Welcome to this patch's General Discussion thread for the League of Legends subforum. This thread is for discussion around League of Legends. Free feel to talk about anything LoL related here that does not already have its own thread. While posting standards tend to be rather lax in this thread, pointless spam will not be tolerated.
On September 02 2015 08:09 JimmiC wrote: Pretty reasonable patch overall. Nice to see. I tend to ban things I don't playing with or against then things I think are op, these days
Part of Riot's rational on 16 being so big was so that 17 and 18 would fine tune the bumps.
Really happy to see them tweaking Warrior junglers, it's long over due. Especially Pantheon.
Yet again Riot's nerfing Rek'Sai after she's fallen to B tier jungler status. I don't really get why, either.
Other than that, most everything else in here makes sense, though if there's no nerfs to Skarner or Morde in 5.18, Worlds meta is going to be pretty weird...
Riot doesn't know how to balance her because it's a bruiser/brawler champion with a global ult that lets her get from one side of the map to another in under 4s. That's part of the reason why you saw her being played in top with Flash and TP; she'd be a great split push threat and can still be around for teamfights with TP, then go back to split pushing with a tunnel in the lane she was just at with her ult.
The other champions with a global ult are balanced with their ultimates in mind for affecting team fights, and Riot hasn't figured that out with hers just yet.
Basically, she has a lot of intangible power (vision and jungle mobility letting her be at the right place), which feels separate from champ power level that you can feel (damage/CC/global ult. They put global ult as invisible power but that's bullshit.) Leading to a feeling that she's not as strong as she probably actually is. They're probably not that sure of how strong she actually is because of the power of her vision, hence why this change is pretty small.
On September 02 2015 10:31 Kinie wrote: Riot doesn't know how to balance her because it's a bruiser/brawler champion with a global ult that lets her get from one side of the map to another in under 4s. That's part of the reason why you saw her being played in top with Flash and TP; she'd be a great split push threat and can still be around for teamfights with TP, then go back to split pushing with a tunnel in the lane she was just at with her ult.
The other champions with a global ult are balanced with their ultimates in mind for affecting team fights, and Riot hasn't figured that out with hers just yet.
I think, also, that they dont really understand how effective the Prayseeker+Tremors combo is for not facechecking. That passive shouldn't have a skillshot with greater range than Kass E in the same kit, and maybe none at all.
Meddler recently wrote on the boards that Riot is looking into possibly nerfing devourer. For the champs it's good on, it's pretty retarded. I started playing Xin because I've seen him in a few games completely hard carry with it.
Xin is just so strong right now. His clear is so ridiculously safe, his ganks are obviously hashtag dope, he basically 2 shots anyone late game while building mostly tank, and when he gets a few levels in E his clear is pretty fast. What surprised me the most was his first clear. By taking W first and running an ADC runepage with AS quints, I can do a full clear, only use one pot, and still be close to full HP.
At least this time it sounds like they're just going to nerf the item instead of nerfing the champions and then a couple patches later nerfing the item.
On September 02 2015 13:05 Gahlo wrote: At least this time it sounds like they're just going to nerf the item instead of nerfing the champions and then a couple patches later nerfing the item.
They're learning, I guess?
This is just me, but I think Rek'Sai's unburrow knockup range should be the same as her AA range (current the unburrow is shorter range than her AA). Yes, it's a buff. The fact that her burrowed Q is the length of her tremorsense at 1 point is insane. If they wanted to scale its range to 60% at 1 point in Q, up to 100% it's current length at max rank Q that'll help cut down on some of the safety in her kit in the early game of being able to check a bush.
I think her ult cooldown could be a tad bit longer too, maybe an extra 10 seconds longer at rank 1? The rank 2 and rank 3 ulti cooldown timers are fine, it's just the rank 1 CD timer that might be a bit too short.
On September 02 2015 13:05 Gahlo wrote: At least this time it sounds like they're just going to nerf the item instead of nerfing the champions and then a couple patches later nerfing the item.
On September 02 2015 11:42 Sonnington wrote: Meddler recently wrote on the boards that Riot is looking into possibly nerfing devourer. For the champs it's good on, it's pretty retarded. I started playing Xin because I've seen him in a few games completely hard carry with it.
Xin is just so strong right now. His clear is so ridiculously safe, his ganks are obviously hashtag dope, he basically 2 shots anyone late game while building mostly tank, and when he gets a few levels in E his clear is pretty fast. What surprised me the most was his first clear. By taking W first and running an ADC runepage with AS quints, I can do a full clear, only use one pot, and still be close to full HP.
Can you give more tips on this? I've always started Q and then did the standard 3 buff clear but this sounds awesome. Also do you max E first or Q first?
Is it just me, but I was gifted dragon slayer pantheon and I have the feeling that he mandrops slower with that skin, Is this even possible? I mean the 2nd part of the drop is like a second longer or something
Starting W is better on Xin because AS > aa reset (and the sustain more than makes up for the health saved with the cc on a monster). You put more points in E early because better slow for your ganks, better AoE damage (your only AoE damage) for clears, lower cooldown to increase the odds of getting another one off in a gank, etc. Dunno if you max it all the way or just till like 5 then max Q though. Smash made good points about it in the Xin thread post-rework that still hold true now.
On September 02 2015 11:19 MooMooMugi wrote: Pretty small nerfs on everyone but I really wanted to see Morde/Garen/Darius/Fiora nerfed a little bit more
I was really hoping to see Fiora and Darius nerfs, especially Darius sustain. There's no way a tanky champion can ever deal with him, he becomes a giant roadblock in top lane. And the GP nerf wasn't enough imo, still to much shred.
That said, the Draven buff seems a cool way to add more Adoration stacks, means he can snowball a bit more, which is what he's all about.
On September 02 2015 15:54 Zeroxk wrote: Does Riot hate hybrid champs or something? Those AD fizz nerfs
Riot doesn't like Bruiser Fizz because it does everything Fizz normally does but makes him super safe because he can just build straight up tank items.
they could have taken the physical amp off the ult and not totally fuck the build instead of gutting a build. it was really only the ridiculous burst out of a bruiser that made it silly. I mean I don't know why they always feel the need to nerf 2 abilities at once when they patch every 2 weeks.
It adds up quickly when it's the ability you max first. Ax max level it needs 400 AP to catch up, if you max it second you need 100 AP at level 8, 200 at level 10, so it's a slight nerf to AP Fizz as long as you max it second (a bigger one if you max it first, and arguably a buff if you max it last).
it's incredibly rare that you will only apply w once on an activation especially with the physical being removed from the ult you won't be one comboing anyone anymore, so the damage is going to be far more than that in almost all cases.
it really hurts ad Fizz in that he has really bad trading options to begin with with 0 ranged options w/o ult, his Q already got it's base damage reduced to garbage tier earlier this year when it was halved and maxing E causes it to hit 130 mana which you can't support on just a sheen.
I'm not saying Fizz as a hero is gutted but Trinty first ad is def bad if your opponent is playing top tier. I'm simply contending that if they ONLY had nerfed the ult it would still be a decent but not op build, which is preferable in my opinion
for example: AD fizz didn't become more popular than AP until the ult had amp on it, and he had higher base damages before that was the case
On September 02 2015 19:31 Alaric wrote: It adds up quickly when it's the ability you max first. Ax max level it needs 400 AP to catch up, if you max it second you need 100 AP at level 8, 200 at level 10, so it's a slight nerf to AP Fizz as long as you max it second (a bigger one if you max it first, and arguably a buff if you max it last).
to be fair it's more like ~200 for ap fizz because you will be attemping to one combo people still with that build, so the Q ratio increase I think is relevant in that case.
although I would contend it isn't a relevant buff to his current strengths and weaknesses, though it is without a doubt a buff
On September 02 2015 11:19 MooMooMugi wrote: Pretty small nerfs on everyone but I really wanted to see Morde/Garen/Darius/Fiora nerfed a little bit more
I was really hoping to see Fiora and Darius nerfs, especially Darius sustain. There's no way a tanky champion can ever deal with him, he becomes a giant roadblock in top lane. And the GP nerf wasn't enough imo, still to much shred.
That said, the Draven buff seems a cool way to add more Adoration stacks, means he can snowball a bit more, which is what he's all about.
Think it's fine if Darius cockblocks tanks. He wants long fights, and it fits with the 'standard' idea of tanks>assassins>bruisers>tanks.
Fiora is almost certainly getting nerfed. I'd be very surprised otherwise.
On September 03 2015 00:38 VayneAuthority wrote: i would rework yorick. cool concept thats a complete botch job. Idk what plans for him even are, only champion that isnt allowed in the free rotation.
They've been going back and forth internally on how to change him. I think they're stumped.
On September 03 2015 00:38 VayneAuthority wrote: i would rework yorick. cool concept thats a complete botch job. Idk what plans for him even are, only champion that isnt allowed in the free rotation.
They've been going back and forth internally on how to change him. I think they're stumped.
i mean if were going for thematics I would have him reworked into a mid range mage necromancer with slight sustain (maybe something like vlad but far less) who would have a physical/AA move for his shovel/Q still so lich bane/runeglaive/triforce could be built on him.
I would also give him a timer like malz/annie where you have to use his spells so many times before a ghoul spawns, and make them more powerful then they are now instead of just constantly spawning nuisances that feel stupid to use or play against.
maybe like 4-5 casts before a ghoul spawns
his ultimate could bypass that and instantly spawn his 3 types of ghouls in addition to a "super ghoul"
theres really not much you can do with the champion tbh
On September 03 2015 00:38 VayneAuthority wrote: i would rework yorick. cool concept thats a complete botch job. Idk what plans for him even are, only champion that isnt allowed in the free rotation.
They've been going back and forth internally on how to change him. I think they're stumped.
i mean if were going for thematics I would have him reworked into a mid range mage necromancer with slight sustain (maybe something like vlad but far less) who would have a physical/AA move for his shovel/Q still so lich bane/runeglaive/triforce could be built on him.
I would also give him a timer like malz/annie where you have to use his spells so many times before a ghoul spawns, and make them more powerful then they are now instead of just constantly spawning nuisances that feel stupid to use or play against.
maybe like 4-5 casts before a ghoul spawns
his ultimate could bypass that and instantly spawn his 3 types of ghouls in addition to a "super ghoul"
theres really not much you can do with the champion tbh
I was thinking it could be interesting that on the 3rd or 4th cast, it spawns a number of the ghouls. The spell you use would determine if it's a set of melee or ranged ghouls. You get to spawn 3 melee or 2 ranged ghouls. The ult could be used to summon an army of both. So like the Q can be the same minus the ghoul, but add more power to the dmg boost. W can be the same spell wise and change the passive so that it's just melee ghouls it spawns in the AOE. E should be the same single target dmg spell, but loose the sustain and make it so that it spawns ranged ghouls next to you. Ult could work like a massive AOE area where it spawns both ghoul types for 2-3 waves.
With these latest nerfs how is Gragas feeling? I was still playing him to moderate success as of a couple weeks ago but this probably killed him didn't it?
What are people playing as the OP this patch cycle?
even using cam and mic unlike members of a certain other team who have been tilted since madison square garden
Because Sneaky loves streaming and interacting with the viewers, where-as TSM players really don't do much interacting.
I also think it's cause TSM is trying to pull off some DBZ Hyperbolic Time Chamber shenanigans, where-as most of C9 is just chillaxing and trying to enjoy the free trip to Paris TL gave them.
even using cam and mic unlike members of a certain other team who have been tilted since madison square garden
Every member of TSM has streamed at least once since going to Korea. They stopped because when they were streaming they wanted to interact with the audience, but that's not the reason why they're there. Instead, they're just tryharding in soloq and scrims.
Was talking with a friend recently, surely it is time for more bans? We're up to 126 champions now and we still have 3 bans per team. Feel like 4 or even 5 would be a lot more suitable.
On September 03 2015 21:44 schmutttt wrote: Was talking with a friend recently, surely it is time for more bans? We're up to 126 champions now and we still have 3 bans per team. Feel like 4 or even 5 would be a lot more suitable.
This has been spoken about quite a few times. When Riot(ghostcrawler) finally asked about it the Reddit community went the other way saying they don't want more complexity in the draft phase and since that's the only way to add more bans(More frontloaded will be bad) it seemed to kill off that idea. I'm still baffled by that idiocy lol.
its not just about more bans either, the system has needed a rework for a while now ever since they made captain completely random. It was fine when you had the highest MMR person doing the bans because they deserved it, but now just anyone being able to do the bans can severely impact the game and its highly unfair. If its going to be random the ban system should have been moved to more equality a long time ago, which ties in with 5 bans per side anyway.
On September 03 2015 22:57 JonnyLaw wrote: The only difference is now there's no "last pick noob be quiet," when you're nearly identical MMR.
diamond 3 and diamond 5 for example, are 2 completely different metas and a huge skill gap and happens often.
so many idiots there that ban 3 Z champions or 3 A champions or ban other really dumb shit and then other team just first picks skarner or morde or something equally stupid. so yes it actually does make a big difference when there's not enough people online to make a game with 10 identical MMRs.
I personally think ranked was a lot better when it was sorted by MMR because more then not it was accurate and I would know which teammates I could rely on.
Because someone deciding to ban 3 purple or "starts with A" champions is entirely correlated to his Elo, especially in relation to his four teammates' in the lobby.
He's referring to 5 people being within less than 100 Elo from each other and the guys shown as higher feelig justified in harassing the others or acting superior despite the gap basically being one or two games apart for each of them, thus susceptible to switch around on any given day.
Unless the matchmaking system fucked up, which, since you're not in masters/challenger, I can practically guarantee it did not, there's not a statistically significant MMR gap between you and any other random person you may meet excepting duos. So it was random anyway; they just didn't tell you. All they did was remove a middleman.
I think he's saying that the difference between people's MMR within a game is much less of a factor than a single person's MMR variance. In other words even if you sort it by MMR it's still mostly random because it's just a matter of who has been having good/bad days.
Maybe that's not true for diamond and higher but MMR differences are very small at gold and below where most people play.
On September 03 2015 22:22 Caiada wrote: It was always functionally random because of matchmaking variance; that argument makes no sense.
not even sure what you are referring to here
All the people within the game are close enough ELO that normal variance alone means neither of them are higher or lower than the other. This is partly why they changed the ranked system to have this layer of confusion on it instead of just straight ELO. People don't understand that the actual ELO number doesn't mean that much as there's a degree with variance attached to it. So someone that is 1350 isn't really above someone that is 1320 etc. as you can expect that 1350 person to swing up and down a decent amount. You get higher when your up swings are bigger than your down swings.
The only time you should have a big difference in ELO between players is when matchmaking system breaks. This shouldn't happen if there's enough players but I think the system prioritizes finding a game at the very top so you may find such things happen if you up there.
On September 03 2015 23:04 Caiada wrote: Unless the matchmaking system fucked up, which, since you're not in masters/challenger, I can practically guarantee it did not, there's not a statistically significant MMR gap between you and any other random person you may meet excepting duos. So it was random anyway; they just didn't tell you. All they did was remove a middleman.
it didnt fuck up, im saying its inconsistent.
for example what happens a lot is
you get 1 d3 3 d4 1 d5, they get the same.
your d5 does bans, there d3 does bans.
the game has already started at a heavy and inconsistent imbalance, regardless of what you think. it is imbalance in the purest form.
not to mention you are playing roulette to see who got the d5 rager thats gonna ruin the game for 1 team
d3 vs d4 vs d5 etc. doesn't matter if they all in the same game it means they all within the same ELO. The division system is merely graphical and has no weight on the actual game.
The divisions are meant to show the "bracket of variance" you are in but they fucked it by introducing the promotion series. Now a person can get stuck at promotions but their ELO can still rise so there forms a disconnect between the graphical representation and reality.
On September 03 2015 23:09 Numy wrote: d3 vs d4 vs d5 etc. doesn't matter if they all in the same game it means they all within the same ELO. The division system is merely graphical and has no weight on the actual game.
facepalm, this is so wrong. the only goal of matchmaking is to create a a median, hence why there are so many stomps, especially in diamond. you have to win so many games to get from d5 to d3 how the hell is that even remotely similar?
D5 60 points to D3 would be, with 15 point averages as a highly decided account
Nerfing devourer? Damn, even now if someone picks a jungler with that item the game is basically over and people just straight up AFK. Guess farming junglers will never be.
So a guy in Diamond III will always ban better than a guy in Diamond IV, and he will certainly not troll ban ever, nor rage, nor first pick something dumb. The order of magnitude between these variations is tremendous and will decide most games alones, before the other 3-4 guys in each even pick a champion, nevermind the game being played. For the same irrefutable logic you provide us with, the next game when the Diamond III player will be the lowest ranked amongst his team, he will be the liability that would do troll bans and ruin champ select and rage, while the Diamond II guy would be a paragon who would set the whole team on the path to victory.
On September 03 2015 23:09 Numy wrote: d3 vs d4 vs d5 etc. doesn't matter if they all in the same game it means they all within the same ELO. The division system is merely graphical and has no weight on the actual game.
facepalm, this is so wrong. the only goal of matchmaking is to create a a median, hence why there are so many stomps, especially in diamond. you have to win so many games to get from d5 to d3 how the hell is that even remotely similar?
D5 60 points to D3 would be, with 15 point averages as a highly decided account
14 STRAIGHT WINS
thats not even remotely similar
Dude do you even know how the matchmaking works? It has this hidden thing called MMR or ELO or whichever name you prefer on which it bases it's matchmaking. This is basically the same system as chess, and your league/division has nothing to do with it. Also D3 and D5 having completely different metas is just not true, from firsthand experience.
On September 03 2015 23:09 Numy wrote: d3 vs d4 vs d5 etc. doesn't matter if they all in the same game it means they all within the same ELO. The division system is merely graphical and has no weight on the actual game.
facepalm, this is so wrong. the only goal of matchmaking is to create a a median, hence why there are so many stomps, especially in diamond. you have to win so many games to get from d5 to d3 how the hell is that even remotely similar?
D5 60 points to D3 would be, with 15 point averages as a highly decided account
14 STRAIGHT WINS
thats not even remotely similar
Dude do you even know how the matchmaking works? It has this hidden thing called MMR or ELO or whichever name you prefer on which it bases it's matchmaking. This is basically the same system as chess, and your league/division has nothing to do with it. Also D3 and D5 having completely different metas is just not true, from firsthand experience.
Except that, before when LoL had the ELO system, the pick order was determined by your ELO/MMR. And even in the beginning of the League/Division system, the one with the highest MMR was doing ban/pick.
They actually consciously removed it and randomized it. For some reason.
Because, unless matchmaking fucked up or you were an outlier, there was no statistically significant difference between your Elo and some other random guy's, excepting duos.
On September 03 2015 23:09 Numy wrote: d3 vs d4 vs d5 etc. doesn't matter if they all in the same game it means they all within the same ELO. The division system is merely graphical and has no weight on the actual game.
facepalm, this is so wrong. the only goal of matchmaking is to create a a median, hence why there are so many stomps, especially in diamond. you have to win so many games to get from d5 to d3 how the hell is that even remotely similar?
D5 60 points to D3 would be, with 15 point averages as a highly decided account
14 STRAIGHT WINS
thats not even remotely similar
Dude do you even know how the matchmaking works? It has this hidden thing called MMR or ELO or whichever name you prefer on which it bases it's matchmaking. This is basically the same system as chess, and your league/division has nothing to do with it. Also D3 and D5 having completely different metas is just not true, from firsthand experience.
Except that, before when LoL had the ELO system, the pick order was determined by your ELO/MMR. And even in the beginning of the League/Division system, the one with the highest MMR was doing ban/pick.
They actually consciously removed it and randomized it. For some reason.
I know, I played back then, but that was not the point I was arguing. The point I was arguing was that saying person A is d5 and person B is d3 means absolutely nothing, since matchmaking is still based on ELO/MMR.
guess what, winning 14 straight times probably boosted your MMR quite a bit.
the riot fanboying and picking and choosing is pretty crazy here.
I hope you guys arent the type to complain when you get crit 4 times in a row by an IE only jinx, because you are promoting pointless randomness that shouldnt exist. For a company that says they want to cleanup inconsistency champion select is one of the most volatile parts of a game ive ever come across.
If you guys are so content to say that the MMR is so little difference that it doesnt matter then it brings me back to my original point: why the hell does one guy have all the power in the bans while everyone else gets jack shit?
On euw it might not happen as much cuz there are a lot more players but for example in tr there are games with d5 at d5/4 mmr and challengers in the same game. If you play like late at night you can definitely get matched in super broken games dunno why do you guys say you can't. Also the higher you go the more you realize how important it is to ban the one trick ponies.
On September 03 2015 23:38 VayneAuthority wrote: guess what, winning 14 straight times probably boosted your MMR quite a bit.
the riot fanboying and picking and choosing is pretty crazy here.
I hope you guys arent the type to complain when you get crit 4 times in a row by an IE only jinx, because you are promoting pointless randomness that shouldnt exist. For a company that says they want to cleanup inconsistency champion select is one of the most volatile parts of a game ive ever come across.
If you guys are so content to say that the MMR is so little difference that it doesnt matter then it brings me back to my original point: why the hell does one guy have all the power in the bans while everyone else gets jack shit?
Because it doesn't matter that one guy has the power? That's exactly what you're saying if you say the MMR has so little difference that it doesn't matter. What do the first 2 sentences even mean? I mean if you're just salty about some random ranked game you could also just say that.
Yes if he won 14 straight games his ELO would be higher than when he started but that doesn't mean he couldn't still have the same mmr as a person in a lower division. As I explained the disconnect comes from the promotion series. The only time the system adjusts itself is when someone skips divisions after promotions but someone winning more than losing but still failing promos has a different ELO than what his division is.
The only other time this matters is when the system breaks due to too few players. If you play at odd hours with too few people then games may become lopsided due to the system prioritizing finding you a game over finding the best match. This can also happen if you at the very peak of the ladder as there are fewer people there. At diamond level during non-odd hours this shouldn't matter.
Seriously we all being civil trying to have a discussion and explain how it works but all you want to do is insult everyone constantly. No one is "fanboying" riot. This is just how the system works. Stop being such an asshole. Ban system itself is a different story to complaining about random order vs non-random.
On September 03 2015 23:43 nafta wrote: On euw it might not happen as much cuz there are a lot more players but for example in tr there are games with d5 at d5/4 mmr and challengers in the same game. If you play like late at night you can definitely get matched in super broken games dunno why do you guys say you can't. Also the higher you go the more you realize how important it is to ban the one trick ponies.
No one is saying you can't. Just you won't be likely to unless you play odd hours, at the top of the ladder or on a tiny server. Diamond 5-3 on NA aren't the latter so it's only the former that can happen.
On September 03 2015 23:38 VayneAuthority wrote: guess what, winning 14 straight times probably boosted your MMR quite a bit.
the riot fanboying and picking and choosing is pretty crazy here.
I hope you guys arent the type to complain when you get crit 4 times in a row by an IE only jinx, because you are promoting pointless randomness that shouldnt exist. For a company that says they want to cleanup inconsistency champion select is one of the most volatile parts of a game ive ever come across.
If you guys are so content to say that the MMR is so little difference that it doesnt matter then it brings me back to my original point: why the hell does one guy have all the power in the bans while everyone else gets jack shit?
Because it doesn't matter that one guy has the power? That's exactly what you're saying if you say the MMR has so little difference that it doesn't matter. What do the first 2 sentences even mean? I mean if you're just salty about some random ranked game you could also just say that.
ive been salty ever since they changed the system for years now, I absolutely hate anything random it annoys the hell out of me. Thats why I dont play adc besides champs that don't tend to get crit like varus/vayne.
because it would be fine if the skill level difference was high and one guy got all the bans because he was higher MMR, but if everyone is pretty much the same then one guy SHOULD NOT be getting to do all 3 bans, its completely unfair to be random.
It was still functionally random before. Now they're just saying it. It's basically just a semantic difference if you have any understanding at all how MMR and matchmaking work.
On September 03 2015 23:45 Numy wrote: Yes if he won 14 straight games his ELO would be higher than when he started but that doesn't mean he couldn't still have the same mmr as a person in a lower division. As I explained the disconnect comes from the promotion series. The only time the system adjusts itself is when someone skips divisions after promotions but someone winning more than losing but still failing promos has a different ELO than what his division is.
The only other time this matters is when the system breaks due to too few players. If you play at odd hours with too few people then games may become lopsided due to the system prioritizing finding you a game over finding the best match. This can also happen if you at the very peak of the ladder as there are fewer people there. At diamond level during non-odd hours this shouldn't matter.
Seriously we all being civil trying to have a discussion and explain how it works but all you want to do is insult everyone constantly. No one is "fanboying" riot. This is just how the system works. Stop being such an asshole. Ban system itself is a different story to complaining about random order vs non-random.
On September 03 2015 23:43 nafta wrote: On euw it might not happen as much cuz there are a lot more players but for example in tr there are games with d5 at d5/4 mmr and challengers in the same game. If you play like late at night you can definitely get matched in super broken games dunno why do you guys say you can't. Also the higher you go the more you realize how important it is to ban the one trick ponies.
No one is saying you can't. Just you won't be likely to unless you play odd hours, at the top of the ladder or on a tiny server. Diamond 5-3 on NA aren't the latter so it's only the former that can happen.
you want me to be civil when the first thing you say is that promo games, which at their most effective would be you losing 1-2 and being off one game, is the same as winning 14 games in a row and therefore these d5s are probably the same mmr as d3 because they failed 14 promos in a row hurrdurr?
How about you stop saying asinine shit to defend riot and we can get somewhere
On September 03 2015 23:45 Numy wrote: Yes if he won 14 straight games his ELO would be higher than when he started but that doesn't mean he couldn't still have the same mmr as a person in a lower division. As I explained the disconnect comes from the promotion series. The only time the system adjusts itself is when someone skips divisions after promotions but someone winning more than losing but still failing promos has a different ELO than what his division is.
The only other time this matters is when the system breaks due to too few players. If you play at odd hours with too few people then games may become lopsided due to the system prioritizing finding you a game over finding the best match. This can also happen if you at the very peak of the ladder as there are fewer people there. At diamond level during non-odd hours this shouldn't matter.
Seriously we all being civil trying to have a discussion and explain how it works but all you want to do is insult everyone constantly. No one is "fanboying" riot. This is just how the system works. Stop being such an asshole. Ban system itself is a different story to complaining about random order vs non-random.
On September 03 2015 23:43 nafta wrote: On euw it might not happen as much cuz there are a lot more players but for example in tr there are games with d5 at d5/4 mmr and challengers in the same game. If you play like late at night you can definitely get matched in super broken games dunno why do you guys say you can't. Also the higher you go the more you realize how important it is to ban the one trick ponies.
No one is saying you can't. Just you won't be likely to unless you play odd hours, at the top of the ladder or on a tiny server. Diamond 5-3 on NA aren't the latter so it's only the former that can happen.
you want me to be civil when the first thing you say is that promo games, which at their most effective would be you losing 1-2 and being off one game, is the same as winning 14 games in a row and therefore these d5s are probably the same mmr as d3 because they failed 14 promos in a row hurrdurr?
How about you stop saying asinine shit to defend riot and we can get somewhere
On September 03 2015 23:38 VayneAuthority wrote: guess what, winning 14 straight times probably boosted your MMR quite a bit.
the riot fanboying and picking and choosing is pretty crazy here.
I hope you guys arent the type to complain when you get crit 4 times in a row by an IE only jinx, because you are promoting pointless randomness that shouldnt exist. For a company that says they want to cleanup inconsistency champion select is one of the most volatile parts of a game ive ever come across.
If you guys are so content to say that the MMR is so little difference that it doesnt matter then it brings me back to my original point: why the hell does one guy have all the power in the bans while everyone else gets jack shit?
On September 03 2015 23:25 Alaric wrote: So a guy in Diamond III will always ban better than a guy in Diamond IV, and he will certainly not troll ban ever, nor rage, nor first pick something dumb. The order of magnitude between these variations is tremendous and will decide most games alones, before the other 3-4 guys in each even pick a champion, nevermind the game being played. For the same irrefutable logic you provide us with, the next game when the Diamond III player will be the lowest ranked amongst his team, he will be the liability that would do troll bans and ruin champ select and rage, while the Diamond II guy would be a paragon who would set the whole team on the path to victory.
Well, you show me how not to ignore that point then.
You're still arguing that someone in a higher division is so much better at banning, and that banning is so important that (even if all the obviously OP Azir or pre-hotfix Skarner) it can decide a game by itself, here and there. And also implying that the "banning skill" gets up significantly as you gain Elo, moreso than stuff like mechanics or ingame decision-making. I'll allow myself some healthy measure of doubt.
On September 03 2015 23:38 VayneAuthority wrote: guess what, winning 14 straight times probably boosted your MMR quite a bit.
the riot fanboying and picking and choosing is pretty crazy here.
I hope you guys arent the type to complain when you get crit 4 times in a row by an IE only jinx, because you are promoting pointless randomness that shouldnt exist. For a company that says they want to cleanup inconsistency champion select is one of the most volatile parts of a game ive ever come across.
If you guys are so content to say that the MMR is so little difference that it doesnt matter then it brings me back to my original point: why the hell does one guy have all the power in the bans while everyone else gets jack shit?
On September 03 2015 23:25 Alaric wrote: So a guy in Diamond III will always ban better than a guy in Diamond IV, and he will certainly not troll ban ever, nor rage, nor first pick something dumb. The order of magnitude between these variations is tremendous and will decide most games alones, before the other 3-4 guys in each even pick a champion, nevermind the game being played. For the same irrefutable logic you provide us with, the next game when the Diamond III player will be the lowest ranked amongst his team, he will be the liability that would do troll bans and ruin champ select and rage, while the Diamond II guy would be a paragon who would set the whole team on the path to victory.
Well, you show me how not to ignore that point then.
You're still arguing that someone in a higher division is so much better at banning, and that banning is so important that (even if all the obviously OP Azir or pre-hotfix Skarner) it can decide a game by itself, here and there. And also implying that the "banning skill" gets up significantly as you gain Elo, moreso than stuff like mechanics or ingame decision-making. I'll allow myself some healthy measure of doubt.
yup ive already stated pretty clearly that I would be annoyed if I was d1 (maybe even in my master promos) and the system let the D3 do the banning for my game and gave me last pick and I got stuck supporting people at a way worse MMR then me, that clearly isn't fair to me. ive said that at least 20 times.
On September 03 2015 23:49 Caiada wrote: It was still functionally random before. Now they're just saying it. It's basically just a semantic difference if you have any understanding at all how MMR and matchmaking work.
it wasnt though at all. In early seasons 1 and 2 it was really obvious when you were in a high MMR game because you would see hotshotGG as your captain and then a bunch of other "known people" and then you are 4th pick or last pick or whatever. And the number was right there to see for everybody so you could see actually how many wins apart you were from eachother and 5th and 1st pick were SUBSTANTIAL.
so I don't know why you are spouting nonsense when I've been around for every iteration riot has done.
On September 03 2015 23:53 VayneAuthority wrote: do you honestly believe they failed 14 promos in a row? im just trying to see if you actually have a line of thought here or if you're just trolling.
Well let me put it this way. If that person that won 14 games in a row is in a game with someone that is in a lower division than the system believes the difference in MMR between the two is within the normal MMR variance. For the majority of cases this would be correct. Streaks are pretty normal and go both ways. It's entirely possible it's an edge case that once again I explained can happen due to certain circumstances but are rather rare for the average player on a large server.
As for your reply to Alaric. It's the exact same situation. If a diamond 1 is playing in a game with people lower than him than the difference between their MMRs is not statically meaningful unless it's an edge against again. So as people have said this system is the same as the previous system in all except edge cases. That alone may make the previous one a bit superior but then there's the issue of people not understanding how ELO works.
Anyway everyone here has done a pretty good job I feel of explaining how the system works. You see seem utterly confused by it all. I suggest reading up on ELO(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) yourself and maybe that will help break through the wall in your mind.
On September 03 2015 23:38 VayneAuthority wrote: guess what, winning 14 straight times probably boosted your MMR quite a bit.
the riot fanboying and picking and choosing is pretty crazy here.
I hope you guys arent the type to complain when you get crit 4 times in a row by an IE only jinx, because you are promoting pointless randomness that shouldnt exist. For a company that says they want to cleanup inconsistency champion select is one of the most volatile parts of a game ive ever come across.
If you guys are so content to say that the MMR is so little difference that it doesnt matter then it brings me back to my original point: why the hell does one guy have all the power in the bans while everyone else gets jack shit?
On September 03 2015 23:25 Alaric wrote: So a guy in Diamond III will always ban better than a guy in Diamond IV, and he will certainly not troll ban ever, nor rage, nor first pick something dumb. The order of magnitude between these variations is tremendous and will decide most games alones, before the other 3-4 guys in each even pick a champion, nevermind the game being played. For the same irrefutable logic you provide us with, the next game when the Diamond III player will be the lowest ranked amongst his team, he will be the liability that would do troll bans and ruin champ select and rage, while the Diamond II guy would be a paragon who would set the whole team on the path to victory.
Well, you show me how not to ignore that point then.
You're still arguing that someone in a higher division is so much better at banning, and that banning is so important that (even if all the obviously OP Azir or pre-hotfix Skarner) it can decide a game by itself, here and there. And also implying that the "banning skill" gets up significantly as you gain Elo, moreso than stuff like mechanics or ingame decision-making. I'll allow myself some healthy measure of doubt.
yup ive already stated pretty clearly that I would be annoyed if I was d1 (maybe even in my master promos) and the system let the D3 do the banning for my game and gave me last pick and I got stuck supporting people at a way worse MMR then me, that clearly isn't fair to me. ive said that at least 20 times.
Which totally misses the point. Would you be less annoyed that a D II would get first pick rather than a D III? If you were D III, what would you think of first pick being D II? And if he troll bans/troll picks/rages/whatever, will you take it in stride and say nothing because "he's higher than me so I would have banned/picked worse than he did"? Would you answer "People don't rage or troll ban or make dubious ban decisions D II and higher" to the previous question? If yes, do you believe than the gap in "banning skill" between even a single division is enough to decide the game here and there in the overwhelming majority of cases?
On September 03 2015 23:49 Caiada wrote: It was still functionally random before. Now they're just saying it. It's basically just a semantic difference if you have any understanding at all how MMR and matchmaking work.
it wasnt though at all. In early seasons 1 and 2 it was really obvious when you were in a high MMR game because you would see hotshotGG as your captain and then a bunch of other "known people" and then you are 4th pick or last pick or whatever. And the number was right there to see for everybody so you could see actually how many wins apart you were from eachother and 5th and 1st pick were SUBSTANTIAL.
so I don't know why you are spouting nonsense when I've been around for every iteration riot has done.
And you don't perceive the fact that "known" people keep going up against each other is the sign of a shallow player pool, which in itself could easily explain wider than average gaps between players? Especially when talking about season 1 (or early in the seasons, not sure what you meant exactly)?
On September 03 2015 23:53 VayneAuthority wrote: do you honestly believe they failed 14 promos in a row? im just trying to see if you actually have a line of thought here or if you're just trolling.
Well let me put it this way. If that person that won 14 games in a row is in a game with someone that is in a lower division than the system believes the difference in MMR between the two is within the normal MMR variance. For the majority of cases this would be correct. Streaks are pretty normal and go both ways. It's entirely possible it's an edge case that once again I explained can happen due to certain circumstances but are rather rare for the average player on a large server.
As for your reply to Alaric. It's the exact same situation. If a diamond 1 is playing in a game with people lower than him than the difference between their MMRs is not statically meaningful unless it's an edge against again. So as people have said this system is the same as the previous system in all except edge cases.
Anyway everyone here has done a pretty good job I feel of explaining how the system works. You see seem utterly confused by it all. I suggest reading up on ELO(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) yourself and maybe that will help break through the wall in your mind.
lol you have the audacity to complain about civility and add that last paragarph? fuck you kiddo.
it's you that doesnt know shit about how the system works, it matches up MMRs, it doesnt give a shit about players on the same team maybe you should check out this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism to help yourself figure out your condition :^)
It would be cool if they would make yorick into a jungler,which revives the jungle camps he kills,each camp has a unique ability,so you go gank a lane with golems which can stun or something.
On September 03 2015 23:53 VayneAuthority wrote: do you honestly believe they failed 14 promos in a row? im just trying to see if you actually have a line of thought here or if you're just trolling.
Well let me put it this way. If that person that won 14 games in a row is in a game with someone that is in a lower division than the system believes the difference in MMR between the two is within the normal MMR variance. For the majority of cases this would be correct. Streaks are pretty normal and go both ways. It's entirely possible it's an edge case that once again I explained can happen due to certain circumstances but are rather rare for the average player on a large server.
As for your reply to Alaric. It's the exact same situation. If a diamond 1 is playing in a game with people lower than him than the difference between their MMRs is not statically meaningful unless it's an edge against again. So as people have said this system is the same as the previous system in all except edge cases.
Anyway everyone here has done a pretty good job I feel of explaining how the system works. You see seem utterly confused by it all. I suggest reading up on ELO(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) yourself and maybe that will help break through the wall in your mind.
lol you have the audacity to complain about civility and add that last paragarph? fuck you kiddo.
it's you that doesnt know shit about how the system works, it matches up MMRs, it doesnt give a shit about players on the same team maybe you should check out this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism to help yourself figure out your condition :^)
On September 03 2015 23:38 VayneAuthority wrote: guess what, winning 14 straight times probably boosted your MMR quite a bit.
the riot fanboying and picking and choosing is pretty crazy here.
I hope you guys arent the type to complain when you get crit 4 times in a row by an IE only jinx, because you are promoting pointless randomness that shouldnt exist. For a company that says they want to cleanup inconsistency champion select is one of the most volatile parts of a game ive ever come across.
If you guys are so content to say that the MMR is so little difference that it doesnt matter then it brings me back to my original point: why the hell does one guy have all the power in the bans while everyone else gets jack shit?
On September 03 2015 23:25 Alaric wrote: So a guy in Diamond III will always ban better than a guy in Diamond IV, and he will certainly not troll ban ever, nor rage, nor first pick something dumb. The order of magnitude between these variations is tremendous and will decide most games alones, before the other 3-4 guys in each even pick a champion, nevermind the game being played. For the same irrefutable logic you provide us with, the next game when the Diamond III player will be the lowest ranked amongst his team, he will be the liability that would do troll bans and ruin champ select and rage, while the Diamond II guy would be a paragon who would set the whole team on the path to victory.
Well, you show me how not to ignore that point then.
You're still arguing that someone in a higher division is so much better at banning, and that banning is so important that (even if all the obviously OP Azir or pre-hotfix Skarner) it can decide a game by itself, here and there. And also implying that the "banning skill" gets up significantly as you gain Elo, moreso than stuff like mechanics or ingame decision-making. I'll allow myself some healthy measure of doubt.
yup ive already stated pretty clearly that I would be annoyed if I was d1 (maybe even in my master promos) and the system let the D3 do the banning for my game and gave me last pick and I got stuck supporting people at a way worse MMR then me, that clearly isn't fair to me. ive said that at least 20 times.
Which totally misses the point. Would you be less annoyed that a D II would get first pick rather than a D III? If you were D III, what would you think of first pick being D II? And if he troll bans/troll picks/rages/whatever, will you take it in stride and say nothing because "he's higher than me so I would have banned/picked worse than he did"? Would you answer "People don't rage or troll ban or make dubious ban decisions D II and higher" to the previous question? If yes, do you believe than the gap in "banning skill" between even a single division is enough to decide the game here and there in the overwhelming majority of cases?
On September 03 2015 23:49 Caiada wrote: It was still functionally random before. Now they're just saying it. It's basically just a semantic difference if you have any understanding at all how MMR and matchmaking work.
it wasnt though at all. In early seasons 1 and 2 it was really obvious when you were in a high MMR game because you would see hotshotGG as your captain and then a bunch of other "known people" and then you are 4th pick or last pick or whatever. And the number was right there to see for everybody so you could see actually how many wins apart you were from eachother and 5th and 1st pick were SUBSTANTIAL.
so I don't know why you are spouting nonsense when I've been around for every iteration riot has done.
And you don't perceive the fact that "known" people keep going up against each other is the sign of a shallow player pool, which in itself could easily explain wider than average gaps between players? Especially when talking about season 1 (or early in the seasons, not sure what you meant exactly)?
I agree with everything you said. you should be rewarded for having a higher MMR, its not my place to say there bans are bad if im lower MMR. but this is pointless because the original point is that all 5 people should get 1 ban, not be frontloaded on one person that gets all 3 bans AND gets first pick.
On September 03 2015 23:53 VayneAuthority wrote: do you honestly believe they failed 14 promos in a row? im just trying to see if you actually have a line of thought here or if you're just trolling.
Well let me put it this way. If that person that won 14 games in a row is in a game with someone that is in a lower division than the system believes the difference in MMR between the two is within the normal MMR variance. For the majority of cases this would be correct. Streaks are pretty normal and go both ways. It's entirely possible it's an edge case that once again I explained can happen due to certain circumstances but are rather rare for the average player on a large server.
As for your reply to Alaric. It's the exact same situation. If a diamond 1 is playing in a game with people lower than him than the difference between their MMRs is not statically meaningful unless it's an edge against again. So as people have said this system is the same as the previous system in all except edge cases.
Anyway everyone here has done a pretty good job I feel of explaining how the system works. You see seem utterly confused by it all. I suggest reading up on ELO(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) yourself and maybe that will help break through the wall in your mind.
lol you have the audacity to complain about civility and add that last paragarph? fuck you kiddo.
it's you that doesnt know shit about how the system works, it matches up MMRs, it doesnt give a shit about players on the same team maybe you should check out this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism to help yourself figure out your condition :^)
Fascinating discussion strategy.
I dont have time for people like numy that are just passively aggressively trolling. like telling me to look up ELO on wiki, the fuck? is this reddit?
I was attempting to find a different avenue to this discussion as the prior ones weren't yielding any results. Mental blocks happen. It's frustrating when you become so fixated on one solution that you can't see any other. I know that feeling all too well. Unfortunate you took it the way you did.
On September 04 2015 00:16 Numy wrote: I was attempting to find a different avenue to this discussion as the prior ones weren't yielding any results. Mental blocks happen. It's frustrating when you become so fixated on one solution that you can't see any other. I know that feeling all too well. Unfortunate you took it the way you did.
I wasnt aware anyone had provided a solution that was better then giving 5 bans and 1 to each player but I would be amazed if you quoted it!
On September 03 2015 23:53 VayneAuthority wrote: do you honestly believe they failed 14 promos in a row? im just trying to see if you actually have a line of thought here or if you're just trolling.
Well let me put it this way. If that person that won 14 games in a row is in a game with someone that is in a lower division than the system believes the difference in MMR between the two is within the normal MMR variance. For the majority of cases this would be correct. Streaks are pretty normal and go both ways. It's entirely possible it's an edge case that once again I explained can happen due to certain circumstances but are rather rare for the average player on a large server.
As for your reply to Alaric. It's the exact same situation. If a diamond 1 is playing in a game with people lower than him than the difference between their MMRs is not statically meaningful unless it's an edge against again. So as people have said this system is the same as the previous system in all except edge cases.
Anyway everyone here has done a pretty good job I feel of explaining how the system works. You see seem utterly confused by it all. I suggest reading up on ELO(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) yourself and maybe that will help break through the wall in your mind.
lol you have the audacity to complain about civility and add that last paragarph? fuck you kiddo.
it's you that doesnt know shit about how the system works, it matches up MMRs, it doesnt give a shit about players on the same team maybe you should check out this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism to help yourself figure out your condition :^)
Fascinating discussion strategy.
I dont have time for people like numy that are just passively aggressively trolling. like telling me to look up ELO on wiki, the fuck? is this reddit?
It is very clear that he (and other people here) are trying to have a discussion with you. You are being incredibly aggressive over something that, honestly, is a fairly minor issue.
I find your "1 ban per player" idea quite interesting, admittedly. But everything you say is joined with anger and, frankly, an unacceptable attitude.
If you could explain how pick order determined by MMR was somehow better than random, that'd be cool, since that's what your argument was actually about.
I think, outside of obvious shit like Skarner/pre-nerf Elise and some others, people put way too much stock in bans outside of a competitive environment. I think there should be a proper competitive draft mode (and have no idea what it'd look like, probably not Dota's), but for soloq, it's honestly hard to give a shit.
do you believe than the gap in "banning skill" between even a single division is enough to decide the game here and there in the overwhelming majority of cases?
Usually, higher Elo means someone wins more games on average (in the long term) or is on a win streak. What it doesn't say is how this person wins games.
I am higher Elo than most of the people I regularly play with (well not atm, tons of rust to remove and all that), by around a full league if I trained back up some. However some of them are clearly better than me in their roles, so in the old system just because I'm first pick wouldn't mean I'm the best marksman player. Same goes with bans, just because someone is higher, doesn't mean that he gets significantly more wins through "superior banning skills". You could assume that on average, someone higher could be more knowledgeable (just like you can reasonably assume that on average, higher Elo means better mechanics, I'm just an outlier), however arguing that this alone is the deciding factor of a decent chunk of your games is the part where you get unreasonable.
I've been quite enjoying Voli jungle, as his Health scaling on his passive + Bite makes Cinderhulk first quite good on him.
Has anyone seen/played him top lately? I seem to see top being still a pretty tanky slugfest. Voli was never the best top laner, but could do is passably depending on the opponent.
On September 04 2015 00:23 Caiada wrote: If you could explain how pick order determined by MMR was somehow better than random, that'd be cool, since that's what your argument was actually about.
On September 03 2015 22:11 VayneAuthority wrote: its not just about more bans either, the system has needed a rework for a while now ever since they made captain completely random. It was fine when you had the highest MMR person doing the bans because they deserved it, but now just anyone being able to do the bans can severely impact the game and its highly unfair. If its going to be random the ban system should have been moved to more equality a long time ago, which ties in with 5 bans per side anyway.
first post I made on the subject. My argument has always been if its going to be random then it needs to be fair.
and determined by MMR is better then random because it's being determined by SOMETHING. nothing random is ever good for
On September 04 2015 00:27 Caiada wrote: Determined by a system with inherent statistical variance, determined by a random number generator, what is honestly the functional difference?
so what exactly do you find so appalling about every player getting a ban and making it completely equal?
On September 04 2015 00:28 Caiada wrote: Nothing, but that's not the argument, is it?
it is exactly the argument. people just took what I posted out of context and started a completely different tangent, that's always been the original post.
I'd be tempted to link that mafia game where one guy convinced the others to random lynch d1 with math, and it hit scum.
Volibear's passive is %HP-based so it actually doesn't care whether you build HP or resistances as long as they are well-balanced, Req. (The bite scaling on %bonus HP and the fact that HP is way cheaper than armour and works well against MR too still make you right for building HP.)
On September 04 2015 00:34 Alaric wrote: I'd be tempted to link that mafia game where one guy convinced the others to random lynch d1 with math, and it hit scum.
Volibear's passive is %HP-based so it actually doesn't care whether you build HP or resistances as long as they are well-balanced, Req. (The bite scaling on %bonus HP and the fact that HP is way cheaper than armour and works well against MR too still make you right for building HP.)
Well yeah, as far as the passive goes there's probably not a solid reason to pick HP over Resists (math may prove that wrong or right), but the fact that it does get stronger with Health is a nice bonus. And Bite is really strong. I feel like his W is a flat out amazing ability for Jungling. Gives clear speed, build tank, still nuke people in fights.
That said, he probably does struggle in top lane without a reliable clear or pushing power.
Titanic/SV into Warmog's is what I'd do taking him top. A lot of health, a lot of damage, crazy Warmog's passive. And you get waveclear. Only problem is, I think then you're just a slightly worse Shen.
On September 04 2015 00:40 Nos- wrote: it's like you guys have never seen vayneauthority post or something
In my defense, I really haven't. I'm just a lonely jungle golem whose home was burned down.
But his ban per player idea is interesting, as I said before. Caiada, you said 5 bans might be too many, but I'm not sure. It would certainly shake things up. I know the topic of interwoven bans (a la Dota) has been mentioned and likely talked to death, but I think it would really add to the strategy of picks bans
The issue with interwoven bans in solo q is that League's pay model drastically reduces players ability to play everything. Dota doesn't have this issue so making team comps is a lot easier and the UI doesn't have to account for the pool of heroes each member has. Don't think there's anything wrong with the solo q system now. You could make a case for bans being something that game doesn't even need at that level and instead merely lock champs out of ranked if they have had any drastic changes.
On September 04 2015 01:12 nafta wrote: Lol you definitely need bans pls don't be ridiculous.
I'd rather have a situation where there are no characters that are so strong that they "have to be banned" and then have no bans, just let people play what they want. But that'd never happen, as is the nature of balance in these sorts of games.
I much prefer bans in the way of "we ban out characters that counter our characters/composition", rather than "we ban out characters that are broken".
On September 04 2015 01:12 nafta wrote: Lol you definitely need bans pls don't be ridiculous.
Well if all the broken champs aren't in ranked or there just aren't broken champs then front loaded bans don't actually do anything. That's kind of the logic I can see people making a case for. If there will ever be a case like that is another story.
On September 04 2015 01:26 Osmoses wrote: Theres also the "i personally think x is bullshit and would rather not play against it if I can help it" factor.
On September 04 2015 01:26 Osmoses wrote: Theres also the "i personally think x is bullshit and would rather not play against it if I can help it" factor.
Thing is, there's a grey zone between 'I hate playing against this champion' and 'This champion is flat out broken, can't let enemy have it'.
Removing bans would be a really bad idea, wouldn't be surprised if the soloQ meta became very stale because of it. Some champion pick rates might skyrocket because there's no way to prevent that champion from being in the game, and then the enemy team would be forced to play around it, instead of just banning that champion.
You could make a case for bans being something that game doesn't even need at that level and instead merely lock champs out of ranked if they have had any drastic changes.
That would mean Riot wouldn't know if a champion was overtuned or not until it hit ranked, which is just a waste of time. Normals are not a good indicator of champion health, considering that people of different MMR get thrown into the same game. And disabling a champ on live just seems a good way to add fuel to the anti-Riot circlejerk.
Bans are complicated. Which is kind of why I prefer keeping the soloq system as simple as possible and, if it was tested and shown to potentially be really cool, making a more complicated drafting style for competitive/ranked 5s.
I'd argue that ranked play is already "stale" and a poor indicator of champion strength. Will it be any less stale if the reworked champs just were disabled? Who knows. A lot of assumptions and theories but until it gets done you can't really say.
I'm merely looking at how someone else who has been designing a moba for years goes about doing things and trying to see if such logic can be applied to a similar but different game. The league community has had things a certain way for so long that any change will be seen as a negative. We already saw that in the Ghostcrawler ban discussion.
On September 04 2015 01:12 nafta wrote: Lol you definitely need bans pls don't be ridiculous.
Well if all the broken champs aren't in ranked or there just aren't broken champs then front loaded bans don't actually do anything. That's kind of the logic I can see people making a case for. If there will ever be a case like that is another story.
Except that is literally not possible to accomplish so it is irrelevant. And bans do a lot of stuff.
Even if what you say somehow could happen say I want to play tf mid. Why wouldn't I ban 3 champs that are really good vs him to increase my chances of carrying the game?
On September 04 2015 01:12 nafta wrote: Lol you definitely need bans pls don't be ridiculous.
Well if all the broken champs aren't in ranked or there just aren't broken champs then front loaded bans don't actually do anything. That's kind of the logic I can see people making a case for. If there will ever be a case like that is another story.
Except that is literally not possible to accomplish so it is irrelevant. And bans do a lot of stuff.
Even if what you say somehow could happen say I want to play tf mid. Why wouldn't I ban 3 champs that are really good vs him to increase my chances of carrying the game?
You know what, I think I get it. I've always looked at league as game about two teams going against each other but that's actually the wrong way to think about it. At it's core it's about a individuals against individuals. That's why the team aspect isn't viewed as big as the solo aspect of it. It couldn't be about teams as the way the content is structured doesn't allow people to do this unless they have unlocked enough of it. In dota there was always a mentality of "pubs don't matter" since the game is fundamentally a team game which is why I had this mentality in league but that's been wrong all this time.
That was just a random epiphany I had that I thought I'd share. As for how it ties into the TF example well my initial reaction was that it is ludicrous to decide what hero you are going to play without seeing any heroes from either side so the act of banning 3 "counters" before anything happens is silly. Now I'm wrong obviously since prioritizing yourself over team is how league works because it's not about the team. Getting yourself into the most favorable position may just be the best way to win regardless of how teams work out at the end.
How is it ludicrous? You are fp you have to pick your shit first. How do you pick something that works vs the enemy team when the enemy team picks after you?
It isn't just about prioritizing yourself over "the team". In soloq there is no way to know what your enemies are playing. This isn't a tournament.
You get matched with 4 random people and probably at least 1 person will not even get their role why the fuck would you trust them over yourself?
Not to mention the system gives you a solo rating that is decided by team results. How you can think this is accurate is beyond me unless you play A LOT of games.
On September 04 2015 00:23 Caiada wrote: If you could explain how pick order determined by MMR was somehow better than random, that'd be cool, since that's what your argument was actually about.
I think, outside of obvious shit like Skarner/pre-nerf Elise and some others, people put way too much stock in bans outside of a competitive environment. I think there should be a proper competitive draft mode (and have no idea what it'd look like, probably not Dota's), but for soloq, it's honestly hard to give a shit.
On September 04 2015 00:27 Caiada wrote: Determined by a system with inherent statistical variance, determined by a random number generator, what is honestly the functional difference?
Here, I will explain this to you.
If the 1st Pick/Pick Ban is determined by ELO it is more likely that that person will be a competent player for the average MMR of the game, and he is most likely to be the best player on the team. Its actually pretty simple.
Just as an example, imagine MMRbot is creating a game ~ 2100 elo. So it picks players A-E for one side. A is 2200 B2150, C2100, D2050, and E2000. I have no way of telling you with certainty that E is not Bjergson leveling an alt, and A is not some Bronze shitter that Xiaowiexaio ELO boosted there, I can't. However, in the statistical model, A is the most likely on the team to not have a "true MMR" below 2100 and is statistically most likely to have the best "true MMR" which is about equally likely to be even higher than what this game wants (I.E. he is the most likely on the team to hardcarry).
First pick is no longer determined by ELO. And the difference between the players in a matchmade team should still be negligible.
edit: on that note, I'd be very interested to see some statistics on how often the highest mmr person in any matchmade game either wins or can be determined to "hardcarry". Anyone here into the rito api?
On September 04 2015 03:20 Osmoses wrote: First pick is no longer determined by ELO. And the difference between the players in a matchmade team should still be negligible.
edit: on that note, I'd be very interested to see some statistics on how often the highest mmr person in any matchmade game either wins or can be determined to "hardcarry". Anyone here into the rito api?
I was of the understanding that Riot does not share MMR. And basing any study on LP and division is a bad idea because MMR fluctuates so much more than LP due to win/loss streaks.
I personally welcomed the change to make pick order random (was quite a while ago I think). There's no strong correlation between banning skill and MMR in the small range of a game, and it means that you don't have to deal with stuff like 'dude I'm the best player on this team/you're last pick=worst player'. It also means that if you get queued with other people multiple times your pick order is not always predetermined (two players want same role, one guy gets it one game? Doesn't mean he'll get it next game).
On September 04 2015 03:20 Osmoses wrote: First pick is no longer determined by ELO. And the difference between the players in a matchmade team should still be negligible.
edit: on that note, I'd be very interested to see some statistics on how often the highest mmr person in any matchmade game either wins or can be determined to "hardcarry". Anyone here into the rito api?
I was of the understanding that Riot does not share MMR. And basing any study on LP and division is a bad idea because MMR fluctuates so much more than LP due to win/loss streaks.
I personally welcomed the change to make pick order random (was quite a while ago I think). There's no strong correlation between banning skill and MMR in the small range of a game, and it means that you don't have to deal with stuff like 'dude I'm the best player on this team/you're last pick=worst player'. It also means that if you get queued with other people multiple times your pick order is not always predetermined (two players want same role, one guy gets it one game? Doesn't mean he'll get it next game).
The last time Riot divulged how MMR/Elo matches up to the ranked system was when they transitioned from the 7 "division" with shown elo to the 5 division hidden elo system so people would know what they would transition to. Since then it's been a black box to the community and there's 0 guarantee that it's been changed.
Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
Never. I rarely see it either. What is this? SC? You think LoL is mature enough to understand GLHF isn't a taunt? I should probably say something back when I see it though. Lately I've been seeing a lot of players spam GG at the end of games.
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Because the short answer is that you don't. You just don't know because you don't see their mmr. For the vast majority of players riot could have changed the system and they wouldn't have know. For the vast majority of players riot could have not changed the system and lied and they wouldn't know. Even at the top 2% area there are just too many players during normal playing time. If you don't see the same players in most of your games then you've got nothing to complain about.
It is true, as clutz says, that better players will tend to get to ban in a particular game because while a players MMR is random it's still centered on their current value. I am not sure that this is worth the pain that comes in games when people "know" that another player is "worse" than them. Especially because the difference between the centers and the amount of variance in a typical MMR has mean that while, in the ordering system, the top player is indeed the player with the highest likelihood of being best, that likelihood is not so much higher than 20%. 20% is the liklihood that the top player is he best in the random system.
In my experience champion select toxicity went down a lot with that change. A whole hell of a lot. People were more likely to tell you you sucked before anything happened. People were more likely to rag on you in game of you were last pick and something went wrong. People were less likely to talk about bans except saying "I am the best so listen to me"
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
The only thing I consistently do is call GG with a :p if someone gets a gold lead from frostfang.
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
Never. I rarely see it either. What is this? SC? You think LoL is mature enough to understand GLHF isn't a taunt? I should probably say something back when I see it though. Lately I've been seeing a lot of players spam GG at the end of games.
probably has more to do with tons of people being chat restricted and not being able to use /all chat
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
In my experience champion select toxicity went down a lot with that change. A whole hell of a lot. People were more likely to tell you you sucked before anything happened. People were more likely to rag on you in game of you were last pick and something went wrong. People were less likely to talk about bans except saying "I am the best so listen to me"
IMO if you care about the words expressed in champ select (i.e. Shitter, fag, etc) then you are correct. But the substantive portion has gotten worse as everyone has a "claim" on whatever their main is and the rigid (and at least somewhat accurate) hierarchy that used to exist is gone. Given that you are unlikely to see these players again, a military model is probably the best for moderating the interactions.
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
Like you don't even play ranked why talk like you know what you are supposed to do to get good winrate?
Like don't get me wrong I don't think I am good or anything but anyone who has reached >d3 will agree with me on this - you don't just ban the statistically highest win rate champs. Even at lower elo with how much elo boosting there is you should still ban shit like riven/rengar every game.
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
Like you don't even play ranked why talk like you know what you are supposed to do to get good winrate?
Like don't get me wrong I don't think I am good or anything but anyone who has reached >d3 will agree with me on this - you don't just ban the statistically highest win rate champs. Even at lower elo with how much elo boosting there is you should still ban shit like riven/rengar every game.
If there was actually that much elo boosting going, you'd see much higher win rates on Riven/Rengar, no? Even with all those elo boosters, Riven is still right at 50% and statistically unlikely to make your team win.
Also, I think this is a discussion that would be much more productive with our dicks on the table instead of dancing around the subject. For me, I pretty much only ban women it seems. Janna is the premier ban target, especially if you are playing any champion that she hard counters. (This is putting aside obviously broken champs like Skarner.) Other priority bans are Vayne/Jinx/Annie/Ahri depending on which hurt the champion I plan on playing the most, and which of my teammates plan on playing those champions.
In competitive play, you can scout out your opponents and ban out the champs you know for a fact they are best on. In solo queue, your best bet is to play the odds and go for the +EV play. If you view bans as a way of forcing their players into less optimal champs, you can't do much better in terms of win rate by being able to force their Vayne/Jinx main onto Tristana/Lucian, or their Ahri/Annie main onto Yasuo/Viktor, or their Janna onto Thresh.
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
Like you don't even play ranked why talk like you know what you are supposed to do to get good winrate?
Like don't get me wrong I don't think I am good or anything but anyone who has reached >d3 will agree with me on this - you don't just ban the statistically highest win rate champs. Even at lower elo with how much elo boosting there is you should still ban shit like riven/rengar every game.
If there was actually that much elo boosting going, you'd see much higher win rates on Riven/Rengar, no? Even with all those elo boosters, Riven is still right at 50% and statistically unlikely to make your team win.
Riven is fun, lots of people with not many games on her play her if they need to top just because it's a fun champion. I personally have like a 30% winrate with her in occasional games.
Besides it's not so much the fear of the average riven winning lane. It's the fact that maybe 1/10 rivens will literally just 1v5 and there isn't anything you can do as a mid or bot laner. If every gragas does above average, but 15% of rengars literally 1v5, then you ban rengar if you feel confident you can carry. Because gragas you can outskill/outcarry, rengar will just make the game literally unwinnable 15% of the time.
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
Like you don't even play ranked why talk like you know what you are supposed to do to get good winrate?
Like don't get me wrong I don't think I am good or anything but anyone who has reached >d3 will agree with me on this - you don't just ban the statistically highest win rate champs. Even at lower elo with how much elo boosting there is you should still ban shit like riven/rengar every game.
If there was actually that much elo boosting going, you'd see much higher win rates on Riven/Rengar, no? Even with all those elo boosters, Riven is still right at 50% and statistically unlikely to make your team win.
Riven is fun, lots of people with not many games on her play her if they need to top just because it's a fun champion. I personally have like a 30% winrate with her in occasional games.
It's not so much the fear of the average riven winning lane. It's the fact that maybe 1/10 rivens will literally just 1v5 and there isn't anything you can do as a mid or bot laner. If every gragas does above average, but 15% of rengars literally 1v5, then you ban rengar if you feel confident you can carry. Because gragas you can outskill/outcarry, rengar will just make the game literally unwinnable 15% of the time.
Isn't reasoning like this exactly why relying on intuition is dangerous? We are primed to remember all those 1v5 games by BoxBox smurf, and not the games where Riven was useless. Meanwhile we are NOT primed to remember those far more frequent games where having a Janna on the other team meant their backline was literally unkillable.
Worrying about the black swan is not a positive EV play. Sure, once in a while you'll run into a challenger smurf on Riven/Rengar. And once in a while your bot lane won't ever connect to the game. That sucks, but you can't plan your strategy around that. Losses to Riven smurfs may feel bad, but they're not any different than the far more frequent losses to Janna that you don't remember.
Also, the whole "Riven just has lots of people play her who aren't good at her dragging down her skill rate" is a fallacy. The average Riven player has 144 Riven games played this season; the average Janna player has 82. Janna's win rate for players that have played fewer than 5 games on Janna this season is higher than Riven's overall win rate (and for Riven players with 50-125 games played).
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
Like you don't even play ranked why talk like you know what you are supposed to do to get good winrate?
Like don't get me wrong I don't think I am good or anything but anyone who has reached >d3 will agree with me on this - you don't just ban the statistically highest win rate champs. Even at lower elo with how much elo boosting there is you should still ban shit like riven/rengar every game.
If there was actually that much elo boosting going, you'd see much higher win rates on Riven/Rengar, no? Even with all those elo boosters, Riven is still right at 50% and statistically unlikely to make your team win.
Riven is fun, lots of people with not many games on her play her if they need to top just because it's a fun champion. I personally have like a 30% winrate with her in occasional games.
It's not so much the fear of the average riven winning lane. It's the fact that maybe 1/10 rivens will literally just 1v5 and there isn't anything you can do as a mid or bot laner. If every gragas does above average, but 15% of rengars literally 1v5, then you ban rengar if you feel confident you can carry. Because gragas you can outskill/outcarry, rengar will just make the game literally unwinnable 15% of the time.
Isn't reasoning like this exactly why relying on intuition is dangerous? We are primed to remember all those 1v5 games by BoxBox smurf, and not the games where Riven was useless. Meanwhile we are NOT primed to remember those far more frequent games where having a Janna on the other team meant their backline was literally unkillable.
Worrying about the black swan is not a positive EV play. Sure, once in a while you'll run into a challenger smurf on Riven/Rengar. And once in a while your bot lane won't ever connect to the game. That sucks, but you can't plan your strategy around that. Losses to Riven smurfs may feel bad, but they're not any different than the far more frequent losses to Janna that you don't remember.
Also, the whole "Riven just has lots of people play her who aren't good at her dragging down her skill rate" is a fallacy. The average Riven player has 144 Riven games played this season; the average Janna player has 82. Janna's win rate for players that have played fewer than 5 games on Janna this season is higher than Riven's overall win rate (and for Riven players with 50-125 games played).
There are also lots of "riven only" mains who are plateau'd at their correct elo. If i hit a plat 1 riven main, who's been in plat 1 for the last 6 months, he's going to have roughly a 50% winrate on riven. (janna being op right now doesn't really detract from that.) Which, incidently is another reason to ban riven/rengars, you cut off any one trick ponies on the other team, and there are much more likely to be riven or rengar one trick ponies then elise one trick ponies, but that aside.
It's just the type of games that happen when a riven or rengar is in the game, if they're hard carrying then the game isn't fun, you don't learn anything, and there isn't anything you can do.
If you want to say that banning a champion just because it wins 5% more of the time then rengar is better, just because of that 5% you're ignoring a shitload of factors. Maybe you're confident you can carry the game unless there's a fed rengar in it, maybe that 5% comes from people who don't know how to play against it but you do, maybe that 5% is because it's strong against champions you aren't playing, maybe it comes because the champion is really good at stopping other lanes carrying, but you're confident you can carry so that doesn't matter. etc etc
If you're better then your elo, then banning out the things that can prevent you from carrying means you always get to influence the game fully.
If you're worse/at the correct elo, banning out things which prevent you from learning, and not banning out things you need to learn against anyway just helps you get better.
Even if i agreed that banning the statistical op's might win 1-2% more games in the short run, which i'm still not convinced (your team can pick them too you know,) even then you're having less fun and learning less...
There is also another factor specifically with riven. She is so fucking useless when someone who doesn't main her tries to play her. Dunno about you guys but losing in 20 or playing 4v5 are both unpleasant on either side.
Janna is a champion I agree is insanely broken right now and is super brainless/faceroll but she doesn't just hard carry you games like some other shit.
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
It's rare in my games. Funnily enough I've typed "from?" and I've gotten a handful of people who picked up on that, probably more replies to that than any glhf.
Was never an argument just a bonus thing. I would go as far to say that increasing your chance of enjoying the game would make you improve faster but that is a different story.
Yeah you guys are confusing me now. I am banning champs because I want to win the game, not because my panties get in a twist after losing to the Broken Sword. I find losing to Riven to be exactly as infuriating as losing to Janna, except that the latter happens way more often than the former, and takes a lot less skill on their part to boot.
That being said, I think that would be a fascinating Riot API exercise. Win rate times play rate is but a proxy for the true statistic we are searching for, which is win rate for bans. I want to know the highest win rates for any particular ban. Part II, the more complex version, is win rates given both sides' bans, and in particular, the effect of bans. For example, does a Riven ban make those one-trick Riven ponies gravitate to any particular champion? I somehow doubt that banning Riven causes them to all play Malphite, for example. Maybe they all gravitate to Xin Zhao top or something, and then you can either preemptively ban that champion and/or have a Jax counterpick prepared.
GLHF doesn't work as well in a teamgame because everyone is thinking "is he talking to me, who is this guy, someone else will answer". In SC it's a greeting between two people, so the dynamics of the interaction are more easy to accept and follow.
On September 04 2015 06:07 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah you guys are confusing me now. I am banning champs because I want to win the game, not because my panties get in a twist after losing to the Broken Sword. I find losing to Riven to be exactly as infuriating as losing to Janna, except that the latter happens way more often than the former, and takes a lot less skill on their part to boot.
Sure that's how you do things, but not everyone bans to maximize their chances of winning. I've banned like the same handful of champs for four years regardless of their winrates/impact on the game/current viability ~_~
On September 04 2015 06:15 Osmoses wrote: I ban Fizz because I just hate playing against that little shit, doesn't matter if he carries or not.
Yea pretty much. I've banned Fizz for years, long before he was "competitively viable"/a common solo queue pick.
Honestly I could agree overall with janna over riven ban. I am kinda biased since I main bot lane and not the champs she fucks that much and know most of the time how to beat her. But again you are using logic "hey this champion is really good vs what I do" not just the brainless looking at winrates/playrate/etc so don't really think it counts.
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
Like you don't even play ranked why talk like you know what you are supposed to do to get good winrate?
Like don't get me wrong I don't think I am good or anything but anyone who has reached >d3 will agree with me on this - you don't just ban the statistically highest win rate champs. Even at lower elo with how much elo boosting there is you should still ban shit like riven/rengar every game.
Its not the statistically highest win rate champions. Its the champions which have the highest probability of winning over any number of games. I.E. you ban champions that win and are played. Champions that don't win and are played you can ignore, they're never negative. Champions that win and aren't played you can ignore they're unlikely to be picked enough to matter.
Champions that win and are played, those are the ones you have to remove from the pick pool.
Granted i don't think it works when you're in master. But that isn't because the idea is wrong, its because you're going to either know who you're playing against and so know who to ban and/or you're going to be playing in an area where there isn't lots of good data on pick rates and so your gut on pick rates is better than the data i have.
Otherwise i can't see why you would go with anything but the +EV play. And i can't see why that wouldn't be how i set things up (besides me being lazy and not stratifying bans based on your role/champion preference)
On September 04 2015 06:07 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah you guys are confusing me now. I am banning champs because I want to win the game, not because my panties get in a twist after losing to the Broken Sword. I find losing to Riven to be exactly as infuriating as losing to Janna, except that the latter happens way more often than the former, and takes a lot less skill on their part to boot.
That being said, I think that would be a fascinating Riot API exercise. Win rate times play rate is but a proxy for the true statistic we are searching for, which is win rate for bans. I want to know the highest win rates for any particular ban. Part II, the more complex version, is win rates given both sides' bans, and in particular, the effect of bans. For example, does a Riven ban make those one-trick Riven ponies gravitate to any particular champion? I somehow doubt that banning Riven causes them to all play Malphite, for example. Maybe they all gravitate to Xin Zhao top or something, and then you can either preemptively ban that champion and/or have a Jax counterpick prepared.
I took champion.gg data and did this. Its in the blog section. You can see my method there if you want. A direct "win rate for bans" would be interesting though i am not sure how easy it would be to disambiguate the effects of correlated bans. Given the number of ban combinations i am not sure that it would be feasible to extract that data. (Decent if you do it simple only, but that isn't too accurate given how we think things are saturated)
Well the thing is that it's only the guaranteed best +EV play for the average League player and you don't know how much different you yourself are from that hypothetical person and how that impacts the EV values. I do know that it's not insignificant. The only way to find that is to only analyze the games of one specific person, but then the variance is way too high for meaningful data.
On September 04 2015 06:21 Goumindong wrote: I took champion.gg data and did this. Its in the blog section. You can see my method there if you want. A direct "win rate for bans" would be interesting though i am not sure how easy it would be to disambiguate the effects of correlated bans. Given the number of ban combinations i am not sure that it would be feasible to extract that data. (Decent if you do it simple only, but that isn't too accurate given how we think things are saturated)
Interesting analysis. I do think that win rate per ban is feasible and the worries about disambiguation are perhaps unnecessary. If you really wanted, you can categorize every ban as a ban targeted towards a particular lane, and then analyze say, a Jinx ban in the context of "0 prior ADC bans"; "1 prior ADC ban"; etc.
Come to think of it this is worth a new site separate from champion.gg that's just devoted to pick/ban. Sadly I think it would go underused because people would just ban Fizz/Riven/Rengar every game anyway.
On September 04 2015 06:07 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah you guys are confusing me now. I am banning champs because I want to win the game, not because my panties get in a twist after losing to the Broken Sword. I find losing to Riven to be exactly as infuriating as losing to Janna, except that the latter happens way more often than the former, and takes a lot less skill on their part to boot.
Two things, (substitute janna with any winrate champion)
1. Losing to janna is something you can outplay, she's stronger then other supports, but there's counterplay etc, you just have to play slightly better/differently. Losing because of a carrying or feeding riven there's nothing you can do.
2. janna is going to be played in a lot of your games whatever you do, so if you ban her in your games she'll still be in 80% of them. Why not just focus your energy on learning how to play around her/against her, rather then trying to ban her. Sure you might lose 2-3 extra games out of 50-60 where the enemy first rotations janna, but you're learning from these losses. Compare that to the 2 games out 50-60 where a riven or rengar rolls you and you get nothing from those.
With regards to the winrate per ban thing, i highly doubt there's an effect outside of the fp champions like darius/elise/whatever, because if you ban something like janna as second pick, which normally doesn't get fp'd, your own team is just as likely to get it (if not more, because your support is more likely to be in the top 2 picks then the top 1 pick.)
I doubt the prevelance of swapping is common enough to undermine that relationship.
On September 04 2015 06:21 Goumindong wrote: I took champion.gg data and did this. Its in the blog section. You can see my method there if you want. A direct "win rate for bans" would be interesting though i am not sure how easy it would be to disambiguate the effects of correlated bans. Given the number of ban combinations i am not sure that it would be feasible to extract that data. (Decent if you do it simple only, but that isn't too accurate given how we think things are saturated)
Interesting analysis. I do think that win rate per ban is feasible and the worries about disambiguation are perhaps unnecessary. If you really wanted, you can categorize every ban as a ban targeted towards a particular lane, and then analyze say, a Jinx ban in the context of "0 prior ADC bans"; "1 prior ADC ban"; etc.
Come to think of it this is worth a new site separate from champion.gg that's just devoted to pick/ban. Sadly I think it would go underused because people would just ban Fizz/Riven/Rengar every game anyway.
I looked at this before and did some scoping.
I ran some machine learning algorithms and I was able to predict the outcomes of matches (ranked) with roughly 55% accuracy using only the champions picked and a rough elo bracket estimate (e.g. gold). Comparably I can do so for ARAM with around 65% accuracy. This by itself is only somewhat useful, but it can be leveraged to figure out the ideal bans and picks in a given situation using the predicted winrates.
On September 04 2015 06:19 nafta wrote: But again you are using logic "hey this champion is really good vs what I do" not just the brainless looking at winrates/playrate/etc so don't really think it counts.
The stats are real, whether you look at them or not. The brainless thing to do is to ignore them and continue on blissfully operating in your own world of confirmation biases and sampling biases. The right thing to do is to consider win rates and play rates in the context of your particular game state. Maybe Janna isn't worth banning if you plan on picking Blitz first. But you shouldn't be passing over a Janna ban just because you never saw Janna build a Rabadon's and 1v5 the other team under your nexus turrets.
Otherwise we end up in a world where people ban Fizz even though having a Fizz on the other team makes you more likely to win the game.
On September 04 2015 06:07 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah you guys are confusing me now. I am banning champs because I want to win the game, not because my panties get in a twist after losing to the Broken Sword. I find losing to Riven to be exactly as infuriating as losing to Janna, except that the latter happens way more often than the former, and takes a lot less skill on their part to boot.
Two things, (substitute janna with any winrate champion)
1. Losing to janna is something you can outplay, she's stronger then other supports, but there's counterplay etc, you just have to play slightly better/differently. Losing because of a carrying or feeding riven there's nothing you can do.
I really, really hope you're kidding.
2. janna is going to be played in a lot of your games whatever you do, so if you ban her in your games she'll still be in 80% of them. Why not just focus your energy on learning how to play around her/against her, rather then trying to ban her. Sure you might lose 2-3 extra games out of 50-60 where the enemy first rotations janna, but you're learning from these losses. Compare that to the 2 games out 50-60 where a riven or rengar rolls you and you get nothing from those.
Your argument doesn't make sense. I get only 20% of the bans either way. The other 80% of the time, I see Jannas and Rivens in exactly the overall play rate proportions. By banning out Janna in the 20% of the games I have first pick, I do not disproportionately fail to learn how to play against her than if I banned Riven.
With regards to the winrate per ban thing, i highly doubt there's an effect outside of the fp champions like darius/elise/whatever, because if you ban something like janna as second pick, which normally doesn't get fp'd, your own team is just as likely to get it (if not more, because your support is more likely to be in the top 2 picks then the top 1 pick.)
I doubt the prevelance of swapping is common enough to undermine that relationship.
Let's be clear here - either you're banning for their team or your team. You don't get to claim that you shouldn't ban Janna because she might be on your team, and then claim that you have to ban Riven because BoxBox might be on theirs. Besides, if you're banning your own team, that's easy - op.gg that shit and see what champ they've played 100+ times with a 40% winrate and ban that shit. This discussion is about banning the other team.
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
It's rare in my games. Funnily enough I've typed "from?" and I've gotten a handful of people who picked up on that, probably more replies to that than any glhf.
I've seen people say that before. What's that in reference to?
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
It's rare in my games. Funnily enough I've typed "from?" and I've gotten a handful of people who picked up on that, probably more replies to that than any glhf.
I've seen people say that before. What's that in reference to?
I believe it's just asking from which country/state you are.
On September 04 2015 06:21 Goumindong wrote: I took champion.gg data and did this. Its in the blog section. You can see my method there if you want. A direct "win rate for bans" would be interesting though i am not sure how easy it would be to disambiguate the effects of correlated bans. Given the number of ban combinations i am not sure that it would be feasible to extract that data. (Decent if you do it simple only, but that isn't too accurate given how we think things are saturated)
Interesting analysis. I do think that win rate per ban is feasible and the worries about disambiguation are perhaps unnecessary. If you really wanted, you can categorize every ban as a ban targeted towards a particular lane, and then analyze say, a Jinx ban in the context of "0 prior ADC bans"; "1 prior ADC ban"; etc.
Come to think of it this is worth a new site separate from champion.gg that's just devoted to pick/ban. Sadly I think it would go underused because people would just ban Fizz/Riven/Rengar every game anyway.
I looked at this before and did some scoping.
I ran some machine learning algorithms and I was able to predict the outcomes of matches (ranked) with roughly 55% accuracy using only the champions picked and a rough elo bracket estimate (e.g. gold). Comparably I can do so for ARAM with around 65% accuracy. This by itself is only somewhat useful, but it can be leveraged to figure out the ideal bans and picks in a given situation using the predicted winrates.
Let's talk about this. I envision a site that:
1) takes in input, like op.gg/multi, a list of summoner names for your team; 2) responds with your team's best win rate + play rate champions; 3) uses that to inform pick/bans.
Specifically, it produces this table:
Your team high win rate / high play rate + general high win rate / high play rate = priority pick/ban Your team low win rate / low play rate + general high win rate / high play rate = priority ban Your team high win rate / high play rate + general low play rate = priority pick but not ban
It then assembles a list of the priority bans, which is then adjusted live by the other team's bans as well as what champions are remaining. (Such as prioritizing Jinx ban if Vayne is banned, per GMD's blog.)
On September 04 2015 03:57 Sonnington wrote: Being good or bad at LoL isn't a linear progression. Look at the LCS for instance. They're all top players in theory and some are bad at csing and good at team fighting. Some are good at team fighting and bad at csing, etc, etc.
I think the most amusing part of VayneAuthority's rant on the difference between a Diamond 5 and Diamond 3 is the fact that Diamond comprises the top 2% of LoL players. Forget elo for a moment. How about lower divisions when you have people on your team that are 10%-15% higher or lower on the bracket?
Shit you all probably ban incorrectly anyway because it's easy to not see the whole of pick and win rates and instead rely on personal feelings of effectiveness. I may update my pick/ban spreadsheet today for the new patch/settle into 5.16 meta changes today (may not though)
lol thanks for the laugh
I honestly wish one day you reach high elo and understand why bans are done and the reason isn't looking at numbers on a website .
Like you don't even play ranked why talk like you know what you are supposed to do to get good winrate?
Like don't get me wrong I don't think I am good or anything but anyone who has reached >d3 will agree with me on this - you don't just ban the statistically highest win rate champs. Even at lower elo with how much elo boosting there is you should still ban shit like riven/rengar every game.
If there was actually that much elo boosting going, you'd see much higher win rates on Riven/Rengar, no? Even with all those elo boosters, Riven is still right at 50% and statistically unlikely to make your team win.
Riven is fun, lots of people with not many games on her play her if they need to top just because it's a fun champion. I personally have like a 30% winrate with her in occasional games.
It's not so much the fear of the average riven winning lane. It's the fact that maybe 1/10 rivens will literally just 1v5 and there isn't anything you can do as a mid or bot laner. If every gragas does above average, but 15% of rengars literally 1v5, then you ban rengar if you feel confident you can carry. Because gragas you can outskill/outcarry, rengar will just make the game literally unwinnable 15% of the time.
Isn't reasoning like this exactly why relying on intuition is dangerous? We are primed to remember all those 1v5 games by BoxBox smurf, and not the games where Riven was useless. Meanwhile we are NOT primed to remember those far more frequent games where having a Janna on the other team meant their backline was literally unkillable.
Worrying about the black swan is not a positive EV play. Sure, once in a while you'll run into a challenger smurf on Riven/Rengar. And once in a while your bot lane won't ever connect to the game. That sucks, but you can't plan your strategy around that. Losses to Riven smurfs may feel bad, but they're not any different than the far more frequent losses to Janna that you don't remember.
Also, the whole "Riven just has lots of people play her who aren't good at her dragging down her skill rate" is a fallacy. The average Riven player has 144 Riven games played this season; the average Janna player has 82. Janna's win rate for players that have played fewer than 5 games on Janna this season is higher than Riven's overall win rate (and for Riven players with 50-125 games played).
I have about 6 games on Riven this season. I'm 1-5 because I was stupid rusty and my mechanics are shot. There are plenty more people that play Riven sparingly than there are people who one trick pony her.
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
I do, sometimes, if I remember. Generally when there's playful pre-minion banter.
On September 04 2015 05:37 GrandInquisitor wrote: Also, the whole "Riven just has lots of people play her who aren't good at her dragging down her skill rate" is a fallacy. The average Riven player has 144 Riven games played this season; the average Janna player has 82. Janna's win rate for players that have played fewer than 5 games on Janna this season is higher than Riven's overall win rate (and for Riven players with 50-125 games played).
I have about 6 games on Riven this season. I'm 1-5 because I was stupid rusty and my mechanics are shot. There are plenty more people that play Riven sparingly than there are people who one trick pony her.
I mean, you can try to generalize from your own experience, but this is a demonstrably false statement, both objectively and when compared to other champions.
The first thing to notice is that more than half of all Riven ranked games are played by Riven players that have played 50+ ranked games with Riven this season.
Moreover, not only does the average Riven player have nearly 2x as many games on Riven as the average Janna player, only 7% of Riven players have < 5 games on Riven (compared to 12% for Janna); 11% have 5-15 (compared to 17% for Janna); 24% have 15-50 (compared to 29% for Janna). But there are far more Riven players with 50+ games than Janna players with 50+ games.
This is exactly the reason why we have data, so we can call out people that just pull anecdotes from their ass and assume it to be true generally.
I guess if you play purely to win then that's fine.
There was an analogy for elo that I find fitting. Your elo is just currency, you pay elo to learn from better players and worse players pay elo to learn from you.
I'd prefer to maximise relevancy of each game, rather then throw away 5 games just to get easy wins in 6 other ones.
And i'm sorry, you're right I was joking. Janna has literally zero unique play patterns, strengths or weaknesses you can learn, if she's in the game you just arbitrarily have 5% less chance of winning completely unrelated to how you play the game -.-
Also where does champion.gg get it's stats from, because if you're including gold or plat rivens as part of your argument that riven isn't ban worthy, then this whole conversation is pointless as she sucks at those elos. Not all data is magically relevant just because it has numbers in...
champion.gg stats are based on plat+ only. They only update once a patch, is the mildly annoying thing, so if you want up-to-date stats by tier/region, go with op.gg.
I think banning to have a more enjoyable game is a more legit strategy than a marginally higher win chance from banning whatever's high winrate, but if I had to guess, that's too intangible.
On September 04 2015 07:13 killerdog wrote: And i'm sorry, you're right I was joking. Janna has literally zero unique play patterns, strengths or weaknesses you can learn, if she's in the game you just arbitrarily have 5% less chance of winning completely unrelated to how you play the game -.-
I mean you literally said Riven has no counterplay. You put words in my mouth and strawman me about Janna, but I am literally quoting you: "Losing to janna is something you can outplay, she's stronger then other supports, but there's counterplay etc, you just have to play slightly better/differently. Losing because of a carrying or feeding riven there's nothing you can do."
If you have such issues with Riven that you think there's "nothing you can do" against her, you are just banning Riven too much and need to learn to play against her. See what I just did there?
And don't give me this elitism MMR shit. For starters, champion.gg is Plat+. Second, the gap between Janna and Riven is only bigger at Diamond and Master. This in fact suggests that Riven is more deserving of a ban than Janna only at Bronze to Gold. I bet you aren't Bronze to Gold, right? (See what I did there? Insinuate that I'm right because you're just low elo? Although I'm not the one who wrote there's "nothing you can do" in the face of a carrying or feeding Riven ...)
And i'm sorry, you're right I was joking. Janna has literally zero unique play patterns, strengths or weaknesses you can learn, if she's in the game you just arbitrarily have 5% less chance of winning completely unrelated to how you play the game -.-
:roll: Yea and so does any other champion. Your supposition here is that champions win rates do not inform as to how strong they are. Or that their play rate data doesn't inform as to the likelihood of finding one. Or that, for some reason special to janna, her win rate and play rate don't matter.
None of these things make any sense. Its entirely possible for you to be better or worse against particular champions. And if you have your data then you can do that. But most people don't have enough data to do that kind of analysis. And they certainly don't have enough data on the current patch to do that kind of analysis. And so the next best thing you have is the general data. Because at the very least you should be centered around it.
On September 04 2015 06:21 Goumindong wrote: I took champion.gg data and did this. Its in the blog section. You can see my method there if you want. A direct "win rate for bans" would be interesting though i am not sure how easy it would be to disambiguate the effects of correlated bans. Given the number of ban combinations i am not sure that it would be feasible to extract that data. (Decent if you do it simple only, but that isn't too accurate given how we think things are saturated)
Interesting analysis. I do think that win rate per ban is feasible and the worries about disambiguation are perhaps unnecessary. If you really wanted, you can categorize every ban as a ban targeted towards a particular lane, and then analyze say, a Jinx ban in the context of "0 prior ADC bans"; "1 prior ADC ban"; etc.
Come to think of it this is worth a new site separate from champion.gg that's just devoted to pick/ban. Sadly I think it would go underused because people would just ban Fizz/Riven/Rengar every game anyway.
I looked at this before and did some scoping.
I ran some machine learning algorithms and I was able to predict the outcomes of matches (ranked) with roughly 55% accuracy using only the champions picked and a rough elo bracket estimate (e.g. gold). Comparably I can do so for ARAM with around 65% accuracy. This by itself is only somewhat useful, but it can be leveraged to figure out the ideal bans and picks in a given situation using the predicted winrates.
Let's talk about this. I envision a site that:
1) takes in input, like op.gg/multi, a list of summoner names for your team; 2) responds with your team's best win rate + play rate champions; 3) uses that to inform pick/bans.
Specifically, it produces this table:
Your team high win rate / high play rate + general high win rate / high play rate = priority pick/ban Your team low win rate / low play rate + general high win rate / high play rate = priority ban Your team high win rate / high play rate + general low play rate = priority pick but not ban
It then assembles a list of the priority bans, which is then adjusted live by the other team's bans as well as what champions are remaining. (Such as prioritizing Jinx ban if Vayne is banned, per GMD's blog.)
OK that's not actually what I have in mind.
My system was more like: suppose for now that you are last pick. Which champion will give you the highest likelihood of winning, without any historical informations about the player except a rough elo estimate? Clearly you should pick a champion that synergizes with your own team and/or counters the enemy team, and the statistical model takes care of that.
Anyway your idea is interesting too, but I am on my phone so I won't elaborate on it at this point.
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
It's rare in my games. Funnily enough I've typed "from?" and I've gotten a handful of people who picked up on that, probably more replies to that than any glhf.
I've seen people say that before. What's that in reference to?
I believe it's just asking from which country/state you are.
On September 04 2015 05:37 GrandInquisitor wrote: Also, the whole "Riven just has lots of people play her who aren't good at her dragging down her skill rate" is a fallacy. The average Riven player has 144 Riven games played this season; the average Janna player has 82. Janna's win rate for players that have played fewer than 5 games on Janna this season is higher than Riven's overall win rate (and for Riven players with 50-125 games played).
I have about 6 games on Riven this season. I'm 1-5 because I was stupid rusty and my mechanics are shot. There are plenty more people that play Riven sparingly than there are people who one trick pony her.
I mean, you can try to generalize from your own experience, but this is a demonstrably false statement, both objectively and when compared to other champions.
The first thing to notice is that more than half of all Riven ranked games are played by Riven players that have played 50+ ranked games with Riven this season.
Moreover, not only does the average Riven player have nearly 2x as many games on Riven as the average Janna player, only 7% of Riven players have < 5 games on Riven (compared to 12% for Janna); 11% have 5-15 (compared to 17% for Janna); 24% have 15-50 (compared to 29% for Janna). But there are far more Riven players with 50+ games than Janna players with 50+ games.
This is exactly the reason why we have data, so we can call out people that just pull anecdotes from their ass and assume it to be true generally.
No, that's the average Plat+ Riven player. Most Riven players at that level are Riven mains. There aren't a bunch of heavy Janna players because Janna is a support, a position that the vast majority of people try to avoid playing. Meanwhile Riven is traditionally a top laner, a position that(at least at my low level) is craved only behind mid. People that get "forced into" top won't play Riven because it's far easier to play much simpler, consistent champions.
It's fine if you want to draw conclusions based upon data, but make sure you're applying it to the small subsection of the ladder that it actually belongs to.
This thread has been hostile lately. Looking at data can be valuable to understanding how pick/ban affects a game. Personal experience can also be valuable. Reading both can be enjoyable. The experiences are different in different elos and at different times of day.
On that note, I also just ban champs I don't want to play against or find annoying. Janna is one of those champs if I'm playing someone who wants to dive the backline and not eat Janna q to the face. I could play around it better, but then there's still ult and move speed. Also ban obvious op of course.
edit - someone asked about Voli top earlier. It's being played in Shiphtur's game that's about to start.
On September 04 2015 07:13 killerdog wrote: And i'm sorry, you're right I was joking. Janna has literally zero unique play patterns, strengths or weaknesses you can learn, if she's in the game you just arbitrarily have 5% less chance of winning completely unrelated to how you play the game -.-
I mean you literally said Riven has no counterplay. You put words in my mouth and strawman me about Janna, but I am literally quoting you: "Losing to janna is something you can outplay, she's stronger then other supports, but there's counterplay etc, you just have to play slightly better/differently. Losing because of a carrying or feeding riven there's nothing you can do."
If you have such issues with Riven that you think there's "nothing you can do" against her, you are just banning Riven too much and need to learn to play against her. See what I just did there?
And don't give me this elitism MMR shit. For starters, champion.gg is Plat+. Second, the gap between Janna and Riven is only bigger at Diamond and Master. This in fact suggests that Riven is more deserving of a ban than Janna only at Bronze to Gold. I bet you aren't Bronze to Gold, right? (See what I did there? Insinuate that I'm right because you're just low elo? Although I'm not the one who wrote there's "nothing you can do" in the face of a carrying or feeding Riven ...)
Do I really need to explain how champions like riven and rengar can snowball harder then other champions, like janna...
If you want an example check out gross gores stream right now, enemy kog is 8-1 but can't do anything at all because gross gore is getting hard carried by his rengar. There aren't many champions that can shut the entire map like that from level 6.
If you won't listen to anything else i'll put it in terms of statistics. Banning champions like rengar reduce variance in the rng of soloq, If you think you actually deserve to win games then that should be a good thing.
On September 04 2015 00:09 GiftPflanZe wrote: It would be cool if they would make yorick into a jungler,which revives the jungle camps he kills,each camp has a unique ability,so you go gank a lane with golems which can stun or something.
This seams like a super interesting idea. I would be very into if they did something like this!
They did something similar with Nunu getting different buffs depending upon what types of monster he's smote.
On September 04 2015 00:09 GiftPflanZe wrote: It would be cool if they would make yorick into a jungler,which revives the jungle camps he kills,each camp has a unique ability,so you go gank a lane with golems which can stun or something.
This seams like a super interesting idea. I would be very into if they did something like this!
They did something similar with Nunu getting different buffs depending upon what types of monster he's smote.
Is it smited or smote?
Like, given that we're using smite meaning to use your smite, (where smite is a noun,) is the conjugation still the same as with the original verb smite?
On September 04 2015 04:09 Ansibled wrote: Random question, does anyone ever type glhf in your games? Nobody ever seems to reply to me when I do it lately.
It's rare in my games. Funnily enough I've typed "from?" and I've gotten a handful of people who picked up on that, probably more replies to that than any glhf.
I've seen people say that before. What's that in reference to?
I believe it's just asking from which country/state you are.
I thought so too. I would see it from time to time on EUW, but whenever I'd say it people would act confused.
On September 04 2015 00:09 GiftPflanZe wrote: It would be cool if they would make yorick into a jungler,which revives the jungle camps he kills,each camp has a unique ability,so you go gank a lane with golems which can stun or something.
This seams like a super interesting idea. I would be very into if they did something like this!
They did something similar with Nunu getting different buffs depending upon what types of monster he's smote.
Is it smited or smote?
Like, given that we're using smite meaning to use your smite, (where smite is a noun,) is the conjugation still the same as with the original verb smite?
On September 04 2015 07:13 killerdog wrote: And i'm sorry, you're right I was joking. Janna has literally zero unique play patterns, strengths or weaknesses you can learn, if she's in the game you just arbitrarily have 5% less chance of winning completely unrelated to how you play the game -.-
I mean you literally said Riven has no counterplay. You put words in my mouth and strawman me about Janna, but I am literally quoting you: "Losing to janna is something you can outplay, she's stronger then other supports, but there's counterplay etc, you just have to play slightly better/differently. Losing because of a carrying or feeding riven there's nothing you can do."
If you have such issues with Riven that you think there's "nothing you can do" against her, you are just banning Riven too much and need to learn to play against her. See what I just did there?
And don't give me this elitism MMR shit. For starters, champion.gg is Plat+. Second, the gap between Janna and Riven is only bigger at Diamond and Master. This in fact suggests that Riven is more deserving of a ban than Janna only at Bronze to Gold. I bet you aren't Bronze to Gold, right? (See what I did there? Insinuate that I'm right because you're just low elo? Although I'm not the one who wrote there's "nothing you can do" in the face of a carrying or feeding Riven ...)
Do I really need to explain how champions like riven and rengar can snowball harder then other champions, like janna...
If you want an example check out gross gores stream right now, enemy kog is 8-1 but can't do anything at all because gross gore is getting hard carried by his rengar. There aren't many champions that can shut the entire map like that from level 6.
If you won't listen to anything else i'll put it in terms of statistics. Banning champions like rengar reduce variance in the rng of soloq, If you think you actually deserve to win games then that should be a good thing.
It doesn't matter how hard they snowball. It only matters if they win the game. '
A Soloqueue game is a Bernoulli random variable. It has an expected value of p = the probability of winning and a variance of (1-p)p Snowballing? Doesn't matter, doesn't effect the variance. Only the effect of the champion on the win rate affects the variance. Win rates which are closer to 0 or 1 will reduce variance.[I.E. very high win rate or very low win rate champions].
edit: So in a way yes, banning riven reduces variance. But that isn't reducing variance in a way you want if they're picking stronger champions as a result of it.
On September 04 2015 07:13 killerdog wrote: And i'm sorry, you're right I was joking. Janna has literally zero unique play patterns, strengths or weaknesses you can learn, if she's in the game you just arbitrarily have 5% less chance of winning completely unrelated to how you play the game -.-
I mean you literally said Riven has no counterplay. You put words in my mouth and strawman me about Janna, but I am literally quoting you: "Losing to janna is something you can outplay, she's stronger then other supports, but there's counterplay etc, you just have to play slightly better/differently. Losing because of a carrying or feeding riven there's nothing you can do."
If you have such issues with Riven that you think there's "nothing you can do" against her, you are just banning Riven too much and need to learn to play against her. See what I just did there?
And don't give me this elitism MMR shit. For starters, champion.gg is Plat+. Second, the gap between Janna and Riven is only bigger at Diamond and Master. This in fact suggests that Riven is more deserving of a ban than Janna only at Bronze to Gold. I bet you aren't Bronze to Gold, right? (See what I did there? Insinuate that I'm right because you're just low elo? Although I'm not the one who wrote there's "nothing you can do" in the face of a carrying or feeding Riven ...)
Do I really need to explain how champions like riven and rengar can snowball harder then other champions, like janna...
If you want an example check out gross gores stream right now, enemy kog is 8-1 but can't do anything at all because gross gore is getting hard carried by his rengar. There aren't many champions that can shut the entire map like that from level 6.
If you won't listen to anything else i'll put it in terms of statistics. Banning champions like rengar reduce variance in the rng of soloq, If you think you actually deserve to win games then that should be a good thing.
It doesn't matter how hard they snowball. It only matters if they win the game. '
A Soloqueue game is a Bernoulli random variable. It has an expected value of p = the probability of winning and a variance of (1-p)p Snowballing? Doesn't matter, doesn't effect the variance. Only the effect of the champion on the win rate affects the variance. Win rates which are closer to 0 or 1 will reduce variance.[I.E. very high win rate or very low win rate champions].
edit: So in a way yes, banning riven reduces variance. But that isn't reducing variance in a way you want if they're picking stronger champions as a result of it.
That's true if you have 10 random players in a game, with no extra knowledge. But I'm in the lobby and that adds a ton of other variables which your "model" doesn't account for.
For example, I play tf mid, and am much better on tf then most other champions. If I pick tf I have say a 55-60% chance of being able to carry the early and mid game and snowball that into a win. However there are a few champions that tf is really weak against. In this case, if i'm in position to get to pick tf, my chances of winning are dramatically increased by banning those champions.
This isn't cocky dunning kruger "i'm better then them" statistics, this is the fact i'm a bit of a one trick pony, my tf is better then my mmr, and my other champions are worse, so if i get tf i'm very likely to be a much stronger force in the game then the average player, which increases the value of counters for tf that the other team might pick.
Same with nafta, if he gets a good role and team then he's in his optimal position, so his influence on the game is likely to be above average for his champion, and when he's on an offrole the inverse is true. Therefore banning someone like rengar, who shuts down his role in particular and puts the onus to carry on the other lanes, which might not be playing their optimal champions/roles, reduces his chances of victory more then having a slightly higher general % champion on the other team.
You can't crunch raw numbers on "10 typical players" and then transpose that into a lobby where you have more information on at least one of the players, (and maybe depending on how your teammates communicate.)
I used to ban Zed so no one on my team would pick him. Another part of the ban phase is also banning things that make your teammates feel better. For instance, LeBlanc used to be banned all the time, but also had a low winrate in all elos. Sure, a good LeBlanc will snowball the game, but odds are her team will lose. So there was really no point to banning her out. But because your team felt she was strong and wants it banned something it's better just to ban it for their sake.
My view is that soloq banning is mostly about removing things that inhibit you personally and maintaining team morale. Banning something strong but not readily acknowledged as such (like Janna) isn't that effective because you're only moderately less likely to have that champion on your team if you leave it up and your teammate may not have a problem playing against it anyway. However by targeting things that shut down what you're planning on playing or you have trouble with generally you greatly increase your chances of having a strong impact on the game (guaranteeing your team an advantage they wouldn't have otherwise). A generic ban may not do that for another player.
Likewise I've seen too many games go to shit in champ select because "they got Kat gg, y no ban?" starts the bickering before a creep has even been killed. I know here we love data and if this game was played by automatons blindly using it would be the superior strategy. Banning Riven keeps the peace in a way that a Janna ban does not.
Greetings friends, A few days ago I handed my notice of resignation into The Daily Dot and stated my intention to leave their editorial team. It’s not a decision I have taken lightly as my time with The Daily Dot has been incredible. I’ve got to work alongside some of the finest young journalists in our industry, as well as help play a part in their development. The work our section has put out is, in my opinion, unprecedented in the e-sports space. A special thanks must go out to Kevin Morris who is hands down the best boss I’ve ever had. At my age it was great to work under someone that could still help me improve as a writer and a reporter. In addition he has been a great friend and has always supported me as well as my work. As many of you who have followed my work will know I’ve wanted to make changes for some time but have always felt obligated to continue working because of the type of work I do. This past eighteen months though I have felt it quite acutely that I have been trapped into a cycle of misery. The process was always the same. Write, publish, listen to the denials from the subject and then try absorb the abuse from sections of the readership. I will miss the team but I won’t miss that awful sense of trepidation I would feel every time I submitted a piece to my editor. The situation with the Reddit content ban has also been a factor. The Daily Dot stood by me but ultimately it had a huge impact on my work and working environment. I had to pass on important stories because there was a chance they may not be seen by the people who need to read them. Joint reports ran the risk of getting my fellow journalists tarred with the same brush. Important stories pertaining to League of Legends that I have written have gone unnoticed, something which only benefits the people in the wrong. I definitely could have handled myself better when interacting with abusive people. It was a tough year, dealing with the suicide of my best friend, which took place while I attended an e-sports event. At that point the criticism I received felt like an even bigger slap in the face and holding back became increasingly difficult. No excuses but I’ve never claimed to be better than anyone else, nor have any desire to be held to a higher standard. What the future will hold I can’t say right now. I am currently in America enjoying a working holiday and I am sure an opportunity will present itself. Until then I shall continue to put out my content for my Patreon supporters and try and enjoy a much needed break, for as long as it lasts. Thanks to all the people who have supported me and my work, as well as The Daily Dot. Richard
On September 04 2015 11:45 Sufficiency wrote: Hmm. It sounds like DailyDot let Richard Lewis go.
Not a terrible surprise but it was surprising of how long it took.
Why would you phrase it this way when he says that he resigned?
You might not be reading it at face value but at least leave it to others to make their own judgement free of your biases.
I think it's quite appropriate, given that it's Richard Lewis we're talking about. For example, note that Richard Lewis has been COMPLETELY SILENT as to whether he was fired for gross sexual misconduct.
On September 04 2015 11:45 Sufficiency wrote: Hmm. It sounds like DailyDot let Richard Lewis go.
Not a terrible surprise but it was surprising of how long it took.
Why would you phrase it this way when he says that he resigned?
You might not be reading it at face value but at least leave it to others to make their own judgement free of your biases.
I think it's quite appropriate, given that it's Richard Lewis we're talking about. For example, note that Richard Lewis has been COMPLETELY SILENT as to whether he was fired for gross sexual misconduct.
On September 04 2015 11:45 Sufficiency wrote: Hmm. It sounds like DailyDot let Richard Lewis go.
Not a terrible surprise but it was surprising of how long it took.
Why would you phrase it this way when he says that he resigned?
You might not be reading it at face value but at least leave it to others to make their own judgement free of your biases.
I think it's quite appropriate, given that it's Richard Lewis we're talking about. For example, note that Richard Lewis has been COMPLETELY SILENT as to whether he was fired for gross sexual misconduct.
Literally what.
Patreon, sure. Good luck with that.
His youtube videos don't really have that many views and his audience is fairly narrow. Also I still haven't see First Blood coming back.
On September 04 2015 11:45 Sufficiency wrote: Hmm. It sounds like DailyDot let Richard Lewis go.
Not a terrible surprise but it was surprising of how long it took.
Why would you phrase it this way when he says that he resigned?
You might not be reading it at face value but at least leave it to others to make their own judgement free of your biases.
I think it's quite appropriate, given that it's Richard Lewis we're talking about. For example, note that Richard Lewis has been COMPLETELY SILENT as to whether he was fired for gross sexual misconduct.
Literally what.
GI thinks RLewis is a conspiracy theorist who accused riot and /r/lol of misconduct without sufficient evidence.
That said, he's been talking of leaving esports forever, even since before the drama, so probably he got some regular journalism job at one of the British papers.
On September 04 2015 11:45 Sufficiency wrote: Hmm. It sounds like DailyDot let Richard Lewis go.
Not a terrible surprise but it was surprising of how long it took.
Why would you phrase it this way when he says that he resigned?
You might not be reading it at face value but at least leave it to others to make their own judgement free of your biases.
That's a fair point, but people don't resign with no discernible future plans.
Also I think it's pretty clear that I was just stating my own interpretation of his writing instead of presenting it as fact.
Patreon, yo.
On September 04 2015 12:38 GrandInquisitor wrote:
On September 04 2015 12:12 Zess wrote:
On September 04 2015 11:45 Sufficiency wrote: Hmm. It sounds like DailyDot let Richard Lewis go.
Not a terrible surprise but it was surprising of how long it took.
Why would you phrase it this way when he says that he resigned?
You might not be reading it at face value but at least leave it to others to make their own judgement free of your biases.
I think it's quite appropriate, given that it's Richard Lewis we're talking about. For example, note that Richard Lewis has been COMPLETELY SILENT as to whether he was fired for gross sexual misconduct.
Literally what.
GI thinks RLewis is a conspiracy theorist who accused riot and /r/lol of misconduct without sufficient evidence.
That said, he's been talking of leaving esports forever, even since before the drama, so probably he got some regular journalism job at one of the British papers.
Richard Lewis comes off as the kind of person who cannot excel in a team environment. I can't imagine a vanilla news station work out for him.
But then again, he really needed to calm down on his Twitter. Jesus Christ it was hard to read.
On September 04 2015 19:18 JJMC wrote: Janna is one of the champions I don't mind seeing utterly destroyed and burried underground.
I 2nd that :-)) Although I just think that her ulti needs to be changed a bit, meaning that it should not do so much by only pressing one button and you don't even need a good timing or game knowledge for that, Janna R can literally rend useless whole team compositions while being bronze level mechanics and understanding - just press R.
Why not? Much worse things have happened and he is actually someone who has been in the esports scene in forever and isn't actually hated in csgo like he is in league of legends.
On September 04 2015 23:33 nafta wrote: Why not? Much worse things have happened and he is actually someone who has been in the esports scene in forever and isn't actually hated in csgo like he is in league of legends.
1. RL is hardly a team player and as far as I can see, have not demonstrated his ability in a leadership role.
2. RL hates mainstream companies. He has ranted about this before regarding standard journalism companies and theScore. I think he doesn't like to play by other people's rules. I don't see him meshing well on ESPN.
I don't really see him working in a leadership role or as a journalist for ESPN unless ESPN HR is clueless.
On September 04 2015 23:33 nafta wrote: Why not? Much worse things have happened and he is actually someone who has been in the esports scene in forever and isn't actually hated in csgo like he is in league of legends.
1. RL is hardly a team player and as far as I can see, have not demonstrated his ability in a leadership role.
2. RL hates mainstream companies. He has ranted about this before regarding standard journalism companies and theScore. I think he doesn't like to play by other people's rules. I don't see him meshing well on ESPN.
I don't really see him working in a leadership role or as a journalist for ESPN unless ESPN HR is clueless.
I mean, Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith continue to enjoy gainful employment by ESPN. Adding RL to that would certainly make quite the trifecta, as horrifying as that sounds.
On September 05 2015 00:10 Numy wrote: I read rumours from CSGO people that he's looking at a players union for EU.
Hmm he did say on a podcast that he was interested in making one and said something like "I would do it myself if the players were fine with it". Wouldn't be that surprising.
I mean he did well as a host but that's hardly a leadership position. We have never really had the opportunity to see him in one so hard to say if he can or can't do it. Also have heard him say how as you get older a stable job unlike esports is something that would interest him.
Also why wouldn't ESPN be clueless? When has a mainstream company picked up something esports and done a job that made you think "wow that was amazing"?
On September 04 2015 23:33 nafta wrote: Why not? Much worse things have happened and he is actually someone who has been in the esports scene in forever and isn't actually hated in csgo like he is in league of legends.
1. RL is hardly a team player and as far as I can see, have not demonstrated his ability in a leadership role.
2. RL hates mainstream companies. He has ranted about this before regarding standard journalism companies and theScore. I think he doesn't like to play by other people's rules. I don't see him meshing well on ESPN.
I don't really see him working in a leadership role or as a journalist for ESPN unless ESPN HR is clueless.
I mean, Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith continue to enjoy gainful employment by ESPN. Adding RL to that would certainly make quite the trifecta, as horrifying as that sounds.
Stephen A has worked for ESPN for many years and he did get disciplined by ESPN for his misconduct before. It's very different when you try to hire someone new though.
On September 05 2015 00:10 Numy wrote: I read rumours from CSGO people that he's looking at a players union for EU.
Hmm he did say on a podcast that he was interested in making one and said something like "I would do it myself if the players were fine with it". Wouldn't be that surprising.
I mean he did well as a host but that's hardly a leadership position. We have never really had the opportunity to see him in one so hard to say if he can or can't do it. Also have heard him say how as you get older a stable job unlike esports is something that would interest him.
Also why wouldn't ESPN be clueless? When has a mainstream company picked up something esports and done a job that made you think "wow that was amazing"?
Out of curiosity, have you worked for a mainstream/big company before?
I would say there is a 90% chance the esports person at ESPN will be from some crap site like kotaku or ign. ESPN would be uncharacteristically smart if they hired a lolesports writer.
On September 04 2015 19:18 JJMC wrote: Janna is one of the champions I don't mind seeing utterly destroyed and burried underground.
I 2nd that :-)) Although I just think that her ulti needs to be changed a bit, meaning that it should not do so much by only pressing one button and you don't even need a good timing or game knowledge for that, Janna R can literally rend useless whole team compositions while being bronze level mechanics and understanding - just press R.
So, turn it into a xerath style root with some benefit (recast r as a skillshot that knocks back? Q has no cooldown? etc)
On September 05 2015 02:47 cLutZ wrote: I would say there is a 90% chance the esports person at ESPN will be from some crap site like kotaku or ign. ESPN would be uncharacteristically smart if they hired a lolesports writer.
ESPN deciding to cover esports, then only covering league would be the dumbest thing ever.
Most likely they'll get some general person who'll do medium sized pieces on various big esports events which they show every now and then, report on worlds, TI, dreamhacks etc, from the human angle, targeted at people who have no idea what esports is.
I don't think anyone is expecting weekly recaps of that weeks lcs games with analysis~
On September 05 2015 02:47 cLutZ wrote: I would say there is a 90% chance the esports person at ESPN will be from some crap site like kotaku or ign. ESPN would be uncharacteristically smart if they hired a lolesports writer.
ESPN deciding to cover esports, then only covering league would be the dumbest thing ever.
Most likely they'll get some general person who'll do medium sized pieces on various big esports events which they show every now and then, report on worlds, TI, dreamhacks etc, from the human angle, targeted at people who have no idea what esports is.
I don't think anyone is expecting weekly recaps of that weeks lcs games with analysis~
The position, iirc, is just an editing position. They want somebody that is familiar with esports, the specific knowledge of League is a preference.
An "editing" position means managing a team of writers. Its not "just an editor" an editor is the head of a writing section.
Edit: for example the post prestigious job in journalism is/used to be the editor of the New York Times. This job at ESPN is the same type of job as that but instead of editing the NYT they will be editing an esports website.
On September 05 2015 04:45 Goumindong wrote: An "editing" position means managing a team of writers. Its not "just an editor" an editor is the head of a writing section.
The specific comment I was replying to mentioned written pieces from the applicant after they got the job. Managing a team of writers, as far as I know, doesn't tend to include doing writing ones self.
So, from what I have seen with GP, the major issue is his power via fog of war barrels. They appear to be balanced as if they gave an indicator similar to a fog of war TP instead of the pseudo teemo shrooms (which teemo is intentionally kept weak because of) that they end up being.
Thus, the current nerf is kinda goofy, because he needs the raw power, or at least close to it. Really they should make them cost a bunch of mana (refund on hitting a champ) and timeout quickly or give the enemy team vision. If they keep down this path I don't see how he doesn't become like old GP, over time.
On September 05 2015 14:23 cLutZ wrote: So, from what I have seen with GP, the major issue is his power via fog of war barrels. They appear to be balanced as if they gave an indicator similar to a fog of war TP instead of the pseudo teemo shrooms (which teemo is intentionally kept weak because of) that they end up being.
Thus, the current nerf is kinda goofy, because he needs the raw power, or at least close to it. Really they should make them cost a bunch of mana (refund on hitting a champ) and timeout quickly or give the enemy team vision. If they keep down this path I don't see how he doesn't become like old GP, over time.
The current nerf is because they do stupid amounts of damage in an AOE that ignore more armor than any ability in the game that I can think of. They're still really strong.
On September 05 2015 14:23 cLutZ wrote: So, from what I have seen with GP, the major issue is his power via fog of war barrels. They appear to be balanced as if they gave an indicator similar to a fog of war TP instead of the pseudo teemo shrooms (which teemo is intentionally kept weak because of) that they end up being.
Thus, the current nerf is kinda goofy, because he needs the raw power, or at least close to it. Really they should make them cost a bunch of mana (refund on hitting a champ) and timeout quickly or give the enemy team vision. If they keep down this path I don't see how he doesn't become like old GP, over time.
The current nerf is because they do stupid amounts of damage in an AOE that ignore more armor than any ability in the game that I can think of. They're still really strong.
I was going to say "Yasuo?" But nope. 50% bonus armor reduction. Keg is 50% all armor.
Also, as an aside i just had the most ridiculous game (featuring Lux top vs Maokai) where our tristana bought GA and it straight won us the game. We got a pick, she died during the pick... but didn't because she had GA and then we marched down mid and won.
On September 05 2015 14:23 cLutZ wrote: So, from what I have seen with GP, the major issue is his power via fog of war barrels. They appear to be balanced as if they gave an indicator similar to a fog of war TP instead of the pseudo teemo shrooms (which teemo is intentionally kept weak because of) that they end up being.
Thus, the current nerf is kinda goofy, because he needs the raw power, or at least close to it. Really they should make them cost a bunch of mana (refund on hitting a champ) and timeout quickly or give the enemy team vision. If they keep down this path I don't see how he doesn't become like old GP, over time.
The current nerf is because they do stupid amounts of damage in an AOE that ignore more armor than any ability in the game that I can think of. They're still really strong.
Oh for sure, but what I am seeing is that with his current barrel mechanics the only way for them to stay in the game (without him continuing to be absurd) is to become a somewhat irrelevant damage spell like the modern Gragas Q, which puts GP basically where he was before the rework, except with a slow instead of a speed up (better, I would admit).
The issue isn't anything like that. The issue is barrels are functionally point-and-click on pre-5.17 after level 13 because highly mechanically skilled players can place the first barrel safely out of range and immediately put the second one in and Q before you can react or move out. This is why they added the delay in 5.17.
His winrate in soloq is very average. His competitive winrate is insane. This nerf's gonna hit the latter very hard.
On September 05 2015 21:58 Caiada wrote: The issue isn't anything like that. The issue is barrels are functionally point-and-click on pre-5.17 after level 13 because highly mechanically skilled players can place the first barrel safely out of range and immediately put the second one in and Q before you can react or move out. This is why they added the delay in 5.17.
His winrate in soloq is very average. His competitive winrate is insane. This nerf's gonna hit the latter very hard.
Probably. But also I think that its low mana cost is a major issue, as well as the fact that its mechanics change during the game. Its like Nidalee spears moving faster at 40 minutes.
On September 05 2015 21:58 Caiada wrote: The issue isn't anything like that. The issue is barrels are functionally point-and-click on pre-5.17 after level 13 because highly mechanically skilled players can place the first barrel safely out of range and immediately put the second one in and Q before you can react or move out. This is why they added the delay in 5.17.
His winrate in soloq is very average. His competitive winrate is insane. This nerf's gonna hit the latter very hard.
Not quite true. Gangplank has a 0.25 sec delay between *being able to cast E*, not having a 0.25 sec windup time. This should not impact barrel chaining because you put the safe barrel, then you wait for it to tick to 1, which by itself takes more than 0.25 sec. The thing it changes is you can't triple barrel burst any more.
On September 05 2015 21:58 Caiada wrote: The issue isn't anything like that. The issue is barrels are functionally point-and-click on pre-5.17 after level 13 because highly mechanically skilled players can place the first barrel safely out of range and immediately put the second one in and Q before you can react or move out. This is why they added the delay in 5.17.
His winrate in soloq is very average. His competitive winrate is insane. This nerf's gonna hit the latter very hard.
that morde thread makes sense. He doesn't seem OP to me, the only thing is that people in my games are dumb at sit there autoing him letting him get the 3rd proc off
Agreed, although in some comps keeping the Morde off you is alot harder than you might think, and when the only way to win as a melee is to not play it does get a little frustrating :p
Speaking of woes for melee characters, Ryze can suck a fat one. Doesn't matter if you're Gangplank chugging oranges, if the first root lands when he procs his passive you are not going anywhere, and then you are dead.
idk every stream with pro player i watch they claim morde is most broken champion on current patch, btw are here any gragas mains i wonder if hes still worth picking after nerfs or just better to stick to fotm shit like ekko,reksi,shyv etc
maybe it was just me but i never found gragas faceroll (his soloQ winrate reflects that) unlike lets say shyv which i can close my eyes and still end up legendary practically solo carrying every game
On September 07 2015 19:31 kongoline wrote: maybe it was just me but i never found gragas faceroll (his soloQ winrate reflects that) unlike lets say shyv which i can close my eyes and still end up legendary practically solo carrying every game
ps. lol@ lux #2 winrate after minor buff wtf
Q being full strength on the second target is a pretty decent buff in the scheme of things. She also received a couple of buffs before this too.
On September 07 2015 19:31 kongoline wrote: maybe it was just me but i never found gragas faceroll (his soloQ winrate reflects that) unlike lets say shyv which i can close my eyes and still end up legendary practically solo carrying every game
ps. lol@ lux #2 winrate after minor buff wtf
Q being full strength on the second target is a pretty decent buff in the scheme of things. She also received a couple of buffs before this too.
I think it's all adding up.
Something they mentioned on the lolclass patch review is that since Q's second hit now applies the full snare, it holds them in place long enough to get Lux's ult off on them now.
Considering the huge-ass hitbox on the ult, they'd need a dash or flash to dodge the ult anyway before that buff. And Lux having a big winrate shouldn't be surprising, unless assassins that can engage from afar and stick to her are popular, she's super safe, sowballs hard, can 100-0 people from outside their range, her shield is ridiculously strong and gets to a low cooldown since she always builds CDR. Her base damage are downright absurd for the amount of utility and survivability (shield) she packs, so whenever she fits with the current popular picks, she's very strong (dunno how it'll go if stuff like Malph and Ashe become ppular in soloQ too).
Don't know if he's broken he's just annoying to play against. Also that dragon soul should really cost morde his ult or something instead of basically being free.
Don't know if he's broken he's just annoying to play against. Also that dragon soul should really cost morde his ult or something instead of basically being free.
Better yet, it just shouldn't exist. The drawback of going a low range team comp is that you are bad at sieging/pushing against alive teams. Dragon spirit is just dumb design to try make him more viable by limiting this weakness.
Don't know if he's broken he's just annoying to play against. Also that dragon soul should really cost morde his ult or something instead of basically being free.
Should require him to ult the drag.
Highest win rate in diamond by far
I am more interested in how the lane assumption is supposed to only be dropping losses and not dropping wins/losses equally and, moreover, why only Morde should have this problem when bottom lane. Does he get lumped into support when he does bad because he starts with a support item?
The last I can see. But then his second highest role should be support and not top. And so we should be able to see that and average his support/ad games to get his proper win rate.
Well if it weren't for dragon he'd be too useless at sieging to get picked even into otherwise full ad comps. And cmon, its not like you get every drag unless your team is already winning.
On September 08 2015 01:37 Osmoses wrote: Well if it weren't for dragon he'd be too useless at sieging to get picked even into otherwise full ad comps. And cmon, its not like you get every drag unless your team is already winning.
In plat and below maybe. But in diamond every jungler is going to be focusing bot land and so any misplay means a dragon. And then the dragon snowballs into 1 to 2 towers of Morde is 6
And Morde himself doesn't have to be winning. Top can be winning and make a TP play. Mid can be winning and just roam.
I mean they changed the dragon mechanic off of gold because it was too easy to snowball an early dragon into advantages elsewhere on the map. Morde now has that dragon mechanic except that you don't even have to go back to start the snowball.
It seems to me that Riot didn't understand why Garen, Darius, and Morde (also GP in some sense) were made to be weak to begin with, or at least weak for pros. Mostly because they are far too frustrating to deal with without a comp, and no one crys for TSM when they forget to draft a spammable slow against Garen, but it's dubious to expect soloq teams to draft and use multiple peel champions in a game. Its the classic TBC Ret paladin problem.
On September 08 2015 03:39 cLutZ wrote: It seems to me that Riot didn't understand why Garen, Darius, and Morde (also GP in some sense) were made to be weak to begin with, or at least weak for pros. Mostly because they are far too frustrating to deal with without a comp, and no one crys for TSM when they forget to draft a spammable slow against Garen, but it's dubious to expect soloq teams to draft and use multiple peel champions in a game. Its the classic TBC Ret paladin problem.
I think they know, they just accept and embrace cyclical balancing of champs.
On September 07 2015 19:31 kongoline wrote: maybe it was just me but i never found gragas faceroll (his soloQ winrate reflects that) unlike lets say shyv which i can close my eyes and still end up legendary practically solo carrying every game
ps. lol@ lux #2 winrate after minor buff wtf
Q being full strength on the second target is a pretty decent buff in the scheme of things. She also received a couple of buffs before this too.
I think it's all adding up.
Something they mentioned on the lolclass patch review is that since Q's second hit now applies the full snare, it holds them in place long enough to get Lux's ult off on them now.
You could ult the second target before. 1 second snare, 0.5 second ult cast time.
The reason why Lux's winrate went up is the buff combined with the fact that she's both good both with and against all of the "Juggernaut" champions. If high mobility champions got a surge in popularity her winrate would go back down.
On September 07 2015 19:31 kongoline wrote: maybe it was just me but i never found gragas faceroll (his soloQ winrate reflects that) unlike lets say shyv which i can close my eyes and still end up legendary practically solo carrying every game
ps. lol@ lux #2 winrate after minor buff wtf
Q being full strength on the second target is a pretty decent buff in the scheme of things. She also received a couple of buffs before this too.
I think it's all adding up.
Something they mentioned on the lolclass patch review is that since Q's second hit now applies the full snare, it holds them in place long enough to get Lux's ult off on them now.
You could ult the second target before. 1 second snare, 0.5 second ult cast time.
The reason why Lux's winrate went up is the buff combined with the fact that she's both good both with and against all of the "Juggernaut" champions. If high mobility champions got a surge in popularity her winrate would go back down.
That's true, it probably has something to do with it, but the likes of Zyra and Morgana who also have snares and didn't have massive jumps in win rate. In fact, Xerath and Zyra took a nose dive on this patch while Syndra is holding steady.
Could it be that now you can do things like snare through a minion, wait for it to hit 100%, then cast E-R to full combo them? A lot of my snares I hit in lane are through minions, because no one really expects it. In team fights and in general, an additional 1 second snare is absolutely huge. That's 100% more snare time on her second target and 33% more CC on her Q in general.
Morganas win rate went up. Lulu's win rate went up.
The difference between Morg/Lux/Lulu and Zyra is that Zyra is really good against low mobility champs because of her CC, but Morg/Lux/Lulu are really good both with and against them because they have shields that work great with a bruiser that's building damage.
Zyra also has to get out of lane in order for the teamfight advantages of her kit to matter. Her lanes haven't changed.
Lux got a buff to her laning combined with a meta that's pretty favorable to her, combined with nerfs to popular mid lane opponents (Azir and Viktor) all at the same time.
What's more surprising to me is that Orianna's winrate didn't go up, it stayed the same.
On September 08 2015 09:57 Ketara wrote: Morganas win rate went up. Lulu's win rate went up.
The difference between Morg/Lux/Lulu and Zyra is that Zyra is really good against low mobility champs because of her CC, but Morg/Lux/Lulu are really good both with and against them because they have shields that work great with a bruiser that's building damage.
Zyra also has to get out of lane in order for the teamfight advantages of her kit to matter. Her lanes haven't changed.
Lux got a buff to her laning combined with a meta that's pretty favorable to her, combined with nerfs to popular mid lane opponents (Azir and Viktor) all at the same time.
What's more surprising to me is that Orianna's winrate didn't go up, it stayed the same.
People probably shifted to playing other champs with similar winrate against ori as prenerf Viktor/Azir.
On September 08 2015 11:40 JimmiC wrote: It's pretty easy to figure out you Elo. Just check lol nexus and see what players you are generally playing against. And unless you play no games, or go on some crazy streak its going to be pretty close to what div your in. This is just a classic looking for something to complain about.
Just like when hud changed and people were going to quit. And now it's fine. It is also another way for people to think they are way better them the div they are in.
Except this system has been garbage since it was implemented.
On September 08 2015 11:40 JimmiC wrote: It's pretty easy to figure out you Elo. Just check lol nexus and see what players you are generally playing against. And unless you play no games, or go on some crazy streak its going to be pretty close to what div your in. This is just a classic looking for something to complain about.
Just like when hud changed and people were going to quit. And now it's fine. It is also another way for people to think they are way better them the div they are in.
Except this system has been garbage since it was implemented.
Your second suggestion makes me think that you either don't understand the system or are one of those people who think they're in ELO hell
On September 08 2015 11:40 JimmiC wrote: It's pretty easy to figure out you Elo. Just check lol nexus and see what players you are generally playing against. And unless you play no games, or go on some crazy streak its going to be pretty close to what div your in. This is just a classic looking for something to complain about.
Just like when hud changed and people were going to quit. And now it's fine. It is also another way for people to think they are way better them the div they are in.
Except this system has been garbage since it was implemented.
Your second suggestion makes me think that you either don't understand the system or are one of those people who think they're in ELO hell
Neither. Thanks for continuing to be a condescending asshole though.
I remember when I first saw SC2 was going to hide elo and use the bullshit tier system, I was pissed. I wanted tangible evidence I was climbing the ladder. I don't care I'm on this 100 person ladder made up of random players that may or may not even be active. I want to see I'm ranked 500,000 out of a million.
Now, I don't really care. It doesn't really make a difference. The matchmaker algorithm is always going to stay hidden so people can't game the system. My performance is really the only constant and as long as I know I'm performing well or better, then I'm happy. The one thing that would be nice to change would be the promo matches. They're arbitrary obstacles that prevent the cream from rising to the top.
I wonder if the system was the same as it was now, but instead of LP you just were in the division and promoted when you promoted, people would like it better
On September 08 2015 13:46 MooMooMugi wrote: I just want a system where you dont lose -70LP after losing your bo5 promos and have to regain 70LP + win 3 matches in a row ontop of clamping
On September 08 2015 12:26 Goumindong wrote: I wonder if the system was the same as it was now, but instead of LP you just were in the division and promoted when you promoted, people would like it better
I would, at least. I know it should average out over time and a large number of games, but as someone who doesn't play very much at all, I'm probably only going to be in like 2-3 promotion series per year, so those games have a disproportionately massive impact. I don't really care about the ranking myself though, and don't feel as though I should be higher, so it doesn't actually affect me I guess.
On September 08 2015 14:03 JimmiC wrote: I dunno I have not found it that bad to move up. I think it's kinda exaggerated. Like if you lose a couple promo's but your really better and just have bad luck in those you get right back in them. It's only if you lose like 3 straight with really bad kda that you fall hard.
What I do think is funny is that people use the same insult but change up a word in each division. In silver they call u bronze, in gold they call you silver and in plat gold. And it's all meant to be really cutting. Which I find hilarious. I'm not sure if diamond call people plat but sadly I don't think I'll ever get to find that one out =-)
I thought that KDA has nothing to do with MMR/LP gains/losses, the game only takes into consideration the outcome of the game and team average MMR. I mean, you just have to look at my own games, losing with a 3 KDA makes no difference to losing with a 0.5 KDA in your LP loss. Which is good because sometimes you get stomped no matter how good you are (afk, troll, someone fed kata hard) and you shouldn't lose more because of it.]
queue dodge more to avoid clamping
I'm convinced that I only get feeders and flamers in my promo games. The hidden troll is the deadliest, and having someone duo with their 45% winrate gold buddy while your trying to get into Plat 2 is hell.
On September 08 2015 12:05 krndandaman wrote: just make it more fluid between divisions (no promos + easy to demote/promote between divisions) and i'm gucci
don't really care too much about elo since you get a general feel of where you're at anyways after enough games
Yea I'm with you on this. ELO while pretty good is kind of misleading if you don't know how it works(Majority of people). This system would be fine if they got rid of the promotions. I have no idea why they decided to put that shit in.
You definitely gain more LP when you win on Red side vs Blue side. I'd image you'd gain more MMR points too. Conversely you lose less when you lose on Red side.
The current system would be great if confirmation bias didn't exist and telling people the system will eventually put them in the right place actually worked. Unfortunately, well, reality.
It's still better than Elo. If people understood the system and allowed for variance, it'd be perfect. But it's underexplained and trying to tell people that Gold V guy in your Silver II game isn't any better than you are and probably isn't the reason you lost doesn't work.
I feel like the majority of complaints about tiers are really just proxies for complaints that you are not in the tier you believe you deserve to be in. Yeah, it's hard to rank up and win promos if your win rate isn't that good. That's what's supposed to happen! If you're winning 70+% of your games and still unable to rank up, then I have some sympathy, but when some redditor is bitching about the League system being unfair when they sport a 45% win rate in Bronze II - dude, you'd be complaining about ranked no matter what system was being used.
More generally, having clearly-defined breakpoints and obscuring MMR with tiers is more meaningful than trying to encapsulate skill in a single number. It allows us to draw generalizations and say "Platinum player" and "Silver player", and have that mean something.
fun fact I learned the other day, decaying only changes your visual tier, not your hidden MMR.
So if you really want to troll, let your visual mmr drop an entire tier and see how people respond to a plat 3 being in their diamond 3 game for example. Then they look it up and and you aren't duo'd with anyone and they get mindfucked.
On September 09 2015 01:34 VayneAuthority wrote: fun fact I learned the other day, decaying only changes your visual tier, not your hidden MMR.
So if you really want to troll, let your visual mmr drop an entire tier and see how people respond to a plat 3 being in their diamond 3 game for example. Then they look it up and and you aren't duo'd with anyone and they get mindfucked.
You can't look up duos anymore iirc. Too many duos were being harassed when they didn't do well or defended their partner from an asshole.
On September 09 2015 01:34 VayneAuthority wrote: fun fact I learned the other day, decaying only changes your visual tier, not your hidden MMR.
So if you really want to troll, let your visual mmr drop an entire tier and see how people respond to a plat 3 being in their diamond 3 game for example. Then they look it up and and you aren't duo'd with anyone and they get mindfucked.
You can't look up duos anymore iirc. Too many duos were being harassed when they didn't do well or defended their partner from an asshole.
theres lots of popular 3rd party sites that do it pretty sure, i only use lolking though so no idea.
I think the person said they looked at op.na or op.gg or something? dont remember
On September 09 2015 01:34 VayneAuthority wrote: fun fact I learned the other day, decaying only changes your visual tier, not your hidden MMR.
So if you really want to troll, let your visual mmr drop an entire tier and see how people respond to a plat 3 being in their diamond 3 game for example. Then they look it up and and you aren't duo'd with anyone and they get mindfucked.
You can't look up duos anymore iirc. Too many duos were being harassed when they didn't do well or defended their partner from an asshole.
theres lots of popular 3rd party sites that do it pretty sure, i only use lolking though so no idea.
I think the person said they looked at op.na or op.gg or something? dont remember
op.gg will pull people in games that you've been on in the last 20 games, but most people don't look that far down.
On September 09 2015 01:30 GrandInquisitor wrote: I feel like the majority of complaints about tiers are really just proxies for complaints that you are not in the tier you believe you deserve to be in. Yeah, it's hard to rank up and win promos if your win rate isn't that good. That's what's supposed to happen! If you're winning 70+% of your games and still unable to rank up, then I have some sympathy, but when some redditor is bitching about the League system being unfair when they sport a 45% win rate in Bronze II - dude, you'd be complaining about ranked no matter what system was being used.
More generally, having clearly-defined breakpoints and obscuring MMR with tiers is more meaningful than trying to encapsulate skill in a single number. It allows us to draw generalizations and say "Platinum player" and "Silver player", and have that mean something.
What is the difference between platinum 3 player or "insert random number bracket" player? The only difference is you can't see your actual mmr while before you could.
Obviously this is assuming promos are no different from regular games matchmaking wise.
On September 08 2015 23:49 nafta wrote: If teams are even mmr it would make sense since red side is supposed to be higher to remove the "favored" blue side advantage.
Red side also always has a higher mmr than blue side to even out the blue side advantage. I, personally, don't see much of a difference, but a lot of people complain about going bot lane on red side. Also, you can't argue that the screen widens on the top part and contracts on the bottom part making it easier to see what's coming at you from the top of the screen. It's like the way SC2's minimap camera positioning shows.
The camera widens at the top and contracts at the bottom due to the isometric perspective. Along with that, the hud is at the bottom of the screen which can obstruct view from the red side. I guess you could also argue Baron is safer to do on blue side than red side due to the pit opening up to the blue side. So it's less risky to ward the river and do scuttle when you're on blue side. The causes of blue side advantage are arguable, but the fact blue side wins 5% more than red side doesn't change.
On September 08 2015 23:49 nafta wrote: If teams are even mmr it would make sense since red side is supposed to be higher to remove the "favored" blue side advantage.
Red side also always has a higher mmr than blue side to even out the blue side advantage. I, personally, don't see much of a difference, but a lot of people complain about going bot lane on red side. Also, you can't argue that the screen widens on the top part and contracts on the bottom part making it easier to see what's coming at you from the top of the screen. It's like the way SC2's minimap camera positioning shows.
The camera widens at the top and contracts at the bottom due to the isometric perspective. Along with that, the hud is at the bottom of the screen which can obstruct view from the red side. I guess you could also argue Baron is safer to do on blue side than red side due to the pit opening up to the blue side. So it's less risky to ward the river and do scuttle when you're on blue side. The causes of blue side advantage are arguable, but the fact blue side wins 5% more than red side doesn't change.
except with the new hud there is nothing in the bot left side(unless you change your minimap positioning) and you do frog faster than you do golems
Red side has been better for bot ever since they nerfed the frog.
On September 09 2015 01:30 GrandInquisitor wrote: I feel like the majority of complaints about tiers are really just proxies for complaints that you are not in the tier you believe you deserve to be in. Yeah, it's hard to rank up and win promos if your win rate isn't that good. That's what's supposed to happen! If you're winning 70+% of your games and still unable to rank up, then I have some sympathy, but when some redditor is bitching about the League system being unfair when they sport a 45% win rate in Bronze II - dude, you'd be complaining about ranked no matter what system was being used.
More generally, having clearly-defined breakpoints and obscuring MMR with tiers is more meaningful than trying to encapsulate skill in a single number. It allows us to draw generalizations and say "Platinum player" and "Silver player", and have that mean something.
What is the difference between platinum 3 player or "insert random number bracket" player? The only difference is you can't see your actual mmr while before you could.
Obviously this is assuming promos are no different from regular games matchmaking wise.
don't they match you against stronger opponents during promos?
On September 09 2015 01:30 GrandInquisitor wrote: I feel like the majority of complaints about tiers are really just proxies for complaints that you are not in the tier you believe you deserve to be in. Yeah, it's hard to rank up and win promos if your win rate isn't that good. That's what's supposed to happen! If you're winning 70+% of your games and still unable to rank up, then I have some sympathy, but when some redditor is bitching about the League system being unfair when they sport a 45% win rate in Bronze II - dude, you'd be complaining about ranked no matter what system was being used.
More generally, having clearly-defined breakpoints and obscuring MMR with tiers is more meaningful than trying to encapsulate skill in a single number. It allows us to draw generalizations and say "Platinum player" and "Silver player", and have that mean something.
For me its also related to the randomized pick order.
On September 09 2015 01:30 GrandInquisitor wrote: I feel like the majority of complaints about tiers are really just proxies for complaints that you are not in the tier you believe you deserve to be in. Yeah, it's hard to rank up and win promos if your win rate isn't that good. That's what's supposed to happen! If you're winning 70+% of your games and still unable to rank up, then I have some sympathy, but when some redditor is bitching about the League system being unfair when they sport a 45% win rate in Bronze II - dude, you'd be complaining about ranked no matter what system was being used.
More generally, having clearly-defined breakpoints and obscuring MMR with tiers is more meaningful than trying to encapsulate skill in a single number. It allows us to draw generalizations and say "Platinum player" and "Silver player", and have that mean something.
What is the difference between platinum 3 player or "insert random number bracket" player? The only difference is you can't see your actual mmr while before you could.
Obviously this is assuming promos are no different from regular games matchmaking wise.
don't they match you against stronger opponents during promos?
They specifically denied this in a red post recently. Its just matchmaking.
Wow, I can imagine his ganks would be really devastating. His counter gank at level 6 would be amazing as well. But uh, how does it work out? I can't imagine his clear is good.
On September 08 2015 23:56 Caiada wrote: The current system would be great if confirmation bias didn't exist and telling people the system will eventually put them in the right place actually worked. Unfortunately, well, reality.
It's still better than Elo. If people understood the system and allowed for variance, it'd be perfect. But it's underexplained and trying to tell people that Gold V guy in your Silver II game isn't any better than you are and probably isn't the reason you lost doesn't work.
Why is it better than ELO if the ELO system can be easily just pasted on top of the Bronze V - Diamond I system (sans promos and demotion) with a +/- variance number like any statistical study has?
On September 09 2015 03:32 krndandaman wrote: looks like some random low silver account boosted by a high elo player.
i mean we've had a teemo jungle only challenger, won't be too shocked by anything jungle to diamond.
Oh, yeah, looks like he just started spamming the shit out of Zil jungle the past week with a magical 85% winrate. Doesn't matter though it looks really fun! It's probably really good because it's underestimated, he has tons of cc, and he can get his idiot teammates out of trouble.
On September 08 2015 23:56 Caiada wrote: The current system would be great if confirmation bias didn't exist and telling people the system will eventually put them in the right place actually worked. Unfortunately, well, reality.
It's still better than Elo. If people understood the system and allowed for variance, it'd be perfect. But it's underexplained and trying to tell people that Gold V guy in your Silver II game isn't any better than you are and probably isn't the reason you lost doesn't work.
Why is it better than ELO if the ELO system can be easily just pasted on top of the Bronze V - Diamond I system (sans promos and demotion) with a +/- variance number like any statistical study has?
Personal feelings of progress, keeping people playing, all the people posting 'hey, I finally got Gold V' on forums who'd get to whatever Elo that was equivalent to beforehand and be a lot more scared of playing. More delineated tiers instead of faceless numbers. Ups and downs across playing instead of the flat grind of getting one number higher.
You would still get a sweet new icon when you hit Gold V. No reason for Riot to not just lock in rewards after 20 or so post-placement games. Its not like giving away an extra 10% of Victorious Heimerdinger skins is going to matter.
On September 08 2015 23:56 Caiada wrote: The current system would be great if confirmation bias didn't exist and telling people the system will eventually put them in the right place actually worked. Unfortunately, well, reality.
It's still better than Elo. If people understood the system and allowed for variance, it'd be perfect. But it's underexplained and trying to tell people that Gold V guy in your Silver II game isn't any better than you are and probably isn't the reason you lost doesn't work.
Why is it better than ELO if the ELO system can be easily just pasted on top of the Bronze V - Diamond I system (sans promos and demotion) with a +/- variance number like any statistical study has?
Personal feelings of progress, keeping people playing, all the people posting 'hey, I finally got Gold V' on forums who'd get to whatever Elo that was equivalent to beforehand and be a lot more scared of playing. More delineated tiers instead of faceless numbers. Ups and downs across playing instead of the flat grind of getting one number higher.
yea this system is much better for the people who don't actually understand the system. It is definitely focused around the casual playerbase. Even the promos make basically meaningless games feel like they matter.
On September 08 2015 23:56 Caiada wrote: The current system would be great if confirmation bias didn't exist and telling people the system will eventually put them in the right place actually worked. Unfortunately, well, reality.
It's still better than Elo. If people understood the system and allowed for variance, it'd be perfect. But it's underexplained and trying to tell people that Gold V guy in your Silver II game isn't any better than you are and probably isn't the reason you lost doesn't work.
Why is it better than ELO if the ELO system can be easily just pasted on top of the Bronze V - Diamond I system (sans promos and demotion) with a +/- variance number like any statistical study has?
Personal feelings of progress, keeping people playing, all the people posting 'hey, I finally got Gold V' on forums who'd get to whatever Elo that was equivalent to beforehand and be a lot more scared of playing. More delineated tiers instead of faceless numbers. Ups and downs across playing instead of the flat grind of getting one number higher.
yea this system is much better for the people who don't actually understand the system. It is definitely focused around the casual playerbase. Even the promos make basically meaningless games feel like they matter.
I wouldn't say it's just the casual player base, that's overestimating the average knowledge/intelligence of high ladder people. Most of them don't even understand how the system works either.
This might sound retarded but just being high ranked doesn't make you not a casual. There are a lot of people who basically play the game casually they just happen to be insanely good lol. Pretty much everyone who gives a shit knows.
Had a confusing troll in my game last night on the other team. He sold all his items 25 minutes into the game yet continued playing seriously. What's the point? At the very least stack mobi boots or just straight up AFK. Selling all your items and then continuing to play seriously just seems boring.
On September 08 2015 12:26 Goumindong wrote: I wonder if the system was the same as it was now, but instead of LP you just were in the division and promoted when you promoted, people would like it better
I know that would cure 100% of every complaint I ever had about this shitty ranked system.
Whether or not it's true, my perception of promo series is that they are disproportionately filled with trolls, feeders and shitty S5/G1 Duos.
It also REALLY sucks to keep going 4-3 or 5-3 (2-3 wins to enter promo, 2 wins 3 losses to lose promo) for a week and never advance past a promo series even though I'm actually winning more than I'm losing. Which is really the crux to this whole argument. I want to know that simply winning more than I lose is enough to advance, but the reality is that timing of wins is equally, or even more important than simply winning 55% of my games.
I'm not some ELO-Hell whiner complaining that I should be Plat, if only my shit feeding teammates wouldn't suck so much. My 50/50ish win rate tells me S1/G5 is where I belong, which is really just a few MMR points. The reality is I really just want that Gold border just to show off to my friends, but more than 10 times this season haven't been able to secure that third win in a promo series. It's annoying as fuck.
The league system is very frustrating when you're maintaining a 55-60% winrate but it still takes you 50 games to get promoted because you have bad luck in promo series 3 or 4 times in a row.
Even if your winrate is 60%, advancing requires 66% or 75% during the promo series, so it probably only takes 1 out of your control game to cost you the series and make you repeat it.
And then after that hurdle your LP gains have to be inflated specifically because the promo series screwed it up.
In general I like the league system, but I don't like promo series.
On September 09 2015 08:39 Ketara wrote: The league system is very frustrating when you're maintaining a 55-60% winrate but it still takes you 50 games to get promoted because you have bad luck in promo series 3 or 4 times in a row.
Even if your winrate is 60%, advancing requires 66% or 75% during the promo series, so it probably only takes 1 out of your control game to cost you the series and make you repeat it.
And then after that hurdle your LP gains have to be inflated specifically because the promo series screwed it up.
In general I like the league system, but I don't like promo series.
That's not true. If your MMR is higher than your current league tier, you can get to promo winning fewer games than losing due to how LP works.
And then if you keep losing games during the promo series and winning games outside of them you stay the same division while your mmr goes up and its super frustrating, and then when you finally win a series you skip a division or start getting 30 LP on a win or whatever which feels hollow and makes you disillusioned with the system.
I have played thousands of league games sufficiency. I know how the system makes me feel. Don't be that guy.
On September 09 2015 09:10 Ketara wrote: And then if you keep losing games during the promo series and winning games outside of them you stay the same division while your mmr goes up and its super frustrating, and then when you finally win a series you skip a division or start getting 30 LP on a win or whatever which feels hollow and makes you disillusioned with the system.
I have played thousands of league games sufficiency. I know how the system makes me feel. Don't be that guy.
It's just your anecdote. The fact of the matter is that it works. A Gold I player from Season 4 takes significantly fewer games to return to Gold than a Gold V player, for example.
Just because the system works doesn't mean they can't tweak it to make it a less frustrating experience. The reality is that really, everything is based off your "hidden" MMR, it's what the system actually shows you that becomes annoying.
Maybe it's your fault that you are being frustrated by the system because you are latching on to rare occurrences with the full force of cognitive biases
I still think the league system is dumb though -- if they didn't want people to fixate on peak MMR they should'vd displayed a moving average MMR for ranking poitns, or they could change the league system so that there aren't intentional systems in place that hinder convergence. Instead, now we have a system that incentivizes fixation on peak performance where you get frustrated that your baseline doesn't match your now inflated perception of skill.
Although, I was Gold 5 last season and got Gold 5 again this season in 20 wins which puts me in the top 10% of shitters. King of trash!
I don't know how you could make it better than it is. The reality is that Riot has a bunch of PHD mathematicians and psychologists who work on this shit, and none of us are going to come up with something better.
That said, one thing I'd like to see is if your profile listed your highest and lowest LP in the past 50 games or so. That would give you a lot more information than what you get currently. It'd be much easier to see if somebody is a smurf or a guy being boosted, or somebody who is having a winstreak/losing streak, etc.
They have a bunch of Really Smart People With Fancy Labels working on creating a system to incentivize you to play more through obfuscation. I thought you problem was with that part, in which case the current system sucks?
So I checked out a replay of that Zilean jungle guy. He went golems, red, waited a few seconds, then did wolves before backing. It worked out pretty well. You get level three then just start ganking like crazy. I think you pretty much have to start on red buff to get the passive hp regen.
I tried it out and a wrecked during laning phase, hard. I went something like 4-0-4 in the first 15-20 minutes. Then I kinda licked balls because I suck at landing bombs and I was bad at applying the ult properly.
On September 09 2015 11:40 Zess wrote: Maybe it's your fault that you are being frustrated by the system because you are latching on to rare occurrences with the full force of cognitive biases
I still think the league system is dumb though -- if they didn't want people to fixate on peak MMR they should'vd displayed a moving average MMR for ranking poitns, or they could change the league system so that there aren't intentional systems in place that hinder convergence. Instead, now we have a system that incentivizes fixation on peak performance where you get frustrated that your baseline doesn't match your now inflated perception of skill.
Although, I was Gold 5 last season and got Gold 5 again this season in 20 wins which puts me in the top 10% of shitters. King of trash!
They just need to slightly lower the threshold at which you skip promotions between divisions, while making a similar adjustment for demotions. That solves the "I'm winning heaps of games then losing my promos" problem and smooths the progression of your visible rank to your hidden rank.
On September 09 2015 11:19 Nemireck wrote: Just because the system works doesn't mean they can't tweak it to make it a less frustrating experience. The reality is that really, everything is based off your "hidden" MMR, it's what the system actually shows you that becomes annoying.
Tweaking the system is incredibly easy. Besides, it's not like they haven't tweaked it before. There has been many fixes for clamping, etc. and there are tons of changes that Riot made but were never made public.
For example, around July last year Riot adjusted matchmaking to put a much more skilled team on the purple side to counteract the blue side advantage. Later on they fixed a bug that put too many Challenger players on the purple side. There are probably tons of other changes that got pushed to live that I haven't noticed because it's actually pretty hard to locate them despite having close to 100 million games of data to mine from.
On September 09 2015 12:33 Sonnington wrote: So I checked out a replay of that Zilean jungle guy. He went golems, red, waited a few seconds, then did wolves before backing. It worked out pretty well. You get level three then just start ganking like crazy. I think you pretty much have to start on red buff to get the passive hp regen.
I tried it out and a wrecked during laning phase, hard. I went something like 4-0-4 in the first 15-20 minutes. Then I kinda licked balls because I suck at landing bombs and I was bad at applying the ult properly.
Do you think it could actually work vs oeople of same skill as you. Or does it work for the guy cause he is so much better?
Sure, I like to think anything is possible. It's just comparatively bad. Other junglers do jungling better than him. The only thing he can do well is gank and counter gank. Even that isn't great. There's no guarantee he'll land two bombs for the stun.
I mean, his first clear is three camps and he has to wait a few seconds to clear his third camp. He leaves his second buff up to be counter jungled and if anyone blows on him too hard during his first clear he's dead. He has to 100% commit to ganking lanes to earn an income. He can't farm the jungle well until he gets an item. Even with an item his clear is bad. So there's no "farm your way back into the game" for him. His objective control is terrible. He only has bombs to contribute to taking down a dragon and he doesn't want to tank it.
On September 09 2015 12:33 Sonnington wrote: So I checked out a replay of that Zilean jungle guy. He went golems, red, waited a few seconds, then did wolves before backing. It worked out pretty well. You get level three then just start ganking like crazy. I think you pretty much have to start on red buff to get the passive hp regen.
I tried it out and a wrecked during laning phase, hard. I went something like 4-0-4 in the first 15-20 minutes. Then I kinda licked balls because I suck at landing bombs and I was bad at applying the ult properly.
I did it in a diamond game and the opposite happened, I got counter jungled hard by elise early but then lategame I carried with my slows/speed ups and ult. ended 6-3-12 or something like that.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when midgame I maxed E second and speed boosted my viktor toward their team and he just ran in before their adc could react and instabursted tristana LOL
E maxed is so strong its crazy
it also made me think of a fun gangplank centric push comp.
Between barrels/gp ult/zilean bombs you have insane control over an area. I think if you added a heimerdinger and then tristana for your tower killer you have the making of an incredibly annoying team. as jungler you would probably want something like ekko just to keep bubbling your own team and make engaging really hard. Sounds like a funny team on paper
On September 09 2015 09:10 Ketara wrote: And then if you keep losing games during the promo series and winning games outside of them you stay the same division while your mmr goes up and its super frustrating, and then when you finally win a series you skip a division or start getting 30 LP on a win or whatever which feels hollow and makes you disillusioned with the system.
I have played thousands of league games sufficiency. I know how the system makes me feel. Don't be that guy.
It's just your anecdote. The fact of the matter is that it works. A Gold I player from Season 4 takes significantly fewer games to return to Gold than a Gold V player, for example.
To me this graph is a pretty good indicator of frustration, that's a lot of games for some people. It's more than I play in a season, but I never really have issues getting gold for free skins in the 10-20 games I play either so.
On September 09 2015 09:10 Ketara wrote: And then if you keep losing games during the promo series and winning games outside of them you stay the same division while your mmr goes up and its super frustrating, and then when you finally win a series you skip a division or start getting 30 LP on a win or whatever which feels hollow and makes you disillusioned with the system.
I have played thousands of league games sufficiency. I know how the system makes me feel. Don't be that guy.
It's just your anecdote. The fact of the matter is that it works. A Gold I player from Season 4 takes significantly fewer games to return to Gold than a Gold V player, for example.
To me this graph is a pretty good indicator of frustration, that's a lot of games for some people. It's more than I play in a season, but I never really have issues getting gold for free skins in the 10-20 games I play either so.
It's not a lot of games. If you are on the higher side of Gold it doesn't actually take that many games to return to gold. The struggle is real only when you were barely gold last season.
Not to mention it takes time for players to adjust to the new season.
Well I don't know it for a fact but a lot of people had the same experience in the start of this season. My lp went from +30/-13 to +15/-25 after the 50 game mark. Seems a rather big difference to be just a coincidence.
On September 10 2015 01:54 krndandaman wrote: None to china?
Unfortunately yes.
Only ahq is in China afaik. They are practicing in EDG house. Mountain says that EDG is 15-0 against ahq in scrims. ahq usually getting gold lead in early but falling in late according to him.
On September 09 2015 09:10 Ketara wrote: And then if you keep losing games during the promo series and winning games outside of them you stay the same division while your mmr goes up and its super frustrating, and then when you finally win a series you skip a division or start getting 30 LP on a win or whatever which feels hollow and makes you disillusioned with the system.
I have played thousands of league games sufficiency. I know how the system makes me feel. Don't be that guy.
It's just your anecdote. The fact of the matter is that it works. A Gold I player from Season 4 takes significantly fewer games to return to Gold than a Gold V player, for example.
To me this graph is a pretty good indicator of frustration, that's a lot of games for some people. It's more than I play in a season, but I never really have issues getting gold for free skins in the 10-20 games I play either so.
That is true. But the vast majority of those gold 5 players probably are not actually gold 5 by "centered" MMR but Silver 1 by "centered" MMR. I mean, after 5 to 6 promotions its highly likely that someone who isn't actually gold 5 but rather the middle of Silver 1 will promote. If they play enough games they will get there by random chance.
On September 09 2015 09:10 Ketara wrote: And then if you keep losing games during the promo series and winning games outside of them you stay the same division while your mmr goes up and its super frustrating, and then when you finally win a series you skip a division or start getting 30 LP on a win or whatever which feels hollow and makes you disillusioned with the system.
I have played thousands of league games sufficiency. I know how the system makes me feel. Don't be that guy.
It's just your anecdote. The fact of the matter is that it works. A Gold I player from Season 4 takes significantly fewer games to return to Gold than a Gold V player, for example.
To me this graph is a pretty good indicator of frustration, that's a lot of games for some people. It's more than I play in a season, but I never really have issues getting gold for free skins in the 10-20 games I play either so.
That is true. But the vast majority of those gold 5 players probably are not actually gold 5 by "centered" MMR but Silver 1 by "centered" MMR. I mean, after 5 to 6 promotions its highly likely that someone who isn't actually gold 5 but rather the middle of Silver 1 will promote. If they play enough games they will get there by random chance.
that's because of elo fluctuation right?
it's not like the player is silver 1 or gold 5, it'd be more like they are roughly ~1500 elo when the cutoff was 1520 or whatever it used to be. this means that if they pass 1520 then fall back down to 1500 they get placed into g5 because of the cutoff but they are still being matched with and against the same group of players.
this isnt even factoring in things like the fact that riot constantly patches. I've seen single broken champions that are under the radar boost gold players into diamond, sometimes skill level is thrown out in the window due to champions.
Thats why a lot of the times you will be like wtf how is that guy in this tier?
then you check his lolking or whatever and he has 80% winrate with soraka and then under 50% with everything else.
On September 09 2015 09:10 Ketara wrote: And then if you keep losing games during the promo series and winning games outside of them you stay the same division while your mmr goes up and its super frustrating, and then when you finally win a series you skip a division or start getting 30 LP on a win or whatever which feels hollow and makes you disillusioned with the system.
I have played thousands of league games sufficiency. I know how the system makes me feel. Don't be that guy.
It's just your anecdote. The fact of the matter is that it works. A Gold I player from Season 4 takes significantly fewer games to return to Gold than a Gold V player, for example.
To me this graph is a pretty good indicator of frustration, that's a lot of games for some people. It's more than I play in a season, but I never really have issues getting gold for free skins in the 10-20 games I play either so.
That is true. But the vast majority of those gold 5 players probably are not actually gold 5 by "centered" MMR but Silver 1 by "centered" MMR. I mean, after 5 to 6 promotions its highly likely that someone who isn't actually gold 5 but rather the middle of Silver 1 will promote. If they play enough games they will get there by random chance.
that's because of elo fluctuation right?
it's not like the player is silver 1 or gold 5, it'd be more like they are roughly ~1500 elo when the cutoff was 1520 or whatever it used to be. this means that if they pass 1520 then fall back down to 1500 they get placed into g5 because of the cutoff but they are still being matched with and against the same group of players.
Short answer: Yes, its because of ELO fluctuation and the strict cutoff point.
Long Answer: Assume that a player has a static skill level for a minute. If that is the case then MMR is a recurrent centered random walk. It has an expectation of your true skill and will tend to return to that value. Another way to call it is a stationary stochastic process. *
In order for a player to go up in level there must exist a segment of the process which is above the cutoff value for a certain length of time. Given an infinite amount of time, any person centered below the cutoff will be above the cutoff for the requisite time.
What it means is that they might really be 1400 players, but they only have to get 1500 for 3 or 4 games in a row in order to make Gold. So they played a lot and made gold last season. And either didn't play enough to breach the demotion cutoff. They didn't get better or worse over the season they just stayed the same in relative position.
We notice that the whole distribution is centered at Silver 3. The difference between Silver 3 and the top of Bronze 5 is about the same difference between Silver 3 a Platinum II. To give a scale of what we're talking about.
That the differences between ranks is most smooth between 4 and 3. And then there is a larger jump to 2 and 1 and then a massive break at 5. (the exception to this being Gold 1-Plat 5 where it seems a lot of people have given up on making plat?)
Anyway what we "should" see if it was just an MMR thing is smooth differences everywhere. Starting small then increasing then decreasing again. While an individual persons MMR is pretty random, the whole of the MMR distribution is very stable. But instead we see dips at 1 and 2 and a glut at 5. According to their current MMR and/or what their stationary MMR ought to be (these might not be the same people but they have the same expected value if that makes sense) there are about 40,000-50,000 people in Gold 5 who ought to be in gold 1 or gold 2.
At the low end this means that roughly 30% of the people in Gold 5 really aren't and so now we can look at that "getting back to gold" chart and see some more context. Most of the people who are at the bottom end of that spectrum and are taking a long time to get gold, probably shouldn't be there.
*its important to note that skill probably doesn't work like that. However, that does not change the overall distribution and so the numbers and theory still hold. That is, since rank is a relative placement of people and not an absolute value of skill we can still come to the conclusions we came to below, even though we know that our model of an individuals MMR is "incorrect". We can model it more accurately but doing so isn't particularly valuable for a number of reasons.
Being at 0LP is a demotion series in itself. Unless you hit it after a decent loss streak, you can usually get by on a few more games before it boots you.
On September 10 2015 03:39 VayneAuthority wrote: this isnt even factoring in things like the fact that riot constantly patches. I've seen single broken champions that are under the radar boost gold players into diamond, sometimes skill level is thrown out in the window due to champions.
Thats why a lot of the times you will be like wtf how is that guy in this tier?
then you check his lolking or whatever and he has 80% winrate with soraka and then under 50% with everything else.
Gold players in Diamond just bc of broken champs? Isn't that a bit exaggerated lol, I rarely see any players in Plat who were Gold last season. And the Soraka guy might just be really good at his champion, besides she's a champion that I can see low elo players struggling to play against (focus raka, not the carry if you can)
That the differences between ranks is most smooth between 4 and 3. And then there is a larger jump to 2 and 1 and then a massive break at 5. (the exception to this being Gold 1-Plat 5 where it seems a lot of people have given up on making plat?)
Don't quite understand what you're saying, there are more Plat 5 players than Gold 1. The small difference can be attributed to many things, such as the possibility that the MMR differences between G1-P5 doesn't have to be the same as S1-G5, B1-S5, or in other words, the MMR range of G1 is very large. Also possible is it's simply an MMR range that many people 'peak' at.
there are about 40,000-50,000 people in Gold 5 who ought to be in gold 1 or gold 2.
You mean G5 vs S1/2, right? Again, you're making the assumption that the rank system has the same MMR range for every division, and we don't know that. I can totally imagine that Riot fine tuned the system so that every tier has a gradual decline in player population as you go up divisions to give people a sense of accomplishment.
Personally I think what you say holds some truth to it (I think we've all checked op.gg during a game and realized that we're playing only with ppl in divisions below us bc of our big losing streak), but this is all a game of guessing Riot's MMR/LP model.
On September 10 2015 03:39 VayneAuthority wrote: this isnt even factoring in things like the fact that riot constantly patches. I've seen single broken champions that are under the radar boost gold players into diamond, sometimes skill level is thrown out in the window due to champions.
Thats why a lot of the times you will be like wtf how is that guy in this tier?
then you check his lolking or whatever and he has 80% winrate with soraka and then under 50% with everything else.
Gold players in Diamond just bc of broken champs? Isn't that a bit exaggerated lol, I rarely see any players in Plat who were Gold last season. And the Soraka guy might just be really good at his champion, besides she's a champion that I can see low elo players struggling to play against (focus raka, not the carry if you can)
That the differences between ranks is most smooth between 4 and 3. And then there is a larger jump to 2 and 1 and then a massive break at 5. (the exception to this being Gold 1-Plat 5 where it seems a lot of people have given up on making plat?)
Don't quite understand what you're saying, there are more Plat 5 players than Gold 1. The small difference can be attributed to many things, such as the possibility that the MMR differences between G1-P5 doesn't have to be the same as S1-G5, B1-S5, or in other words, the MMR range of G1 is very large. Also possible is it's simply an MMR range that many people 'peak' at.
there are about 40,000-50,000 people in Gold 5 who ought to be in gold 1 or gold 2.
You mean G5 vs S1/2, right? Again, you're making the assumption that the rank system has the same MMR range for every division, and we don't know that. I can totally imagine that Riot fine tuned the system so that every tier has a gradual decline in player population as you go up divisions to give people a sense of accomplishment.
Personally I think what you say holds some truth to it (I think we've all checked op.gg during a game and realized that we're playing only with ppl in divisions below us bc of our big losing streak), but this is all a game of guessing Riot's MMR/LP model.
Back when they changed over the ranked system to hide elo, each tier was 350 points, each division being 70pts.
On September 10 2015 03:39 VayneAuthority wrote: this isnt even factoring in things like the fact that riot constantly patches. I've seen single broken champions that are under the radar boost gold players into diamond, sometimes skill level is thrown out in the window due to champions.
Thats why a lot of the times you will be like wtf how is that guy in this tier?
then you check his lolking or whatever and he has 80% winrate with soraka and then under 50% with everything else.
Gold players in Diamond just bc of broken champs? Isn't that a bit exaggerated lol, I rarely see any players in Plat who were Gold last season. And the Soraka guy might just be really good at his champion, besides she's a champion that I can see low elo players struggling to play against (focus raka, not the carry if you can)
That the differences between ranks is most smooth between 4 and 3. And then there is a larger jump to 2 and 1 and then a massive break at 5. (the exception to this being Gold 1-Plat 5 where it seems a lot of people have given up on making plat?)
Don't quite understand what you're saying, there are more Plat 5 players than Gold 1. The small difference can be attributed to many things, such as the possibility that the MMR differences between G1-P5 doesn't have to be the same as S1-G5, B1-S5, or in other words, the MMR range of G1 is very large. Also possible is it's simply an MMR range that many people 'peak' at.
there are about 40,000-50,000 people in Gold 5 who ought to be in gold 1 or gold 2.
You mean G5 vs S1/2, right? Again, you're making the assumption that the rank system has the same MMR range for every division, and we don't know that. I can totally imagine that Riot fine tuned the system so that every tier has a gradual decline in player population as you go up divisions to give people a sense of accomplishment.
Personally I think what you say holds some truth to it (I think we've all checked op.gg during a game and realized that we're playing only with ppl in divisions below us bc of our big losing streak), but this is all a game of guessing Riot's MMR/LP model.
i think the tiers are just bottom heavy because it's easier to get promoted than demoted
That the differences between ranks is most smooth between 4 and 3. And then there is a larger jump to 2 and 1 and then a massive break at 5. (the exception to this being Gold 1-Plat 5 where it seems a lot of people have given up on making plat?)
Don't quite understand what you're saying, there are more Plat 5 players than Gold 1. The small difference can be attributed to many things, such as the possibility that the MMR differences between G1-P5 doesn't have to be the same as S1-G5, B1-S5, or in other words, the MMR range of G1 is very large. Also possible is it's simply an MMR range that many people 'peak' at.
The difference between Plat 1 and Diamond 5 and Silver 1 and Gold 5 is much larger than the difference between Gold 1 and Plat 5. There are more plat 5 players than Gold 1, but since its much easier to be promoted than demoted(and since people are likely to delay if they think they're on the cusp of being demoted) we expect that there are going to be many more plat 5 players than gold 1 players, like there are many more gold 5 than silver 1 and diamond 5 than plat 1. Its strange that we don't see it, but doesn't really change the conclusions we should come to about Sufficiency's graph.
MMR is a continuum. So the difference between plat 5 and gold 1 and diamond 5 and plat 1 are pretty similar.
There isn't any reason that the MMR range of Gold 1 would be very high but none of the others would be. (the clamping could be tighter though)
there are about 40,000-50,000 people in Gold 5 who ought to be in gold 1 or gold 2.
You mean G5 vs S1/2, right? Again, you're making the assumption that the rank system has the same MMR range for every division, and we don't know that. I can totally imagine that Riot fine tuned the system so that every tier has a gradual decline in player population as you go up divisions to give people a sense of accomplishment.
Personally I think what you say holds some truth to it (I think we've all checked op.gg during a game and realized that we're playing only with ppl in divisions below us bc of our big losing streak), but this is all a game of guessing Riot's MMR/LP model.
Yes I do mean G5 and S1/2. I am not making the assumption that the rank system as the same MMR range for every division, simply that the MMR range is relatively consistent. (after all, we can see that the MMR range from Silver 3 to the top of bronze 5 is about the same MMR range from Silver 3 to the top of Plat 2. I expect then that, if anything, the MMR range gets tighter as you get higher simply because we know there are more ranks between the center and the top(17 not including challenger/master) and the center and bottom(6)
The system naturally will have less population in each division unless the range of MMR increased massively as you went up the ladder. This is because the ELO system forces a normal distribution(iirc). Its unlikely that MMR ranges expand like that.
On September 10 2015 11:25 Sufficiency wrote: Azir and Kalista: epic failures of this season.
Don't be too quick to judge, there is still time for Morde and friends.
Fair point. Overall I strongly dislike all the decisions Riot has made this year. The worst thing you can do to piss off existing players is to create grossly problematic champions that breaks the meta of t he game, especially when the game is likely on its decline.
I don't mind Azir. There's a huge payoff but his skillcap is ridiculously high and champs like that rarely become consistently frustrating for me. I hate Kallista but at least she's been dialled back from the obscenely broken pos she was in the beginning to just being regular broken.
I hate the Morde rework though. What I hate most is that facing him feels just like facing old Morde when he was strong, with the caveat that he's sometimes in your botlane. He either gets fed and blows you away while being unkillable or doesn't get ahead and does nothing. Stuff like being overlevelled in botlane and "lol free dragon without using ult" are just extra kicks to the groin.
On September 10 2015 12:58 Amarok wrote: I don't mind Azir. There's a huge payoff but his skillcap is ridiculously high and champs like that rarely become consistently frustrating for me. I hate Kallista but at least she's been dialled back from the obscenely broken pos she was in the beginning to just being regular broken.
I hate the Morde rework though. What I hate most is that facing him feels just like facing old Morde when he was strong, with the caveat that he's sometimes in your botlane. He either gets fed and blows you away while being unkillable or doesn't get ahead and does nothing. Stuff like being overlevelled in botlane and "lol free dragon without using ult" are just extra kicks to the groin.
I don't mind Azir or Kalista for my own games, but find them deplorable for pro play, particularly Kalista. These are champions that simply make me want to turn off a game unless it is particularly meaningful. Although Azir requires "high skill" its not actually the kind of skill that any pro lacks, he requires good mechanics, which all relevant mids have. For a pro he is basically Orianna with higher DPS and less decisionmaking. Kalista is just a lane bully like S2 Darius without the immobility and with a much smaller lategame dropoff.
Also, juggernauts, yes, just stupid for pros and humans.
Despite how strong Kalista and Azir were, they were never at a pick/ban level of frustration. Sometimes people would pick them and destroy the game. Most of the time they didn't. Their winrates weren't astronomic either, so it's never really felt like they were too OP in solo q.
Overall, I just don't like the idea of Mord being a substitute ADC, I can live with it though.
On September 10 2015 12:58 Amarok wrote: I don't mind Azir. There's a huge payoff but his skillcap is ridiculously high and champs like that rarely become consistently frustrating for me. I hate Kallista but at least she's been dialled back from the obscenely broken pos she was in the beginning to just being regular broken.
I hate the Morde rework though. What I hate most is that facing him feels just like facing old Morde when he was strong, with the caveat that he's sometimes in your botlane. He either gets fed and blows you away while being unkillable or doesn't get ahead and does nothing. Stuff like being overlevelled in botlane and "lol free dragon without using ult" are just extra kicks to the groin.
I don't mind Azir or Kalista for my own games, but find them deplorable for pro play, particularly Kalista. These are champions that simply make me want to turn off a game unless it is particularly meaningful. Although Azir requires "high skill" its not actually the kind of skill that any pro lacks, he requires good mechanics, which all relevant mids have. For a pro he is basically Orianna with higher DPS and less decisionmaking. Kalista is just a lane bully like S2 Darius without the immobility and with a much smaller lategame dropoff.
Also, juggernauts, yes, just stupid for pros and humans.
You mean s3 draven . Remember picking him up and just legit walking behind the creep wave and trading 1v2 lol.
Honestly azir really isn't all that hard I have no fucking idea how his winrate is that low. Guess I overestimate soloq players by a lot.
S3 Draven (For Pros) at least could be dodged or poked.
On September 10 2015 14:59 Sonnington wrote: Despite how strong Kalista and Azir were, they were never at a pick/ban level of frustration. Sometimes people would pick them and destroy the game. Most of the time they didn't. Their winrates weren't astronomic either, so it's never really felt like they were too OP in solo q.
Overall, I just don't like the idea of Mord being a substitute ADC, I can live with it though.
With the amount of times they're banned, I haven't even bothered picking up the juggernauts. I'm also not a big top laner, so I haven't played Fiora and GP either, although I've played against them a few times. I have seen Morde once in soloQ so far, right at the start of the juggernaut patch, and since then he's either been insta banned or not picked bc I guess ppl forgot about him in Plat.
I've only gotten an understanding of the champ by watching Rekkles play him on KR soloQ, think Riot did a poor job implementing him into the game: he's a kill lane which will absolutely brutally murder if ahead, or he just sits and farms when behind. But most of the time he's doing everything with his support to try and net a kill, one slip up and Morde kills you.
azir and kalista arent that bad in solo q because people play assassins and the game is more messy and less organized.
both those champs get deleted by something like rengar or talon, but if your team is playing a "competitive" team like maokai top and reksai jungle and orianna mid or something then all of a sudden those 2 champs with crazy mobility and zone control become nightmares to play against when you can't actually get to them and they are supported properly by their team.
this also holds true the other way and why vayne is really strong in solo q. has a lot of self peel and can 1v1 pretty much anything if played properly so she doesnt need team support at all. but in competitive she hasn't done that well since there's no need for a short ranged adc. with proper positioning and support you want as much range/damage as you can get. I think that's why asian teams are particularly fond of twitch who has insane damage and range when protected and assassins dont exist
I don't think they should have region locked at all, lol. I just don't think you can be the NA hope when you don't have many NA players and especially when you didn't win against a team that did.
Dont think that's that big an issue. The bigger issue is that fact that TSM is the great North American hope instead of CLG. That just reeks of TSM pandering lol.
On September 11 2015 05:24 Gahlo wrote: It's almost like somebody wrote an opinion piece.
They've stated that these articles are supposed to be reference context for Worlds. CLG won, they are the best NA team going into Worlds and there is no reason to consider TSM the 'NA hope' over them.
On September 11 2015 05:24 Gahlo wrote: It's almost like somebody wrote an opinion piece.
They've stated that these articles are supposed to be reference context for Worlds. CLG won, they are the best NA team going into Worlds and there is no reason to consider TSM the 'NA hope' over them.
On September 10 2015 14:59 Sonnington wrote: Despite how strong Kalista and Azir were, they were never at a pick/ban level of frustration. Sometimes people would pick them and destroy the game. Most of the time they didn't. Their winrates weren't astronomic either, so it's never really felt like they were too OP in solo q.
Overall, I just don't like the idea of Mord being a substitute ADC, I can live with it though.
In soloqueue maybe? But in pro play? Kalista had a 63% win rate last season and a 90% pick+Ban rate. Easily the most dominant champion of the last split. To the point where we were talking about entire teams having massive structural problems because their AD didn't play Kalista (which meant they were playing with 2 bans on blue side instead of 3)
The truth is that since last season Riot cannot balance for soloqueue alone anymore. And they are probably showing that they can't balance for professional games either, but that seems to be a competency or integrity issue
On September 11 2015 05:24 Gahlo wrote: It's almost like somebody wrote an opinion piece.
They've stated that these articles are supposed to be reference context for Worlds. CLG won, they are the best NA team going into Worlds and there is no reason to consider TSM the 'NA hope' over them.
Do you not understand the definition of opinion?
Fnatic is the best team in the world is an opinion, but it doesn't belong in something that is supposed to supply context to those uninformed.
On September 11 2015 05:24 Gahlo wrote: It's almost like somebody wrote an opinion piece.
They've stated that these articles are supposed to be reference context for Worlds. CLG won, they are the best NA team going into Worlds and there is no reason to consider TSM the 'NA hope' over them.
Do you not understand the definition of opinion?
Fnatic is the best team in the world is an opinion, but it doesn't belong in something that is supposed to supply context to those uninformed.
Are you seriously going to the literally fluff piece paragon that is lolesports and expecting frank discussion of the competitive scene? I'm sorry bro, but you went to the wrong place. That's like going to a League tournament and complaining there isn't enough DOTA being played.
On September 11 2015 06:14 AlterKot wrote: So you agree with him that calling tsm the na hope is dumb its just that you expect nothing more of lolesports?
Duh. There's literally 0 reason to make that statement unless you sit in on both CLG and TSM's scrims and see for yourself that TSM performs better against the competition.
On September 10 2015 14:59 Sonnington wrote: Despite how strong Kalista and Azir were, they were never at a pick/ban level of frustration. Sometimes people would pick them and destroy the game. Most of the time they didn't. Their winrates weren't astronomic either, so it's never really felt like they were too OP in solo q.
Overall, I just don't like the idea of Mord being a substitute ADC, I can live with it though.
In soloqueue maybe? But in pro play? Kalista had a 63% win rate last season and a 90% pick+Ban rate. Easily the most dominant champion of the last split. To the point where we were talking about entire teams having massive structural problems because their AD didn't play Kalista (which meant they were playing with 2 bans on blue side instead of 3)
The truth is that since last season Riot cannot balance for soloqueue alone anymore. And they are probably showing that they can't balance for professional games either, but that seems to be a competency or integrity issue
They have a pro play problem in that they keep designing champions that are, by the nature of their kits, going to have vastly differing power levels from soloQ to pros. And when they need to nerf them for pro play, it just generates a shitstorm in soloQ because Rengar, Kassadin, Gnar, Azir, Kalista, RekSai, or whoever, ends up at 40% winrate in order to not be insane for the pros.
On September 10 2015 14:59 Sonnington wrote: Despite how strong Kalista and Azir were, they were never at a pick/ban level of frustration. Sometimes people would pick them and destroy the game. Most of the time they didn't. Their winrates weren't astronomic either, so it's never really felt like they were too OP in solo q.
Overall, I just don't like the idea of Mord being a substitute ADC, I can live with it though.
In soloqueue maybe? But in pro play? Kalista had a 63% win rate last season and a 90% pick+Ban rate. Easily the most dominant champion of the last split. To the point where we were talking about entire teams having massive structural problems because their AD didn't play Kalista (which meant they were playing with 2 bans on blue side instead of 3)
The truth is that since last season Riot cannot balance for soloqueue alone anymore. And they are probably showing that they can't balance for professional games either, but that seems to be a competency or integrity issue
They have a pro play problem in that they keep designing champions that are, by the nature of their kits, going to have vastly differing power levels from soloQ to pros. And when they need to nerf them for pro play, it just generates a shitstorm in soloQ because Rengar, Kassadin, Gnar, Azir, Kalista, RekSai, or whoever, ends up at 40% winrate in order to not be insane for the pros.
Absolutely. Additionally they keep designing champions that offen aren't fun to play against.
Well, if you're not at worlds, you probably aren't keeping the team together anyways, so its not really much use to Jin Air or CJ to scrim, but some beer money makes it worthwhile.
Don't forget that it was BR player who stated that. I could understand that most KR teams, especially those going to worlds, wouldn't see the point in scrimming with a team that has no chance of making it far. It's essentially a waste of time.
I somehow doubt that the KR teams would charge anyone who they consider worth scrimming that obscene amount. There is also now a reddit thread that has KR coach comments where they said they would never do that kind of thing, and that it might have been a scammer.
Well, if you're not at worlds, you probably aren't keeping the team together anyways, so its not really much use to Jin Air or CJ to scrim, but some beer money makes it worthwhile.
Scrimming is always a good idea, even if they don't keep the full team it means they can test players out, try out strategies, and gain synergy between whoever they do keep. I can see CJ and Jin Air getting changes, but I don't think it'll be extreme changes, maybe one or two out.
On September 11 2015 20:50 DarkCore wrote: Don't forget that it was BR player who stated that. I could understand that most KR teams, especially those going to worlds, wouldn't see the point in scrimming with a team that has no chance of making it far. It's essentially a waste of time.
I somehow doubt that the KR teams would charge anyone who they consider worth scrimming that obscene amount. There is also now a reddit thread that has KR coach comments where they said they would never do that kind of thing, and that it might have been a scammer.
Well, if you're not at worlds, you probably aren't keeping the team together anyways, so its not really much use to Jin Air or CJ to scrim, but some beer money makes it worthwhile.
Scrimming is always a good idea, even if they don't keep the full team it means they can test players out, try out strategies, and gain synergy between whoever they do keep. I can see CJ and Jin Air getting changes, but I don't think it'll be extreme changes, maybe one or two out.
CJ should keep Coco and maybe the botlane (with subs for both), and jin air can go many ways, but they need to change the dynamic of the team.
Went on for 58 minutes with almost 150 kills going back and forth. It was the most real and fun game I've played in a long, long time.
Laning phase was unspectacular: vlad got dumpstered by Yorick and lost his tower, J4 camped mid lane and kept Zed and Heimer even. Bot lane won a fight and took the tower, but didn't secure the kills and ended up getting killed by a Magical Journeyed Volibear in the back. We secured an early dragon, but paid for it with a 1 for 4. From that point, it was pretty much just back to back posturing/warding followed by teamfights.
We had a couple of teamfight losses where a spectacular bard ult set up Voli and Yorick to sit on top of the team and destroy us, then won a few where I managed to Solar Flare Jinx and Yorick then peel Voli off cait while our carries did work to their backline. We ended up taking an inhib after a fight, but overstayed for a brush gank in the jungle and lost baron. They spent the entire baron keeping us off 5th dragon, winning a fight, but being forced to defend. They got our mid inhib turret, but not the actual inhibitor. We ended up losing yet another fight with them being able to double inhib us, but they overstayed to do it and we punished by acing them and re-taking the top inhib.
The last fight came down to me catching Volibear warding dragon, us taking the 5th dragon, baron, then shoving in top (inhib had respawned again). We then aced them in their base because Jinx was in front of her frontline and I Solar Flared her and E'd in. I died, but Jinx did too and Yorick ult was either down or just not used on her, so we took the rest of the fight fairly easily.
It was goddamned close and back and forth, with each team losing several teamfights in a row before winning one. I had such a blast playing it, couldn't help but post here.
On September 13 2015 00:31 Slusher wrote: Sometimes I think I'm not terrible at this game, then I watch Saint go legendary in a d1 game as jungle Teemo.
So about the Dunkey being banned thing. Maybe he deserved it. I don't know for sure. You know who definitely deserves it though?
Kaceytron.
She intentionally feeds and throws games under the guise of being bad. Videos on youtube show her playing WoW, talking to a friend who asked her why she pretends to be so stupid on stream. She basically said she's putting on a show. Not that her actions even need proof, they speak for themselves. She's been intentionally losing games and feeding on stream for, what, two years? The message is: as long as you pretend you're stupid and bad no one can prove you're doing it on purpose. My opinion? I'd much rather people get called out for bad plays they make and feel bad about it than people thinking it's ok to play like shit on purpose while putting on a facade that you're stupid or bad at the game.
Isn't she in like the deep deaths of Bronze 5? And I remember Spectate Faker whining about some satanist streamer girl or something...lol. edit: It was a reddit comment in reply to his tweet whining about her, the comment said she was subhuman/satanist. idk what's going on there
On September 13 2015 11:22 Sonnington wrote: So about the Dunkey being banned thing. Maybe he deserved it. I don't know for sure. You know who definitely deserves it though?
Kaceytron.
She intentionally feeds and throws games under the guise of being bad. Videos on youtube show her playing WoW, talking to a friend who asked her why she pretends to be so stupid on stream. She basically said she's putting on a show. Not that her actions even need proof, they speak for themselves. She's been intentionally losing games and feeding on stream for, what, two years? The message is: as long as you pretend you're stupid and bad no one can prove you're doing it on purpose. My opinion? I'd much rather people get called out for bad plays they make and feel bad about it than people thinking it's ok to play like shit on purpose while putting on a facade that you're stupid or bad at the game.
I hate when things like Dunkey gets banned become this big thing, because there's a lovely group of people that make stupid arguements to change the topic. Dunkey's ban has nothing to do with Kaceytron. Who else "deserves it" or "deserves it more" doesn't fucking matter. The only thing that matters is that Dunkey was being a cunt, often, got char restricted, often, and continued to be a cunt until he got a 2 week ban. Then he makes a sob story video where he Dunning Kreuger's his own fucked mental state after Riot gives him a short ban that he easily deserves and then quits.
I'm a big fan of his, been watching his videos as long as I've played this game, maybe even longer, but he's behaving like a child when it comes to this.
On September 13 2015 11:22 Sonnington wrote: So about the Dunkey being banned thing. Maybe he deserved it. I don't know for sure. You know who definitely deserves it though?
Kaceytron.
She intentionally feeds and throws games under the guise of being bad. Videos on youtube show her playing WoW, talking to a friend who asked her why she pretends to be so stupid on stream. She basically said she's putting on a show. Not that her actions even need proof, they speak for themselves. She's been intentionally losing games and feeding on stream for, what, two years? The message is: as long as you pretend you're stupid and bad no one can prove you're doing it on purpose. My opinion? I'd much rather people get called out for bad plays they make and feel bad about it than people thinking it's ok to play like shit on purpose while putting on a facade that you're stupid or bad at the game.
I hate when things like Dunkey gets banned become this big thing, because there's a lovely group of people that make stupid arguements to change the topic. Dunkey's ban has nothing to do with Kaceytron. Who else "deserves it" or "deserves it more" doesn't fucking matter. The only thing that matters is that Dunkey was being a cunt, often, got char restricted, often, and continued to be a cunt until he got a 2 week ban. Then he makes a sob story video where he Dunning Kreuger's his own fucked mental state after Riot gives him a short ban that he easily deserves and then quits.
I'm a big fan of his, been watching his videos as long as I've played this game, maybe even longer, but he's behaving like a child when it comes to this.
Well, I guess you're going to have to deal with people taking the opportunity to bring up tangential topics. Honestly? I don't even know the Dunkey story. I don't really care. I read a reddit post that had 7k upvotes, hit r/all, and a few comments about how he's a dick to people. I've never been a big fan of his work. Like I said, he may deserve it. He probably does and it's clever of him to exploit the situation.
But far more despicable is a person that purposefully ruins games and gets away with it because they're putting on a facade of stupidity. What kind of message is that sending kids and teens? If you offend people because you're upset with others incompetence: you'll be punished. If you feign incompetence while making other people's lives harder: you'll be coddled and accepted. That's truly a disgusting message Riot is sending, but I think it's actually emblematic of today's culture and values.
Doesn't Hanlon's razor apply hereh? The vast majority of people who are bad in League aren't pretending to be bad for the sake of a stream (or for any reason really), they're just... actually... bad.
On September 13 2015 13:41 Llama wrote: Doesn't Hanlon's razor apply here? The vast majority of people who are bad in League aren't pretending to be bad for the sake of a stream (or for any reason really), they're just... actually... bad.
What are you getting at? Are you trying to say Kaceytron isn't acting?
Just that it's not really a relevant thing because there isn't some epidemic of people who are pretending to be not good at league of legends that needs to be addressed -- whereas chat toxicity bans like the one dunkey got hit by are one of their stated priorities
On September 13 2015 13:50 Llama wrote: Just that it's not really a relevant thing because there isn't some epidemic of people who are pretending to be not good at league of legends that needs to be addressed -- whereas chat toxicity bans like the one dunkey got hit by are one of their stated priorities
I see. That's not the point I was making. I was saying it was disgusting in a more grandiose sense. But lets stay within the confines of the game then.
Out of curiosity, do you feel like it's ok to let one of the top streamers intentionally feed and ruin games? And how do you know people don't intentionally play badly and feign stupidity to ruin games? I think that happens quite often. The biggest difference is, you can't always discern the difference between someone who is bad and someone faking it. In the case of Kaceytron, you absolutely can. Or are you just saying they should let her ruin games for the last 2 years and continue to do so because they never said it's their mission to stop intentional feeders?
I don't think people in general will "feign stupidity" to ruin games because nobody actually likes to look stupid. Or to lose games by playing worse than they usually would. In my experience people who try to ruin games do so in such a way that is distinguishable from simple bad play.
I suspect the reason Kaceytron isn't banned yet (and she should be) is that Riot are just disorganized and don't have a good system in place for dealing with streamers specifically. Maybe they're afraid of making some PR blunder wrt streamers, like when the spectatefaker stream thing blew up on reddit and their stance was met with a very cold reception
On September 13 2015 14:09 Llama wrote: I don't think people in general will "feign stupidity" to ruin games because nobody actually likes to look stupid. Or to lose games by playing worse than they usually would. In my experience people who try to ruin games do so in such a way that is distinguishable from simple bad play.
I suspect the reason Kaceytron isn't banned yet (and she should be) is that Riot are just disorganized and don't have a good system in place for dealing with streamers specifically. Maybe they're afraid of making some PR blunder wrt streamers, like when the spectatefaker stream thing blew up on reddit and their stance was met with a very cold reception
That's a very noble view of the internet community. The truth is there are quite a few trolls out there and it doesn't take long to figure out that pretending you're stupid to ruin games means you won't get in trouble. While intentionally feeding will. I actually had a friend from EUW who would tell me about the shit he'd pull in game. Like specifically baiting low mobility champs into bad positions and running away. In any event, it's difficult to discern what's stupid and what's pretending to be stupid.
In any event, I feel like she's sending a reprehensible message to kids that it's acceptable to pretend to be stupid while setting others behind.
On September 13 2015 13:50 Llama wrote: Just that it's not really a relevant thing because there isn't some epidemic of people who are pretending to be not good at league of legends that needs to be addressed -- whereas chat toxicity bans like the one dunkey got hit by are one of their stated priorities
I see. That's not the point I was making. I was saying it was disgusting in a more grandiose sense. But lets stay within the confines of the game then.
Out of curiosity, do you feel like it's ok to let one of the top streamers intentionally feed and ruin games? And how do you know people don't intentionally play badly and feign stupidity to ruin games? I think that happens quite often. The biggest difference is, you can't always discern the difference between someone who is bad and someone faking it. In the case of Kaceytron, you absolutely can. Or are you just saying they should let her ruin games for the last 2 years and continue to do so because they never said it's their mission to stop intentional feeders?
Im pretty sure if you're matched with kaceytron you're probably so bad yourself it doesn't matter.
The only time I ever watched her stream she was blatantly trying to feed / die and she was getting double kills. Lol. It was like watching someone try to lose to beginner bots.
On September 13 2015 18:27 kongoline wrote: how do i click people behind turret, not the first time i botched dive because turret was on the way and i coudlnt click on them
at any rate, this game started its decline when it introduced the trinbunal/bans being commonplace. It's around the same time they started to homogenize champions and builds and turned a game into something super serious and stale. Looks like they are finally trying to revert that starting with these juggernaut things and making champs be able to do crazy shit again but its gonna take a while to fix.
How would you guys build vlad toplane? I have been going Dshield -->revolver-->completely lost. Wota first? Sorcs or lucidity boots? Liandry, Dcap or Rylai's after?
On September 14 2015 00:59 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote: How would you guys build vlad toplane? I have been going Dshield -->revolver-->completely lost. Wota first? Sorcs or lucidity boots? Liandry, Dcap or Rylai's after?
Theoretically, Revolver => Guise/Sorc => WotA.
Vlad has really low cds as it is to the point where I don't see much value in Lucidity boots on him.
On September 13 2015 23:10 Caiada wrote: If bans/chat restrictions being more commonplace make people quit, thank fucking God. Mission accomplished.
you're focusing on the wrong part of it. They took the fun part out of a game and they are trying to be more important then they actually are. this is a video game not the UN. every champion does not need to come in with a set role and have only one build path, in fact it makes the game a lot more boring.
Lucidity boots are usually a question of 'do I need my utility spells up more often?' On Vlad, the answer is, yeah, sometimes.
Low cooldown champs are also sustained damage champs more often than not and thus benefit a lot from getting 1 or 2 more casts of each spell off per fight.
Think an ideal Vlad build is something like WotA/Rylai's/Liandry's into two of Dcap/Zhonya's/SV/Abyssal/Void.
On September 13 2015 23:10 Caiada wrote: If bans/chat restrictions being more commonplace make people quit, thank fucking God. Mission accomplished.
you're focusing on the wrong part of it. They took the fun part out of a game and they are trying to be more important then they actually are. this is a video game not the UN. every champion does not need to come in with a set role and have only one build path, in fact it makes the game a lot more boring.
I agreed with that, hence not mentioning it. The tribunal thing was still stupid. Bans are great.
I actually think CDR boots are better for top lane Vlad.
Scaling CDR blues are cute and all, keep in mind you won't be able to hit 40% CDR until you are level 18. Sometimes you just want power NOW, and CDR boots (subject to certain matchups) are one of your best items to get beside wota.
On September 14 2015 11:19 Caiada wrote: Most common build for Renek still doesn't pick up Titanic l0l
Builds are really not that complicated. I don't think there's any more obvious buy in the game than Titanic on Renekton.
Azir? Something that either outpressures him or kills him early. There's a lot of options.
That's because all the Renek one trick ponies (Romanium, Neryth, etc) build full AD and just pressure the hell out of their lane. For them, BT is their form of survivability and they rely on their ability to outplay.
I find Azir hard to put pressure on early ( if you really think that's a legit strategy). For us plebs, the goal is to trick him into trying an aggressive play, which they typically fail, or to teamfight against him knowing he will have bad soldier management.
I tried to bring up this topic in the other strategy gd thread but I just think Titanic is a bad item.
I just feel like it doesn't cover any territory that Sunfire and Ravenous don't cover better for their particular roles (tank vs. offence)
On September 14 2015 12:48 cLutZ wrote: I find Azir hard to put pressure on early ( if you really think that's a legit strategy). For us plebs, the goal is to trick him into trying an aggressive play, which they typically fail, or to teamfight against him knowing he will have bad soldier management.
in the pros he generally got beat up by poke, he was big part of why Varus became meta, after tear Varus can out sustain him and poke him out of lane and generally build a pretty good cs advantage.
other strats have revolved around pushing him in 24/7 and chipping his tower since he has pretty awful gank support at early levels, mainly with Viktor, and then roaming after he loses his tower. I agree it's kinda hard to pressure him early, he is pretty weak levels 1 and 2 but he has good escape if he can get to 3 and if you all in and fail, it's just really risky (and most good Azir will run something defensive for their 2nd summoner if you play something that can all in him, like barrier or exhaust so it's hard to come up with that kinda damage level 2)
if you have counterpick my advice is to go Varus I think it's the most foolproof strat if your team comp can handle an ad mid. I think Viktor is easily as good but has a higher execution bar both in not getting killed for pushing and getting good roams off when it becomes available.
probably because he gets 2/4/8 damage per auto from ult and 20/40/80 on the active from ult, I mean I don't agree that it's good but that has to be the reasoning.
for instance he gets 20 damage extra on Q alone by going ravenous instead because all of his AD ratios (not just Q) are 80% or more. I think the problem with Titanic is it just doesn't do anything unique, anything you could want from it you can get from other items that are just all around better. Basically, Ravenous, Sunfire and BC would need to not exist for this to be an item you would consider on any hero in any situation.
Passive UNIQUE – CLEAVE: On-hit you deal 5 (+1% of your maximum health) bonus physical damage to your target and 40 (+2.5% of your maximum health) physical damage to all enemies in a cone behind them. (385 range). Active UNIQUE – CRESCENT: On your next attack, Cleave's damage to all targets is increased to 40 (+10% of your maximum health) and the area of effect is larger. Activating Crescent resets your attack timer. 20 second cooldown.
would be cool if there was a way to tag items/hero abilities like how hearthstone forums work.
On September 14 2015 10:47 Sufficiency wrote: I actually think CDR boots are better for top lane Vlad.
Scaling CDR blues are cute and all, keep in mind you won't be able to hit 40% CDR until you are level 18. Sometimes you just want power NOW, and CDR boots (subject to certain matchups) are one of your best items to get beside wota.
you don't need that 40% CDR asap, and you most likely have around 30% CDR already when it's most useful anyways (past level 9 with wota). I'd rather not spend the money on CDR at that stage of the game to get a 10% increase from what I would have with CDR runes and instead spend it on something more valuable like tenacity, tabi passive, or +15 magic pen.
u have only 10% from wota in most matchups u wont be rushing spirit visage after, lucidity are pretty core on vlad
On September 14 2015 16:22 krndandaman wrote: the shit on twitter with jatt/balls is so dumb lol I can't believe jatt actually apologized for his comments on ball's soloq record. like sure it wasn't the most insightful analysis in the world but I don't see how such a comment warrants a bunch of tweets by 10+ proplayers defending balls.
and he actually sent out an apology to c9 like lol.
sad by all parties
It's pretty bad honestly. Balls has been bad for over a year now, the only issue with Jatts comment was him talking about Solo Q instead of listing the months/year of balls being bad. People getting all upset over it are so dumb. All the "pros" defending him and lashing out at Jatt is so stupid. What Jatt is saying is that balls have been shit for so long and now he can't even play well in Solo Q, so it's like the final confirmation that Balls is bad. Which I think is perfectly reasonable statement. Pro players aren't exactly the most intelligent bunch though so they may not get that or they just want to make sure commentators never point out being sucking so they don't come under fire.
On September 14 2015 16:22 krndandaman wrote: the shit on twitter with jatt/balls is so dumb lol I can't believe jatt actually apologized for his comments on ball's soloq record. like sure it wasn't the most insightful analysis in the world but I don't see how such a comment warrants a bunch of tweets by 10+ proplayers defending balls.
and he actually sent out an apology to c9 like lol.
sad by all parties
It's pretty bad honestly. Balls has been bad for over a year now, the only issue with Jatts comment was him talking about Solo Q instead of listing the months/year of balls being bad. People getting all upset over it are so dumb. All the "pros" defending him and lashing out at Jatt is so stupid. What Jatt is saying is that balls have been shit for so long and now he can't even play well in Solo Q, so it's like the final confirmation that Balls is bad. Which I think is perfectly reasonable statement. Pro players aren't exactly the most intelligent bunch though so they may not get that or they just want to make sure commentators never point out being sucking so they don't come under fire.
It's probably the latter: I mean, if you can create en environment where you don't get criticized (and the insults that tend to follow) then why wouldn't you want it? Pros are probably thinking of situations that escalated in the past, I mean you can't deny that the League community likes to scapegoat bad players and lash out at them, look at Nien or Link, even Dyrus has hit haters.
Not saying that what Jatt did was wrong (I think it's completely fine, he has every right to criticize Ball's poor soloQ performance) but esports tend to have pretty close relationships with their player base in comparison to normal sports. All it takes is a quick read through Reddit to find people that think DL is shit, and Dyrus should retire, and Balls is holding C9 back. That stuff can get into your head, even if signing up as a pro means you should be prepared for the negative comments.
Nien and Link were bad though. Them being in the spotlight to be called out for so long was the fault of management, not the community. Dyrus is the same but he's been given a pass since top lane in NA is garbage.
Yea he's had a long career which spans a lot of ups and downs. If TSM could have had someone really good fill his place I'm sure he would have retired already but the rules kind of made it hard for that to happen. Can't really lump him in the same boat as the others, wasn't quite right for me to do so either. He's not like Link or Nien in that there were replacements out there that their teams just didn't bother trying.
Even when C9 were battling it out last year with Hai as mid part of the issue was that balls was performing so badly. If it was just Hai struggling then they may have been able to make do but with both him and Balls it was just too much. Nothing has changed since then with Balls so him finally being called out (even if it's just Solo Q) is a good thing. Maybe C9 will start being proactive with their changes in the future instead of sitting on them until the problems explode.
On September 14 2015 14:36 Slusher wrote: probably because he gets 2/4/8 damage per auto from ult and 20/40/80 on the active from ult, I mean I don't agree that it's good but that has to be the reasoning.
for instance he gets 20 damage extra on Q alone by going ravenous instead because all of his AD ratios (not just Q) are 80% or more. I think the problem with Titanic is it just doesn't do anything unique, anything you could want from it you can get from other items that are just all around better. Basically, Ravenous, Sunfire and BC would need to not exist for this to be an item you would consider on any hero in any situation.
Or it could be a free auto and massively efficient, usually an item you get *along with* BC, and really good when you get free double/triple hits, but that's apparently very complicated for people, somehow, for some completely unknown reason.
On September 14 2015 10:47 Sufficiency wrote: I actually think CDR boots are better for top lane Vlad.
Scaling CDR blues are cute and all, keep in mind you won't be able to hit 40% CDR until you are level 18. Sometimes you just want power NOW, and CDR boots (subject to certain matchups) are one of your best items to get beside wota.
you don't need that 40% CDR asap, and you most likely have around 30% CDR already when it's most useful anyways (past level 9 with wota). I'd rather not spend the money on CDR at that stage of the game to get a 10% increase from what I would have with CDR runes and instead spend it on something more valuable like tenacity, tabi passive, or +15 magic pen.
The thing about CDR is that the more CDR you have the more efficient it is. Granted, I won't recommend CDR boot vs, say, Swain, but maximize CDR isn't a bad strategy.
On September 14 2015 00:59 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote: How would you guys build vlad toplane? I have been going Dshield -->revolver-->completely lost. Wota first? Sorcs or lucidity boots? Liandry, Dcap or Rylai's after?
Theoretically, Revolver => Guise/Sorc => WotA.
Vlad has really low cds as it is to the point where I don't see much value in Lucidity boots on him.
You want CDR even more on low cooldown champs. For huge cooldown abilities, CDR is mostly insurance to make sure you have it up during the next teamfight. For low cooldown abilities, CDR directly translates into DPS.
On September 13 2015 14:09 Llama wrote: I don't think people in general will "feign stupidity" to ruin games because nobody actually likes to look stupid. Or to lose games by playing worse than they usually would. In my experience people who try to ruin games do so in such a way that is distinguishable from simple bad play.
I suspect the reason Kaceytron isn't banned yet (and she should be) is that Riot are just disorganized and don't have a good system in place for dealing with streamers specifically. Maybe they're afraid of making some PR blunder wrt streamers, like when the spectatefaker stream thing blew up on reddit and their stance was met with a very cold reception
That's a very noble view of the internet community. The truth is there are quite a few trolls out there and it doesn't take long to figure out that pretending you're stupid to ruin games means you won't get in trouble. While intentionally feeding will. I actually had a friend from EUW who would tell me about the shit he'd pull in game. Like specifically baiting low mobility champs into bad positions and running away. In any event, it's difficult to discern what's stupid and what's pretending to be stupid.
In any event, I feel like she's sending a reprehensible message to kids that it's acceptable to pretend to be stupid while setting others behind.
That's the problem with participation awards and this whole lyte smite stuff. It's ok if you suck as long as you tried. Or attempt to convince people that you tried. Delivering results doesn't actually matter. Then again, this is just a video game and not a real job, so who gives a shit, right? I don't play video games to win, I play them to have fun, even if it comes at the expense of 9 other people.
Also, people pretend being stupid to crash their elo into bronze without risking a ban for feeding. I know this since I have several irl friends who are guilty of it. I'm guilty myself of feeding under tower and saying "sry lag spike" or "where was the followup" and I'm still here, too.
Just for the record, I love kaceytron since she ironically sums up everything wrong about league of legends. Cashing in on virgin gamers as a girl streamer, feeding on purpose while pretending to try, thinks she is a progamer while she is in bronze, toxic as shit but not stupid enough to get autobanned. Pretty much things that people actually do unironically.
On September 14 2015 15:02 Nos- wrote: does titanic have the active on it like hydra?
Better. Titanic has a full auto reset with all that implies as well as huge bonus damage on that auto.
The drawback is that you can't get the short distance kill you get with hydra since your auto range is slightly less than hydra active range. The 20 second cooldown also means you kind of have to think of when to use it, whereas hydra is spammable.
On September 15 2015 02:16 SoSexy wrote: When people that go 1/9 say 'I play this for fun, don't flame', I usually reply 'do you have fun losing like this?'.
It shuts them down.
Those are unintentional feeders. Or so they would have you believe. Real trolls do have fun losing like that.
I actually find that simply apologizing for being awful goes a long way. Most people will actually forgive you for it if you aren't trite about it and it's obvious you're trying, at least until you find another way to really screw things up.
Meanwhile making excuses for being awful is basically the shortest route to the barbecue, no matter what the excuse is.
On September 14 2015 14:36 Slusher wrote: probably because he gets 2/4/8 damage per auto from ult and 20/40/80 on the active from ult, I mean I don't agree that it's good but that has to be the reasoning.
for instance he gets 20 damage extra on Q alone by going ravenous instead because all of his AD ratios (not just Q) are 80% or more. I think the problem with Titanic is it just doesn't do anything unique, anything you could want from it you can get from other items that are just all around better. Basically, Ravenous, Sunfire and BC would need to not exist for this to be an item you would consider on any hero in any situation.
Or it could be a free auto and massively efficient, usually an item you get *along with* BC, and really good when you get free double/triple hits, but that's apparently very complicated for people, somehow, for some completely unknown reason.
what is the advantage to this combo over ravenous?
On September 15 2015 02:24 Seuss wrote: I actually find that simply apologizing for being awful goes a long way. Most people will actually forgive you for it if you aren't trite about it and it's obvious you're trying, at least until you find another way to really screw things up.
Meanwhile making excuses for being awful is basically the shortest route to the barbecue, no matter what the excuse is.
On September 14 2015 14:36 Slusher wrote: probably because he gets 2/4/8 damage per auto from ult and 20/40/80 on the active from ult, I mean I don't agree that it's good but that has to be the reasoning.
for instance he gets 20 damage extra on Q alone by going ravenous instead because all of his AD ratios (not just Q) are 80% or more. I think the problem with Titanic is it just doesn't do anything unique, anything you could want from it you can get from other items that are just all around better. Basically, Ravenous, Sunfire and BC would need to not exist for this to be an item you would consider on any hero in any situation.
Or it could be a free auto and massively efficient, usually an item you get *along with* BC, and really good when you get free double/triple hits, but that's apparently very complicated for people, somehow, for some completely unknown reason.
what is the advantage to this combo over ravenous?
Orianna, Anivia, Lulu, etc. bunch of stuff that's got slows, roots, or generic zone control stuff available on a cooldown lower than Garen's Q (which shouldn't be hard if he doesn't get to auto with it)? Even something like Maokai can do well if he doesn't get wrecked in lane because both Q and W are pretty good.
On September 15 2015 06:04 kongoline wrote: is steraks gage good? i built this item once and didnt really feel its worth it over randuin or other tank item
I'm thinking the new Juggernaut items are actually pretty well designed-- they *look* good but really only shine on certain champs. Sterak's is really nice on Zac and Cinderhulk champs from my xp, seems like a good fit for some melees who use Sheen as well. Maybe Ekko, idk though.
If Mundo used the stats better, the passive on Sterak's could be absurdly good on him, since it'd basically remove the cases where you can burst him hard enough that even if he ults you can finish him off before it heals him enough. That's paying a lot for just some HP considering how little he gets to auto though.
if you dont build triforce, dont build steraks. if you do, consider it. thats the gist of the item. its probably the most boring of the new items since its very linear. Without the 25% triforce increase its a really generic health/ad item.
Sterak's is efficient on anyone with primarily total AD ratios and is also great for 1v1s when you're primarily building health. It's underbought, but so are Titanic, Liandry's, DMP, and a lot of other new/updated items.
On September 15 2015 06:45 Caiada wrote: Sterak's is efficient on anyone with primarily total AD ratios and is also great for 1v1s when you're primarily building health. It's underbought, but so are Titanic, Liandry's, DMP, and a lot of other new/updated items.
No, it's not. Most champions do not get enough AD out of it even with total AD ratios. It just doesn't give enough AD unless you also have hilarious base AD or have triforce.
Edit: the average ad champion is going to have 100'AD at level 18 and 90 at level 17. Call it 110/100 for non juggernaut bruiser (pre juggernauts the highest base AD at 18 was like 120). If you have 100 base AD then you get a pickaxe worth of AD from Steraks. The highest this becomes is like 37.5 AD for Morde at level 18.
So if you don't have Triforce you simply can't get more out of it than building towards titanic or black cleaver. Both of which will give you more AD all the time and more HP. (Minus the passive shield) plus other advantages like CDR and shred or an AA reset.
Sterak's shield triggers based on a flat amount of health lost, so either you've got a medium health pool and it basically buys you a few seconds before you die because it triggers while you're very low (think 1.5k HP midgame into 2.5k HP lategame), or you've got a big health pool and it can allow you to escape burst then reenter the fight with a decent health pool instead of having to leave it altogether.
In the first case it's for "anticarries"-type champions (so generally assassins, or bruisers like Jax/Renekton/J4 who elect to go full damage), buying you some more time/surviving the peeling cc-lock so you can kill your target, then maybe clean up or escape. In the second case it's for champions with HP buffers or high sustain (HP shields, regen, etc.) who can use the passive as a "free" HP buffer to negate/reduce the initial burst of damage, then be too healthy to take down when they move back into the fray. But most of them don't use the AD stats well so it's awkward.
which has a grand total of 13 games played this season. Either he has a hidden account which he plays solo queue with or he doesn't play any solo queue.
On September 15 2015 08:22 Sufficiency wrote: With all the C9 Ball's controversies, I can't find his account on NA except this one: http://www.lolking.net/summoner/na/19238304
which has a grand total of 13 games played this season. Either he has a hidden account which he plays solo queue with or he doesn't play any solo queue.
i'd assume that every pro has at least 2 or 3 accounts that they play on.
On September 15 2015 08:22 Sufficiency wrote: With all the C9 Ball's controversies, I can't find his account on NA except this one: http://www.lolking.net/summoner/na/19238304
which has a grand total of 13 games played this season. Either he has a hidden account which he plays solo queue with or he doesn't play any solo queue.
i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
I mean his champ pool is completely outdated. rumble, maokai, gnar, hecarim, vlad, etc are all decent picks but by no means top tier. and hes not even that amazing on any of them so its a double negative. He can't play carry ad bruisers which is what is in right now. I expect a big showing from zionspartan at worlds as far as western tops go
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
Why do I care if he plays better? I am interested in making an accurate evaluation of them.
Also, sometimes it does, its called bulletin board material, and all the greats, and even most of the goods use it.
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
Why do I care if he plays better? I am interested in making an accurate evaluation of them.
Also, sometimes it does, its called bulletin board material, and all the greats, and even most of the goods use it.
yeah no, the social pressure on these guys is massive. it's pathetic that coaches and managers have to tell their players not to look at social media because of how much they are criticized and insulted.
all this event has done is create a bad image for esports.
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
Why do I care if he plays better? I am interested in making an accurate evaluation of them.
Also, sometimes it does, its called bulletin board material, and all the greats, and even most of the goods use it.
yeah no, the social pressure on these guys is massive. it's pathetic that coaches and managers have to tell their players not to look at social media because of how much they are criticized and insulted.
all this event has done is create a bad image for esports.
Yea, totally, like how people hating Lebron and the Heat was bad for the NBA. Particularly how many fans they lost because of people shitting on him for not playing in the post during thier loss to the Mavs.
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
Why do I care if he plays better? I am interested in making an accurate evaluation of them.
Also, sometimes it does, its called bulletin board material, and all the greats, and even most of the goods use it.
yeah no, the social pressure on these guys is massive. it's pathetic that coaches and managers have to tell their players not to look at social media because of how much they are criticized and insulted.
all this event has done is create a bad image for esports.
If you choose to be a public figure by being a pro gamer, you accept the 'social pressure' as part of your job. Every public figure gets criticized and insulted every day, and they either learn to deal with it or prevent themselves from knowing about it. If the players can't deal with it, then the coach has to deal with it. It's not pathetic in any sense, it's just part of the job.
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
Why do I care if he plays better? I am interested in making an accurate evaluation of them.
Also, sometimes it does, its called bulletin board material, and all the greats, and even most of the goods use it.
yeah no, the social pressure on these guys is massive. it's pathetic that coaches and managers have to tell their players not to look at social media because of how much they are criticized and insulted.
all this event has done is create a bad image for esports.
If you choose to be a public figure by being a pro gamer, you accept the 'social pressure' as part of your job. Every public figure gets criticized and insulted every day, and they either learn to deal with it or prevent themselves from knowing about it. If the players can't deal with it, then the coach has to deal with it. It's not pathetic in any sense, it's just part of the job.
Truth. ESPN has 40 hours of this a day just between their two main channels.
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
Why do I care if he plays better? I am interested in making an accurate evaluation of them.
Also, sometimes it does, its called bulletin board material, and all the greats, and even most of the goods use it.
yeah no, the social pressure on these guys is massive. it's pathetic that coaches and managers have to tell their players not to look at social media because of how much they are criticized and insulted.
all this event has done is create a bad image for esports.
If you choose to be a public figure by being a pro gamer, you accept the 'social pressure' as part of your job. Every public figure gets criticized and insulted every day, and they either learn to deal with it or prevent themselves from knowing about it. If the players can't deal with it, then the coach has to deal with it. It's not pathetic in any sense, it's just part of the job.
Truth. ESPN has 40 hours of this a day just between their two main channels.
ESPN is actually just 40 hours of sucking lebron's dick
On September 15 2015 08:51 Frolossus wrote: i feel like it's unjustified to talk shit about balls in kr solo queue UNLESS he is incapable of pulling up to challenger at all. just because it takes longer, i don't think he needs the added pressure the community just put on him.
What? Why? I mean, I suppose if it was Coco or Faker or imp or Meiko or TNT people would be able to say "well, he seems really good in pro games, something just must not translate" or if it was Hai or Lemon or nRated they could say "well this guy is known more for his mind, and that is harder to translate to soloQ". Balls is known for looking like shit in pro games, and is not the primary or even secondary shotcaller on his team. Him performing poorly in soloQ is a glimpse into the reasons for his observed massive falloff in skill, with no plausible excuses.
maybe because shitting on people constantly doesn't make them play better?
Why do I care if he plays better? I am interested in making an accurate evaluation of them.
Also, sometimes it does, its called bulletin board material, and all the greats, and even most of the goods use it.
yeah no, the social pressure on these guys is massive. it's pathetic that coaches and managers have to tell their players not to look at social media because of how much they are criticized and insulted.
all this event has done is create a bad image for esports.
If you choose to be a public figure by being a pro gamer, you accept the 'social pressure' as part of your job. Every public figure gets criticized and insulted every day, and they either learn to deal with it or prevent themselves from knowing about it. If the players can't deal with it, then the coach has to deal with it. It's not pathetic in any sense, it's just part of the job.
Truth. ESPN has 40 hours of this a day just between their two main channels.
ESPN is actually just 40 hours of sucking lebron's dick
I think the Kobe era was worse. Their butts must have had Krazyglue on it how well they rode him.
How many games has balls played in Korea? I recall a league board thread complaining about the same thing for santorin when he was, essentially, just out of placements.
Has balls played enough SOLOQUEUE to have such an expectation?
He has played the most out of any pro in Korea, except HuHi but he already had an account there. He has 215 games played, Febiven is Challenger 700 LP with 154 played.
While getting as high as febiven requires quite a bit of luck it is quite obvious balls is just not good of a player. Been true for a year now anyway. Offseason and waiting for worlds in league are so fucking awful
On September 16 2015 02:24 nafta wrote: While getting as high as febiven requires quite a bit of luck it is quite obvious balls is just not good of a player. Been true for a year now anyway. Offseason and waiting for worlds in league are so fucking awful
Not to mention that Febi's been duoing like crazy with Rekkles last I checked. Granted, both of them are better players than Balls are, but it helps.
Tbh designing a marksman (as in a ranged champion that isn't a magical caster) that can function well in the jungle sounds like an interesting space to me, Monte. Especially the whole "get him incentives to jungle, or clear/sustain help that won't be stronger if used in a lane" paradigm.
On September 16 2015 03:14 Seuss wrote: Between Morde and Kindred, it appears Riot has reconsidered their enforcement of classic lane archetypes.
Has to pass the lee sin bar though. It is pretty cool that they trying out more stuff. I'd hoped their feature the whole split person or dual nature thing more than just the visuals. Something like Hel from Smite.
On September 16 2015 03:14 Seuss wrote: Between Morde and Kindred, it appears Riot has reconsidered their enforcement of classic lane archetypes.
Has to pass the lee sin bar though. It is pretty cool that they trying out more stuff. I'd hoped their feature the whole split person or dual nature thing more than just the visuals. Something like Hel from Smite.
I think Riot's decision to not force ADC to be played in bottom lane is a huge mistake. It is hard to shake off 4+ years of tradition. The players won't like it.
On September 16 2015 03:17 Sufficiency wrote: I think Riot's decision to not force ADC to be played in bottom lane is a huge mistake. It is hard to shake off 4+ years of tradition. The players won't like it.
Another thing that makes me curious is that it says Kindred can choose which enemy champion they mark. Azir can target his passive too, but that's a specific case (right-click on tower ruins). How can you use the passive without adding a new hotkey to the game, and does that pave the way for future stuff/QoL?
That W zone seems huge. And the E slow short (and shorter than the delay to activate their marks).
Not quite sure how the passive works. Do you have to kill or assist in the kill while the mark is active? Before the mark is active? Any time after the mark activates?
On September 16 2015 03:17 Sufficiency wrote: I think Riot's decision to not force ADC to be played in bottom lane is a huge mistake. It is hard to shake off 4+ years of tradition. The players won't like it.
"The players" can get off my lawn.
From my experience in various levels of ranked most people really don't give a crap about the traditional setup. They'll play either whatever they want or whatever works. Yeah, some people will complain but it will be a vocal minority.
On September 16 2015 03:32 Ansibled wrote: This champion design seems pretty uninspired/boring to me.
I'm reserving judgment until I get to actually try it.
I can see Kindred being a huge asset in counter-engage compositions. It doesn't matter if the enemy team smashes you first if you can smash lock them down just before the ult wears off and clean up.
Which is to say Kindred will probably be meh in solo queue for a long time unless his/her/its numbers are wacky.
On September 16 2015 03:19 sob3k wrote: wow, Riot is going full doto and basically trashing their old safe philosophy
Kindred ult prevents ALL deaths inside it, ally or enemy, then applies a heal to ALL champions.
you can actually heal your enemies....
I find this really interesting. The last few champs have had mechanics thought I would have never imagined Riot implementing before (Bard and Tahm Kench ult come to mind). Actually it's probably not a coincidence they have all been ults. The rest of the kit is kinda meh, but I do like to see them doing more interesting stuff like this. Never thought I'd see Shallow Grave in LoL that's for sure.
On September 16 2015 03:19 sob3k wrote: wow, Riot is going full doto and basically trashing their old safe philosophy
Kindred ult prevents ALL deaths inside it, ally or enemy, then applies a heal to ALL champions.
you can actually heal your enemies....
I find this really interesting. The last few champs have had mechanics thought I would have never imagined Riot implementing before (Bard and Tahm Kench ult come to mind). Actually it's probably not a coincidence they have all been ults. The rest of the kit is kinda meh, but I do like to see them doing more interesting stuff like this. Never thought I'd see Shallow Grave in LoL that's for sure.
Tahm kench w is unique too, it allows you to troll your adc by eating him and running in to double feed
I think Tahm Kench ally W is the more interesting design than his ulti. It's like disruption but has even more troll potential which I thought Riot would never do. Glad they got over their fear of the players
On September 16 2015 03:19 sob3k wrote: wow, Riot is going full doto and basically trashing their old safe philosophy
Kindred ult prevents ALL deaths inside it, ally or enemy, then applies a heal to ALL champions.
you can actually heal your enemies....
I find this really interesting. The last few champs have had mechanics thought I would have never imagined Riot implementing before (Bard and Tahm Kench ult come to mind). Actually it's probably not a coincidence they have all been ults. The rest of the kit is kinda meh, but I do like to see them doing more interesting stuff like this. Never thought I'd see Shallow Grave in LoL that's for sure.
Tahm kench w is unique too, it allows you to troll your adc by eating him and running in to double feed
On September 16 2015 03:19 sob3k wrote: wow, Riot is going full doto and basically trashing their old safe philosophy
Kindred ult prevents ALL deaths inside it, ally or enemy, then applies a heal to ALL champions.
you can actually heal your enemies....
I find this really interesting. The last few champs have had mechanics thought I would have never imagined Riot implementing before (Bard and Tahm Kench ult come to mind). Actually it's probably not a coincidence they have all been ults. The rest of the kit is kinda meh, but I do like to see them doing more interesting stuff like this. Never thought I'd see Shallow Grave in LoL that's for sure.
Tahm kench w is unique too, it allows you to troll your adc by eating him and running in to double feed
Not as good as Wisp TP though.
To be fair, you can do the tahm kench thing starting at level 1. At least wisp needs to hit 6 before that
On September 16 2015 03:48 Numy wrote: I think Tahm Kench ally W is the more interesting design than his ulti. It's like disruption but has even more troll potential which I thought Riot would never do. Glad they got over their fear of the players
They are simultaneously purging the playerbase so thats probably why.
On the topic of the champion, they have to do a lot better then that if new releases are going to be this sparse. all the basic abilities are absolutely atrocious.
for this champ to be a better jungler then say vayne or twitch, the numbers on this champ would have to be obscene. I dont see how this champ can be balanced, weak or strong. its going in with an awful design
to clarify, if you get to become sated as vayne jungle you are probably going to win 9 out of 10 games. its just really hard to get there.
if this champ has a safe/easy clear and can stay on even map presence footing with other junglers while getting to sated? -_- especially when its obvious this champ is tailor made for sated
On September 16 2015 03:17 Sufficiency wrote: I think Riot's decision to not force ADC to be played in bottom lane is a huge mistake. It is hard to shake off 4+ years of tradition. The players won't like it.
Eh. The real problem is that "game theory"* almost certainly dictates mirrored setups. So if you have a few champions which do not fit the meta then you're not stable, one of the setups will be superior and so be 100% pick/ban or not played. If you have a lot of champions that "do not fit the meta" and are viable then the meta shifts.
--- Biggest problem that I see with the champion is that it appears that marking a champion grants vision of that champion. So you mark the jungler and your entire team knows where they are at all times. Which seems kind of strong. I think this is the case because the passive text says "all players can targets that are marked" not "all players can see the mark". The first implies that you can see the marked player anywhere, the second implies you can see that a player is marked.
Also i don't think this is going to be a real "carry". The range on auto attacks looks pretty small from the video, like 300 to 400. If you build full DPS you're going to get wrecked with that low range. Which means that you're going to have to build like a bruiser after devourer/botrk.
Her ult doesn't seem to synergize with her kit since she doesn't have an activatable execute like Kalista or twitch(or any real activatable burst damage at all) which you really want in order to finish up your ult. I think this is probably a good thing because it allows enemies to counterpick her ult but we will see how it plays out.
*not sure how to say it. But if you have a non-mirrored setup and the opponent can mirror then the opponent will mirror given there is an advantage one way or the other.. This means that we should expect a mirrored setups unless the setups cannot be mirrored (I.E. there only exists one marksman who can jungle/one melee who can bot lane carry) or if the play is hidden from the enemy team (like say double jungling vs a 4 man push or lane swaps)
This is why the meta shifted from AD mid/AP bot to AD bot/AP mid. Once it was discovered that the "off meta" option was best it became the meta.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://sc2.gameguyz.com/sites/default/files/pictures/1355479176_1d814fdf8db1cb13d418c0fddd54564e93584b90.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4vKLCyt.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/k6IFh/221622e96a.png)
![[image loading]](https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2523/1921/original.jpg?w=800&h)
![[image loading]](http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb7md4YT001ql5008o1_1280.gif)
