| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
On November 05 2015 04:07 TheYango wrote: So what about DotA, where in-client voice works just fine and is widely used but also not mandatory? DotA is also a much more self-selecting pool of players though. | ||
|
nafta
Bulgaria18893 Posts
On November 05 2015 04:48 GrandInquisitor wrote: I think the point is that this is why I can't take any of you complainers seriously. When trinkets came out, the experts told us they didn't need to hear any more - they knew it would just ruin the game. If dynamic queues weren't announced yesterday, you'd be complaining that the drop rates for keys will probably be set really low and we aren't going to be getting enough free skins. (See, e.g., Alaric talking about how free skins are somehow going to be negative EV.) And one day, when replays are announced, the ensuing thread will be mostly complaining and whining about something totally inconsequential. And it's the same people who just repeatedly post over and over again. It's the boy who cried Kindred: if you complain about literally anything and everything, nonstop, any legitimate criticism is just lost in a sea of bitching. It makes looking for any interesting discussion (how will the new champ select change solo queue? are we going to have better pick/ban phases if bans are distributed? are priority picks really that important in solo queue? did assist gold overly encourage teamfight comps, and will it lead to a change in the meta?) pointless because we'd all rather shit on Riot. (Still better than /r/hearthstone or /r/starcraft though.) Well don't worry with condescending posts like that people don't take you seriously either. You could try to start those conversations if you think they are important or matter. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Edit @ GI | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On November 04 2015 20:24 Frolossus wrote: if you play alone you get matched with people playing alone. if you want to play with friends this system is more inclusive and therefore better, provided that matchmaking does it's job. Well no. Because matchmaking can't do its job with queue segregation/selection. And because it's impossible to be matched with people playing alone if 4 mans exist. This is like the age old problem of surveys claiming that straight men and straight women have different number of average sexual partners. It's mathematically impossible for those numbers to be different unless straight guys are boning a lot of other guys more than the straight women are sexing other women. Except in this case we don't even have a sliver of pretense to suggest that things can not add up. Suppose that player 1 on team a plays to platinum in "ranked solo 5 man". Then he goes and plays ranked solo "proper". He is ranked as a platinum player but every game he has played has been in a seperate queue and there is no way to know how correct that it is when he stops playing his 5 and starts playing his 1. In a sense it means that both MMRs are incorrect the more he plays in both queues. (Given that there is a difference). The irony here is that as the density of 5/4 man games increase the worse the queue segregation becomes while simulateously increasing the liklihood of getting the 4. IE the system only works if very few people queue 3+ And those that do queue primarily solo and not in groups. The same problem actually occurs with duos too but it's not quite as prominent. I get the reason they want to do it. They want to encourage people to play in groups because social interaction -> retention (plus more skin buys and other reinforcing things). By merging the queues they think people are more likely to play in groups. IE they think that ranked teams doesn't have enough people and is too formally locked*. I am just not sure that the solution is a particularly good one. If you have no queue selection bias then you just have a straight advantage in 5 manning. If you do then the MMR system breaks down for players who spend significant amounts of time in 5 mans. *which is probably true, especially with ranked team MMR resetting with every new team | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
I'm still not really sure they made the game better than it was either. | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On November 05 2015 04:59 cLutZ wrote: I'm confused by what you are saying. Although, perhaps that is also because I am confused that people think team builder is a positive. The rest seem like cosmetic changes (which TL people are historically uninterested in) and a weird change of position on toxicity (or an exception to Riot's obsession with it), without addressing the best way to fix that situation (voice chat). Edit @ GI You're confused that it's a good thing Riot is getting rid of arguments over who gets to go mid? I see a lot of games decided by the fact that one side queued up with a plat-level top, jg, mid, adc, and supp, whereas the other side queued up with three plat-level mids and two plat-level adc's (and ends up with two roles filled at plat-level and three roles at silver or gold-level, and that's where the rage starts). Team Builder fixes that issue. Sure, it's kind of discarding the concept of measuring your all-around five-role skill. But that was kind of already not what solo queue rank was measuring anyway. Ideally you could imagine ranks for each of the five different roles measured separately. Until that happens (and I doubt it will), this seems like an acceptable cost to let people play the role they want. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 05 2015 05:07 GrandInquisitor wrote: You're confused that it's a good thing Riot is getting rid of arguments over who gets to go mid? I see a lot of games decided by the fact that one side queued up with a plat-level top, jg, mid, adc, and supp, whereas the other side queued up with three plat-level mids and two plat-level adc's (and ends up with two roles filled at plat-level and three roles at silver or gold-level, and that's where the rage starts). Team Builder fixes that issue. Sure, it's kind of discarding the concept of measuring your all-around five-role skill. But that was kind of already not what solo queue rank was measuring anyway. Ideally you could imagine ranks for each of the five different roles measured separately. Until that happens (and I doubt it will), this seems like an acceptable cost to let people play the role they want. Well, I just always preferred the solution of pick order>all, and banning people who call positions (10-20x worse than swearing to me), and also I generally like the grab bag nature of pick order, also I do prefer the ideal of ELO approximately being a weighted average of your skills at all roles. Also, I don't think its smart to combine it with a rework of a major role (adc) while reworks of many top lane champions are also ongoing. In the end it will probably be fine, and the game will still be good enough to be worth playing, particularly considering its exciting pro scene (Korean LOL is still the best esports experience out there by quite a large margin). However, I do think its a lot of things that are more likely to push me towards a pure spectator over a player/spectator. On the other hand, if they merely implement the graphic changes + voice chat that would have reinvigorated me quite a bit. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
As someone that likes to think of himself as an all-around player, I fully agree that it's a shame that MMR won't represent your all-around ability any more. But if I were being honest with myself, I'd have to admit that that's just wishful thinking, and my solo queue rank is hugely dependent on the fact that I have only needed to play mid/ADC in 2.88% of my games this season. If we don't get separate ranks for each role, I'd at least like to see a role breakdown next to the player's rank; at least the most-played role and what % of the time you play that role. | ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
On November 05 2015 04:07 TheYango wrote: So what about DotA, where in-client voice works just fine and is widely used but also not mandatory? Voice chat is one of my least favorite things about DotA. I've only played 300 odd games (non ranked) but I can count the number of good experiences (people communicating about the game without being assholes) on one finger. The vast vast majority of the time it's either random chatter, someone raging at his shit team, someone with a horrible mic or speaking in another language. Not in the slightest big interested in reading any of that stuff let alone listening to it. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On November 05 2015 06:19 GrandInquisitor wrote: I mean, that's kind of my point earlier about people complaining. You're essentially saying you're threatening to quit playing because people get to play their preferred role in ranked. That's such a bizarre thought process that either I can't credit any of your other beliefs, because you and I are obviously incredibly different people, or you're just being hyperbolic/dramatic and don't actually plan on quitting over something that seems so clearly good for the game. As someone that likes to think of himself as an all-around player, I fully agree that it's a shame that MMR won't represent your all-around ability any more. But if I were being honest with myself, I'd have to admit that that's just wishful thinking, and my solo queue rank is hugely dependent on the fact that I have only needed to play mid/ADC in 2.88% of my games this season. If we don't get separate ranks for each role, I'd at least like to see a role breakdown next to the player's rank; at least the most-played role and what % of the time you play that role. What I don't understand is that Riot even gave people the option to truly be an all-around player...that's what the "fill" option is for... Honestly, this change is almost entirely positive. The only down side is if you want to "break the meta" it can be more difficult since lanes/roles are more set in stone, but even then you can discuss with your team after you get in game. | ||
|
Fildun
Netherlands4123 Posts
On November 05 2015 07:08 Ryuu314 wrote: What I don't understand is that Riot even gave people the option to truly be an all-around player...that's what the "fill" option is for... Honestly, this change is almost entirely positive. The only down side is if you want to "break the meta" it can be more difficult since lanes/roles are more set in stone, but even then you can discuss with your team after you get in game. I'd personally prefer a system where you can select for each role whether you want to play it or not, so you can select top, jungle, adc for example, but this is still decent. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
On November 05 2015 07:08 Ryuu314 wrote: What I don't understand is that Riot even gave people the option to truly be an all-around player...that's what the "fill" option is for... Because if dungeon finder in wow has taught us anything, fill=support If it was literally 20% chance at each role I'd be so down but that's just not how these things end up working. I personally like the changes but the roulette wheel is gone for when you are down for whatever (much less of a problem then when you want to play something specific or nothing at all which happens too) | ||
|
101toss
3232 Posts
On November 05 2015 07:31 Slusher wrote: Because if dungeon finder in wow has taught us anything, fill=support If it was literally 20% chance at each role I'd be so down but that's just not how these things end up working. I personally like the changes but the roulette wheel is gone for when you are down for whatever (much less of a problem then when you want to play something specific or nothing at all which happens too) They should bring back free week champions in ranked along with hard random lock-ins | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On November 05 2015 07:08 Ryuu314 wrote: What I don't understand is that Riot even gave people the option to truly be an all-around player...that's what the "fill" option is for... Well, the point is that before, if you only literally only played mid, you're at a major disadvantage when someone else gets mid. But if you were well-rounded, theoretically you're at an advantage because your teammates are more likely to be at their best roles. This new system allow you to just queue as mid only, and be Bronze-level at all other roles but reach Diamond playing just mid. That would have been much more difficult before - hence why it's "punishing" good all-around players, since their well-roundedness only helps them get faster queues. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On November 05 2015 05:01 Goumindong wrote: Well no. Because matchmaking can't do its job with queue segregation/selection. And because it's impossible to be matched with people playing alone if 4 mans exist. This is like the age old problem of surveys claiming that straight men and straight women have different number of average sexual partners. It's mathematically impossible for those numbers to be different unless straight guys are boning a lot of other guys more than the straight women are sexing other women. Except in this case we don't even have a sliver of pretense to suggest that things can not add up. Aren't you assuming here that the number of men and women (or solo-queues and 4-man queues to keep it ontopic) are equal? For example, if there are 10 1-queues and 10 4-queues, it's impossible to be matched with 1-queues if you're a 1-queue yourself. But if there are 40 1-queues and 10 4 queues, there are in total 8 games, where 30/40 of the people soloqueuing have a game with only soloqueue people. (compare this to a situation where there is only 1 man and 10 women. Assuming all women have sex with the man, the average number of people the man had sex with is 10, while the average number of people the women had sex with is 1. 10!=1.) My guess would be that riot assumed queue properties of normals for futures ranked. Also, using this logic we need to take into account that there is waiting time. It's possible to give 4-queues less priority during matchmaking to try to influence queue ratios by making 4-queues have longer queue times. I'm not saying they do or should do this, but it's a possible matchmaking parameter. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your post completely. (that happens to me more often..) | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
Champ select looks like it takes forever. On November 05 2015 07:31 Slusher wrote: Because if dungeon finder in wow has taught us anything, fill=support If it was literally 20% chance at each role I'd be so down but that's just not how these things end up working. I personally like the changes but the roulette wheel is gone for when you are down for whatever (much less of a problem then when you want to play something specific or nothing at all which happens too) Yeah, I think it will be just a support position. That being said, will help queue times that way. Not the end of the world. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 05 2015 07:08 Ryuu314 wrote: What I don't understand is that Riot even gave people the option to truly be an all-around player...that's what the "fill" option is for... Honestly, this change is almost entirely positive. The only down side is if you want to "break the meta" it can be more difficult since lanes/roles are more set in stone, but even then you can discuss with your team after you get in game. Really, what you do with that is just reward people who are perfectly happy to sit in queue for mid for 20 minutes. Personally the whole champ select problem is Riot's own creation because they failed to prioritize policing people who don't obey pick order over in game swearing. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On November 05 2015 08:17 Yorbon wrote: Aren't you assuming here that the number of men and women (or solo-queues and 4-man queues to keep it ontopic) are equal? For example, if there are 10 1-queues and 10 4-queues, it's impossible to be matched with 1-queues if you're a 1-queue yourself. But if there are 40 1-queues and 10 4 queues, there are in total 8 games, where 30/40 of the people soloqueuing have a game with only soloqueue people. (compare this to a situation where there is only 1 man and 10 women. Assuming all women have sex with the man, the average number of people the man had sex with is 10, while the average number of people the women had sex with is 1. 10!=1.) My guess would be that riot assumed queue properties of normals for futures ranked. Also, using this logic we need to take into account that there is waiting time. It's possible to give 4-queues less priority during matchmaking to try to influence queue ratios by making 4-queues have longer queue times. I'm not saying they do or should do this, but it's a possible matchmaking parameter. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your post completely. (that happens to me more often..) For men and women yes (the actual population difference is not nearly enough to fix the discrepency. In the US its 1.07 Men to 1 Woman for 15-65 year olds so men will have on average 1.07 times the number of average partners women have. Since the number is "Sum partners/population" and "sum partners" has to be the same). Surveys come back with like 6 and 4 for numbers. The same thing happens in soloqueue. The total number of people on a team is 5. So if a 4 man queues then a solo must exist in that slot. The total number of solo's in the slots will be the total number of 4 mans queuing. So if 10% of the people queue is 4 mans,(and no 5 or 3's or 2s exist) and 4 mans always get paired with 4 mans then an average solo person would expect to play about 2.7% of their games in 4 mans.[Basically for every 80 players, 72 would be solo, 8 would be 4 mans, so 2/72 would be chosen for the 4 man queue game and 70 would be chosen for the pure solo games] That doesn't seem like a lot but then figure 5's and 3's and 2's which can't play with 4's. And potentially much higher than 10% of the player base queuing as 4. Say its 20% each in terms of total numbers. Then you would have about a 25% chance of getting queue'd with a 4 man if you queued up solo. And you simply can't get around this unless no one queues for 4 mans(or 3 mans or duos etc). The simpler way to say no would have been "you run into duo queues in solo queue right? well then you're going to run into 4's." | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
Zzz.. the dodges. | ||
| ||
CrankTV Team League
Preliminary Stage: 3 Bo5s
BASILISK vs Streamerzone
Team Liquid vs Shopify Rebellion
Team Vitality vs Team Falcon
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 30620Sea  5431Jaedong 2298Soma 1695BeSt  752Hyun 579Pusan 404EffOrt 360Last 269Backho 200[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g9392 singsing2465 ScreaM2012 B2W.Neo684 Sick312 crisheroes306 Happy199 Hui .169 Liquid`VortiX24 Organizations Counter-Strike StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
BSL Team A[vengers]
Gypsy vs nOOB
JDConan vs Scan
RSL Revival
Wardi Open
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
