EPTPeople that don't understand the term "fun"
On the faults of T.R.O.L.L.S. - Page 2
| Forum Index > LoL Strategy |
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
People that don't understand the term "fun" | ||
|
Solaris.playgu
Sweden480 Posts
Also, I don't think anyone active in the TROLLS-thread tries to use their findings as fact, but more as a guideline of what needs more testing, and in which direction that testing could be carried out. They're trying to foster a spirit of experimentation and open-mindedness instead of blind plagiarism of pros and FoTM-gaming, which I think is commendable. On February 15 2013 19:30 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Actually that's exactly what it says lol. When a bunch of wildly inconsistent players with variable skill levels, none of it near the top, "test" something, it's completely meaningless. It'd be akin to a high school physics student, in some laboratory, getting an experimental result of g = 12m/s^2 and proclaiming that this means the scientific community should look into revising its definition of Earth's gravity because this experiment, though not precise, shows that "there might be some promise." There's nothing wrong with TROLLS, just don't pretend it's something that it's not - namely, something that can ever produce anything actually useful. Your comparison is the only thing I agree with here. Experiments on a low level are completely essential for learning any kind of science (indeed, for me personally it is the absolutely best way to learn, the combination of theory and practice just makes things click in my head). Just the same as the student in your example, when these "wildly inconsistent players with variable skill levels" test something they will likely come to a wrong conclusion. Then they will have to scrutinize their methodology or carry out more tests to validate their data, and sooner or later they will realize not only that they were wrong, but why they were wrong. This is growth. This is what TROLLS are trying to produce (I think =) ), and it is extremely useful. Also, trying out strategies is an exercise in teamwork, which is very useful in a teamgame. tldr: Drawing incorrect conclusions is not a bad thing as it allows more growth in the long run than drawing the right conclusions. The important thing is being an open-minded and thinking individual instead of a copy-cat. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
first, the trolls thread is essentially a very in-side joke. This is bad enough, as it promotes circlejerk, but these days, what doesn't. If it doesn't fit within the in-side of the joke, it's not funny. then we have this thread, which is a person who is SPR SRS, complaining about bads being bads. What I think is really going on here is that people seem to think that games should be about minmaxing and practicing boring mechanics over and over again. That.. Shit. Is. Boring. The whole point of a game is to enjoy it. Forcing everybody to conform to your shitty boring tryhard EU lifestyle goes against that. Not everybody plays that way. I would know-I couldn't stand more than three games playing tryhard because its so fucking boring and nasueating. That's the real reason I left LoL-because the false snobbery of EU and EUstyle players turning what I perceived was a game by and for casual play into some sort of excel spreadsheet into a fucking regimented orthodox tyranny where deviating slightly from whatever FOTM happened to be would instantly cause the rest of your team to think of you as a heretic, even if you happened to be a 17-0 speed garen with three tower kills that just single handedly slaughtered the rest of the enemy team. I mean its gotten to the point where people are repulsed by my ELO police thread, where "experimentation" and "new ideas" are akali with gunblade. Where some mid-high ELO tryhard complains that Irelia does two less points of damage than she should, and where every hero needs to be able to jungle, have sustain, and some sort of gapclose disable. Where the game involves less strategy and thinking and instead turns into 5 man DOTA teletubbies edition. AND YET, PEOPLE LIKE THIS GUY COMPLAIN THAT'S NOT TRYHARDING ENOUGH. That's why I went back to DotA. Because the culture there is already so poisoned that I see the BRs and Russians as closer to my kin than I do Americans, whom despite fighting constant wars of independence appear to have given in to emulating the rigidity of EU tryhardness and persecution of heterorthodoxy. But I have my Russki and Brasilians to hang out with there, at least. Not so here. Thank you, and God bless America. ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sfnYa0LrHz4/ThPWC3gCIsI/AAAAAAAAAHY/gq-y0ODJfzk/s1600/jingoism.jpg) o/ | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5775 Posts
| ||
|
BlueSpace
Germany2182 Posts
On the one hand Scip, most likely named for Scipio Africanus, the renowned roman general, a master tactician that tells us only through disciplined training one can hope to improve. On the other hand Seuss, most likely named for Dr. Seuss the famed writer of books for children, that tells us that one should learn through imaginative play. Two sides of a medal and their chosen internet names align perfectly with their attitudes. Just pick your teacher and don't fight. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 15 2013 10:50 Scip wrote: Therefore, the low level player is unable to distinguish good and bad strategies due to the lack of understanding and no experience to test his theories against. And this is why I would advise you to not consider the T.R.O.L.L.S. thread as any authority whatsoever and nothing close to a source of knowledge of the game. Yo man, ima let you finish, but you stole zulu_nation's arguments. Caller, I like your post, but EU are not all tryharder. | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
| ||
|
Lounge
537 Posts
So we have TROLLS, with stuff like Tankadin. Cool, now we can analyze under what circumstances is that better than AP Kass, when would you want to do this vs playing a standard mid, or even a naturally tanky mid (Galio, etc.) or is it just a for fun thing. And then once all that leg work is actually done, it shows up under the Kassadin guide if it works, if it doesn't it stays in TROLLS. That being said, to everyone who is attacking Scip, I think you should re-read this: Firstly, I'd like to say I have no quarrel and no contempt for those who would experiment for the sake of fun and the natural exploration of the game. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On February 15 2013 23:06 WhiteDog wrote: Yo man, ima let you finish, but you stole zulu_nation's arguments. Caller, I like your post, but EU are not all tryharder. Maybe so, but those who are not tryhards have been content to sit by and watch as the tryhards take over, much like the Nazis did in the 1930s. If you don't want to be characterized that way, do something about it! | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On February 15 2013 23:04 BlueSpace wrote: Two men, two different philosophies: On the one hand Scip, most likely named for Scipio AfricanusScipio Africanus, the renowned roman general, a master tactician that tells us only through disciplined training one can hope to improve. On the other hand Seuss, most likely named for Dr. Seuss the famed writer of books for children, that tells us that one should learn through imaginative play. Two sides of a medal and their chosen internet names align perfectly with their attitudes. Just pick your teacher and don't fight. actually, that's incorrect. Scipio Africanus essentially stole Hannibal's tactics at Cannae and used them against him, with the exception that he had more troops and more time to prepare to deal with Hannibal's diminished force that hurried back from southern Italy. He was but an imitator to Hannibal's genius, and yet solely because he had more resources was he able to prevail. And then Roman tactics devolved into the same stagnation that led to their defeat by Parthian, then Turkic-Mongol horse archers. Seuss used allegory to try and teach kids to think outside of the box. However, his whole rationale was often misjudged to be of silly characters and stories for children's books. So even though there was significant value in his work, people today mostly associate him and his ideas with immaturity and as "kiddie books." Of course, this is while they read Twilight, the Da Vinci Code, and 50 Shades of Gray. So the metaphor is apt in a sense-two names, misinterpreted, personifying the falseness of their behavior. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
On February 15 2013 15:10 xes wrote: If someone is testing PD Hecarim and it is working at their skill level why does it matter? If they make a guide about it, all the players who realize the faults of PD Hecarim will ignore it and for the players who don't have that understanding of the game it will probably work for them anyways. I think TROLLS is great because it gets players to think critically and mess around and have fun. If it comes at the illusion of skill or understanding of the game, why should that bother someone who actually has understanding of the game? If this allows them to enjoy the game then so be it. Its not going to affect any way that you [the higher skilled player] will play if you ostensibly know better, and presumably their revelation about PD Hecarim isn't going to cause your 2100 elo jungler next game to rush PD (although One Trick Pony plays Homeguard/TP Hecarim to extremely good effect). Don't be the guy that goes around and tells every kid that Santa doesn't exist. Who cares if they believe in Santa as long as they have fun? To take your argument, The thing is, once you stop and think critically, you reveal the faults of PD Hecarim. That's key to the why TROLLS exists. It's not somewhere that you get told "shut up" for throwing out a weird idea, but one where people are going to apply critical thinking to your idea. When it passes those critical thinking checks, then it's probably worth trying in a game. TROLLS also exists to provide an environment where you won't get laughed at, harassed, or reported for doing weird shit. Yes, some ideas will work in games at the erratic levels of TROLLS players (which are so scattered that it's hard to even get opponents of the same strength from game to game) which might not work in pro play, but at the same time, we are all aware that "going 10-0 does not automatically mean your strategy is good." We might not be great players, but we're using sound critical thinking and to pick apart strengths and faults. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
'murica | ||
|
BlueSpace
Germany2182 Posts
On February 15 2013 23:21 Caller wrote: actually, that's incorrect. Scipio Africanus essentially stole Hannibal's tactics at Cannae and used them against him, with the exception that he had more troops and more time to prepare to deal with Hannibal's diminished force that hurried back from southern Italy. He was but an imitator to Hannibal's genius, and yet solely because he had more resources was he able to prevail. And then Roman tactics devolved into the same stagnation that led to their defeat by Parthian, then Turkic-Mongol horse archers. Seuss used allegory to try and teach kids to think outside of the box. However, his whole rationale was often misjudged to be of silly characters and stories for children's books. So even though there was significant value in his work, people today mostly associate him and his ideas with immaturity and as "kiddie books." Of course, this is while they read Twilight, the Da Vinci Code, and 50 Shades of Gray. So the metaphor is apt in a sense-two names, misinterpreted, personifying the falseness of their behavior. I'm quite sure, that people are very aware of the allegories of the Seuss books. It's not really a secret that many of his stories are quite subversive and carry a strong moral message. I was going for the contrast of children book writer and army general. Not overly concerned with the details. You're going way to deep into this. But as I can see you're a big fan of Hannibal  | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
What would I, then, consider to be a good way to discover new strategies and things never tried before? As discussed above, aquire the two quintessential components: knowledge and understanding of the theory of the game, and extensive experience. Aquiring these will involve experimentation, but as noted above, that experimentation will be fundamentally different than the one that will try to discover new strategies, as the goal will be different, and focused towards something more productive, even though the results will not come as immediately. I can see where you're coming from here, but I also believe that you're too worried about a distinction that doesn't/shouldn't exist. Certainly, while some TROLLS members might be approaching this experimentation with the wrong mindset, I never got that feeling from Monte. | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
Yeah I'm not sure where people got the idea that the point of TROLLS is to bust the meta wide open and come up with new OP pro strategies. I mean, at the very least maybe they can come up with OP pro strategies that work at whatever elo people are playing at, and develop friendships and critical thinking and have fun while doing it. The School of Monte. There is a way I could see this being applicable, however. IF, and only if, a strategy is somehow devised that is so good that it allows a TL 5s team to destroy other teams all the way up to Challenger League, and as such is then able to play against the pro teams and either get stomped or win, thus proving their OP strategy successful or inadequate....only then will said 'research' be deemed 'relevant.' GET ON IT TROLLS | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
Look at Marn's Urgot comps that they blasted through the LCS Qualifiers with. We know Marn isn't a super strong team, but they found a strategy that is simple to execute and rode it to victory (why nobody banned urgot until the very last game is beyond me.) | ||
|
G3CKO
Canada1430 Posts
User was warned for this post User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On February 15 2013 11:17 Phunkapotamus wrote: There are valid levels of perception that low level players have about low level games. "Noobcrusher" builds that allow a lower level player to eek out a quirky advantage. Perhaps this through some parlor trick that their equals have never dealt with before. Perhaps it is gained through abuse of a particular strength or weakness that catches low level players off guard. In this way, conclusions drawn from T.R.O.L.L.S. can be valid. However, they will likely only be applicable to lower skill levels. I think the real value of T.R.O.L.L.S. is finding unique builds that are "good enough" to compete at lower skill levels. The same reason people build less-than-optimal characters in other games. Style and fun. Distinguishing noobcrusher strategies and bad strategies faces the same problem as distinguishing good and bad strategies. If anything, it only adds another layer of difficulty that (among other things) threatens to create an iron curtain between low and high level players. On February 15 2013 12:41 WaveofShadow wrote: Yeah this sounds remarkably similar to the 'casters don't know shit' discussion. It's been done. Not really sure what you mean. Casters and players have very different roles and I don't know how anything I said is relevant to casters at all. As far as I think (and meant it) it concerns only playing. On February 15 2013 12:39 BlackPaladin wrote: The only real problem is things can't be tested over 100's of games without doing so for weeks (when "trolls" actually only meets once/week for a few hours), which is one thing needed to really find out if a strategy can be competently used in certain situations. But skill level also plays a factor in this of course. If you're somewhat analytical of things though you tend to actually become a good player over time, moreso than just the people who simply follow fotm's and never really learn anything other than "this shit op." How much of a constraint time is depends upon player's ability to focus, understand and actively think about the game. Testing a specific strategy for 100's of games is in my opinion a bit of an overkill. Whether time might be a problem for the current iteration of T.R.O.L.L.S. I do not know, but that's really only an organizational problem rather than a problem of the concept. About following FoTMs I will talk later in this post. On February 15 2013 19:46 wei2coolman wrote: Depends on what you're testing for. Maybe for team comps, yeah it's hard to tell with inconsistent players, but some itemization, or maybe lane based decisions are usually pretty easy to test for, and over enough datapoints could point to some discovery. AP Yi for example, use to be just like a troll thing, then after enough play in solo queue, ended up being a "thing" in pro play. There's plenty of things that come out of solo queue (which is pretty much the definition of inconsistent). I'm not saying TROLLS discovery will always be right, or even come close to anything that will revolutionize the meta, but what they can do is fuck around with stupid ideas, while having fun, and maybe come up with small nuggets of info. "the difference between messing around and science is writing it down"-adam savage. Certain cases of builds and itemization has been mentioned as an exception Lane based decisions are pretty complex, I could give korean top lanes destroying foreign ones within what is often first 4 levels. Such massive differences in both skill and understanding at the highest level of play in my opinion demonstrates that it is not something easily tested. Not really much to say on the last part, I don't think these nuggets of info are reliable enough to be helpful, but I've stated that (and why of that) in the opening post. In the spoiler are 1 line responses to posts that I did not find as interesting :p + Show Spoiler + Solaris.playgu: As mentioned in my original post, the main difference between expermentation for discovering and experimentation for getting better is that the former avoid anything that has already (or recently) been done. Which can be counterproductive directly, but also indirectly, due to much less material concerning that strategy that one can study. Caller: The Scottish were all over freedom like 400 years before you guys. Neo: As said, I appreciate the fun of it. Blue Space: How dare you reveal the origin of my name  Lounge: in your example, I argue that T.R.O.L.L.S. would be unable to reliably tell in what situations or if ever it is better than AP kassadin, or if it indeed "works" at all. The why's are in my opening post. Caller 2nd: My name creator didn't just steal tactics, he stole Numidian Cavalry. GG WhiteDog: Given that I talked about this to bly before, chances are it's him using my arguments rather than the other way around. :p Capped: I don't know what your name on EUW is, so I can not comment on how mean I perceive myself to be towards you, nor whether I consider the meanness to be justified :p And now onto the big moster, Seuss's post, that I have divided into 3 parts for readability (please don't get mad at me): On February 15 2013 12:05 Seuss wrote:
I believe this is an accurate summary. Under that assumption, I will now respond. Accurate summary indeed. On February 15 2013 12:05 Seuss wrote: The purpose of T.R.O.L.L.S. is not merely the generation of information. That is one of its goals, but not its sole purpose by any means. T.R.O.L.L.S. is bigger than that. Though created on a whim, I had a clear vision of what I wanted to accomplish.
These are not easy objectives, and at times I fret that one or another is falling considerably short. However, these are worthy objectives not because they will provide the greater LoL community with a think tank of reliable, competitive ideas, but because they give players the opportunity to become the thoughtful, insightful players of tomorrow. For the first point, the only cure for "plague of fads and mothly flavours" is actually understanding and careful studying of those fads. I want to emphasise that that is by far the most efficient way. That might seem counterproductive at first, as it strenghtens the fad even more, but only temporarily. It is the reason why the fads are only mothly. :p For the second point, I agree that having a some sort of a place where players can be thoughtfully educated and their ideas about the game criticized. But I would think that this goal is very distant from that of experimentation for the purpose of discovery. For the third point, I also think that is a noble goal. But as stated in my OP, I don't think it should be considered research, or conceptualized as such. Fourth point I think I adressed in my OP thoroughly, I will not restate my why's (unless you think I need to elaborate on them further). Fun = goodness, as I said in OP. On February 15 2013 12:05 Seuss wrote: The sharing, development, and refinement of ideas is a skill like any other, it must be practiced in order to see improvement. If one refuses to acknowledge the efforts of novices, misguided as they often may be, you deny them the opportunity to learn and advance beyond their misunderstandings. The goal of T.R.O.L.L.S. is not the development of strategies, that is the means, but the development of strategists. This is a long-term goal and the fruits may not be seen for months, maybe years. I may disagree with Ketarah's assessment of GSG's push strategy, but regardless of who is right or wrong (or even if there is a right or wrong in this case) what's important is that everyone involved had an opportunity to think, to bounce their thoughts off the foils of their peers, and then think some more. It's a chance to improve the mind, and God knows we need every opportunity to do that we can find. Have we discovered the new meta? No. Are we qualified to dissect LCS matches? Probably not. Are many of the ideas we discuss inane? Certainly. Have we come to any conclusions that are meaningful and useful? Not yet (indeed, we have not finished significant testing of any one idea). But none of these are the point. My goals may be far too lofty, too difficult, or too abstract, but if even one person uses this opportunity as a step towards greater things, even outside of LoL, I will have considered it a success. Alright, on the development of strategists. If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that the tutor-pupil relationship (as for example the one we saw in ZERG RUSSIANS replay-watching thread) is for this purpose inferior to that of an environment where ideas get thrown around and criticized by everyone. And I do not necessarily disagree with that (although some restrictions/quality control is probably necessary). But I don't think that this environment should be in any way linked to research, data aquisition or anything like that. | ||
| ||
