EPTOn May 23 2014 09:13 EquilasH wrote:
There should never be a 60/40 situation for a good player, least of all lvl 1. Good players on confident champions should know when they have an advantage that is at least 90% success rate, not counting outside circumstances like a jungler sitting in lane brush.
Show nested quote +
On May 23 2014 07:49 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Second part - I'll even go as far as to say the 60/40s don't happen that often either. The 60/40 example, I can think of one situation where player trait matters, but I'm not confident, that is if you die, you lose, and if the other player dies he loses.
On May 23 2014 07:35 Goumindong wrote:
Ok, so think about a person. They put an input into the computer. This input has some amount of precision associated with it (precision in terms of how close to the desired input was given). Additionally players are making decisions swiftly, these micro decisions (which way do i flash, how do i manage creep aggro, will I b in tower range after a flash, etc etc) also have errors because some portion of the time that same decision made again would have a negative rather than positive outcome, just because the situation was misjudged.
So we have two types of error which do not have to deal at all, with the macro decision of 'do i go in or not'
We have input error and we have micro decision error.
If we have these two types of error, then the outcome of a macro decision is uncertain to some degree even when we are talking about small things like 'do i go in on this or not'. And this was before we get into game state randomness like "is the jungler there or not?", or "is that bush warded?"
The 50/50 example is just a hypothetical to get you thinking. 90/10 examples happen all the time, 80/20 examples. Do you go in 90/10 to win a kill with no other repercussions other than your summoner? Do you go in 60/40 for a kill/be killed situation?
One of these is not particularly aggressive, one of these is particularly aggressive. It comes down to the value placed in summoner skills, and the level of risk that the player is willing to absorb. These aspects of players are different, some take more risks, some take less risks. Some don't go HAM, some go HAM. Some are passive players, some are aggressive players
On May 23 2014 07:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:
It's not 50/50 unless it's the same AD playing against his clone. The better player with the better micro, reactions, decision making, etc, will win. If both players believe they can win an all in, which is the only reason they would and should go all in in the first place, then one of them is obviously wrong. I don't understand how any situation in league can be 50/50 let alone a lv2 all in. Pros don't do this in LCS because they're not playing against scrubs in solo queue who will lose the all in most of the time.
On May 23 2014 07:17 Legitimacy wrote:
And now assume the Lucian fights back agains the Caitlyn level 1. Both are taking creep aggro and it's really a toss-up as to who's going to come up with the kill. What do you classify that as? Because it's the wrong play for both parties because it's really a 50/50 coin flip as to who's going to come out on top with the uncertainty that is creep aggro. Once you reach that point it's no longer skill-based but rather luck-based. Pros a lot of the time won't do this. Does that make them bad?
On May 23 2014 07:02 zulu_nation8 wrote:
If you watch the replay there's one correct decision in 99% if not 100% of all situations. When having to decide with incomplete information, the better player will make the correct decision more often.
You edited in a a priori after, I'm not sure how that applies.
What people see when they think of "hyperaggression" is a certain player trying to maximum or obtain an advantage. For example, if you are a caitlyn vs. lucian, "aggression" may look like the caitlyn missing cs at lv1 on purpose to try to autoattack the Lucian. The purpose is to establish lane dominance and make the Lucian blow his pot which will let you gain an advantage later on in the lane, which outweighs the gold you lose by missing those CS. A "passive" player will simply farm and try to get lv2 early, or try to have a safe laning phase of w/e. But it's the incorrect play as there's an advantage you're missing by either not having the mechanics or awareness to. In this case there's one right way to play, and that's to establish yourself as the alpha AD, aka "aggresiveness," the other way, by playing like a pussy, means ur bad. Those are not arbitrary qualities, they are extensions of skill.
If you watch the replay there's one correct decision in 99% if not 100% of all situations. When having to decide with incomplete information, the better player will make the correct decision more often.
You edited in a a priori after, I'm not sure how that applies.
What people see when they think of "hyperaggression" is a certain player trying to maximum or obtain an advantage. For example, if you are a caitlyn vs. lucian, "aggression" may look like the caitlyn missing cs at lv1 on purpose to try to autoattack the Lucian. The purpose is to establish lane dominance and make the Lucian blow his pot which will let you gain an advantage later on in the lane, which outweighs the gold you lose by missing those CS. A "passive" player will simply farm and try to get lv2 early, or try to have a safe laning phase of w/e. But it's the incorrect play as there's an advantage you're missing by either not having the mechanics or awareness to. In this case there's one right way to play, and that's to establish yourself as the alpha AD, aka "aggresiveness," the other way, by playing like a pussy, means ur bad. Those are not arbitrary qualities, they are extensions of skill.
And now assume the Lucian fights back agains the Caitlyn level 1. Both are taking creep aggro and it's really a toss-up as to who's going to come up with the kill. What do you classify that as? Because it's the wrong play for both parties because it's really a 50/50 coin flip as to who's going to come out on top with the uncertainty that is creep aggro. Once you reach that point it's no longer skill-based but rather luck-based. Pros a lot of the time won't do this. Does that make them bad?
It's not 50/50 unless it's the same AD playing against his clone. The better player with the better micro, reactions, decision making, etc, will win. If both players believe they can win an all in, which is the only reason they would and should go all in in the first place, then one of them is obviously wrong. I don't understand how any situation in league can be 50/50 let alone a lv2 all in. Pros don't do this in LCS because they're not playing against scrubs in solo queue who will lose the all in most of the time.
Ok, so think about a person. They put an input into the computer. This input has some amount of precision associated with it (precision in terms of how close to the desired input was given). Additionally players are making decisions swiftly, these micro decisions (which way do i flash, how do i manage creep aggro, will I b in tower range after a flash, etc etc) also have errors because some portion of the time that same decision made again would have a negative rather than positive outcome, just because the situation was misjudged.
So we have two types of error which do not have to deal at all, with the macro decision of 'do i go in or not'
We have input error and we have micro decision error.
If we have these two types of error, then the outcome of a macro decision is uncertain to some degree even when we are talking about small things like 'do i go in on this or not'. And this was before we get into game state randomness like "is the jungler there or not?", or "is that bush warded?"
The 50/50 example is just a hypothetical to get you thinking. 90/10 examples happen all the time, 80/20 examples. Do you go in 90/10 to win a kill with no other repercussions other than your summoner? Do you go in 60/40 for a kill/be killed situation?
One of these is not particularly aggressive, one of these is particularly aggressive. It comes down to the value placed in summoner skills, and the level of risk that the player is willing to absorb. These aspects of players are different, some take more risks, some take less risks. Some don't go HAM, some go HAM. Some are passive players, some are aggressive players
Second part - I'll even go as far as to say the 60/40s don't happen that often either. The 60/40 example, I can think of one situation where player trait matters, but I'm not confident, that is if you die, you lose, and if the other player dies he loses.
There should never be a 60/40 situation for a good player, least of all lvl 1. Good players on confident champions should know when they have an advantage that is at least 90% success rate, not counting outside circumstances like a jungler sitting in lane brush.
That is foolish. Those situations almost certainly have to exist. Or are you arguing that good players would not take that 60/40 while Zulu is arguing they should.
