Why do Some Argue Against Skill Based MM?
Дата: 19.07.2021 00:58:28
SimplyPzB2, on Jul 18 2021 - 22:37, said: "effectively guaranteed" win/loss. That is what the 99%
comment was saying. While in reality if I play 100 25%ctw
battles, I might win 15-20 of them - I've "effectively" lost all of
them. As it's such a low low low winrate for 100
battles. If I'd played wot for 1,000 battles, and only won
150-200 of them - I'd have stopped playing the game. No one
likes to lose that badly. - So over the course of 10,000 battles -
random mm give you about 2,000 battles rigged against you.
THAT'S A LOT OF 'EFFECTIVELY' guaranteed losses. Which is the
point. It's not just that playing a rigged/guaranteed loss
battle sucks. It's that over time, we play thousands of
them. (And it's not just the auto-losses, it's the
auto-wins as well. While they don't have the sting of an
auto-loss, the are still really boring/un-challenging). - So
I wasn't 'exaggerating', I was simply using
'shorthand'. - - DeviouslyCursed: This post is telling; it explains why you can't understand
anything. If you win 15-20 out of 100 games you did not lose them
all, 'effectively' or otherwise. No matter how many battles you
use, it will never reach 99% (percentages are weird like
that). So it's still not 99%. That was a lie. Calling them
"auto-win" or "auto-loss" is also a lie. It's also not shorthand,
unless your definition of shorthand is "lying to suit your
purpose." Also, how can winning a game you were supposed to
lose not be a challenge? And how can losing a game you were
supposed to win not be a challenge? So you stating all the
mismatched games are not fun or not challenging is also a lie.
Why do Some Argue Against Skill Based MM?