Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math

Zeldafanboy

@blodir said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

@blodir

Do you think the 1400-1500 range is "low rating" though?

Low as opposed to what? Without a point of reference the word is meaningless. In relation to my anecdotal teamgame experience it is low indeed.

Low as opposed to the rating distribution of the playerbase…. I.e. what is the most common rating range, and is 1500 above or below that. What percentile of players are 1500 or above? It’s obviously above average. So you can’t say that’s a “low” rating, you can only say it’s “lower” than your own.

TheVVheelboy

1500 rated players are still utter crap. Spin it however you want but the reality is that players in this game are just bad apart from the dozen high rated ones. Just cuz 1500 is higher than the average ameba playing faf doesn't mean much. @Zeldafanboy

Zeldafanboy

@i_forgorthescene

That's completely unlike how most sports or competitive activities are talked about. Skill level is not perceived as this black and white dichotomy where the handful of the very best players are "good" and everyone else is "bad". If you're better than average by definition you can't be bad at something.

Unless you want to be pedantic and choose something that nobody can do like fly or whatever

TheVVheelboy

You are only looking at the small puddle of players playing FAF, which 99.9 are nothing more than 4fun players. The level of FAF gameplay is simply atrocious and there is no denying it when you compare it to the other communities that are actually playing to win.

And yeah, 1500 might be above the average for the community but it means jackshit when the whole community is bunch of 4fun old dudes and kids who just wanna see big explosions happen.

Instead of looking at the puddle and being happy that "hey I'm better than buncha people with IQ of a turtle, I must be pretty good at this gaming stuff!". You should instead look more critical at the whole community and realise that being better than average FAFfer is worth jack shit.

Want a sport comparision? FAF is a sunday footbal club for dads after 40. Sure you might be better than half of the dudes in it but you have jackshit on people playing even in 3rd leagues. And the few good guys? They are the kids coming to play with their old mans.

TheWeakie

@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

Skill level is not perceived as this black and white dichotomy where the handful of the very best players are "good" and everyone else is "bad". If you're better than average by definition you can't be bad at something.

When i'm down i like to remind myself that Magnus Carlsen thinks i'm not bad at all for being top 50% chess

Exselsior

@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

But this is a tautology. You're saying that noshare would make "good maps" play badly because the map design makes a lost base crippling. Well I'm saying that noshare makes "bad maps" play better because otherwise, they would be too defensive and safe to eco on. I'm making a case for nuance, that fullshare vs. noshare should be map dependent. It'd be like saying Setons Clutch is a "bad map" if you only played it with noshare...
Maps like Wonder, Canis, etc. are pretty popular as far as non-Gap (or Setons) and if you want to stop playing lobbysim during certain NA hours you would rather play those maps noshare than with fullshare imo.

Actually, I agree with you on most of this. I have no issue with no share in your examples here and it makes sense. Nor does anyone else have issues with it as far as I know. I'll play no share canis and wonder, not often, but if its my only option I'll do it.

My issue comes in when no share starts leaking out of these cases. No share mapgen for example is a steaming pile of shit that's so bad that despite it sometimes being my only non-gap or astro option I would just choose to not play FAF at that time unless I'm really in the mood to meme, it's that bad. I've tried it about half a dozen times out of boredom and haven't had a single good experience win or lose.

That is the problem I have with this post and why I've said what I've said: this thread reads as trying to justify no share over full share in general and that's simply wrong.

Zeldafanboy

@i_forgorthescene said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

Instead of looking at the puddle and being happy that "hey I'm better than buncha people with IQ of a turtle, I must be pretty good at this gaming stuff!"

Why are you putting words in my mouth, how would having a certain skill in one game make you "good at video games" (this doesnt exist) overall?

@i_forgorthescene said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

Want a sport comparision? FAF is a sunday footbal club for dads after 40. Sure you might be better than half of the dudes in it but you have jackshit on people playing even in 3rd leagues. And the few good guys? They are the kids coming to play with their old mans.

This doesn't make sense, since football is played outside that boomer football club by professional teams around the world. Where else is Forged Alliance played outside FAF, much less at a higher skill level? Steam? That doesn't even have remotely similar balance at this point.

TheVVheelboy

If you think that FAF skill doesn't apply to other games you are delusional. Same for other games skill applying to FAF>

Jip

It seems to me the topic has served its purpose. Luckily we can all host what we like. Could a moderator close it, I don't see anything coming from it at this point

archsimkat

Thread has somehow devolved into a discussion about what constitutes being "good" and so is closed.