Thanks to Koksei, The_Nameless_Bard,JhoiJhoi, LaCorpse, JEFFY40HANDS and myself for the signatures! I am also a certified gangster.
Yeah, I thought it was really cool :D
Thanks to Koksei, The_Nameless_Bard,JhoiJhoi, LaCorpse, JEFFY40HANDS and myself for the signatures! I am also a certified gangster.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
I'm drawing 30 circles.. I hope this is good
EDIT: This is stupid. We need assumptions in our life to work properly. Children, for example, don't have those assumptions in them. If you give a 5 year old 1h to think about all the uses for a paper clip he'll come up with over 200. How? Because since he doesn't assume anything he can say that a giant paper-clip can be used to destroy planes or a super sharp 1 meter long paperclip can be used as a sword. But is that useful? How is that useful? It is not. You need to assume that it's a common paperclip because without that assumption your work was meaningless. Yeah, you figured out 200 uses for paperclips of several properties that don't exist, so what? You can't use that information. However, if you had found 2 uses for a regular paperclip then that information could prove to be useful later on.
In the 30 circle game one assumes that even though the rule is draw as many different circles as you can we can only write one number or one type of ball or that it needs to be circular because if we don't then there's no point in it. The activity is completely utterly pointless because there's no difficulty. If you give me a prize for the 30 number game then I'll draw something random in each of the circles and argue later that I should win because I stood by the literal rules. But is that what one is looking for? That when one is given certain rules in a game you're supposed to exploit them to the point it makes no sense? Why would I want to do that? If I draw the numbers 1-30 what does that prove? That at least I have the intelligence of a ******. If I draw something original in those 60 seconds what does it prove? That I can actually do some cool stuff under pressure. I didn't need to assume those rules, but it was those assumptions that yielded the best reward. I mean, why are you valuing more the assumption that filling the most circles is important over the assumption of filling circles more creatively? You're not eliminating assumptions, you're simply making different assumptions.
Like in monopoly. The rules say nothing about controlling multiple "pieces" to outnumber your opponents and make deals between yourself, but does that make any sense? No, it does not. The only thing that it does make is no one wanting to play with you. We need assumption to function properly.
His math problem analogy doesn't work very well either. I have not met anyone who thinks like that. You start out with every premise you have, every bit of information that has been given to you and then you relate that information to each other to form familiar patterns in order to reach the goal. You don't focus on the first bit or the last bit, you focus on everything or you won't get anywhere.
Assumptions aren't responsible for not using "tools" properly in games. Example: What are hammers for? Hammering nails. If I give you a hammer and tell you to complete a specific task are you going to search for nails to hit with? No. You're going to think how you can use such tool for other things. No one will ever assume that since there are no nails the hammer is worthless.
The same thing happens in games. Usually it's not the newbies who wine that someone is using the same move again and again, it's the people who want to have fun. If you're playing with someone for fun then you're not going to use cheap tactics to win, it sucks. However, introduce a prize and those cheap tactics become totally viable and anyone will use them. There's no assumption for those moves, there's a consequence. No one thinks "Oh, I can't use that move over and over again", you first do it until the other guy gets pissed off and tells you that he's not enjoying it. In competitive games, however, there is a prize, which makes everything different. Just like that castlevania example, playing normally I didn't use the backdash to move cause it's annoying, but if you make it a race then you can be sure I'll use it.
tl;dr: It's not about what you assume, it's about how you think. Assumptions exist to enable us to function properly, you need to know when such assumptions are useful and when they aren't. If you disregard all your assumptions then you can be sure you'll be dead by the end of the month. If someone asks me to fill 30 circles I'll assume I need to be creative. If someone tells me I need to run faster than another guy I assume I can't kick him in the nuts prior to the race. Assumptions are needed to live.
EDIT: This is stupid. We need assumptions in our life to work properly. Children, for example, don't have those assumptions in them. If you give a 5 year old 1h to think about all the uses for a paper clip he'll come up with over 200. How? Because since he doesn't assume anything he can say that a giant paper-clip can be used to destroy planes or a super sharp 1 meter long paperclip can be used as a sword. But is that useful? How is that useful? It is not. You need to assume that it's a common paperclip because without that assumption your work was meaningless. Yeah, you figured out 200 uses for paperclips of several properties that don't exist, so what? You can't use that information. However, if you had found 2 uses for a regular paperclip then that information could prove to be useful later on.
In the 30 circle game one assumes that even though the rule is draw as many different circles as you can we can only write one number or one type of ball or that it needs to be circular because if we don't then there's no point in it. The activity is completely utterly pointless because there's no difficulty. If you give me a prize for the 30 number game then I'll draw something random in each of the circles and argue later that I should win because I stood by the literal rules. But is that what one is looking for? That when one is given certain rules in a game you're supposed to exploit them to the point it makes no sense? Why would I want to do that? If I draw the numbers 1-30 what does that prove? That at least I have the intelligence of a ******. If I draw something original in those 60 seconds what does it prove? That I can actually do some cool stuff under pressure. I didn't need to assume those rules, but it was those assumptions that yielded the best reward. I mean, why are you valuing more the assumption that filling the most circles is important over the assumption of filling circles more creatively? You're not eliminating assumptions, you're simply making different assumptions.
Like in monopoly. The rules say nothing about controlling multiple "pieces" to outnumber your opponents and make deals between yourself, but does that make any sense? No, it does not. The only thing that it does make is no one wanting to play with you. We need assumption to function properly.
His math problem analogy doesn't work very well either. I have not met anyone who thinks like that. You start out with every premise you have, every bit of information that has been given to you and then you relate that information to each other to form familiar patterns in order to reach the goal. You don't focus on the first bit or the last bit, you focus on everything or you won't get anywhere.
Assumptions aren't responsible for not using "tools" properly in games. Example: What are hammers for? Hammering nails. If I give you a hammer and tell you to complete a specific task are you going to search for nails to hit with? No. You're going to think how you can use such tool for other things. No one will ever assume that since there are no nails the hammer is worthless.
The same thing happens in games. Usually it's not the newbies who wine that someone is using the same move again and again, it's the people who want to have fun. If you're playing with someone for fun then you're not going to use cheap tactics to win, it sucks. However, introduce a prize and those cheap tactics become totally viable and anyone will use them. There's no assumption for those moves, there's a consequence. No one thinks "Oh, I can't use that move over and over again", you first do it until the other guy gets pissed off and tells you that he's not enjoying it. In competitive games, however, there is a prize, which makes everything different. Just like that castlevania example, playing normally I didn't use the backdash to move cause it's annoying, but if you make it a race then you can be sure I'll use it.
tl;dr: It's not about what you assume, it's about how you think. Assumptions exist to enable us to function properly, you need to know when such assumptions are useful and when they aren't. If you disregard all your assumptions then you can be sure you'll be dead by the end of the month. If someone asks me to fill 30 circles I'll assume I need to be creative. If someone tells me I need to run faster than another guy I assume I can't kick him in the nuts prior to the race. Assumptions are needed to live.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
It's true.
He's saying assumptions are bad, but then he's saying the assumption of "what matters is the number of bubbles you fill" is more important than the assumption of "what matters is your creativity". No matter what you'll always have to assume something. Some assumptions are more practical, others more moral, etc. They're all assumptions and the one you pick depends on the situation. Like in my example, if there's a prize for the 30 circle game I'll go for the assumption that the more you fill the better, if there's no prize then I'll assume that creativity is better than speed. Actually, I'd probably still go for the creativity even if there's a prize. What do you prefer? 30 useless ideas or 10 interesting ones?
I drew a crescent moon, the earth, a dragon ball, an eye ball, a pig face, a football, a spiral and a pie chart. Some other guy drew the numbers 1-30. Which bubbles do you value the most?
EDIT: I gladly accept the hater of all title. I don't know which definition of cynic you're referring to so I'll humbly decline it.
He's saying assumptions are bad, but then he's saying the assumption of "what matters is the number of bubbles you fill" is more important than the assumption of "what matters is your creativity". No matter what you'll always have to assume something. Some assumptions are more practical, others more moral, etc. They're all assumptions and the one you pick depends on the situation. Like in my example, if there's a prize for the 30 circle game I'll go for the assumption that the more you fill the better, if there's no prize then I'll assume that creativity is better than speed. Actually, I'd probably still go for the creativity even if there's a prize. What do you prefer? 30 useless ideas or 10 interesting ones?
I drew a crescent moon, the earth, a dragon ball, an eye ball, a pig face, a football, a spiral and a pie chart. Some other guy drew the numbers 1-30. Which bubbles do you value the most?
EDIT: I gladly accept the hater of all title. I don't know which definition of cynic you're referring to so I'll humbly decline it.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
^
It was specifically intended to emphasize the problem in terms of competetive gaming.
No you definitely shouldn't buy that IE because going for double Tiamat is so much more creative. Which should you value the most? I guess You'd rather win the game than fool around having fun when playing vs. other people. Besides you don't build your style or do valuable things if they can't be finished.
It's like you got an agreement to make 10 stained-glass windows. No one will give a **** if you did 4 extremely great ones cause they have 6 empty windows left.
It was specifically intended to emphasize the problem in terms of competetive gaming.
Quoted:
That when one is given certain rules in a game you're supposed to exploit them to the point it makes no sense?
No you definitely shouldn't buy that IE because going for double Tiamat is so much more creative. Which should you value the most? I guess You'd rather win the game than fool around having fun when playing vs. other people. Besides you don't build your style or do valuable things if they can't be finished.
It's like you got an agreement to make 10 stained-glass windows. No one will give a **** if you did 4 extremely great ones cause they have 6 empty windows left.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
JMastiff wrote:
^
It was specifically intended to emphasize the problem in terms of competetive gaming.
JMastiff wrote:
No you definitely shouldn't buy that IE because going for double Tiamat is so much more creative. Which should you value the most? I guess you'd rather win the game than fool around having fun when playing vs. other people. Besides you don't build your style or do valuable things if they can't be finished.
NO! We can think. It's our ability to think combined with the knowledge/experience of the game that lets choose the best builds and make the correct assumptions, not ignoring the assumptions you already made. You assume double tiamat is bad simply because it's bad. There's nothing wrong with that assumption.
JMastiff wrote:
It's like you got an agreement to make 10 stained-glass windows. No one will give a **** if you did 4 extremely great ones cause they have 6 empty windows left.
But you can't really make that comparison because it's not perfectly analogous (even thought the comparison doesn't help your case at all). To be analogous the comparison would be "You have to make as many windows as you can in X days" and that's all that you are told and the buyer ignores your messages. Now, you know you can either make 4 good windows in those X days, or you can make 10 ****ty windows. What do you assume? That the buyer prefers a few good windows or many useless windows?
That would be the correct comparison, and at least to me the answer is very clear.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Quoted:
Then he should have used an analogous example, not something that can't be applied to gaming.
But it can. If you don't fill the task in first place the rest doesn't matter especially in competetive gaming.
Quoted:
Why are you assuming that IE is better than double Tiamat?
I don't know if you saw all 4 parts but later he says about how you should work your way through the process not falling into wrong assumptions gathered from other sources. The title is a bit misleading though. But to answer your question - cause I checked it. It's not so damn obvious like a number example (1-30 in circles) because we're not used to LoL as much as we are to other symbols like numbers but it is clear to me that it is most dps providing item for an AD carry. The whole point of the assumptions part is that you never should lose focus on what is the most important thing in what you're doing.
Answering myself here: you didn't watch all 4 parts.
Quoted:
But you can't really make that comparison
Well, yes I can, even if you're asked how much time you need you still have a deadline. Your analogous comparison isn't good either cause we're talking about the job done not the race. You won't get another commsision if you can't finish your job.
You need to log in before commenting.
I don't know if this has been posted before, I didn't initially see it so if it has feel free to block/delete the thread.
I thought this was an awesome video, I recently came across it through Reddit and thought MOBAfire could appreciate it.