On March 16 2021 13:53 catplanetcatplanet wrote: You would think if someone were to make a billion alts, they'd have a little fun with the usernames instead of just rolling their face on their keyboard. Or you could spell out a message with a series of usernames to get around being nuked. Surely that's happened here before?
After the TI saga, everything is just increasing amounts of pathetic and repetitive. It's like, he did repetitive first, so any repetition after that is just boring.
On March 16 2021 07:52 Jealous wrote: Tappo the deranged Blizzard shill made his 100th account to try to derail the conversation because people dare to judge Blizzard on their handling of X game. Pay no mind, don't feed the troll, etc.
Blizzard shill? i'm a Bobby Kotick stan. This guy is not a very good shill if he is so easily discovered.
On April 07 2021 18:21 arb wrote: This is obviously deathly late, but what happened to Telecom? Not that i'll lament him being gone but i must have missed that
That account was created on 2015-03-31 10:31:46 and had 971 posts.
Reason: It's not us, it's you.
On April 17 2021 04:00 onlystar wrote:
On April 17 2021 03:58 Sneazel wrote: everytime I check top100, there are about 40~~terrans. easiest race to get 2700 lol
braindead much?
User was banned for this post.
Terran OP
is it just me or is 4/10 not exemplifying his points when there are three races?
or am i that out of touch
Nah, 40/100 is a pretty big deal. That's pretty clearly statistically significant. At least one race ends up with significantly less than a 1/3 fair share from that info alone.
Will plug my own post while we're at it. Terran definitely OP, no doubt about it.
That account was created on 2015-03-31 10:31:46 and had 971 posts.
Reason: It's not us, it's you.
On April 17 2021 04:00 onlystar wrote:
On April 17 2021 03:58 Sneazel wrote: everytime I check top100, there are about 40~~terrans. easiest race to get 2700 lol
braindead much?
User was banned for this post.
Terran OP
is it just me or is 4/10 not exemplifying his points when there are three races?
or am i that out of touch
Nah, 40/100 is a pretty big deal. That's pretty clearly statistically significant. At least one race ends up with significantly less than a 1/3 fair share from that info alone.
Will plug my own post while we're at it. Terran definitely OP, no doubt about it.
sorry i don’t know if i’m not detecting sarcasm but is that just 7 more than equity?
That account was created on 2015-03-31 10:31:46 and had 971 posts.
Reason: It's not us, it's you.
On April 17 2021 04:00 onlystar wrote:
On April 17 2021 03:58 Sneazel wrote: everytime I check top100, there are about 40~~terrans. easiest race to get 2700 lol
braindead much?
User was banned for this post.
Terran OP
is it just me or is 4/10 not exemplifying his points when there are three races?
or am i that out of touch
Nah, 40/100 is a pretty big deal. That's pretty clearly statistically significant. At least one race ends up with significantly less than a 1/3 fair share from that info alone.
Will plug my own post while we're at it. Terran definitely OP, no doubt about it.
sorry i don’t know if i’m not detecting sarcasm but is that just 7 more than equity?
so presumably 40/30/30
Not sarcasm, that is actually a pretty big deal for balance. In the 40/30/30 case for example, you’d have Terran with 30% more representation than any other race. If it’s more like 40/35/25, then one race is clearly getting the short end of the stick by a large margin. And 100 is enough players such that it’s not a case of small sample size.
I mean, it’s not quite “so lopsided that the other races don’t have a chance” but it’d be well into the range of statistically overrepresented in the high ranks. In my post above and its prequel, I do talk a fair bit about how odds about that good tend to snowball into materially superior tournament results for a given race.
This conversation is a bit silly. I just selected a random number from 1 to 3 one hundred times, tallied the results, and then repeated the experiment four more times. The results:
40/100 one time is nothing significant and reasonably likely to be purely by chance, that is true. But if it's consistently one candidate out of the three getting a result like that, it is pretty materially important to overall high-level results. And indeed, 40/100 or therein seems far more like consistency than a freak accident.
Certainly a pretty lengthy digression at this point to the on-topic issue of laughing at someone who deserved to get banned finally getting the ban, but perhaps it's worth giving a moment to one of the BW fandom's long-running pastimes. I'm willing to let the lengthy essays I wrote speak far more to my evaluation of pro-level balance than the toy example of 40/100 and what it means in the grand scheme of things. Long story short, though, Terran OP.
On April 17 2021 08:17 micronesia wrote: This conversation is a bit silly. I just selected a random number from 1 to 3 one hundred times, tallied the results, and then repeated the experiment four more times. The results:
40 T one time is nothing significant.
This depends on the method of generating the random #s. a better test is taking a perfectly balanced 6 sided die and rolling it a bunch of times. Then record the # of 1-2 outcomes, 3-4 outcomes, and 5-6 outcomes.
On April 17 2021 08:17 micronesia wrote: This conversation is a bit silly. I just selected a random number from 1 to 3 one hundred times, tallied the results, and then repeated the experiment four more times. The results:
40 T one time is nothing significant.
This depends on the method of generating the random #s. a better test is taking a perfectly balanced 6 sided die and rolling it a bunch of times. Then record the # of 1-2 outcomes, 3-4 outcomes, and 5-6 outcomes.
Why would you assume that a randomly generated value of 1, 2, or 3 is any more biased than a 6 sided die? Would you say the same thing about a 3 sided die? Would a 12 sided die be better? Wtf???
(Most) computers don't have real random numbers available, and there are countless ways to fuck up randomness in programming. This doesn't mean anything bad happened in the example at hand, but without seeing the code I would probably tend to trust a physical die over computer pseudo-randomness.
This thread is to discuss bans though, not discuss balance or randomness, so please stay on topic at least a bit.
On April 17 2021 08:17 micronesia wrote: This conversation is a bit silly. I just selected a random number from 1 to 3 one hundred times, tallied the results, and then repeated the experiment four more times. The results:
40 T one time is nothing significant.
This depends on the method of generating the random #s. a better test is taking a perfectly balanced 6 sided die and rolling it a bunch of times. Then record the # of 1-2 outcomes, 3-4 outcomes, and 5-6 outcomes.
Why would you assume that a randomly generated value of 1, 2, or 3 is any more biased than a 6 sided die? Would you say the same thing about a 3 sided die? Would a 12 sided die be better? Wtf???
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kBdpCq1.png)
