|
|
On April 29 2014 00:15 Ketara wrote:
Well the other 4 people will get experience right? Who are they subbing?
I feel bischu has a good chance, being part of c9 already.
Assuming, of course, c9t does not disband.
Not 100% sure if they want burgerking.
|
C9 bjergsen for all stars? Or c9 shiphtur? Amirite?
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
Not sure if Riot would be all that pleased having Bjergsen sub when he's already locked in for the all stars team.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
Shiphtur so he can get stomped by Faker-senpai.
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
On April 29 2014 00:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Shiphtur so he can get stomped by Faker-senpai.
At least he'll get to shit on xPeke.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On April 29 2014 00:55 Roffles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 00:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Shiphtur so he can get stomped by Faker-senpai. At least he'll get to shit on xPeke.
He can shit on xpeke while C9 loses to Fnatic cause that's what C9 does. Shiphtur can struggle 1v5 on c9 as well as on Coast. #allstarselohell
|
On April 29 2014 00:54 Roffles wrote:
Not sure if Riot would be all that pleased having Bjergsen sub when he's already locked in for the all stars team.
Oh yeah you are right.
Anyway, my gut feeling is that they won't sub in Link because to have an lcs player from another team (and from clg no less) exposes c9's playstyle too much. And burgerking is gone too.
I think the best candidate in term of talent is shiphtur. But I still think bischu is more likely.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
Subbing in a player from another team is probably the most realistic now than any other time because there's quite a bit of time to go before the next split, so I don't think there will be a huge concern of "exposing strategies."
|
On April 29 2014 00:54 Roffles wrote:
Not sure if Riot would be all that pleased having Bjergsen sub when he's already locked in for the all stars team.
Would save them the cost of an airplane ticket doe.
|
Riot changing Bjergsen to the next highest vote seems far more likely to me than sending their region's team with an unoptimal substitute. NA faker vs KR faker pls
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On April 29 2014 01:04 AlterKot wrote:
Riot changing Bjergsen to the next highest vote seems far more likely to me than sending their region's team with an unoptimal substitute. NA faker vs KR faker pls
Sir didn't you watch the interview? The Young Pobelter is the next Faker. In fact he'll be better than Faker.
|
Oh no.  Poor Hai. Q_Q Sigh, I was so hyped for C9 going to All Stars and really getting the experience as a team and improving from it. Now with Hai like this, . Get better soon Hai.
|
Inb4 faker slumps and plays worse than scarra.
|
On April 29 2014 01:06 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 01:04 AlterKot wrote:
Riot changing Bjergsen to the next highest vote seems far more likely to me than sending their region's team with an unoptimal substitute. NA faker vs KR faker pls Sir didn't you watch the interview? The Young Pobelter is the next Faker. In fact he'll be better than Faker.
If you asked Neo 4 months ago he'd say the same thing
|
On April 28 2014 22:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Of all the terrible ways to think about competitive League (and there are many), EV might be one of the worst lol.
Collapsed lungs suck but apparently they're not as serous as it sounds and are actually "common." One of my friends had it, and we all freaked out and he basically said it's common for young men who are tall because their lungs are often stretched too much when they're growing and eventually one pops or something. It sounds scary but he said he just couldn't take a plane for a year or so and was otherwise fine? o.o? So hopefully he'll be fine.
Sucks that C9 won't be able to get stomped at All-Star's with their full roster and people will just use this as an excuse for why NA blows huehuehue.
On April 28 2014 22:04 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 21:15 Mikau wrote:On April 28 2014 20:38 Keniji wrote:On April 28 2014 20:27 Mikau wrote:
In my experience (and the amount of anti-snowballing mechanics currently in the game suggest this as well) somebody doing badly decreases your winchance by more than somebody doing well increases it. If that is true then going into lane to not lose might be the bigger +EV play. How to you plan to win a game if everyone's goal is just not to lose? Or do you rely on your team to be better than their counterparts while you just stay even? How could you consider that a good player - as in, one of the best? Besides, your goal is not to go 50:50 win/lose instead of 100% even. So +EV doens't really makes sense. I don't think you know what EV means. Playing to not lose isn't the same as playing to go even. It just means minimizing the amount of high risk/high reward plays and instead take the low risk/low reward play. You can still play better than your counterpart and show it, it just likely won't show in flashy plays and a lot of kills/deaths, but in smaller things like towers taken/tower damage, experience leads and minion kill leads. Taking small safe 100% advantages instead of making huge towerdives that have potential to fail and give your opponents first blood, or snowball into objectives, or whatever. I do know what EV means. Playing to win is not herp derp tower dive with a 50% chance to succeed. And when you say playing not to lose instead of playing to win is +EV because a lead is less significant then being behind (which is weird in itself, as there can't be one without the other) then you assume playing to win turns into being behind as often as being ahead. The expected outcome of playing to win is determined on how good the player is in regards to his opponent I would assume. So yea, playing not to lose might be best if you are mediocre, and are fine with getting the best out of being mediocre. But you are not able to have a huge impact on the game. I do not think that is a mindset professional players should have, especially not those that strive to be the best (in their region). edit: But it probably all comes down to the definiton of "playing not to lose" and "playing to win" anyway.
If all you guys have against the argument are strawmen you shouldn't have bothered to respond at all.
|
On April 29 2014 01:12 GhandiEAGLE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 01:06 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 29 2014 01:04 AlterKot wrote:
Riot changing Bjergsen to the next highest vote seems far more likely to me than sending their region's team with an unoptimal substitute. NA faker vs KR faker pls Sir didn't you watch the interview? The Young Pobelter is the next Faker. In fact he'll be better than Faker. If you asked Neo 4 months ago he'd say the same thing
I believe. Pobelter will be next faker. Once he's freed from the confines of high school. Nothing will stop him!
|
On April 29 2014 01:14 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 22:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Of all the terrible ways to think about competitive League (and there are many), EV might be one of the worst lol.
Collapsed lungs suck but apparently they're not as serous as it sounds and are actually "common." One of my friends had it, and we all freaked out and he basically said it's common for young men who are tall because their lungs are often stretched too much when they're growing and eventually one pops or something. It sounds scary but he said he just couldn't take a plane for a year or so and was otherwise fine? o.o? So hopefully he'll be fine.
Sucks that C9 won't be able to get stomped at All-Star's with their full roster and people will just use this as an excuse for why NA blows huehuehue. Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 22:04 Keniji wrote:On April 28 2014 21:15 Mikau wrote:On April 28 2014 20:38 Keniji wrote:On April 28 2014 20:27 Mikau wrote:
In my experience (and the amount of anti-snowballing mechanics currently in the game suggest this as well) somebody doing badly decreases your winchance by more than somebody doing well increases it. If that is true then going into lane to not lose might be the bigger +EV play. How to you plan to win a game if everyone's goal is just not to lose? Or do you rely on your team to be better than their counterparts while you just stay even? How could you consider that a good player - as in, one of the best? Besides, your goal is not to go 50:50 win/lose instead of 100% even. So +EV doens't really makes sense. I don't think you know what EV means. Playing to not lose isn't the same as playing to go even. It just means minimizing the amount of high risk/high reward plays and instead take the low risk/low reward play. You can still play better than your counterpart and show it, it just likely won't show in flashy plays and a lot of kills/deaths, but in smaller things like towers taken/tower damage, experience leads and minion kill leads. Taking small safe 100% advantages instead of making huge towerdives that have potential to fail and give your opponents first blood, or snowball into objectives, or whatever. I do know what EV means. Playing to win is not herp derp tower dive with a 50% chance to succeed. And when you say playing not to lose instead of playing to win is +EV because a lead is less significant then being behind (which is weird in itself, as there can't be one without the other) then you assume playing to win turns into being behind as often as being ahead. The expected outcome of playing to win is determined on how good the player is in regards to his opponent I would assume. So yea, playing not to lose might be best if you are mediocre, and are fine with getting the best out of being mediocre. But you are not able to have a huge impact on the game. I do not think that is a mindset professional players should have, especially not those that strive to be the best (in their region). edit: But it probably all comes down to the definiton of "playing not to lose" and "playing to win" anyway. If all you guys have against the argument are strawmen you shouldn't have bothered to respond at all.
Minimizing variance through tons of "safe" and "consistent" play isn't the same thing as maximizing expected value.
Which still doesn't change the fact that expected value is a terrible way to think about this game, as if you wanted to model this, you'd have perturbations everywhere, in both the distribution and the value function, effectively meaning that the determination of "expected value" matters less with the decision you make and more with the parameters estimated.
|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
On April 29 2014 01:22 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 01:12 GhandiEAGLE wrote:On April 29 2014 01:06 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 29 2014 01:04 AlterKot wrote:
Riot changing Bjergsen to the next highest vote seems far more likely to me than sending their region's team with an unoptimal substitute. NA faker vs KR faker pls Sir didn't you watch the interview? The Young Pobelter is the next Faker. In fact he'll be better than Faker. If you asked Neo 4 months ago he'd say the same thing I believe. Pobelter will be next faker. Once he's freed from the confines of high school. Nothing will stop him!
Is that before or after gambit literally take over Korea by bootcamping?
|
On April 29 2014 01:24 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 01:14 Mikau wrote:On April 28 2014 22:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Of all the terrible ways to think about competitive League (and there are many), EV might be one of the worst lol.
Collapsed lungs suck but apparently they're not as serous as it sounds and are actually "common." One of my friends had it, and we all freaked out and he basically said it's common for young men who are tall because their lungs are often stretched too much when they're growing and eventually one pops or something. It sounds scary but he said he just couldn't take a plane for a year or so and was otherwise fine? o.o? So hopefully he'll be fine.
Sucks that C9 won't be able to get stomped at All-Star's with their full roster and people will just use this as an excuse for why NA blows huehuehue. On April 28 2014 22:04 Keniji wrote:On April 28 2014 21:15 Mikau wrote:On April 28 2014 20:38 Keniji wrote:On April 28 2014 20:27 Mikau wrote:
In my experience (and the amount of anti-snowballing mechanics currently in the game suggest this as well) somebody doing badly decreases your winchance by more than somebody doing well increases it. If that is true then going into lane to not lose might be the bigger +EV play. How to you plan to win a game if everyone's goal is just not to lose? Or do you rely on your team to be better than their counterparts while you just stay even? How could you consider that a good player - as in, one of the best? Besides, your goal is not to go 50:50 win/lose instead of 100% even. So +EV doens't really makes sense. I don't think you know what EV means. Playing to not lose isn't the same as playing to go even. It just means minimizing the amount of high risk/high reward plays and instead take the low risk/low reward play. You can still play better than your counterpart and show it, it just likely won't show in flashy plays and a lot of kills/deaths, but in smaller things like towers taken/tower damage, experience leads and minion kill leads. Taking small safe 100% advantages instead of making huge towerdives that have potential to fail and give your opponents first blood, or snowball into objectives, or whatever. I do know what EV means. Playing to win is not herp derp tower dive with a 50% chance to succeed. And when you say playing not to lose instead of playing to win is +EV because a lead is less significant then being behind (which is weird in itself, as there can't be one without the other) then you assume playing to win turns into being behind as often as being ahead. The expected outcome of playing to win is determined on how good the player is in regards to his opponent I would assume. So yea, playing not to lose might be best if you are mediocre, and are fine with getting the best out of being mediocre. But you are not able to have a huge impact on the game. I do not think that is a mindset professional players should have, especially not those that strive to be the best (in their region). edit: But it probably all comes down to the definiton of "playing not to lose" and "playing to win" anyway. If all you guys have against the argument are strawmen you shouldn't have bothered to respond at all. Minimizing variance through tons of "safe" and "consistent" play isn't the same thing as maximizing expected value. Which still doesn't change the fact that expected value is a terrible way to think about this game, as if you wanted to model this, you'd have perturbations everywhere, in both the distribution and the value function, effectively meaning that the determination of "expected value" matters less with the decision you make and more with the parameters estimated.
I never said that by playing safe and consistent you were trying to maximise EV. In fact, remove the mention of EV from my argument and what I wanted to discuss is still there.
-Does giving away gold/kills/whatever negatively impact the game more than getting gold/kills/whatever (it feels like this from anecdotal evidence and I personally think the anti-snowballing mechanics make it true), and if so:
-Does playing safe (or 'not to lose lane') or in other words go for low risk/low reward plays over high risk/high reward plays then become the 'best' way to play the game (yes I see how that can be misconstrued as maximizing EV).
I'm not claiming it does, I was merely trying to throw it out there for discussion.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On April 29 2014 01:31 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 01:24 xes wrote:On April 29 2014 01:14 Mikau wrote:On April 28 2014 22:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Of all the terrible ways to think about competitive League (and there are many), EV might be one of the worst lol.
Collapsed lungs suck but apparently they're not as serous as it sounds and are actually "common." One of my friends had it, and we all freaked out and he basically said it's common for young men who are tall because their lungs are often stretched too much when they're growing and eventually one pops or something. It sounds scary but he said he just couldn't take a plane for a year or so and was otherwise fine? o.o? So hopefully he'll be fine.
Sucks that C9 won't be able to get stomped at All-Star's with their full roster and people will just use this as an excuse for why NA blows huehuehue. On April 28 2014 22:04 Keniji wrote:On April 28 2014 21:15 Mikau wrote:On April 28 2014 20:38 Keniji wrote:On April 28 2014 20:27 Mikau wrote:
In my experience (and the amount of anti-snowballing mechanics currently in the game suggest this as well) somebody doing badly decreases your winchance by more than somebody doing well increases it. If that is true then going into lane to not lose might be the bigger +EV play. How to you plan to win a game if everyone's goal is just not to lose? Or do you rely on your team to be better than their counterparts while you just stay even? How could you consider that a good player - as in, one of the best? Besides, your goal is not to go 50:50 win/lose instead of 100% even. So +EV doens't really makes sense. I don't think you know what EV means. Playing to not lose isn't the same as playing to go even. It just means minimizing the amount of high risk/high reward plays and instead take the low risk/low reward play. You can still play better than your counterpart and show it, it just likely won't show in flashy plays and a lot of kills/deaths, but in smaller things like towers taken/tower damage, experience leads and minion kill leads. Taking small safe 100% advantages instead of making huge towerdives that have potential to fail and give your opponents first blood, or snowball into objectives, or whatever. I do know what EV means. Playing to win is not herp derp tower dive with a 50% chance to succeed. And when you say playing not to lose instead of playing to win is +EV because a lead is less significant then being behind (which is weird in itself, as there can't be one without the other) then you assume playing to win turns into being behind as often as being ahead. The expected outcome of playing to win is determined on how good the player is in regards to his opponent I would assume. So yea, playing not to lose might be best if you are mediocre, and are fine with getting the best out of being mediocre. But you are not able to have a huge impact on the game. I do not think that is a mindset professional players should have, especially not those that strive to be the best (in their region). edit: But it probably all comes down to the definiton of "playing not to lose" and "playing to win" anyway. If all you guys have against the argument are strawmen you shouldn't have bothered to respond at all. Minimizing variance through tons of "safe" and "consistent" play isn't the same thing as maximizing expected value. Which still doesn't change the fact that expected value is a terrible way to think about this game, as if you wanted to model this, you'd have perturbations everywhere, in both the distribution and the value function, effectively meaning that the determination of "expected value" matters less with the decision you make and more with the parameters estimated. I never said that by playing safe and consistent you were trying to maximise EV. In fact, remove the mention of EV from my argument and what I wanted to discuss is still there. -Does giving away gold/kills/whatever negatively impact the game more than getting gold/kills/whatever (it feels like this from anecdotal evidence and I personally think the anti-snowballing mechanics make it true), and if so: -Does playing safe (or 'not to lose lane') or in other words go for low risk/low reward plays over high risk/high reward plays then become the 'best' way to play the game (yes I see how that can be misconstrued as maximizing EV). I'm not claiming it does, I was merely trying to throw it out there for discussion.
But the problem is that if you go by this logic, the proper play in every single lane would be to sit there and do nothing.
In LCS that works because your opponents will inevitably do something stupid and suicide, but for a team that's looking to be a world contender and playing against OGN/LPL teams, that's an easy way to be down 10k after 20 minutes without losing a single kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
46597
1454
1270
EPT
