|
On August 22 2023 03:32 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know which ones exactly youre referring to as desperation attempts or calls with "imperfect knowledge", but i dont think that changes much.
On August 22 2023 02:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:
multiple reasons:
2. you are winning but you have an inferior comp and so you need to push your advantages before you get outscaled, therefore needing to take objectives quickly in order to end. you might commit and the opponents decide to contest.
3. you are getting out split pushed either because your split pusher is inferior or tp is down or w/e, and you start an objective in order to force the opponent to group if they wish to contest.
4. you are ahead with superior map and vision control and you try to sneak a baron. maybe you get caught out but you commit anyway because the lost time in investing multiple guys to hit a baron might have cost you something (towers, opposite objectives, etc).
6. youre behind and you need the objective if you want to come back at all.
I thought 4 was being desperate initially, but it isn't really a desperation attempt, it just seems suboptimal to 'just keep hitting it', which happens all the time. You'd expect professionals to be more disciplined than that.
But it's part of my point that baron is a volatility magnet. Turrets are objectives that are taken when you're winning. You can't take that under people's noses (most of the time). In theory baron and dragon (and herald) could/should also be rewards, but this often times doesn't happen.
Baron is super dangerous as it does damage, ccs and shreds. It's quite risky.
|
|
|
I agree. LoL had quite a few boring years where many teams were risk averse and the meta was to only take 80-20 plays or something?
I remember seeing TL in S5 and even though I was a fan, they were so cookie cutter. Same with T1. Maybe I'm regretting not watching LPL sooner lol.
|
On August 22 2023 05:25 Uldridge wrote:
I agree. LoL had quite a few boring years where many teams were risk averse and the meta was to only take 80-20 plays or something?
I remember seeing TL in S5 and even though I was a fan, they were so cookie cutter. Same with T1. Maybe I'm regretting not watching LPL sooner lol.
Teams are just as risk averse now, they just aren't allowed to take precautions. The game is too snowbally off of RNG as opposed to sustained excellence. People are out here all speculating about some hypothetical boring game where a team just wins every lane by 15 cs and leverages that into some python-like victory. In reality we have teams winning the game because of a flubbed flash at T=20:05
|
On August 22 2023 04:20 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2023 03:32 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know which ones exactly youre referring to as desperation attempts or calls with "imperfect knowledge", but i dont think that changes much. Show nested quote +On August 22 2023 02:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:
multiple reasons:
2. you are winning but you have an inferior comp and so you need to push your advantages before you get outscaled, therefore needing to take objectives quickly in order to end. you might commit and the opponents decide to contest.
3. you are getting out split pushed either because your split pusher is inferior or tp is down or w/e, and you start an objective in order to force the opponent to group if they wish to contest.
4. you are ahead with superior map and vision control and you try to sneak a baron. maybe you get caught out but you commit anyway because the lost time in investing multiple guys to hit a baron might have cost you something (towers, opposite objectives, etc).
6. youre behind and you need the objective if you want to come back at all. I thought 4 was being desperate initially, but it isn't really a desperation attempt, it just seems suboptimal to 'just keep hitting it', which happens all the time. You'd expect professionals to be more disciplined than that. But it's part of my point that baron is a volatility magnet. Turrets are objectives that are taken when you're winning. You can't take that under people's noses (most of the time). In theory baron and dragon (and herald) could/should also be rewards, but this often times doesn't happen. Baron is super dangerous as it does damage, ccs and shreds. It's quite risky.
baron and elder has to be risky. the rewards are so big that any attempt to go for it will always carry risk because the opponents would have to have an extremely good reason to give it up for free.
i dont think my 2nd scenario is desperation. if you have an inferior scaling comp and you try to force an objective, youre just being aware of your win conditions. you dont want the enemy team to dodge fights and buy time for them to scale, so you call them out to a fight which they probably cant refuse.
3. could be desperation depending on how you look at it, but i think its more similar to 2, where baron or elder would simply be a tool to ease the difficulties you are having in managing your sidelanes. baron/elder are one of the few ways to force your opponents to move around the map in a specific way depending on how you utilise them.
in 4. if youve started baron because you thought you could get away with it for little to medium cost, then you will probably want to commit if youve ended up paying that cost. eg, your team is positioned on the top side of the map and the opponents are positioned towards the bottom side. they take drag and your team decides to rush baron instead of constesting drag. if the opponents finish drag and start to approach you and youre only halfway done on baron, choosing to disengage would just result in a guaranteed net loss. sure you could just choose to take the loss, but good players and good teams will almost always lean towards trying to salvage a situation by going for the outplay. its not a good habit to give things up for free
|
On August 22 2023 13:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2023 04:20 Uldridge wrote:On August 22 2023 03:32 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know which ones exactly youre referring to as desperation attempts or calls with "imperfect knowledge", but i dont think that changes much. On August 22 2023 02:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:
multiple reasons:
2. you are winning but you have an inferior comp and so you need to push your advantages before you get outscaled, therefore needing to take objectives quickly in order to end. you might commit and the opponents decide to contest.
3. you are getting out split pushed either because your split pusher is inferior or tp is down or w/e, and you start an objective in order to force the opponent to group if they wish to contest.
4. you are ahead with superior map and vision control and you try to sneak a baron. maybe you get caught out but you commit anyway because the lost time in investing multiple guys to hit a baron might have cost you something (towers, opposite objectives, etc).
6. youre behind and you need the objective if you want to come back at all. I thought 4 was being desperate initially, but it isn't really a desperation attempt, it just seems suboptimal to 'just keep hitting it', which happens all the time. You'd expect professionals to be more disciplined than that. But it's part of my point that baron is a volatility magnet. Turrets are objectives that are taken when you're winning. You can't take that under people's noses (most of the time). In theory baron and dragon (and herald) could/should also be rewards, but this often times doesn't happen. Baron is super dangerous as it does damage, ccs and shreds. It's quite risky. baron and elder has to be risky. the rewards are so big that any attempt to go for it will always carry risk because the opponents would have to have an extremely good reason to give it up for free. i dont think my 2nd scenario is desperation. if you have an inferior scaling comp and you try to force an objective, youre just being aware of your win conditions. you dont want the enemy team to dodge fights and buy time for them to scale, so you call them out to a fight which they probably cant refuse. 3. could be desperation depending on how you look at it, but i think its more similar to 2, where baron or elder would simply be a tool to ease the difficulties you are having in managing your sidelanes. baron/elder are one of the few ways to force your opponents to move around the map in a specific way depending on how you utilise them. in 4. if youve started baron because you thought you could get away with it for little to medium cost, then you will probably want to commit if youve ended up paying that cost. eg, your team is positioned on the top side of the map and the opponents are positioned towards the bottom side. they take drag and your team decides to rush baron instead of constesting drag. if the opponents finish drag and start to approach you and youre only halfway done on baron, choosing to disengage would just result in a guaranteed net loss. sure you could just choose to take the loss, but good players and good teams will almost always lean towards trying to salvage a situation by going for the outplay. its not a good habit to give things up for free
If you have a temporarily better comp, turret diving is probably more risk averse than baron.
Giving things up for free isn't good, but that stems from the failure to understand how long things take. Granted, i can't do it either - calculate how long it'll take for the team to take drake, or rotate over earlier vs how long will my team take to kill baron and how much damage do we take, but the gameplan becomes fuzzy. If you want to commit to the objective, even if you get aced, at least have an idea of how to keep the enemy jungler OUT of the pit. Too often he gets in unchecked, or there's only one person half arsing an attempt at keeping him out.
On August 22 2023 07:10 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2023 05:25 Uldridge wrote:
I agree. LoL had quite a few boring years where many teams were risk averse and the meta was to only take 80-20 plays or something?
I remember seeing TL in S5 and even though I was a fan, they were so cookie cutter. Same with T1. Maybe I'm regretting not watching LPL sooner lol. Teams are just as risk averse now, they just aren't allowed to take precautions. The game is too snowbally off of RNG as opposed to sustained excellence. People are out here all speculating about some hypothetical boring game where a team just wins every lane by 15 cs and leverages that into some python-like victory. In reality we have teams winning the game because of a flubbed flash at T=20:05
Good macro still wins games. Look at GenG, they completely constricted T1. Good rotations aren't boring though. Good macro by one team will force hands on the other team (desperation), potentially snowballing the game fast.
But sure, if you just lay over and accept your fate without ever engaging, that's really boring indeed.
|
at the end of the day there is theory behind a gameplan and thats what coaches would be looking to have implemented in their teams gameplay, but the execution is another story. i think everyone will agree that getting the execution right is easier said than done, and the difference with top teams and average teams is exactly that; how well can they execute a plan according to the theory behind the idea?
i think its harsh to fault teams for attempting to make the correct play even if the end result was sub optimal due to a lack of good execution. if i was a coach i would be far more concerned if my teams either didnt know what the correct play was or didnt attempt a play due to fear of failure, than teams that actually try to do the right thing but were lacking that extra 2%. i wouldnt want to critique teams with the benefit of hindsight and say you should never have gone for the risky play. if you want to win you have to take risks, and how well you manage that risk is a measurable value in skill
|
That's all to say, of course, the coaches theorize optimally in regards to their players' skill.
I think often times there's a disconnect between win conditions and playstyle. There's no one way to approach the game, or one ideal way to win, even when all these concepts like rotations, wave control, side pressure, priority and laneswaps are a thing. Maybe many coaches tunnel on the current paradigm of winning and trying to mold players into fitting in there, when it should be the other way around. You're stuck with 5 pro's. What are their strength and weaknesses. What do they feel comfortable doing. Can you, as a coach, craft a gameplan around that which wins games?
If it means going off meta or doing wonky movements, so be it, makes the game all the more interesting imo!
|
On August 22 2023 17:54 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2023 13:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2023 04:20 Uldridge wrote:On August 22 2023 03:32 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know which ones exactly youre referring to as desperation attempts or calls with "imperfect knowledge", but i dont think that changes much. On August 22 2023 02:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:
multiple reasons:
2. you are winning but you have an inferior comp and so you need to push your advantages before you get outscaled, therefore needing to take objectives quickly in order to end. you might commit and the opponents decide to contest.
3. you are getting out split pushed either because your split pusher is inferior or tp is down or w/e, and you start an objective in order to force the opponent to group if they wish to contest.
4. you are ahead with superior map and vision control and you try to sneak a baron. maybe you get caught out but you commit anyway because the lost time in investing multiple guys to hit a baron might have cost you something (towers, opposite objectives, etc).
6. youre behind and you need the objective if you want to come back at all. I thought 4 was being desperate initially, but it isn't really a desperation attempt, it just seems suboptimal to 'just keep hitting it', which happens all the time. You'd expect professionals to be more disciplined than that. But it's part of my point that baron is a volatility magnet. Turrets are objectives that are taken when you're winning. You can't take that under people's noses (most of the time). In theory baron and dragon (and herald) could/should also be rewards, but this often times doesn't happen. Baron is super dangerous as it does damage, ccs and shreds. It's quite risky. baron and elder has to be risky. the rewards are so big that any attempt to go for it will always carry risk because the opponents would have to have an extremely good reason to give it up for free. i dont think my 2nd scenario is desperation. if you have an inferior scaling comp and you try to force an objective, youre just being aware of your win conditions. you dont want the enemy team to dodge fights and buy time for them to scale, so you call them out to a fight which they probably cant refuse. 3. could be desperation depending on how you look at it, but i think its more similar to 2, where baron or elder would simply be a tool to ease the difficulties you are having in managing your sidelanes. baron/elder are one of the few ways to force your opponents to move around the map in a specific way depending on how you utilise them. in 4. if youve started baron because you thought you could get away with it for little to medium cost, then you will probably want to commit if youve ended up paying that cost. eg, your team is positioned on the top side of the map and the opponents are positioned towards the bottom side. they take drag and your team decides to rush baron instead of constesting drag. if the opponents finish drag and start to approach you and youre only halfway done on baron, choosing to disengage would just result in a guaranteed net loss. sure you could just choose to take the loss, but good players and good teams will almost always lean towards trying to salvage a situation by going for the outplay. its not a good habit to give things up for free If you have a temporarily better comp, turret diving is probably more risk averse than baron. Giving things up for free isn't good, but that stems from the failure to understand how long things take. Granted, i can't do it either - calculate how long it'll take for the team to take drake, or rotate over earlier vs how long will my team take to kill baron and how much damage do we take, but the gameplan becomes fuzzy. If you want to commit to the objective, even if you get aced, at least have an idea of how to keep the enemy jungler OUT of the pit. Too often he gets in unchecked, or there's only one person half arsing an attempt at keeping him out. Show nested quote +On August 22 2023 07:10 cLutZ wrote:On August 22 2023 05:25 Uldridge wrote:
I agree. LoL had quite a few boring years where many teams were risk averse and the meta was to only take 80-20 plays or something?
I remember seeing TL in S5 and even though I was a fan, they were so cookie cutter. Same with T1. Maybe I'm regretting not watching LPL sooner lol. Teams are just as risk averse now, they just aren't allowed to take precautions. The game is too snowbally off of RNG as opposed to sustained excellence. People are out here all speculating about some hypothetical boring game where a team just wins every lane by 15 cs and leverages that into some python-like victory. In reality we have teams winning the game because of a flubbed flash at T=20:05 Good macro still wins games. Look at GenG, they completely constricted T1. Good rotations aren't boring though. Good macro by one team will force hands on the other team (desperation), potentially snowballing the game fast. But sure, if you just lay over and accept your fate without ever engaging, that's really boring indeed.
GenG just smashed an inferior team. SKT had bad drafts and just got styled on. Those games aren't indicative of the meta.
|
GenG smashed SKT, yes. A lot of it was through superior macro.
Or do you think the series was won in champ select all three games?
|
Easily at champ select in the first two. Game three the was a path for a different team, but not SKT. GenG might have beaten GenG in a flipped game, if you get my meaning.
|
yeah this latest gen g t1 series was too one sided to say it was a victory by superior macro only. gen g just outplayed t1 on all aspects of the game, including drafting.
|
51397 Posts
|
Oh I had no idea that happened. I suppose that makes sense though. Unfortunately I cant find any TL threads gossiping over that kind of activity.
|
She contacted HLE and they just flat out ignored her, wtf are these people thinking. Did HLE think this problem would just go away by itself? Good thing she sued, and other allegations popped up. Happy for Brother Clid to finally be gone, just not this way.
The thread also introduced me to Aiming's story, lost a lot of respect for the dude.
|
So Faker has his fourth, squashing any doubts I had about his GOAT status.
Evem though the meta "fell into their lap", I sometimes wonder about behind the scenes shady business. Riot forcing teams to lose for the narrative wouldn't be something that's beneath them.
The Kanavi and Tarzan misplays don't sit well with me.
|
Looked at lot more like SKT just playing up to their standard than anything else.
|
Canada2521 Posts
On November 20 2023 21:56 Uldridge wrote:
So Faker has his fourth, squashing any doubts I had about his GOAT status.
Evem though the meta "fell into their lap", I sometimes wonder about behind the scenes shady business. Riot forcing teams to lose for the narrative wouldn't be something that's beneath them.
The Kanavi and Tarzan misplays don't sit well with me.
I think these thoughts float through everyone's mind, but at the end of the tournament I don't see it. Faker's Ahri had like a 30% charm hit rate (including missing the charm followup on his own everfrost) which I woulda been real suspicious of if T1 lost, and Xiaohu Ahri getting called out from casters as probably going stormrazor, then backtracking and selling the component feels like large blunders for the finals, and weren't the only ones of the series. Blunders happen, and in this case it doesn't look like it adds up to riot-driven matchfixing, to me.
|
|
|
On November 20 2023 21:56 Uldridge wrote:
So Faker has his fourth, squashing any doubts I had about his GOAT status.
Evem though the meta "fell into their lap", I sometimes wonder about behind the scenes shady business. Riot forcing teams to lose for the narrative wouldn't be something that's beneath them.
The Kanavi and Tarzan misplays don't sit well with me.
Nah, that's what Tarzan is known for: tilting in important matches. And Kanavi is very much a hit or miss player, he is basically a younger Peanut. As someone who has followed LPL for years, I couldn't help but feel that the stars aligned for WBG to make it to the finals, not T1:
- Good but not amazing results in Summer and Spring (5-6th place in both playoffs, solid placement during the regular season)
- Regionals showed they deserved the 4th spot, but mainly because EDG and TES are just not good teams.
- No need to suffer through play ins because CN has that sweet 4th auto qualifier spot
- Get arguably the luckiest draws they could hope for in Swiss stage, and still barely make it through: KT and BLG also went 3-2 but had to play much harder opponents
- End up on the weaker bracket side, get the weakest possible opponent in their first series (tbh I though NRG would win bc imo WBG was the weakest of all 8 teams)
- BLG manages to beat GenG, I actually expected this (BLG is a really good team, they just can't beat JDG so reddit sleeps on them), so WBG plays a team they have a lot of experience against
- BLG decides to turn off their brains: bad drafts, Bin trying to skill check TheShy, willingly playing fiesta games where objectives can go either way
- Make it to finals where the opponent has a controlled playstyle, won't get pulled into a yolo fiesta, can draft properly, and have a top lane carry who can skillcheck TheShy on his comfort picks -> get flattened in the most one sided finals of all time.
Compare this to the DRX story, where they basically had to beat every top LPL and LCK team to win it all. This was the best TheShy has played in years, and WBG are not a bad team, but imo they also got really lucky up until the finals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
