inarii (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kHzzvrv3,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2020-02-23T02:29:13.834+0000) > > And why do you think you are P1? > You were g3 in season 8. Unless we are talking about another account? > There is no "new MMR system" it's the same since season 3. It's not, riot admitedly toned down the MMR scaling in a controversial way to fight smurfs back in season 8/9 if i'm not mistaken
Then admitted further that they guy who said MMR is toned down was misinformed.
: Riot Does NOT Care about YOU
>Do NOT balance according to 99% of the players Balance shouldn't be done around 99% of the players anyway. The lowest place balance should be done is around D2 while the highest be Challenger. Why? Because in the lower ends, there's so much skill disparity between players themselves that's it's already a huge swing, let alone when compared to the higher ranks. We've already seem it with champions such as Akali, Azir, A-Sol, Aatrox and many MANY more, including Sejuani, UnBenched Kench, and others. Players in lower ranks do not have the the necessary skill, game knowledge and game understanding to use those champions to their full potential, they end up feeding and lose with them, so what next? At max potential, those champions can be oppressive as hell, so they need to be balanced around the players who can play those champions, but those players are not in the lower ranks, they are in the top 2-3% of the player base. >DO favour champs they play themselves and will never ever consider your feelings or fun, to extent abuse their powers Your feelings and fun don't matter. Fun is relative, just because you and your boyfriends don't have fun doesn't mean others don't. Many of the lower rank players don't have fun against Akali because they have no idea how to play against her, even now when her kneecaps are in pieces, I for one love that match-up, because I know how to play against her, so I know that if I lose it, I respect the other player because I know he's good, I can beat the vast majority of Akali players I face, so I love the match-up because it's a win-win for me, if it's a random that has no knowledge of her, I stomp her and it's a free win, if it's someone who is capable of beating me, I learn something new that can be done with her and I can either incorporate it in my own Akali play or use it against a better Akali player to beat them in the future. Fun is always relative, no champion that beats you almost constantly will be fun to play against, and the same goes for the opposite, champions you beat constantly are fun to play against, or champs with which you win a lot are fun to play. Fun is relative, so it should never EVER be a balance checkpoint. >Do NOT make sure any patch ever runs properly before releasing it, they do not hold anyone but YOU accountable for ANY and ALL disconnects and crashes, as well as overall poor performance on any machine, no matter how new it is This can go both ways, just because something broke doesn't necessarily means it's Riot's fault. I had for a while problems with the game freezing in the loading screen, while getting help from a Rioteer, we found out it was that older version of Blitz that caused the problem, the moment I uninstalled Blitz, game worked perfectly. Yes, Riot can do some f ups, but others are because of things on your PC. >DO make sure to put effort into, no matter how large or small, into champs that will make them money, period, preferrably making them outperform in most if not all ranks across the globe. Akali is one of the most patched champions in the game, so are Azir, Ryze and others, they were pretty much never viable in lower elos unless you main them, but for the majority of people, they aren't viable. Most popular champions are mainly viable in the higher elos, as in the lower elos, they are "viable" because players don't know how to play against them. Other champions become popular because they are overtuned, such as MF or Ekko. So you need to differentiate the "popular", is the champion popular because they are fun to play, people like them, etc, such as Yasuo, Akali, Kai'sa or are the popular because they are overtune, and the moment when they get a hit that actually cripples them, the only people playing them are mains? >Do NOT read theese boards ever, and they NEVER have anything to say about the state of their game. Congrats, you have, like myself, managed to fool yourself into coming here thinking anything you say EVER will be considered valuable or notable, EVEN IF you have the most educated and well informed of opinions. Whenever a Rioteer comes in the gameplay section, 90% of the people just jump to flay them without even trying to listen or make reason of what they say. Riot said that in more than one occasion. Old tweet from Jinxlord stating the boards are too filled with toxic people that don't know the game even works yet they act like balance gods (and I'm censoring what he said), that tweet split the community in half, people that agreed with him and people who blamed him for offending them, but sadly that's the truth, most of the people here are just toxic no matter what. What about that stream where someone asked about Karma and the Rioteer said he would prefer not to answer as that no matter what he will say, someone will cause a toxic reaction. What's the next thing that happened on the boards? A huge toxic reaction from the boards stating how Riot hates Karma hence why they won't talk about her. As long as the community is such a toxic dump that they make Twitch look like the Cure Rat, there is no reason for Riot to comment here.
: learn matchups and when you're able to trade. usually she can fight at levels 1,2,3,6, and 11 very well make sure you use W after you're low on energy so that you don't waste part of it go into practice tool and practice doing her Q auto combos over and over E is a very underrated damage spell, it stacks conqueror twice and can also proc her passive twice learn positioning and zoning its especially important toplane because you fight with enemies who can easily stick onto you and kill you itemization is very important after gunblade is very important. learning which magic pen items to build really really makes her deal more damage wave management can allow you to gain level advantages and secure a kill. if you have level 6 and the enemy is level 5 it's very easy to kill them.
Remove level 1 from that. The 120 energy cost makes her really weak at level 1.
Matha (EUW)
: Hmm... Are you telling that Flash is useless and you don't need it?
Not entirely. Flash is needed, I was just commenting on the aspect where you said that "montages use Flash a lot", it is because it makes the scenes much more better to watch, because if your skill outmaches the opponents by a lot, you don't really need Flash for stuff, but if your skill isn't that high enough, then you kinda need Flash.
Subdue (NA)
: LP gain / loss is affected by your MMR relative to the average MMR of the game. In most games, you should be right about at the average, so you gain/lose about the same. However, if you duo queue with someone who is lower than you, such as someone who might be named Imploded... that will mean your MMR will be higher than the average MMR of the game, which will be somewhere between you. As a result, you'll gain a little less for wins and lose a little more for losses. Also, everything IP Masquerena mentioned is completely untrue. While Riot may track other stats, the only thing that affects your MMR is wins and losses, and the only thing that affects LP gains/losses is your MMR relative to the game and your MMR relative to your current rank. Nothing else affect MMR or LP.
Then please do explain how people with "HIGHER MMR THAN WHERE THEY ARE" win more LP allowing them to climb faster or even skip ranks? Because what you're saying seems to be the complete opposite of what's currently known. - If your MMR is higher than your rank's avg MMR, you win more LP and lose less to speed up the climb - If your MMR is lower than your rank's avg MMR, you win less LP and lose more to speed up the drop.
: So Essentially its based off of how wel l i do in retrospect to my other games performances? Any clue why I can't get just a straight lp a win instead of depleting LP a game even after going on a 3 game winstreak.
Because your rank isn't your MMR. LP gains losses are based on MMR and if your performance is lower than average, your rank went higher by a bunch but your MMR didn't follow, so your LP win went down as well. MMR doesn't change over just 3-4 games, you need to get your game on and perform much better than you do now. Trying to focus only on the stats I talked about would hurt you more as it may be too much at once for you. I recommend going and learning from the vids made by Skill Capped and Game Leap - LoL
: NO NO NO NO NO NO. LP gain/loss is 100% mmr based and 0% performance based.
LP is indeed toed only to MMR, but MMR gains and losses aren't set in stone, hence why changes to MMR directly translate to changes in LP. MMR gains and losses aren't tied to win/loss only, but performance as well, otherwise things like rank skips or the higher/lower LP gains wouldn't exist. So everything I talked about is valid as it affects his MMR, thus affecting his LP. Unless of course you have a theory on how one can gain higher MMR and climb much faster than others if MMR doesn't consider performance. Should've I mention that there? Probably, oh well.
Matha (EUW)
: Again, why flash still exists?
Something was said by a few you tubers and streamers regarding montage vids, that Flash isn't needed in like 90% of the used cases, but those players use to make the play much more fun to watch. Basically, they waste Flash to put on a show for the crowd. One such example was Professor Akali when he reviewd a montage vid of the best Chinese Akali player, that guy was using Flash a lot, and PA even stated in some situations it wasn't needed at all and said how to make the play without it, but admitted it would be much more boring to watch as well. So yea...
Kai Guy (NA)
: Oh I know about ted talks. Theres a really cool one about [attention ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZGY0wPAnus)done by a pick pocket comedian I found entertaining. I just don't understand exactly what the "ted talk" Format would be as it seems to vary by presenter. > 13 wins to 7 losses means you win 50% more than you lose. 7 wins to 13 losses means you lose 50% more than you win. He built his range from observation. The mistake I believe he made is he treated it like a single Trial. If that's how you break it down. It seems very weird and unnatural 3/21 being only 33%l. However, the data set is 20 Trials of 2 results rather then 1 trial of 20/21 results. (I used 3/21 to account for 0 wins. as a possibility personally) Rather then start with large values lets use some small common dice. Lets look at A combination of 2 Dice 6 and 1 Dice 12. Some folks think rolling 2 D6 is the same as 1d12. That's a mistake, They are treating the 2d6 Sum as a single trial because both dice get tossed at the same time. There are some shared traits. You can never roll a 0. you can never roll 13 or higher. That's impossible results for both sets **but **the D6 also can never roll a 1. If both fall on their minimum value you see 1+1=2. So you have 0% vs 8.33% odds. Looking at the differences in # of combinations between 6^2 vs 12^1. Which would be 36 vs 12. With the very easy 2D6 You can see there are far more ways to make 7 then 2. But only do possibilities and If you only look at the Bottom row, then the 7 looks very unlikely. Let me throw something togeather in MS paint with google images. https://imgur.com/a/Wxkv4tO With Paroe what I did was compared values from 2^20 vs his 20^1 or 21^1 depending on if he accounted for 0 as a whole number. (If that was his mistake. No clue as I got no response and don't know why he feels the range is unnatural even at 50% odd assumptions.) If you want to do 40 games then its 2^40 which is 1,099,511,627,776. So a Trillion + combinations. (Funny thing, people don't get the scale of that very well. Heres a lil google ctrl C and V for some context i like to use. "The magnitude of difference between billion and million can be illustrated with this example of the time scale: A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years" You then can use a Binominal calculator to find the probability for a Win to Loss value of your choice. Build a range you want to check and combine the probabilities for that range then figure out what % of combinations are covered. So specifically for 40 games with the half again Paroe talked about? 10W-30L up to 30L-10W range? 99.94% for it to fall into that range with 50% scoring odds. Its something like 0.06% of the possible combinations falling above or below that range.
Thank you for that information, will use it as a quote, which will give credit where credit is due. Next questions: - What do you think of the "rule of 3" I [commented](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/Vpuxh9zj-so-i-require-proof?comment=0002000000010000) to Paroe in another comment? For me, that's one thing I discovered a lot of years ago when I was playing Dota 2 a lot, and it was kind of an eye opener, being one of the things that once I understood, it made it much easier for me to climb. - Do you think the mentality of "this team doesn't deserve to win" shown by some players, sometimes even the players who cry that the game is rigged, can contribute to that theory that matchmaking is rigged? I for one do think it is part of it, and players throw games they could've won just because they think the game is rigged, and since they now lost, it is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. My mentality for one is that "even if this team doesn't deserve to win, I need the win, they will lose later anyway, but I can't afford to give up a potentially free win".
: Legacy servers
Fun for who? Fun is relative, and the most fun champions to play against are the ones that consistently feed you, but if the opponent is feeding a lot because his champion is just too weak, then it won't be fun for him, yet if he changes and plays a champion that will consistently beat you, it will be fun for him but not for you. And that's just a quick example.
: This happens in my actual gold games as well. It has been happening ever since the season start and I played my promos. I have read that it seems to want me to go down to a lower rank although my performance has not been that bad and have normally stemmed of my teammates shortcomings as a player. I dont think this is due to me playing with the silver player because I didn't play with him for a decent amount of the season so far. Any other ideas? It is just frustrating if my gameplay has gone down over 6 ranks over a season.
Here's a thing. The system keeps track of more things than just KDA, gold and cs. There's fighting, vision, income, aggression, consistency and a bunch of others (I suggest checking tracking sites such as Mobalytics or Blitz as they use them in much more detail than what OP.GG does). Since so many things are taken in consideration, they are compared to average players in your current rank, sure, if your KDA and CS are up to what they get, but then your consistency, vision, aggression, fighting, objectives, etc are all much lower, the system will still see you as being above the rank you should be, and when that happens, you get lower LP ganks and higher losses, it's not to force a 50% wr, since you can still climb, it's just that your needed stats are lower, and if what you say is correct, that you get around 14, they may be much lower than needed. I consider my performance average if not lower than average and if you consider only cs and kda, I would most definitely be considered boosted by some players, and was even called that, I'm in Gold, yet I gain 21-22 per win with 17-18 per loss, so despite me seeing myself as doing poorly, the system has a different opinion. I don't focus on getting the 200-0-12 KDA and be the "one man carry", sure, sometimes I get free kills and use them, other times I don't, my focus is on winning so I'll always take actions that benefit that, and a good bunch of the stats tracked all can combine into that to show it: map presence, neutral objective, building damage, kill participation, vision, durability, teamfight positioning. Point being, there are so many more stats tracked than just KDA, CS, Gold and such, for gold alone it's being tracked in 6 different points: early compared to rank, early compared to corresponding enemy, mid game compared to rank, mid game compared to corresponding enemy, late game compared to rank, late game compared to corresponding enemy. Another thing to keep in mind is consistency, it doesn't mean going just 20-0 every game, it's an average for a period, so if you go 0-20 every game for a period, the system will still give you a high consistency score because although you're feeding, you're consistently feeding every game, and that is used to determine if a player is too low or too high, if he's consistently stomping (again, even in consistency there's more stats tracked, not just kda, but makes it easier to explain) then the system will give more LP to decrease the climb speed, if he's consistently feeding, the opposite happens. Same may be for you, although your KDA and the obvious stats may be "good" or "ok", if everything that's not easy to see (especially because very few trackers use them) are low, and low consistently, then the system will give you less per win and more per loss because you are consistently underperforming. Hope this helps.
: That's interesting. I think I'll go back over my win streaks to see if there is any pattern. It does seem like it's the case that the more I win the higher chance I have of getting I low win rate teammate. And all he said is that it hasn't changed since last, that doesn't mean the didn't change it for the worse then. I still think the match making is worse. Example seasons 6,7, and 8? I was matched with whatever elo I was climbing in within a rank or two. Once I made it to Silver 3? I rarely had Silver 4s. Almost every game it was even in terms of rank (and thus MMR). Since S9 to date? I'm currently B3, and I consistently get I1 - I4s I'm my games. I think that shouldn't be the case. Maybe that occasional I1 on a large win streak, but no I2-I4.
Rank does not mean MMR. And you do have to keep in mind that last season a lot of players had inflated MMR, and in case you didn't notice the threads at around the start of the season, Gold/Plat players were crying they had to start the season in Iron or Bronze. I ended Gold and started Bronze, just a FYI, but back to Gold now. So those players you are meeting have close to the same MMR as you, which yes, can cause problems if their skill isn't up to snuff for their MMR (maybe their MMR was boosted last season due to Riot's oopsie moment). For me, currently, between S1 close to 100 LP and G4 after promos to date, the lowest rank I've seen was S2 and highest was G2, max 2 lower or max 2 higher from where I am. There's a lot more to the system than meets the eye and trust me, the last season issue will need a bit more time get fixed despite Riot pushing the reset button harder this season that previous ones.
Kai Guy (NA)
: > more details on the math and such you used (tho, if I may inquire, could you word that as if you were talking to an audience yourself in like a TEDTalk fashion? maybe start a new comment chain, just for the more space? No idea what a Tedtalk fashion is. The math I used was Binominal Distribution. You might see it called a Bernoulli process. Its a method of calculating probability for 2 outcomes, usually a Yes or no / Success or Failure. It needs a fixed amount for trials and for a result to not impact future results. The formula. b(x; n, P) = nCx * Px * (1 – P)n – x Its filled in as b = binomial probability x = total number of “successes” (pass or fail, heads or tails etc.) P = probability of a success on an individual trial n = number of trials Its a little ugly to see it expressed that way so here is the more common way to see it. https://imgur.com/a/YOKybzI Calculators are very easy to find with a google search if you hate dealing with factorials. What about it do you want to know?
TEDTalks are where a person is talking to an audience about something important and such, you should check it out, they are really good. Here's one for you, enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrcRcEBrmA As for the....numbers....what I wanted would be if you could do the math for the amount of trials suggested by Paroe and also for say, a 40 and 50 games cap, and explain it a bit more so those of us who aren't fond of the science could understand it easier .
: Your Current Ban and Why
{{champion:35}} because {{champion:35}} and I don't need more of that in my life.
: Why to every question the answer is damage?
Because low elo players can't carry without damage, and since almost everything is balanced for them, heck, even when they nerf for LCS, most of the time they leave what makes the champion good intact and nerf something else because otherwise low elos can't play that champion anymore. What's the mantra in most recent years? "The skill disparity between players who mastered the champion and players who didn't is too high, so we're making it easier to play". Why did they add Zed, Darius, Garen to the jungle? To make low elos want to play jungle more, that's exactly why, they even stated it. Instead of buffing champions who really need it and are junglers by default, they add laners there to make it more appealing for lower elos. Everything is done to please the bad players, hence why damage is rarely nerfed and damage itself is buffed to solve problems. 90% of low elos can't carry with beef and CC unless that champ is overpowered by nature, they also can't carry with skill or macro, only with damage. There's your answer.
: If you say a "nearly impossible to balance perfectly due to mechanics in their kit", i would say this is wrong design and then the champion must be removed or reworked. Also, if they are popular but cannot be played anyway because of permabans, the fact they are popular doesn't matter in theory.
Perfect balance doesn't exist anyway. What even is perfect balance? "Balanced for every level of skill at the same time", that's bull{{champion:35}} . No champion will EVER see perfect balance, especially ones that are harder to play than average. Point is, you can't balance the game for everyone at the same time, the skill disparity between Plastic 12 when some players are and Challenger is just slightly lower than the ego of some players, so if something is balanced in Challenger, 500$ says 99% of the lower elos can't play that thing, but if something is balanced in lower elos, same 500$ say that said champion is either doing jack {{champion:35}} above Gold or is borderline toxic and overpowered in high elos. So how will you reach a perfect balance when that itself is impossible? As for fun, that's relative, so being fun to play as is the higher priority, as the only thing that's "fun to play against" is something you beat consistently and almost constantly.
Kai Guy (NA)
: As Paroe is posting elsewhere and moved on from this thread by the looks of things I don't think I will get a response.{{sticker:cass-cry}} A lot of folks mix probability and possibility up. Example is they see 10-10 in a string of 20 as the same probability as 5-15. It is a pretty common mistake. So its understandable if the viewpoint is off. We are talking about The difference between 922,747/1,048,576 = 88% (rounded values.) or 7/21 = 33% Oh well. Feel free to track me down if you ever need some one to help explain numbers or Rating system theory. https://imgur.com/a/Qv90BsJ Elo is well documented.
That's Paroe for you, always runs away when he doesn't have something to stand on (and a reason why fuse is shorter with him). Anyaaway, I was thinking of making a thread about MM and if it is or isn't rigged, with points from both sides. Feel like helping? What I'd like from you here (will quote in and place in the other thread in it's appropriate location) would be two things: an input regarding the rule of 3 I talked about in an above comment and some more details on the math and such you used (tho, if I may inquire, could you word that as if you were talking to an audience yourself in like a TEDTalk fashion?) And other things you would want to add, feel free, as we can have a dialogue here (tho maybe start a new comment chain, just for the more space?) and when it's done, I'll add all together, put it in a mixer, get some chocolate and post it as a thread...without the chocolate, that's for me ^_^
Hordes66 (NA)
: PSA: Someone at Riot thought removing voting was a good idea, and they were totally unable or unwilling to come up with a different solution.
That system was misused and dumb anyway. If I disagree with you I tell you why, like I do now. Just tossing donwnvotes without a reason (since we don't know why you did it is no reason) or really dumb ones. For me specifically was confirmed by some that they down vote Mr because they don't like my honosty towards them, others because they hate my name. Are those good reasons? No.
Paroe (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=IP Masquerena,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Vpuxh9zj,comment-id=0002000000020000,timestamp=2020-02-16T23:25:11.711+0000) > > I know I'm tend to get a little....iffy....with some folks, patience was never my strong point, but as I said in the past, I got looks, modesty and smarts, so there has to be a trade off, I can't be perfect now can I? ^_^" > > Paroe is just someone with whom I had this discussion in the past I believe once or twice, and the first time he actually referred to the system as forced 50% implying it's a hard forced 50%, then both later in that same discussion and another time he changed from that to a "50% that allows a 1% deviations", and now as you've saw for yourself, it's around a 5% deviation, or how he calls it, 13:7. I'm not iffy because he tries to bring arguments, but because he isn't consistent in those arguments. Now im positive youre confusing me with an amalgamate of people. Ive never used the soft 50% as a hard 50%. I have always been consistent in that its _soft_, because as you win you get worse and worse team mates until you cant win and then go on a cold streak. While i admit im dumb quite often and post things i probably shouldnt (and blame doing so at 4AM or later) - i remain consistent with two things: 1) My claim that its a soft 50% to explain why you go hot then go cold, and why as you win you get worse team mates 2) My Explanation for it being one of weight on the team score. They are not mutually inclusive and one can be wrong but a powerful name while the other is completely right. Neither of us have _actual, tangible data_ to change the others mind because you believe the onus of proof is on people against you, nor do you offer your own discussion points beyond "but smurfs!" and "but win rates!" > The first time we argued he even called me a "2018 caveman" for believing that high elo players can win in low elos, and he's fully refusing to answer the argument about smurfs, why are they capable of getting those huge win streaks if there is any kind of forced 50%, be it soft or hard? I know Profesor Akali had multiple streaks on multiple accounts, the lowest I know of is 22 games while the highest being at over 45 games, then there's Ap0calypse (link in one of my above comments) with an 102 win streak, which to date seems to be the highest recorded one, Exil even had a video where he talked how he got his 70+ win streak (I don't recall exactly how many past 70 he had, iirc was between 74 to 76 but not more). No system that has any kind of limitations put in place for players would allow such win rates, yet he doesn't argument his stance regarding those. I dont tend to insult people like that, and you _really_ shouldnt be talking for people. Ive _always said_ its a soft 50% because of how matchmaking works, and that the data to prove _matchmaking is biased against you regardless of rank_ is extremely difficult and tedious to obtain because it requires looking at the TEAMS individual players, their current hot/cold streak status, and doing so over a large enough sample size. I consistently correct people who use subscribe to the "hard 50%" and explain why its a soft one - youre the one who has devoted at least _two threads_ to "debunking the hard 50%", and each time you demand "PROOF" while offering none of your own and declining the validity of common-knowledge evidence because it doesnt fit your narrative. You dont seem to realize that matchmaking was changed several seasons ago and is _much worse_ for game quality than its previous iteration, and you do not accept that those changes ever happened. You know what youre like? Youre like a scientist who denies climate change because the evidence is nebulous and the concept is variable. You shoot down other theories which explain phenomenon most people dont like without advancing one of your own. **_How do YOU explain the parabolic nature of matchmaking?_** The pattern i described shows _a pattern_ that is regular. If what you say is true and theres no bias in matchmaking, how _can_ there be a pattern in the first place?
I brought proof in another comment in this thread specifically, so lemme relink you, just in case: https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/arw9jb/high_challenger_player_ap0colypse_just_won_100/ 102 wins in a row. And if you want, I can fetch more links and vids on people showcasing insane winstreaks. You say it's not tangible data, but you say nothing to discredit any of the claims I've made about the insame winstreaks some of those smurfs have. Both me and Kai explained why that pattern is so common, and it's not because the game is rigged, but hey, entertain me, as I had a bad at work, so I could use a little fun. Answer me this question: Since a forced 50%, regardless of soft or hard, will make it so you always lose when you deviate too much from 50%, why are there such insane winstreaks? To remind you of some: Tarzaned with 80+ wins in a row, Exil at 70+ wins in a row, Profesor Akali with 40+ in a row, Ap0calypse with 102 wins in a row. Everyone plays under the same match-making, so regardless of the fact that got those winrates on a smurf, if the match-making was rigged in any way shape or form, those winstreaks, especialy the ones that go 60+, would be impossible. So yea, just answer how could they be possible under a system that forces you to lose?
Kai Guy (NA)
: If its about ratings and the math side of things, why don't you throw posters my way or just grab my attention. I do not mind taking the time to break things down. You can get a little irritable with folks at times and that's kind of counter productive to making the Boards better educated. Which, I think is something you and I both would like to see. Paroe is not wrong to look at and for curves, I don't think they have the best understanding of why or what to check. Not really surprising cuz its not exactly a mainstream interest/hobby. Anyhow, I broke down the numbers of probability for what Paroe is considering "soft" . Its roughly 88% of all the possible combinations you can see inside of a 20 game string. My hope is that by showing how common it is they will understand why using that value is building an unrealistic expectation. Their feelings are its unnatural because things frequently fall into that value, they did not seem to check for binominal distribution prior to making that viewpoint. Getting to do some math was a nice break from having to drive home that Riots Ranked ladder uses Skill and progression systems linked together… been doing far to much of that lately.
I know I'm tend to get a little....iffy....with some folks, patience was never my strong point, but as I said in the past, I got looks, modesty and smarts, so there has to be a trade off, I can't be perfect now can I? ^_^" Paroe is just someone with whom I had this discussion in the past I believe once or twice, and the first time he actually referred to the system as forced 50% implying it's a hard forced 50%, then both later in that same discussion and another time he changed from that to a "50% that allows a 1% deviations", and now as you've saw for yourself, it's around a 5% deviation, or how he calls it, 13:7. I'm not iffy because he tries to bring arguments, but because he isn't consistent in those arguments. The first time we argued he even called me a "2018 caveman" for believing that high elo players can win in low elos, and he's fully refusing to answer the argument about smurfs, why are they capable of getting those huge win streaks if there is any kind of forced 50%, be it soft or hard? I know Profesor Akali had multiple streaks on multiple accounts, the lowest I know of is 22 games while the highest being at over 45 games, then there's Ap0calypse (link in one of my above comments) with an 102 win streak, which to date seems to be the highest recorded one, Exil even had a video where he talked how he got his 70+ win streak (I don't recall exactly how many past 70 he had, iirc was between 74 to 76 but not more). No system that has any kind of limitations put in place for players would allow such win rates, yet he doesn't argument his stance regarding those. So yea....sorry Kai
Paroe (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=IP Masquerena,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Vpuxh9zj,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2020-02-16T17:53:02.316+0000) > > I hope you don't mind if I don't bother with you. I've learned that you're delusional so there's no point in talking to you. > Let me break your whole argument in one sentence: "if a win rate of between 47% to 53% is force every 20 games, it would be statistically impossible for the game to have players with winrates higher than that set amount". You keep _focusing_ on the word "forced". Its not _forced_, its soft; the game attempts to keep you at a 50% win rate by weighting you more or less as you win or lose; the pattern i posted shows you either win two lose one, or win one lose two give or take a win or loss. 13 to 7 is a ratio, and it means you win 50% more than you lose. the reverse, 7 to 13, is also present which shows the parabolic nature of matchmaking... And lends weight to the idea that theres a soft 50%. Im going to admit i was dumb - i blame a lack of sleep - but at the same time, now that youve hit your macro rank im interested to see where you end up over the course of the season. Will you maintain that 40:20 split of wins to losses? Will you even out and go 100:100 like the higher ELO options i looked at are near? > It is statistically impossible for a general win rate to be higher than your set amount of 53% (which is 13 wins and 7 losses) if that "leeway" would be soft forced, because even if winning as many games as possibly allowed by that "forced" system, regardless if it's soft or hard forced, it won't allow it to bypass that limit. If any 20 games have at max of 53%, then the general win rate would not be allowed to be higher, but it would be in fact lower because in your own terms, you won't always have that max number of wins. As i was being dumb, yeah sure. It doesnt change the fact that a pattern emerged however that shows a positive 50% (13 to 7) or a negative 50% (7 to 13). Its evidence not of a fair and unbiased matchmaking, but of a biased one. Keeping track of this over the course of a season would be interesting. > The fact alone that there are smurfs and are able to win so much and so high is also another undeniable proof that it is impossible to have such a system. Not... really. Its soft, not hard; If youre really good enough to carry, youl still win even with a 0/14 darius. The biased system - the soft 50% win rate - means that as you win, the game gives you progressively worse opponents until you lose a few games. winning two and losing one means that youre climbing, because that one loss sets back the next cold streak by a bit. >There's Ap0calypse who won 102 games in a row before he finally lost a game, then you got players like Professor Akali who also had a streak of 42 in a row before finally getting a low and many more, just google it. Did that happen since dynamic queue was introduced? Is it still happening? What are the accounts to check? >Such win streaks would be impossible if the system was rigged to have any sort of forced 50% system, be it soft or hard, because everyone is playing with the same match making, so if it's rigged for one player, it's rigged for all, but if it's possible for someone to achieve such win rates, it's impossible for the system to be rigged in the first place, otherwise it would've made sure to drag them down because it's rigged and has that capability. Commas are not periods. Also, the soft 50% leads to parabolic wins and losses. Its a feature of biased matchmaking, which lends itself to high win rates It will eventually even out and turn into streaks of cold streaks. (2 wins to 1 loss is still 50%... But in macro terms, its 2/3 and 1/3.) > Oh, and by the way, try to be consistent, ok? Last time we talked you said it's soft that allows it to go between 49% to 51%, now you're enlarging the number to be between 46% up to 54% based on your SRO example, will you soon go with "it's soft forced to keep you at a bellow 60%" or something? 13 wins to 7 losses means you win 50% more than you lose. 7 wins to 13 losses means you lose 50% more than you win. As for SRO currently having a major (total games) win ratio of 40%... I wonder if that means hes hit his skill level? 40% is most certainly an outlier, id be interested in following that over the course of the season. > You are moving the goal post every time to fit your needs. First you said it's a hard 50%, when I proven to you it's not you went to "it's a soft 50% that allows you to go 49% to 51%" and now you're like "it's a soft 50% that allows you to go between 46% to 54%". You do realize that you have no evidence to your claims, either? And havent presented anything beyond "this is this so that cant be that"? Ive also said - for years now - its a soft 50%. Are you confusing me with several other people who use the hard 50% rhetoric as an excuse? I dont think ive ever used the soft 50% as an excuse, more an explanation of the parabolic tendency matchmaking has and its effects on game health. I defend it like i do because im certain it exists - in an unbiased system theres no way that the global phenomenon of _worse team mates the more you win_ is just coincidence. ____________________________________________________________________________ Tell you what, lets you and i collaborate. Every weak for the rest of the season, lets keep track of the two things i was tallying; Total win:loss, and win:loss over the last twenty. for... lets say 10 large league of legends streamers (i only know NA ones - you wanna drop five EU ones?). If, by the end of the season the pattern changes to roughly 10:10 with a total win loss of similar value, ill concede. If, by the end of the season the pattern remains parabolic with a 13:7 or 7:13 and roughly 50% total win loss (i say roughly, realistically i mean "in the ballpark" like 220 to 232), i just want you to stop using "hard" dude. Theres every possibility that what i believe in - weighted match making and its soft 50% - is wrong on several points. No theory is perfect. Its highly possible the soft 50 is just another symptom of the parabolic tendencies inherent in biased match making and not something intentional.
Mind if I reply only here? Much easier to have everything in one place. First of all, you asked if the guy with over 100 games won in a row was after Dinamic que, yes, it was just last year, just chose this one because 102 wins in a row is still something very spectacular. https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/arw9jb/high_challenger_player_ap0colypse_just_won_100/ And there are many more that are recent, so yea, I did provide proof, just didn't force fed it to you, told you what to check and done. Now, back to business: When I say forced I don't mean a system that hard locks you in a 50% win rate and doesn't allow deviations, but a system that will actively try to get you as close as possible to that instead of letting you get there yourself by reaching your skill level naturally. Regardless if you call it "soft" or "hard", if it truly exists, it is a forced system, point and simple. And yes, we already had this discussion once more in another thread a couple months ago, at time you did refer to it as "forced 50%", when I called you out you swapped to a "50% that allows deviations of 1% up or down", hence why I now stated you move the goal posts as you now say the deviations are up to 5%. Probably you don't recall the name as I kinda was forced to change it by Riot. Now, I think what you refer to as a "soft forced 50%" is wrong, but also right, in a way. There's an old understanding in team based PvP games, that if you aren't smurfing to a place far from your normal rank, say a Challenge going into Plat or such, the games can be equally distributed in 3 categories: - Games you win no matter what you do - Games you lose no matter what you do - Games you win or lose based solely on your own skill The games you lose may be for various reasons, such as the Ekko jungle I just had fully refusing to focus Azir or Lucian and instead focusing Leona, while I couldn't take care of both due to how much peel they had and kept specifically for me (Azir and Morde's R) The games you win may be for the same reasons but instead of your team it's on the enemy team. And such, normally, those two cancel each otherout, hence why your 2:3 or 13:7 ratios and everything in between "appear" so much. The closer your win rate is to breaking into one of the already accounted for games, the further away you are from your true rank. That being if your win rate is closing towards either 33% or 66%, while the further away it is from those two, or more easily said, the closer it is to 50%, the closer you are to your true rank. Using myself as an example, I'm breaking into the cap of accounted for losses, as my winrate is 67%, fully showcasing that I'm bellow my actual rank, as I already won the guaranteed games and am winning the games where my skill is the deciding factor as well, while also taking chips from the games that should be lost regardless of what I do. That's not match making trying to force things to happen, it simple statistics. Most people can't break the 66% cap because they don't have the required skill to do so, they can compensate for some of their team's mistakes but not overcompensate which is what is required to be able to break that cap, and hence why it feels that after a win streak a loss streak is mandatory to happen. Most people play 5+ games a day, which puts a strain on them, it's never recommended to play that many games in a row, and because of that mental stress, they are no longer able to offer their full 100%, so say the win 4 in a row, or better said 5, then they lose 3 in a row, after those 5 games they are already exhausted mentally, especially if any of those games were close calls, even Mobalytics' DPI acknowledges this as an issue, as for any player who played more than 4 in a row in one sitting, it gives the a badge called "fatigue". There's more to this than "rigged match making", as if that was the case, then it's not just Riot rigging it, but every single team based game in existence, because that rule of 3 is in every game. That's why the recommended "target" win rate one should aim for is not 100%, as that's close to impossible unless you're heavily outranking everyone else, but instead anything between 55% and 60% is a perfect goal because you're winning as many of the games your skill decides as possible. And trust me, it's extremely hard to differentiate when you could've done something vs when it's your team's fault. In my last game, I can safely blame Ekko for the bad focus because whenever he actually focused Lucian or Azir while I focused the other, we won the team fights, while when he focused Leona (which was almost every fight except for 3) we lost the fights. While in the game prior to that, as much as I'd like to blame Jhin for refusing to help the team, hell, actively refused to attack in fights, or the Sett who basically fed and did next to nothing, I can't. Yes, I could do so and hide that it's my fault, but sadly, I wasn't on par with what I could've done, I've played my laning stage poorly and focused the wrong person in fights, hence why I can't blame them because there is that uncertainty in the outcome for that game, what if I played my lane better and focused better? Could've than been enough to change the outcome? Maybe, maybe not, I can't know for sure so I can't blame them, the only way to know for sure was if I played it better. I can see the differences because I'm really hard on myself. Sure, it's easy to say "I did my best and the team wasn't up to snuff", and sure, it can be true, but that's where the rule of 3 comes in play. Where was that loss? Is it supposed to be part of the 33% of games you can't win? If yes, that's that, move on, if not, then you can't blame the team because you could've done better yourself. I'm not perfect, far from it, I'm not even as good as I could be currently, I'm just as good as I need to be, and so are most people. They just refuse to accept they can be better. It's easier to blame the team rather than yourself. Ekko had a good KDA, 2nd highest damage in the team and such, it would be easy for him to blame us for the loss, which he actually did, but no matter how much he'd like for it to be true, the fact that he focused Leona too much is what lost us the game. When the enemy team saw he has no intention to focus Lucian or Azir, they kept Mordekaiser and Azir R just for me, so we basically had no way to win those fights. While in the game before, I was the Ekko...well, not really, I was Akali, but you get the point, I was the one with the bad focus.
: Lmao Dude. MMR is ELO and you can easily be paired with a silver 1-2 in your G4 games without duo's in you solos. By the way, you may have looked at this account, but I actually have another account in japan at platinum. This account is just for fun. And with all of that being said, you're admitting to the very flaw that is in most games. There are a lot of games out there that boost your MMR because of a curb stomp, but in no way does that help you in the long run. Just because you had one game with great stats doesn't mean you'll always be able to keep it. The correct way to identify ranked games is to pair same tier vs same tier and move up from there. The fact that you upkept your CS to a perfect score, kept great vision, participated in all objective control and used your champion's spike to lead shouldn't ever factor into who you are paired with or by how much more you move up. The correct way to move up the chain and paired with the right players is by winning games- nothing else. Eventually, the bad players weed themselves out from being carriable by duos. More and foremost, read this https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Elo_rating_system . This will show you that what I said was more or less simplified.
I think we have tiny misunderstanding. Let's clear it out really fast before we continue, shall we? You stated that if a Silver 4 has the same win rate as me, he might end up in my games in Gold. I explained that that's not possible due to how his MMR and mine are so different and without a duo he can't enter a Gold game as win rate alone does not place him in my game. I'm just a Dota player, easier for me to refer to it as MMR instead of Elo as it's out of habbit. Yes, I'm aware Silver 1 and 2 can enter Gold games, I've had a few and the lowest was always Silver 2 with the highest I had to face being Gold 2, haven't anything higher or lower so far.
: "Give me proof." *Someone gives proof* "Oh that doesn't count for some reason and also you're delusional" ok buddy
Not quite. What he gave isn't proof. He cherry picked a few players that fit his narrative. Rank 2 in NA, Stay Calm, doesn't follow his trend of thought, in his last 20 games had 15 wins to 5 losses, which despite being "close" it isn't what he described, because how "close" are we allowed to go before he's satisfied? A 55% ration is already out of the bounds he suggests. Then there's the point about smurfs, Ap0calypse won 102 games in a row, which no matter how soft the "forced 50%" system is, would be impossible. Tarzaned had a win ratio of 58 games in a row a few months ago. Those win rates are facts, they exist, they can be researched and viewed. That fact alone discredits everything he said. I don't call him delusional because I like to, I do it because the "proof" (if you can even call it that) he brought is just speculations. Proofs are facts brought to support or discredit arguments. You just have to look at the Leaderboards on OP.GG to see that his arguments are dumb, when there are players in Challenger with over 60% win rates in over 200 games. Those are facts, and those facts alone discredit everything he said. A rigged system is rigged for everyone, smurf or not, so having players with the win rates they own simply proves that the idea Paroe proposes for how the system is rigged is not true, hence why his "proof" is invalid.
: The problem here is that people are often paired with other players who don't correctly range in other's elo. Everyone has a … "numeric value" if you will, and each of these numbers are identified by your W/L Ratio. Your elo is determined and averaged by what you did within each and every game and sadly, this applies to every single rolee and special games where your team steamrolled and also got steamrolled. The value isn't determined by what you did, but what the team did under the time limit. With this ratio being effected by your elo, you are often paired in a very bad way. What I mean by this is that, if you have a high win ratio, then the enemies you're paired up with/against will also have these same ratio- but not the same ELO. Unfortunately, this ratio is actually stacked against you with your team though. Why? Because if some low ELO fellow has the same win ratio as you (who is in silver 4), they will be paired within your game, on your team. While this works with the enemy team too, it is less likely for everyone to have the same W/L ratio. Most of the times, these low ELO players had their "assumed elo" heightened because their win streak and steamrolled about 37.655% of them. As of this point, there are youtube videos to prove that it doesn't matter how good you are if you have a win streak. My elo is often identified with those of platinum, but I'm always placed low ELO due to the teammates I must depend on to end with me. For some reason, low ELO enjoy drawing out games as long as possible, which in turn makes their lead die.
Match making isn't based on WR but on MMR. Me for example who's currently G4 with 67% can't be paired with a S4 who's at 67% because of the MMR discrepancy, unless he is duo with a Gold 4 player who also has a similar win rate to mine, or higher, in which case yes, he will get in my game because of the duo, but otherwise he won't. For that Silver player to be matched in my game, he would have to have an MMR similar to mine, which would mean his WR would have to be close 80% or higher, in which case he deserves to be in that game regardless of the fact that he's a Silver 4 in a Gold game. Also, no offence, but I do not know from where you get your "my elo is often identified with those of platinum", I've checked your game history and you've seen as many plats in games as I've seen Master tier players, which is few, far in between and in normals where they were qued together as 4-5 man premade with other lower elo players. Your opponents are almost exclusively bellow Gold.
IVSakenz (NA)
: The only thing wrong with the match making system(in ranked) that I can tell is it lets to big of a difference in ElO in the same match. In a gold Elo game you can get anywhere from Plat to low silver team mates. In normal draft it is even worse.. how are you going to put a Brnze1 jungler against a plat+ or diamond.. how would it even be possible for that to be a fair game for anyone involved. Matchmaking needs to be fixed
In normal Draft I've had to face Masters multiple times because they were qued up together as a 5 man with a bunch of Silvers and Golds, while my team also had a Silver and the highest being a Plat player. Tho sadly there's kinda no way to solve that. If you put a cap on the ranks the players are allowed to face, then smurfs and boosters will take much longer to climb thus ruining more games for the actual lower ranks.
2gudaiya (NA)
: the thing people are complaining about is that the system places them one standard deviation lower than they finished last season. and now they have anxiety tihnking they won't complete the climb or something. it's generally a lot of noise not worth hearing.
I also think it's the entitlement and lack of understanding. Say someone finishes Gold, he now starts in Silver, he feels entitled to be able to get back to Gold because that's where he was last season, BUT, he also fails to understand that all the other Gold players also started this season in Silver, so for a good part of the season he will play with pretty much the same type of opponents he had when he was in Gold, hence the feeling of hardstuck lower than where you were before.
Paroe (NA)
: Preface: The system will attempt to keep you at a soft 50% win rate, not a forced (hard) 50% by weighting your score on the team. This means that theres a _lot_ of wiggle room, but over your last twenty games you should have either a positive or negative 50% win rate, where negative 50% means youre losing more than youre winning, and positive means youre winning more than youre losing. (Also known as climbing and struggling to climb) Edit: Also, in a better system you would be closer to a true 50% - 9 to 11 for example - when you reach "the rank you should be at", rather than the biased 13:7 or 7:13. So unless im looking at this wrong... Youre currently at 39 wins, 19 losses. Over your last 20 games, you won 13 and lost 7 (counting a remake as a loss). Do you see a pattern there? Youre at _roughly_ a 50% total win rate, and over your last 20 games. Lets take a look at ya boi Sneaky, too; 107 wins to 91 losses. 13 wins to 7 losses in the last twenty games. And another streamer nightblue3; 220 wins to 231 losses 7 wins to 13 losses, And hashinshin... 152 wins to 153 losses 7 wins to 13 losses Solo renekton only; 53 wins to 80 losses 6 wins to 14 losses Aphromoo: 91 wins to 104 losses 7 wins to 13 losses _Are you starting to see a pattern emerge, my EUNE contemporary?_ When i look at your games, i see a fairly regular pattern in your last ten games: Win 2, lose 1. Also, i see you have a favorite duo. Are you actually solo, or are you duoing this season?
I hope you don't mind if I don't bother with you. I've learned that you're delusional so there's no point in talking to you. Let me break your whole argument in one sentence: "if a win rate of between 47% to 53% is force every 20 games, it would be statistically impossible for the game to have players with winrates higher than that set amount". It is statistically impossible for a general win rate to be higher than your set amount of 53% (which is 13 wins and 7 losses) if that "leeway" would be soft forced, because even if winning as many games as possibly allowed by that "forced" system, regardless if it's soft or hard forced, it won't allow it to bypass that limit. If any 20 games have at max of 53%, then the general win rate would not be allowed to be higher, but it would be in fact lower because in your own terms, you won't always have that max number of wins. The fact alone that there are smurfs and are able to win so much and so high is also another undeniable proof that it is impossible to have such a system. There's Ap0calypse who won 102 games in a row before he finally lost a game, then you got players like Professor Akali who also had a streak of 42 in a row before finally getting a low and many more, just google it. Such win streaks would be impossible if the system was rigged to have any sort of forced 50% system, be it soft or hard, because everyone is playing with the same match making, so if it's rigged for one player, it's rigged for all, but if it's possible for someone to achieve such win rates, it's impossible for the system to be rigged in the first place, otherwise it would've made sure to drag them down because it's rigged and has that capability. Oh, and by the way, try to be consistent, ok? Last time we talked you said it's soft that allows it to go between 49% to 51%, now you're enlarging the number to be between 46% up to 54% based on your SRO example, will you soon go with "it's soft forced to keep you at a bellow 60%" or something? You are moving the goal post every time to fit your needs. First you said it's a hard 50%, when I proven to you it's not you went to "it's a soft 50% that allows you to go 49% to 51%" and now you're like "it's a soft 50% that allows you to go between 46% to 54%".
Rioter Comments
: I wish I had this "issue". Not sure why anyone would complain about this anyway. Getting bad teammates only after a winstreak? I wonder how you'd react to getting bad teammates regardless of winstreaks.
> [{quoted}](name=KVbqbFsC8e,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=0EeUmQY2,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2020-02-16T12:28:25.089+0000) > > I wish I had this "issue". Not sure why anyone would complain about this anyway. Getting bad teammates only after a winstreak? I wonder how you'd react to getting bad teammates regardless of winstreaks. Basically the Dunning Kruger symptoms. They notice the noobs more after win streaks because their mind is coded to believe that they get them only after win streaks. I never expect a good jungler in my team, so I always notice the bad ones regardless of win streak or not, I just learned not to care.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Good example of Imbalance as game theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w&t=32s Some one going on about their experience with it in league. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OVr1QEg3sg
I know the first one, that channel is superb indeed, but as last time you recommended vids, I don't know the second yet, so I guess I'll go make some popcorn.
: > [{quoted}](name=IP Masquerena,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=TRMskzEe,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2020-02-15T21:55:19.352+0000) > > Careful with the "kids", you may get your comments deleted because someone got offended. > > Had it happen to me, bunch of comments got deleted, mod message told me it's for flaming, when I went to the discord channel and ask what gives, was told that I was actively offending people by calling them kids and I should mind my language or will get a ban. > > One such comment was to a guy talking about "forced 50% and how he can't climb because Riot doesn't let him", and when I used examples to show him it's not true, he calls me an animal and a 2018 caveman, I tell him "kid, grow out of your fan made conspiracies", his comment was left untouched while mine got removed for calling him a kid. > > But yes, in essence, that's what I'm saying. its a game rated T for teen, the base audience is kids, if moderation doesn't understand that that's their problem not mine
Moderation doesn't care, that's the problem. If your comment gets reported, they delete it. Hence why that guy actively insulting me didn't got his stuff deleted while mine was deleted, I got reported because people got offended by being called kids.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Well old sport, Cant say I agree with you here Chip. Its worth it for me to hang around to actually help newbies who made the logical though progression hey I should use the official boards for advice. Plus the selfish reason where I to try and Curb stomp any variation of "Elo Hell". When it catches on with the player base then individual match quality takes a nose dive.
Why do I have the feeling that the three of us along maybe Stargazer and possible a couple others are the main ones trying to actively better the place?
: > [{quoted}](name=IP Masquerena,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=TRMskzEe,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2020-02-15T21:41:17.849+0000) > > Last paragraph. hmmm.... I feel more like its nothings fair grow the fck up and deal with it kids is the moral of this story
Careful with the "kids", you may get your comments deleted because someone got offended. Had it happen to me, bunch of comments got deleted, mod message told me it's for flaming, when I went to the discord channel and ask what gives, was told that I was actively offending people by calling them kids and I should mind my language or will get a ban. One such comment was to a guy talking about "forced 50% and how he can't climb because Riot doesn't let him", and when I used examples to show him it's not true, he calls me an animal and a 2018 caveman, I tell him "kid, grow out of your fan made conspiracies", his comment was left untouched while mine got removed for calling him a kid. But yes, in essence, that's what I'm saying.
: Why bother? People aren't concerned with taking an objective approach to these topics. Everyone on the boards is Iron through Gold for the most part, complaining about the balance team being Silver when Riot's on record clearly stating they're Diamond+. People here don't give a flying shit. I'm purely on these boards out of habit.
My reasoning was stated in the intro of the thread. If someone learns from what I said, cool, if not, not my problem. Then again, we can't get better players until we get the scrubs to get better, so any step in the right direction is a step forward, no matter how small. A couple people understand something better now, maybe two more next week and so on, we may end up as a better community. And if not, it's still an endless supply of amusement for me.
: is there a Tldr version?
Last paragraph.
Rioter Comments
Paroe (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=IP Masquerena,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=miiLsTPt,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2020-02-15T14:51:16.138+0000) > > Just because we see it as granted doesn't mean people won't make a fuss about it. > > One thing I would hit before buffing Akali would be the Presence of Mind rune. > > Currently, Akali is the only energy user that uses that rune, and her Q costs got nerfed because she now has too much energy to spare because of that rune. So undoing the Q nerf completely and removing energy from PoM would be a perfect start with the W change. Then see where and what else she needs. > > Just another question tho, to make sure: would she keep her stealth as invis all the time while in her W regardless of breaking it with attacks/spells and only changing to camo is she leaves it, or she's invis for however long she does no action after casting, which then changes it to camo? The invis timer would 'start' when she leaves or attacks, so at most she would "recloak" once when it changed over to camo... But the idea is that its an escape tool, not a skirmish tool. > If it's the later one, then it might be bit too weak to properly fight with because she's intentionally one of the squishiest champs to balance her W safety out, but if a pink will fully nullify it, then she needs base stat buffs, and I'd rather not go back to a point where tank Akali is viable, and I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who played that a LOT. Shes also meant to be an assassin, meaning that while her escape can be used offensively... It should be just that; an escape. Thats why the suggestion is a huge MS buff coupled with vision-based defense.
I know you meant to make it an escape too, but we also don't want to overbuff her to a point where she can consistently fight without it. Currently, it's design is made for her to be weaker if she fights without it, so it's a balance gate, and maybe it should be kept as is. So maybe have the invis last 1/1.5/2/2.5/3s instead of? It's not big enough to consistently use it as a trading tool, but it allows her to fight using it, allowing it to still be a balance gate.
: They are mages, just burst mages. {{champion:517}} {{champion:103}} {{champion:7}} {{champion:60}} Are 100% mages, you could make the argument the others are AP assassins.
LeBlanc and Elise are assassins through and through, not mages. They have some utility to peel for the carry if they themselves aren't capable of getting fed, but regardless of that, they are assassins. Ahri is a mix of both assassin and mage, so she can go either route. Sylas is meant to be a bruiser, but due to the current lack of AP bruiser items, he's playing assassin. Burst mages are stuff like Lux or Veigar, who sit back and do their spells, but none of the 4 you mentioned even wants to stay back and do spells (with the exception of Glacial Ahri, but even she has the tools and capability to in and fish for targets), as their main game play consists of going in, killing someone then go out. And which class is designed to go in, kill someone then go out? Oh right, Assassins.
Paroe (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=IP Masquerena,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=miiLsTPt,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2020-02-15T12:51:04.273+0000) > > I'd be super ok with that change, but if that has to happen, reduce her Q energy cost to either 110/105/100/95/90 or 100 at all ranks. > > Currently due to how high the cost is, she can't fight properly even with her W at it's current duration, so if you lower that duration, you need to also lower her costs by just a bit so she can stand a chance. I mean, undoing some of the nerfs shes received over time would be a granted wouldnt it? Reworking her W would _HAVE_ to come with other power shifts.
Just because we see it as granted doesn't mean people won't make a fuss about it. One thing I would hit before buffing Akali would be the Presence of Mind rune. Currently, Akali is the only energy user that uses that rune, and her Q costs got nerfed because she now has too much energy to spare because of that rune. So undoing the Q nerf completely and removing energy from PoM would be a perfect start with the W change. Then see where and what else she needs. Just another question tho, to make sure: would she keep her stealth as invis all the time while in her W regardless of breaking it with attacks/spells and only changing to camo is she leaves it, or she's invis for however long she does no action after casting, which then changes it to camo? If it's the later one, then it might be bit too weak to properly fight with because she's intentionally one of the squishiest champs to balance her W safety out, but if a pink will fully nullify it, then she needs base stat buffs, and I'd rather not go back to a point where tank Akali is viable, and I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who played that a LOT.
: > [{quoted}](name=Garbage Bag,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KNPfiAxA,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2020-02-14T22:47:58.737+0000) > > Why is a 40% WR champ the most banned champion in pro play? Who gives a FLYING fuck about her pro play win rate in *solo queue?* If pro play's your criteria for solo queue prowess, then why aren't you guys bitching about Ryze?
Pro play is only a criteria when they want something nerfed. If they ask for a buff, that suddenly changes to "fuck pro play, the low elo is what matters".
Paroe (NA)
: No. Akali has the same problem Yuumi has; No matter how weak she is, the community will always hate her. The current iteration of Akali is not a problem for the most part, her W needs to be reworked due to player refusal to even play around it though. Ive been mulling about a smokescreen escape, personally; She presses W, drops a smokescreen which lasts up to 2/3/4/5/6 seconds that gives her +25/35/45/55/65% movement speed and invisibility for 1 second after leaving it/attacking in it before changing to camo for 2 seconds.
I'd be super ok with that change, but if that has to happen, reduce her Q energy cost to either 110/105/100/95/90 or 100 at all ranks. Currently due to how high the cost is, she can't fight properly even with her W at it's current duration, so if you lower that duration, you need to also lower her costs by just a bit so she can stand a chance.
T1 Zerenity (EUNE)
: Ranked IS Broken Confirmed
I said this once and I'll say it again, "fair" is relative. Just because you consider something unfair doesn't mean it is, or vice versa, you see it as fair doesn't mean it is. I once gave this example: Say there's a random city race, anyone can enter regardless of age or whatever. Usain Bolt decides he wants to take a stab it, enters, and wins without a problem by such a huge margin it's not even a contest. Was that race fair? Yes. It was, he was allowed to enter, he was allowed to play his best, he won. Would other people in that race see it as fair? No. Many wouldn't, it's Usain friggin Bolt, your beer belly may be able to outrun your neighbor, but there's no way in hell you outrun Usain. Barely anyone complained and even now complains about MF, yet she's still the top dog of ADC with 52% wr and over 20% play rate. She looks fair, but statistically, she isn't, she just feels fair. Now that you understand that "fair" is relative so it can't be taken in consideration with anything other than statistical numbers that can be seen, let's move to your "skill needs to be rewarded". Ok, how? You say shooters have it, but that works there, not in Mobas. Unless you can pad your KDA by shooting team mates via friendly fire, you can't really prove you're good at shooters with anything other than big KDA. In Mobas it won't work, Dota tried to do it, and it proves why anything other than win or loss should never be taken in consideration. First time it happened, your KDA and damage dealt were taken in consideration, so people picked Zeus, who's ult is basically a faster Karthus ult, and well, all they did was use it off cooldown and to KS (since it is instant), not help their team or care about winning. Scrubs who were supposed to be in like 1000 MMR (equivalent of Silver) were in 4k (at the time, Equivalent of Diamond) simply because the system saw them as skilled players, high KDA, high damage, etc but they would not even try to win, just pad their stats, if their team could win without them they got a huge boost, if not, they lost little to nothing. The second time, it was found out that healing team mates boosts your MMR, and what did players do? Picked Oracle, bought nothing else except for mana potions and followed one team mate healing them constantly. How was that possible? Oracle's heal also damages the unit first, then heals over time for much more than it damaged, you can use it as a nuke on the enemy by purging the heal so they take only the damage, or on allies for the to recover more HP. Valve had to actually nuke all players found doing this from orbit to a point where their whole MMR was reset. Now look at LoL at token farmers for those who want their M6 or M7. They won't care to win, just to get high stats because they will get rewarded regardless of win or lose. Players show time and time again that if they can abuse something, they will, and the only way to make the system impossible to abuse is for it to only care about win or loss, nothing in between. You're good, you climb, you suck, you don't.
: SINGED NEEDS A BUFF NOT NERF , I AM STUCK IN GOLD I WAS DIAMOND LAST SEASON
Your skill may not change, but the fact that Riot inflated a hella lot of ranks last season does change.
: Does it really? I've never seen that while playing Akali
Yes and no. As Akali I make it a point to use my W after he R's if I expect him to use it, because if I use it after his R, I do have it in his Death Realm, but if used before, I've had both situations where it followed and other situations where it didn't follow. But considering that 2 Akali (or more) can use the same W and all go invis, it may be tied to Akali's ID so the bug is when it doesn't follow, then again, it's Riot's game, too much code in the spaghetti.
: I dont care about pro play. What does pro play have to do with anything? No one online is a pro! That is moronic thinking on the part of Riot. Why would Riot make their decisions based on a handful of people playing?!? That is asinine. Her q is now completely unreliable. It uses too much energy. Who cares if she can escape if she has no damage?!?! She might as well not be there at all. Great I can do my ult with pitiful damage more often. What is the point? I dont care about pro play. Professional video game playing is dumbest thing I have ever heard of! Seriously! If Riot wants to base their game choices off pro play than they should make a separate game! Because as a consumer, this pisses me off! And I bet I'm not the only one! Its just bad business. It is short sighted to assume anyone cares about pro play.
And you'd want them to balance around someone who only got out of Bronze after 5 seasons thanks to the elo boost from Riot? Pro players are the best in the world, they know mechanics and interactions you can't even imagine exist, so if it's broken for them means that it is truly broken when someone is actually good. If you have over 300k on her and are unable to exit Bronze it means you're either just imagining you're good or you don't care about ranked.
: Y'know, its really frustrating that you invest all this time into a champion. You learn them and get good with them, buy skins for them, and then Riot is like "HEY, F U man! I'm gonna smash your champion into the ground for no good reason!" . It's really frustrating. It takes away from the fun of the game.
If you think she was fine before you're delusional. The last time Akali was balanced was before the Conqueror rework in 9.23 and Presence of Mind rework in 9.24. She deserved nerfs but because riot caters to low elos she got the wrong nerfs. She's far from unplayable tho, so if you think her to be unplayable now, you never were actually good on her to begin with.
Zerenza (NA)
: Personally i'd vote for Neeko or Ahri since i want to see more Mages and i already know both of them have a lot of potential to be great jungler's, Neeko's ganks are deceptively powerful because of her E and Ahri's level-6 ganking is really really strong, both of them have a Clear Speed issue is what set's them back. Lol honestly if Akali can't be balanced in lane because she's toxic to play against would it really be that bad of an idea to make her jungle instead?
Never said its a bad idea for her to be moved fully to the jungle, only stayed that due to the way they chose to balance her she won't be able to be a lamer and junglers like in the past. And gosh that new Q cost feels so clunky, who the hell thought its a good idea to not nerf PoM and instead screw Akali over for the rune? I'd rather not have the spare energy from PoM and have the old Q costs instead.
Zerenza (NA)
: Poll: What champions would you like to see Added to the Jungle Champion Pool?
Bah, can't really vote there since I'd want to pick around half of them if not more. Kai'sa and Ornn jg were always some of my favorites, and I kinda like them more in the jungle than in their normal roles. Akali jg was something I used to love doing with old one, but new one can't do that. To make the new Akali viable in the jungle they need to heavily reduce her Q cost or give it big refunds on monsters, on top of making it deal extra damage on lower ranks not just at max rank, so if they do that, she'll get a Taliyah situation where she won't be picked in lane anymore because her jungle is just that much more fluid, considering she's super clunky now because they refused to remove energy from PoM instead of nerfing her costs. Orianna would also be something I'd like to see in the jungle.
: > [{quoted}](name=MuffledGarbage,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=rVhaWhbz,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2020-02-09T20:17:21.255+0000) > > Backdooring means your team misplayed and didn't either A: have someone back at base to defend or B: have someone keep their teleport up to defend base. > > It's legit just your teams'(and therefore also your) fault if you let the enemy team backdoor you lol. Strange that mobas disagree and have backdoor prevention techniques. Sounds to me like a lot of League's playerbase is just afraid of the inability to come back from certain champions being ahead (which is a design flaw) or just aren't good enough at the game (which is a player flaw) and rely on backdooring to win their games. :^\
Most Mobas only have that for towers, not for the Nexus/Ancient. I know, because I backdoored a lot in other mobas as well.
: Do Not Nerf Soraka's Q. (Straight to the Point)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOq5l8gRKI4 Just watch the first few moments of this video.
Show more

IP Masquerena

Level 252 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion