Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=XinZhao2WinNhao,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=jJ52JOFt,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-08-28T17:11:38.036+0000) > > Your suggestion punishes lose-streakers and open forters, which are two legitimate strategies that should not be discouraged to keep the game diverse. Hello, could you please explain to me this? Because this is a good point. Sorry I'm not good much with english.
> [{quoted}](name=Shin Ramyum,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=jJ52JOFt,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-08-29T00:42:16.901+0000) > > Hello, could you please explain to me this? Because this is a good point. Sorry I'm not good much with english. Open fort and lose streak = people who intentionaly lose in stage 2 so that they get first pick on the first 2 carousels and the lose streak gold You sell all of your champions and just econ. Because of that, you'll have lower HP than other players, and that is the intended result of trading HP for gold+item picks. But under your suggested LP gain system, they would be punished because they'd lose more LP and gain less.
: 1) You honestly believe in bad games lmfao. Bad game = a meme excuse when you weren't responsible with your account, or are too prone to tilt, or simply can't keep up with game momentum. All of the above suggest you're too high an elo, if this excuse is used. If you honestly think habitual drunks climb to high elo ..... lmfao..... And if they are socially drunk..... guess what? They aren't going to get on a game and play; they're going to find the nearest couch/bed and pass out. I've been tired a few times. I never play more than one game where I can acknowledge it affected me. Again, High elos generally don't play tired. 2) During the Hextech meta, I've built Noble reliably and consistently in all but 3 games of 67. Some games I have full nobles and level 9 before my opponents even have level 8. You can afford to burn about 48 coin econ and still succeed at Noble from max potential. 3) I Play elimination bracket Chess. 4) Ceilings are illusions.
> [{quoted}](name=Illabethe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=5ABFVQsg,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-28T21:05:30.869+0000) > > 1) You honestly believe in bad games lmfao. Bad game = a meme excuse when you weren't responsible with your account, or are too prone to tilt, or simply can't keep up with game momentum. > > All of the above suggest you're too high an elo, if this excuse is used. Yeah, lemme guess, you never have a game where you first pick Khazix into Volibear Braum Pantheon Urgot and Singed. Or you got mid but your support decided to pick Yasuo and go to your lane to take your CS, kills and XP. Or the enemy team just happened to have a diamond duoing with a gold while you're a gold 4 lee sin mid against a Diamond Yasuo. because that never happens ever, right? > If you honestly think habitual drunks climb to high elo ..... lmfao..... And if they are socially drunk..... guess what? They aren't going to get on a game and play; they're going to find the nearest couch/bed and pass out. > > I've been tired a few times. I never play more than one game where I can acknowledge it affected me. Again, High elos generally don't play tired. You know that high elo =/= pro in tournaments? Some high elo players are normal people who just come home from work, have a few drinks and play a few games of League to chill out after working 16 hours?
: You know every time you cry in Summoner's Rift about some Plat/Diamond ~ 80-100 game player just completely "ints?" Welp..... they either were boosted (less likely this season with these players) or they were just lucky and got carried. You can get lucky in TFT just building nonstop Nobles.... P.S. If you lost at chess, You're out. Period.
> [{quoted}](name=Illabethe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=5ABFVQsg,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-28T20:06:17.076+0000) > > You know every time you cry in Summoner's Rift about some Plat/Diamond ~ 80-100 game player just completely "ints?" > > Welp..... they either were boosted (less likely this season with these players) or they were just lucky and got carried. Or you know, a human being having a bad game. Maybe he came home from a long work day. Maybe he's drunk. Maybe just tired. Or just unlucky in that one game. > You can get lucky in TFT just building nonstop Nobles.... You need econ skills to build nobles consistently and manage HP to not die before you level to 8 with enough gold to reroll for Kayle. I've been playing nobles from Gold 4 to Plat 1, but because my econ skills have gone up. I now get nobles much more consistently than when I struggled to level up to 8. Not surprisingly I've been winning more often now. > P.S. If you lost at chess, You're out. Period. Idk if you're talking about tournaments or online chess. Chess tournaments give you +1 point for a win 0 for a loss and 1/2 for a draw. Winner of a tournament is the one with most points. You're not "out". Your elo is calculated based on your wins, losses and the elos of the players you played against. In online chess, you just keep playing games, and you gain and lose elo based on the elo of your opponent. A 2000 playing a 2000 will gain and lose the same amount of elo. A 2100 playing a 2000 will gain less for a win than they lose for a loss. A 2000 playing a 2100 will gain more for a win than they lose for a loss. And once you reach the elo where you have a 50% winrate, that is the elo you're supposed to stay at.
: You do realize this is Chess and no two players are equal..... Even if you are in an approximate group of equally successful people, some are there by Luck, others by calculation, and others by a mix of both. What you're arguing is like arguing that Grandmasters in SR should have a 50% Win rate. In reality, most have 60-68% Win rates who stay there.
>You do realize this is Chess and no two players are equal in chess, if a 2000 elo player plays against another 2000 player, the winner will gain the same amount of elo he would have lost if he had lost the game. If he gained 40 elo for the win, he would have lost 40 elo had he lost the game. And that's all I want for TFT. >Even if you are in an approximate group of equally successful people, some are there by Luck, If someone could be lucky consistently over 300 games and win enough games to stay in their rank, I applaud their mad luck.
Rentless (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=XinZhao2WinNhao,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=RI6svFmi,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-08-28T17:07:28.888+0000) > > Assuming that I have a 12.5% chance of placing in each of the ranks (aka supposedly breaking even if LP gains were fair), that means that I can expect to lose about 5 LP per game. This may be mitigated by things like an 8th place only demoting you to 75 LP instead of losing the full 60, but as someone who wishes to actually climb to diamond rather than just drop slower, it's not much of a consolation. > I don't think your viewing it the proper way though. It is not a split on 12.5% at all. It still is relating to skill, and interpretation of the in-game meta (how well can you shift). No matter how high you rank up, you will eventually; 1) Run out of skill and stay stagnant, 2) Run out of time to rank up because your aren't winning enough games, 3) get demoted because you have run out of skill and out ranked your skill, or 4) Rank up. I think in the end, you'll end up where you should be. I don't think the design is so that all players make it to platinum or beyond.
My point is about your 1) What I am saying is that if you lose 1.5x the LP you gain for a respective win, you will stay stagnant at a rank that is slightly lower than the rank you would deserve, aka the rank in which you have an even division of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. For a more binary example, let's say this is SR where you gain a certain amount of LP for a win and lose a certain amount for a loss. that your skill level is representative of the level where you win 50% of games. However, due to the system, you win 40 LP for win and lose 50 for a loss when playing against people of your own MMR. This means that in order to stay stagnant (aka gain and lose an average of 0 LP per game), you'd need to win in 5/9 of your games to remain stagnant, rather than 50%. In fact, at a 50% win rate, you will actually bleed LP over time. This means that the rank on your profile will be lower than your skill level. Just because there are 8 placements for TFT doesn't change the fact that players should not be bleeding LP for averaging a 4.5 place.
hypnoso (NA)
: I think Riot said this is on purpose, so people would not climb by default.
I'm not sure what climbing by default means. If LP gains were fair (1st gain = 8th loss, 2nd gain = 7th loss, etc) that means that by default you gain no LP and lose no LP. If you mean some players would keep climbing because they win more than they lose, then good, they deserve to climb until they reach an elo where they win and lose the same amount, in that case they'd gain no LP and lose no LP by default again. Also, since TFT seasons are shorter than SR seasons and MMR/LP gets reset at the end of a season, what's wrong with a few players who happen to luck out on an extra 10 or 20 LP due to things like demoting to 75 LP on an 8th or dropping to 0 LP from 4 LP when you would have lost more? It has no meaningful impact on players since MMR would eventually correct itself out until the player is in the right rank. (On the other hand, I have also demoted on 5th and lost 25 LP instead of the 9 that I would have lost). I'm not really a psychology expert, but I have heard that video games where players get slight rewards for playing a lot of games tend to have the most satisfied players, who would in turn continue playing, recommend the game to friends, and buying skins. Players who win like to reward themselves by buying skins. I bought Pengu the day I climbed to gold to reward myself, for example. On the other hand, games that have a "lose by default" rewards system tend to have tilted players who might keep playing to chase their losses, but would not recommend to friends or buy skins.
: Not quite how it works. You can have a 68% Win rate and gain 9 and lose 21, depending on HOW you earned it. It depends on what you Queued as and your record in that specific role, not your aggregate. Also, SR takes into account localized MMR (your last ~ 30 games, trends, etc) when calculating what LP you should earn. Ie.... you could gave a 70% win rate in your first 200 games, but being gaining 14 and losing 21 in your next 100 because you went on straight loss streaks. Also, High Elo ranked LP distribution is very different than Bronze. - LP Gains Lower. - LP Losses Higher. - Some later Demotions literally send you back TWO brackets. - Rank decay for inactivity. Even Promotion series/Demotion protection generally isn't equal. Most demotions occur in 1-2 games of hitting 0 LP, while you are forced to play with a challenging team and win 2+ of your Promotions. In plat for a Loss, it's between 6-40. Win, 5-36. Not much of a difference, and a good player will score in the top 4 90% of the time. Furthermore, TFT is all about YOU. Not your team. You SHOULD have to perform better.
>good player will score in the top 4 90% of the time. If you deserve to be where you are, aka your opponents are the same skill level as you, you will roughly place 1st 12.5% of the time, 2nd 12.5%... 7th 12.5%, 8th 12.5%. That should not be a negative LP if your MMR matches your rank. But now, it means that over 8 games you will lose 42 LP. >In plat for a Loss, it's between 6-40. Win, 5-36. I lose 60 for a 8th and gain 40 for a 1st
Unker139 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=XinZhao2WinNhao,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=QyAAJdUh,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-08-28T17:17:00.775+0000) > > If you're a diamond playing with 7 other diamond players, 1 of the diamond players will be 8th place just by nature of the game. > > And if all 8 players are of exactly the same skill level, RNG becomes the only defining factor of who is 1st and 8th. > > Average of all placements is not 0 LP, average of all placements is -5 LP. > > My LP gains (on average): > > 1st +40 > 2nd +28 > 3rd +18 > 4th +6 > 5th -9 > 6th -25 > 7th -40 > 8th -60 > > Total = if I play 8 games and get 1st once, 2nd once... 8th once, I will have lost 42 LP The problem that you are not diamond playing against other diamond. You are one of the top players so chances are most of the players are below you. If it were all even there wouldn't be the discrepancy in the gains and losses. At silver 2, I'm usually in the middle but there are some bronze and some gold in my games. My son and I were watching a challenger streamer and he waited 12 minutes to get into a game and the 2nd highest was diamond 2. If you assume that you are one of the better players in the games you are in, it is expected that you will place top 4 more often than not. As a result, if you placed once in each place over 8 games you will drop because at your skill vs lower skilled players you are expected to do better than that.
I am plat playing against other plats. Challengers are different because there aren't enough challengers around for a full game, but plat is only top 5% so it's not rare enough for us to have this problem. Silver 2 is where the LP gains start to even out btw, after you get into gold you'll see that you tend to lose a bit more than you gain even if you play with other gold players.
Sukishoo (NA)
: It's meant to have a harsh gain and loss as you can climb up quickly having not promotional series and fall very fast having not demotion protection.
TFT LP gains and losses have the same Expected Value as some casino games. (You are expected to lose 5 LP in a TFT game after a "bet" of 60 LP which is what you'd lose if you go 8th, which is about a 92% return value on your initial bet, which is a bit less than the 95% EV on roulette) Technically in roulette you can also "climb quickly"/win money quickly if the ball lands on your numbers over and over again, but if you play a lot of games, you are expected to lose money on the long run. It's kind of the same with TFT's LP gains and losses, assuming you are playing with opponents who are exactly as skilled as you and therefore placing average 4.5. Of course, eventually you will drop to a rank where you will place higher than the average 4.5 and you will stop losing LP, but it will be a bit lower than your true skill level, which is where you'd place 4.5 on average. People are saying TFT's LP system is unfair because you can fall faster than you climb.
: Except, it's not a 20 LP deficit. It's a 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th/8th weighted system, where the average of all placements is 0 LP. In other words, placing first and then placing 4th isn't detrimental. But..... placing 8th is. Surely if you belong in a higher elo, you can place in the top 4..... And surely, if you're unfortunate, you should still place 6th or 5th.
>Surely if you belong in a higher elo, you can place in the top 4 If you're a diamond playing with 7 other diamond players, 1 of the diamond players will be 8th place just by nature of the game. And if all 8 players are of exactly the same skill level, RNG becomes the only defining factor of who is 1st and 8th. Average of all placements is not 0 LP, average of all placements is -5 LP. My LP gains (on average): 1st +40 2nd +28 3rd +18 4th +6 5th -9 6th -25 7th -40 8th -60 Total = if I play 8 games and get 1st once, 2nd once... 8th once, I will have lost 42 LP
: LP Loss/Gain in TFT
Your suggestion punishes lose-streakers and open forters, which are two legitimate strategies that should not be discouraged to keep the game diverse.
: [English not my 1st language] I'm in my other account (plat 1) and had 81 LP. I was about to finish 4th-5th but I wrongly replaced a minion on my board *dum*. I ended up dying and placing 8th (game was so tight, all are within 16-30 HPs). And guess what, back to 0 LP lmao. I mean can it be a function of at least your quality/performance in that particular game, e.g. 1. If its a stomp (like 1st place is 80 hp and you're 0 hp, 8th place), you deserve to lose more LP. 2. But if game was so close (1st place is about 30 LP), we should lose not much LP. I feel like its an insult to players who are relatively good but still at the unfavorable side of RNG... I don't know. I hope Riot would seriously think about this.
This punishes open fort players and lose-streakers, both of which are legit strategies, so I don't think it's fair.
Rioter Comments
: its really based on mmr stuff, if you are up against ppl way higher then your rank or way lower then your rank then the gain will be low and the loss will be big
In Plat+ it's a documented issue that players are gaining less than they lose regardless of MMR.
: I'm playing both right now and it's taking about the same amount of games in TFT as in SR to promote an account to Plat. Granted, in TFT; Once you know and follow a meta and a general Econ strategy, you're okay. But..... the same thing could technically be said for SR: The strategy for Plat in SR: Shut off Chat, don't get toxic, and play with a decent candor. Keep in mind 1 BAD game of TFT can set you back FOUR wins. That helps equal out the climbing expression, where SR generally only sets you back two.
I don't get toxic and I'm Bronze 4 in SR. >SR generally only sets you back two SR gains and losses are equal if your MMR is normal for your rank. In fact, even when my MMR was below my rank by 2 divisions, I only lost 2 more LP per loss than I gained per win. (+16, -18) On the other hand, TFT LP gains punish people just for being good. A plat player can play against other plat players (aka their MMR is probably about right for their rank) and still lose 150% what they gain for respective positions, which is unfair. However, if 1 bad game of TFT sets you back 4 wins I think your MMR is below average for your rank or you're a Challenger and the system can only find diamonds for you to play with. I think that the typical gain/loss for plat (you said you were plat in the other thread) if you are of the right MMR is about losing 1.5 times a win. After patch 9.16 I gain 40 for 1st lose 60 for 8th, which is still unfair but not as bad as patch 9.15's gaining 37 and losing 85.
Sukishoo (NA)
: But we all started in iron, so how could the MMR not be low in a fresh system? If you were plat vs silver, which I've seen happen makes those things far worse. You'd gain little to nothing and lose a lot more.
We started in Iron Rank with Silver 1 MMR so our LP gains are high at first and we can climb to where we belong easily, but if we're actually iron after 100 games, the LP gains will become lower and lower until they are whatever normal LP gains in iron are supposed to be. In silver, I gained +100 per win at first, but after about 50 games and becoming hardstuck Silver 4, I started losing 50 and gaining 50, then losing 50 and gaining 45... Also it is very easy to ruin a MMR (takes about 50 games) a broken MMR takes a long time to repair. I am now plat after over 300 games and have no doubt that my losing streak in Silver still affects the amount of LP I gain despite having stayed in Plat for over 100 games and proving that I've improved as a player.
: 75%/25% rng might deny you 1st place but you can consistently get top 4 if you are better then the other players and will climb
that's only assuming that you gain/lose the same amount of LP per respective placing (1st/8th, 2nd/7th, etc) which most people don't because of lopsided LP gains
Sukishoo (NA)
: Well in TFT it's built a bit different from an SR game. You can climb faster because there are no Promotional Series (you instantly promote when hitting 100LP), and fall much faster because there is no Demotion Protection (instantly fall at 0LP). In Normal League you can build up a fair amount and then lose an even amount or lower amount comparatively because of the protections in place. So they had to make it a bit different so that it's fair overall when you compare the two modes. Like when I was in Iron on TFT, I would gain 100 to 150+ points for a first place win, now in Plat I only gain 15-20 points for a first place win. So it cuts it down massively on the winning side as well so that people don't climb all the way to the top super fast. I will still lose 70+ if I come in 7th or 8th though as you can drop hard and it's to prove we really have the skill it takes to make it higher.
You only gain 100+ points for first place because your MMR wasn't iron. If your MMR was Iron you'd get the normal LP gain. I've seen someone gain +30 for a win in Silver because his MMR was lower than Silver. On the other hand, I play solely with Plat 4 and Plat 3 players (so I guess my MMR is around there) as a Plat 3 and get less LP per win than I lose for 8th. That is what's unfair. If I were plat playing against Silvers, I'd be fine gaining +37 a win and -60 a 8th because that's what I'd deserve for the MMR of the lobby I was playing in. But I'm a plat playing against plats and I have those LP gains and losses. That's what makes me feel like I'm in a casino, because casinos are literally the only places where the house has an advantage. Normally, video games like to make players feel like they have the advantage so that if they play a lot they can expect to climb a bit over the long run. This encourages players to play more.
: > [{quoted}](name=XinZhao2WinNhao,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=BxWnK4br,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-08-23T23:34:55.327+0000) > > I think buy value rather than sell value is more important. > > A level 3 Nidalee costs 9g. A level 1 MF costs 5g. > > The level 3 Nidalee is almost always better > > Even Elise, one of the worst champs, is better at level 3 than a level 1 MF I'm noticing that the Gold WW that COSTS $9 is barely even worth $5. Sorry, you're just wrong about the buy value. The value on the champ IS the value. And that is the sell value. The gold spent in building is "lost". (But it saved you HP meanwhile, so it's worth.) Haha. I think that I understand. The reason why you believe that the Gold T1 out performs is that you equip early. Compare the two champions unequipped, but with all buffs (or at least most buffs) and I believe that you will see things more as I do.
I don't equip early actually. What I'm saying is that in terms of a 1v1 (or 1v2 in this case) the Gold WW may be worth less than 2 Silver WW but in terms of actually being useful to a team it's different because you probably won't want to equip 2 Silver WW since the 2nd WW gives no extra synergy and takes up 1 champ slot that could be used for a champ that does give a synergy Even if it's a Gold Elise vs a Bronze Swain and they both only take up 1 spot Gold Elise has 1800 hp and 97 DPS without items Bronze Swain has 850 hp and 42 DPS without items The swain might have a better abilities but I don't think it's enough to overcome the raw stats the elise has over the t1 swain
: > [{quoted}](name=XinZhao2WinNhao,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=BxWnK4br,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2019-08-23T23:29:50.211+0000) > > Level 1 swain dies 60% of the time before he gets to transform so yes > > It's about buy value and not sell value btw > > Level 1 swain costs 5g, level 3 Nidalee costs 9g (probably more due to rerolls) > > You're underestimating level 3 Elise btw, I'm quite sure she beats level 1 Swain > > Level 2 WW has more HP than Level 1 Volibear My lvl 1 Swain almost never dies early. usually last on the board. I put them in the back. And also, I generally delay equipping my items until I have my carries. Swain will have a PD, Dragon Claw, and Spear, if I can help it... Also, I just disagree = it IS about sell value. See my example with the 2 Gnars... 2 Bronze Gnars really will beat 1 Silver Gnar. My idea is that a useful, if situational, index could be adding up the sell value of all of the champs on the board at any moment. useful for making decisions about who to put on, and what is required, and which side is likely to win. Of course, traits will affect this. there is probably a power budget for traits according to how many unique members are required to activate that ALSO gives a gold value that can be included in this calculation. Haven't completely worked it out yet. Might be something like: add $1 for each trait bonus that a champion contributes... not sure...
2 bronze Gnars might beat a silver Gnar in a 1v1 but Gnar is tanky so hes sort of an exception On the other hand, I have had 2 level 1 Jinxes on my team vs the level 2 Jinx, and with 2 level 1 Jinxes, they both die to a Karthus ult, whereas the Level 2 Jinx will survive the Karthus ult (or Chogath or other ult) and continue fighting (using BT to regain HP) Maybe in a 2v1, the 2 level 1 Jinxes win, but in terms of being useful on a team and not getting killed before they can do anything, the level 2 Jinx definitely wins. Level 1 champs are at a big disadvantage in that any type of CC or nuke is likely to kill them, reducing the chances that they can be impactful. Also keep in mind that you likely won't have enough items to equip 2 of the same champ, so the 2nd tier 1 is just wasting a space by providing no extra synergy or anything
: Most high elo TFT players do not attempt to make 3 star units unless they're 2-costs.
: Comparing relative value
I think buy value rather than sell value is more important. A level 3 Nidalee costs 9g. A level 1 MF costs 5g. The level 3 Nidalee is almost always better Even Elise, one of the worst champs, is better at level 3 than a level 1 MF
: Yes, obviously, this is besides trait bonuses. That's why I gave examples of champions who would replace each other in a build. And, also, obviously, from patch to patch, champions within the same Tier are relatively stronger or weaker. Nidalee is consistently pretty strong for a $1 champ. She can carry early game. She probably can't carry the whole game unless lvl 3 and item stacked. BUT would a lvl 3 Nidalee beat a lvl 1 Swain? Elise was a disappointing $2 champ, and even buffed, she's still no great shakes as a $1 champ. There's no item set that I can put on Elise that will make her the match of a lvl 1 Swain with appropriate items. I'm trying to compare champions of the same gold sale value, of the same trait. It actually does seem that the lvl 1 Volibear is better in most cases, than the lvl 2 Warwick... Maybe partly because Wild as a trait kind of underperforms lately... I figured that Brawlers would be pretty easy to compare, since their defining trait is health which is pretty clear to measure...
>BUT would a lvl 3 Nidalee beat a lvl 1 Swain? Level 1 swain dies 60% of the time before he gets to transform so yes It's about buy value and not sell value btw Level 1 swain costs 5g, level 3 Nidalee costs 9g (probably more due to rerolls) You're underestimating level 3 Elise btw, I'm quite sure she beats level 1 Swain >I figured that Brawlers would be pretty easy to compare, since their defining trait is health which is pretty clear to measure... Level 2 WW has more HP than Level 1 Volibear
: > [{quoted}](name=XinZhao2WinNhao,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=BxWnK4br,comment-id=00020003,timestamp=2019-08-22T20:18:26.581+0000) > > On the other hand, if you get a level 3 Swain and a rag tag team of other level 2 5 cost champions that have no synergy you might beat an actual team with synergies. > > 3 star {{champion:50}} > 2 star {{champion:157}} {{champion:30}} {{champion:10}} {{champion:34}} {{champion:85}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:136}} > > that team could potentially wreck You won't get a Gold Swain. There's only 10 Swain in the whole game. Lucky to get a Silver Swain. I never seen a Gold T5 EVER. The Gold T3 SHOULD = the Silver T5. The GOLD Shyvana SHOULD beat the SIlver Aurelion Sol. I have gotten SIlver Swains and Yasuo etc... The Team that you assembled, would need good itemization, since you have only a few bonuses... (Imperial, Exile, Ninja) Bonuses are indirectly buffed, now that Hextech is a thing...
>I never seen a Gold T5 EVER. I played against a gold Karthus back in the old patch when Karthus was OP I had 10 champions (level 9+FON, all noble buffed) he had 7 (Void brawler sorcs I think, was a while ago) He won. and I was thinking, I had 10 noble buffs with fully stacked Draven carry, how could I lose to someone who has less champs than me >The Team that you assembled, would need good itemization, since you have only a few bonuses... (Imperial, Exile, Ninja) Probably just Shojins on Kayle and Karthus and Hextech Gunblade on Swain are core the rest is whatever item drops you get The swain really drains an entire team >The Gold T3 SHOULD = the Silver T5. The GOLD Shyvana SHOULD beat the SIlver Aurelion Sol. You can't really say that just because there are different champs. A transformed Silver Shyvana can probably beat a Silver Asol in a 1v1 despite Asol costing more. For example, Brand is a rather shitty 4 cost champ and Id rather have a Kennen if I'm going elementals
LordDysp (EUNE)
: Make games shorter, remove crousel
Carousel is part of the tactic that makes lose-streaking viable though. If you remove their first pick from carousel then that strat gets a lot weaker, which makes the meta much more limiting. Now, having a point and click champion/item pick with the same order would be much better, also prevents a player from being lucky to spawn near the better champ/item while the other person can't do anything about it.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ragsalot,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=BxWnK4br,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-08-18T04:22:10.528+0000) > > To answer your question in the context of how you asked it; no. A team with Sej, Akali, Sol, Gnar, Draven, and Leona (All 4g champs with 0 traits in common) isn't gonna do shit because it's the trait bonuses that add context to the champs. A team of noble+knights (most of which are 2g or less) would walk all over that team, while being worth less than half from a strictly-gold perspective. > > As a champ's price goes up, so does its ability to jack up the enemy team, assuming that it's using those passive traits to empower it. Also, you kind of missed the thrust of my question. My question was related to whether the lvl sale price produced equalities. I know how to gage Tiers and Traits. All things being equal: is a lvl 3 $1 champ the equivalent of the lvl 2 $3 champ (both sell for $5)? Is the lvl 2 $1 champ the equivalent of the lvl 1 $3 champ (both sell for $3)? OR maybe when the numbers are equivalent, then levels DO matter? Maybe the lvl 2 Warwick is actually better than the lvl 1 Volibear, because he is, after all, lvl 2.
Level 2 WW is better than Level 1 Volibear in almost 95% of situations unless you're running glacials. Same with most level 2 1 cost champs vs most level 1 3 cost champs or even 4 cost The only reason to run a 1 star of anything that's not a legendary is for a synergy
Ragsalot (NA)
: To answer your question in the context of how you asked it; no. A team with Sej, Akali, Sol, Gnar, Draven, and Leona (All 4g champs with 0 traits in common) isn't gonna do shit because it's the trait bonuses that add context to the champs. A team of noble+knights (most of which are 2g or less) would walk all over that team, while being worth less than half from a strictly-gold perspective. As a champ's price goes up, so does its ability to jack up the enemy team, assuming that it's using those passive traits to empower it.
On the other hand, if you get a level 3 Swain and a rag tag team of other level 2 5 cost champions that have no synergy you might beat an actual team with synergies. 3 star {{champion:50}} 2 star {{champion:157}} {{champion:30}} {{champion:10}} {{champion:34}} {{champion:85}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:136}} that team could potentially wreck
Sukishoo (NA)
: >also how is it possible to have a game in patch 9.16 and nobody wanted to contest nobles? Cause they were hotfixed right after their buff? (being they were nerfed) So they weren't the best comp but not everyone noticed.
The hotfix did nothing. The buff to nobles in this patch that made them powerful wasn't the extra armor and MR, but the fact that the comps that used to counter nobles were nerfed.
Rioter Comments
Sukishoo (NA)
: >Also if you are going for nobles you have to serious econ, so you can't really do anything with your gold. By serious econ I mean selling all of your extra non-noble units that aren't on the board so you can get to level 8 and catch Kayle before anyone else. Not really. I went and won two games with Noble in 1st and second place yesterday and was able to do a smooth transition into it both times cause no one went them. Even in the one game someone stole Kayle from me in the Carousel and I still found her in the Shop. It's not hard to econ and spend when needed with any comp.
So you were lucky If you're not so lucky, and if you play many nobles games as I do, eventually you won't be so lucky, you'll have to serious econ until level 8 and then hyperroll until you find Kayle, unless it's one of those unlucky matches where you are missing a garen or fiora, and you can't roll for it early game because you need to collect the interest so that you can level up earlier and roll for Draven/Jinx/Kayle also how is it possible to have a game in patch 9.16 and nobody wanted to contest nobles?
Sukishoo (NA)
: > and there are games where I reroll 100g and still can't find anything useful while 3 opponents have all of the Dravens, Jinxes and Kayles from the pool. I've beaten Diamonds and lost to Silvers before due to RNG. And that's why you lose, you're looking for a specific unit rather than using what is given. If you're looking for a Draven and 3 other people already have at least one, you aren't likely to see him so you need to move to a different strategy. If you are seeing 2-3 of a different unit grab them and try to use it. The game has a lot strategic thought that goes into it as well.
Sometimes the units you are given is crap. There are times when the only 2 star you have by level 6 is a 1 cost unit. I'd say that in most of my games, 7th, 8th and 1st place are decided by RNG (oftentimes the 7th and 8th place are eliminated before having a chance to build something useful) while 6th-2nd is something you can play for. Any game where you place 6th, you could potentially have been 2nd had you improved your play. But there are some games that literally give you nothing and you're stuck as 8th, and other games where you just high roll and get 1st. Also if you are going for nobles you have to serious econ, so you can't really do anything with your gold. By serious econ I mean selling all of your extra non-noble units that aren't on the board so you can get to level 8 and catch Kayle before anyone else.
Sukishoo (NA)
: Not really. If they are able to consistently win games then you will get points and get there regardless. The Master / Grandmaster sections are there to hold the rest of those players since they have always limited Challenger in all queues to a smaller number of players when in reality those 3 titles are basically the same thing.
You'd have to consistently win twice the amount of games you lose at certain elos though. In diamond, some people gain +30 a 1st place and -90 a last place. Since TFT relies in part on luck and RNG, it may be in some cases unrealistic to expect someone to win twice the amount of games they lose. People have said that 40% of TFT games are decided as either a top 4/bottom 4 just due to luck in champs, luck in item drops, opponents' luck in champs and items and matchups. There are some games where I roll all the units I need and have 6 Noble + Draven at level 7 and nobody can stop me, and there are games where I reroll 100g and still can't find anything useful while 3 opponents have all of the Dravens, Jinxes and Kayles from the pool. I've beaten Diamonds and lost to Silvers before due to RNG. It's the other 20% that can be converted from a win into a loss or a loss into a win, so realistically, if a player plays optimally for those 20% and top 4 all of those games, their top 4 rate is still 60%, which may not be enough to climb if 66% is required depending on LP gain/loss ratio. In chess, a GM can beat a 2000 player probably 90% of the time because there's no RNG. In TFT, a GM can probably beat a 2000 player (aka Plat 4) close to 60% of the time.
Sukishoo (NA)
: It's part of the system, it gets less and less the higher you become. They only want the "best of the best" to reach the top afterall. So if you are trying for Master/Grandmaster/Challenger, you kind of have to live with it.
The problem with the system is that it tries to mix both Objective Player Skill and player Percentile when determining who gets the top spots when it should really be one or the other. This leads to empty Challenger spots in the low-population servers. If Challenger is supposed to be the top 300 players in a server, then if the top 300 players in a server are gold level in Objective Skill, they should still be challenger. On the other hand, if Challenger is about reaching an Objective Skill Level, it makes no sense limiting it to 300 players. It should be able to hold as many players as reaches the level, whether it's 1 player or 1000 players.
Cräfty (EUW)
: Hextech can single handedly lose you the game if it targets your isolated carry 3 times in a row!
He has 1 more champion, 1 more level, also his Swain is 2 stars (a 2 star Swain is nothing to joke about) You have 2 2-star 4 cost He has 3 2-star 4 cost and 1 2-star 5 cost He has more gold and silver synergies Also, how did a level 7 get 4th place? In my games, if you aren't at least level 8 you have no chance of being 4th place, or even 5th/6th. And there are no 3 stars at all in your top 4? This is a pretty low rolling lobby, I wish I were in that game. Every of my games includes struggling against the people who have 2 or 3 3-star at level 6/7 No offense but the majority of your posts seem to be "it's unfair that I lost due to RNG in a RNG-based game mode" I lose a lot of games just because I don't get kayle after rerolling 100g while my opponents get 6 nobles just like that but I'm not complaining since it's a part of the game, and sometimes I'm the person with the 6 nobles while my opponents are the ones rerolling 100g for nothing
: LP gains in high elo on low pop servers
That's what happens when rank is defined by both Objective Player Skill and Player Percentile, because it really can't be both ways on low population servers. On NA, which is not even a low population server, Challenger was once not full (idk if it is full by now) because there aren't 300 people who are of the right amount of elo to fill it. That's where it becomes a question. If Challenger is supposed to be the best 300 people in the server, then if the best 300 people on a low population server are Gold level in Objective Player Skill, they should still be Challenger. If Challenger is about achieving a certain level of Objective Player Skill, then if there are only 30 Challengers instead of 300, that should be what it is, and if there are 3000, that should also be what it is.
Hercules (EUW)
: LP gain and loss in TFT
>Compare it to regular ranked league. You have to lose an insane amount of games in a row, to lose more lp than you gain. This is true. I am Bronze 4 with Iron 2 MMR in regular SR and lose -18 for a loss and +16 for a win. In TFT I am Plat 3 apparently playing with other Plat 3/4 and I gain +45 for a win -55-60 for a 8th place loss in Plat 4 and + 35 for a win in Plat 3, a 8th place loss takes me down to 0 LP. Based on the differences between the LP gain/loss in these two divisions, the system seems to really care if a player is just one division above where it thinks they "belong" whereas in SR it doesn't really care unless the discrepancy is huge. Also, this is just a suspicion since Riot doesn't reveal what the ranked MMR system actually does, but if your rank is a full tier above where your MMR belongs (ie Silver 4 MMR in Gold 4, Gold 1 MMR in Plat 1), I have a feeling the system tries to say "You cannot pass" by matching you with players of your Rank rather than your MMR while keeping your LP gains low until either your MMR rises to match your rank, your Rank drops to match your MMR or they meet somewhere in the middle. So you're playing against much better opponents with low LP gains and high losses, and that's what seems unfair if it is the case.
Divin1ty (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=XinZhao2WinNhao,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=AruOAHiH,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-08-22T17:26:43.537+0000) > > But do you get contested? > > Because in most of my games they are seriously contested Yes I do, but even if I atleast manage to get Top 3. But maybe it just works down in Gold 1, dunno, haven't played above. ^^
I'm about your elo and I don't get nobles anymore. I used to get them every time in Patch 9.15 but this patch doesn't let me get a single Kayle Draven or Jinx
Kimuto (NA)
: Lux being noble/sorcerer seems to make more sense. Xin being noble seems unlikely and he uses a spear. He can’t be a blade master.
>Xin being noble seems unlikely and he uses a spear. He can’t be a blade master. Draven is a blademaster who uses an axe and nobles in this game are basically Demacian warriors
Divin1ty (EUW)
: I get them almost everytime since I play for Ranger or Gunslinger and collect all the Nobles I find on the way.
But do you get contested? Because in most of my games they are seriously contested
: Because they use items to do damage more effectively than Kayle.
a 2 star Vayne with RFC Shiv and BT does less damage than a 2 star Kayle with RFC Shiv and BT
Rioter Comments
UberBo (NA)
: You don't have to wait until late game to use your items? You have a Gunslinger synergy and want Lucian spreading on-hit effects? You were going Rangers and then pivoted to Nobles?
You can put your items on Ashe/Varus if you were going rangers, then sell ashe/varus and put them on Kayle that's what I do whenever I want to get a Draven comp for example. I put items on champs I'm 100% sure I will sell once I get draven (usually Varus) and when I get Draven I sell Varus and give Draven the items
Rioter Comments
Cräfty (EUW)
: https://imgur.com/w82DYEL I just won a game with 6 Nobles while having **four 2 stars and four 1 star units**... If this doesn't make 6 Nobles OP, Idk what is! * My items were on {{champion:86}} (Morello), {{champion:222}} (RFC + Shiv + BT), {{champion:236}} (RFC _from dragon_ + chain vest) and {{champion:10}} (2x Shiv + chain vest). * Very late game, I barely transitioned out of 2 Rangers (I had a 2 star {{champion:22}} holding Kayle's items and a 2 star {{champion:67}} holding Jinx's items), 2 Brawlers (I had a 2 star {{champion:19}}) and 2 Guardians (I had a 2 stars {{champion:201}}). Also, I had a 2 stars {{champion:78}} for the 2 Knight bonus! I threw all that away for 1 star {{champion:222}}, {{champion:67}}, {{champion:114}} and {{champion:89}} and I insta won. EZ PZ! This is so broken and stupid, man!
It's not though. I'm pretty sure that it's intended that you don't need to have all 2 starred champions for the noble buff to be useful. Garen, Lucian, Fiora and Vayne are the noble tax. If you don't 2 star them, it's fine. They're literally just there for the noble buff. When you run 6 nobles + Jinx, your team is basically Kayle, Leona and Jinx. Also why not give the RFC to Kayle and not Lucian? Kayle is a better carry than Lucian with higher base damage and base attack speed, and having a high attack speed on Kayle means more mana = more shielding. Also you stayed at level 7 in the game in your OP. If you had 97 HP and was first place, you should have econed so that you could level up to 9.
: I always get 3rd place and I don't know why.
Don't reroll for 3 stars. Instead, level up and if you get that Camille by accident, buy it. If you don't then just leave her at 2 stars and focus on buying champs that have a good synergy. A 2 star purple or orange champion is often a better carry than a 3 star Camille, by the way. Right now, nobles are very strong. Try to save money to level up to 8 early so that you can get a Kayle before everyone else.
: Item rng still isn't fixed.. it cant be possible that my enemy gets redemption and bloodthirster very early game while I got 0 items except for the carousssel one and only receive some coins because riot hates my ass
This is true. The patch isn't perfect (I'm not a fan of instademote) but I think it's the best we had so far. The biggest problem with RNG items is not receiving gold but receiving not a single attacking item. If you don't get at least 2 or 3 of the following {{item:1038}} {{item:1043}} {{item:1058}} you are basically playing for 4th since your late game team won't have a carry. You can have many tanks and make it difficult for them to chip away your HP but eventually the Draven with 2 BT and 1 RFC will win. Imo receiving only {{item:1011}} {{item:1031}} {{item:3070}} is worse than receiving gold because gold at least allows you to econ and level up earlier to have 1 more champ or some more 2 stars on your team. And then in later rounds you may get an offensive item that could be used to carry.
Porglit (NA)
: Can we stop insulting Riot?
You're right. It's fair for customers to complain about aspects of a game if they're not working and we should criticize Riot as a company for some bad business practices like the eggs being basically gambling, but we need to remember that individual Rioters are people too. Not all Rioters are swimming in money, not all Rioters are the people who own the company and get to make major decisions on all its business practices (for example, the balance team is probably not the ones who decide how much money to charge for skins), many Rioters are normal people who are working a 9-5.
Rioter Comments
: plz dont ask anything like that so they would not consider adding "promotions" to the ranked system.
We don't need promo series to make that work. Just do a hard ranked and MMR reset (ie people all start with Silver MMR like a new account) at the end of each season to make sure people don't get too inflated. Since it's the MMR that matters and not the rank, I don't get what's wrong with giving people a shinier rank just so players feel encouraged to play more. Players tend to play more if they feel like they are climbing.
Show more

XinZhao2WinNhao

Level 165 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion