|
Blowing flash to get a kill has nothing to do with what type of player you are, except good or bad. If you blow flash for an unlikely kill then you're bad, same with if you don't blow flash for a likely kill.
If any good AD arcane shifts to harass then they're confident they will not have to use it any time soon to escape a gank. If you don't give a shit where the jungler is and arcane shifts all day to do extra damage or last hit creeps or something then again, it's called being bad.
Pros make it seem like they don't take as many risks because they're playing against other pros who won't just let you walk over them. Bot lanes aren't decided at lv2 because they are fully aware and have a lot of practice in how not to lose a lane at lv2 because you didn't push hard enough or whatever reason. "Pros dislike taking risks" -> this is a joe miller comment.
When a good bot engages lv1/2 into a creep wave it means they expect to come out ahead, just like in every other situation in league of legends when you harass or trade; you expect to come out ahead either immediately or in the long run. Or else why would you do it? Because you play reginald420aggressiveplaystyle?
|
On May 23 2014 07:17 Legitimacy wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On May 23 2014 07:16 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +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. If it were so cut and dry there would literally be no argument as to who the best players are. I don't care to respond in more detail right now, but this is a silly direction to take this conversation.
there would be no argument as to whether a decision is correct or not if two people are equally knowledgeable and reviewing a replay, yes. We don't always know who the better player is because there are too many micro decisions in league so we go by the big stuff like kda, cs, overall performance, etc.
|
Your argument is circular; "its not risky because he did it and he is a pro so its not risky".
Professionals and Amateurs can have different risk tolerances with regards to play. Some will make plays which are more risky, some will not make those plays. We are talking about risk, we are talking about these plays going south with some non-zero probability whether that is in terms of CS, towers, or kills. Clearly it must be the case that some risk must be involved somewhere, if it were not then lanes wouldn't be determined at level 2 they would be determined at champion select and the game would not have a potentially varying outcome.
The people who take more risks, we call "more aggressive".
|
On May 23 2014 07:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Blowing flash to get a kill has nothing to do with what type of player you are, except good or bad. If you blow flash for an unlikely kill then you're bad, same with if you don't blow flash for a likely kill.
If any good AD arcane shifts to harass then they're confident they will not have to use it any time soon to escape a gank. If you don't give a shit where the jungler is and arcane shifts all day to do extra damage or last hit creeps or something then again, it's called being bad.
Pros make it seem like they don't take as many risks because they're playing against other pros who won't just let you walk over them. Bot lanes aren't decided at lv2 because they are fully aware and have a lot of practice in how not to lose a lane at lv2 because you didn't push hard enough or whatever reason. "Pros dislike taking risks" -> this is a joe miller.
When a good bot engages lv1/2 into a creep wave it means they expect to come out ahead, just like in every other situation in league of legends when you harass or trade; you expect to come out ahead either immediately or in the long run. Or else why would you? Because you play reginald420aggressiveplaystyle?
Look zulu, you're living in a world where you think there's only one way to play a game. I'm telling you there are multiple ways to play the game and that in itself does not make a player bad or good. Every play that's made is made with incomplete information. You have a general sense of how much damage they do, you have a general sense of when their cooldowns are up, you have a general sense of where people are on the map. But look at it this way, out of nowhere they could be running cheesy runes, they could have a jungler in their pocket, they could have many things. Professional players ABSOLUTELY make their decisions based off as much information they have. Why do you think they track summoners, why do you think they want to get as much warding down as possible.
Why do you think so many pro players are content with farming it out unless they have full vision? Why don't you think they play more aggressively like they do in solo queue where they chase for kills and are sometimes very successful? It's because of the risk factor and the unknown. It's reality, it's not an optimal world where everyone is a robot and makes the correct choices. People are scared, people don't want to lose lane to a random lane gank, people don't want to play that way and get punished for it.
Pros could easily go all in level 1 and 2 and whoever wins the engagement will win lane. And then the jungler will probably come down and get a double kill because everyone blew summoners. That's not how pros think and analyze. That's why there really is the aspect of "Pros dislike taking risks". Because it's true. I don't see how in any world you can deny this fact. You call it a Joe Miller, but it's reality. Players can easily play the same way they do in solo queue, but when it comes down to LCS and when it actually matters, they buckle down and try to play as advantageously as they can. Engage with numbers, engage on key skillshots, engage up levels, etc.
|
On May 23 2014 07:26 Goumindong wrote:
Your argument is circular; "its not risky because he did it and he is a pro so its not risky".
Professionals and Amateurs can have different risk tolerances with regards to play. Some will make plays which are more risky, some will not make those plays. We are talking about risk, we are talking about these plays going south with some non-zero probability whether that is in terms of CS, towers, or kills. Clearly it must be the case that some risk must be involved somewhere, if it were not then lanes wouldn't be determined at level 2 they would be determined at champion select and the game would not have a potentially varying outcome.
The people who take more risks, we call "more aggressive".
There is probability in every decision obviously because it's a game of incomplete information. The ones who look for an edge in favorable situations are better players. The ones who don't take those favorable risks are not as good. In poker would you fold your 51/49 hand because you wanna minimize variance? You obviously look for an edge everywhere but you may judge incorrectly or the edge isn't there. You guys are making it seem like there always a bunch of decisions which lead to different outcomes but are all equally good.
|
If there is one thing Bly is right about Riot approved casters misuse the word aggressive in a way that makes it generic and meaningless.
|
On May 23 2014 07:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:17 Legitimacy wrote: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. 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
|
On May 23 2014 07:30 Legitimacy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Blowing flash to get a kill has nothing to do with what type of player you are, except good or bad. If you blow flash for an unlikely kill then you're bad, same with if you don't blow flash for a likely kill.
If any good AD arcane shifts to harass then they're confident they will not have to use it any time soon to escape a gank. If you don't give a shit where the jungler is and arcane shifts all day to do extra damage or last hit creeps or something then again, it's called being bad.
Pros make it seem like they don't take as many risks because they're playing against other pros who won't just let you walk over them. Bot lanes aren't decided at lv2 because they are fully aware and have a lot of practice in how not to lose a lane at lv2 because you didn't push hard enough or whatever reason. "Pros dislike taking risks" -> this is a joe miller.
When a good bot engages lv1/2 into a creep wave it means they expect to come out ahead, just like in every other situation in league of legends when you harass or trade; you expect to come out ahead either immediately or in the long run. Or else why would you? Because you play reginald420aggressiveplaystyle? Look zulu, you're living in a world where you think there's only one way to play a game. I'm telling you there are multiple ways to play the game and that in itself does not make a player bad or good. Every play that's made is made with incomplete information. You have a general sense of how much damage they do, you have a general sense of when their cooldowns are up, you have a general sense of where people are on the map. But look at it this way, out of nowhere they could be running cheesy runes, they could have a jungler in their pocket, they could have many things. Professional players ABSOLUTELY make their decisions based off as much information they have. Why do you think they track summoners, why do you think they want to get as much warding down as possible. Why do you think so many pro players are content with farming it out unless they have full vision? Why don't you think they play more aggressively like they do in solo queue where they chase for kills and are sometimes very successful? It's because of the risk factor and the unknown. It's reality, it's not an optimal world where everyone is a robot and makes the correct choices. People are scared, people don't want to lose lane to a random lane gank, people don't want to play that way and get punished for it. Pros could easily go all in level 1 and 2 and whoever wins the engagement will win lane. And then the jungler will probably come down and get a double kill because everyone blew summoners. That's not how pros think and analyze. That's why there really is the aspect of "Pros dislike taking risks". Because it's true. I don't see how in any world you can deny this fact. You call it a Joe Miller, but it's reality. Players can easily play the same way they do in solo queue, but when it comes down to LCS and when it actually matters, they buckle down and try to play as advantageously as they can. Engage with numbers, engage on key skillshots, engage up levels, etc.
Yes... they make "safer" plays because their riskier ones wouldn't work, because organized LoL is... more organized and there are less mistakes to exploit. It has nothing to do with not wanting to take risks for the sake of it or having a passive or aggressive playstyle. This idea is so simple and obvious I don't know how you can arrive at the opposite conclusion.
Not considering stuff like where the jungler is, cheesy runes, etc is called again, being bad. You didn't consider all the factors before going all-in. You took a dumb risk whereas a better player wouldn'tve. The opposite applies in that if you didn't go all-in when you could've because you have no idea where the jungler is but a better player would.
|
On May 23 2014 07:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:17 Legitimacy wrote: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. 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.
You know the scrubs they play against in solo queue are mostly the same scrubs they play against in solo queue and in scrims right? It's not like you can just calculate and say "Hey I'm going to win this because X, Y, and Z". There are so many external factors that you cannot account for, because the game is so variable. Hey, what if you get crit? Think about it from a perspective in which you don't just tunnel in on "Right vs Wrong" because there's really no such thing because you don't have complete information.
|
On May 23 2014 07:36 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:30 Legitimacy wrote:On May 23 2014 07:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Blowing flash to get a kill has nothing to do with what type of player you are, except good or bad. If you blow flash for an unlikely kill then you're bad, same with if you don't blow flash for a likely kill.
If any good AD arcane shifts to harass then they're confident they will not have to use it any time soon to escape a gank. If you don't give a shit where the jungler is and arcane shifts all day to do extra damage or last hit creeps or something then again, it's called being bad.
Pros make it seem like they don't take as many risks because they're playing against other pros who won't just let you walk over them. Bot lanes aren't decided at lv2 because they are fully aware and have a lot of practice in how not to lose a lane at lv2 because you didn't push hard enough or whatever reason. "Pros dislike taking risks" -> this is a joe miller.
When a good bot engages lv1/2 into a creep wave it means they expect to come out ahead, just like in every other situation in league of legends when you harass or trade; you expect to come out ahead either immediately or in the long run. Or else why would you? Because you play reginald420aggressiveplaystyle? Look zulu, you're living in a world where you think there's only one way to play a game. I'm telling you there are multiple ways to play the game and that in itself does not make a player bad or good. Every play that's made is made with incomplete information. You have a general sense of how much damage they do, you have a general sense of when their cooldowns are up, you have a general sense of where people are on the map. But look at it this way, out of nowhere they could be running cheesy runes, they could have a jungler in their pocket, they could have many things. Professional players ABSOLUTELY make their decisions based off as much information they have. Why do you think they track summoners, why do you think they want to get as much warding down as possible. Why do you think so many pro players are content with farming it out unless they have full vision? Why don't you think they play more aggressively like they do in solo queue where they chase for kills and are sometimes very successful? It's because of the risk factor and the unknown. It's reality, it's not an optimal world where everyone is a robot and makes the correct choices. People are scared, people don't want to lose lane to a random lane gank, people don't want to play that way and get punished for it. Pros could easily go all in level 1 and 2 and whoever wins the engagement will win lane. And then the jungler will probably come down and get a double kill because everyone blew summoners. That's not how pros think and analyze. That's why there really is the aspect of "Pros dislike taking risks". Because it's true. I don't see how in any world you can deny this fact. You call it a Joe Miller, but it's reality. Players can easily play the same way they do in solo queue, but when it comes down to LCS and when it actually matters, they buckle down and try to play as advantageously as they can. Engage with numbers, engage on key skillshots, engage up levels, etc. Yes... they make "safer" plays because their riskier ones wouldn't work, because organized LoL is... more organized and there are less mistakes to exploit. It has nothing to do with not wanting to take risks for the sake of it or having a passive or aggressive playstyle. This idea is so simple and obvious I don't know how you can arrive at the opposite conclusion. Not considering stuff like where the jungler is, cheesy runes, etc is called again, being bad. You didn't consider all the factors before going all-in. You took a dumb risk whereas a better player wouldn'tve. The opposite applies in that if you didn't go all-in when you could've because you have no idea where the jungler is but a better player would.
By your logic though, one positional error and one miscalculation leads to Player X > Player Y. By your logic, in any situation there is an optimal play and many suboptimal plays. Why can't they go all in and exploit even something as little as one caster minion difference in creep aggro? It's because people are human zulu and they cannot calculate these things. They don't want to take these risks because they're unable to make these assessments to the degree that makes them feel comfortable.
That's what makes people aggressive vs passive. Some have a higher threshold of risk tolerance, others have a relatively lower one. In professional play, it is very evident that there are great players who are very passive (Froggen) and there are great players who are very aggressive (Faker). It's not as though being either is necessarily bad, but rather an element to how they play and approach the game.
|
On May 23 2014 07:36 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:30 Legitimacy wrote:On May 23 2014 07:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Blowing flash to get a kill has nothing to do with what type of player you are, except good or bad. If you blow flash for an unlikely kill then you're bad, same with if you don't blow flash for a likely kill.
If any good AD arcane shifts to harass then they're confident they will not have to use it any time soon to escape a gank. If you don't give a shit where the jungler is and arcane shifts all day to do extra damage or last hit creeps or something then again, it's called being bad.
Pros make it seem like they don't take as many risks because they're playing against other pros who won't just let you walk over them. Bot lanes aren't decided at lv2 because they are fully aware and have a lot of practice in how not to lose a lane at lv2 because you didn't push hard enough or whatever reason. "Pros dislike taking risks" -> this is a joe miller.
When a good bot engages lv1/2 into a creep wave it means they expect to come out ahead, just like in every other situation in league of legends when you harass or trade; you expect to come out ahead either immediately or in the long run. Or else why would you? Because you play reginald420aggressiveplaystyle? Look zulu, you're living in a world where you think there's only one way to play a game. I'm telling you there are multiple ways to play the game and that in itself does not make a player bad or good. Every play that's made is made with incomplete information. You have a general sense of how much damage they do, you have a general sense of when their cooldowns are up, you have a general sense of where people are on the map. But look at it this way, out of nowhere they could be running cheesy runes, they could have a jungler in their pocket, they could have many things. Professional players ABSOLUTELY make their decisions based off as much information they have. Why do you think they track summoners, why do you think they want to get as much warding down as possible. Why do you think so many pro players are content with farming it out unless they have full vision? Why don't you think they play more aggressively like they do in solo queue where they chase for kills and are sometimes very successful? It's because of the risk factor and the unknown. It's reality, it's not an optimal world where everyone is a robot and makes the correct choices. People are scared, people don't want to lose lane to a random lane gank, people don't want to play that way and get punished for it. Pros could easily go all in level 1 and 2 and whoever wins the engagement will win lane. And then the jungler will probably come down and get a double kill because everyone blew summoners. That's not how pros think and analyze. That's why there really is the aspect of "Pros dislike taking risks". Because it's true. I don't see how in any world you can deny this fact. You call it a Joe Miller, but it's reality. Players can easily play the same way they do in solo queue, but when it comes down to LCS and when it actually matters, they buckle down and try to play as advantageously as they can. Engage with numbers, engage on key skillshots, engage up levels, etc. Yes... they make "safer" plays because their riskier ones wouldn't work, because organized LoL is... more organized and there are less mistakes to exploit. It has nothing to do with not wanting to take risks for the sake of it or having a passive or aggressive playstyle. This idea is so simple and obvious I don't know how you can arrive at the opposite conclusion. Not considering stuff like where the jungler is, cheesy runes, etc is called again, being bad. You didn't consider all the factors before going all-in. You took a dumb risk whereas a better player wouldn'tve. The opposite applies in that if you didn't go all-in when you could've because you have no idea where the jungler is but a better player would.
You do realize we are talking about one professional player in relation to other professional players all of them playing in professional matches right? And that we are comparing the risk taking of one professional player to other professional players and suggesting that one of them takes more risks right?
|
On May 23 2014 07:34 Slusher wrote:
If there is one thing Bly is right about Riot approved casters misuse the word aggressive in a way that makes it generic and meaningless.
If Bly is zulu, then this is the only thing he's right about. Everything else he's arguing about is absurd because he thinks there's only one concrete way to play the game. That in itself is an absurd conclusion to be making.
|
Even if there is only one way to play the game if we don't have any way to determine which way that is then we are operating in a situation indistinguishable from there being multiple best ways.
|
On May 23 2014 07:35 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:On May 23 2014 07:17 Legitimacy wrote: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. 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
First part - yes, errors. There is some randomness in league in terms of bugs and crit but those are too rare compared to the overall amount of decisions to matter. If the same action is repeated the outcome will be similar. Assuming you flash the same distance, move the same way, etc. Creep damage isn't random.
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. A reginald or fabbyyy might take the 60/40 every time, and there's nothing wrong with that. But a more cerebral type might see that his team may eventually face a 80/20 situation to close out the game, hence he doesn't take that risk and wait for a better spot. But either way, if you only go for the 80/20s and never the 60/40s then you'll get shit on in the long run because you're missing out on advantages you could've capitalized and snowballed for your team. So then again it's good vs. bad.
|
On May 23 2014 07:37 Legitimacy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:On May 23 2014 07:17 Legitimacy wrote: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. 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. You know the scrubs they play against in solo queue are mostly the same scrubs they play against in solo queue and in scrims right? It's not like you can just calculate and say "Hey I'm going to win this because X, Y, and Z". There are so many external factors that you cannot account for, because the game is so variable. Hey, what if you get crit? Think about it from a perspective in which you don't just tunnel in on "Right vs Wrong" because there's really no such thing because you don't have complete information.
are you trying to argue just because solo queue has pro players that the games are comparable in organization to LCS? In particular bot lane.
No one calculates shit, it's all instincts and experience. Crits are a very small part. But yes they are random. In poker there is a right or wrong, or enough instances of right or wrong so that the indiscernible examples are not worth considering, why isn't it the same in league?
|
On May 23 2014 07:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:26 Goumindong wrote:
Your argument is circular; "its not risky because he did it and he is a pro so its not risky".
Professionals and Amateurs can have different risk tolerances with regards to play. Some will make plays which are more risky, some will not make those plays. We are talking about risk, we are talking about these plays going south with some non-zero probability whether that is in terms of CS, towers, or kills. Clearly it must be the case that some risk must be involved somewhere, if it were not then lanes wouldn't be determined at level 2 they would be determined at champion select and the game would not have a potentially varying outcome.
The people who take more risks, we call "more aggressive". There is probability in every decision obviously because it's a game of incomplete information. The ones who look for an edge in favorable situations are better players. The ones who don't take those favorable risks are not as good. In poker would you fold your 51/49 hand because you wanna minimize variance? You obviously look for an edge everywhere but you may judge incorrectly or the edge isn't there. You guys are making it seem like there always a bunch of decisions which lead to different outcomes but are all equally good.
Do you feel that at the highest level of play, decision making can be reduced to the "online poker" model where the only parameters are easily estimated, or more like live poker where there are estimations based on your estimation of the other actor's estimations?
Or do you feel that live poker itself can be reduced to the online poker model, since the online poker model when playing extended hands against the same table already factors in "playstyle."
I think in general you are correct that there is a correct play to squeeze out the edge if you can asses it and it is cut and dry, but if decision making is based on a stochastic model where the parameters are also probabilistic, then you very much still have a sliding scale of risk tolerance that determines play. Your counterargument seems to be that the better player will have the more accurate estimation and thus there was a correct and incorrect play independent of variance and thus risk tolerance, but in models like this there is inherent error where sometimes the error of the estimation is greater than the estimation itself.
|
On May 23 2014 07:43 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:36 zulu_nation8 wrote:On May 23 2014 07:30 Legitimacy wrote:On May 23 2014 07:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Blowing flash to get a kill has nothing to do with what type of player you are, except good or bad. If you blow flash for an unlikely kill then you're bad, same with if you don't blow flash for a likely kill.
If any good AD arcane shifts to harass then they're confident they will not have to use it any time soon to escape a gank. If you don't give a shit where the jungler is and arcane shifts all day to do extra damage or last hit creeps or something then again, it's called being bad.
Pros make it seem like they don't take as many risks because they're playing against other pros who won't just let you walk over them. Bot lanes aren't decided at lv2 because they are fully aware and have a lot of practice in how not to lose a lane at lv2 because you didn't push hard enough or whatever reason. "Pros dislike taking risks" -> this is a joe miller.
When a good bot engages lv1/2 into a creep wave it means they expect to come out ahead, just like in every other situation in league of legends when you harass or trade; you expect to come out ahead either immediately or in the long run. Or else why would you? Because you play reginald420aggressiveplaystyle? Look zulu, you're living in a world where you think there's only one way to play a game. I'm telling you there are multiple ways to play the game and that in itself does not make a player bad or good. Every play that's made is made with incomplete information. You have a general sense of how much damage they do, you have a general sense of when their cooldowns are up, you have a general sense of where people are on the map. But look at it this way, out of nowhere they could be running cheesy runes, they could have a jungler in their pocket, they could have many things. Professional players ABSOLUTELY make their decisions based off as much information they have. Why do you think they track summoners, why do you think they want to get as much warding down as possible. Why do you think so many pro players are content with farming it out unless they have full vision? Why don't you think they play more aggressively like they do in solo queue where they chase for kills and are sometimes very successful? It's because of the risk factor and the unknown. It's reality, it's not an optimal world where everyone is a robot and makes the correct choices. People are scared, people don't want to lose lane to a random lane gank, people don't want to play that way and get punished for it. Pros could easily go all in level 1 and 2 and whoever wins the engagement will win lane. And then the jungler will probably come down and get a double kill because everyone blew summoners. That's not how pros think and analyze. That's why there really is the aspect of "Pros dislike taking risks". Because it's true. I don't see how in any world you can deny this fact. You call it a Joe Miller, but it's reality. Players can easily play the same way they do in solo queue, but when it comes down to LCS and when it actually matters, they buckle down and try to play as advantageously as they can. Engage with numbers, engage on key skillshots, engage up levels, etc. Yes... they make "safer" plays because their riskier ones wouldn't work, because organized LoL is... more organized and there are less mistakes to exploit. It has nothing to do with not wanting to take risks for the sake of it or having a passive or aggressive playstyle. This idea is so simple and obvious I don't know how you can arrive at the opposite conclusion. Not considering stuff like where the jungler is, cheesy runes, etc is called again, being bad. You didn't consider all the factors before going all-in. You took a dumb risk whereas a better player wouldn'tve. The opposite applies in that if you didn't go all-in when you could've because you have no idea where the jungler is but a better player would. You do realize we are talking about one professional player in relation to other professional players all of them playing in professional matches right? And that we are comparing the risk taking of one professional player to other professional players and suggesting that one of them takes more risks right?
I'm not like great at probability but, since league is a game of incomplete information, and every decision has a probability. How can the ones who only take the 80/20s and not the 60/40s be as effective as the ones who take every favorable decision? If we're talking about how not everyone can tell whether a decision is 60/40 or 80/20 then again, that's called skill, a better player would be able to tell, and hence taking or not taking that risk does not depend on an arbitrary playstyle.
|
On May 23 2014 07:54 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 07:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:On May 23 2014 07:26 Goumindong wrote:
Your argument is circular; "its not risky because he did it and he is a pro so its not risky".
Professionals and Amateurs can have different risk tolerances with regards to play. Some will make plays which are more risky, some will not make those plays. We are talking about risk, we are talking about these plays going south with some non-zero probability whether that is in terms of CS, towers, or kills. Clearly it must be the case that some risk must be involved somewhere, if it were not then lanes wouldn't be determined at level 2 they would be determined at champion select and the game would not have a potentially varying outcome.
The people who take more risks, we call "more aggressive". There is probability in every decision obviously because it's a game of incomplete information. The ones who look for an edge in favorable situations are better players. The ones who don't take those favorable risks are not as good. In poker would you fold your 51/49 hand because you wanna minimize variance? You obviously look for an edge everywhere but you may judge incorrectly or the edge isn't there. You guys are making it seem like there always a bunch of decisions which lead to different outcomes but are all equally good. Do you feel that at the highest level of play, decision making can be reduced to the "online poker" model where the only parameters are easily estimated, or more like live poker where there are estimations based on your estimation of the other actor's estimations? Or do you feel that live poker itself can be reduced to the online poker model, since the online poker model when playing extended hands against the same table already factors in "playstyle." I think in general you are correct that there is a correct play to squeeze out the edge if you can asses it and it is cut and dry, but if decision making is based on a stochastic model where the parameters are also probabilistic, then you very much still have a sliding scale of risk tolerance that determines play. Your counterargument seems to be that the better player will have the more accurate estimation and thus there was a correct and incorrect play independent of variance and thus risk tolerance, but in models like this there is inherent error where sometimes the error of the estimation is greater than the estimation itself.
The second
The second paragraph, please explain more, I'm not good at stats, what's an example of that?
|
It is not about if they are able to tell the risk, it is about if they want to take the risk. And then how good of a player they are would just affect how good they are at getting around those worse odds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
