|
gg ez discussion will not be continued in GD following this post |
The system fires a reform card through email, sharing the chat log of the offending player (we scrub other players’ names and chat logs) and the punishment for the behavior.
Yes, because people totally check the email that they're solely using for their LoL account. God damn it.
|
On May 21 2015 18:48 Fildun wrote:
Kdog you wot mate. If the midlaner is likely to make a better decision than you you let him take the decision. Ofcourse this depends on the game, but hoarding all the decisions only works when you're smurfing.
Also I don't see how Prog even said half the things you're trying to reply to.
Aren't we talking about an average soloq game? Unless someone is obv smurfing or something, you have no way of knowing if you actually have faker mid. You would have to decide whether you think an "average" mid is better or worse at making decisions then you. If you're aware that you suck at decision making, then take that into account and always defer.
But you can't make the call based off of how "good" you think your mid is at making decisions, if you don't know your mid. Then you're just being erratic in decision making~
I'm just stating my opinion, because if i only reply to the bits he says, without explaining my reasoning, then we get 10 pages of nitpicking each others ideas because neither of us explained why we think like we do.
|
Well, you have the actions in the game so far to go by, plus I was more thinking about ranked 5s :p
Also, trying to get as many decisions about things you think you know the most out of all the people in your team about is the right call, but trying to get as many decisions as possible period doesn't work imo.
|
On May 21 2015 18:55 Fildun wrote:
Well, you have the actions in the game so far to go by, plus I was more thinking about ranked 5s :p
Also, trying to get as many decisions about things you think you know the most out of all the people in your team about is the right call, but trying to get as many decisions as possible period doesn't work imo.
If you have a ranked 5's situation where the mid laner and the jungler can't mutually agree who should have blue and end up fighting over it, I think you have bigger problems :p
The main thing I see as important in 5's is just that the jungler/mid have co-ordinated as to whether the mid will get blue before it actually spawns, because that's often the difference between your mid being able to itemise for not getting blue vs getting blue on their first back,.
And yeah, you shouldn't force your decisions on the team if it's suboptimal, but here you have a case where you have to actively give the decision, and therefore influence over the game flow to someone else by actively going against what you think is right. It's not like you're forcing the team to dragon when they don't want to or anything.
|
The point I was trying to make about 5s was that ceding decisions should go a lot more fluent, and also maybe more often. I wasn't talking about disagreements there.
Also, about the second part, say I'm playing Sivir and Scip is ganking bot (lol). It's my decision to use my ult or not. If I think it's a bad idea to ult and Scip tells me to ult, I will use my ult, even though I'm giving up my decision and it's actively going against my opinion.
|
Scip ganking bot is a pretty huge hyperbole.
|
On May 21 2015 19:05 Fildun wrote:
The point I was trying to make about 5s was that ceding decisions should go a lot more fluent, and also maybe more often. I wasn't talking about disagreements there.
Also, about the second part, say I'm playing Sivir and Scip is ganking bot (lol). It's my decision to use my ult or not. If I think it's a bad idea to ult and Scip tells me to ult, I will use my ult, even though I'm giving up my decision and it's actively going against my opinion.
Like I said earlier, you should take peoples opinions into account when deciding what you think the optimal course of action is. If I know someone is better then me, their opinion gets more weight. If I ask for blue, and my jungler gives a reason why he needs it I don't immediately discard that because i'm superior, I think of the merits of his reasoning, think of how good his calls have been, etc etc, compare that to the reasons I think I should get blue, then based off that combined information I make a final decision as to what I think is ideal. What I disagree with is if my mid laner says he wants blue, I take all that information about him, his reasoning etc, and still come to the conclusion that me getting it is optimal, I won't make what I see as a suboptimal play by giving it to him.
Also using 5's as an example is a bit disingenuous, because there are a LOT of extra factors there.
If a team mate has comitted to something, even if you think it's a bad call, it's often good to make the best of a bad situation by following along. (Fx if someone makes a bad baron call, or engage call you don't abandon the team, you make the best of a bad situation by trying to help,) This isn't the case with your mid wanting blue buff, it's not like he's flashed into the enemy team and you can either help him or let him die. Worst case scenario he left creeps at tower and loses a few cs.
In 5's you generally have a shotcaller, and you follow the shotcallers shots because following bad calls is better then not having any calls at all. Scip is generally our shotcaller, so if he calls to engage and there isn't some super obvious reason not to, we engage. Regardless of our individual analysis.
We trust scip's calls for the most part, as an individual
etc etc
|
I agree with the whole blue buff thing, I just think that ceding decisions isn't necessarily a bad thing. The rest I completely agree with.
|
On May 21 2015 18:32 Fildun wrote:
If the mid and jungler are epistemic peers, shouldn't they always come to the same conclusion, because they both have the same information available?
I think they should, but that is surprisingly controversial (in the epistemology of disagreement this is labeled rational or faultless disagreement). Examples are often something like aesthetic judgements, in which it is argued that we can disagree without anyone being wrong.
However, I think more importantly the problem arises as soon as the jungler takes the mid to be an epistemic peer, and does not require actual peers. (Which is why i emphasized that the jungler thinks the midlaner is an epistemic peer). In the jungler's point of view there is no obvious way in which the midlaner is in a worse position.
This opens up the solution of a non-obvious way in which the jungler is better positioned. For instance, something similar to the argument that he has better access to the state of the map because he is less occupied with lane mechanics, which was brought up before. The aim of this strategy is to break the apparent epistemic symmetry between jungler and midlaner.
On May 21 2015 18:38 killerdog wrote:
[...]
I'm not saying the mid lane asking for blue shouldn't factor into your equation when determining what the best course of action is, of course if they ask for it, that adds evidence in favour of sharing it, but if, after taking that into account, I still feel that I should take it, then I should.
[...]
The question is: How should I take the midlaners opinion into account? It's not important what happens afterwards, but rather how I should rationally take into account a disagreeing opinion from someone who appeas to be equally well justified (not smarter, but neither less smart!).
Very often it is clear that someone is superior or inferior and then the question is easily answered. But in those rare cases in which we seem to be equal, it is unclear what one should do.
+ Show Spoiler +Also I'm not really playing devil's advocate. I am just generally interested in the epistemology of disagreement and this blue buff discussion captures some really difficult questions which I have no answers to. And there are also both camps in the philosophical debate: The one who claims that one should stick to one's own judgement and the other that thinks one needs to revise when faced with an apparent peer's disagreement.
|
I disagree with the statement that there actually is a case where jungler and mid are truly equal. There is always one that is slightly superior.
Could you also maybe explain why you make the assumption of epistemic peers? To me that sounds like a purely hypothetical argument with no practical value. Still interesting though.
|
I have it easy when I'm Mid. I know I suck so I always give it to jungler unless he insists.
|
On May 21 2015 18:32 Fildun wrote:
If the mid and jungler are epistemic peers, shouldn't they always come to the same conclusion, because they both have the same information available?
No. Unless you want to get very very specific on what a peer is. Because they can have different decisionmaking processes and values. For instance jungler might think "lol mids gonna feed anyway so I better take this game in my own hands yolo" based on the same information mid might think "God I am 2 cs behind I need blue or I can't win this lane against the enemy hard farming". Even though the jungler should be in a better position to make the decision, whether or not they're making the right one we can evaluate in hindsight.
Similarly "lol you can predict the future" and "that is what you're trying to do with decisionmaking" does not make random and/or unpredictable events suddenly knowable.
There is a value for the probability you will win in a given situation when you give blue to the mid and a value for the probability that you will win in a given situation when you give blue to the jungler. If you know these values or have an estimation of them then you choose which one is higher and give blue to that person every mothergoosing time.
You do not "try to figure out which 60/40 you're in" because that is mothergoosing retarded and means absolutely nothing besides telling the rest of us you have a clue what is going on.
Ergo the conclusions of "Jesus mothergoosing christ blue should be mids and you should give them it pretty much every game" come from the knowledge "in the majority to vast majority of game situations the know probably of winning is higher when mid has blue" and "goddamnit you should choose the best option every time because to not do so is badwrongdumb"
|
Goumin, this 60/40 split has nothing to do with anything, because we're adressing the fringe cases where it's in between the two extremes.
How is this so hard for you to understand :S
|
Hey guys. What's a tank?
User was warned for this post
|
I can't believe I read each and every one of these awful arguments. You don't model for something with this many variables because you fucking can't. And even if you could, you'll never remember/use/whatever in real time to make use of this awful discussion. Moreover, you'd never come to a consensus about these thing anyway because it's impossible to actually weigh variables that individuals value so differently.
The only interesting idea I saw arise out of this was the though of giving it up (as the jungler) to the midlane merely to avoid conflict. I take a different approach. I still don't want to give the midlaner blue (assuming I have a good reason not to obviously) so the path of least resistance usually involves me saying after taking blue, "Oh shit, my bad. Didn't see your ping/comment/whatever." I'm not a fan of lies of any kind in general but the other 2 options being a) Ignore him or b) type an essay explaining why then I take the 3rd option of a lie; lame as it is.
Anecdotally speaking about this whole thing (intuition tells it to me to), I tend to see that Supports and Junglers usually have better game knowledge than their companions. Playing the more selfless roles means more often they are actually looking how to make the team win and not merely a single lane. Similarly, the champions that are among the highest reported are exactly the champions you'd think they would be if you've played the game long enough to understand player's mindsets (Yi, Trynd, Zed, Vayne) whereas the bottom ones are also the exact ones you would guess (support champs). Edit: This was from some study like a year ago but I imagine I could still guess most of the top 10.
|
On May 21 2015 20:09 Alaric wrote:
Hey guys. What's a tank?
The person who dies first.
|
On May 21 2015 20:21 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Anecdotally speaking about this whole thing (intuition tells it to me to), I tend to see that Supports and Junglers usually have better game knowledge than their companions. Playing the more selfless roles means more often they are actually looking how to make the team win and not merely a single lane.
In the specific case of blue buff I would argue that it's not necessarily that simple. Some matchups if you don't get blue, you're basically fucked. And some where it actually makes very little difference, and if you're a jungle main who doesn't play many mids, you might not be familiar with the matchup. (People who tell me tf doesn't need blue to roam against shovers, when I don't have sheen yet, make me die inside :<)
|
|
|
On May 21 2015 20:09 Alaric wrote:
Hey guys. What's a tank?
watch dyrus
do what he does but during teamfights and while initiating
:3
|
On May 21 2015 19:38 Fildun wrote:
I disagree with the statement that there actually is a case where jungler and mid are truly equal. There is always one that is slightly superior.
Could you also maybe explain why you make the assumption of epistemic peers? To me that sounds like a purely hypothetical argument with no practical value. Still interesting though.
Even when one is slightly superior, it is anything but clear to the players who is. So for each of them it appeas as if they are equal.
The assumption of apparent peerhood (not necessarily actual) comes from this:
On May 21 2015 03:58 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 03:56 Slayer91 wrote:
id say generally mids don't take into account who their jungler is when they ask for blue Which goes to your point - we shouldn't bother discussing what shit players do anyways. We've formulated a situation where mid and jungle don't hate each other and are at an equal level of skill, but through their own reasoning, have came to opposing views on what the best course of action is. IN this scenario the mid has already taken into account who the jungler is along a whole host of other factors, and similarly is the case for the jungler.
Of course this is a hypothetical scenario. However, I think there is some practical value in thinking about it, because it is possible that you as a jungler play with a midlaner that you think is equally as good as you are and you both disagree who should get the blue buff. You might in fact differ in skill, but in your own assessment you cannot tell who is better (so this is a weaker version of Sheeps scenario, but still works the same way).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
