Field Commander set: can the requirements to earn it be reviewed?

[Kathleen_]

Rhetorical only really works when the implied answer is unambiguous.

It is unambiguous though. There's a 50/50 for it to be either side but you have to make a decision. In a small set getting the same side thrice in a row is a less likely occurrence than getting the same side twice in a row, so the logical decision is to bet on hads. Before you bring up the gambler's fallacy, no, that's believing that the chance of getting tails is higher. It's not "smarter", it's just playing around RNG in game theory.

[Iscah]

In a small set getting the same side thrice in a row is a less likely occurrence than getting the same side twice in a row, so the logical decision is to bet on hads. Before you bring up the gambler's fallacy, no, that's believing that the chance of getting tails is higher. It's not "smarter", it's just playing around RNG in game theory.

No, that absolutely is gambler's fallacy. You're saying that it is more likely to be tails because the previous two were heads.

If you were asked to bet before any coins are flipped whether there will be three heads or two and a tail, you'd be more sensible to bet on the mix. But once the two heads have been produced, the third flip is still 50/50. The universe does not care that the previous two flips came up heads.

And, as I said, your rhetorical question was ambiguous whether you were expecting the reader to think the answer is "you should bet on tails" or "it's still 50/50". Rhetorical questions don't work if the person you're asking might not follow the same logic as you.


Edit: Okay, no, you wrote that heads was more likely. That makes even less sense.

[Kathleen_]

No, that absolutely is gambler's fallacy. You're saying that it is more likely to be tails because the previous two were heads.

If you were asked to bet before any coins are flipped whether there will be three heads or two and a tail, you'd be more sensible to bet on the mix. But once the two heads have been produced, the third flip is still 50/50. The universe does not care that the previous two flips came up heads.

And, as I said, your rhetorical question was ambiguous whether you were expecting the reader to think the answer is "you should bet on tails" or "it's still 50/50". Rhetorical questions don't work if the person you're asking might not follow the same logic as you.


Edit: Okay, no, you wrote that heads was more likely. That makes even less sense.

I literally said that it's 50% for either side. lol You're talking about classical probability in a closed mathematical setting, I'm talking about game theory decision making because my original point was about node spawns: you have two sides at the same chance of occurring, why did you pick one over the other? You have multiple nodes spread throughout the map at the same chance of occurring at fixed intervals of time, why did you preposition near that node specifically?

[Towa-Musa]

I literally said that it's 50% for either side. lol You're talking about classical probability in a closed mathematical setting, I'm talking about game theory decision making because my original point was about node spawns: you have two sides at the same chance of occurring, why did you pick one over the other? You have multiple nodes spread throughout the map at the same chance of occurring at fixed intervals of time, why did you preposition near that node specifically?

You are literally agreeing its RNG then lmfao

[Kathleen_]

You are literally agreeing its RNG then lmfao

I said it like, 15 posts ago. lmao
My whole point is that you're supposed to play around it instead of crying and pissing yourself in alliance chat because spawns don't go in your favour 100% of the time.

[Towa-Musa]

<Angry lizard noises.>

oop now you're just trying to insult people XD

[Nikoto]

I said it like, 15 posts ago. lmao
My whole point is that you're supposed to play around it instead of crying and pissing yourself in alliance chat because spawns don't go in your favour 100% of the time.

feels bad being 100% guilty of doing this (especially in seal rock). uh oh

[AurynSaber]

The reward system on this map does need a rework.
Even if you try to guide players, they will not always work in the Alliance best interests.
I think I've played more than 22 games over the last couple of weeks, and I've only won two of them.

The other maps are way more equitative, even with the random factor (I am already close to 300 victories in Onsal Hakair for example). But this one is just utterly painful