|
Same rules apply, per usual. Please use the appropriate threads (QQ, Brag, Champion, etc) whenever appropriate. Keep the resident Banling content.
Thanks. Happy Gaming. |
On February 21 2012 10:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:
The question of crit runes has to do with damage overall. If you have 1% crit, your overall increased dmg is 100%(crit dmg) x 1%, so effectively you're only increasing your overall damage by 1%, with a crit rune. That means 1% crit chance rune will increase dmg by 1% while AD red, would increase your overall dmg by more than 1% for like the first 6 levels. Taking crit runes isn't about the overall damage output. It's about getting a crit at the right time and potentially getting a kill/winning the lane because it happened at the right time. It's a gamble, but the idea is that the cost of the gamble is pretty negligible, and the reward for the gamble the times when it happens is comparatively large. You're probably never going to lose a game based on doing 1 less damage per attack, but it's certainly possible to win a game based on a lucky crit getting you a kill and then snowballing the lane/game from there.
and yet you would never enter a game with a rune slot empty. so clearly you do believe you would lose games. i think the logical fallacy is brought on by the fact that losing a game due to taking 1 less damage is so hard to see. theres no overkill on the deathcounter thing, and the mind games of laning, its hard to know how you would 'feel' being a tiny fraction ahead.
if 1 crit rune is worth it, atleast using the logic you are using, every rune should just be a crit rune.
maybe im wrong though, this pseudo rng system they implemented to stop bad rng actually seems to be the cause of it. if it works how i think it does, althought it stops that GP critting you 3 times in a row and outright killing you, it makes that GP crit you more often than he should, over valuing tiny amounts of crit.
it seems like riot somehow concluded that out right dying at lvl 2-3 is a much bigger deal than being zoned so hard you have to b to regen, or sit under tower for ages. either intentionally or otherwise they have made very low amounts of crit effectively better for the 1 reason you would ever run low amounts of crit, being annoying ;/
imo just replace crit with % physical dmg done : D capping at 100. it would have exactly the same dps value as crit except not random. even with trade offs crit is a stupid stat imo, especially at low levels, just doesnt make for competitive gameplay.
|
How is there zero potential to lost/win a lane by changing to a crit rune? What if they get away with 2 hp? The chance that happens is higher than hitting a 1% crit during the few hits where if you crit it can win the lane for you. Hence why people don't have a random crit rune.
|
K so I just drew hashinshin in a ranked game. This should be interesting at least.
|
On February 21 2012 01:49 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:24 Tal wrote:On February 20 2012 23:51 Tal wrote:Can you (or anyone) copypaste this here? The site (like a lot of blogging sites) is blocked in China, but I'd like to read it. Cheers Edit: thankyou Roffles and Mordek for the PMs  Reading now. Good blog -I've played a lot of random games and so I'm on the same page as you with the card gaming analogy. Seeing the randomness as part of the game is helpful, particularly after playing Starcraft. However, I'm not totally sure about the example at the end of the player making the same 'correct play' 9 times in a row, and then doing it the 10th. The difference with LOL is that the right play depends on your team mates. For example, something that often happens in my games is that there is farm available in one or two of the lanes, no pressing objectives, and I want to go farm. I know it's the best play. However, my team decides they'd rather mess around and go looking for a team fight. Suddenly my 'optimal' play is now a mistake, because my team will (stupidly) engage 4vs5, and lose. Other games this doesn't happen, and so I can go farm peacefully, and it's the right play. But the game when I've got an aggressive team, staying with them all the time is much more likely to result in a win. The reverse of this is initiating when you catch someone out of position, with the expectation that your team will rapidly respond to your pinging. In fact, they delay precious seconds doing god knows what, and you die. You know with perfect play that engage was right, but actually you'd have been better not doing it. So maybe the first time (in that specific game) you die and curse. But if you do the same thing, in the same game again, then you kind of have it coming. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that because you have team mates, even the optimal plays aren't always optimal, and it's important to see that. Eh, this is another point that's being addressed. You can't control your teammates, you make the optmial play based on what they're doing. If you ping to go somewhere and take a tower or something and they DONT do it, then going 4v5 and dying is certainly not the optimal play. You just have to accept your teammates either aren't paying attention or don't agree with what you think is best and make the next best possible play. Also, although I can accept that sometimes you get poor teammates, I've always had the view that if you play like the best player in the world - no you play totally perfect (including what you say in chat) you would have won that game 100%, so all you need to do is improve your play. Then I just start backtracing every death and figuring out my mistakes. (Whoever gave that tip to backtrace for mistakes starting with each death is a hero.) There's people who complain about the one guy who doesn't listen and they lose because of him, and people like you who want to farm when the team is grouped. (Some people HATE when people don't group in solo queue) fact is you just need to do your best. If you want to convince your team to let you farm you ping back and shit and say wait w/e you need do it, if they're still being dumb you just have to join them. So you still can make the optimal play, its just you react to your teammates, you don't always get to have your teammates react to you. If you engage on someone, a lot of the time you'll be able to get out if you see your team not responding fast enough. In any case, if you weren't close enough that your team didn't see you fighting, it's probably not that good of an engage. More likely scenario is you engaging and your team being scared of some tank/bruiser and don't want to commit. (That's what I do ALL the time against maokais/jarvans/rammuses etc who engage on a squishy, I just don't let their team engage and I bet the tank is raging in chat about how much damage he tanked and his team did nothing)
Yes, that's kind of what I mean - you need to react to team mates - which means the best thing to do changes from game to game. Your point with being able to get out of the engage is a good one - often there's some middle ground where you can try for the best play and then by being alert, backpedal out of it.
Starting from the point that if you play perfectly (including chat) you could win is a good way to look at things, but as Mogwai points out you shouldn't let that get you down - sometimes you just have a bad draw.
My examples aren't ironclad, and of course there are times where those aren't the best plays - but they're just to illustrate my point - the best play is fairly fluid.
I guess the reverse is true too - if you know they have some weak players, you can take risks which would be totally unjustifiable in other circumstances.
On February 21 2012 03:14 Mogwai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:24 Tal wrote:On February 20 2012 23:51 Tal wrote:Can you (or anyone) copypaste this here? The site (like a lot of blogging sites) is blocked in China, but I'd like to read it. Cheers Edit: thankyou Roffles and Mordek for the PMs Reading now. Good blog -I've played a lot of random games and so I'm on the same page as you with the card gaming analogy. Seeing the randomness as part of the game is helpful, particularly after playing Starcraft. However, I'm not totally sure about the example at the end of the player making the same 'correct play' 9 times in a row, and then doing it the 10th. The difference with LOL is that the right play depends on your team mates. For example, something that often happens in my games is that there is farm available in one or two of the lanes, no pressing objectives, and I want to go farm. I know it's the best play. However, my team decides they'd rather mess around and go looking for a team fight. Suddenly my 'optimal' play is now a mistake, because my team will (stupidly) engage 4vs5, and lose. Other games this doesn't happen, and so I can go farm peacefully, and it's the right play. But the game when I've got an aggressive team, staying with them all the time is much more likely to result in a win. The reverse of this is initiating when you catch someone out of position, with the expectation that your team will rapidly respond to your pinging. In fact, they delay precious seconds doing god knows what, and you die. You know with perfect play that engage was right, but actually you'd have been better not doing it. So maybe the first time (in that specific game) you die and curse. But if you do the same thing, in the same game again, then you kind of have it coming. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that because you have team mates, even the optimal plays aren't always optimal, and it's important to see that. yea, I should probably clarify that a bit. I don't mean to say that the right play is necessarily the same regardless of teammates. there are levels of randomness to solo queue, but that doesn't mean that we have no information regarding the actions of our teammates. it's like knowing your hand in a game of cards, but not knowing what you'll draw next. if the hand you've been dealt has led you to believe that your team will engage 4v5 and throw the game, then you've been given some more information that leads you towards the actual correct play, as opposed to the optimal play with a coordinated team. it's important to not actually overstate the randomness in games of chance and to utilize that information that you have to determine the actual best play. eh, there's a lot to say on it, I might just make another post about it later today.
Ok great, glad we're on the same page. Looking forward to your next post.
|
On February 21 2012 11:05 Two_DoWn wrote:
K so I just drew hashinshin in a ranked game. This should be interesting at least.
Good luck. .....
muwahahahahahahaha.
|
The argument I could see is this:
When you choose crit rune over AD/Arp, you sacrifice some 'expected value' of your dps - assuming that 1% crit means you will crit on average 1% of the time (without this "but it feels like I crit more" bullshit please).
However, the crit screws with your opponent a little (at least in lane). If you crit someone you probably win a trade and force them to back off, perhaps taking more damage in the process. They also may underestimate your potential 'burst' and so you might get a lucky crit to finish them off when they thought they had a little more breathing room - if you were doing 1 extra damage per hit they would be able to calculate for that. Randomness in your damage can force your opponent to overcompensate, etc.
Still, this is all subtle/hard to quantify so really it's not "obvious" that you should take a crit rune - you can do it for giggles, I guess...
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 21 2012 11:01 turdburgler wrote:
and yet you would never enter a game with a rune slot empty. so clearly you do believe you would lose games. i think the logical fallacy is brought on by the fact that losing a game due to taking 1 less damage is so hard to see. theres no overkill on the deathcounter thing, and the mind games of laning, its hard to know how you would 'feel' being a tiny fraction ahead.
No, but I played for ages with tier 1 runes.
On February 21 2012 11:01 turdburgler wrote:
if 1 crit rune is worth it, atleast using the logic you are using, every rune should just be a crit rune.
No, because at some point, the cost starts to feel non-negligible.
It's the same thing with lottery tickets. Statistically they're not worth it, but you can't make a ridiculous inference like saying that someone who buys a lottery ticket every few weeks is managing his expenses poorly. And there's a huge difference between someone who buys 1 lottery ticket every few weeks and someone who compulsively buys 10 every week.
Are crit runes right for everyone? No. But some people like taking a little gamble. Personally I don't feel like spending IP on crit runes, but I'm also just pointing out that it's not really reasonable to pass judgment on someone's choice to take a crit rune.
|
Btw, someone who actually remembers high school math remind me if this is true:
if you have 1% chance of critting, it means that you have 99% chance NOT to crit.
This means that after 50 attacks, your chances of NOT landing ANY crit is 60% (0.99 ^ 50). Conversely, it means that after 50 attacks, you have a cumulative probability of 40% chance to crit at least once.
Is this right?
|
On February 21 2012 11:01 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 10:12 TheYango wrote:On February 21 2012 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:
The question of crit runes has to do with damage overall. If you have 1% crit, your overall increased dmg is 100%(crit dmg) x 1%, so effectively you're only increasing your overall damage by 1%, with a crit rune. That means 1% crit chance rune will increase dmg by 1% while AD red, would increase your overall dmg by more than 1% for like the first 6 levels. Taking crit runes isn't about the overall damage output. It's about getting a crit at the right time and potentially getting a kill/winning the lane because it happened at the right time. It's a gamble, but the idea is that the cost of the gamble is pretty negligible, and the reward for the gamble the times when it happens is comparatively large. You're probably never going to lose a game based on doing 1 less damage per attack, but it's certainly possible to win a game based on a lucky crit getting you a kill and then snowballing the lane/game from there. and yet you would never enter a game with a rune slot empty. so clearly you do believe you would lose games. i think the logical fallacy is brought on by the fact that losing a game due to taking 1 less damage is so hard to see. theres no overkill on the deathcounter thing, and the mind games of laning, its hard to know how you would 'feel' being a tiny fraction ahead. if 1 crit rune is worth it, atleast using the logic you are using, every rune should just be a crit rune. maybe im wrong though, this pseudo rng system they implemented to stop bad rng actually seems to be the cause of it. if it works how i think it does, althought it stops that GP critting you 3 times in a row and outright killing you, it makes that GP crit you more often than he should, over valuing tiny amounts of crit. it seems like riot somehow concluded that out right dying at lvl 2-3 is a much bigger deal than being zoned so hard you have to b to regen, or sit under tower for ages. either intentionally or otherwise they have made very low amounts of crit effectively better for the 1 reason you would ever run low amounts of crit, being annoying ;/ imo just replace crit with % physical dmg done : D capping at 100. it would have exactly the same dps value as crit except not random. even with trade offs crit is a stupid stat imo, especially at low levels, just doesnt make for competitive gameplay.
COME ON
+% dmg is so lame compared to hitting 2.5 time for your damage
it feels good after the necessary 20-30 minute farming
|
i think it just comes down to fun vs antifun. i think it feels more shit to get crit than its feels good to crit. so from both a subjective fun pov and an objective balance pov it sucks.
|
On February 21 2012 11:17 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:01 turdburgler wrote:
and yet you would never enter a game with a rune slot empty. so clearly you do believe you would lose games. i think the logical fallacy is brought on by the fact that losing a game due to taking 1 less damage is so hard to see. theres no overkill on the deathcounter thing, and the mind games of laning, its hard to know how you would 'feel' being a tiny fraction ahead.
No, but I played for ages with tier 1 runes. Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:01 turdburgler wrote:
if 1 crit rune is worth it, atleast using the logic you are using, every rune should just be a crit rune. No, because at some point, the cost starts to feel non-negligible. It's the same thing with lottery tickets. Statistically they're not worth it, but you can't make a ridiculous inference like saying that someone who buys a lottery ticket every few weeks is managing his expenses poorly. And there's a huge difference between someone who buys 1 lottery ticket every few weeks and someone who compulsively buys 10 every week. Are crit runes right for everyone? No. But some people like taking a little gamble. Personally I don't feel like spending IP on crit runes, but I'm also just pointing out that it's not really reasonable to pass judgment on someone's choice to take a crit rune.
but its not a 'fair' gamble, the odds in both cases are against you. i wouldnt say someone who buys a lottery ticket is managing their money badly, but on average they will be worse off than someone who doesnt buy tickets ever. thats kinda how lotteries make a profit :D
same way that yes, you can have your little flutter by running 1 crit rune, overall its not worth it mathematically. and again you backed up your argument with 'feel', and while i agree that feeling is a big part of game play, if you feel ahead you want to attack, if you feel behind you play more passive... it still comes down to you trying to logically state an emotional feeling, which im sure you know isnt a strong argument.
if it turns out 1 crit rune on average would be worth it over an armor rune, then im all up for it, but im not a gambling man.
|
Can we go back to the part where really dumb people tried to argue that having all the champions makes it difficult to stick to a role and learn specific champs/matchups. I was a fan of that one. Who knew that having access to all the heroes was holding back DotA pros all this time, or that being able to pick any of the 3 races(or even random!) prevented sc players from mastering one of them.
Yes, please return to that discussion.
|
Turns out it was Hashishin and not HashiNshin. Names on these people.
Won anyway. WW op.
|
On February 21 2012 11:37 Two_DoWn wrote:
Turns out it was Hashishin and not HashiNshin. Names on these people.
Won anyway. WW op.
Fmallet or not Fmallet?
|
On February 21 2012 11:39 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:37 Two_DoWn wrote:
Turns out it was Hashishin and not HashiNshin. Names on these people.
Won anyway. WW op. Fmallet or not Fmallet?
Wriggles->phage->wits->mallet.
|
On February 21 2012 11:29 red_ wrote:
Can we go back to the part where really dumb people tried to argue that having all the champions makes it difficult to stick to a role and learn specific champs/matchups. I was a fan of that one. Who knew that having access to all the heroes was holding back DotA pros all this time, or that being able to pick any of the 3 races(or even random!) prevented sc players from mastering one of them.
Yes, please return to that discussion.
Some people(me included) see getting all the champions as an achievement. It's not that I'll ever play all the champions. It's just because it's there, I'll do it. I do confess though that in almost all games I am an achievement whore. I do have my own personal priorities for buying champions though.
I play a grand total of 1 mid, which sees minimal play(Anivia), and generally crush face. I think for every other role I play 2-3 champions close enough to 1500 elo that I will carry sometimes and feed horribly at others. Thinking about it I think mid anivia is the only role I have not fed epicly with in a while.
|
you put the win rate so much down to hero, but 90% of how to play lol, or any game, is nothing to do with the hero you pick. the fact you go 50:50 on most heroes and 100% on anivia doesnt say a lot
|
On February 21 2012 11:41 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:39 wei2coolman wrote:On February 21 2012 11:37 Two_DoWn wrote:
Turns out it was Hashishin and not HashiNshin. Names on these people.
Won anyway. WW op. Fmallet or not Fmallet? Wriggles->phage->wits->mallet.
What do you think about it? I think it's a niche pick, depends on how hard the enemy team bursts.
|
On February 21 2012 11:56 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:41 Two_DoWn wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 wei2coolman wrote:On February 21 2012 11:37 Two_DoWn wrote:
Turns out it was Hashishin and not HashiNshin. Names on these people.
Won anyway. WW op. Fmallet or not Fmallet? Wriggles->phage->wits->mallet. What do you think about it? I think it's a niche pick, depends on how hard the enemy team bursts.
Dunno. Bad test game cuz we won it by 7 minutes. It was a decent "well we so far ahead why the hell not" get.
|
On February 21 2012 11:17 Juicyfruit wrote:
Btw, someone who actually remembers high school math remind me if this is true:
if you have 1% chance of critting, it means that you have 99% chance NOT to crit.
This means that after 50 attacks, your chances of NOT landing ANY crit is 60% (0.99 ^ 50). Conversely, it means that after 50 attacks, you have a cumulative probability of 40% chance to crit at least once.
Is this right?
I had a post about this a few pages ago.
Yeah I think you're right. I must've done some math wrong earlier.
With regards to limited champions, I'm gonna be using IP solely for 1350 and below champions and rune things from now on. Every other champion I get will be with RP. To determine who I want to buy I'll play PBE since Lux hasn't gone on free rotation for a year now since riot thinks her skillshots "are too hard for newbs to hit".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
