this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
161 points (92.6% liked)

Greentext

4393 readers
1219 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 44 points 6 hours ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 78 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 hours ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 hours ago

Hi dying, I'm dad.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 hours ago

Sorry for your loss.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 hours ago

This interaction may have made my night

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 hours ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

What a great rabbit hole, thanks!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Personally, I don't like the fact that every team-based video game uses ELO, a system designed for a 1 on 1 game, to determine an individual's skill.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 59 minutes ago* (last edited 56 minutes ago) (1 children)

While Elo (and side note: it's a person's name, not an acronym) isn't perfect and systems like Glicko-2 are better even for 1v1s, is there a better system than Elo that could be used to rate players in team games? Especially if there's a mix of pre-made teams and random teams thrown together by matchmaking?

Edit: extra bonus if it can be applicable in games that have both 1v1 and team game components where there might be a desire for some form of bleed between the two. (e.g. AoE2 where your starting Elo in one of them is based on your Elo in the other, if you've played a lot of one type of game before trying the other.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 minutes ago

I suspect games tinker with the formula behind the scenes, to accurately place people faster if nothing else. The more players the longer it could take for the skill of any one to show up in the numbers, so I bet they factor in other game specific metrics at least at first. There would be some risk of this being abused, but that's less if they keep it a secret and maybe the progress numbers shown to players aren't quite the same as the real numbers used to decide who to match them against.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Like when they discriminated against users because of their age...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

A quick Google shows that they charged over thirties in the UK double for a premium account.

Devils advocate says that is because older people are more like to have money (people are probably getting a bit more desperate at that age too).

It looks like the policy is revoked tho.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 hours ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

It stands for female humanoid and is exactly as dehumanizing as it sounds

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago

I think that the part being dehumanized is the one that uses that word.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 hours ago

It was femoid originally but anon got even lazier.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 hours ago

I think it's supposed to be some kind of derogatory label for women, but is really just an identifier that the person using it is a worthless being whose opinion is as relevant as a gnats thoughts on the economy.