@teflonlove I can’t help it lmao
Apparently critical analysis means “This is how I interpreted what you said and you clearly meant exactly what I interpreted because I’m flawless”
My god I swear I could compare you and this image side by side and think you were staring into a mirror
@imLegal said:
Perhaps the problem isn’t me indicating the technicalities but rather you whose clearly ignoring them.
lmfao
You’re the one who brought up the issue of critical thinking and people not diving with deeper thoughts into things and then getting mad when I am.
lmfao
Lmfao.
Simply refuting my original statement by modifying it with angry spam, false implications, and fallacies doesn’t make my original statement anyless true then it was before besides misrepresenting what I said.
“Simply refuting my misunderstanding of your side by reiterating yourself in simpler words pointing out the things I implied doesn’t make me any less correct!”
If you misrepresent matchbalancing with matchmaking,
I didn’t
Once again: Matchbalancing and matchmaking are not completely synonymous to each other. That’s a fact, you can choose to delude yourself from reality and disagree.
@bgyoshi said:
Don’t confuse CMM with Matchmaking, they aren’t the same.
Such disagreement.
Since the beginning there were improvements made to the algorithm which in itself were improvements for CMM in general.
Yeah I guess painting my car a different color is an improvement to it’s performance in general.
(that’s called a joke, implying that the algorithm is just fluff for the mode and not a key component)
There were improvements made for CMM aswell that weren’t direct improvements to the team balancing algorithm aswell like improving the system’s UI.
Oh right I forgot, a global improvement to everything in DB -is- a direct upgrade to CMM and should be treated as such! Next time I get a house, I’m going to say I upgraded my bed
Sorry to be the ice breaker but you did in fact made these implications.
Oh really? I can’t find them… explain
Given I wasn’t as vague as you were initially,
@bgyoshi said:
Please give an example of any 5+player team-based game with solo queuing whose highest complaint is not match balance, as an example of a game that has solved the problem and always gives 100% perfect match pairings no matter what skill level the players are at
That looks pretty direct to me, we’re talking about match balance and pairings, aka matchmaking, the back end process.
you still simplified the problem of match balancing concerns as “whining”, “pointless”, and doing nothing but “distract SD from focusing on improving game features”
And yet apparently it’s all their fault for listening. Wait a minute…
The problem is accountability: you keep pinning the idea that it’s ultimately the players fault when it simply isn’t. SD ultimately CHOSE to go through and invest a large amount of time into match balancing algorithms
Huh I wonder why they would do that
Players AKA possible customers pointing out feedback/criticism
Oh thanks, it’s almost like they want to please their possible customers and make money or something. Ergo there must also be blame on the players for griping about an unsolvable issue, as a company, wanting to please it’s customers, will work on the problems most-griped about. Stunning.
Even if you think match balancing, or the concept of, is a waste of time (which you’ve implied it is but you seem confused of your own implications so i’ll let it up to you),
@bgyoshi said:
It’s almost like whining about match balance is pointless and doesn’t do anything but distract SD from focusing on improving the game features and instead makes them focus on completing the impossible task of perfectly balancing 1,000 players from a huge range of skill levels across the entire world or something
I’m not quite sure you understand what “implied” means. I directly said it first post
it doesn’t inherently make a person’s concern/complaint/feedback/suggestion/or even hyperbolic non-sense hold less validity by default.
No it doesn’t. What makes it hold less validity by default the impossibility of completing the task. For example, “I hate this game because I can’t fly into the sun and live to talk about it.” would not be an inherently invalid concern just because I don’t think it’s useful feedback. What makes it inherently invalid is that it’s impossible to do.
I’m not even going to address again the illogical assessment you made of holding player suggestions accountable for the deciding outcome of their match qualities.
Minus this entire post, right?
Okay I’m done
Say whatever shill you want you’re not here to discuss anything you’re just trying to backpedal, avoid the point, nitpick about definitions, justify your misunderstandings, claim that you know what I mean to say more than I do, and somehow convince me that you’ve had it right all along.
It’s easier to just say “Oh sorry, I was confused. You’re right, we are talking about the same thing.” and move on.
The point stands: Match balancing is pointless to try and perfect
They should’ve ignored the cries to keep fixing it and instead focused on fixing the larger problem; people aren’t playing the game.
Literally anything else you’re bringing up is not part of my original post and just shit you collected by rolling everything down hill and plucked from the pile, pretending it was the intent all along
Rofl
inb4threadclosed