EPT[Patch 4.21] Rek'Sai General Discussion - Page 78
| Forum Index > LoL General |
Starting Page 94 spamming will in GD will be warned, please don't post for the sake of post count. Keep it civil. Please take website feedback to http://www.liquidlegends.net/forum/website-feedback/ | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
Mensol
14536 Posts
top lane is really my lane. | ||
|
JonGalt
Pootie too good!4331 Posts
 NA - gaMESense | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On January 04 2015 11:58 Mensol wrote: I just realized that im terrible with poke champions. I also realized that im godly with champions that escape capability just like Kassadin and Riven. top lane is really my lane. I'm quite opposite, I'm best with champs that can go full retard with initiation. Really love Malphite, and Amumu esque champions. | ||
|
Nos-
Canada12016 Posts
| ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On January 04 2015 07:53 Sufficiency wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/2r8tis/comparison_between_season_4_and_season_5_first/ My finding is that gold lead is actually more important in Patch 4.21 compared to Season 4 (Patch 4.19). I think it's because dragon does not worth gold anymore so gold lead is harder to achieve. So you might have a omitted variable bias if you didn't include who had dragons at 10 minutes. This wouldn't be necessary for the old data since dragon only increases gold. But otherwise because gold correlates with dragons and dragons correlate with winning you have to break it out (ideally as a dummy variable for each/summary stats). That being said you're confusing indicative with impactful. I would suggest that the impact at zero dragons is the same (after all nothing really is different at zero dragons between the patches) but that gold impact may be higher or lower depending on the absolute number of dragons on each side (because dragon multiplies some stats) | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 04 2015 14:50 Goumindong wrote: So you might have a omitted variable bias if you didn't include who had dragons at 10 minutes. This wouldn't be necessary for the old data since dragon only increases gold. But otherwise because gold correlates with dragons and dragons correlate with winning you have to break it out (ideally as a dummy variable for each/summary stats). That being said you're confusing indicative with impactful. I would suggest that the impact at zero dragons is the same (after all nothing really is different at zero dragons between the patches) but that gold impact may be higher or lower depending on the absolute number of dragons on each side (because dragon multiplies some stats) If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote: If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Is it possible to break down gold lead @ 10min + Dragon as well as gold lead @ 20min + X Dragons??? I believe that would be pretty simple. Wouldn't be surprised to see gold lead @10 correlates with Dragon control as well. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote: If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; "the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 04 2015 15:42 Nemireck wrote: Is it possible to break down gold lead @ 10min + Dragon as well as gold lead @ 20min + X Dragons??? I believe that would be pretty simple. Wouldn't be surprised to see gold lead @10 correlates with Dragon control as well. I am almost 100% sure there is correlation there. It's just a matter of effort and rather or not it's even worthwhile. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote: Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; "the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote: I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote: So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
Can things of that nature be withdrawn from the data? | ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
Gold leaders are harder to gain in 4.21 because the dragon doesn't give gold, so gold lead now is a better indicator of who is the better team, and thus better teams get more gold and then win more, rather than gold lead being more important and allowing a team to win more. Right now all you've shown is that gold lead is a strong indicator of the better team (because the better team is the one that wins right?) and not "Consequently, once you do get a gold lead, it is actually a lot more valuable" | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 04 2015 17:37 Zess wrote: Sufficiency, you still haven't given any answer on how you expect to address the alternative hypothesis: Gold leaders are harder to gain in 4.21 because the dragon doesn't give gold, so gold lead now is a better indicator of who is the better team, and thus better teams get more gold and then win more, rather than gold lead being more important and allowing a team to win more. Right now all you've shown is that gold lead is a strong indicator of the better team (because the better team is the one that wins right?) and not "Consequently, once you do get a gold lead, it is actually a lot more valuable" I showed that gold lead is a good predictor of winning the game. With the 4.21 changes, it gold lead has become a better predictor if we keep the level of gold lead to be the same (e.g. 500-1000 lead). You can argue all you want that it's actually better team -> more gold -> win; at the end of the day you cannot directly measure how good a team is. The underlying causal relationship is really not that important. | ||
|
Jek
Denmark2771 Posts
On January 04 2015 17:21 Nemireck wrote: Speaking of advantage after champ select, how long does it take to group team comps by win-rate? I know there's a shitload (millions?) of possible compositions, but how long would it take to crunch the raw data? How about groupings of 3 champions? Can things of that nature be withdrawn from the data? If you group champions crudely by archetypes, for instance: Tank: Mundo, Maokai Poker: Xerath, Ziggs Bruiser: Jax, Irelia Support: Thresh, Janna ADC: Draaaaven, Drrraaaaven Assassin: Zed, Talon etc etc It should be fairly easy to run a ratio test to find the combination of archetypes with the highest win ratio. Granted it doesn't take into account yolo builds like AP GP and the likes, it could give a good indication if there's a trend of superior team compositions. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
| ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On January 04 2015 18:49 Jek wrote: If you group champions crudely by archetypes, for instance: Tank: Mundo, Maokai Poker: Xerath, Ziggs Bruiser: Jax, Irelia Support: Thresh, Janna ADC: Draaaaven, Drrraaaaven Assassin: Zed, Talon etc etc It should be fairly easy to run a ratio test to find the combination of archetypes with the highest win ratio. Granted it doesn't take into account yolo builds like AP GP and the likes, it could give a good indication if there's a trend of superior team compositions. Champion archetypes are not very useful ways of describing champion picks. For example, aside from Mundo and Maokai both being champions who stack health and resistances, they are NOT similar in how they play at all. Maokai is a champion who will be played to fill a hard engage initiation role(twisted advance). Mundo on the other hand is far more a rounded champion who will aim to poke at targets, and then use his soft engage(cleaver/ult), should he be the primary initiator. What I'm trying to get at by contrasting Mundo/Maokai here is that meaningful data to experienced players is not in a champion archetype label, it is FAR more subtle. That being said, archetypes can be great as a starting point for new players who do not have intricate knowledge of the champion itself. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
| ||
| ||
