Jump to content

kesaesa

Newcomers
  • Content count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About kesaesa

  • Rank
    Noobster
  1. No, it isn't. It's the exact opposite of that. It's the fact that if there's a 90% chance of the circle favoring one side over the other, then after 100 games, 90 will have ended in your favor. And I would much rather have 90 games where I don't have to scuttle for the circle than 10. And so would probably everyone else. If it was "save-and-reload-until-it-happens", then probabilities wouldn't matter. When you have to make the same decision across multiple matches, that's when probabilities matter. And my problem with predictable circles isn't that it gives any player an advantage (you're right, it doesn't, everyone has the same information), but that it makes games boring and predictable. Most players will always be running for the same zone immediately when the first circle is announced, because that side is objectively the best and everyone not doing it will be at a disadvantage, on average.
  2. Do you even understand how badly you are contradicting yourself? You are literally saying that statistics and probabilities don't matter, that only what ultimately happens is relevant. And in the very next sentence you are complaining how the current system only gives a small probability of the game ending in the corner.
  3. The mathematics behind it are an example of conditional probability. It can be shown with Bayes' theorem. P(A | B) = (P(B | A)*P(A)) / P(B) In the 3x3 grid example, P(A) = probability of the final zone being in square x when we have no information about the first circle P(B) = probability of the first 2x2 grid being in that specific place P(A | B) = probability of A given B is true, i.e., probability of the final zone being in square x when the 2x2 grid spawns in this specific place P(B | A) = probability of B given A is true, i.e., probability of the 2x2 grid spawning in this specific place when the end zone is in square x. So in effect, the above equation answers the question "What is the probability that the final zone will be in square x when we know that the initial 2x2 grid has spawned in this specific place?" Let's consider the probability of the corner first. Substitute values for the elements of the equation: P(A) = 1/9. This is just the probability of the end zone being in the corner when we have no other information. P(B) = 1/4. The first 2x2 grid spawning in any corner is equally probable. P(B | A) = 1. If the end zone will end up in the corner, then there is a 100% chance that the 2x2 grid will spawn in this corner, because there are no other possible 2x2 grids that include this specific corner. P(A | B) = (1*(1/9)) / 1/4 = 4/9. Next, consider the center: P(A) = 1/9. With no information, the middle is equally probable as the corner. P(B) = 1/4. Any 2x2 grid is equally probable. P(B | A) = 1/4. If the end zone will end up in the middle, then there is only a 25% chance that the 2x2 grid will spawn in this specific corner. There are altogether 4 different 2x2 grids that could spawn if the end zone is in the middle. P(A | B) = ((1/4)*(1/9)) / 1/4) = 1/9. With a given 2x2 grid, the probability of the end zone being in the corner is 4/9 and being in the middle is 1/9.
  4. Sure, that is entirely up to preference. Nothing wrong with the concept of the circles not being completely random, per say. There are just so many people that think that this method would not be visible to the player, when it in fact gives players more information about the following circles than the current system.
  5. It won't remain the same, however. After the first circle is revealed, the players are given new information that will update the probabilities of subsequent circles. And they won't be uniform anymore. The condensed logic is as follows. A circle that spawns in a way that includes one corner and the middle of the map is one of only few circles that could spawn if the end zone is in the corner, but one of many that could spawn if the end zone is in the middle. Since we have established that the middle and the corner have equal probabilities of being the end zone in the aggregate, then it follows that with this given circle that has now been revealed, the corner must be the more probable position for the end zone as opposed to the middle. The middle end zone has so many more scenarios where it still has a chance that don't include this corner at all, so they cannot have an equal probability in the already-revealed circle, or otherwise we would see middle end zones much more frequently than end zones in that one specific corner. This can be shown mathematically, but I won't bother. Summary: you would see end zones in more varied places around the map (everywhere with equal probability), but players would be able to predict (to some extent) which side of the revealed circle the new circle will appear.
×