Greedy Goblin

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The weirdest thing about the Buzzfeed scandal

No, not politics post, social-bashing! You probably heard that Buzzfeed and CNN ran an - admittedly unverified - story that Donald Trump took part in some "private time" that included peeing on the mattress. Then - as expected - the internet was all over it. The real problem is not that the story is so obviously fake that more somewhat reputable media refused to publish it during the campaign season, despite it was distributed months ago. Even the Clinton campaign refused to air it in fear that it backfires on them.

No, the real problem is how all the comedians and "joking" media jumped on it. How it isn't condemned by politicians and the rest of the media. How Buzzfeed and CNN didn't became instantly boycotted by everyone. Why should they be? Because there is a more disgusting and toxic thing than pee: feces. The pee of of a person is mostly sterile, save for the patients of a few infections. You can't get most STDs, including AIDS from touching the pee of a patient. Feces is never sterile. You can get all gastro-intestinal diseases by interacting with feces of the infected, that's how they are contracted: the ill person doesn't wash his hands after toilet and leave milligrams of feces on the furniture and you touch it and then don't wash your hands before touching food. For the same reason we have both strong senses for feces, its smell is very detectable by our nose and also very strong feeling of disgust of it.

So we can agree that any "private" activity involving feces is much worse than one involving pee. And there is a very common such activity: anal sex. It's the main activity of gays, therefore the slur "shitcock". A word that no mainstream media person or comedian would use and expect to keep his job. No one would dare to go around and make fun of gays, despite what they do is objectively more hazardous - think of the high AIDS rate among gays - than what Trump is accused with.

The thing is that if Trump really did what this smear peace accuses him, he is a member of a sexual minority and for that he is mocked and ridiculed by the mainstream media and joked around over the internet. This shows how the behavior of socials isn't consequent, but simply "I do what others do". Ridiculing gays became a taboo and everyone is all over protecting the "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM" community and calling anyone bigot who dares to criticize them. Then, they do just that with someone they don't like.

Finally, the whole document is crazy: they claim that Russia blackmailed Trump with this. How?! Trump survived 12 rape accusers and the "grab them" tape. The current claims are ... piss against the wind.

Monday, January 16, 2017

League of Legends prison

Over the last weeks I had 57.5% winrate in League of Legends. Now check out my last 40 games:

25 losses, 15 wins. What's the chance of this happening by bad luck?
And it's not just that I've "lost". I saw more AFK-ers, DC-ers in the last weekend than I saw in the last month. I got a botter whose bot bugged and just followed me around in the jungle. I got a totally new player, I wonder what he does in Mid-Silver (and yes, he played exactly like my mum would if I'd give him an account). I had extreme collection of toxic guys. And - on the opposing team - I saw absolutely oppressive good play. I've learned more about jungle tricks from a few Kha, Shacko and Lee in the last weekend than I learned in months.

It was clear that the matchmaker wanted me to lose and not just the usual way. While I identified that about 40% of the games are meant to be lost, it's not because of me, but because of giving a free win for the buyers on the other side. That's why the exploit works: I know that they are boosted baddies and figured out how to break that. By the way I barely saw such games, I found 11 out of 40 and won only 2, because they weren't "normal exploits" (I declare the game one way or another based on champion history of teammates which is far from perfect, but good enough). Most games were "fair" and I lost them by a large margin.

Why? Because last Friday I analyzed the data and figured out a "shortcut to gold". I classify the games into "easy win", "fair", and "exploit", but I also realized how the outcome of the games is predictable within classes. For example a fair game with more teammates with high winrate is more likely won than one with baddies (go figure!). Exploit games also have a - pretty surprising - prediction method. This is much less predictive than the main classification (free wins have 80%+ winrate, fair games have 55% and exploited games played without exploit have 25%). But still, by the "goods - bads" prediction I could split the fair games into halves, one with 65% winrate and one with 45%. So why should I waste time? Let's dodge the lower half!

That's when and why everything went crazy! The game really hates queue dodgers since they both cheat (it gives advantage even if the matchmaker is fair) and because it wastes 5-10 minutes of 9 players. Punishing queue dodgers is a fair idea. So is punishing toxic players, botters and quitters. But instead of banning their accounts (they just make one new free) or giving out some in-game punishment (hey, they can just drop their account and make one new free), they put them to a "prison zone" and give them losses, by giving them each other as teammates and way better enemies.

It's actually genius. The dodgers don't know that they've lost because of being punished, they think that whatever dodge formula they made up is not working. The toxic people don't realize that they've lost because they are punished, they are given the famous loading screen quote "players who criticize teammates after a mistake lose 25% more games"! Botters believe that their bots are badly written and quitters - well, they quit. The really new players who play ranked on an account they haven't used for years (or just bought on ebay) will lose anyway, so they can lose in the prison, serving punishment to the inmates instead of annoying honest teammates.

While I admit that this is a genius plan, it's also a perfect example of the matchmaker being totally rigged. I haven't dodged on Sunday and I wonder how many lost games or real days I have to serve in the prison before I can return to evaluating the "normal" rigging again, the one which is aimed to help the paying players.

Update: I played one more late night and lost to another AFK-er. But after midnight we won! So from the sample of one I dare to say that my day of imprisonment is over. One can hope.

Friday, January 13, 2017

More nukes for peace!

Both Trump and Putin announced their plans for increasing their nuclear weapon capacities. Needless to say that liberals went crazy over the impending doom. They are totally wrong. A nuclear arms race is the best thing that can be done for peace.

Conventional weapons can be and routinely are paraded in conflict zones as show of force. From there it only needs an idiot to start shooting. Nuclear weapons are much more conservatively handled, if not for else than out of fear of losing them in an accident. It's a no-brainer that provoking the opponent by parading weapons front of him is a bad idea if you want peace.

Conventional weapons can be and routinely are used in low-intensity conflicts, targeted strikes and other war-without-declaration actions. These conflicts than spiral out of hand and and create a real war, like it happened in Ukraine. Nukes can't be used for that.

Conventional weapons can be and routinely are given to proxies and friendly militias to carry out one's bidding. This went great in Syria, right? These proxies often can't be controlled and turn on their former masters or just go on a genocide. No one in his right mind would - and there is no precedent in history that anyone did - give a nuke to some Islamist militia wishing and hoping that they will only use it against the regime he doesn't like and won't join the An-Nusra the next week.

In summary, conventional weapons are used in an escalating manner, hoping that a limited military action will scare off the opponent, while in reality he just escalates back. Nukes can only be used in an "all in" manner, that leaders don't want and never did since WW2.

In an utopia where countries would only have nukes there would be only two possibilities: peace and total destruction. No one wants total destruction. Wars happen because leaders think they can win easily. They are wrong, just ask W. Bush. A nuclear buildup, especially if matched with limiting funds on conventional weapons and deployments will move the World towards this utopia, therefore to peace.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Another League of Legends update

Riot announced a Warwick update. Deploying that update (it's currently on test server) will end my project anyway, as the new Warwick has skill moves that means constantly increasing skill with games skew any result.

I'm understanding the matchmaker even better. There are three kinds of teams, determined before the actual games starts:
  • Easy wins: games where the matchmaker clearly wants us to win.
  • Exploited defeats: games where the matchmaker clearly wants us to lose, but I still win more than half, thanks to understanding the weakness of the "Easy win" team on the other side.
  • Fair games: the matchmaker can't care less who wins.
Below you can see how these teams have very different matchups and how their internal win chance can be determined by the distribution of teammates. I mean if a team has lots of Type C members, exploit mode is my only chance and having some Type B predicts that I win, while Type A signs a likely loss. I try anyway as a few wins against the odds rises the winrate over 50% in these cases. I'm also considering dodging these games. Currently I only dodge if I don't get jungle role or someone picks/bans Warwick.


The most important is to see how even is the type distribution of the fair games and how uneven it is for unfair games. Anyway, the solution is clearly working:

This Monday or the next, depending on how fast I can climb I post the final results with the explanation of the Types which will clearly prove that Riot is acting maliciously.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Game crowdfunding: you get what you pay for

I've been watching Crowfall for some time, as I found it a very good game when I first read about it. And that's it, I'm watching, since it's not released:
The front page announces the next test, various awards for being "most anticipated" and opportunities to "invest", along with the proud announcement that they collected $10M for nothing. Because they have no published game.

Star Citizen is an even bigger problem. As we know from the Don Quixote of the topic, the game has serious development problems, mostly because they picked a single-player engine for an MMO, they are way behind schedule and yet collected over $100M from donators.

Dear people, you get what you pay for. If you pay for a game, you get a game. If you pay for power, you get power in a rigged game. If you pay for development, you get development. The more you pay them, the more development you get. I guess Star Citizen will be in development as long as there are enough benefactors to keep the show running. When there are not, they publish whatever they have to avoid lawsuits and call it a day. I hope Crowfall will be different, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I lost nothing on these games, as I never paid for any non-published games, because I know that you can pay 4 ways:
  1. Buyer: you have a product to evaluate and legal right for refund if they product does not meet specifications.
  2. Investor: you put money into a company for later divends or selling your share for higher. You have ability to audit the company, either personally or by investor services ratings.
  3. Selfless donator: you give money to a noble cause with no expectation to get anything in return personally. You expect the cause to make the World a better place with your contribution.
  4. Mark of a con: you give money and you're not any of the above.
I heard Star Citizen is selling yet another ship isn't implemented yet in a game not published. Be sure to buy it now!

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Message from 2010

I'm spending lot of time reading old posts and either tagging them as "random", indicating that they didn't stand the test of time, or tag them as "ideas" and list them on the Table of Contents page. Looking back to that time, there is no wonder why my blog gained audience fast: the posts weren't too complicated, they were close to life, often spawned from reflecting to actual happenings last day. Like this. The ideas weren't theoretically created but field tested, like this.

Along with the unlikely success of my BDO posts, I see more and more now that my upcoming project must be close to the grassroots, the simple players playing a game directly. Not developers, game-philosophers, metagamers, game-fairness-prophets or whatnot. Play the game with them and show the pitfalls of social thinking when they fall into them.

Won't be easy after years of metagaming, philosophy-writing and game-rigging-hunting. But that simple writing worked and this does not.

Monday, January 9, 2017

League of Legends update

Remember the winrate vs team score graph from last week?

Things are going differently recently:
As you can see, I'm winning in every teamscore bracket. I climbed back to Silver 3 from Silver 5 where I fell during experimenting with a rudimentary form of exploit mode. What is exploit mode? At first I evaluate the team. The current teamscore formula is A/2-B/2-C+D. Of course I keep you in suspense about what A, B, C and D type of players are. If the teamscore is zero or bigger, I play in normal mode. I focus on my farm, dragons, gank when convenient. As you can see, the various types give different win chance:
If the teamscore is below zero, I play in exploit mode. I - again - keep you in suspense about what it is, but I guarantee that it's a completely retarded playstyle in a truly random game. It starts to make sense if you assume that the game is rigged against you in a special way, the way Riot rigs the games. Then you get this:
The interesting thing is the dominance of Type C players. Normal play is not dominated by Type D, despite the formula gives +1 to D and -1 to C, so the two graphs should be mirrors. Please also note that more Type B gets to positive teamscore teams, despite they give -0.5 to the score. Something is up here.

I think I can climb to gold next week to prove how well the exploit works.