Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dethklok" data-source="post: 6252838" data-attributes="member: 6746469">DMMike, I don't think it would be helpful to you for me to respond to any of the replies you made. So I won't.But I will leave you with this:The field of statistics can be divided between Frequentists, who define probability as &quot;the relative frequency of occurrence of an experiment's outcome when repeating the experiment,&quot; and Bayesians, who define probability as one's &quot;degree of belief in the likelihood of an outcome.&quot;When Bayesians are told &quot;I have a biased coin with two sides, head&nbsp; and tail. If I flip it, what is the chance I will get heads?&quot; Their&nbsp; reply is &quot;50%.&quot;When Frequentists are told &quot;I have a biased coin with two sides, head and tail. If I flip it, what is the chance I will get heads?&quot; Their reply is, &quot;I can't answer that question.&quot;This exposes an underlying limitation in pure Frequentist thought - they simply can't answer some questions. Most statisticians, being aware of this, tend not to cling dogmatically to either Bayesian or Frequentist methods, but will use either as needed.Regarding Modos, your system is coherent, and its mechanics mesh reasonably well with one another. But you may be choosing your definitions and setting design goals in a way that serves them first, rather than maximizing gamers' enjoyment and engagement with your game. As with my other comments and advice, you will have to decide for yourself how useful this is to you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dethklok, post: 6252838, member: 6746469"] DMMike, I don't think it would be helpful to you for me to respond to any of the replies you made. So I won't. But I will leave you with this: The field of statistics can be divided between Frequentists, who define probability as "the [I]relative frequency of occurrence[/I] of an experiment's outcome when repeating the experiment," and Bayesians, who define probability as one's "[i]degree of belief[/i] in the likelihood of an outcome." When Bayesians are told "I have a biased coin with two sides, head and tail. If I flip it, what is the chance I will get heads?" Their reply is "50%." When Frequentists are told "I have a biased coin with two sides, head and tail. If I flip it, what is the chance I will get heads?" Their reply is, "I can't answer that question." This exposes an underlying limitation in pure Frequentist thought - they simply can't answer some questions. Most statisticians, being aware of this, tend not to cling dogmatically to either Bayesian or Frequentist methods, but will use either as needed. Regarding Modos, your system is coherent, and its mechanics mesh reasonably well with one another. But you may be choosing your definitions and setting design goals in a way that serves [i]them[/i] first, rather than maximizing gamers' enjoyment and engagement with your game. As with my other comments and advice, you will have to decide for yourself how useful this is to you. [/QUOTE]

Verification