GGG has a Ben problem.

Darnit.

I read that whole thing, and you still never told me what the Ben problem actually is.

"

superbomb1967#5561 wrote:

Darnit.

I read that whole thing, and you still never told me what the Ben problem actually is.

Long story short, there isn't a Ben problem. There is an OP problem with Ben being better than them.

"

cowmoo275#3095 wrote:

"

AintCare#6513 wrote:

he makes sense to me. and your simple question is a ill-posed problem, because you making an assumption that a competition can be fair, which it cannot.
but to answer your question about if action should be taken- since its quite literally a 'show', if competition is not entertaining it should be changed.

No it doesn't asssume "fairness" in any way....and its a freaking competition. Whether you view it as a "show" or not is irrelevent. It is a competition among players, with a prize for winning the competition. That is what it IS.

The only thing at question is whether Ben_ (or any repeat winners) is a problem within the competition. Which it isn't. Because its a competition.

We are talking about a competition. There will always be someone better than you. That someone might be better than you for a LONG time. That is not a problem with the competition, it is a problem with every single OTHER competitor simply not being good enough to dethrone the winner.

ah ok, i think I get you, i juts don't think its logical to make it a choice between
"Ben_ taking part in a PoE competition is unfair and requires action"
and
"do you agree that there is no issue here?"
because the first one is implying the issue lies with fairness. making the whole thing an unsolvable problem.

addressing the second by itself: since its performance/show a repeated winner can make it dull, which could be a problem, but might not. this would prob depend on how the audience or even participants view the dominating person. if they are popular/likable or not. i personally have no clue how charismatic he is so i can't even comment on this 'problem' lol

"

AintCare#6513 wrote:

this is simply not true. even if you account for all the things out of competitor's control - like his genetics for example, there is also simple stupid luck. look into interviews with people that occupy positions with extremely limited openings like astronauts. they recently did analysis on that and it came out to something around ~5% was luck. when the discrepancy between candidates is below 2% (all highly qualified) the 5% is a massive factor. and luck is not 'fair' by any means, its based on probability which is a measure of how uncertain you are about a particular outcome that's why 'tru rng' will never exist, no matter how many quantum buzzowrds we throw in to it.

I agree with awesome999, and i like his take "Competition are just a way to show how much better people are than others."

Funny you didn't try to refute my post even through it completely smashed awesomes viewpoint.
But actually isn't your and awesome plan to reduce actual winning to pure propability? because thats the only real fair thing, ah wait, its still not fair. so you're actually saying, you like some divine real random game (cannot exist) were everyone has no choice at all (because with choice comes unfairness) and this will be the only "fair" competition?

this is like when someone says to you: Hey why did you even get children? The universe will die its heatdeath soon on a galactic scale ayway.

Technically true, but still absolutley redundant. We're also not talking about someone choosing anything like with astronauts. There is a clear objective and its a race, nothing more to it. Luck can only factor in with drops and/or monster mods on dangerous situations. This may influence some gauntlets, but all of them?

"

AintCare#6513 wrote:

making the whole thing an unsolvable problem.

addressing the second by itself: since its performance/show a repeated winner can make it dull, which could be a problem, but might not. this would prob depend on how the audience or even participants view the dominating person. if they are popular/likable or not. i personally have no clue how charismatic he is so i can't even comment on this 'problem' lol

Yes. you hit the nail on the head with that statement. It is an unsolvable problem because.....it ISN'T a problem. This whole idea of "fairness" is something that other guy brought in as a comment against someone else's post. But he then also said that its not about fairness multiple times. That's why I said hes talking out of both sides. He keeps going back and forth.


It isn't a show. It is a competition, with a reward for the winners of the competition. There is no reason to address the second in the way you describe because that isn't what we are talking about. To address it in the way you describe is to rewrite the whole thing being talked about and place it in a completely different category. If I don't watch or participate in the Gauntlet, does that make it any more or less a competition for those that participated? Because this line of reasoning means that you and others are sort of claiming that.....yes it does.

To go back to my analogy of the piano competition: piano competitions are televised. But when was the last time YOU tuned into one? The fact that the competition is televised to a public audience doesn't inherently make it a SHOW over a competition. It is simply a competition which is being broadcast.


The Gauntlet, which is what is being talked about, is a competition. The players who take part are attempting to beat their fellow competitors in order to win a prize for being first place. That is what the event is. That is what makes it "different" than any old stream or gameplay. Being broadcast doesn't change that. The only time that "fairness" matters is whether you inherently believe the PoE game to be fair. Objectively......it is. Every single player that interacts with PoE is interacting with it in the SAME WAY. Even luck plays the SAME ROLE across all competitors. Ben_ is not being given a different version of PoE that has increased player speed, or increased drops, or anything that would intrinsically add an unfair edge. Consider if you were playing chess against someone who is given 2 queens to use. THAT would be unfair. But a newb chess player choosing to play against a grandmaster in competition, using the same set of pieces, has no intrinsic or extrinsic "fairness".

That line of questioning shouldn't even be happening.

"

tsunamikun#0433 wrote:

"

AintCare#6513 wrote:

this is simply not true. even if you account for all the things out of competitor's control - like his genetics for example, there is also simple stupid luck. look into interviews with people that occupy positions with extremely limited openings like astronauts. they recently did analysis on that and it came out to something around ~5% was luck. when the discrepancy between candidates is below 2% (all highly qualified) the 5% is a massive factor. and luck is not 'fair' by any means, its based on probability which is a measure of how uncertain you are about a particular outcome that's why 'tru rng' will never exist, no matter how many quantum buzzowrds we throw in to it.

I agree with awesome999, and i like his take "Competition are just a way to show how much better people are than others."

Funny you didn't try to refute my post even through it completely smashed awesomes viewpoint.
But actually isn't your and awesome plan to reduce actual winning to pure propability? because thats the only real fair thing, ah wait, its still not fair. so you're actually saying, you like some divine real random game (cannot exist) were everyone has no choice at all (because with choice comes unfairness) and this will be the only "fair" competition?

yes that was the entire point: fair competition doesn't exist, simply because fairness doesn't exist. not sure what you smashed, but i'm happy for you

"

cowmoo275#3095 wrote:

"

AintCare#6513 wrote:

making the whole thing an unsolvable problem.

addressing the second by itself: since its performance/show a repeated winner can make it dull, which could be a problem, but might not. this would prob depend on how the audience or even participants view the dominating person. if they are popular/likable or not. i personally have no clue how charismatic he is so i can't even comment on this 'problem' lol

Yes. you hit the nail on the head with that statement. It is an unsolvable problem because.....it ISN'T a problem. This whole idea of "fairness" is something that other guy brought in as a comment against someone else's post. But he then also said that its not about fairness multiple times. That's why I said hes talking out of both sides. He keeps going back and forth.


It isn't a show. It is a competition, with a reward for the winners of the competition. There is no reason to address the second in the way you describe because that isn't what we are talking about. To address it in the way you describe is to rewrite the whole thing being talked about and place it in a completely different category. If I don't watch or participate in the Gauntlet, does that make it any more or less a competition for those that participated? Because this line of reasoning means that you and others are sort of claiming that.....yes it does.

To go back to my analogy of the piano competition: piano competitions are televised. But when was the last time YOU tuned into one? The fact that the competition is televised to a public audience doesn't inherently make it a SHOW over a competition. It is simply a competition which is being broadcast.


The Gauntlet, which is what is being talked about, is a competition. The players who take part are attempting to beat their fellow competitors in order to win a prize for being first place. That is what the event is. Being broadcast doesn't change that. The only time that "fairness" matters is whether you inherently believe the PoE game to be fair. Objectively......it is. Every single player that interacts with PoE is interacting with it in the SAME WAY. Even luck plays the SAME ROLE across all competitors. Ben_ is not being given a different version of PoE that has increased player speed, or increased drops, or anything that would intrinsically add an unfair edge. Consider if you were playing chess against someone who is given 2 queens to use. THAT would be unfair. But a newb chess player choosing to play against a grandmaster in competition, using the same set of pieces, has no intrinsic or extrinsic "fairness".

That line of questioning shouldn't even be happening.

wait.... what, i read good part of your post thinking you agree with me, then you say:
"The only time that "fairness" matters is whether you inherently believe the PoE game to be fair. Objectively......it is. Every single player that interacts with PoE is interacting with it in the SAME WAY."
you accuse the other poster of backpedaling? i mean... i don't want to investigate this thread on who say who wat and when, but... i will just drop the entire fairness thing because its going in circles and address the 'show':
even if there is no 3rd person audience its still a show/performance. you can perform a show with just two individuals - a simple brawl is a show of strength. you can do it with just the participants (2 individuals). the races are clearly designed around the audience tho, so i think what i wrote is more relevant than you give it credit

The disagreement is what we mean by "fair". Are we talking "fair" when comparing players to each other (as per the OP), or are we talking "fair" in the delivery of the competition itself.

You and the other guy have both said that competitions are not fair. I disagree with that. Competitions are DESIGNED to be fair, in pretty much every way: but people who engage with the competitions have different levels of skill. This does NOT play a role in fairness at all. That is what I am arguing.

Hence, the example of the 2-queen chess player...or the different game code given to Ben_. The Gauntlet, by design, is 100% FAIR because the medium and rules being given to every single competitor is exactly the same. Consider the olympics: when someone competes in the 100m dash....it is a completely FAIR competition: even if Usain Bolt wins it every time.

The "show" aspect, or spectacle around a competition doesn't play ANY ROLE in the competition itself or what is fair or unfair. It therefore plays NO ROLE in this conversation about skill, fairness, or competition.
You might argue that watching the Gauntlet is boring, or exciting, or any grade in between. We could argue that watching Ben_ dominate might be boring for you, but exciting for me. But none of that means anything in the conversation of competition and fairness. That exists separately and holds no importance to the competition that is "The Gauntlet".



TLDR: Most competitions are designed to be fair for all who compete. Comparing players to each other within a competition has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness" at all (**At least in an "at-will" competition setting). The Gauntlet being broadcast has no connection to the competitive specifics of the Gauntlet, and cannot be spoken about in the same conversation.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3816964

All of that text (or like 90% of it) is exactly what makes the Gauntlet FAIR for everyone involved. The rules, the guidelines, the prizes, the stakes, the information provided to ALL, and the medium being Path of Exile.

Notice that the "watch" part of that post is just a tiny fraction of that info at the bottom because.....its a COMPETITION, not a show. You just happen to treat it as a show for yourself, and it certainly IS entertainment.

"

cowmoo275#3095 wrote:

The disagreement is what we mean by "fair". Are we talking "fair" when comparing players to each other (as per the OP), or are we talking "fair" in the delivery of the competition itself.

You and the other guy have both said that competitions are not fair. I disagree with that. Competitions are DESIGNED to be fair, in pretty much every way: but people who engage with the competitions have different levels of skill. This does NOT play a role in fairness at all. That is what I am arguing.

Hence, the example of the 2-queen chess player...or the different game code given to Ben_. The Gauntlet, by design, is 100% FAIR because the medium and rules being given to every single competitor is exactly the same. Consider the olympics: when someone competes in the 100m dash....it is a completely FAIR competition: even if Usain Bolt wins it every time.

The "show" aspect, or spectacle around a competition doesn't play ANY ROLE in the competition itself or what is fair or unfair. It therefore plays NO ROLE in this conversation about skill, fairness, or competition.
You might argue that watching the Gauntlet is boring, or exciting, or any grade in between. We could argue that watching Ben_ dominate might be boring for you, but exciting for me. But none of that means anything in the conversation of competition and fairness. That exists separately and holds no importance to the competition that is "The Gauntlet".



TLDR: Most competitions are designed to be fair for all who compete. Comparing players to each other within a competition has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness" at all (**At least in an "at-will" competition setting). The Gauntlet being broadcast has no connection to the competitive specifics of the Gauntlet, and cannot be spoken about in the same conversation.

yeah i completely disagree, if running is 'completely fair competition' then why do we have women/men/special Olympic categories? the way to make this more 'fair' you would have to increase the category number till you have a negligible discrepancy between all willing participants (again keyword being negligible acceptable) and EVEN THEN you have the luck portion which i mentioned earlier with the example of astronauts and the study that was done on it.