rujitra (NA)
: So you lied at the beginning when you said he was being egged on by everyone? Meaning obviously he and everyone else agreed that he should invade? Or you're lying now when you're saying someone else agreed? And yes, that's what I'm saying because that's what the statistic is. A 50-52% winrate which is well within whatever the margin of error would be for that sample. There's nothing to be mistaken about. That is the statistic. I look forward to seeing how you choose to try and finagle or fudge that though.
By his duo, support yes. I said that in the beginning, along with the ADC. that, according to your words, is consensus. So what can the minority do. So the team that lost first blood has a 50-52% winrate late game? But on average, the winrate after losing first blood is 40%. That is what you claimed, correct; I'm not going to fact check you so I'll trust your research. So let's take 2 pieces of information. Let's, for ease of calculation, say it's 50% winrate late game after losing first blood, just for ease of math. So let's assume there are X number of games, A end in early game, B end in mid game, C end in late game. Clear so far. Given the average, based on statistics mid season, not sure what it was at the end of this season, the average game time was ~28m. You say >30m is late game, and <15m is early game. So a majority of games end prior to late game, so A+B > C, according to what you told me about when late game is. So the total winrate is 40% of ALL games in which a team lost first blood. So .4 = (winrate)(A+B)/(X) + .5C/(X). Fair so far right? Simple addition right? Let's say, since it is close, that 50% of games last to late game, so A+B = C -> .4 = (winrate)(.5) + (.5)(.5) -> .4 = (winrate)(.5) + .25 -> winrate = (.4-.25)/(.5) -> winrate = .3 -> So the winrate of games in which don't get to late game after losing first blood is 30%. I used all your numbers so I'm not sure why you said you were wrong. If you need me to explain, ask.
rujitra (NA)
: Responding to number 4 now that I can see where you were going with it - yes, you have a duty to assist your teammates within reason. You don't have to run in and die just because you don't like their decisions. It could be as little as poking or being nearby for pressure. If your team consensus is that a certain plan of action is the best, i.e. if you all discuss and three+ want an invade and there's no real reason not to, then you have an obligation as a teammate to help them. That's the definition of team and consensus. If someone is doing something that is blatantly bad and your team consensus is that it is bad, you don't have to help obviously. But keep in mind that they are also not obligated to *listen* to the consensus. Does this mean that technically you don't have to help them? Sure, I guess. But you want to win, right? You don't get to complain about others not listening to you because they don't get to complain when you don't listen to them, which I guarantee you don't all the time. You again are doing some.... interesting statistical tricks and fallacies here to try and fudge the numbers. I will try and make it as clear as possible. You start with a 50% winrate. If you lose first blood, your win chance is **40%** no matter how long the game lasts. That is the statistic. Period. None of this range from 60-70. The odds are less than half, but it is **40%-60%**. There is no further math to be done. The percent I quoted (40%) is the percent based on all games, not taking into account anything other than lost first blood. You losing first blood only makes it 20% less likely from the beginning that you lose the game, and again, this means that **only 1 in 5 games where you lose first blood will be 'extra' - 4/5 games you lose first blood should be statistically 50/50 or so**. You aren't accepting though. You're asking if it's a bannable offense for someone to not listen to you. You further do not have the right to tell them that they can't do something just because it "prevents" you from doing what you want. You don't have the right to enforce what they do, nor do you have the absolute right to do whatever you want if it conflicts with what they want. Period. Late game is past 35 minutes, which was clearly stated in the linked statistic, although I did quote 30 by mistake in the post, if you look back. Kills do not matter. CS does not matter. Timing does, because that's all the statistics looked at. Statistically speaking, **IF** the game goes past 35 minutes, the chance of winning becomes 50/50 in favor of the teams, even after first blood. You can see this in the link by changing the game duration in the top right, then seeing how blue team has a 50% chance of winning after getting first blood if the game is 35+ minutes, and red team is close enough that it is statistically insignificant (i.e. statistically it *could* be 50/50 but the margin of error made it seem a little higher). Again, this literally only looks at first blood - so yes, you will need to CS, you will need to not feed 100 kills, **but you have to do that in every game anyway, so first blood doesn't change anything there**. You were either going to CS well and not feed already, or not. First blood does not change that. I never said you should tell people what to do. I said you should **express your opinion** by saying **what you think** - not **telling** them what to do. There is a difference between "invade now" or "back off" (commands) and "they collapse" or "champ there" or "someone TP" or similar. When you command people things, they aren't going to want to do them. When you give them information, they will make the decision themselves, and they're more likely to make it since you aren't commanding them. You pinged him sure, but you say that your other teammates were "egging him on"? Sounds like you were on the wrong side of consensus here. Again, you don't have the right to dictate what the team does. If four people want to invade, unless you have some DAMN good reason not to, you don't get to override that just because they're collapsing. You have an obligation to attempt to provide assistance with the invade - regardless if it is just being visible for pressure/zoning or going all in or what. *edit* - see below reply - looks like I was right, and that your interpretation of what happened was wrong and that you should've done something differently. This is an entirely separate issue of your brain attempting to find fault in others even if it means that you misremember the facts a bit. > [{quoted}](name=KVbqbFsC8e,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q0Vlr2eU,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-26T23:07:49.022+0000) > > Yes, it was the right replay. The other team initially saw your Udyr at your Red when they invaded. They then had vision of him running towards midlane. Udyr didn't have any vision of where they were, its likely he believed they were going to take your red, so he went to theirs setting up a vertical jungle. > > The enemy team didn't have any "clear vision" of Udyr. They found him because as soon as they warded your red buff, Jax ran directly to his to check for the invade. > > You can easily put as much blame on yourself and Cho'gath for sitting AFK under your towers when you saw them invade red.
Oh yes, I saw what they did, so did Cho, and we both agreed he shouldn't invade, he said no, and we let him do it, are we suppose to follow him if we both didn't agree; You said you can't force others to do things they don't want to do, yet are blaming me for not doing what they wanted me to do. You said, quote, "virtually a 50% winrate - so no difference in first blood" if it gets to late game, am I mistaken? Just want to make sure of that statement before I continue.
: Yes, it was the right replay. The other team initially saw your Udyr at your Red when they invaded. They then had vision of him running towards midlane. Udyr didn't have any vision of where they were, its likely he believed they were going to take your red, so he went to theirs setting up a vertical jungle. The enemy team didn't have any "clear vision" of Udyr. They found him because as soon as they warded your red buff, Jax ran directly to his to check for the invade. You can easily put as much blame on yourself and Cho'gath for sitting AFK under your towers when you saw them invade red.
And what should we do when a 5 man-er invaders a cc less team lv 1? Fight? In essence according to your statement, one should always die with their team or it's their fault? Also, you do realize that after Udyr saw Jax see him, he kept going deeper into the jg right?
rujitra (NA)
: 1. No, I did not ever state that not listening to your team is trolling/griefing. You don't get to **tell someone** what to do. What you can do is tell them "I think you should do this". They are not obligated to listen to you, because you have no right to be their boss in game. 2. A chance of success, by definition, is **subjective**. What you think may have a 0% chance of success may have a 5% chance, and the other player thinks it's a 55% chance. Again, you aren't the team boss and don't get to impose what **you** think on others. 3. Consensus does not mean a majority. Consensus does not mean a plurality. Consensus does not mean unanimous (all 5). It means whatever the **middle ground** is. 4. Not sure what this is in response to, and it doesn't particularly make sense on its own. 5. You can play however you want. If you want to play passively and farm because you don't trust your team to carry/do damage, that's your right. If someone else is playing Nasus and thinks that they can do good being aggressive, that's their right to play that way. You do not have the right to force someone else to follow your opinion, even if they aren't having the best success with their way of doing things **in this one game**. You also don't get to tell them how bad it is when you don't even see it in more than this game - this applies to the player, the strategy, or whatever. 6. A 40% chance is not **no chance** as you're making it seem. Let's say the average game is 30 minutes, and an early surrender simply because losing first blood could happen at 15:00 minutes exactly. So you save 15 minutes per game. Let's also assume you lose first blood in 1/2 of your games. This means you'd have 25% of games (50% of the 50% you win first blood in) where you win, 25% where you lose (but you won first blood), and 50% where you lose automatically because you lost first blood. There is absolutely no way that losing 75% of your games, but losing 50% of them much quicker, is better than taking that 50% and winning 40% of that (so only 30% of total games). This is a percentage - not a salary - thus a comparison to actual numbers is invalid. You also quote 33%, which isn't a number at all in these statistics. **Put simply, you *DO* have a 50/50 winrate (or within +/-1%) when you enter the game. Losing first blood decreases your odds SLIGHTLY to 40% from 50%. Comparing these, it is *20%* less likely after first blood - meaning 1 in 5 games you lose first blood will be "extra" losses due to the decreased odds**. No, you do not compare the 60% to the 40% - because you came into the game having a 50/50 chance of winning and a 50/50 chance of losing first blood. You compare the change to the original chance of winning. 7. If you are unwilling to accept that people will do things that you would do differently, and you cannot control that, then a multiplayer game may not be for you. 8. (your edit) - That is not a valid application of the statistics, because you do not take into account the number of games that go late (past 30 minutes). Furthermore, given both are two separate sample populations (win% post 30 games and win% lost first blood games), you cannot just "average" them like this - they apply to two sets of games that overlap somewhat but have many games in each that do not overlap. This also fails to take into account literally how easy it is to make it to late game even if you have a couple teammates who refuse to just sit and farm. Like, it's not hard. And if you explain nicely to your teammates, they probably will try and play safer. It's all in how you talk to them. When you try and boss people, they aren't going to listen. If you just spam ping and *command* them to leave and stop trying, they're going to subconsciously want to stay *more* to prove you wrong. People think differently when they feel like you are trying to boss them around - it's human nature to be competitive. Spam pinging them is also not something people will take well and be more likely to listen to. Using pings smartly (i.e. one question mark and/or one danger), and asking nicely to leave/back off, or not telling them what to do but saying like "they may collapse" or "theyre collapsing" is much more cooperative and more likely to garner the other player's attention.
Each number is a response to the respective paragraph you wrote, seems pretty clear since i numbered them for you. As for the percentages, yes, you start out with a 50% odds. which means the odds of either team to win is even, 1/1 odds. Is that correct? Next, after a first blood, if the game doesn't last to late game, there is a ~60-70% chance of losing (you stated it is ~50% for matches that last until the late game as I'm quoting you so if that is a mistake, let me know). So that means, statistically, the odds of winning vs an opponent that has first blood is less than half their odds, is that correct (around 65% to 35% which is ~2/1 odds). As for accepting, I do accept. I always let them do whatever they want to do as long as they don't prevent me from doing what I want to do, which is normally want happens. They are free to feed as much as they like, just like that jax i had the previous game. I didn't care that game. Do you know why, because he owned up to the fact that he is doing what he wants to do unless the udyr who claims I was hacking his computer and made him invade. Late game is also past 40 minutes, though that is dependent on what your definition of late game is depending on the game state itself. A game that has 100 kills in 25 minutes might be considered "late game" due to the amount of gold in the game. A game with 0 kills at 45 minutes with everyone farming 5 cs a minute might be considered mid game due to the lack of said gold. Also, you told me not to tell people what to do, yet then mention that I SHOULD tell people what they should do if I deem it in our best interest. Well which one is it? And lastly, I did ping they were collapsing and he said F off. So you tell me, what else can I do to try and help udyr not die?
: Yeah, I fixed that. Volibear had invaded your red and dropped some wards. Its pretty ridiculous though if you really believe a jungler dying on an invade qualifies as "running down mid". If that were bannable there wouldn't be any junglers left.
The issue is he invaded in clear vision and they knew he was there. Are you watching the correct replay?
: Udyr's first death was at the enemy red buff, Syndra and Jax both collapsed on him. It was not at the enemy tower.
Not sure if you are looking at the right game. There was no volibear involved. Just a jax and syndra. and he only got to the red buff area after being at the brush closest to the enemy base walls.
: Ok, so I just watched the replay, and quite frankly, you are full of shit. Udyr didn't run down mid, he died trying to invade.
So him dying that enemy tier 2 turret at 40 seconds is in his jungle, is that correct? But it apparently is "OK" though.
: Udyr only died 6 times, so he is easily within the threshold of "just a bad game".
But he was running down mid... that is my point. EDIT: So as long as I only do it a couple of times, it's okay to run down someone else's lane?
: You can "not care" all you want, but if you are literally running it down mid, going 0/15 with 1.8k damage, any ban you get is 100% deserved.
Oh I know. I don't deny that. Never did. I'm merely questioning why the udyr isn't also banned.
rujitra (NA)
: Attempting to steal an enemy buff, while maybe not the smartest decision nor one many people would make, is not automatically griefing/trolling. People are allowed to fuck up. Not everyone in this world will think the same way your or I do, and that's okay. At 40 seconds in it's highly likely that the enemy team wasn't even set up for the "vision defense" against an invade yet - so while they may have been seen by one or two people, it's very likely that the rest of that team wasn't paying attention or prepared yet. There's a lot of things that could go through someone's mind that made them think that was a good idea. As one example, one of my best friends literally spam calls/pings for an invade if there's literally even one CC ability (i.e. even just a lux Q or something). It only works for us maybe 1/3 of the time... and I certainly point it out to him that it was a bad call. But part of our job as team members is to *discuss* and form a *consensus*. A consensus does **NOT** mean everyone agrees - I disagree with the invades half the time or so and I make sure to say that in chat so that we can all discuss as a team. But being a good team member means assisting your team with whatever the consensus is - or else you're screwing them over. Unfortunately sometimes you'll have people that refuse to do things a certain way - maybe a support won't stop pushing the wave or won't freeze it in front of turret, maybe a jungler continues ganking when they're not even pushed, maybe the mid laner won't ward and keeps getting caught... people play differently and have different thought processes. Sometimes even if you disagree, it's important to help them anyway. **** And in any case, it's **ABSOLUTELY** not acceptable for you to give up the game just because you're mad at what another person saw/did. I guarantee you that in every single game you play you do something that annoys, frustrates, or pisses off someone on your team. What if they all started trolling you the second you did that? How would that make you feel? **More than likely** this was a simple mistake. Even if it *wasn't*, it's virtually certain that there isn't going to be enough data to **prove** they were doing something to intentionally fuck the team over. You can't determine that, no matter how much you want to be able to blame him for what happened - sometimes people fuck up. Nor can Riot. Nor can we. But what can be seen is that any form of "not caring" because of that is unacceptable behavior, and it causes you to lose games. Do you know what the first blood win percentage is? [Only about 60% at most]( - and it doesn't particularly vary much from that by MMR. That means that 2 times out of 5 you'll win a game after losing first blood. Oh yeah, and if you [can just sit back and farm and drag the game out]( It's literally **virtually a 50% winrate - so no difference in first blood**. In fact, the higher MMR you go, **it's actually slightly less likely that the team who gets first blood wins the game**. So sure, you're allowed to be frustrated at losing first blood. That's going to be natural. But you should absolutely not be giving up for two reasons: you should be **helping** your teammates, not tearing them down for small mistakes, and for two, the statistics show that **it literally doesn't matter**.
So, let's go point by point. 1. Attempting to stealing a buff is definitely fine. Nothing against that. However, that isn't what I said. I stated he was seen going into the enemy side by the enemy team, and decided to stay despite us telling him he was getting collapsed on. (BTW, he and his duo later blamed me for hacking his computer and remotely controlling his character into invading; if you'd like the chat I'll be able to provide it.) Not listening to your team to avoid dying is quite like trolling/griefing, given that is what you stated later in your points. 2. Yes, people are allowed to make mistakes. The question at hand is the mistake warranted. Yes, they might think it is a good idea, but if it isn't a good idea, why should their thought process matter. I'm stating, irrelevant of thought process, if there is 0% chance of success, be default you shouldn't attempt it. Unless you are saying otherwise? As i mentioned, he was literally spotted walking in, alone, while everyone, on our team, saw the enemy team follow right after him, and he kept going deeper in. 3. So your success rates during an invade is 1/3, is that correct? What do you define as success: getting a kill, stealing a buff, etc? I'd like to know before I comment on that. As for following the consensus, what defines that as well. Does consensus mean if the trio wants to do something the solos' won't do, it's the solos' fault for not obeying what the trio wants to do even if the trio's plan is to run down mid? I'm wondering how far does the group consensus go. 4. So if they do something blatantly disregardful of the consequences, is it YOUR DUTY to assist them, regardless of the consequences that may be inflicted onto you afterwards for obeying them? 5. Absolutely understandable. Of course there are disagreements on what is best because we aren't a 5 man team. Some people play to win, others play to just get kills, others look to win late game, others play to win early game; that's natural. I'll tell you my playstyle. If I play a champion that is meant to be aggressive, I play aggressive; If I play a champion that is just meant to farm, I'll just farm. Let's give you an example, much like your friend that invades since they have a lux(for example): I'm playing nasus into, let's say darius. Should I run exhaust ignite and go for the all in lv 1? Or should I play passively, takes flash/ghost/teleport and just look to farm safely? And what do you define as something that annoys you? What annoys me is when someone comes into my lane for no reason even though I told them don't. Perhaps for you, it is when your teammates don't let you get all the kills; I don't know what you prefer. 6. I'm not saying whether it was a mistake or not. I'm stating whether or not it was an intentional decision. There is a difference. A mistake is this; I thought I had enough damage to finish him off with my caitlyn ult and didn't AA one last time prior to ulting, my bad. An intentional mistake is; well, there is a 20% chance I'll get the kill on vayne if I ult her whilst she is surrounded by her entire team, otherwise I die, I'll take those odds and if it doesn't work, my bad. To your point of win percentages, do you understand how vast 60% compared to 40% is? If I were to ask you, would you prefer to earn 50k a year or 75k a year, would you say the difference isn't that much? I think you are comparing averages and percentages improperly. You are comparing 60/40 to 50/50 in the sense that on average, you win 50% of your games (assuming everyone is same elo, no dc's, etc). However, that isn't what we are comparing that to. We are comparing the probability of winning if you get first blood vs losing first blood; in that scenario, you chances of winning will drop by 33%. If I said that each of your games, your team starts down 33% gold, is that a fair game? No. You have to compare the 60 to 40, not 60 to 50. 7. I'm not frustrated on losing first blood, just how it's lost. If you ran down mid lv 1, that is different then getting a 5 man gank at lv 6 at bot under your turret and dying. You can't compare those scenarios given one is not in your full control, unless you disagree? EDIT: I didn't notice the part regarding late game win rates; my apologies (see that is a mistake). So late game it is ~50% regardless of first blood and regardless of how long a game last, the general win rate is 40%; is that what the statistics show? If so that means the true win rate of games that don't get to late game is ~30%, which is even worse.
rujitra (NA)
: >So once my jger decided to screw it level one and just die to my mid laner lv 1 at 40 seconds I'd love to see a clip of this, because it sounds more like you got mad that an invade/peek out didn't go well and you thus intentionally fed because you were mad that the play didn't go their way.
I'll see if I can get it. Also, is it considered invading if the enemy team knows you are there all alone, by yourself. Edit: I mean, he saw them see him.
: Is running it down mid just once not bannable offense?
I'll be honest. After that happened I didn't care about that game anymore and just kept dying. Then him and his duo reported me and got me banned while neither of them got banned.
Rioter Comments
: adc taking still looking for top mid supp
> [{quoted}](name=KillerOfMagic124,realm=NA,application-id=K6EGEal2,discussion-id=LcM2HFte,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2017-02-04T06:03:36.703+0000) > > adc taking still looking for top mid supp ADDED.
: Oggamers looking for top mid supp adc (plat 2+) for saturday tournament
I'm interested. Plat 2(was got inactive so dropped to plat 3). I mainly play mid lane, poke or control mages and top lane bruisers/tanks.


Level 122 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion