lol @ people hating on PR Rog's gameplay.

#21RagingRicansPosted 2/4/2013 10:32:01 PM
NoizyChild posted...
If he even has people ignored in the first place.

Then again, he has a lot of time while waiting for that video to upload.


Your so annoying. Quit trolling this mans topic.
---
PSN: RagingRicans. "There is always a little truth behind every "Kappa" - Fictional Hispanic man.
#22NoizyChildPosted 2/4/2013 10:43:10 PM
From: RagingRicans | Posted: 2/4/2013 11:32:01 PM | #101
Your so annoying. Quit trolling this mans topic.

You're trying too hard.
---
Who knew a "rage quitting scrub" like me could make so much noize?
https://twitter.com/Jason24cf/status/283040727536111616
#23LandonioPosted 2/5/2013 4:44:33 AM
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
I'm really confused. If someone wins, how can there be ANY question if he 'deserves' it or not? Last I checked, the game didn't make random choices on who the winner would be, the players choices are the only outcome to the match.

Bunch of scrubs.


Online says hi.
---
ROLL TIDE
Playing:Halo 4, Dark Souls, Resident Evil 4: HD, Resident Evil 5: Gold, SF3: 3rd Strike Online, PB Winterbottom
#24TheSteelPhoenixPosted 2/5/2013 4:49:18 AM
Landonio posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
I'm really confused. If someone wins, how can there be ANY question if he 'deserves' it or not? Last I checked, the game didn't make random choices on who the winner would be, the players choices are the only outcome to the match.

Bunch of scrubs.


Online says hi.


yah and thats why no one takes online seriously....well at least not serious players that is.
---
lol
#25ProzacIsBackPosted 2/5/2013 4:56:00 AM
Landonio posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
I'm really confused. If someone wins, how can there be ANY question if he 'deserves' it or not? Last I checked, the game didn't make random choices on who the winner would be, the players choices are the only outcome to the match.

Bunch of scrubs.


Online says hi.


Has nothing to do with online.

It has to do with Risk vs Reward, and Consistency.

Good players minimize their risk, and maximize their reward. A good player using doom won't tend to do Airdash -> Footdive much, because the risk if blocked is huge. A bad player will do the **** out of it, only thinking of the reward if it works. Same with wake-up raw S.

Sometimes, you expect your opponent to understand these things, and act accordingly, so it can catch you by surprise when they do them.

In the long run, it's a bad idea. In a ft10, or ft3, it'll do them more harm than good. But it's not unusual for someone doing some completely stupid crap to catch a more seasoned player by surprise and win a match or two.
---
Prozac is a dick.
But he's a great player. He's like the Kanye West of GameFAQs, if Kanye had talent.
#26NewuserPosted 2/5/2013 5:14:09 AM
ProzacIsBack posted...
Good players minimize their risk, and maximize their reward. A good player using doom won't tend to do Airdash -> Footdive much, because the risk if blocked is huge. A bad player will do the **** out of it, only thinking of the reward if it works. Same with wake-up raw S.

Sometimes, you expect your opponent to understand these things, and act accordingly, so it can catch you by surprise when they do them.

In the long run, it's a bad idea. In a ft10, or ft3, it'll do them more harm than good. But it's not unusual for someone doing some completely stupid crap to catch a more seasoned player by surprise and win a match or two.


http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?threads/my-attempt-at-domination-101-thoughts-on-randomness-mashing-and-high-level-play.142712/

Read this. Basically your ability to read your opponent is weak if all you can is to expect him to play the "right " way and not go for risks.
---
I'm going to ****ing rip your throat out if you wake me up again. And if you touch the poster, I'll slap you across the face with your own esophogus
#27TheSteelPhoenixPosted 2/5/2013 5:15:53 AM
ProzacIsBack posted...
Landonio posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
I'm really confused. If someone wins, how can there be ANY question if he 'deserves' it or not? Last I checked, the game didn't make random choices on who the winner would be, the players choices are the only outcome to the match.

Bunch of scrubs.


Online says hi.


"...you expect your opponent to understand these things..."


Focus the part where it's making an incorrect choice/working assumption. All losses and all wins are deserved. "Beginners Luck" as this notion is often labeled, is the failure of the more experienced player to account for the choices of the less experienced one. In theory the 'better' player will be able to use their superior knowledge of the game's system to account for this in later matches, but this does not mean those win's were "undeserved".
---
lol
#28ProzacIsBackPosted 2/5/2013 5:21:33 AM
Newuser posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...
Good players minimize their risk, and maximize their reward. A good player using doom won't tend to do Airdash -> Footdive much, because the risk if blocked is huge. A bad player will do the **** out of it, only thinking of the reward if it works. Same with wake-up raw S.

Sometimes, you expect your opponent to understand these things, and act accordingly, so it can catch you by surprise when they do them.

In the long run, it's a bad idea. In a ft10, or ft3, it'll do them more harm than good. But it's not unusual for someone doing some completely stupid crap to catch a more seasoned player by surprise and win a match or two.


http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?threads/my-attempt-at-domination-101-thoughts-on-randomness-mashing-and-high-level-play.142712/

Read this. Basically your ability to read your opponent is weak if all you can is to expect him to play the "right " way and not go for risks.


I'm rather familiar with most of the terrible domination-101 articles, and no, it's not.

Everyone comes up against a new opponent with a basic checklist of what they anticipate, and there are ways a player can play badly in the long run while being immediately effective in the short run.

If you're still getting spanked by Raw Ess 10 matches later, your ability to read your opponents is bad, sure.
---
Prozac is a dick.
But he's a great player. He's like the Kanye West of GameFAQs, if Kanye had talent.
#29ProzacIsBackPosted 2/5/2013 5:28:46 AM
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...
Landonio posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
I'm really confused. If someone wins, how can there be ANY question if he 'deserves' it or not? Last I checked, the game didn't make random choices on who the winner would be, the players choices are the only outcome to the match.

Bunch of scrubs.


Online says hi.


"...you expect your opponent to understand these things..."


Focus the part where it's making an incorrect choice/working assumption. All losses and all wins are deserved. "Beginners Luck" as this notion is often labeled, is the failure of the more experienced player to account for the choices of the less experienced one. In theory the 'better' player will be able to use their superior knowledge of the game's system to account for this in later matches, but this does not mean those win's were "undeserved".


You're quibbling over semantics now.

Rephrased as "is he the better player?", the answer is no.

If the question is "did the game pop up with Winner! and score him a point?", the answer is obviously yes; without consistency, however, who gives a ****.

The circumstances in which a lesser player can sneak out a win against overall much better players have been explained.

(which has nothing to do with pr rog 'cause rog is gdlk)
---
Prozac is a dick.
But he's a great player. He's like the Kanye West of GameFAQs, if Kanye had talent.
#30TheSteelPhoenixPosted 2/5/2013 6:21:09 AM
ProzacIsBack posted...

You're quibbling over semantics now.

Rephrased as "is he the better player?", the answer is no.

If the question is "did the game pop up with Winner! and score him a point?", the answer is obviously yes; without consistency, however, who gives a ****.

The circumstances in which a lesser player can sneak out a win against overall much better players have been explained.

(which has nothing to do with pr rog 'cause rog is gdlk)


There is a massive difference between if someone 'deserved' a win and if 'is he the better player'. This has the trappings of what is called a 'straw man argument', in which you choose a different (more winnable) argument to attack instead of the one presented. But I don't really view this as an argument, as you no doubt do, because my post didn't require a response. It simply was a statement of fact.

This does however remind me of another problem, one that is of the same subordinate type (strategic consistency problems in choice systems).

Some 2 or 3 years ago when I was writing a text book on the subject, an interesting part of optimization was determining the weight of chance of success versus effectiveness of success. There are several other factors you have to take into account (binary outcomes versus variable outcomes, intensity of information stream, information availability, historical choice pattern, etc), but these two are enough to demonstrate the basic idea.

Essentially, the chance of success can be interchanged for effectiveness success only relative the sample size required of performance.

Let's say you are playing a game with a coin toss that can be tuned to give % outcomes on command. In this game, if the coin comes up heads, you get points, and tails, your opponent gets points. First one to some number of points will win.

Now if I gave you some options, which were:

1. 85% heads chance, 1 point for heads, 2 for tails. 10 points
2. 75% heads chance, 1 point for heads, 2 for tails, 1000 points.

In the first example, that seems like an easy one, you will win most of the time. In fact, if we lowered it to 66% it would come out about even, you winning half the games, him winning half the games.

In reality 85% has some inefficiency built in. The reason is its a 10 game sample with a opponent that needs to score half of what you have, you really only need about 82% to win convincingly. Many systems in life have the ability to reduce the chance of success for increased effectiveness of success, so here we can actually sacrifice 3% for some increase in points (assuming ceteris parabis, and that there isn't some choice that has better odds AND better effectiveness, we would just call that the better choice).

In the second example, we have a similar problem, but here with the 100 game sample, we actually would need about 79% to win convincingly. So we are short 4% here.

Just something to think about.
---
lol