Nabeel Ansari

Silvers have no concept of late game let me just go steal their blue i know they have baron it's ok

just beautiful i can't my ears

Dude I'm in PHILADELPHIA

Don't be a douchebag.

Things you should fix: 1. The fact that it exists

yeah pretty much

Do you guys still need subs? My schedule has more free time next term. (starting 3/24/14)

How ironic.

It's all right. The sample side of Komplete is kind of weak; the draw of Kontakt is 3rd party libraries.

You need to be working with a platform that supports byte-wise audio buffer manipulation.

Winifred Phillip's guide on game music gives a good survey on the different jobs and aspects of game audio, from music composition to code implementation. Highly recommended. Fixed.

Vel'Koz sucks with current meta. True fact.

Skipped to Silver III! Whee! Shooting back up to original place.

That's not how solo queue works.

I hate only being good at the one champion it's impossible to carry a team with.

Was a little upset I got placed into Bronze II. Remedied that this weekend, back in Silver.

There's a real term for this, it's called Textural Reduction. There's no Wiki for some reason, but this may yield similar info.

If you're talking about softening LP loss, then that's perfectly fine and I agree. I was responding to other suggestions in the thread. Bingo. You can say teams with more gold/kills win games, but too many times this is just not true and the amount of games where this is not true has too much significance to design an algorithm around. Also, team gold is a flawed concept of itself. For an accurate algorithm, you need to check if your gold is in the right places. Who has the gold? Is it skewed? Same for kills. Is it all on one guy, or is it evenly distributed. According to a necessarily enforced meta (it would be impossible to make these decisions without one), are the gold/kills distributed where they should be? If it's 14-15, doesn't mean much if the support has like 8 of these kills. If gold is 13k-11k, doesn't mean much if your top laner was just sitting top for 15 minutes free farming while your team got pummeled. There are too many cases of games that disagree with "kills/gold wins games". Game flow is a much more reliable predictor of winning a game, and thus positively affecting the game flow is what makes you a good player (because you are most definitely increasing the chance of you winning the game). As I explained before, game flow and player effect on game flow is impossible to measure.

The thing is, you guys talking about a team game and trying to measure individual skill. In a team game, what wins a game isn't any one's person ability to do really well; what gets victories is team synergy, preparedness, vision, and collective gold. Mastering your laning phase and being extremely good at it doesn't really mean you deserve a better ranking in my book. It doesn't make you a better player of the strategy game, it just means you're mechanically good on the single aspect of a larger game flow. Good players have good mechanics, sure, but they also have good game sense. They know where to be and when to be there. They know what to do and when to do it. They know what the enemy team will think when presented with certain situations (and can devise plans appropriately to catch the enemy off guard). They know which of the players on their own and the enemy team make the most mistakes. These are all of the things that define a good player and the only things I think should make you deserve a better rank; however, the fact of the matter is that these things are impossible to measure with algorithms. It is impossible to measure "game flow" (not to mention how much a player is positively affecting the game flow) without the game's code itself have a strict set of meta constraints and also be able to do on the fly theorycraft to see who is actually in a better position. "We have more kills/gold as a team" is not a reliable indicator of who's actually winning. If you're "winning" by all normal methods of thought, and then your team throws, it'll drive an algorithm insane. You theoretically should have won, but you didn't. Should you get an increase of rank if you lost a game? Could you then theoretically rise through the ranks without actually winning a game? Every constraint of judgment (KD, gold, etc.) for the proposed algorithm that people are proposing in this thread all have downsides and contradictions. That's why W/L is the only thing judging people, because by normalization, you will rise through the ranks. A good player rotating through a metric ton of different team players will normalize out a win ratio that will reflect his skill level. It's just simple statistics, and that's why that's how it is. Trying to add more things makes the algorithm very flawed and inaccurate.

Textural complexity factors into cinematic music, though. The Skyrim theme is cinematic, but it has a very homophonic texture. There's the foreground melody and supporting instrumentation most people wouldn't even pay attention to. This is different from other textures which focus on harmonic progression only or simplistic polyphonic textures where there isn't really a "main melody" but rather a bunch of simpler melodic lines stacked on to each other. These textures are harder to remix because they require a little more reading to understand what's going on musically (and since MIDI's aren't available, you rely on sheet music, if there is any, and a lot of remixers can't read music)

I went 15/2 and afk'd in last ten minutes team lost obv their fault not mine The thing about making a "performance" ranking system is that in order to do that you need to enforce a meta. You need to have the system itself identify different roles and judge them accordingly to those roles. For example, the normal support is not about KDA. Normal supports should not be rewarded for insane KDA. However, if the ranking system is to acknowledge this, it has to treat every game the same and assume that someone will queue and play the role of the traditional support and not anything else. You can not judge the 5 players on a team the same way because they share different roles, but for an automated system to judge these roles, it needs to assume what player is doing what and in what context. The only true way to judge player performance is actual, human analysis. And that will never happen. You're forgetting the crucial fact that athletics takes place in physical reality and is judged by human beings. It isn't an automated process, they don't feed recordings of athletes into a computer and ask for a grade report on how well they did. That's why it can be specific and effective, because humans are more capable of judging these things without hard constraints than a computer (which needs hard constraints for an algorithm to function).

Best way to explain saturation is explaining where it actually comes from. In the days of analog recording, if you overloaded the maximum amplitude signal record-able on your tape (two track or what have you), the signal would, instead of being accurately depicted through the tape's magnetic flux, essentially make a "square wave" as any signal amplitude going above the maximum would just have a straight line of flux on the tape. This meant you were "saturating" the tape; you're pumping its maximum capacity of magnetic flux. Saturation in modern plug-ins is the same idea, it's pumping the gain to crash flat line at the maximum ceiling. In digital production, though, strict saturation (hard-clipping) sounds awful, because the math is so precise and perfect that the audio approximates an actual square wave. Real tape saturation wouldn't sound as harsh, and different tape materials would get slightly different sounds. This is why we have tape saturation plug-ins; what people do is the analyze the mathematical signal behavior of what tape saturation actually does to a signal, and then devise a mathematical model to approximate it. They implement it in VST code, and now you buy it for like $50 to have your song sound like it was overloading a tape machine. It's a bit ironic to do this, because saturating your tape was generally seen as bad back in those days, similar to breaking 0 db in your DAW. Now, it's an effect instead of bad mixing practice. Because lolloudnesswars

I'm not going! Because sold out!

I agree with the whole thing about modern instrumentation. Paper Mario Sticker Star's soundtrack is really melodic and simplistic, like old game music. However, it is live jazz, with improv and well-written parts and such. I get discouraged from trying to remix it, because it's hard to flesh out already well-written music.