Nope, was just trying to better explain myself. Yes from a truly mathy standpoint the math was awful. But it was never meant to be like a math proof. It was just less vague then “imagine a civ as strong as the one im imagining.” Me being a developer is irrelevant to the actual validity of my arguments, that’s appeal to authority, and it’s a logical fallacy for a reason. I never bring up me being a developer to imply that because i’m presumably smart therefore im right. Only to provide context for why I say or believe a given thing. All I was trying to say is that there can be value in a concept even if it’s not conveyed in a manner congruent with the high standards of the relevant industry. But it seems that isn’t what you’d understood.
I’m on the spectrum and I’m always very self-conscious of how i’m explaining myself to strangers, and find myself explaining myself in various ways, hoping one way or another to get through, but invariably one method or another is objectionable or ####### suspicion. It’s kind of like throwing spaghetti at a wall to see what sticks, but sometimes the spaghetti just explodes.
Honestly I’m done with this thread too. Explaining myself repeatedly to no avail has reached the point of feeling sisyphean. I appreciate your continued effort, but alas it still seems you still don’t really get what this whole concept is about and I haven’t in me to try again. It’s fine. It’s happened to me in other topics. It does happen from time to time in a personal life but it seems to happen far more often online. IDK, more info than you asked for probably.
I do want to prop this up a bit before I go tho. Yes civ performance is non-transitive, and I don’t think that is obvious to a casual observer. It’s completely irrelevant to the crux of what this proposal was about, it never was to try to gauge relative civ performance, but again I seem to have completely failed in explaining to you what the purpose of this whole concept was so I can’t blame that on you.
that’s what this was about. I didn’t expect this specific phrase to be convincing, it was just in passing in a long paragraph comparing the merits 2023civ v 2020civ and the (2023civ vs benchmark) + (2020civ vs benchmark) configurations of the test. I would have thought that it had given what I’d explained over the rest of the topic had made my belief in civ win rate non-transitivity abundantly clear, so i wasn’t relying on that phrase, it was just some pseudo code of me thinking aloud. However by virtue of you believing I was assuming civ win rate transitivity, shows I was somehow unsuccessful.
Perhaps confusingly that evaluation would imply win-rate transitivity, but I’d followed that up to say “if this was true then I think you could do X, but I don’t believe that to be true so I think you can only actually do Y”.
Anyone trying to implement some version of this would have to be mindful not to try drawing those kinds of conclusions. Relative civ win-rates would still be very important.