"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Seneca
In general, whenever you find yourself in at a disadvantage in a situation, you need to increase the variance. Playing safe when the situation is trending towards your defeat is mathematically bad, and vice versa - if the trend is to your advantage, it pays to dot all the i's and slash all the t's, so to speak.
So quickly realizing that "this ain't going to work out, it's time to start playing the high odds" is a smart strategy.
That it usually fails is why it's called taking a chance and not standard tactics.
None of this has anything to do with the discussion in this thread, unless you're replying to one of the multiple posters who don't understand what I'm saying and instead post as if I had said something completely different (see the quoted post below, for example). The claim that a team should increase the variance when they're behind is dubious as a rule, but relevant as an exception. I have no wish to turn this into a debate about the viability of baserushes, however, so I'll leave it at that.
Throwing around terms like randomness and luck to explain away the defeat is absurd and unneeded.
No, that is not what I wrote at all. If you bothered to read my posts, using basic reading comprehension, you would know that. If you can't even do that, then please stop posting altogether.
That makes a good match for the viewers because it's back and forth not textbook smashing of one team. Specially since i think godar and arc played a good half (something that you will probably attest to, given that you guys had a mixup of strats from what we normally see?)
I Don't think anyone enjoyed your 5 min demolition egg lock of nexzil as a spectator, It's boring to watch. But full props to Arc there a great team for being able to put good teams in that position.
Yup, Godar played well. I agree that the round had some interesting back and forth moments, but because of the way it ended, it is not in my opinion a particularly interesting game to watch.
The fourth round of the Invitational, which you refer to, was the first replay I watched when I got home. It is by far the most interesting round of the final. I tried to explain why in the second episode of SHOWTIME, but it probably requires a deeper appreciation for the game than the "I want to see lots of stuff happening!" mindset of most spectators.
I really appreciate what you said about round 4 on the Invitational during that episode of Showtime. There was a lot more going on in that round than just "Arc killed all of the skulks so they won," and hearing you and Bitey explain what you were thinking and how it happened made me realize it was much more interesting than it had initially seemed.
Throwing around terms like randomness and luck to explain away the defeat is absurd and unneeded.
No, that is not what I wrote at all. If you bothered to read my posts, using basic reading comprehension, you would know that. If you can't even do that, then please stop posting altogether.
Oh, fana has insulted someone's reading comprehension again. This is both new, exciting and probably the most solid argument ending retort ever conceived. I read this thread, then when back and watched the match recording to see what all the hubbub was about, then I made my post. Your reluctance to call what happened a mistake and instead refer to it in this fashion is a tad hilarious:
Using that particular game as an example: For that baserush to succeed,
several different variables all had to work out in their favor, none of
which they had any control over, and most of which we had very little
effective control over
fanatic said: It's a part of the game, and a perfectly legitimate way to win, but it
isn't interesting in any other way than "good thing they tried that and
got lucky, otherwise they would've probably lost".
You had control of the entire match and put them on their back foot after they lost a series of fades. Not expecting a base rush as a possibility was a gross miscalculation. Godar caught you out of position and knew where they could enter sub access based on their previous forays to hit the obs. The only variable they didn't have control over was your TRes float in the rush. It was a preventable scenario, there was no "effective luck" for either side.
Agreed fana, From a player point of view & replaying streams that my team have been involved in you rewatch the steam to see what made you win that quick (i HATE watching streams were we lost a round) I also like to watch what we done as a team really well and what was done "ok" and then show my team.
Let's face it as a player you try and win as quick as possible. If the opposite team win then you can obviously quickly point out your downfalls within a few minutes without watching the full video (if even needing to watch the stream, quite easily pointed out in game)
I fully understand your POV however, anyone that didn't read what you wrote.
Industry, IMO,
Arc never have complete control over that match. They had to kill res with multiple groups to stop tres fade drops after dropping 3 of there fades. Godar knowing of there position took a risk to get the double gorge into there base. Sometimes it works (probably put this down to poor obs, arms location?) Sometimes it doesn't. I would say it's pretty uncommon to see this work but in this case it did & full props to Godar but i can see the degree of "chance/luck"
I see what you're trying to say but Fana's point is effectively this:
1) In order for the rush to work, a number of variables had to go in Godar's favour
2) These variables involve a lot of chaos (physics meaning)
3) On average, these variables would not have counted in Godar's favour
4) On this occasion, they did, and they won. Perhaps out of 100 instances in a parallel universe, Godar wins by this method 10 times. Viable? Yes. Their best option? Probably. But in terms of statistics, a huge element of "luck"? YES!
What he also tries to say is that base rushes are, relative to many other methods to win, very simple to do. Now is he saying they're as simple as, "hit their base"? No. All he is saying is that as a method of winning base rushes are generally very simple. You might say, "Well as Mendasp says there were marines out of position...". Granted! But as Fana said, this probably STILL wouldn't have worked had the commander the necessary res to carry out the beacon.
I can see so many more nuances to address but I don't want to sit here and type for 45 minutes, so I will leave it at that and hope it was enough...
For the record, I don't see a lack of humility in @Fana 's post. I totally agree with him and @Therius in my disbelief at just how overstated the win for Godar was (and I'm a Godar fan). I personally thought Godar would take it until a horrific metagame mistake in attacking Crossroads head on with all of those fades and losing three in quick succession.
Quite simply, Arc got outplayed in that one moment in the game that culminated from a series of mistakes. Godar took advantage of it.
Most teams probably wouldn't have done that and just tried to continue doing the same old thing with Arc eventually winning. The fact that Godar was able to make an actual successful push like that, where most times it would fail, is what is interesting and makes it fun to watch.
Quite simply, Arc got outplayed in that one moment in the game that culminated from a series of mistakes. Godar took advantage of it.
Most teams probably wouldn't have done that and just tried to continue doing the same old thing with Arc eventually winning. The fact that Godar was able to make an actual successful push like that, where most times it would fail, is what is interesting and makes it fun to watch.
I agree with your simple explanation. However, I was discussing probabilities - so it is irrelevant to my comment.
I see what you're trying to say but Fana's point is effectively this:
1) In order for the rush to work, a number of variables had to go in Godar's favour
2) These variables involve a lot of chaos (physics meaning)
3) On average, these variables would not have counted in Godar's favour
4) On this occasion, they did, and they won. Perhaps out of 100 instances in a parallel universe, Godar wins by this method 10 times. Viable? Yes. Their best option? Probably. But in terms of statistics, a huge element of "luck"? YES!
1) All of which are variables under a player's control be it godar or arc. The only place where "luck" can even be "perceived" is from godar's perspective concerning the TRes float. But looking at the system externally it is not luck at all. It was a variable determined by another player.
2) Not really sure that a statistical measure of entropy/chaos would apply here. In physics and statistics, chaos and entropy is a measure of change in complexity and disorder. We are looking at a closed system at an instance in time. We have a set number of variables that can be in a set number of states and the states of the variables are determined by the players. If we have the system enter each possible state at complete random then the probability of entering any given state is equal. To claim chaos or entropy when concerning the variables there would have to be an outside factor entering the system that changes the outcome. Something like a player's internet cutting out or a nuclear orbital strike on the datacenter hosting the server. The only thing that changes these probabilities away from being equal within this closed set of predefined game rules is player choice based on prior experience which in and of its nature is apart of the closed system. If the player makes X choice based on the knowledge of previous states in the system then the outcome is most probable to be Y. Simply put given the previous knowledge of the state of that game, the likelihood of a base rush was pretty high and each decision made by arc made it more and more probable that the rush would be successful.
3) Uhh. but why are the variables random? That is where the disconnect here is. I am saying the end is a result of a series of choices (which I have deemed to be mistakes). We can say the "stars aligned" for godar, but a player from the other team knowingly put them in that damn alignment.
4) Do these 100 universes in your sample have the same choices made by the players? (Being out of position, TRes expenditure etc) Because that is an important distinction to make when considering the probability of an outcome. This is really the point I am trying to make. Had arc made different decisions the outcome would have been far more likely a victory for them. That is player control over the end result. There was no unexpected external factor outside the defined system causing undue influence.
And for the love of sweet jesus, probability is not the same concept as luck. Hindsight is 20/20 but it was not luck, nor was it random. It was the probable outcome based on choices made during the span of the round.
What he also tries to say is that base rushes are, relative to many other methods to win, very simple to do. Now is he saying they're as simple as, "hit their base"? No. All he is saying is that as a method of winning base rushes are generally very simple. You might say, "Well as Mendasp says there were marines out of position...". Granted! But as Fana said, this probably STILL wouldn't have worked had the commander the necessary res to carry out the beacon.
I'm not arguing whether they are simple to do. That is not and was not my point. I also think whether it was enjoyable to watch or not is completely subjective and thus irrelevant. I just think it was in poor taste to come in and describe the outcome in that manner.
@Industry I believe I understand your point in that luck wasn't apart of the game. Then again, I would wager you would say there is no such thing as luck simply due to choice in almost all points in our lives. Example: Its not luck you got in a car crash, The driver on the opposite side of the street decided to run a red light and you did not look to the side.
I feel however that an assumption has been made my friend, and that is that Fana is " saying" luck and using the standard assumed meaning behind the word. For example: Luck or chance is fortune (whether bad or good) which occurs beyond one's control, without regard to one's will, intention, or desired result.
The entire argument is based around him using that textbook definition. I feel when he used the word luck he was using it in lieu of a very lengthy description of a dozen different variables and taking forever to explain why probability was in marine favor.
Another example of this common mistake is the word cheesy. Internet definition: Anything low quality or substandard. My definition: Anything stupid. My families definition: Anything silly. Words can mean different things to different people and its not always the best to assume every person uses the same definition. Some times to spare everyone a long lengthy message like mine I'll be vague and use terms loosely, much like I'm sure Fana did. If a person prefers to be more literal or if they take offence to the wording, by all means ask for a clarification, that way we can have less of these long debates over something so trivial.
Instead of the criticism of his post, might I just say that simply asking him if he meant that that the base rush was not at all based off of planning of the enemy team, or that there knowledge of team whereabouts had nothing to do with their decision. This said in lieu of the opening argument in luck might have made him clarify to suit your desire without all of this negativity.
That being said I hope you have a wonderful day good sire and I hope no ill will has formed between us.
Not content with missing Fana's point you seem to have missed mine, too.
1) Luck is defined as that which is out of someone's control. Arc not having the 10tres to beacon was an element out of the control of Godar. How about we take another thing into account? Did Godar necessarily have control over where the Arc players were situated? No. Now, does team X have influence over team Y? Yes. But even then, perhaps Arc were in the certain positions they were irrespective of what Godar were doing (to an extent - my point is, given a different day in the same situation t-20 seconds, the following 20 seconds occur differently - this is my point about parallel universes).
OBVIOUSLY they're under the control of the players, but these variables can be very different even given the same stimulus. For example, when you drink a can of coke does it ALWAYS taste the same? No. It could be the time the coke has been sitting in a factory, the glucose content of your blood, leptin signaling...It goes on. The point is that ON AVERAGE Godar's tactic would not have worked. Want some good evidence? They went 1 for 2 against Miau. And Miau went 0 for 3 against Godar (with these rushes). Now you might say, BUT ONE TEAM WAS MORE PREPARED and I agree with you! But you still have to factor in probability. If you do not agree with this point (and sorry but objectively you have to) then I won't comment on it again. Did Godar do the right thing? Yes. On average would it work more than 50% of the time? No. That is the only point I make, and Fana merely extends it by saying it is boring. I don't think it is boring, but meh.
2) Sorry but disorder does apply. When event of order x occurs, so many different events can result from it, with increasing disorder. If we go with the layman interpretation of the butterfly effect I hope you see my point (I am not saying you are a layman, but best to put that in just in case).
3) I never said the variables were random. I never even implied it. If by definition I say, "on average these would not have counted in Godar's favour" then I already make the point that it is not random. Why? Because if it was random they wouldn't on average count in anyone's favour...
4) Again you MISS the point. @Fana is saying that base rushes generally aren't that well thought out and are normally done out of desperation and are thus not that cool (he's not saying 90% of the time, just more often than not). Godar's worked due to a variety of factors, some of which were not totally controlled by Godar and one of which was not at all (although one could argue that forcing Arc to drop medpacks and nanos is an indirect way of doing so but let's not go into it too much)...
Not content with missing Fana's point you seem to have missed mine, too.
1) Luck is defined as that which is out of someone's control. Arc not having the 10tres to beacon was an element out of the control of Godar. How about we take another thing into account? Did Godar necessarily have control over where the Arc players were situated? No. Now, does team X have influence over team Y? Yes. But even then, perhaps Arc were in the certain positions they were irrespective of what Godar were doing (to an extent - my point is, given a different day in the same situation t-20 seconds, the following 20 seconds occur differently - this is my point about parallel universes).
The problem here is that it is perceived luck. Their actions influenced the decision to spend the res in this case, giving some measure of control, no matter how slight. NS2 is a game of action and reaction. The teams don't work independently of each other... mostly because that would be stupid and make it a terrible game.
OBVIOUSLY they're under the control of the players, but these variables can be very different even given the same stimulus. For example, when you drink a can of coke does it ALWAYS taste the same? No. It could be the time the coke has been sitting in a factory, the glucose content of your blood, leptin signaling...It goes on. The point is that ON AVERAGE Godar's tactic would not have worked. Want some good evidence? They went 1 for 2 against Miau. And Miau went 0 for 3 against Godar (with these rushes). Now you might say, BUT ONE TEAM WAS MORE PREPARED and I agree with you! But you still have to factor in probability. If you do not agree with this point (and sorry but objectively you have to) then I won't comment on it again. Did Godar do the right thing? Yes. On average would it work more than 50% of the time? No. That is the only point I make, and Fana merely extends it by saying it is boring. I don't think it is boring, but meh.
Of course they didn't play out the same way. The game state leading up to the results were not equivalent. I am not saying that a rush by default wins games or even inherently has a high success right by right of being a rush. A number of factors, criteria or choices need to be met leading up to its execution for it to have a high probability of success. Also what are you basing this pseudo-average on? Scenarios where the game state is equivalent to the rush godar succeeded on? Or all rushes in general? I don't mean to be pedantic but that distinction is extremely important.
2) Sorry but disorder does apply. When event of order x occurs, so many different events can result from it, with increasing disorder. If we go with the layman interpretation of the butterfly effect I hope you see my point (I am not saying you are a layman, but best to put that in just in case).
In the colloquial sense of chaos yes. The reason I say this doesn't work is that when we look at a match of NS2 as a system, in order to declare it chaotic or entropic (in the physics sense) we need a point of comparison. Say we have two matches of NS2 that occur entirely within the predefined bounds of the game rules. Regardless of their outcomes they are still confined within a a set of strict rules and thus are not chaotic, as there is no change in order or disorder in the system. Without a change or point of comparison there is no entropy. Now let's take another set of two matches. One match plays out within the confines of the system. The other match, "Nature" comes in the say NO *(@# THE SYSTEM and adds a variable previously not accounted for within the bounds. For the sake of NS2 and relevancy, let's use an unstable overclock. The game rules and engine do not expect this and unexpectedly blue screen. The system has now become more chaotic. Now, let's say the player adjusts their overclock, that is another change in disorder. The long and short of it is there is no chaos without a point of comparison. Looking at the game state and having it be an expected outcome from a closed system (probable or not is irrelevant) does not imply chaos.
I am not against applying the butterfly effect and chaos theory here. Past choices in the system most definitely affect the current state. The problem is that the set of game rules we are applying it to has a definite end and is working within its defined boundaries. Now if we were to break down the game into sections (such as the common early, mid, late demarcation) and look at one section and it's transition into the next we could measure a change in disorder. This however would have to assume that each section does not expect a transition to the next, which we know is not the case.
3) I never said the variables were random. I never even implied it. If by definition I say, "on average these would not have counted in Godar's favour" then I already make the point that it is not random. Why? Because if it was random they wouldn't on average count in anyone's favour...
I guess I was more stuck on the idea of the average being 50% and not knowing what exactly your sample was for determining that estimate. /shrug
In any effect I don't much care anymore and I'm just here because physics. YEAH SCIENCE.
edit: What I am really trying to say is that just because something is complex does not immediately make it chaotic.
I think what Industry is saying is that entropy is a state function. It's relevant, in a tenuous sense, but almost certainly won't help the discussion when more than 99% of people have no idea what a state function is, let alone the wider implications that go with it. Not to mention that 99% of those implications are irrelevant to this discussion, because we're talking about a very different type of 'system.'
I enjoyed watching ALL of the matches that have been discussed in this thread
That game was entertaining, the underdog team facing off with the no1. team ... down 1 game... and its back and forth .. until it looks like the underdog is going to lose ... then bam, at the last second a miracle happens ..... thats Hollywood entertainment right there. Luck is a part of every sport/game, its also the number 1 used excuse used by sore losers.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2013
I'm glad most of the posters understand what I mean when I say "effectively random", but this has still turned into a debate about the viability or legitimacy of using baserushes to win. I was not commenting on that at all. I was asked why I didn't think the round was interesting to watch, and that was what I replied to. I repeat what I have said earlier; baserushing is a perfectly legitimate way of winning a round. I agree that Godar's execution of this particular baserush was solid and that it was technically possible for us to prevent it. None of this has anything to do with what I was posting about, however.
In an attempt to prove that your understanding of the situation is correct, you quote a line from one of my posts ("It's a part of the game, and a perfectly legitimate way to win, but it isn't interesting in any other way than 'good thing they tried that and got lucky, otherwise they would've probably lost'."). You interpret this as me commenting on Godar's baserush, stating that my "reluctance to call what happened a mistake and instead refer to it in this fashion is a tad hilarious". It should, however, be obvious to any reasonable reader that this is interpretation is incorrect, based on the preceding sentence in the same paragraph, which you inexplicably omitted from your quote. That line was in actuality referring to baserushes in general, not Godar's play. The situation becomes even more absurd when you take into account that any such disparaging comments against Godar would also be disparaging to myself, and my team, as we have also won rounds using baserushes, as I made abundantly clear in an earlier post.
Throughout this entire thread you have seemingly been trying to bring me to justice for some perceived unsportsmanlike conduct on my part, yet there has been no such unsportsmanlike conduct under any reasonable interpretation of my posts, nor have I intended to diminish the significance of Godar's victory in any way. It's a shame you didn't take my advice concerning reading comprehension seriously. It could've saved you from making further inane posts about this subject.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2013
I can put it back in if you prefer.
If you had any decency, you would apologize for ruining the thread and for spreading false accusations and misinformation, but I'm not holding my breath.
Comments
None of this has anything to do with the discussion in this thread, unless you're replying to one of the multiple posters who don't understand what I'm saying and instead post as if I had said something completely different (see the quoted post below, for example). The claim that a team should increase the variance when they're behind is dubious as a rule, but relevant as an exception. I have no wish to turn this into a debate about the viability of baserushes, however, so I'll leave it at that.
No, that is not what I wrote at all. If you bothered to read my posts, using basic reading comprehension, you would know that. If you can't even do that, then please stop posting altogether.
Yup, Godar played well. I agree that the round had some interesting back and forth moments, but because of the way it ended, it is not in my opinion a particularly interesting game to watch.
The fourth round of the Invitational, which you refer to, was the first replay I watched when I got home. It is by far the most interesting round of the final. I tried to explain why in the second episode of SHOWTIME, but it probably requires a deeper appreciation for the game than the "I want to see lots of stuff happening!" mindset of most spectators.
You had control of the entire match and put them on their back foot after they lost a series of fades. Not expecting a base rush as a possibility was a gross miscalculation. Godar caught you out of position and knew where they could enter sub access based on their previous forays to hit the obs. The only variable they didn't have control over was your TRes float in the rush. It was a preventable scenario, there was no "effective luck" for either side.
This is the post of yours in question, perhaps you should revisit it: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2114943/#Comment_2114943
If you can't show a modicum of genuine pleasantness perhaps it is you who should stop posting altogether.
@BestProfileName
Quite simply, Arc got outplayed in that one moment in the game that culminated from a series of mistakes. Godar took advantage of it.
Most teams probably wouldn't have done that and just tried to continue doing the same old thing with Arc eventually winning. The fact that Godar was able to make an actual successful push like that, where most times it would fail, is what is interesting and makes it fun to watch.
2) Not really sure that a statistical measure of entropy/chaos would apply here. In physics and statistics, chaos and entropy is a measure of change in complexity and disorder. We are looking at a closed system at an instance in time. We have a set number of variables that can be in a set number of states and the states of the variables are determined by the players. If we have the system enter each possible state at complete random then the probability of entering any given state is equal. To claim chaos or entropy when concerning the variables there would have to be an outside factor entering the system that changes the outcome. Something like a player's internet cutting out or a nuclear orbital strike on the datacenter hosting the server. The only thing that changes these probabilities away from being equal within this closed set of predefined game rules is player choice based on prior experience which in and of its nature is apart of the closed system. If the player makes X choice based on the knowledge of previous states in the system then the outcome is most probable to be Y. Simply put given the previous knowledge of the state of that game, the likelihood of a base rush was pretty high and each decision made by arc made it more and more probable that the rush would be successful.
3) Uhh. but why are the variables random? That is where the disconnect here is. I am saying the end is a result of a series of choices (which I have deemed to be mistakes). We can say the "stars aligned" for godar, but a player from the other team knowingly put them in that damn alignment.
4) Do these 100 universes in your sample have the same choices made by the players? (Being out of position, TRes expenditure etc) Because that is an important distinction to make when considering the probability of an outcome. This is really the point I am trying to make. Had arc made different decisions the outcome would have been far more likely a victory for them. That is player control over the end result. There was no unexpected external factor outside the defined system causing undue influence.
And for the love of sweet jesus, probability is not the same concept as luck. Hindsight is 20/20 but it was not luck, nor was it random. It was the probable outcome based on choices made during the span of the round.
I'm not arguing whether they are simple to do. That is not and was not my point. I also think whether it was enjoyable to watch or not is completely subjective and thus irrelevant. I just think it was in poor taste to come in and describe the outcome in that manner.
@Industry I believe I understand your point in that luck wasn't apart of the game. Then again, I would wager you would say there is no such thing as luck simply due to choice in almost all points in our lives. Example: Its not luck you got in a car crash, The driver on the opposite side of the street decided to run a red light and you did not look to the side.
I feel however that an assumption has been made my friend, and that is that Fana is " saying" luck and using the standard assumed meaning behind the word. For example: Luck or chance is fortune (whether bad or good) which occurs beyond one's control, without regard to one's will, intention, or desired result.
The entire argument is based around him using that textbook definition. I feel when he used the word luck he was using it in lieu of a very lengthy description of a dozen different variables and taking forever to explain why probability was in marine favor.
Another example of this common mistake is the word cheesy. Internet definition: Anything low quality or substandard. My definition: Anything stupid. My families definition: Anything silly. Words can mean different things to different people and its not always the best to assume every person uses the same definition. Some times to spare everyone a long lengthy message like mine I'll be vague and use terms loosely, much like I'm sure Fana did. If a person prefers to be more literal or if they take offence to the wording, by all means ask for a clarification, that way we can have less of these long debates over something so trivial.
Instead of the criticism of his post, might I just say that simply asking him if he meant that that the base rush was not at all based off of planning of the enemy team, or that there knowledge of team whereabouts had nothing to do with their decision. This said in lieu of the opening argument in luck might have made him clarify to suit your desire without all of this negativity.
That being said I hope you have a wonderful day good sire and I hope no ill will has formed between us.
Of course they didn't play out the same way. The game state leading up to the results were not equivalent. I am not saying that a rush by default wins games or even inherently has a high success right by right of being a rush. A number of factors, criteria or choices need to be met leading up to its execution for it to have a high probability of success. Also what are you basing this pseudo-average on? Scenarios where the game state is equivalent to the rush godar succeeded on? Or all rushes in general? I don't mean to be pedantic but that distinction is extremely important.
In the colloquial sense of chaos yes. The reason I say this doesn't work is that when we look at a match of NS2 as a system, in order to declare it chaotic or entropic (in the physics sense) we need a point of comparison. Say we have two matches of NS2 that occur entirely within the predefined bounds of the game rules. Regardless of their outcomes they are still confined within a a set of strict rules and thus are not chaotic, as there is no change in order or disorder in the system. Without a change or point of comparison there is no entropy. Now let's take another set of two matches. One match plays out within the confines of the system. The other match, "Nature" comes in the say NO *(@# THE SYSTEM and adds a variable previously not accounted for within the bounds. For the sake of NS2 and relevancy, let's use an unstable overclock. The game rules and engine do not expect this and unexpectedly blue screen. The system has now become more chaotic. Now, let's say the player adjusts their overclock, that is another change in disorder. The long and short of it is there is no chaos without a point of comparison. Looking at the game state and having it be an expected outcome from a closed system (probable or not is irrelevant) does not imply chaos.
I am not against applying the butterfly effect and chaos theory here. Past choices in the system most definitely affect the current state. The problem is that the set of game rules we are applying it to has a definite end and is working within its defined boundaries. Now if we were to break down the game into sections (such as the common early, mid, late demarcation) and look at one section and it's transition into the next we could measure a change in disorder. This however would have to assume that each section does not expect a transition to the next, which we know is not the case.
In any effect I don't much care anymore and I'm just here because physics. YEAH SCIENCE.
edit: What I am really trying to say is that just because something is complex does not immediately make it chaotic.
I've been playing on godar server and they were very nice.
I've had arc guy join pub match and ruin it with mad skillz.
Go GODAR! No matter what.
gg Godar, keep it up
I'm glad most of the posters understand what I mean when I say "effectively random", but this has still turned into a debate about the viability or legitimacy of using baserushes to win. I was not commenting on that at all. I was asked why I didn't think the round was interesting to watch, and that was what I replied to. I repeat what I have said earlier; baserushing is a perfectly legitimate way of winning a round. I agree that Godar's execution of this particular baserush was solid and that it was technically possible for us to prevent it. None of this has anything to do with what I was posting about, however.
In an attempt to prove that your understanding of the situation is correct, you quote a line from one of my posts ("It's a part of the game, and a perfectly legitimate way to win, but it isn't interesting in any other way than 'good thing they tried that and got lucky, otherwise they would've probably lost'."). You interpret this as me commenting on Godar's baserush, stating that my "reluctance to call what happened a mistake and instead refer to it in this fashion is a tad hilarious". It should, however, be obvious to any reasonable reader that this is interpretation is incorrect, based on the preceding sentence in the same paragraph, which you inexplicably omitted from your quote. That line was in actuality referring to baserushes in general, not Godar's play. The situation becomes even more absurd when you take into account that any such disparaging comments against Godar would also be disparaging to myself, and my team, as we have also won rounds using baserushes, as I made abundantly clear in an earlier post.
Throughout this entire thread you have seemingly been trying to bring me to justice for some perceived unsportsmanlike conduct on my part, yet there has been no such unsportsmanlike conduct under any reasonable interpretation of my posts, nor have I intended to diminish the significance of Godar's victory in any way. It's a shame you didn't take my advice concerning reading comprehension seriously. It could've saved you from making further inane posts about this subject.
edit: I'm sad you edited out the part where I'm not worth the effort. That made me feel important.
I can put it back in if you prefer.
If you had any decency, you would apologize for ruining the thread and for spreading false accusations and misinformation, but I'm not holding my breath.