|
Heed these two simple warnings. It will help make our GD a better place. Consider this fair notice to all users. Warning will be dished out this patch. Thanks. Neo, 31.01.12 |
On February 10 2012 07:28 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:18 zulu_nation8 wrote:
i think aggressive/passive laning is purely dependent on champ mu and jungler mu. Reacting around the map is decision making, theres only right and wrong (in hindsight). If you can secure a kill but dont go for it, then it was wrong not to take the risk, if you go for a kill but dont get it, it could be because you missed skillshots but also that it was wrong to leave lane and waste time. Everyone tries to press their advantage as much as possible. Yeah, but you never know if you can secure a kill. Maokai might be sitting right there in the bush waiting to jump your ass. Maybe you can secure it but it will lead to a lost dragon fight with you unable to use a gamechanging ult. Maybe its just a risky kill where you need to land all Xeraths ults but they have a dash. Maybe their fed ass pantheon will then immediately counterkill you with ult. Do you chase for an almost guaranteed kill if they are pushing top and will get a turret if you dont tele in? Do you dive when you will only succeed if someone else catches on and follows you in? Its often impossible to figure out what optimal play is when it is so dependant on so many other people.
I don't disagree that all the consequences entailed with most decisions in LoL are often too complicated to analyze in the moment or even in hindsight. I want to argue that although different styles of players will make different decisions, every decision can (almost) always be objectively judged as right or wrong given the consequences. That does not mean they are always, or even often judged correctly, but just that they can be judged objectively.
|
On February 10 2012 07:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:26 Two_DoWn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 zulu_nation8 wrote:
i think aggressive/passive laning is purely dependent on champ mu and jungler mu. Reacting around the map is decision making, theres only right and wrong (in hindsight). If you can secure a kill but dont go for it, then it was wrong not to take the risk, if you go for a kill but dont get it, it could be because you missed skillshots but also that it was wrong to leave lane and waste time. Everyone tries to press their advantage as much as possible. Again, this doesnt work, even for jungling. There are WAY to many factors to say that any given minute action you take is right or wrong. For example, if I chose not to gank mid because I feel there is only, say, a 15% chance of getting a kill, who is to say that that is a bad decision if instead I go through my jungle once and get an extra level and 200 gold? Or say I camp top for a full 3 minutes and GET a kill, but the trade off is that the enemy jungle took my buff. I'm behind, but my teammate is ahead. Was it the right decision? in hindsight, first decision was the right one and second was wrong, i agree that different types of players will make different choices regarding those two situations but they can always be judged objectively based on their results
You need to be careful about your idea of "right and wrong". The better decision need not be the one that has the better outcome if there is uncertainty involved.
Playing the lottery can make you rich, but that does not mean it was a financially "right" decision, it just means you got lucky. If you only go by outcomes, you don't actually take into account that the decision was not made with perfect information.
(This isn't a trivial observation, it doesn't apply to Chess, for example, since what you see on the board is all you need to know regarding the opponent's possible next moves. In the context of LoL, certain builds are clearly better against certain team compositions than other builds, but a lot of it does actually boil down to a somewhat subjective choice.)
Edit: To update my reply after your last one, hindsight isn't useful if all you get out of it is "objective judgement". It's only useful if you actually learn how to make better decisions in the future given the same scenario, i.e. still incomplete information. Hindsight may help you by showing you a possible scenario you didn't even take into consideration, but often all it shows you is that you guessed wrong.
|
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1803656
Oh Soraka and Sona getting nerfed. I suppose it does make sense for Sona balance wise and I can understand changing Soraka from a gameplay perspective. I don't think any of the teams were arguing Soraka was imbalanced but just from my casual experience yes it can be annoying to lane against a Soraka when she compliments someone with good harass abilities. Like Xpecial said she will be nerfed in the sustain area but if she gets buffs in other areas it might not be too bad.
|
On February 10 2012 07:32 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:28 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:25 bmn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:17 Two_DoWn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:12 Seuss wrote:
Describing LoL's decision making as "right and wrong" is misleading. There are many different ways to measure the merit of any individual or team decision. While some decisions clearly work out or fail, most fall into the many shades of grey between black and white. Indeed. I hate when people try to wash out personal style with "they are either playing the champion right or wrong." I mean, look at the way Saint and TOO play skarner. Saint almost always rushes triforce and gets shit like wits end regularly. TOO grabs pure tank items. Neither is any more right than the other. given a specific situation, two different item builds can never be equal, just because the reasoning behind the build and its impact on the game are too complicated and/or implict to analyze does not mean the difference should be attributed to a matter of "style." If that is not style, what is style? it is style, i should probably retract my first point and admit style does exist, but that i don't think it implies different styles can't be compared and can't be judged objectively on their reasoning and effect The styles can be compared, but your comparison has no practical relevance if its value relies entirely on the assumption that different people can vary their styles at will and execute different playstyles with equal proficiency. It's clear that buying two boots is not better for anyone, but picking a tankier vs a more glass cannon build may work better for some players, but not for others, due to personal traits such as reaction time, skill at judging situations, aversity to risk, etc.
I agree with your point, and that this topic has little practical consequence. I was just thinking of bw where some players, only the virtuosos, do vary their level of aggression, build order, timing, etc based on the specific situation.
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 10 2012 07:32 bmn wrote:
The styles can be compared, but your comparison has no practical relevance if its value relies entirely on the assumption that different people can vary their styles at will and execute different playstyles with equal proficiency.
It's clear that buying two boots is not better for anyone, but picking a tankier vs a more glass cannon build may work better for some players, but not for others, due to personal traits such as reaction time, skill at judging situations, aversity to risk, etc.
It has practical relevance in that the strengths and weaknesses of either style are partially dictated by the selection of the other 9 champions in the game. You can't fault TOO or Saint for playing their particular style of Skarner, but you can fault TSM or CLG for not banning/picking to appropriately play around the limitations of their respective jungler's playstyle.
|
Sigh. I'll go watch the scrimming from Oce's POV.
I just can't take TRM and Regi arguing anymore. It's just so dumb and a huge waste of time.
|
On February 10 2012 07:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:17 Two_DoWn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:12 Seuss wrote:
Describing LoL's decision making as "right and wrong" is misleading. There are many different ways to measure the merit of any individual or team decision. While some decisions clearly work out or fail, most fall into the many shades of grey between black and white. Indeed. I hate when people try to wash out personal style with "they are either playing the champion right or wrong." I mean, look at the way Saint and TOO play skarner. Saint almost always rushes triforce and gets shit like wits end regularly. TOO grabs pure tank items. Neither is any more right than the other. In the most general sense, neither is more right than the other, but the advantages of each shine in certain situations and team-compositions, over which they do not have complete overlap. While it is unavoidable that a player will feel more naturally comfortable with one style more than another, it is at the same time the responsibility of a player to acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of his particular style. In a competitive setting, this means either employing whichever style is suited to the game you are playing, or, if you are not comfortable playing the champion in both ways, it means picking in such a way that you don't force yourself into a situation where you can't play the style suited to the team compositions in question. It's not wrong to play Skarner one way or the other. It IS wrong to knowingly pick Skarner into a situation where one style is inappropriate and then not adapt.
I think even then you're not "wrong" if you don't adapt your build. If your team lacks beefiness, yeah you should build tank items. But you can still play Skarner with dps items and play like a damage champion. You're not playing the CHAMP wrong, you're playing your TEAM COMP wrong. At least, that's how I take it.
|
On February 10 2012 07:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:32 bmn wrote:
The styles can be compared, but your comparison has no practical relevance if its value relies entirely on the assumption that different people can vary their styles at will and execute different playstyles with equal proficiency.
It's clear that buying two boots is not better for anyone, but picking a tankier vs a more glass cannon build may work better for some players, but not for others, due to personal traits such as reaction time, skill at judging situations, aversity to risk, etc. It has practical relevance in that the strengths and weaknesses of either style are partially dictated by the selection of the other 9 champions in the game. You can't fault TOO or Saint for playing their particular style of Skarner, but you can fault TSM or CLG for not banning/picking to appropriately play around the limitations of their respective jungler's playstyle.
Yes, I absolutely agree.
After zulu's last comment I realized that I wasn't actually disagreeing entirely with him, I just misunderstood what he was getting at. I thought he was making comments along the lines of "player X's style is clearly superior to player Y's, so [implied, but not stated] player Y should adopt player X's style".
He wasn't actually going that far, though, so I don't think there's as much contention as I first thought.
|
On February 10 2012 07:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:26 Two_DoWn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 zulu_nation8 wrote:
i think aggressive/passive laning is purely dependent on champ mu and jungler mu. Reacting around the map is decision making, theres only right and wrong (in hindsight). If you can secure a kill but dont go for it, then it was wrong not to take the risk, if you go for a kill but dont get it, it could be because you missed skillshots but also that it was wrong to leave lane and waste time. Everyone tries to press their advantage as much as possible. Again, this doesnt work, even for jungling. There are WAY to many factors to say that any given minute action you take is right or wrong. For example, if I chose not to gank mid because I feel there is only, say, a 15% chance of getting a kill, who is to say that that is a bad decision if instead I go through my jungle once and get an extra level and 200 gold? Or say I camp top for a full 3 minutes and GET a kill, but the trade off is that the enemy jungle took my buff. I'm behind, but my teammate is ahead. Was it the right decision? in hindsight, first decision was the right one and second was wrong, i agree that different types of players will make different choices regarding those two situations but they can always be judged objectively based on their results
On what scale? Its the same thing that comes up when certain players cheesed every game or never cheesed in BW.
If you cheese all the time its weak because people can open safely and win every time.
If you never cheese people can open econ every game and win every time.
You clearly cant play 3000 cheesy games and 3000 econ games and just pick whichever one has the best winratio. But you also cant play 3000 games with all sorts of mixes and pick,say 30% cheese 70% econ. Because that also becomes predictable in a game where a strategy becomes stronger the more unexpected it is.
The difference between these strategies in practice vs a tournament environment also adds a huge layer of complexity, as individuals are actually directly targeting their play to beat another player. You may have an 80% winratio on ladder with a very aggressive playstyle, but should you use that in a tournament? Maybe they expect it....maybe they expect that you know they expect it...etc...metagame blah blah.
You saw many times in BW where players who were generally stronger would lose BO3/BO5's to very smart targeted plays that may never have worked at all in a large sample size. If they had played a BO50 one player would win no problem, but it doesn't matter because they aren't.
|
On February 10 2012 07:38 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Two_DoWn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 zulu_nation8 wrote:
i think aggressive/passive laning is purely dependent on champ mu and jungler mu. Reacting around the map is decision making, theres only right and wrong (in hindsight). If you can secure a kill but dont go for it, then it was wrong not to take the risk, if you go for a kill but dont get it, it could be because you missed skillshots but also that it was wrong to leave lane and waste time. Everyone tries to press their advantage as much as possible. Again, this doesnt work, even for jungling. There are WAY to many factors to say that any given minute action you take is right or wrong. For example, if I chose not to gank mid because I feel there is only, say, a 15% chance of getting a kill, who is to say that that is a bad decision if instead I go through my jungle once and get an extra level and 200 gold? Or say I camp top for a full 3 minutes and GET a kill, but the trade off is that the enemy jungle took my buff. I'm behind, but my teammate is ahead. Was it the right decision? in hindsight, first decision was the right one and second was wrong, i agree that different types of players will make different choices regarding those two situations but they can always be judged objectively based on their results You need to be careful about your idea of "right and wrong". The better decision need not be the one that has the better outcome if there is uncertainty involved. Playing the lottery can make you rich, but that does not mean it was a financially "right" decision, it just means you got lucky. If you only go by outcomes, you don't actually take into account that the decision was not made with perfect information. (This isn't a trivial observation, it doesn't apply to Chess, for example, since what you see on the board is all you need to know regarding the opponent's possible next moves. In the context of LoL, certain builds are clearly better against certain team compositions than other builds, but a lot of it does actually boil down to a somewhat subjective choice.) Edit: To update my reply after your last one, hindsight isn't useful if all you get out of it is "objective judgement". It's only useful if you actually learn how to make better decisions in the future given the same scenario, i.e. still incomplete information. Hindsight may help you by showing you a possible scenario you didn't even take into consideration, but often all it shows you is that you guessed wrong.
right or wrong as in optimal or suboptimal. I should then add another disclaimer that when decisions are to be judged, they should not only be judged on their result but the circumstances surrounding the decision. For example you hear people say "we need to make a play" when they are down, they realize that only by taking a risk can they have a chance at winning. Thus even if whatever play they make fails, the decision was (probably) more optimal than continuing to play the same way towards an inevitable result.
|
What are RainMain and Regi arguing about?
|
On February 10 2012 07:44 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:41 TheYango wrote:On February 10 2012 07:32 bmn wrote:
The styles can be compared, but your comparison has no practical relevance if its value relies entirely on the assumption that different people can vary their styles at will and execute different playstyles with equal proficiency.
It's clear that buying two boots is not better for anyone, but picking a tankier vs a more glass cannon build may work better for some players, but not for others, due to personal traits such as reaction time, skill at judging situations, aversity to risk, etc. It has practical relevance in that the strengths and weaknesses of either style are partially dictated by the selection of the other 9 champions in the game. You can't fault TOO or Saint for playing their particular style of Skarner, but you can fault TSM or CLG for not banning/picking to appropriately play around the limitations of their respective jungler's playstyle. Yes, I absolutely agree. After zulu's last comment I realized that I wasn't actually disagreeing entirely with him, I just misunderstood what he was getting at. I thought he was making comments along the lines of "player X's style is clearly superior to player Y's, so [implied, but not stated] player Y should adopt player X's style". He wasn't actually going that far, though, so I don't think there's as much contention as I first thought.
i guess the point im making is, "regardless of style, both player X and Y's decisions can be assessed independently based on an objective criteria."
|
On February 10 2012 07:39 BlackMagister wrote:http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1803656Oh Soraka and Sona getting nerfed. I suppose it does make sense for Sona balance wise and I can understand changing Soraka from a gameplay perspective. I don't think any of the teams were arguing Soraka was imbalanced but just from my casual experience yes it can be annoying to lane against a Soraka when she compliments someone with good harass abilities. Like Xpecial said she will be nerfed in the sustain area but if she gets buffs in other areas it might not be too bad.
Yay~
Glad Riot finally realized there isnt a problem with the number of options that we have for support, just that the top 2 are just too stupidly good for anyone to bother exploring the rest.
|
On February 10 2012 07:39 BlackMagister wrote:http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1803656Oh Soraka and Sona getting nerfed. I suppose it does make sense for Sona balance wise and I can understand changing Soraka from a gameplay perspective. I don't think any of the teams were arguing Soraka was imbalanced but just from my casual experience yes it can be annoying to lane against a Soraka when she compliments someone with good harass abilities. Like Xpecial said she will be nerfed in the sustain area but if she gets buffs in other areas it might not be too bad.
Nice on talks to remove soraka's infinite sustain. One less super annoying thing to worry about in this game XD
Trading health pots for cs doesn't seem right.
|
On February 10 2012 07:47 Shiv. wrote:
What are RainMain and Regi arguing about?
Who has a bigger ego.
SK getting mad that TRM isn't joining the scrim. They're waiting 15 min in lobby now for TSM to stop arguing. Lol.
|
On February 10 2012 05:01 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:01 Brees wrote:
ok lets not get ridiculous vlad does not outrade everyone once he gets revolver unless they have really short range spells. most mids can stay out of range of his E so your never going to out trade any of them. Ahri/cass/galio/swain/morg/malz/etc can all handle vlad no problem.
i find him a lot more effective top personally, but again he doesnt get really good until he hits that 9.
just my 2 cents from playing about 80 or so vlad games now (pre buff and post buff) Vlad destroys morg, outpushes galio, out damages and outpushes malz unless r playing dumb and getting full comboed, outpushes kennen. Swain and case are the only other aps who can straight up beat Vlad in lane right now. Maybe ryze actually but mr runes > all
Vlad does not outpush galio. It takes him quite a few levels to start outpushing malz. He scales better than both and won't get pinned on his tower, though.
|
On February 10 2012 07:38 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Two_DoWn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 zulu_nation8 wrote:
i think aggressive/passive laning is purely dependent on champ mu and jungler mu. Reacting around the map is decision making, theres only right and wrong (in hindsight). If you can secure a kill but dont go for it, then it was wrong not to take the risk, if you go for a kill but dont get it, it could be because you missed skillshots but also that it was wrong to leave lane and waste time. Everyone tries to press their advantage as much as possible. Again, this doesnt work, even for jungling. There are WAY to many factors to say that any given minute action you take is right or wrong. For example, if I chose not to gank mid because I feel there is only, say, a 15% chance of getting a kill, who is to say that that is a bad decision if instead I go through my jungle once and get an extra level and 200 gold? Or say I camp top for a full 3 minutes and GET a kill, but the trade off is that the enemy jungle took my buff. I'm behind, but my teammate is ahead. Was it the right decision? in hindsight, first decision was the right one and second was wrong, i agree that different types of players will make different choices regarding those two situations but they can always be judged objectively based on their results You need to be careful about your idea of "right and wrong". The better decision need not be the one that has the better outcome if there is uncertainty involved. Playing the lottery can make you rich, but that does not mean it was a financially "right" decision, it just means you got lucky. If you only go by outcomes, you don't actually take into account that the decision was not made with perfect information. (This isn't a trivial observation, it doesn't apply to Chess, for example, since what you see on the board is all you need to know regarding the opponent's possible next moves. In the context of LoL, certain builds are clearly better against certain team compositions than other builds, but a lot of it does actually boil down to a somewhat subjective choice.)
I think poker would be a better example: Good decision making is made out to be some magical ability to just make a decision that always ends up well, when realistically since you don't have 100% information often the best decision making is having the ability to consistently make the play that has the highest percentage of giving you a lead.
If you just always do the aggressive thing, or always do the passive thing it might work out okay for you, but being good relies on you knowing when being passive or aggressive gives you the best chance to get an advantage. Realistically you can look in hindsight and say "Damn, I shouldn't have folded..." but there is no way for you to know if it will work out in your favor or not at the time, so your best choice at the time is to make the play based on what has the highest chance to work out in your favor, if it means you lose a hand you shouldn't have it doesn't really matter because over time if you make enough high percventage plays (IE more than your opponent) you will come out ahead and win anyway.
SC2/LoL are much the same although to a lesser degree because you have the ability to get yourself more information, and there is also mechanical requirements required to be good as well. For example, you can make the best decisions in the world but it don't mean shit if you have ten times less farm than your opponent.
|
I think that you can look at individual decisions and see if they helped win the game or not. Ganking and getting a kill helped get the win, but only if you properly take into account how far behind that put the jungle.
Where that logic starts to fail is by trying to look at "what if"- trying to weigh decisions that were made against ones that werent, or trying to place value on which decisions mattered more.
|
"Stronger lane trading power" for Soraka sounds really scary. I don't want to see AP mid Soraka again.
|
On February 10 2012 07:42 Doctorbeat wrote:
Sigh. I'll go watch the scrimming from Oce's POV.
I just can't take TRM and Regi arguing anymore. It's just so dumb and a huge waste of time.
especially when all the bitching is echoed.
any of the TSM stream not have annoying echo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
