|
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 March 19 2012 23:51 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:50 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:42 robertdinh wrote:
Really? Because it seems like every time they "smurf" they actually tell people in game who they are and to let them have whatever champion they want, or word gets out because they are actually streaming it and not smurfing at all.
Show me a 2k elo player that played a smurf account in complete anonymity and got back to the same elo in nearly the same amount of games played that it took his main account. OK fine, Saintvicious has a higher chance of getting back to 2k Elo than I do. The question is, do I fucking care? How about between two nobodies? Are their probabilities of getting trolls different? I could care less that Saint gets an easy time in solo queue, because he's proven his worth in tournament play. That seems to be the issue here, you don't seem to care about accuracy, yet you don't want to admit that solo queue ratings aren't that accurate because they don't take into account a wide array of variables.
Is there actually anyone who has played solo queue at a range of different ELOs and does not think that there's a correlation between ELO and skill in general terms? That is to say players at 2k are better than at 1600, who in turn are better than 1200, who in turn are better than 1k?
If that's the case, and I've never seen anyone argue that it isn't, isn't that proof enough that generally speaking, once you have played enough games to even out some of the variables, ELO is a reflection of your performance as a player?
|
On March 20 2012 00:00 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:55 Slusher wrote:On March 19 2012 23:51 Two_DoWn wrote:What do you guys think of a gardener type champion? She could drop Venus Fly Traps that imobilize and damage foes, Grow vines to pull them around, Use pollen to heal nearby enemies, and her ult could be an AOE effect that gives your team increased movespeed on a bed of flowers she summons? Id post a concept pic from Google, but for some reason the only pics I can find of Dryads are NSFW. Sick fucks, looking at mother nature like that... So instead we get some Rainbow Roses. Pretty sweet, no? ![[image loading]](http://img.xcitefun.net/users/2010/02/150582,xcitefun-rainbow-roses-1.jpg) I like it, but if they were to make another support champ, I'd want a bard. I guess Sona sorta fills this role but, my vision of a bard is a little different. Ya, Sona is probably too close to a bard to get another support champ like that who uses music. But we dont have ANY gardeners.
Yorick has a shovel
Edit: and I was thinking more along the lines of FFXI bard, which will probly never happen, because like support, it had a reputation among non-bard mains to be incredibly boring to play, despite being agreed upon as the most OP class in the game.
|
On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone.
In reality the law doesn't take control, because most players will never play the amount of games it would take for it to even out, thus in reality it will never even out for everyone.
|
On March 20 2012 00:04 Slusher wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:00 Two_DoWn wrote:On March 19 2012 23:55 Slusher wrote:On March 19 2012 23:51 Two_DoWn wrote:What do you guys think of a gardener type champion? She could drop Venus Fly Traps that imobilize and damage foes, Grow vines to pull them around, Use pollen to heal nearby enemies, and her ult could be an AOE effect that gives your team increased movespeed on a bed of flowers she summons? Id post a concept pic from Google, but for some reason the only pics I can find of Dryads are NSFW. Sick fucks, looking at mother nature like that... So instead we get some Rainbow Roses. Pretty sweet, no? I like it, but if they were to make another support champ, I'd want a bard. I guess Sona sorta fills this role but, my vision of a bard is a little different. Ya, Sona is probably too close to a bard to get another support champ like that who uses music. But we dont have ANY gardeners. Yorick has a shovel
Thats like saying the garbage man is a chef.
|
On March 20 2012 00:00 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:55 Slusher wrote:On March 19 2012 23:51 Two_DoWn wrote:What do you guys think of a gardener type champion? She could drop Venus Fly Traps that imobilize and damage foes, Grow vines to pull them around, Use pollen to heal nearby enemies, and her ult could be an AOE effect that gives your team increased movespeed on a bed of flowers she summons? Id post a concept pic from Google, but for some reason the only pics I can find of Dryads are NSFW. Sick fucks, looking at mother nature like that... So instead we get some Rainbow Roses. Pretty sweet, no? I like it, but if they were to make another support champ, I'd want a bard. I guess Sona sorta fills this role but, my vision of a bard is a little different. Ya, Sona is probably too close to a bard to get another support champ like that who uses music. But we dont have ANY gardeners.
We have... YORICK!!!
Think about it. We could get a flower themed Yorick skin. He already has a shovel. All we need are flowers instead of ghouls and some color on his model. DONE!
Edit: Damn too late...
|
On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone.
This has been stated over and over again with different wording but I don't believe robertdinh will ever agree, hence the discussion is pointless lol. (its not probability...it's reality br0!)
|
On March 20 2012 00:06 Bambipwnsu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. This has been stated over and over again with different wording but I don't believe robertdinh will ever agree, hence the discussion is pointless lol.
Maybe the number of replies just has to approach a very large number 
|
On March 20 2012 00:06 Bambipwnsu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. This has been stated over and over again with different wording but I don't believe robertdinh will ever agree, hence the discussion is pointless lol. (its not probability...it's reality br0!)
You guys are still confusing probability with actual reality. Just because something will theoretically happen doesn't mean it will actually happen. Is that really that hard to grasp?
On March 20 2012 00:04 Gondlem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:51 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:50 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:42 robertdinh wrote:
Really? Because it seems like every time they "smurf" they actually tell people in game who they are and to let them have whatever champion they want, or word gets out because they are actually streaming it and not smurfing at all.
Show me a 2k elo player that played a smurf account in complete anonymity and got back to the same elo in nearly the same amount of games played that it took his main account. OK fine, Saintvicious has a higher chance of getting back to 2k Elo than I do. The question is, do I fucking care? How about between two nobodies? Are their probabilities of getting trolls different? I could care less that Saint gets an easy time in solo queue, because he's proven his worth in tournament play. That seems to be the issue here, you don't seem to care about accuracy, yet you don't want to admit that solo queue ratings aren't that accurate because they don't take into account a wide array of variables. Is there actually anyone who has played solo queue at a range of different ELOs and does not think that there's a correlation between ELO and skill in general terms? That is to say players at 2k are better than at 1600, who in turn are better than 1200, who in turn are better than 1k? If that's the case, and I've never seen anyone argue that it isn't, isn't that proof enough that generally speaking, once you have played enough games to even out some of the variables, ELO is a reflection of your performance as a player?
There may be some correlation but it varies. As with my example of the player comil on NA ladder. And it only really becomes consistent after a high enough elo, making all elos below that inaccurate and skewed. That skewing of elos paired with a system where you are 1 player out of 10, can create a hell of inaccuracy where players don't actually reach the elo they should be at, an elo hell if you will.
|
you would be surprised how often things in real life turn out to be a normal distribution.
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:
In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone.
In fairness, I can see where he's coming from at this point.
Consider two players, one who only knows how to Corki, and one who is only knows how to play Eve. Even if their understanding of the game and fundamentals may be similar, the guy who plays only Corki will get those troll games less often than the Eve player because of how people assume Eve is a troll pick.
It's an extreme hypothetical example, but I can see how he's applying the idea of it to other things. Even though we like to stress flexibility, I can see how it might seem "unfair" that two equally shitty and poorly-rounded players have different chances of winning games because the champions that one player plays are better. Didn't we have a discussion a while back about Damionwings being absolutely fucking awful at every champion not named Annie and how his Elo rocketed back and forth as a result?
That said, I still don't think it should really affect anyone's solo queue experience.
|
On March 20 2012 00:08 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:06 Bambipwnsu wrote:On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. This has been stated over and over again with different wording but I don't believe robertdinh will ever agree, hence the discussion is pointless lol. (its not probability...it's reality br0!) You guys are still confusing probability with actual reality. Just because something will theoretically happen doesn't mean it will actually happen. Is that really that hard to grasp?
In fact, it does. Because past a certain trehshold, the probability is so low that it can't be counted as viable anymore.
You know, there's a chance you explode right now and your brain splats all over your screen. Guess what. I'm SURE it won't happen. 100%.
|
On March 20 2012 00:08 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:06 Bambipwnsu wrote:On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. This has been stated over and over again with different wording but I don't believe robertdinh will ever agree, hence the discussion is pointless lol. (its not probability...it's reality br0!) You guys are still confusing probability with actual reality. Just because something will theoretically happen doesn't mean it will actually happen. Is that really that hard to grasp?
The problem is, everything you say is known to pretty much everyone. No one argues that Elo system is perfect and that a 1700 player will always be better than a 1600 in every situation. The question is: who gives a fuck?
The system evidentially works well ENOUGH. Since the game's outcome is binary (W/L), as long as you have a certain amount of skill above your current level, you can overcome the odds and get a win even when dealt a shitty hand.
|
Well this discussion is stalling.
Had some moderate success in Normals (shut up) with AP to AD Sion. Head top, grab a Ring or two and Sheen, start building a Triforce-centric AD build. You're still fairly useful in Mid-game fights, although the level 10-13 period and before your first major AD item is pretty awkward.
|
What about a FFT-type calculator for support? Then there's absolutely no way you could claim that support is boring because it'd undoubtedly be the hardest skillset in the game.
QWER could control the variables (Level, HP/100, Gold/100, CS/10) or whatever
then it'll be from (Prime, 3, 4, 5)
and finally (MS+, MS-, HP+, AD/AP+)
THINK ABOUT IT SKILLCAP RAISED SO HIGH
|
On March 20 2012 00:10 mr_tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:08 robertdinh wrote:On March 20 2012 00:06 Bambipwnsu wrote:On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. This has been stated over and over again with different wording but I don't believe robertdinh will ever agree, hence the discussion is pointless lol. (its not probability...it's reality br0!) You guys are still confusing probability with actual reality. Just because something will theoretically happen doesn't mean it will actually happen. Is that really that hard to grasp? In fact, it does. Because past a certain trehshold, the probability is so low that it can't be counted as viable anymore. You know, there's a chance you explode right now and your brain splats all over your screen. Guess what. I'm SURE it won't happen. 100%.
No in fact it actually doesn't because most people won't actually play the amount of games it takes for it to even out, thus it will never actually transpire in reality, let alone the fact that most of the variables aren't being considered most of the time.
On March 20 2012 00:11 Juicyfruit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:08 robertdinh wrote:On March 20 2012 00:06 Bambipwnsu wrote:On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 19 2012 23:48 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:45 Slusher wrote:
weather or not ELO hell does exist the number of people I've met in this game whos' self diagnosis of their own skill was inflated beyond belief. at the "ELO hell" range of 11k-13k (I think that is what people claim it is) a lot of the players can't even tell which lanes are ahead/behind, so naturally they think it isn't their fault.
basically, ELO may exist, but as far as being the real problem, it pales in comparison to 1200s being able to determine a well played game vs a poorly played one. This I agree with, but you can also make the argument that elo hell itself helps to skew people's perceptions of how good or bad they or the people in the games with them are. But back to the spirit behind what you were saying, that kind of issue is apparent at all elos but tapers off a lot after 2k when people generally have a clue of how to play (there are still exceptions even at that high a rating) On March 19 2012 23:46 TheYango wrote:On March 19 2012 23:33 robertdinh wrote:
You still seem to assume that leavers trolls and dcs happen equally to both teams, they don't. They are random, and you don't play with the same people under the same circumstances over and over. It could happen 90% of the time to one player, and 40% of the time to another player. But players involved in the random elements will move on and play other games, skewing those results as well, until it all ripples out. My mind is still completely boggled by the fact that you can believe that one player's frequency of getting trolls/leavers/DCs on their team can be randomly and inexplicably higher than someone else's, and that this does NOT average out over many games. The only identifying feature of anyone being matchmade is their Elo. There is absolutely no reasoning by which you can say player X has a higher chance of getting leavers/trolls/DCs than player Y. Damn man, you are still stuck on probability, i am not talking about probability here, I am talking about reality, and the reality of it is every player is not exposed to the same group of players or the same amount of leavers/dcs/trolls. In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. This has been stated over and over again with different wording but I don't believe robertdinh will ever agree, hence the discussion is pointless lol. (its not probability...it's reality br0!) You guys are still confusing probability with actual reality. Just because something will theoretically happen doesn't mean it will actually happen. Is that really that hard to grasp? The problem is, everything you say is known to pretty much everyone. No one argues that Elo system is perfect and that a 1700 player will always be better than a 1600 in every situation. The question is: who gives a fuck? The system evidentially works well ENOUGH. Since the game's outcome is binary (W/L), as long as you have a certain amount of skill above your current level, you can overcome the odds and get a win even when dealt a shitty hand.
The problem is, it isn't known to everyone, they are still arguing that probability is reality, when it isn't, and many will downplay the inaccuracy of the system because they are satisfied with their standing and want to insist that it is an extremely accurate ranking for them.
Just because you have skill above your current level doesn't mean you can always overcome odds though. If a 2300 rated player plays on a fresh account, he is still capable of getting into 1200 elo games that are so poorly played that he can't win them.
|
Ireland23335 Posts
lolo this whole discussion is kinda silly when winrate for good players in 1400 is like 90% or more rather than 55%.
If people focused on playing lots of games to improve instead of some mathematical ritual to magically get them to their "true elo" then they wouldn't have this problem.
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 20 2012 00:11 Juicyfruit wrote:
The system evidentially works well ENOUGH. Since the game's outcome is binary (W/L), as long as you have a certain amount of skill above your current level, you can overcome the odds and get a win even when dealt a shitty hand.
I think the thing to recognize is that blind matchmaking systems that only consider W/L are not perfect, but they're better than pretty much anything else anyone has come up with.
There are actually Chinese DotA ladders that do things like using KDA to help determine rating increase/loss, and that don't give out rating for games where you have a DC before a certain point in the game. Most pros actually really hate these ladders though, because the former policy encourages some REALLY terrible play (KSing, drawing out games to farm KDA), and the latter is prone to abuses.
|
On March 20 2012 00:10 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:
In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. In fairness, I can see where he's coming from at this point. Consider two players, one who only knows how to Corki, and one who is only knows how to play Eve. Even if their understanding of the game and fundamentals may be similar, the guy who plays only Corki will get those troll games less often than the Eve player because of how people assume Eve is a troll pick. It's an extreme hypothetical example, but I can see how he's applying the idea of it to other things. Even though we like to stress flexibility, I can see how it might seem "unfair" that two equally shitty and poorly-rounded players have different chances of winning games because the champions that one player plays are better. Didn't we have a discussion a while back about Damionwings being absolutely fucking awful at every champion not named Annie and how his Elo rocketed back and forth as a result? That said, I still don't think it should really affect anyone's solo queue experience.
Oh, I understand where he's coming from. It's just a pointless argument to have at this point. Trolls happen at all elos. Everyone just has to buck up and care less about elo-peen.
|
Can we please discuss a less controversial topic? Like Doran's on Supports or Wriggle's vs BF Sword on AD carries?
|
On March 20 2012 00:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:10 TheYango wrote:On March 20 2012 00:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:
In reality, the Law of Large Numbers takes control. After a certain N number of games, assuming N is large enough, that frequency evens out for everyone. In fairness, I can see where he's coming from at this point. Consider two players, one who only knows how to Corki, and one who is only knows how to play Eve. Even if their understanding of the game and fundamentals may be similar, the guy who plays only Corki will get those troll games less often than the Eve player because of how people assume Eve is a troll pick. It's an extreme hypothetical example, but I can see how he's applying the idea of it to other things. Even though we like to stress flexibility, I can see how it might seem "unfair" that two equally shitty and poorly-rounded players have different chances of winning games because the champions that one player plays are better. Didn't we have a discussion a while back about Damionwings being absolutely fucking awful at every champion not named Annie and how his Elo rocketed back and forth as a result? That said, I still don't think it should really affect anyone's solo queue experience. Oh, I understand where he's coming from. It's just a pointless argument to have at this point. Trolls happen at all elos. Everyone just has to buck up and care less about elo-peen.
It's never pointless to be well-educated and understand how things are, when people deem it to be pointless, that's where mass ignorance transpires and you get people claiming that because they have favorable experiences themselves, that it can't be that "bad" for some other players.
Anyway no one seems to be able to really argue against the existence of comil on the NA ladder. That is a great example of how inaccurate the swings can be. And the guy has nearly 1000 games played.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
