful, and bad analysis will easily ruin what was otherwise promising theorycraft. You obviously need correct math for correct theorycrafting, but it's the set up and analysis that makes theorycrafting useful.
90% of arguments between theorycrafters end up going like this:
Theorycrafter A: My math shows that X is better than Y.
Theorycrafter B: My math shows that Y is better than X.
Argument commences between A and B regarding why each other's math was wrong.
These sorts of arguments end up dancing around the truth of the conflict; those involved have different scenarios, assumptions, and analyses which lead them to different conclusions. Unfortunately each person is convinced they are right because math told them so and as a result the gap between them is never bridged.
That's the tragedy of theorycraft because it, like all science, is best when done collaboratively. Nobody is perfect, nobody will draft perfect scenarios, nobody will catch every variable, nobody will get it right the first time. The point of showing off your math and your analysis isn't to flex your computational muscles or establish your authority, it's to get other people to review it and tell you what you missed and where you might have gone wrong. The best theorycrafters are those who work with other theorycrafters to find the right answer, whatever it may be.
So remember that the next time you try theorycrafting. You are only as good as your ability to work with, not argue with, others.
As an addendum youtube theorycraft videos are horrible; they are the epitome of everything wrong with theorycraft. You can rarely actually see all the assumptions/equations/math/analysis, you have to flip through rambling and various time stamps to get what little there is, and it's impossible to collaborate meaningfully through that medium alone.
What are you referencing since you brought it up? I'm guessing the Luden/Rabadon posts. Link? HS stuff: + Show Spoiler +I like the current Meta in HS its kinda RNG but its not overly so and there are good variation in decks for pretty much all classes. Boom still a little to RNG and decently strong. Games play out more interestingly than in previous expansion.
http://www.liquidlegends.net/forum/lol-strategy/475850-season-5-lux-the-lady-of-luminosity?page=4
|
oh god, i just read through that lux thread, pure cancer.
problem with mathcrafting is people assume their math accounts for all scenario's, when in reality they only account for a small subset of possibilities
|
I dunno, I still kind of hate playing against Mech Mage (they tend to include freeze stuff too, although there are full-blown freeze mages, but less than previously) because of the sheer amount of removal and tempo plays they have. They've got so many ways to curve out.
Of course, playing a bunch with weapon classes only makes it worse because chugger and water elem tend to make it an autoloss if I don't get some board control right off the bat.
|
On March 25 2015 01:27 wei2coolman wrote:
oh god, i just read through that lux thread, pure cancer.
problem with mathcrafting is people assume their math accounts for all scenario's, when in reality they only account for a small subset of possibilities
No, it's obviously completely realistic to constantly hit a Shyvana for 20s as Leblanc, Nidalee or Lux.
|
11589 Posts
On March 25 2015 00:36 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 00:21 yamato77 wrote:
I've officially paid for Photoshop. I feel like such a sellout.
16 year old me is preparing to kick me in the balls right now. Did you get the one where you have to pay monthly?
The newest version is only available through this model, so yeah, I did.
|
On March 25 2015 00:59 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 00:36 Seuss wrote:Theorycraft Rant: + Show Spoiler +
Math is the least important part of theorycrafting, and people who don't realize that get into dumb arguments because they equate correct math with correct conclusions.
Sound theorycrafting does not exist outside of sound scenarios and sound analysis. If your facts are wrong or unrealistic then your resulting numbers and any analysis there of will be garbage. Even with good numbers your analysis needs to be thorough and thoughtful to be meaningful, and bad analysis will easily ruin what was otherwise promising theorycraft. You obviously need correct math for correct theorycrafting, but it's the set up and analysis that makes theorycrafting useful.
90% of arguments between theorycrafters end up going like this:
Theorycrafter A: My math shows that X is better than Y.
Theorycrafter B: My math shows that Y is better than X.
Argument commences between A and B regarding why each other's math was wrong.
These sorts of arguments end up dancing around the truth of the conflict; those involved have different scenarios, assumptions, and analyses which lead them to different conclusions. Unfortunately each person is convinced they are right because math told them so and as a result the gap between them is never bridged.
That's the tragedy of theorycraft because it, like all science, is best when done collaboratively. Nobody is perfect, nobody will draft perfect scenarios, nobody will catch every variable, nobody will get it right the first time. The point of showing off your math and your analysis isn't to flex your computational muscles or establish your authority, it's to get other people to review it and tell you what you missed and where you might have gone wrong. The best theorycrafters are those who work with other theorycrafters to find the right answer, whatever it may be.
So remember that the next time you try theorycrafting. You are only as good as your ability to work with, not argue with, others.
As an addendum youtube theorycraft videos are horrible; they are the epitome of everything wrong with theorycraft. You can rarely actually see all the assumptions/equations/math/analysis, you have to flip through rambling and various time stamps to get what little there is, and it's impossible to collaborate meaningfully through that medium alone.
What are you referencing since you brought it up?
I'm not really referencing everything. The Luden/Rabadons discussion in the Lux thread was the catalyst but for the most part I'm not shaking my fist at any particular instance of the problem so much as the general trend itself.
On March 25 2015 01:00 Alaric wrote:
Everything.
That bane is everywhere, whenever you see some theorycraft. Even more certain when there are two people claiming to do theorycrafting interacting with each other.
It literally spreads in a cancer-like fashion when you put two of them in contact.
A large part of the problem is the internet obsession with being right rather than being understanding. Discussions where people are trying to understand each others' positions and incorporate those viewpoints and arguments into their own thought processes are far, far more interesting and fruitful than combative, polarizing arguments. The whole "my math is correct therefore I'm correct" thing is in many ways just a facet with that pervasive problem.
On March 25 2015 01:02 Numy wrote:
The main issue I think is people completely overlook the assumptions done where as the assumptions should be the focal point of the theorycrafting. The actual calculations after that point are often rather rudimentary but designing a system with accurate assumption is far more challenging. It's often why when modelling a system you'll spend most of your time trying to describe it so you can get an accurate set of assumptions.
That's the "sound scenarios" aspect of it, and "sound analysis" certainly involves revisiting assumptions (though there's more to analysis than that). But yeah, there's a reason I opened the rant with "Math is the least important part of theorycraft".
|
On March 25 2015 00:36 Seuss wrote:Theorycraft Rant: + Show Spoiler +
Math is the least important part of theorycrafting, and people who don't realize that get into dumb arguments because they equate correct math with correct conclusions.
Sound theorycrafting does not exist outside of sound scenarios and sound analysis. If your facts are wrong or unrealistic then your resulting numbers and any analysis there of will be garbage. Even with good numbers your analysis needs to be thorough and thoughtful to be meaningful, and bad analysis will easily ruin what was otherwise promising theorycraft. You obviously need correct math for correct theorycrafting, but it's the set up and analysis that makes theorycrafting useful.
90% of arguments between theorycrafters end up going like this:
Theorycrafter A: My math shows that X is better than Y.
Theorycrafter B: My math shows that Y is better than X.
Argument commences between A and B regarding why each other's math was wrong.
These sorts of arguments end up dancing around the truth of the conflict; those involved have different scenarios, assumptions, and analyses which lead them to different conclusions. Unfortunately each person is convinced they are right because math told them so and as a result the gap between them is never bridged.
That's the tragedy of theorycraft because it, like all science, is best when done collaboratively. Nobody is perfect, nobody will draft perfect scenarios, nobody will catch every variable, nobody will get it right the first time. The point of showing off your math and your analysis isn't to flex your computational muscles or establish your authority, it's to get other people to review it and tell you what you missed and where you might have gone wrong. The best theorycrafters are those who work with other theorycrafters to find the right answer, whatever it may be.
So remember that the next time you try theorycrafting. You are only as good as your ability to work with, not argue with, others.
As an addendum youtube theorycraft videos are horrible; they are the epitome of everything wrong with theorycraft. You can rarely actually see all the assumptions/equations/math/analysis, you have to flip through rambling and various time stamps to get what little there is, and it's impossible to collaborate meaningfully through that medium alone.
Well it looks like Ketara took your advice because his latest post in that thread involves specifically asking LS for how he came up with some of his numbers because Ketara's seem different and he understand that this must mean they are working from different setups(or calculation errors occurred, etc).
Although there's still some snarkyness to it but, it's better than just 'nope you're wrong I'm right, here's a homosexual joke that plays on my ambiguous sexuality, ignoramus.' (PARAPHRASING since people have misinterpreted me typing like this to be direct quoting someone before).
|
On March 25 2015 01:27 wei2coolman wrote:
oh god, i just read through that lux thread, pure cancer.
problem with mathcrafting is people assume their math accounts for all scenario's, when in reality they only account for a small subset of possibilities
It's basically this which set me off in the first place. "Mathcrafting" is actually a fairly descriptive term for what I'm waving my old man cane at from my porch, since what's being done is a lot of math and calculations signifying nothing.
On March 25 2015 01:34 red_ wrote:
Well it looks like Ketara took your advice because his latest post in that thread involves specifically asking LS for how he came up with some of his numbers because Ketara's seem different and he understand that this must mean they are working from different setups(or calculation errors occurred, etc).
Although there's still some snarkyness to it but, it's better than just 'nope you're wrong I'm right, here's a homosexual joke that plays on my ambiguous sexuality, ignoramus.' (PARAPHRASING since people have misinterpreted me typing like this to be direct quoting someone before).
Best of luck to him. It takes both sides to engage and unfortunately there's still the internet's pervasive obsession with being on the winning side rather than achieving consensus/a useful result to deal with.
|
|
|
I think anyone that's done any higher level real world applications using maths(Say Engineering) will understand tthe sheer importance of properly stating your assumptions after defining your system. Feel a lot of people that do do theorycrafting aren't really used to that kind of problem solving so it gets a bit wayward and aggravated when it's being discussed. We'll see what happens I guess :>
|
Monte, I agree with you.
Zombie, I can always count on you to alert me to wonderful things.
|
28102 Posts
Silly theorycrafters, crafting those theories.
|
On March 25 2015 01:43 Numy wrote:
I think anyone that's done any higher level real world applications using maths(Say Engineering) will understand tthe sheer importance of properly stating your assumptions after defining your system. Feel a lot of people that do do theorycrafting aren't really used to that kind of problem solving so it gets a bit wayward and aggravated when it's being discussed. We'll see what happens I guess :>
b-but jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
|
On March 25 2015 01:43 Numy wrote:
I think anyone that's done any higher level real world applications using maths(Say Engineering) will understand tthe sheer importance of properly stating your assumptions after defining your system. Feel a lot of people that do do theorycrafting aren't really used to that kind of problem solving so it gets a bit wayward and aggravated when it's being discussed. We'll see what happens I guess :>
In general I just don't think theorycrafting works well to a pvp game(or really any game with a lot of confounding and outright unpredictable variables). Like, MMOs are famous for their theorycrafting because boss fights are scripted, the only variable is RNG, which in many cases can be accounted for in the model("if you get X buff/debuff, change rotation to Y for maximum DPS/HPS/damage reduction/whatever).
It's one thing to do some math to mold some of your decisions in game, but I would value the 'feel' in game extremely highly.
It kind of reminds me of bodybuilding/training in a way, where there are people that get so stuck on what (mostly awful, terribly run, inconclusive) studies say, while big/strong dudes have been extolling virtues they learned from decades in the gym that have been shown to work over and over and over again. "Broscience" can be taken too far, but if for example I wanted to be an olympic lifter, I'd probably follow the example of the eastern bloc before some guy in a labcoat.
|
On March 25 2015 01:52 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 01:43 Numy wrote:
I think anyone that's done any higher level real world applications using maths(Say Engineering) will understand tthe sheer importance of properly stating your assumptions after defining your system. Feel a lot of people that do do theorycrafting aren't really used to that kind of problem solving so it gets a bit wayward and aggravated when it's being discussed. We'll see what happens I guess :> In general I just don't think theorycrafting works well to a pvp game(or really any game with a lot of confounding and outright unpredictable variables). Like, MMOs are famous for their theorycrafting because boss fights are scripted, the only variable is RNG, which in many cases can be accounted for in the model("if you get X buff/debuff, change rotation to Y for maximum DPS/HPS/damage reduction/whatever). It's one thing to do some math to mold some of your decisions in game, but I would value the 'feel' in game extremely highly. It kind of reminds me of bodybuilding/training in a way, where there are people that get so stuck on what (mostly awful, terribly run, inconclusive) studies say, while big/strong dudes have been extolling virtues they learned from decades in the gym that have been shown to work over and over and over again. "Broscience" can be taken too far, but if for example I wanted to be an olympic lifter, I'd probably follow the example of the eastern bloc before some guy in a labcoat.
are you implying if you're from the eastern bloc you can't be a scientist?
|
28102 Posts
On March 25 2015 01:52 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 01:43 Numy wrote:
I think anyone that's done any higher level real world applications using maths(Say Engineering) will understand tthe sheer importance of properly stating your assumptions after defining your system. Feel a lot of people that do do theorycrafting aren't really used to that kind of problem solving so it gets a bit wayward and aggravated when it's being discussed. We'll see what happens I guess :> In general I just don't think theorycrafting works well to a pvp game(or really any game with a lot of confounding and outright unpredictable variables). Like, MMOs are famous for their theorycrafting because boss fights are scripted, the only variable is RNG, which in many cases can be accounted for in the model("if you get X buff/debuff, change rotation to Y for maximum DPS/HPS/damage reduction/whatever). It's one thing to do some math to mold some of your decisions in game, but I would value the 'feel' in game extremely highly. It kind of reminds me of bodybuilding/training in a way, where there are people that get so stuck on what (mostly awful, terribly run, inconclusive) studies say, while big/strong dudes have been extolling virtues they learned from decades in the gym that have been shown to work over and over and over again. "Broscience" can be taken too far, but if for example I wanted to be an olympic lifter, I'd probably follow the example of the eastern bloc before some guy in a labcoat.
So what you're saying is that people who theory craft constantly are usually not that good at the actual game 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
