|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
If you are from the NA servers, you may very well ask: who am I to badmouth your favourite thread? I go by the name of Scipaeus121212 on EUW in the client, you may know me from the Amumu thread or the GD threads where I post quite often.
Let's get straight to topic that is broader than the T.R.O.L.L.S. thread, but encompasses it. And that is the topic of low level experimentation: how players of lower skill levels try out new things and make new strategies. 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. Secondly, I will be talking about experimenting for the purpose of finding new good strategies, as opposed to experimenting for the purpose of getting better as a player, the latter of which is completely fine.
In League of Legends, there are massive amounts of options, way too many to experiment with all of them or even think of all of them in a reasonable amount of time. Of course good players don't brute force finding new good strategies, but it does involve significant amount of testing. Because of that it is very well possible that a low level player might make a strategy that has not been yet tried by a pro-player, but is quite awesome.
Although more complete understanding of the game helps pro-players to find good strategies way more efficiently, this is not where the problem lies. When a low level player does indeed find a brand new amazing strategy, how is he going to be able to tell?
It's certainly not going to be experience, that same player has probably done very well with jungle Fiora, new AP Rengar and PD Hecarim just a few games back. It's definitely not going to be theory, not from a player who is unable to justify the actions of pro-players, let alone predict them. The main component of a low level player's ability to distinguish between bad and good things is inevitably luck.
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.
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 am adding notes not necessary to state my opinion, but if you wish to criticize, please read them first.
+ Show Spoiler +Low level player can have understanding of basic math, and can therefore compare items/masteries and potentially create efficient builds. This very specific case is different from others.
Yes, experimentation for the purpose of finding new strategies and experimentation for the purpose of getting better are different. Hopefully I don't have to go too deep on this, but for the most obvious difference, the former of the two actively tries to avoid something that has already been done.
Yes, I understand that T.R.O.L.L.S. thread is largely for fun. It still is an extremely bad source of knowledge, which is what this thread adresses.
|
Congratulations, you managed to say nothing of any value.
User was warned for this post
|
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.
|
I see T.R.O.L.L.S. as a medium to try ideas and experiment with new theories without the rage of 15 year olds for breaking the meta. The TL community has discussed many FotM things before they were common knowledge by being used in a high level tournament. They have also missed the mark on a lot of ideas that were good in the middle of discussion but fell short in practice in the fields of justice.
|
Thanks for telling us this before we made a HUGE mistake!!!!
|
The criticisms laid out in this topic, and in a handful of posts elsewhere, can be summarized as follows:
- Experimentation should be focused on personal improvement and not discovery.
- Inexperienced, less-than-pro players have no way of discerning when they find a useful discovery.
- The T.R.O.L.L.S. discussion thread is rife with extremely bad "knowledge".
- T.R.O.L.L.S. has failed to produce any meaningful results.
I believe this is an accurate summary. Under that assumption, I will now respond.
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.
- Foster an analytical, experimental mindset in a community plagued by fads and monthly flavors.
- Provide a place where ideas are dissected and their merits and flaws explained rather than tersely shut down.
- Create an environment where players feel comfortable putting their ideas to the test.
- Report any meaningful findings to the sub-forum, should any be found.
- Have fun.
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.
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.
|
You replied in a far more mature fashion than I would've Monte, given that Scip's entire post can be summarized by saying 'TROLLS is a bunch of bad players who will never say anything worth hearing.' Even if that were actually true(there are certainly some decent enough players involved), it still wouldn't discredit anything found. Coaches of sport come up with revolutionary ideas all the time without being expert 'doers'(players) because a mind for the game is not dependent on skill/affinity for playing the game, even if it would indeed aid a player. There is literally 0 reason that an idea born from the braintrust on this forum(which again, actually includes some solid players) couldn't be worthy of high level play, even if the final product might require fine tuning in the hands of said high level players.
About the only worthwhile thing he pointed out is that the level of play makes the process more ambiguous, but then he goes to shit all over it instead of stopping himself at what would've been an understandable(but pointless; something that he clearly wasn't concerned with in the end) comment.
TLDR: Condescending faggots will be condescending faggots. Scip must be really proud of his League standing(god I hope he's at least Diamond or something).
User was temp banned for this post.
|
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."
|
On February 15 2013 12:26 red_ wrote:
You replied in a far more mature fashion than I would've Monte, given that Scip's entire post can be summarized by saying 'TROLLS is a bunch of bad players who will never say anything worth hearing.' Even if that were actually true(there are certainly some decent enough players involved), it still wouldn't discredit anything found. Coaches of sport come up with revolutionary ideas all the time without being expert 'doers'(players) because a mind for the game is not dependent on skill/affinity for playing the game, even if it would indeed aid a player. There is literally 0 reason that an idea born from the braintrust on this forum(which again, actually includes some solid players) couldn't be worthy of high level play, even if the final product might require fine tuning in the hands of said high level players.
About the only worthwhile thing he pointed out is that the level of play makes the process more ambiguous, but then he goes to shit all over it instead of stopping himself at what would've been an understandable(but pointless; something that he clearly wasn't concerned with in the end) comment.
TLDR: Condescending faggots will be condescending faggots. Scip must be really proud of his League standing(god I hope he's at least Diamond or something).
Yeah this sounds remarkably similar to the 'casters don't know shit' discussion.
It's been done.
|
On February 15 2013 12:41 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 12:26 red_ wrote:
You replied in a far more mature fashion than I would've Monte, given that Scip's entire post can be summarized by saying 'TROLLS is a bunch of bad players who will never say anything worth hearing.' Even if that were actually true(there are certainly some decent enough players involved), it still wouldn't discredit anything found. Coaches of sport come up with revolutionary ideas all the time without being expert 'doers'(players) because a mind for the game is not dependent on skill/affinity for playing the game, even if it would indeed aid a player. There is literally 0 reason that an idea born from the braintrust on this forum(which again, actually includes some solid players) couldn't be worthy of high level play, even if the final product might require fine tuning in the hands of said high level players.
About the only worthwhile thing he pointed out is that the level of play makes the process more ambiguous, but then he goes to shit all over it instead of stopping himself at what would've been an understandable(but pointless; something that he clearly wasn't concerned with in the end) comment.
TLDR: Condescending faggots will be condescending faggots. Scip must be really proud of his League standing(god I hope he's at least Diamond or something). Yeah this sounds remarkably similar to the 'casters don't know shit' discussion. It's been done.
I'm not really mad or anything(my post could come off that way). I'm more surprised and annoyed. This seems totally out of nowhere. Were there people roaming League doing crazy things citing TROLLS as their reasoning that made Scip want to belittle anyone who has involved themselves in the group at any point? It just feels like a completely random and unwarranted, and unnecessary, criticism. And yes, as you pointed out, as far as criticisms go this is a tired one.
|
For reference, Scip is Diamond I. I responded without vitriol because I know he's not a bad guy and means well. I'd have far fewer friends if I jumped on them every time they stuck their foot on their mouth (and vice versa).
|
This thread has nothing to do with strategy and shouldn't be in the strategy section, imo.
|
United States37500 Posts
A lot of people have made complaints about this thread but it's fair criticism of T.R.O.L.L.S. imo. But I think there's a gap of understanding between what Scip thinks T.R.O.L.L.S. sets out to accomplish and what T.R.O.L.L.S. members actually do. I won't say I've actually step foot into the T.R.O.L.L.S. thread that often but it's activity and enthusiasm warrants a place here in our strategy subforum. Just take their experimentation with a grain of salt. Its popularity is largely credited to Monte, who makes this fun and interesting for a number of our users.
It's ok to have a separate dissenting thread here. I would imagine you guys want to discuss the criticism of T.R.O.L.L.S. outside of the actual thread.
In short, have fun. It's only a game.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
This is a game of individual skill up until the very top of professional level. Trying out strategies at a level below that and using that as proof of the superiority/viability of a strategy is very silly, since more often than not, whether or not a strategy works depends more on the individual skill level of the players involved than the inherent merits of said strategy.
|
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?
|
On February 15 2013 14:50 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
This is a game of individual skill up until the very top of professional level. Trying out strategies at a level below that and using that as proof of the superiority/viability of a strategy is very silly, since more often than not, whether or not a strategy works depends more on the individual skill level of the players involved than the inherent merits of said strategy.
That's not to say there isn't some verification of some merit on strategy, it still does a good job of showing whether or not certain ideas have some promise.
|
Trust a giant troll to come and troll the T.R.O.L.L.S 
For reference: Everytime i open my mouth in LiquidParty eu, he badmouths me. In a trolly way i might add
I dont see anything wrong with T.R.O.L.L.S imo, let people experiment and discuss ideas, what the hells wrong with that
|
What I learned from this thread: Scip is the fun police!
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On February 15 2013 16:20 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 14:50 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
This is a game of individual skill up until the very top of professional level. Trying out strategies at a level below that and using that as proof of the superiority/viability of a strategy is very silly, since more often than not, whether or not a strategy works depends more on the individual skill level of the players involved than the inherent merits of said strategy. That's not to say there isn't some verification of some merit on strategy, it still does a good job of showing whether or not certain ideas have some promise.
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.
|
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.
|
ITT:
People that don't understand the term "fun"
|
I think you´re missing a fundamental point of experimentation in general. Yes, in a low-level environment it is highly possible to draw incorrect conclusions of what is good and what isn't, especially when testing is kind of sparse. That isn't necessarily a bad thing though, because if a bad player believes a bad strategy to be good he will continue to use (test) it, and sooner or later, as he gets better, he will realise its' shortcomings. That way he will have learned, not only that it doesn't work, but exactly why it doesn't work and in what circumstances it could be made to work.
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:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 16:20 wei2coolman wrote:On February 15 2013 14:50 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
This is a game of individual skill up until the very top of professional level. Trying out strategies at a level below that and using that as proof of the superiority/viability of a strategy is very silly, since more often than not, whether or not a strategy works depends more on the individual skill level of the players involved than the inherent merits of said strategy. That's not to say there isn't some verification of some merit on strategy, it still does a good job of showing whether or not certain ideas have some promise. 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.
|
this thread is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the game
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.
o/
|
|
|
|
|
Two men, two different philosophies:
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.
|
I, like in the "casters don't know anything" discussion, strongly disagree that a player who is not at the top of the top is incapable of critical thought and understanding to differentiate between good and bad strategies. Maybe we're not capable of making all these decisions in the heat of a game, but that doesn't mean we're incapable of understanding them when we have time to sit back and think.
|
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.
|
I can see how Caller got his fame, truly a legend. God bless America.
|
I always viewed the TROLLS as a place for ideas to grow, and if something really awesome was found, it would be brought to attention elsewhere. Say like, Nunu top. At first suggestion I think it was mostly considered trolling, but once it was developed and analyzed we found out it had certain benefits and certain downsides.
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.
|
On February 15 2013 23:06 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
caller bringing some freedom into this thread
'murica
|
On February 15 2013 23:21 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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 
|
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.
|
Caller don't go...STAY WITH USSSS
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
|
At some point a strategy can be deemed successful even if we can't execute it all the way up to the challenger league. If it's giving us an inordinate advantage for running it, or if it's "easy to execute" so that it allows people to win games vs. those "above their level" then it's going to have some merit.
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.)
|
You know why I moved to Dota? Apart from the reason that I played WC3 dota before and for the longest time I wasn't able to get a beta key? This game is just the epitome of stupidity. They ban people for the stupidest reason ever. Like people got banned for randoming in non ranked games or trying "unorthodox builds". Granted that the community backstabber/nutjob Pendragon is working at Riot is a reason that made me go back to Dota as well.
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
Alright, just for the record, I am quoting Seuss last because his post was the best in terms of thought and construction
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:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 12:26 red_ wrote:
You replied in a far more mature fashion than I would've Monte, given that Scip's entire post can be summarized by saying 'TROLLS is a bunch of bad players who will never say anything worth hearing.' Even if that were actually true(there are certainly some decent enough players involved), it still wouldn't discredit anything found. Coaches of sport come up with revolutionary ideas all the time without being expert 'doers'(players) because a mind for the game is not dependent on skill/affinity for playing the game, even if it would indeed aid a player. There is literally 0 reason that an idea born from the braintrust on this forum(which again, actually includes some solid players) couldn't be worthy of high level play, even if the final product might require fine tuning in the hands of said high level players.
About the only worthwhile thing he pointed out is that the level of play makes the process more ambiguous, but then he goes to shit all over it instead of stopping himself at what would've been an understandable(but pointless; something that he clearly wasn't concerned with in the end) comment.
TLDR: Condescending faggots will be condescending faggots. Scip must be really proud of his League standing(god I hope he's at least Diamond or something). 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:- Experimentation should be focused on personal improvement and not discovery.
- Inexperienced, less-than-pro players have no way of discerning when they find a useful discovery.
- The T.R.O.L.L.S. discussion thread is rife with extremely bad "knowledge".
- T.R.O.L.L.S. has failed to produce any meaningful results.
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. - Foster an analytical, experimental mindset in a community plagued by fads and monthly flavors.
- Provide a place where ideas are dissected and their merits and flaws explained rather than tersely shut down.
- Create an environment where players feel comfortable putting their ideas to the test.
- Report any meaningful findings to the sub-forum, should any be found.
- Have fun.
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.
|
Getting beginner tips from TROLLS thread is the LoL equivalent of getting beginner protoss building placement methods from Artosis.
However, if you want to try something out, have fun and avoid getting reported while doing that, I don't see a better place than TROLLS.
|
It definitely lacks an answer to Caller's posts though. C'mon, give us some meat!
|
so basically, refute none of my points because they're correct. i'm okay with this.
|
This is what happens when you have a debate(?) where neither side has any actual points.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On February 16 2013 07:51 Caller wrote:
so basically, refute none of my points because they're correct. i'm okay with this.
What can I say, I am an european dictator.
|
On February 16 2013 08:56 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2013 07:51 Caller wrote:
so basically, refute none of my points because they're correct. i'm okay with this. What can I say, I am an european dictator.
this bohemian monarchy, is it real life or is it fantasy
|
I never paid any attention to the T.R.O.L.L thread since I thought it was just a bunch of dudes having fun trying out shit instead of just playing what everyone else plays. For such an idea to spark a whole thread complaining about that seems a bit ludicrous. People seem to think everything has to be viable at pro level to be played when that's the wrong mindset. The majority of people won't even make it to that level and if they develop strats that are fun for them and work at their level I see nothing wrong with that. The only wrong thing would be claiming it works at all levels based on findings from their own experiences.
I'm still fascinated how LoL has developed this "tryhard"" aspect to a whole new level. I mean people get chirped in my Dota games if they pick a full proper lineup(something like Mag/ds/luna/sd/rubick lineup) yet here I see people advocating ONLY playing like that. What's the point..
Anyway I drifted from my original point. What is the point of this thread. Did anyone ever claim that the T.R.O.L.L stuff was to be taken as law? Are they not merely fun experiments done within the scope of the players themselves and nothing more.
|
On February 16 2013 09:22 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2013 08:56 Scip wrote:On February 16 2013 07:51 Caller wrote:
so basically, refute none of my points because they're correct. i'm okay with this. What can I say, I am an european dictator. this bohemian monarchy, is it real life or is it fantasy
LOL
pretty sick reference
sometimes its hard to tell whether callers just a random troll or a secret genius
he seems to be some kind of troll genius
|
What's so bad about experimenting to find new strategies?
One of my biggest complaint about LoL is how boring and static the metagame is. It will always be Tanky toplaner//Burst midlaner//Support + Carry//Jungler. Anyone trying anything new is automatically labelled a troll and should therefore be banned.
Personal improvement in a game is always good, but sometimes we are forgetting that the main reason we play games is to have fun. If running a tri-lane in our group of 5's is what makes the game fun for us, then there is nothing wrong with that.
|
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.
I feel that this is just a little ignorant. What constitutes "non-low level players"?
Here's (imo) a good example. Tiensinoakuma was (iirc) 2400+ Elo Katarina player in S2. Back when Katarina was getting a remake, obviously he took a lot of interests in it and claimed to have played her extensively after the remake. Afterwards, he wrote a very lengthy post on Facebook, claiming that the remade Katarina was too weak. Riot took notice of this, and buffed Katarina by incorporating some of the suggestions by Tiensinoakuma.
He wasn't the only high Elo player who thought this way. Scarra also claimed frequently on stream at the time that the Katarina remake made her worse than before.
But we all know how good Katarina really was. She became perm-ban material really quickly - before any pros played her successfully in a tournament.
So what went wrong here? How can two VERY HIGH ELO players who used to main the old Katarina give such utterly wrong opinions about the Katarina remake, which arguably has a similar kit? It's just ignorance. These players probably tried the remade Katarina a few times with their old mindset, didn't work out, then immediately dismissed her as weak. They did not think outside of the box. From what I have seen, this is not what TROLL is doing.
|
I don't understand Caller's criticisms of TROLLS his accusation of it being circle-jerk, or whatever the crap any of it had to do with US vs EU vs BR vs RU.
On February 16 2013 06:50 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You remind me of my animal behavior professor my last semester of college. He was trying something new for lab periods and asked us to design our own experiments as a group. One particular experiment we had involved 4 groups of mice to test for two different things. When I asked if we should perhaps limit ourselves to 2 groups and one thing in order to have a chance at getting more meaningful results the professor shut me down saying "you're not going to get meaningful results". Later in the semester he complained that we weren't "thinking our experiments through enough". Surprise surprise, he basically said it was cute to watch us play scientist and, seemingly, his students took things less seriously. You're not as self-defeating as my professor, though similarly you're saying that TROLLS shouldn't be involved in "data collection". But both you and him forgot that discovery and the basic scientific method (trying things repeatedly and observing the result) are essential parts of learning from the day we are born to the day we die whether we do it perfectly or not and that effort should not be looked down on whatever level it occurs at, if it's sincere.
The fact is that in the real world nearly everyone on the planet has one on one tutors (ideally parents) and opportunities for group learning (friends). Both methods are actually used in classrooms in college and high school to great effect even in seemingly rote subjects like math. Were all the stupid scientific experiments I did in high school a waste because they'd already been done one way or another, never got me published, weren't lead one-on-one by a respected researcher, and forced me to work in a group of at least one other peer who might not know anything more than what I did?
Maybe it's just because I love the sciences and am doing my best to enter a scientific field. But no, I wouldn't say they were a waste at all. Similarly I wouldn't write of TROLLs as a waste anymore than I'd write off LiquidPractice... they're just two sides of the same group learning coin.
Sorry if I got a little ranty or incoherent... I rewrote this several times and didn't give up because, well, I've never been much of an essayist and while we're talking about practice I might as well practice communication.
|
I would like to add my thought of one major value of TROLLS. Many of the current lower level player base were not around for the days when some of our "experiments" were meta (or at least actively used). We have not seen how these strategies worked and why they were set aside. TROLLS gives us a safe chance to "relive the past" and relearn those things rather than just being dismissed with a half explanation of that was tried before. I can't count the number of times I came up against something that I knew should fail miserably but didn't know how to counter. One famous encounter that could have ended badly was a team that went 5ap all mid. My counter was unintentional but worked perfectly: I was adc so just stay in lane and farm/push. I downed our turret first and by the time they turned towards me my Kog was almost double their level, farmed out and was 1v2ing their team like a pro. By the end of the game the enemy vi ulted on me and I just stood there and returned fire until she fell. Games like that teach us WHY we play standard and how standard counters nonstandard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On February 19 2013 08:56 Bill Murray wrote:
null hypothesis
p-value > 0.05. FAILED TO REJECT. Bill is right. ggwp
|
On February 16 2013 11:17 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +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. I feel that this is just a little ignorant. What constitutes "non-low level players"? Here's (imo) a good example. Tiensinoakuma was (iirc) 2400+ Elo Katarina player in S2. Back when Katarina was getting a remake, obviously he took a lot of interests in it and claimed to have played her extensively after the remake. Afterwards, he wrote a very lengthy post on Facebook, claiming that the remade Katarina was too weak. Riot took notice of this, and buffed Katarina by incorporating some of the suggestions by Tiensinoakuma. He wasn't the only high Elo player who thought this way. Scarra also claimed frequently on stream at the time that the Katarina remake made her worse than before. But we all know how good Katarina really was. She became perm-ban material really quickly - before any pros played her successfully in a tournament. So what went wrong here? How can two VERY HIGH ELO players who used to main the old Katarina give such utterly wrong opinions about the Katarina remake, which arguably has a similar kit? It's just ignorance. These players probably tried the remade Katarina a few times with their old mindset, didn't work out, then immediately dismissed her as weak. They did not think outside of the box. From what I have seen, this is not what TROLL is doing.
he said the remade kat was weak before riot buffed her.. what's the problem?
|
Actually the only "buff" was on Shunpo's base damage an CD, all the other "buffs" were putting her spells ahead of where they are now in terms of base damage (Bouncing Blade went from 50-190 to 60-160) and reducing the AP ratios (except for Death Lotus'... to combat the prominence of base damage again).
|
to be fair. Kat with s2 itemization was weak. s3 itemization, very strong.
|
This is boring. Scip and Seuss should have their students compete with each other. Both of them should select a group of five low elo players and tutor them for a month or so. After a month they will compete with each other and victory will determine who is right. I want to see BLOOD!
PS: Scip has to use Hec for historical accurateness.
|
On February 16 2013 10:03 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2013 09:22 Caller wrote:On February 16 2013 08:56 Scip wrote:On February 16 2013 07:51 Caller wrote:
so basically, refute none of my points because they're correct. i'm okay with this. What can I say, I am an european dictator. this bohemian monarchy, is it real life or is it fantasy LOL pretty sick reference sometimes its hard to tell whether callers just a random troll or a secret genius he seems to be some kind of troll genius
He is secret child of HotBid, sold for organs to Romanian gangsters. They found some unknown organ while oparating him (sarcasm gland) got scared and dumped him in polish-ukrainian border where he prayed on inoccents until the age of 12 when he discovered internet.
True story.
|
this thread proves that league of legends is not a game, but a lifestyle
caller is wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sfnYa0LrHz4/ThPWC3gCIsI/AAAAAAAAAHY/gq-y0ODJfzk/s1600/jingoism.jpg)
