|
On August 22 2016 08:03 Prog wrote:
How is it bad game design if you can climb the ladder by playing the champion you enjoy playing the most?
It isn't. You've invested hours and hours learning the ins and outs of playing a champ, you should be able to beat most other champs by playing better. Sure, OTP's might eventually drop out at somewhere d1+, but it's not like the system doesn't work for OTP's before or after any pick/ban changes.
They might not climb as consistently due to less optimal role selection, but it isn't too bad otherwise.
|
On August 22 2016 08:03 Prog wrote:
How is it bad game design if you can climb the ladder by playing the champion you enjoy playing the most?
#1. Just as an existential point, ELO or MMR, or what league you are in is supposed to be indicative of your skill at the game. If you only play one champion, its not a reflection of that. This is a personal opinion, but its why I also liked the old system better than teambuilder, because I think people should be forced to play the role they hate the most, or are the worst at, in a ranked system.
#2. Probably the real point, is in this game your MMR is a weighted average of your skill on all the champions you play and if you are a 99 on one champ and a 25 on all the others, and thus your MMR is an 88, your presence in any game, no matter the champion you are on makes it a terrible playing environment. OTPs are, essentially, ELO boosters/smurfs in games they play the champion they want, and ELO buyers in games they do not.
|
For the sake of argument I'll accept in this post that MMR is a weighted average of your skill on all the champions you play:
1. Suppose I am a true OTP and I dodge whenever I don't get the champion. Then my MMR is a weighted average of 1 champion and a good representation of my skill.
2. Suppose I am a adc main. I am a 80 on all my various adc-champs and a 50 anywhere else. Then, following your argument, I am essentially an Elo booster whenever I get adc, and an Elo buyer in games I get my secondary role.
3. The dodging OTP is actually better for the game environment than the adc/fill player. The dodging OTP never plays something that he is not close to his rank (given enough games) in skill, whereas the adc/fill player is in principle unable to play in a game where his MMR matches his skill. Because he plays both adc and fill he will neither be rated according to his 80, nor 50, so he will always be over- or underrated for the game he is in.
4. Similarly a person that only plays adc and dodges whenever he'd be another role is closer in MMR to his skill.
The problem here is that you can match skill and MMR in two ways: You can either get equally good on all multiple champions you play, or you simply don't play the outliers - the champions that you are way worse or better at. You are not better for the game environment if you play more champions, but rather, if you only play those you play equally well. Plug in a OTP and your set of champions you play is trivially the set of champions you play equally well. Hence it might be a good idea to encourage people to play less champions, or even be OTPs, and certainly dodge more often.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On August 22 2016 10:49 cLutZ wrote:
#1. Just as an existential point, ELO or MMR, or what league you are in is supposed to be indicative of your skill at the game. If you only play one champion, its not a reflection of that. This is a personal opinion, but its why I also liked the old system better than teambuilder, because I think people should be forced to play the role they hate the most, or are the worst at, in a ranked system.
I find this argument seductive, but there are a few flaws. Chief among them is the idea that MMR is supposed to be a holistic measure of your skill with an arbitrary champion in an arbitrary lane is a nice one, but is your MMR supposed to reflect non-meta picks? For example does it contain some information about how you would fare at Janna jungle or Ahri ADC? If not, then that already implies some limiting factor on MMR.
In other words, by your logic, the One True MMR for all players is a queue where you are randomly assigned a champion + role. That's obviously unworkable. So then you say, well, the One True MMR is a queue where you are randomly assigned a role but not a champion. But then people just start favoring certain champions again - you could probably OTP Kayle in this system. So then the One True MMR is a queue where you're randomly assigned a role and then randomly assigned a champion from a set of meta champions for that role?
I agree with you that if you're a OTP you really are playing at an 'inflated' MMR, but only if you accept as true that your baseline MMR is a world where you're forced to play not your OTP. That world doesn't exist, for all intents and purposes. Because otherwise even a hypothetically perfectly balanced player is playing an 'inflated' MMR because it doesn't take into account how he'd do on Janna jungle, whether he's up against OTP's on the other team, and the RNG of teamcomp building (for example is your MMR inflated if you pick Shaco jungle unless you OP.GG your adc and see he's a smurf and so you play Nunu? Is your MMR affected by your Zed mid main, forcing your top laner/jungler to go AP?).
|
|
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On August 23 2016 00:20 JimmiC wrote:
All this OTP talks makes me wanna OTP I'm thinking swain he goes top and mid does damamges and is tanky, plus some cc = GG
Go for it fam, OTP is one of the best ways to improve quickly, it is known.
Disregard skeptics, acquire skill
|
Prog has the right of it with regards to MMR and its effects.
Additionally OTP'ing can put you into positions to increase your strength in all roles, due to a better understanding of the structure of the game.
Players who play multiple roles and champions have to spend time learning the basics and structure of their individual champion and this detracts from being able to understand overall macro play. Because overall macro play is conductive to all champions skills but individual mechanics are not a player who plays a more specialized set may actually increase in skill for all champions at a higher rate.
|
Just as an aside for everyone. I agree that focusing on one character, or a small group is the best way to improve. It lets you put "mechanics" like CSing and trading to autopilot and you can focus on the rest. When I played mid more I just played Ori all the time because of that. Now that I play bot more I do the same with Ali/Janna. I don't argue against the tactic's efficacy.
On August 22 2016 23:09 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 10:49 cLutZ wrote:
#1. Just as an existential point, ELO or MMR, or what league you are in is supposed to be indicative of your skill at the game. If you only play one champion, its not a reflection of that. This is a personal opinion, but its why I also liked the old system better than teambuilder, because I think people should be forced to play the role they hate the most, or are the worst at, in a ranked system. I find this argument seductive, but there are a few flaws. Chief among them is the idea that MMR is supposed to be a holistic measure of your skill with an arbitrary champion in an arbitrary lane is a nice one, but is your MMR supposed to reflect non-meta picks? For example does it contain some information about how you would fare at Janna jungle or Ahri ADC? If not, then that already implies some limiting factor on MMR. In other words, by your logic, the One True MMR for all players is a queue where you are randomly assigned a champion + role. That's obviously unworkable. So then you say, well, the One True MMR is a queue where you are randomly assigned a role but not a champion. But then people just start favoring certain champions again - you could probably OTP Kayle in this system. So then the One True MMR is a queue where you're randomly assigned a role and then randomly assigned a champion from a set of meta champions for that role? I agree with you that if you're a OTP you really are playing at an 'inflated' MMR, but only if you accept as true that your baseline MMR is a world where you're forced to play not your OTP. That world doesn't exist, for all intents and purposes. Because otherwise even a hypothetically perfectly balanced player is playing an 'inflated' MMR because it doesn't take into account how he'd do on Janna jungle, whether he's up against OTP's on the other team, and the RNG of teamcomp building (for example is your MMR inflated if you pick Shaco jungle unless you OP.GG your adc and see he's a smurf and so you play Nunu? Is your MMR affected by your Zed mid main, forcing your top laner/jungler to go AP?).
I am somewhat a fundamentalist, and find the random assignment of role + auto team construction by some sort of algorithm entirely workable and IMO that is the system that should give people ranked rewards. I don't think its unworkable, I think its AWESOME.
|
On August 22 2016 10:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 08:03 Prog wrote:
How is it bad game design if you can climb the ladder by playing the champion you enjoy playing the most? #1. Just as an existential point, ELO or MMR, or what league you are in is supposed to be indicative of your skill at the game. If you only play one champion, its not a reflection of that. This is a personal opinion, but its why I also liked the old system better than teambuilder, because I think people should be forced to play the role they hate the most, or are the worst at, in a ranked system. #2. Probably the real point, is in this game your MMR is a weighted average of your skill on all the champions you play and if you are a 99 on one champ and a 25 on all the others, and thus your MMR is an 88, your presence in any game, no matter the champion you are on makes it a terrible playing environment. OTPs are, essentially, ELO boosters/smurfs in games they play the champion they want, and ELO buyers in games they do not.
i think restricting what characters people can play in ranked in a way beyond bans is just gonna make them all quit the game.
professionally, people only play 1 role so i don't think it's fair to force people to play other roles if they don't want to.
|
^ Totally agree with that point, its not good business to do these things. Just saying, it would please me. I might even buy their 100% half-assed SKT skins if they did that.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On August 23 2016 04:43 cLutZ wrote:Just as an aside for everyone. I agree that focusing on one character, or a small group is the best way to improve. It lets you put "mechanics" like CSing and trading to autopilot and you can focus on the rest. When I played mid more I just played Ori all the time because of that. Now that I play bot more I do the same with Ali/Janna. I don't argue against the tactic's efficacy. Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 23:09 GrandInquisitor wrote:On August 22 2016 10:49 cLutZ wrote:
#1. Just as an existential point, ELO or MMR, or what league you are in is supposed to be indicative of your skill at the game. If you only play one champion, its not a reflection of that. This is a personal opinion, but its why I also liked the old system better than teambuilder, because I think people should be forced to play the role they hate the most, or are the worst at, in a ranked system. I find this argument seductive, but there are a few flaws. Chief among them is the idea that MMR is supposed to be a holistic measure of your skill with an arbitrary champion in an arbitrary lane is a nice one, but is your MMR supposed to reflect non-meta picks? For example does it contain some information about how you would fare at Janna jungle or Ahri ADC? If not, then that already implies some limiting factor on MMR. In other words, by your logic, the One True MMR for all players is a queue where you are randomly assigned a champion + role. That's obviously unworkable. So then you say, well, the One True MMR is a queue where you are randomly assigned a role but not a champion. But then people just start favoring certain champions again - you could probably OTP Kayle in this system. So then the One True MMR is a queue where you're randomly assigned a role and then randomly assigned a champion from a set of meta champions for that role? I agree with you that if you're a OTP you really are playing at an 'inflated' MMR, but only if you accept as true that your baseline MMR is a world where you're forced to play not your OTP. That world doesn't exist, for all intents and purposes. Because otherwise even a hypothetically perfectly balanced player is playing an 'inflated' MMR because it doesn't take into account how he'd do on Janna jungle, whether he's up against OTP's on the other team, and the RNG of teamcomp building (for example is your MMR inflated if you pick Shaco jungle unless you OP.GG your adc and see he's a smurf and so you play Nunu? Is your MMR affected by your Zed mid main, forcing your top laner/jungler to go AP?). I am somewhat a fundamentalist, and find the random assignment of role + auto team construction by some sort of algorithm entirely workable and IMO that is the system that should give people ranked rewards. I don't think its unworkable, I think its AWESOME.
I agree with you on this point. I'd love to see a "pure" ranked system. We both know it'll never happen, though. And on top of that, the fact that a bunch of people are going to be stuck in games playing Janna jungle means that even if it could happen, it would probably just suck most of the time.
The best you could possibly do is to force everyone to play every role 20% of the time, forbid them from trading, and maybe have diminishing LP returns if you play the same champ over and over again. But again - obviously would be super unpopular.
|
It would also be retarded. In fact being forced to play more than 1 role is excusable only because of q times and this is coming from a fill player.
At the end of the day league of legends uses a system that tells you how good you are individually based entirely on team results. It simply can't be all that accurate anyway.
|
is there ip reward at level 8 i dont know about? i decided to make smurf and i distinctly remembered i had 3040 ip cuz i was 110 short from olaf i was saving entire time, few hours later i launch client to level it more and i have 7.3k ip ? got 4.3k ip out of thin air wtf?
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
All the drama on the subreddit is absolutely fascinating. Poor Tryndamere can't say anything right.
|
Tryndamere needs to learn from every other CEO ever.
Shut the hell up, you pay multiple PR specialists handsomely for that. At least, you should be.
<_<
Looks Mr TSM is using his PR team judging by the fact taht he said "statement is coming" some 6 hours ago and there isn't a statement out... Why doesn't Mr Riot Games?
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
I mean, Tryndamere doesn't get it because he's not a teenager. He has absolutely no idea how teenagers' minds operate when confronted with topics like these. They don't know shit about how the real world operates, and prefer instead just to rebel against any kind of authority and pretend to be oppressed.
So he should just shut up and let someone else meme about it instead.
|
Look MR TSM IS using his handsomely paid PR team.
Novel concept. I wonder if anyone else does this.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
I of course think it's hilarious that everyone always wants more "transparency" and more "honest talk", and when a CEO actually speaks his mind about what's really going on, they flip their shit and unironically call for him to get a PR agent. Yeah, because that's an improvement.
|
You can be transparent while using a PR team.
I honestly got over the patch cycle thing a long time ago. But I agree with Regi.
The thing is, people don't actually want transparency. That is the world we live in.. People think they do but they don't. People would rather bitch and bitch and bitch and then have someone say "Yeah, that sucks. Sorry." than have you tell them what you really think.
A large amount of this whole shit show is essentially people feeling like their team and their favorite players aren't being heard. There wouldn't be any shit show at all if they had someone come out and say "Regi makes some good points. We will look at this going forward." They literally don't have to promise anything... they just have to make it seem like they listened.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Yeah. And I understand that that approach is better overall for Riot given the world we live in, but come on, Tryndamere's unfiltered Reddit posts are way more interesting than corporate bullshit doublespeak like that. But hey. This is why corporate bullshit doublespeak exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
