|
United States10467 Posts
On August 18 2012 07:53 NEOtheONE wrote:I found a google document with jungle clear times, but seeing as there are videos on youtube with faster times, I am a bit conflicted on how accurate the chart is. If we assume the chart allows for a practical gank after hitting 4 then it makes more sense. Jungle Clear Times SpreadsheetEdit: Diana has a 3:28 which I verified myself by achieving the same result with a slightly different setup of runes. The downside is that the route ends with blue leaving her oom for a few seconds.
volibear's really slow considering that he gets a passive attack speed buff on his W.
twitch's order is weird. WEW? Isn't W just a slow? No damage? Ok maybe two marks of poison for 24 aoe damage :/
I don't think clear speeds are too important though. Fiddle still has amazing ult ganks and sustain. He can do well if he is protected from invades. Some of those champs like ez and karthus probably get too low or have ganks and kits that aren't worth jungling. Maokai clears slow down significantly. Many champs have mana issues after their first blue in the jungle.
|
On August 18 2012 06:51 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:46 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 06:07 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:42 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 05:13 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:05 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 04:47 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 04:44 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 04:41 arb wrote:On August 18 2012 04:37 Slayer91 wrote:
So you play to win games rather than prove and improve your skill? Why not just play normals with 5 high elo guys and stomp? should we be playing to lose then? It's about priorities. If you play to win but don't learn anything you'll eventually get stuck. If you play to learn winning is a natural consequence of self-improvement. That's a chicken/egg argument. If you're playing to win, you're going to be playing at your best, which leads to improvement. So is it better to focus on winning (which leads to harder-to-win games and therefore improvement), or focus on improving (which increases the chance of victory)? It's not. There's nothing about playing your best which inherently leads to improvement. You can improve when playing your best, but that has nothing to do with how well you played and everything to do with ability to analyze the game objectively. Playing to win can, in fact, stymie growth by causing a chilling effect on your play. For example, many junglers aren't confident in their ability to directly counter-jungle. As a result the best way to win in the short term is to avoid that risk altogether. Long term the player is stuck until they can put winning aside and learn the skill that they've been avoiding because of the risk. Again, it's not a chicken and egg problem. It's about priorities. That's not entirely true. If I'm playing to win, I'm focusing as hard as I can on things that matter. I'm forcing myself to look at the minimap, to last hit correctly, to position myself in the right place - not because I'm actively attempting to improve myself in those aspects, but because doing them well actively leads to my victory. Eventually, they become habits that I don't have to focus on as much. I don't go into each game thinking "I have to get better at last hitting", I go in with the idea of "last hit as best as possible to win my lane", which eventually leads to becoming better at it in the long run naturally. But in that train of thought, improving and winning are naturally tied hand in hand, hence the chicken/egg argument. It's entirely true. Your skills improve when you focus on them, but when you play to win you focus on winning. Any improvement you experience with that mindset has nothing to do with you playing your best and everything to do with the fact that you focused on last-hitting/awareness/whatever for a few seconds or thought about what went right/wrong after the game was over. Whether you're playing your best or relaxing you get better at what you focus on. On August 18 2012 05:22 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:16 ZeromuS wrote:
Not really. you can focus on last hitting and if its good then good you win the lane. But missing something on the minimap isnt the end of the game, its the next on the get better list. But you cant get better by doing everything at once. Right, and then I win that game, which raises my ELO, putting me against harder opponents. Then against those opponents, missing something on the minimap is the difference between Dragon and the enemy team getting it, so I force myself to focus on it, getting better because victory requires it. The next higher level, missing a tiny thing on the minimap is the difference between Baron and a loss, so I have to force myself to focus, etc. We're really saying the same thing, except I'm saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better to win more", while you're saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better just to be better". Same difference. Edit: onus isn't the right word. You're not saying the same thing. You're saying, "I focus on winning in order to win and by winning improve." We're saying, "We focus on improving in order to improve and by improving win." Our argument is that the latter mindset is, in the long run, more effectual. Perhaps, but I'd argue that the former mindset is more rewarding. If, in the long run, both mindsets lead to both winning and improving (which you postulated), then the road to that point is either filled with more wins but less effective learning, or more effective learning but possibly less wins. At that point it stops being objective which is better. The hole in your argument is that focusing on winning only leads to more wins in the short term. Because you're only improving marginally, if at all, you very quickly hit a wall. You may be playing with better people than before, but because of your mindset and the fact that none of those people are particularly inclined (or necessarily informed enough) to critique your play in a constructive fashion you aren't actually getting all that much out of it. It's this mindset that leads to people getting stuck at an Elo wall, wondering why they can't climb any further. I'm only talking about solo queue here, not inhouses or playing normals with friends. When was the last time you finished a solo queue game and people stuck around in the after-game lobby to chit-chat about plays and improvements? Maybe it's just my ELow, but when I finish a game people either leave immediately or shit-talk/brag. If we're talking inhouses or other stuff, then that's another story. I'm obviously trying to improve if I'm playing a game that's not going to affect my ELO in any way (unless it's a bot game for silliness or whatever), but I don't view solo-queue ranked as my opportunity to focus on mechanics, I view it as a time to buckle down and win.
Here is the simplest (and best) analogy I can think of:
1. I am bad at tennis, but pretty athletic, so I beat about 1/2-3/4 of my friends when we play.
2. It is fairly simple to beat the players that I beat, just hit safe shots and make them run a bit > victory.
3. A couple of my friends are actually good players, I can't beat them, but I can take a few games off them if I play a totally different style by being aggressive, etc. I can lose to the worse players playing this way because its inconsistent. If I could play that way consistently, then I would be a good tennis player.
Thus winning and getting better are often mutually exclusive.
|
It's easy to win with a champ you're already good at vs lesser opponents. If you want to improve, go against people better than yourself and/or play champs and roles you're bad with.
|
Honestly there are certain champions by themselves that add to some of those problems. I can win a lot of games against people who are worse than me just by playing Twisted Fate and taking advantage of the fact that they're too ignorant about the game to know that being really aggressive against a team that has TF is pretty stupid. But if I'm playing against people at or above my skill level I can't take advantage of them pissing away lane advantages by ganking them. So I have to rely on playing a more "standard" TF instead of abusing my opponent's ignorance.
I think another good example would be playing any laner that can go aggressive. Sometimes you can win lanes against people who are bad at this game just by playing stupidly aggressive because the enemy laner/jungler won't punish you for it because they react poorly to your aggression. So while it might help you win that game in the future you'll end up dying over and over again to ganks or to an opponent who reacts properly to your blind aggro.
That was/has been one of my big problems with playing AP mid. I sometimes go too balls deep in lane because I'm used to playing against people who are worse than me and then when I play against someone who's just as good as me or better than me I end up feeding hard. Whereas if I just played standard and focused on farm while taking smaller risks I probably could've come out of the lane ahead.
|
On August 18 2012 05:05 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 04:47 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 04:44 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 04:41 arb wrote:On August 18 2012 04:37 Slayer91 wrote:
So you play to win games rather than prove and improve your skill? Why not just play normals with 5 high elo guys and stomp? should we be playing to lose then? It's about priorities. If you play to win but don't learn anything you'll eventually get stuck. If you play to learn winning is a natural consequence of self-improvement. That's a chicken/egg argument. If you're playing to win, you're going to be playing at your best, which leads to improvement. So is it better to focus on winning (which leads to harder-to-win games and therefore improvement), or focus on improving (which increases the chance of victory)? It's not. There's nothing about playing your best which inherently leads to improvement. You can improve when playing your best, but that has nothing to do with how well you played and everything to do with ability to analyze the game objectively. Playing to win can, in fact, stymie growth by causing a chilling effect on your play. For example, many junglers aren't confident in their ability to directly counter-jungle. As a result the best way to win in the short term is to avoid that risk altogether. Long term the player is stuck until they can put winning aside and learn the skill that they've been avoiding because of the risk. Again, it's not a chicken and egg problem. It's about priorities.
I totally agree with this post. This is exactly the mentality I get stuck with when I play ranked.
My elo decayed to 1420. I've gained around 150 elo playing singed top exclusively for the past 10 days. I honestly believe I wouldn't have gained that much if I had diversified my picks. However, I would be a better player as a result of learning more positions and champions.
|
On August 18 2012 08:06 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:51 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 06:46 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 06:07 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:42 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 05:13 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:05 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 04:47 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 04:44 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 04:41 arb wrote:
[quote]
should we be playing to lose then? It's about priorities. If you play to win but don't learn anything you'll eventually get stuck. If you play to learn winning is a natural consequence of self-improvement. That's a chicken/egg argument. If you're playing to win, you're going to be playing at your best, which leads to improvement. So is it better to focus on winning (which leads to harder-to-win games and therefore improvement), or focus on improving (which increases the chance of victory)? It's not. There's nothing about playing your best which inherently leads to improvement. You can improve when playing your best, but that has nothing to do with how well you played and everything to do with ability to analyze the game objectively. Playing to win can, in fact, stymie growth by causing a chilling effect on your play. For example, many junglers aren't confident in their ability to directly counter-jungle. As a result the best way to win in the short term is to avoid that risk altogether. Long term the player is stuck until they can put winning aside and learn the skill that they've been avoiding because of the risk. Again, it's not a chicken and egg problem. It's about priorities. That's not entirely true. If I'm playing to win, I'm focusing as hard as I can on things that matter. I'm forcing myself to look at the minimap, to last hit correctly, to position myself in the right place - not because I'm actively attempting to improve myself in those aspects, but because doing them well actively leads to my victory. Eventually, they become habits that I don't have to focus on as much. I don't go into each game thinking "I have to get better at last hitting", I go in with the idea of "last hit as best as possible to win my lane", which eventually leads to becoming better at it in the long run naturally. But in that train of thought, improving and winning are naturally tied hand in hand, hence the chicken/egg argument. It's entirely true. Your skills improve when you focus on them, but when you play to win you focus on winning. Any improvement you experience with that mindset has nothing to do with you playing your best and everything to do with the fact that you focused on last-hitting/awareness/whatever for a few seconds or thought about what went right/wrong after the game was over. Whether you're playing your best or relaxing you get better at what you focus on. On August 18 2012 05:22 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:16 ZeromuS wrote:
Not really. you can focus on last hitting and if its good then good you win the lane. But missing something on the minimap isnt the end of the game, its the next on the get better list. But you cant get better by doing everything at once. Right, and then I win that game, which raises my ELO, putting me against harder opponents. Then against those opponents, missing something on the minimap is the difference between Dragon and the enemy team getting it, so I force myself to focus on it, getting better because victory requires it. The next higher level, missing a tiny thing on the minimap is the difference between Baron and a loss, so I have to force myself to focus, etc. We're really saying the same thing, except I'm saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better to win more", while you're saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better just to be better". Same difference. Edit: onus isn't the right word. You're not saying the same thing. You're saying, "I focus on winning in order to win and by winning improve." We're saying, "We focus on improving in order to improve and by improving win." Our argument is that the latter mindset is, in the long run, more effectual. Perhaps, but I'd argue that the former mindset is more rewarding. If, in the long run, both mindsets lead to both winning and improving (which you postulated), then the road to that point is either filled with more wins but less effective learning, or more effective learning but possibly less wins. At that point it stops being objective which is better. The hole in your argument is that focusing on winning only leads to more wins in the short term. Because you're only improving marginally, if at all, you very quickly hit a wall. You may be playing with better people than before, but because of your mindset and the fact that none of those people are particularly inclined (or necessarily informed enough) to critique your play in a constructive fashion you aren't actually getting all that much out of it. It's this mindset that leads to people getting stuck at an Elo wall, wondering why they can't climb any further. I'm only talking about solo queue here, not inhouses or playing normals with friends. When was the last time you finished a solo queue game and people stuck around in the after-game lobby to chit-chat about plays and improvements? Maybe it's just my ELow, but when I finish a game people either leave immediately or shit-talk/brag. If we're talking inhouses or other stuff, then that's another story. I'm obviously trying to improve if I'm playing a game that's not going to affect my ELO in any way (unless it's a bot game for silliness or whatever), but I don't view solo-queue ranked as my opportunity to focus on mechanics, I view it as a time to buckle down and win. Here is the simplest (and best) analogy I can think of: 1. I am bad at tennis, but pretty athletic, so I beat about 1/2-3/4 of my friends when we play. 2. It is fairly simple to beat the players that I beat, just hit safe shots and make them run a bit > victory. 3. A couple of my friends are actually good players, I can't beat them, but I can take a few games off them if I play a totally different style by being aggressive, etc. I can lose to the worse players playing this way because its inconsistent. If I could play that way consistently, then I would be a good tennis player. Thus winning and getting better are often mutually exclusive.
This is similar imo to offraces in Broodwar
For example being a C Terran, I could easily get to c- with Zerg/Protoss without knowing a whole lot about the races just being better mechanically than anyone else. But once you get to people of equal/similar skill to your race(in this case my offrace) winning becomes alot more of a challenge than simply rolling over people with pure mechanics
|
On August 18 2012 08:59 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:06 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2012 06:51 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 06:46 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 06:07 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:42 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 05:13 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:05 Seuss wrote:On August 18 2012 04:47 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 04:44 Seuss wrote:
[quote]
It's about priorities. If you play to win but don't learn anything you'll eventually get stuck. If you play to learn winning is a natural consequence of self-improvement. That's a chicken/egg argument. If you're playing to win, you're going to be playing at your best, which leads to improvement. So is it better to focus on winning (which leads to harder-to-win games and therefore improvement), or focus on improving (which increases the chance of victory)? It's not. There's nothing about playing your best which inherently leads to improvement. You can improve when playing your best, but that has nothing to do with how well you played and everything to do with ability to analyze the game objectively. Playing to win can, in fact, stymie growth by causing a chilling effect on your play. For example, many junglers aren't confident in their ability to directly counter-jungle. As a result the best way to win in the short term is to avoid that risk altogether. Long term the player is stuck until they can put winning aside and learn the skill that they've been avoiding because of the risk. Again, it's not a chicken and egg problem. It's about priorities. That's not entirely true. If I'm playing to win, I'm focusing as hard as I can on things that matter. I'm forcing myself to look at the minimap, to last hit correctly, to position myself in the right place - not because I'm actively attempting to improve myself in those aspects, but because doing them well actively leads to my victory. Eventually, they become habits that I don't have to focus on as much. I don't go into each game thinking "I have to get better at last hitting", I go in with the idea of "last hit as best as possible to win my lane", which eventually leads to becoming better at it in the long run naturally. But in that train of thought, improving and winning are naturally tied hand in hand, hence the chicken/egg argument. It's entirely true. Your skills improve when you focus on them, but when you play to win you focus on winning. Any improvement you experience with that mindset has nothing to do with you playing your best and everything to do with the fact that you focused on last-hitting/awareness/whatever for a few seconds or thought about what went right/wrong after the game was over. Whether you're playing your best or relaxing you get better at what you focus on. On August 18 2012 05:22 Requizen wrote:On August 18 2012 05:16 ZeromuS wrote:
Not really. you can focus on last hitting and if its good then good you win the lane. But missing something on the minimap isnt the end of the game, its the next on the get better list. But you cant get better by doing everything at once. Right, and then I win that game, which raises my ELO, putting me against harder opponents. Then against those opponents, missing something on the minimap is the difference between Dragon and the enemy team getting it, so I force myself to focus on it, getting better because victory requires it. The next higher level, missing a tiny thing on the minimap is the difference between Baron and a loss, so I have to force myself to focus, etc. We're really saying the same thing, except I'm saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better to win more", while you're saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better just to be better". Same difference. Edit: onus isn't the right word. You're not saying the same thing. You're saying, "I focus on winning in order to win and by winning improve." We're saying, "We focus on improving in order to improve and by improving win." Our argument is that the latter mindset is, in the long run, more effectual. Perhaps, but I'd argue that the former mindset is more rewarding. If, in the long run, both mindsets lead to both winning and improving (which you postulated), then the road to that point is either filled with more wins but less effective learning, or more effective learning but possibly less wins. At that point it stops being objective which is better. The hole in your argument is that focusing on winning only leads to more wins in the short term. Because you're only improving marginally, if at all, you very quickly hit a wall. You may be playing with better people than before, but because of your mindset and the fact that none of those people are particularly inclined (or necessarily informed enough) to critique your play in a constructive fashion you aren't actually getting all that much out of it. It's this mindset that leads to people getting stuck at an Elo wall, wondering why they can't climb any further. I'm only talking about solo queue here, not inhouses or playing normals with friends. When was the last time you finished a solo queue game and people stuck around in the after-game lobby to chit-chat about plays and improvements? Maybe it's just my ELow, but when I finish a game people either leave immediately or shit-talk/brag. If we're talking inhouses or other stuff, then that's another story. I'm obviously trying to improve if I'm playing a game that's not going to affect my ELO in any way (unless it's a bot game for silliness or whatever), but I don't view solo-queue ranked as my opportunity to focus on mechanics, I view it as a time to buckle down and win. Here is the simplest (and best) analogy I can think of: 1. I am bad at tennis, but pretty athletic, so I beat about 1/2-3/4 of my friends when we play. 2. It is fairly simple to beat the players that I beat, just hit safe shots and make them run a bit > victory. 3. A couple of my friends are actually good players, I can't beat them, but I can take a few games off them if I play a totally different style by being aggressive, etc. I can lose to the worse players playing this way because its inconsistent. If I could play that way consistently, then I would be a good tennis player. Thus winning and getting better are often mutually exclusive. This is similar imo to offraces in Broodwar For example being a C Terran, I could easily get to c- with Zerg/Protoss without knowing a whole lot about the races just being better mechanically than anyone else. But once you get to people of equal/similar skill to your race(in this case my offrace) winning becomes alot more of a challenge than simply rolling over people with pure mechanics
Also, 4Gate in SC2.
|
I had a lot of fun with Garen. But I still feel that he has the same problems as he had before change but it is slightly more managable. Maybe should just change up the build?
I went phage>BT>GA>FoN/Mallet
|
try something like bruta hexdrinker randuins
|
On August 18 2012 08:54 overt wrote:
Honestly there are certain champions by themselves that add to some of those problems. I can win a lot of games against people who are worse than me just by playing Twisted Fate and taking advantage of the fact that they're too ignorant about the game to know that being really aggressive against a team that has TF is pretty stupid. But if I'm playing against people at or above my skill level I can't take advantage of them pissing away lane advantages by ganking them. So I have to rely on playing a more "standard" TF instead of abusing my opponent's ignorance.
I think another good example would be playing any laner that can go aggressive. Sometimes you can win lanes against people who are bad at this game just by playing stupidly aggressive because the enemy laner/jungler won't punish you for it because they react poorly to your aggression. So while it might help you win that game in the future you'll end up dying over and over again to ganks or to an opponent who reacts properly to your blind aggro.
That was/has been one of my big problems with playing AP mid. I sometimes go too balls deep in lane because I'm used to playing against people who are worse than me and then when I play against someone who's just as good as me or better than me I end up feeding hard. Whereas if I just played standard and focused on farm while taking smaller risks I probably could've come out of the lane ahead.
but shouldn't you have thought more about how you missed a read on the opponent?
if you read your opponent as bad, you should punish them for doing bad stuff or take advantage of the fact that they don't know how your hero works. on the other hand, if you know they're good then you shouldn't make those plays.
i think the lesson learned is that before you commit to a play you need to know what the opponent is capable of. it shouldn't be "this doesn't work against good people so i just won't do it ever."
maybe it's just me because i come from a fighting game background and i've seen way too many players learn advanced stuff like complex combos and not know basics like anti-airing or throw-teching, so i just abuse that until they prove me otherwise or if i can tell that they know how to deal with it. for that matter i get away with a lot of zyra stuff because people aren't used to her at all.
|
Pretty much. It's all a sliding scale. Trying to treat shit as always one way is ignorant.
|
On August 18 2012 06:24 Leonite7 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:13 Dark_Chill wrote:
How strong is Jax? I played him, and it felt like I didn't even have to put much effort into just becoming a monster. I was facing an Ezreal top, so it was kind of annoying early, and their Lee Sin was pretty annoying as well, but I found that it didn't even matter. I could easily outtrade after a few levels, could safely farm, and could not really die past a certain point. Jax is pretty strong but a well played nunu or malphite do very well against him.
Nunu is good against a lot of tops but jax is not one of them. After a while his damage is just too high.
|
On August 18 2012 09:45 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:24 Leonite7 wrote:On August 18 2012 06:13 Dark_Chill wrote:
How strong is Jax? I played him, and it felt like I didn't even have to put much effort into just becoming a monster. I was facing an Ezreal top, so it was kind of annoying early, and their Lee Sin was pretty annoying as well, but I found that it didn't even matter. I could easily outtrade after a few levels, could safely farm, and could not really die past a certain point. Jax is pretty strong but a well played nunu or malphite do very well against him. Nunu is good against a lot of tops but jax is not one of them. After a while his damage is just too high.
Jax is going to be infinitely more useful lategame also, imo.
|
Jax is also pretty much the only top lane that I have ever seen in my life who can just come back solo from like going 0/3 to just flat out kill his lane with one item lol.
|
On August 18 2012 08:02 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 07:53 NEOtheONE wrote:I found a google document with jungle clear times, but seeing as there are videos on youtube with faster times, I am a bit conflicted on how accurate the chart is. If we assume the chart allows for a practical gank after hitting 4 then it makes more sense. Jungle Clear Times SpreadsheetEdit: Diana has a 3:28 which I verified myself by achieving the same result with a slightly different setup of runes. The downside is that the route ends with blue leaving her oom for a few seconds. volibear's really slow considering that he gets a passive attack speed buff on his W. twitch's order is weird. WEW? Isn't W just a slow? No damage? Ok maybe two marks of poison for 24 aoe damage :/
As someone who has jungled volibear, i can say that he is indeed very slow. You got basically no AE, and yes, you get a passive attack speed buff, but punching every single wraith to death still takes a lot of time. His attackspeed buff is not even that overwhelming on lower ranks, too.
|
On August 18 2012 09:52 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:45 Feartheguru wrote:On August 18 2012 06:24 Leonite7 wrote:On August 18 2012 06:13 Dark_Chill wrote:
How strong is Jax? I played him, and it felt like I didn't even have to put much effort into just becoming a monster. I was facing an Ezreal top, so it was kind of annoying early, and their Lee Sin was pretty annoying as well, but I found that it didn't even matter. I could easily outtrade after a few levels, could safely farm, and could not really die past a certain point. Jax is pretty strong but a well played nunu or malphite do very well against him. Nunu is good against a lot of tops but jax is not one of them. After a while his damage is just too high. Jax is going to be infinitely more useful lategame also, imo.
Eh, I've never had a problem with Jax as Nunu without United Nations-level jungler/mid intervention - your sustain/harrass and AS slows/MS buff zone him fairly hard early on, you naturally build Frozen Heart and get MR from Chalice/Grail; come lategame he's not really going to be able to get to your Blood Boiled AD carry through Ice Blast and Absolute Zero. It's resourceless champs with spammable shields and dashes/blinks that I find problematic (Riven/Lee Sin, grrr).
Very glad to have watched this - Aphromoo playing Leona on a smurf, and having a great time doing so. Sadly he carried his AD so hard that the AD ended up building double snowball item & double wriggles :/
|
Does elobuff track dominion stats?
|
Our very own SKARNOLD TRUMP on stream in NESL pro series
http://www.twitch.tv/national_esl1
and yeah, that aphro on leona was probably the funniest lol video i have ever seen.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 18 2012 09:41 kainzero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:54 overt wrote:
Honestly there are certain champions by themselves that add to some of those problems. I can win a lot of games against people who are worse than me just by playing Twisted Fate and taking advantage of the fact that they're too ignorant about the game to know that being really aggressive against a team that has TF is pretty stupid. But if I'm playing against people at or above my skill level I can't take advantage of them pissing away lane advantages by ganking them. So I have to rely on playing a more "standard" TF instead of abusing my opponent's ignorance.
I think another good example would be playing any laner that can go aggressive. Sometimes you can win lanes against people who are bad at this game just by playing stupidly aggressive because the enemy laner/jungler won't punish you for it because they react poorly to your aggression. So while it might help you win that game in the future you'll end up dying over and over again to ganks or to an opponent who reacts properly to your blind aggro.
That was/has been one of my big problems with playing AP mid. I sometimes go too balls deep in lane because I'm used to playing against people who are worse than me and then when I play against someone who's just as good as me or better than me I end up feeding hard. Whereas if I just played standard and focused on farm while taking smaller risks I probably could've come out of the lane ahead. but shouldn't you have thought more about how you missed a read on the opponent? if you read your opponent as bad, you should punish them for doing bad stuff or take advantage of the fact that they don't know how your hero works. on the other hand, if you know they're good then you shouldn't make those plays. i think the lesson learned is that before you commit to a play you need to know what the opponent is capable of. it shouldn't be "this doesn't work against good people so i just won't do it ever." maybe it's just me because i come from a fighting game background and i've seen way too many players learn advanced stuff like complex combos and not know basics like anti-airing or throw-teching, so i just abuse that until they prove me otherwise or if i can tell that they know how to deal with it. for that matter i get away with a lot of zyra stuff because people aren't used to her at all.
quoted for truth thanks
|
On August 18 2012 12:54 Dgiese wrote:Our very own SKARNOLD TRUMP on stream in NESL pro series http://www.twitch.tv/national_esl1and yeah, that aphro on leona was probably the funniest lol video i have ever seen.
These casters are just awful.
They've missed like a million kills in a row, then they rewind and miss some more.
I have trouble keeping track of these leagues/tourneys.
What is this NESL pro series for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
