Recent content by LimitCrown

Well, yes. In most of Japan and Europe's Splatfests in which the winning team was more popular, it also had a higher win rate. However, is this actually due to popularity, in spite of it, or is this mainly due to other factors? Regardless of this, if the ones who made the Splatfest rules were...

Do you think that people will certainly be honest about their actual intentions and that a number of people won't try to game the system by intentionally picking the team with less popularity? From what I can tell, this isn't the case. Also, you continue to point out Japan and Europe's...

So, to you, any difference in the win rates, no matter how small and insignificant they may be, should completely overrule any differences in popularity, therefore making choosing the more popular team an incredibly bad choice and making the amount of people who basically voted for their teams...

That is the problem with the calculations that you used. Your calculations of the win rates in your example are made so that Team B has an exact 51% win rate and Team A has an exact 49% win rate. In my example, I stated that as far as we would know, the win rates could have been very close to...

In response to your first question, my answer is the following: there wouldn't be any actual incentive to join the team with the subject that you truly prefer unless it is the one that gives you a greater chance of winning by it being the less popular one. In Splatfests, you're supposed to...

In the couple of cases in which the teams that had more points overall were the ones with less wins, the popularity and win percentage differences were nearly the same. In the other cases that you describe, the teams that had more points had both more popularity and wins. Increasing the...

If the problem can't be fully resolved and there is a way to make gaming the system much more difficult (lowering the multiplier), then there isn't any valid reason to do nothing. Tell me how the 2x multiplier actually made Splatfests determined solely by popularity. There weren't as many...

Removing the popularity score would just make it easier for people to game the system. It would also destroy the point of Splatfests because they're partially ballots.

Do you think that Team Green Tanuki winning the second Splatfest was particularly a good thing? What realistic benefit did increasing the multiplier actually give to those in Japan who participated in the Splatfests?

Japan did not need the multiplier to be increased. It wouldn't have changed the results of most of their previous Splatfests anyways.

People are arguing that whenever the more popular team has less wins, then they tend to lose, but I think that you knew that already. Also, if you shift your viewpoint from "the more popular team that also won more" to "the team that won more that also had more popularity", then you could come...

The post that he made was this: As I said before, he conflated those two types of Splatfest results. The multiplier practically has no effect on the Splatfests in which the most popular team had more wins because they would certainly win, so those shouldn't even be regarded.

There isn't any evidence to suggest that the result of the most popular team losing because people deliberately choose the other team is clearly a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, there is evidence to suggest that the 6x multiplier places too much emphasis on wins.

Individual experiences in the Splatfest are unreliable for determining how both teams performed, and you're making a faulty generalized claim about Team Future's performance based on your anecdote. I'm sure that there is someone on Team Future who won almost all of their matches, which would...

You're conflating the Splatfests in which the most popular team also had more wins with the Splatfests in which the team that won had less wins. The latter occurred only once in Europe and twice in Japan. Those two Splatfests in Japan had the same win percentage differences and nearly the same...