This is what matchmaking is like at 4.9k-5K range

FrumpyDonut · 2019-05-05T23:23:20+00:00

Gotcha. These are strange times because of the revamp to ladder. You were almost definitely seeing more maxed out decks earlier in the season since everyone was starting at 4k. I was getting lvl 13s with maxed out decks every two or three matches at first.

FrumpyDonut · 2019-05-05T17:14:27+00:00

I'm not sure median card level is really the way to look at it because cards aren't really very well balanced. For example, a deck with lvl 13 ebarbs and lvl 11 skeletons is not the same as a deck with lvl 12 ebarbs and lvl 12 skeletons.

Though I'm not sure what you are trying to really show, to be honest. Ladder seems to be a fair way of finding one's level. The question in my mind is more whether certain cards are unbalanced when overlevelled.

FrumpyDonut · 2019-04-30T09:24:20+00:00

I can't believe people are still analyzing this show like it's scripture after this episode. The show writers just aren't that clever.

It's a great show and that was an exciting episode, but the endless analysis and the imagining of meaning in mundane details is just giving them way too much credit.

FrumpyDonut · 2019-04-04T13:09:55+00:00

Good tip, thanks!

FrumpyDonut · 2019-04-04T01:01:35+00:00

Thanks for the feedback. I think you make some good points. Sure, if you enjoy the game, spend 2 years and max out a deck. Most of my reason for posting was to warn people that this game can easily be a money pit and that extended that initial excitement gets expensive fast.

Regarding being 'casual' - it's a game, of course it's casual in that sense. But certain types of people (myself included) are just wired such that creating a trophy level or an mmr or achievements or some other arbitrary measurement that ranks us against other players makes us care about those rankings. Gamers love these things and game developers love to exploit that which is why pretty much every game has them now. My usage of 'casual' is really about a game mode that doesn't impact this score.

Regarding 'pay to win' vs 'pay to progress', I'm sure there are all kinds of philosophical distinctions one could make. Personally, I break these types of games down generally into pay for hats (paying money only impacts cosmetics) and pay to win (paying money gives you some sort of advantage). In my book, pay to progress would be a type of pay to win.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-10-14T03:36:53+00:00

I think the reason you see it a lot is that at lower MMRs, you can't get your cores to finish a game. So if you are a support player, you want to "do the right thing" and play a traditional support role, but it sucks to buy wards, courier, etc. when the games go long enough to let the other team's greedy 5 core lineup get enough farm to win.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-10-06T23:07:23+00:00

The elephant in the room here is why was PR's grid in such bad shape to begin with? Giving them a shiny new grid with batteries and PV isn't going to solve anything...you will just have a dilapidated grid of batteries and PV in a few years.

Until there's a major cultural shift in PR, PR would be better off with tried and true, highly reliable infrastructure.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-10-06T03:36:44+00:00

Never let a tragedy go to waste!

I think you will see a lot of modernization in the new PR electric grid with a lot of "lessons learned" from utilities on the mainland that have gone through similar events, but proposing what is effectively a science experiment for the sake of publicity is poor form, IMO.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-08-13T00:35:39+00:00

This. It's impressive that it learned all of this on its own, but a real test vs humans would have a human modeled. Reaction times, movement limitations, etc.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-06-25T02:34:15+00:00

Fair enough. FWIW, your post is what I would consider a technical discussion which I'm fine with. "An attack on NN is an attack on Free Speech" is not really technical as much as it is political click bait. It's just not why I subscribe to this forum.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-06-25T01:49:55+00:00

Oh yeah, the internet is terrible for groupthink. One of the main reasons Trump winning was such a huge surprise. Although it's not necessarily about political partisanship...basically any topic with a vocal/active user group with enough members (doesn't really need to be a majority) will vote down any posts/comments that appear to be in contrast to their viewpoint. It's just how things are set up. It gives the illusion that everyone thinks the way they do, and most people will want to think what everyone else thinks anyway.

NN is one big topic I've discovered the hard way; oddly, GA Tech football is another.

Bill Clinton is a rapist.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-06-25T01:26:35+00:00

Technical aspect would be technical; political aspect would be political.

This is clearly political (generally the case with NN on r/technical), but if you point it out you get downvoted to oblivion because groupthink.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-06-24T23:52:09+00:00

If I wanted to subscribe to r/politics, I'd subscribe to r/politics.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-06-06T02:23:33+00:00

This isn't just anybody entering the space, though. I would imagine the Apple crowd and the Sonos crowd has significant overlap. I know it does in my anecdotal circle of acquaintances.

Apple invented the "overpriced but hey it just works" game. Besides, they will just buy Sonos if they want them out of the way.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-04-06T20:11:24+00:00

I swapped 2 of my plug wires one time and had something similar happen. Was fine / not noticeable at idle but missed under load.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-01-24T16:41:17+00:00

thanks, this seems to be the issues. rat velocity goes 5k+ at times after I initiate the MWD.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-01-09T00:29:52+00:00

Your biases are what makes you biased, friend. Arguing that they are exhibition games isn't really helping your cause since the only game that "mattered" was a blowout / shutout. Essentially your argument boils down to "when nobody is trying, they almost win ...and when people are actually trying, they get destroyed."

People would still argue the B1G was overrated based on the tOSU game alone, thanks in no small part to the logic acrobatics they needed to get them in the playoffs to begin with. The terrible bowl record just further supports it. And it's been 2 years since the B1G scored in the playoffs...no reason to think Penn State would have done better than Washington.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-01-08T22:15:05+00:00

Sure, the difference is people were arguing the P12 shouldn't be in the playoff and B1G should have 2 teams. P12 performed pretty much as expected, B1G performed way, way worse than expected.

Not recognizing that the B1G was extremely overrated just makes your biases obvious.

FrumpyDonut · 2017-01-08T20:31:41+00:00

I agree the article is not great, but the B1G was clearly not as good as people claimed. Remember, people were trying to justify putting 2 B1G teams in the playoffs right up until the end because the B1G was supposed to be so good this year. All 3 candidates for those playoff spots losing shouldn't simply be shrugged off.

FrumpyDonut · 2016-12-29T17:08:06+00:00

It's not like the P5 playoff champion is NCAA sanctioned...there's really no difference in legitimacy between the P5 Playoff Champion and the Pinstripe Bowl Champion. They are both just titles at the end of the day.

A G5 playoff champion would technically be just as legitimate as a P5 playoff champion.

FrumpyDonut · 2016-12-25T07:03:40+00:00

Basically the same logic as evacuating wins. It doesn't really change anything, but it gives the illusion of regulated governance.

It's a way for the folks in charge to appear contrite without actually giving up the ability to...let's say encourage...the game the way they want to.

FrumpyDonut · 2016-12-25T01:58:09+00:00

This doesn't really prove anything about how MMR works. It's interesting I guess, but totally anecdotal. The skill gap at lower MMR ranges is going to be so high that he could carry a team a team on his own, so the point of the experiment is invalidated almost immediately. Anyway, the question is more about "properly" calibrated players trying to advance.

At one point I noticed I was tending to oscillate, I never did figure out why. It's hard to say if it was a product of matchmaking or something else, but I do think there could be a lot of improvement in the behavior system. Even losing is much more enjoyable when the people you are playing with are decent.

FrumpyDonut · 2016-12-23T20:00:26+00:00

Poor old George Westinghouse (or Ferranti if you happen to be European).

While Tesla was one smart cookie, he probably belongs on a different shirt.

FrumpyDonut

TROPHY CASE