Sweet jesus this thread should win awards please keep going
PepperKP said:Sweet jesus this thread should win awards please keep going
ObelixNW said:PepperKP said:Sweet jesus this thread should win awards please keep going
i've already told you why mechanical skill can't be judged as accurately under group situation, i've showed you that individual capability relevance, which is the base of my today argumentation, is negatively impacted when in group rather than one on one situation. How can you continue to argue, individual mechanical skill plays a bigger role in a groupfighting than in duels.
It's so simple. 2 players. One matrice (the game script by the server). 2 players sends information tho the matrice, (theirs moves), the matrice says who won contest. Cool. We're sure of who did great, there's only 2 player. We can tell to try out precise moves to judge them. 10 players. One matrice. 10 players sends information to the matrice. Cool we have a winners too, but...wait the results has been influenced by 10 people, ok cool why not...but wait, this is an individual mechanical skill lists, there's one rating per player, because ego is a solo story right, so 10 players information outcome, will show ..some very great variable bull**** when it comes to individual mechanical talent. I think at that point i've said any reasonable things possible to make you come closer to the truth golden and the others ones. You play the same mechanical melody in duel and gf combat, you changes your moves decision and behavior depending, but not the mechanical execution which is the talent skill lists should be about, absolutly needed in both type of combat, but with far more judging accuracy potential in one than in the other.
Fietta said:Snappers, current champions of NW 5v5, the best group fighting NW team. Currently forming the Native side to win both, any interest message me, the NW side is full.
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=42689.0 - The proof's in the pudding, they won first place recently.
TEAM NAME: Snappers
CAPTAIN: Gi STEAM
CO-CAPTAIN: Fietta STEAM
ROSTER (all IDs do not need to be supplied to signup, but they must be provided before the first match): COMING SOON
Fietta 2361166 87988 Matt 1531204 NW ID Anchor 682769 NW ID Shemaforash 20578 NW ID Habimana 58260 NW ID Xerxes 222835 NW ID Kawaii 1138291 NW ID Brian 23219 NW ID Gi 1558127 NW ID Irish 2378485 1097538 Ivan Native ID 1325179 Rickert Native ID 471275 Firefly Native ID 839431
McPero said:Name: McPero
Past Native Teams: Yes
Past NW Teams: Yes
Steam: McPero *pig emoji*
Preferred Class: Spectator
i think its hilarious u kids talking **** about gibby. u wouldnt say this **** to him at lan, hes jacked. not only that but he wears the freshest clothes, eats at the chillest restaurants and hangs out with the hottest dudes. yall are pathetic lol
And about the whole NW vs Native thing:
McPero said:i think its hilarious u kids talking **** about gibby. u wouldnt say this **** to him at lan, hes jacked. not only that but he wears the freshest clothes, eats at the chillest restaurants and hangs out with the hottest dudes. yall are pathetic lol
And about the whole NW vs Native thing:
An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state cannot be factored as a product of states of its local constituents; that is to say, they are not individual particles but are an inseparable whole. In entanglement, one constituent cannot be fully described without considering the other(s). The state of a composite system is always expressible as a sum, or superposition, of products of states of local constituents; it is entangled if this sum necessarily has more than one term.
Quantum systems can become entangled through various types of interactions. For some ways in which entanglement may be achieved for experimental purposes, see the section below on methods. Entanglement is broken when the entangled particles decohere through interaction with the environment; for example, when a measurement is made.
As an example of entanglement: a subatomic particle decays into an entangled pair of other particles. The decay events obey the various conservation laws, and as a result, the measurement outcomes of one daughter particle must be highly correlated with the measurement outcomes of the other daughter particle (so that the total momenta, angular momenta, energy, and so forth remains roughly the same before and after this process). For instance, a spin-zero particle could decay into a pair of spin-½ particles. Since the total spin before and after this decay must be zero (conservation of angular momentum), whenever the first particle is measured to be spin up on some axis, the other, when measured on the same axis, is always found to be spin down. (This is called the spin anti-correlated case; and if the prior probabilities for measuring each spin are equal, the pair is said to be in the singlet state.)
The special property of entanglement can be better observed if we separate the said two particles. Let's put one of them in the White House in Washington and the other in Buckingham Palace (think about this as a thought experiment, not an actual one). Now, if we measure a particular characteristic of one of these particles (say, for example, spin), get a result, and then measure the other particle using the same criterion (spin along the same axis), we find that the result of the measurement of the second particle will match (in a complementary sense) the result of the measurement of the first particle, in that they will be opposite in their values.
The above result may or may not be perceived as surprising. A classical system would display the same property, and a hidden variable theory (see below) would certainly be required to do so, based on conservation of angular momentum in classical and quantum mechanics alike. The difference is that a classical system has definite values for all the observables all along, while the quantum system does not. In a sense to be discussed below, the quantum system considered here seems to acquire a probability distribution for the outcome of a measurement of the spin along any axis of the other particle upon measurement of the first particle. This probability distribution is in general different from what it would be without measurement of the first particle. This may certainly be perceived as surprising in the case of spatially separated entangled particles.