being unable to consider if a ‘bad call’ turns out ‘good’ would be a reduction of choices, not an increase of them. What it looks like you’re trying to describe is asserting value of outcomes before they happen, and that isn’t how consequences work. People can play the odds and look for favorable probabilities, but they do not control all other actions, and more importantly, reactions to the call. That’s part of why casters or streamers can point out the ‘good call’ and describe how it didn’t work out, or get surprised by a ‘bad call’ upsetting the expected flow of the game.
Getting better value from a ‘bad call’ either indicates context was missing for the evaluation, or execution of the call did not align with the prediction, so the assertion that a ‘bad call’ cannot have value is denying relevant context.*
That’s part of why people can/should review replays in the first place: to find things that increase their awareness and influence similar choices in the future. When enough of that is done, then it shifts expectations and eventually what is ‘meta’, or rather, what is counter to the ‘meta’.
In regarding the context, in a reply to AzXtreme you said you “didn’t leave”. That is an errant claim, and demonstrates the issue of perception to the shown context. You did leave, but you also went back in. It’s an erroneous claim and demonstrates the issue of hard-set claims on certain calls as an absolute, and not a “quantum call”. The definition you suit does not magically make things to be “both good and bad all the time” and that’s a series of fallacies trying to push something to suit the false-dillma, or rather, to reject anything that doesn’t directly suit two outcomes.
For this given example, you don’t see value in possibilities, so you also don’t see flaws in execution of the call, so the reply is “i didn’t leave”, instead of something else. This dynamic essentially turns most of the checks on the example into agree/disagree confirmation bias rather than an exploration of options regarding following a ‘wrong call’. Part of the difficulty in getting ‘value’ from these deviations from their expectations is people are more prone to wanting the ‘self-fulfilled’ prophecy at the expense of ‘value’. “i don’t see value; I did my part” type of replies.
The topic is then a check on agreement for that, rather than a question on what could be done differently: you have secured your perception for ‘value’ on the call and seek validation and insist on extreme polarized responses such as “only this” or “only that” and there is more than just two takes on this.
If you don’t consider more than that, then that is going to frustrate your capacity to get value from “following teammates on bad calls” because you’re more than likely not going to provide the execution it takes for those plays to work. That isn’t a slight against you, but it is a “reality” of games where the most keen player can make a prediction and still be surprised by the outcome that follows.
