prodromos wrote:errorblankfield wrote:^This this this OMG this.
No offense prodromos, but you fell for the mental rating trap. A 700 player with 5 games just as likely slightly better or slightly worst than a 700 player with 5000000E10000000 games.
SomeoneAUS says it better than I, but as you play more, your rating is more absolute. Once you've reached a lot of games, by definition you are a prime example of said rank. So our resident 700 guy with millions of games is shown time and time again unable to best a 701 opponent.
1. SupCom is much more than 2d chess and the reason why ai on supcom still sucks. We can talk all day about this, but shortly experience, ie the assimilation of greater number of pattern behaviours and the application of them, as understood by the modern science of ai, is what parts human intelligence from machine intelligence( for now). Yes, an experienced player may lack the neuromotor responses that contribute to the speed of execution of commands(for an array of different causes evey time), but neuromotor responses is the low level of life and no real match for superior intelligence. Insisting on the opposite view is like saying that a lion is smarter than you because it can defeat you consistenly on 1v1 body fights.
2. Even if point 1. were bullshit, there are still reasons that can compromise the useful system Zep had the kidness to apply for our own pleasure.A player may lose a match because he has things to do and the match goes on for long, but the server doesn't know that. A player may lose a match because someone's at the door or the phone rings, but the server doesn't know that. A player may lose a match, because he's pissed off about how the match progresses but the server doesn't understand that. A player may lose a match because his connection is lost but the server doesn't know that. A player may lose a match because he tries a novel strategy(maybe a risky one), but the server assumes the player always follows the safe route.
and on and on....
Shortly, though the logic behind the current rating system is sound, it assumes that the pool of a player's results is valid, even if there's no fucking way to verify this, not only for the current system but for every rating system.Thus, the "games played" and so indirectly the experience is a better measure for intelligence and thus for true skill. On a different level even the reflexes improve with more games albeit at different pace for every one of us.
Rushing to bash me in self content because you know the right meaning of a statistical definition is not gonna work.I am profoundly "cerebral", my curse and my salvation. Chances are that I see more aspects of a certain subject before you even
fathom their existence.
So I maintain that " games played" should be displayed together with the rating, if you want to better assess your opponent ,pre game that is. Now, there are some " quit"ters that defy even the games played concept, but hey, it's human intelligence it hates being confined by definitions.