EPTThey do gromp at level 1, gives the last hit to Thresh. Thresh at half health after burning a pot and tanking gromp, gets some health back for getting gromp. Enters lane almost level 2, last hits 2 minions creeps to get him and DL back to full health, instantly all ins the enemy laners with 1 level advantage, completely shit stomps enemy Cait and Janna, forces Cait to burn heal+flash instantly, shoves lane in, denies early cs and recks her lane.
[Patch 4.21] Rek'Sai General Discussion - Page 81
| 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/ | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
They do gromp at level 1, gives the last hit to Thresh. Thresh at half health after burning a pot and tanking gromp, gets some health back for getting gromp. Enters lane almost level 2, last hits 2 minions creeps to get him and DL back to full health, instantly all ins the enemy laners with 1 level advantage, completely shit stomps enemy Cait and Janna, forces Cait to burn heal+flash instantly, shoves lane in, denies early cs and recks her lane. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35165 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On January 05 2015 07:21 Gahlo wrote: This entire conversation is cancer. + Show Spoiler + you mean this conversation is smoking? | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
| ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
If we solve y=xB +e for B we multiply by x' and invert and get B=(x'x)^-1 x'y Ok pretty simple. But if we have y= xB+zG+e instead (and G isn't zero by z'y is not zero). Then we do the operation and get B= (x'x)^-1 x'y + (x'x)^-1 x'zG. The last term of which is bias. You may say "but I am not doing a regression" and he answer is that yes, you are, you just have a specific form of the x matrix which lets you separate everything. But it doesn't nullify the bias problem. Which will exist if dragons correlate with gold and if dragons correlate with winning. Now, you can definitely check to see if dragons correlate with gold and if it doesn't you're golden. But we know that they correlate with winning (first dragon has what kind of win %?) *technically we are working on expectations but I don't want to bother writing that out over and over again. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On January 05 2015 07:17 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: It would be really interesting if the number of dragons taken actually didn't have a significant effect on the game when compared to gold lead at given points--like, if when things were even, dragons mattered, but if there was an X amount of gold lead or higher, dragons had no effect on outcome of game. It definitely would. It's one reason I suggested the "broad" summary statistic method which broke gold lead into "gold lead with x dragons and enemy y dragons and some such". It would make the table bigger, but much more interesting and more valuable from a prediction standpoint. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On January 05 2015 07:31 Goumindong wrote: It definitely would. It's one reason I suggested the "broad" summary statistic method which broke gold lead into "gold lead with x dragons and enemy y dragons and some such". It would make the table bigger, but much more interesting and more valuable from a prediction standpoint. It wouldn't be hard to do either, considering Dragons are fairly minimal whole categories. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6221 Posts
On January 05 2015 07:20 wei2coolman wrote: Holy shit, this cheese is unreal. DL is Trist, his support is Thresh (starts bracers + pots). They spawn on red side. They do gromp at level 1, gives the last hit to Thresh. Thresh at half health after burning a pot and tanking gromp, gets some health back for getting gromp. Enters lane almost level 2, last hits 2 minions creeps to get him and DL back to full health, instantly all ins the enemy laners with 1 level advantage, completely shit stomps enemy Cait and Janna, forces Cait to burn heal+flash instantly, shoves lane in, denies early cs and recks her lane. This has been happening ever since they changed the jungle. Red side has a bit of an advantage since the gromp has less health overall than double golems and you generally miss one less creep than blue side for taking the camp. It's Janna/Cait's fault for not respecting the fact that they took the gromp, it's rather obvious that they took it when one guy's chugging a potion. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 05 2015 06:04 Sufficiency wrote: I don't think it is causal, nor did I mention the word "cause", or "causal" anywhere. I certainly did not think "causal" when I wrote it since it's observational data, nor did I try to phrase it in a certain way that may make a reader think that it's "causal". The problem is that in two instances, you've used your findings as a counterargument to what people are theorizing to be a causal relationship. Both the discussion at hand when you posted your results, as well as your TL;DR on Reddit make it appear as you are making a causal connection based on context. This is more semantics than anything else, but you did misrepresent your position with the way you presented your results on TL and Reddit. Essentially, you are claiming that your statement is not meant to be an "impact" statement, but when you frame your findings as a response to an "impact" statement, it's hard to not interpret yours as the opposing "impact" statement without you explicitly saying so. | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
On January 05 2015 08:47 TheYango wrote: The problem is that in two instances, you've used your findings as a counterargument to what people are theorizing to be a causal relationship. Both the discussion at hand when you posted your results, as well as your TL;DR on Reddit make it appear as you are making a causal connection based on context. This is more semantics than anything else, but you did misrepresent your position with the way you presented your results on TL and Reddit. Essentially, you are claiming that your statement is not meant to be an "impact" statement, but when you frame your findings as a response to an "impact" statement, it's hard to not interpret yours as the opposing "impact" statement without you explicitly saying so. Its the way he phrased it, "more important to" implies causation, just being a counterpoint does not imply causation, imo. You dont have to prove something else causes something to prove that the thing someone says causes it isn't true. In fact, even if one thing did cause another, it doesn't rule out that the second thing doesn't cause it. Shoulda said something to the effect of "Gold lead is shown as a better predictor to success than it was before" in lieu of what he said. The semantics are real. o.o | ||
|
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On January 05 2015 07:38 Lmui wrote: This has been happening ever since they changed the jungle. Red side has a bit of an advantage since the gromp has less health overall than double golems and you generally miss one less creep than blue side for taking the camp. It's Janna/Cait's fault for not respecting the fact that they took the gromp, it's rather obvious that they took it when one guy's chugging a potion. It's rather obvious they took it when they have 1 cs when they come to lane lol | ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
Previously, teams winning in Dragons and losing in gold lead were just losing because Dragons were only gold (and experience, but rarely do you find teams ahead in gold yet behind in experience). Now, teams winning in gold could be behind in Dragons. To evaluate the impact of gold in the next patch, find teams ahead in gold by (X+1.5k) but behind in Dragons and see which one is worth more, the 4.19 Dragon = 1.5k Gold or the 4.20 Dragon = Dragon. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
| ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
| ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5020 Posts
Someone like Riven: flat ad mixed with arpen or flad ad + armor/mr + health or arpen + armor/mr + health? On adc's with big range, so like only Caitlyn, maybe Varus, wouldn't it be more interesting to have a bit more attack speed than standard runing allows? Or is the most optimal just preference/matchup dependent from a certain level? | ||
|
Mensol
14536 Posts
So Riot bought OGN LoL and we get free HD stream? sweeeet. | ||
|
Sponkz
Denmark4564 Posts
On January 05 2015 07:27 Goumindong wrote: Ok suppose we have three variables y,x and z. And we want to run a model to figure out y=xB+ e. Let y and e be a nx1 vector and x and z be nxk and B be kx1 vector. E is our error term. We assume x'e = 0 x'z and z'y =\= 0. If we solve y=xB +e for B we multiply by x' and invert and get B=(x'x)^-1 x'y Ok pretty simple. But if we have y= xB+zG+e instead (and G isn't zero by z'y is not zero). Then we do the operation and get B= (x'x)^-1 x'y + (x'x)^-1 x'zG. The last term of which is bias. You may say "but I am not doing a regression" and he answer is that yes, you are, you just have a specific form of the x matrix which lets you separate everything. But it doesn't nullify the bias problem. Which will exist if dragons correlate with gold and if dragons correlate with winning. Now, you can definitely check to see if dragons correlate with gold and if it doesn't you're golden. But we know that they correlate with winning (first dragon has what kind of win %?) *technically we are working on expectations but I don't want to bother writing that out over and over again. I know i only got a D in math, but holy shit that post is pure garbage. You're throwing equations here and there, but you aren't making ANY sense. | ||
| ||
