@XeRo13g said in #9:
> You’re not engaging with what I actually said—you just replied for the sake of it. I made a clear, proportionate argument based on averages, not full-game credit.
And it is wrong. You are assuming that since 3.57% of your games had "timewasters", if those games had not had timewasters, you would have played 3.57% more games. But you would not, because avoiding a timewaster doesn't make the game take zero seconds. To get the correct proportional increase, you would have to determine your total minutes played, and calculate the percent of those minutes that your wasted time represents.
If your average game lasted 3 minutes, then you'd be correct that you should expect to play 3.57% more games (and therefore, potentially, 3.57% more points). But since I think it's unlikely that your average 5+0 game took 3 minutes (30% of the available time), in reality the increase in points would probably be lower.
And of course, ignoring the effect such a system would have on the points of your peers is also just laughable.
Alright, let’s just agree that math isn’t your strong suit...and neither is grasping what this post is actually about.
This isn’t about how many points I personally lost. It’s about how we handle time wasters as a system. Their behavior has real consequences, and if we keep brushing it off or justifying it, nothing will change. The post was a call for meaningful solutions, not a debate over statistical noise.
not many ppl stalled me, i played the same marathon and top 500 was not too hard (i played 16h)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.