Zelnick (NA)
: Riot keeps deleting my rune pages
Zelnick (NA)
: Riot keeps deleting my rune pages
Zelnick (NA)
: Riot keeps deleting my rune pages
Zelnick (NA)
: Riot keeps deleting my rune pages
Days later it's still happening.
Rioter Comments
Zelnick (NA)
: Riot keeps deleting my rune pages
Zelnick (NA)
: Riot keeps deleting my rune pages
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Zelnick (NA)
: Too much randomness makes tft pointless.
~~Either strategy can work~~ Getting only defensive items is an automatic loss as well. I must have played at least 100 games by this point and every single time I get only defense items, no matter how many archetypes I have filled, no matter how many level 3s I have, I automatically lose to someone who has more offense items no matter how bad their comp is, and I'm always in second or third place when it happens which signifies even more how the items carried someone through the whole game. I can beat out other people who don't have a lot of offensive items, but they, just like myself, were guaranteed to lose to someone who has more offensive items. So clearly it's not about skill, it's just about whoever is lucky enough to the most offensive items and that's it, it's so random that not even comp matters. Every single carousel, I wanted offensive items, but because I was first in the beginning even though I literally didn't want to be, I never got a chance, so the loss was just guaranteed from the start. It's like a slot machine except it condescendingly wastes 30 minutes of your time per use.
Leetri (EUW)
: Maybe not early on, but you can definitely win later. I've had several games where I've been in last place the entire game because I got all of 1 item in total for the first 5 PvE rounds and I still ended top 3 because I could assemble a good enough team through smart decisions. I can't even count how many players I've seen get a 3-star Vayne at like round 2-4 and they still end up losing first cause they used all their gas in the first couple of rounds. This mode isn't a sprint, it's an endurance run. I feel like a lot of people forget that.
> [{quoted}](name=Leetri,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=4vvNPR2Y,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-07-06T17:57:14.469+0000) > > Maybe not early on, but you can definitely win later. I've had several games where I've been in last place the entire game because I got all of 1 item in total for the first 5 PvE rounds and I still ended top 3 because I could assemble a good enough team through smart decisions. > I can't even count how many players I've seen get a 3-star Vayne at like round 2-4 and they still end up losing first cause they used all their gas in the first couple of rounds. > This mode isn't a sprint, it's an endurance run. I feel like a lot of people forget that. Unless I get off to a perfect start, I always let myself lose just to get a better pick. Nothing miraculous going on here, other players often do the same thing where they lose and bank 3-4 items for the first half of the game because they want to make sure they invest them in the right champ. The other half of players rely on getting a win streak for gold to snowball. Either strategy can work, players naturally fall into this pattern every game.
Ratpie (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=4vvNPR2Y,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-07-06T05:53:19.039+0000) > > It's really not, the "patterns" are nothing more than exceptionally typical common sense that I would expect any 8 year old to have. Every single player is capable of cost-benefit analysis, so it clearly doesn't have a direct correlation with the outcome. > > The randomness is just a fixed pool on top of a random number generator, which is worse because that means instead of enjoying the game as it is ended to, you have to treat the game mode like a chore by constantly analyzing what everyone else is getting if you want to consistently win, and even that might not be enough. Again, this isn't a skill of a player, this is a basic capacity that even a 5 year-old could do if taught how, so the only difference between players is simply the expectation in payoff that players have from putting work into the game versus the satisfaction of playing it. > > Otherwise, you can make the same argument about aram. You get dealt a champion you don't play, and you could preach "oh but cost benefit analysis of your items! It must solve everything!" but the reality is some people just play the game differently. Some people will be lucky enough to get a champion they main, others don't have a strong main and are used to playing many different champs. If you get a team with multiple people receiving a champion in their mains pool, they win. If you get a team of more ambivalent players against a team who mostly focus on a few mains who weren't lucky enough to get their mains, then suddenly it's the wider pool players that win. > > At the very very very very very very very very very very very least, everyone should get the same NUMBER of items per round, anything less makes the entire game mode an insulting waste of time to players. > > At just at the very least, you should be able to designate one champ that you want to have a higher likelihood of finding for a given reroll, from your current active roster. I would say 50% of the games I lose while in the top 3 are exclusively due to the fact that I invest 50gold in trying to get just that last character that will get me a level 3, but my opponent was of course lucky enough to build their completed army first, as also confirmed by other players. And mind you, this is even while my opponents don't even have the champs I have, so not even the fixation of the champion pool is the problem, it's even more elementary as an intrinsic flaw of the entirety of the game mode itself. > Will this be abused? Well, if Riot isn't lying to us by saying champions have been balanced, then there's two reasons it won't: 1) because either every champ will be equally minimal or equally "broken" depending on how you form your team. 2) If there are impactful meta changes, some people will obsess over a few trendy champs that are easier for a player to see the advantage of, but the inevitable effect of that will be that everyone starts trying to grab them, leading to two sub-cases: 2a) In a closed champion pool, players will be forced to look for alternative strategies to using those few champs due to their scarcity leading their usage to a natural equilibrium. 2b) In an open champion pool, players will not only try to build direct counters to those champions, but also recognize that everyone having a specific set of champs gives no particular player an advantage, again pushing its use to a natural equilibrium. > > This game mode in its current form has too many flaws, it most certainly will not be in a competent form for at least 6 months of iterations, unless of course Riot decides to simply listen to players thus saving themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time. If it is typical common sense why is it so easy to dumpster people 9/10 TFT games? And no, your comparison is so far out there. You are comparing a game that is based all on decisions and RNG with a game that actually takes coordination, fast reactions, and is far more complicated. TFT really takes no "skill" in the typical sense of most video games, it really is about decisions and adaptability (and RNG). That is why the ranked will be "winning" if you are in the top 4. Because of the RNG you really are never always going to be #1, but if you make the correct decisions you can beat out the majority of players to those top 4 spots. I have had several games where I get no items or nothing to matchup, yet by making the proper decisions on the fly I can still end up in the top few spots. Does RNG every now and then just gut check you? yes, but they are already addressing that with the guaranteed items on some rounds, but even with that you will get some of those games, but you should average out unless you only play a few games. And in the end I wasn't even arguing with you that the item inequality in drops is not bad, it really is bad. I was just pointing out, that the game is not as random as it appears on the surface and is not just a roll of the dice to see who wins, and if you can't see that maybe you lack that "exceptionally typical common sense that I would expect any 8 year old to have"
> [{quoted}](name=Ratpie,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=4vvNPR2Y,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-06T16:10:37.540+0000) > > If it is typical common sense why is it so easy to dumpster people 9/10 TFT games? And no, your comparison is so far out there. You are comparing a game that is based all on decisions and RNG with a game that actually takes coordination, fast reactions, and is far more complicated. TFT really takes no "skill" in the typical sense of most video games, it really is about decisions and adaptability (and RNG). That is why the ranked will be "winning" if you are in the top 4. Because of the RNG you really are never always going to be #1, but if you make the correct decisions you can beat out the majority of players to those top 4 spots. I have had several games where I get no items or nothing to matchup, yet by making the proper decisions on the fly I can still end up in the top few spots. Does RNG every now and then just gut check you? yes, but they are already addressing that with the guaranteed items on some rounds, but even with that you will get some of those games, but you should average out unless you only play a few games. > > And in the end I wasn't even arguing with you that the item inequality in drops is not bad, it really is bad. I was just pointing out, that the game is not as random as it appears on the surface and is not just a roll of the dice to see who wins, and if you can't see that maybe you lack that "exceptionally typical common sense that I would expect any 8 year old to have" An explanation is already given in the previous post. Secondly, new people are jumping into it all the time, I've had multiple games where people asked how to make a level 2 or how to buy items or etc. It absolutely does not take fast reactions, just adapting and some planning, that's the whole point of the game mode that it is supposed to be like an actual strategy game rather than an action game, like risk or civilization or maybe starcraft. It's not complicated at all, it's a random number generator with a grid and few fancy models slapped on top of fit. A novice programmer could single handedly make a game that functions exactly like tft using stock animated models and templates. I usually beat "a majority of players" and it's still luck because they just happen to not want to put the work into it or don't know much about the game. I'm not insecure about my own intellect, so I have no problem admitting that. The "patterns" are again just the incredibly simple fact that the champion pool is closed, and then maybe I suppose the fact that the winners get last pick which is pretty self-evident after a few rounds, there's nothing more unexpected to it other than randomness. I literally just won because I had two forces of nature. You honestly think that's skill? The guy I beat had 3 or 4 level 3s, not that that doesn't take some luck too.
Ratpie (NA)
: I thought it was that random at first, but the more I played its more about patterns of play and cost-benefit decisions that makes the difference. Do you get some absolutely crappy rounds? sure. But if it was that random then there wouldn't be people who consistently win or get in the top 4.
It's really not, the "patterns" are nothing more than exceptionally typical common sense that I would expect any 8 year old to have. Every single player is capable of cost-benefit analysis, so it clearly doesn't have a direct correlation with the outcome. The randomness is just a fixed pool on top of a random number generator, which is worse because that means instead of enjoying the game as it is ended to, you have to treat the game mode like a chore by constantly analyzing what everyone else is getting if you want to consistently win, and even that might not be enough. Again, this isn't a skill of a player, this is a basic capacity that even a 5 year-old could do if taught how, so the only difference between players is simply the expectation in payoff that players have from putting work into the game versus the satisfaction of playing it. Otherwise, you can make the same argument about aram. You get dealt a champion you don't play, and you could preach "oh but cost benefit analysis of your items! It must solve everything!" but the reality is some people just play the game differently. Some people will be lucky enough to get a champion they main, others don't have a strong main and are used to playing many different champs. If you get a team with multiple people receiving a champion in their mains pool, they win. If you get a team of more ambivalent players against a team who mostly focus on a few mains who weren't lucky enough to get their mains, then suddenly it's the wider pool players that win. At the very very very very very very very very very very very least, everyone should get the same NUMBER of items per round, anything less makes the entire game mode an insulting waste of time to players. At just at the very least, you should be able to designate one champ that you want to have a higher likelihood of finding for a given reroll, from your current active roster. I would say 50% of the games I lose while in the top 3 are exclusively due to the fact that I invest 50gold in trying to get just that last character that will get me a level 3, but my opponent was of course lucky enough to build their completed army first, as also confirmed by other players. And mind you, this is even while my opponents don't even have the champs I have, so not even the fixation of the champion pool is the problem, it's even more elementary as an intrinsic flaw of the entirety of the game mode itself. Will this be abused? Well, if Riot isn't lying to us by saying champions have been balanced, then there's two reasons it won't: 1) because either every champ will be equally minimal or equally "broken" depending on how you form your team. 2) If there are impactful meta changes, some people will obsess over a few trendy champs that are easier for a player to see the advantage of, but the inevitable effect of that will be that everyone starts trying to grab them, leading to two sub-cases: 2a) In a closed champion pool, players will be forced to look for alternative strategies to using those few champs due to their scarcity leading their usage to a natural equilibrium. 2b) In an open champion pool, players will not only try to build direct counters to those champions, but also recognize that everyone having a specific set of champs gives no particular player an advantage, again pushing its use to a natural equilibrium. This game mode in its current form has too many flaws, it most certainly will not be in a competent form for at least 6 months of iterations, unless of course Riot decides to simply listen to players thus saving themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time.
Rioter Comments
: Unique passives for items that do not stack.
I've definitely seen multiple items stack. The phantom-dancer like items pretty obviously don't stack because they don't change the previous status the first item had. However, what I don't know is whether chance items stack, like if an item says "small chance enemy will be reduced 1 level". If that chance is 5%, well, does stacking 2 give you 10% or 5%?
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-19T23:04:25.479+0000) > > There's nothing that states or implies the grading system was created for the best of anything, the facts are that it is used to disseminate rewards and the concept of elo is decades old and was intended for chess. The grading system's failure shows the limitations of what riot can do. It doesn't matter how old the elo model is when it is clear riot doesn't have a better measure of individual skill.
It can't fail at something it doesn't try to do, it never tried to be an elo substitute, so it can't possibly fail at being such. Riot currently doesn't have measure it specifically because they're still using the elo model, but as was already pointed out, there are numerous factors specific to league that can be used to create a more accurate model.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-18T21:49:20.108+0000) > > Not even a pre-requisite, just a fundamentally different purpose. There's no evidence of any intention of relating the grading system in any way with elo or rank, there is only concrete proof that it rewards players for rare circumstances. > If a player is "good" in the current elo system, then winning isn't a rare circumstance, so they're intrinsically not connected. Why do you think the grading system requires that a certain amount of time passes before a player can receive an S? Because otherwise coordinate groups of people could just quickly farm it for free chests and mastery tokens, it's purely about the rewards. The grading system was created as riot’s best attempt to measure individual performance. The problems you see are due the limitations given the current 2-3 week patch cycles.
There's nothing that states or implies the grading system was created for the best of anything, the facts are that it is used to disseminate rewards and the concept of elo is decades old and was intended for chess.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-16T00:42:24.188+0000) > > Nothing about the grading system "failed", it was never intended to substitute rank in the first place, you're just strawmanning again. > > What has failed is peoples expectations of what the grading system is. People think that the grading system is meant to measure how good they are as a player, but in reality, it's just meant to explicitly denote rare circumstances for which to give a player a chest or key fragment, and it does that so that Riot keeps players playing but without losing too much money from giving too many chests away. Again, reread the string, already addressed everything you said. No one is saying that the grading system was a "substitute" for anything, just a per-requisite. It is a per-requisite, no one needed to outright state any intentions of replacing the elo model. In order to replace the elo model with one that measures individual skill, riot has to be able to create a measure of individual skill. Riot has already shown that they fail at the per-requisite step. You can't just assume a more accurate solo-queue measure than elo exists. Riot has to create one and they have shown that cannot do that.
Not even a pre-requisite, just a fundamentally different purpose. There's no evidence of any intention of relating the grading system in any way with elo or rank, there is only concrete proof that it rewards players for rare circumstances. If a player is "good" in the current elo system, then winning isn't a rare circumstance, so they're intrinsically not connected. Why do you think the grading system requires that a certain amount of time passes before a player can receive an S? Because otherwise coordinate groups of people could just quickly farm it for free chests and mastery tokens, it's purely about the rewards.
: > [{quoted}](name=XXXMurderPenguin,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-15T08:06:46.530+0000) > > LOL you obviously dont work with data. We live in a world of big data and learning neural networks that can see links in data that no human can. It would not take long to feed that data into a learning network that would find common factors that show why someone climbs and why someone does not. That would be able to show how good you are and where you are strong and where you are weak. Big data relies on past variables being applicable to future instances. That is simply not the case in league which is updated every 2-3 weeks and the variables change so much. That is specifically why the grading system failed, the second a new patch comes up, all the data collected from the prior patches simply did not apply and there wasn't enough games for every matchup at every elo on the current patch.
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-15T09:21:19.261+0000) > > Big data relies on past variables being applicable to future instances. That is simply not the case in league which is updated every 2-3 weeks and the variables change so much. That is specifically why the grading system failed, the second a new patch comes up, all the data collected from the prior patches simply did not apply and there wasn't enough games for every matchup at every elo on the current patch. Nothing about the grading system "failed", it was never intended to substitute rank in the first place, you're just strawmanning again. What has failed is peoples expectations of what the grading system is. People think that the grading system is meant to measure how good they are as a player, but in reality, it's just meant to explicitly denote rare circumstances for which to give a player a chest or key fragment. This is so Riot gives players an incentive to keep playing but without losing too much money from giving too many chests away.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-14T16:34:08.833+0000) > > Alright so now that you've shifted goals yet again, then by your own standard, you've discredited yourself. > > It's its own unique attribute, it measures your average contribution to a team throughout the course of a match for your particular role and the champion you play relative to what an average player does for that champion in that lane, still nothing to do with elo or anything that can substitute rank. As stated in the original post, there are many factors that can be considered as contributing to a more accurate evaluation, which many players are already aware of. The system was built in the best way riot could measure individual skill and it failed. There is a limit to how many factors can be considered at once when creating a formula for measuring individual skill. The more factors you have, the more difficult it becomes in determine how much each factor should be weighed in relation to one another. Also, I never shifted the goals, I'm just explaining the same concept in a different way because you were too slow to understand it the first few times. The only thing that has changed is your understanding of the problems at hand.
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-15T07:47:17.216+0000) > > The system was built in the best There's nothing that indicates Riot is using the best of anything, not even by Riot's own standards. Elo is just an outdated, decades old rating system intended for specifically 1v1 match-ups in chess. They used it because it's the cheapest solution and they might not think it's profitable to invest money in a more accurate one, there's nothing that shows the current system is the most possibly accurate system. By your standard, pong is the "best" video game just because people played it. > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-15T07:47:17.216+0000) > > There is a limit to how many factors can be considered at once when creating a formula And that limit is in the realm of trillions of variables by today's standards and it will only increase more as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, you haven't shown that a weight to other commonly known factors approaches that limit in any minute capacity. The graphics card in your computer alone already calculates millions of vertices and particles every second. > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-15T07:47:17.216+0000) > > The more factors you have, the more difficult it becomes in determine how much each factor should be weighed? And? So what? You're saying because it will take work that no one should do it, so I guess that means because it takes an artist work to make new skins, they should never make new skins, Riot should never issue patch updates and should let bugs fester and they should never ban players for being toxic, simply because it all takes work. > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-15T07:47:17.216+0000) > > because you were too slow to understand Or maybe you're just so astronomically wrong that you can't see how wrong you really are.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2018-11-14T06:32:46.333+0000) > > So by your standard I can just randomly make up that you support Ashe dealing 1,000,000,000,000 damage per auto, because no one stated it. Once again, you're just shamelessly strawmanning. You can say whatever you want, it will just discredit what you say and expose the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. > Anyone can presume a more accurate model exists because the player base is already aware of numerous factors that contribute to individual performance beyond a decades old chess system that wasn't even designed to account for anything resembling League. Riot did not state, nor imply, nor show in any way that they are in denial of that fact, you randomly made a baseless assumption. Riot stated many times that the grade was an attempt to measure a player's own performance. Also, where is this mythical model that you speak of that can measure individual performance better than elo?
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-11-14T11:59:12.615+0000) > > You can say whatever you want, it will just discredit what you say and expose the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Alright so now that you've shifted goals yet again, then by your own standard, you've discredited yourself. > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-11-14T11:59:12.615+0000) > Riot stated many times that the grade was an attempt to measure a player's own performance. It's its own unique attribute, it measures your average contribution to a team throughout the course of a match for your particular role and the champion you play relative to what an average player does for that champion in that lane, still nothing to do with elo or anything that can substitute rank. As stated in the original post, there are many factors that can be considered as contributing to a more accurate evaluation, which many players are already aware of.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-13T19:42:31.469+0000) > > What investment? No one has spent money on this thread, people have barely spent any time on it. Once again, you're purposely conflating two different concepts with no evidence to support it. Riot never stated any intention for chest-reward grading system to substitute elo, nor is there any reason to suspect it could be. I offered suggestions for creating a more accurate solo-queue measurement, and before even taking a second to consider them, you shamelessly strawmanned what was offered with something that doesn't even make sense. > > "The grading system doesn't do what no one intended it to do therefore everything is hopeless" is not a cogent rhetoric. It is a per-requisite, no one needed to outright state any intentions of replacing the elo model. In order to replace the elo model with one that measures individual skill, riot has to be able to create a measure of individual skill. Riot has already shown that they fail at the per-requisit step. You can't just assume a more accurate solo-queue measure than elo exists. Riot has to create one and they have shown that cannot do that.
So by your standard I can just randomly make up that you support Ashe dealing 1,000,000,000,000 damage per auto, because no one stated it. Once again, you're just shamelessly strawmanning. Anyone can presume a more accurate model exists because the player base is already aware of numerous factors that contribute to individual performance beyond a decades old chess system that wasn't even designed to account for anything resembling League. Riot did not state, nor imply, nor show in any way that they are in denial of that fact, you randomly made a baseless assumption.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-13T07:08:21.534+0000) > > You keep insisting on something Riot never said nor implied nor something that you have provided any microscopic evidence for. Players acknowledge factors within and beyond their control, and there's nothing that disputes incorporating those factors would make the rank more accurate. You're just shamelessly strawmanning an infinite number of possible improvements for something no one in this entire thread endorsed or brought up, except specifically you. No, you are skipping steps and not reading what I am actually saying. Go reread what I said. You can't let your investment in your idea blind you to the realities of the situation. In order for your suggestion to work, riot has to be able to create a measure of individual skill which is better than the elo model. However, riot has already demonstrated the inability to do that with the champion grading system. Without creating a better system, you don't get to talk about replacing the current system.
What investment? No one has spent money on this thread, people have barely spent any time on it. Once again, you're purposely conflating two different concepts with no evidence to support it. Riot never stated any intention for chest-reward grading system to substitute elo, nor is there any reason to suspect it could be. I offered suggestions for creating a more accurate solo-queue measurement, and before even taking a second to consider them, you shamelessly strawmanned what was offered with something that doesn't even make sense. "The grading system doesn't do what no one intended it to do therefore everything is hopeless" is not a cogent rhetoric.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-13T05:24:16.332+0000) > > But you have no evidence that was there plan in the first place and you definitely have no evidence there's nothing better, you're literally just making stuff up at this point and as such I'm reporting you for intentional trolling. What we know factually is that people get rewards for getting a grade and that it's calculated based on a bell-like curve. You are the one who keeps insisting that someone can magically come up with a non-existing formula to measure individual skill better than elo. You are the one making stuff up. What we do know is that riot make champion grading as an attempt to measure individual skill and we know it failed miserably. Any step beyond that is irrelevant because step 1 already failed.
You keep insisting on something Riot never said nor implied nor something that you have provided any microscopic evidence for. Players acknowledge factors within and beyond their control, and there's nothing that disputes incorporating those factors would make the rank more accurate. You're just shamelessly strawmanning an infinite number of possible improvements for something no one in this entire thread endorsed or brought up, except specifically you.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-12T17:37:02.274+0000) > > I don't see that Riot announced any intention to use the grading system as a substitute for rank, they used it to facilitate giving people reward chests to incentive them to play better. But even so, the grading system is an even simpler system and one that's time dependent, it's definitely not the sophistication required to rework rank calculations. Again, it is because it failed so hard that riot never got to the step of announcing the substitution. The grading system is the most sophisticated system riot could realistically make and it fell far short of anything that would be usable in ranked. There simply is no realistic way to measure individual performance better than the current system no matter how shitty you want to claim the current one is.
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000200000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-13T01:51:26.810+0000) > > Again, it is because it failed so hard that riot never got to the step of announcing the substitution. The grading system is the most sophisticated system riot could realistically make and it fell far short of anything that would be usable in ranked. There simply is no realistic way to measure individual performance better than the current system no matter how shitty you want to claim the current one is. But you have no evidence that was there plan in the first place and you definitely have no evidence there's nothing better, you're literally just making stuff up at this point and as such I'm reporting you for intentional trolling. What we know factually is that people get rewards for getting a grade and that it's calculated based on a bell-like curve.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-10T15:50:13.248+0000) > > But what are these "efforts" you keep referring to? I've never seen Riot try to substitute anything for elo. The entire grading system was their effort to try to develop something. They obviously never got to the substituting phase because it failed so hard.
I don't see that Riot announced any intention to use the grading system as a substitute for rank, they used it to facilitate giving people reward chests to incentive them to play better. But even so, the grading system is an even simpler system and one that's time dependent, it's definitely not the sophistication required to rework rank calculations.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-10T09:52:38.384+0000) > > I don't see where I mentioned the grade itself, I'm talking about a new algorithm altogether that includes a culmination of factors. There isn't any strong evidence that solo queue currently accurately measures individual success with so many meta factors and toxic teammates persisting, much less the "best", which you haven't provided any actual evidence for in the first place. Elo was adapted for chess and league obviously isn't chess, it's an intrinsically flawed approach. No one is saying elo is a good system. It is simply better than anything else availiable despite riot’s best efforts with stats and grades.
But what are these "efforts" you keep referring to? I've never seen Riot try to substitute anything for elo.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-11-10T06:11:29.142+0000) > > When did Riot attempt this? Because that's news to me. They already have a distinction between solo queue and flex. Since Riot already announced it intends two different kinds of games, it doesn't make sense to hold them to the exact same standard. > > "Better" is a relative term, so changes wouldn't make it better, but rather more appropriate for its intended play-style. Flex should focus more on how well your team coordinates since it allows for larger teams with the expectation they are communicating with headsets, whereas solo queue should clearly focus on the "solo" player. End of game has a grade. It is still there, it is just such a useless stat that you probably forgot it is still there. Also you have a stats page in your profile. Solo queue is already solo focused. Wins and losses, for all of its flaws, is the best measure of individual performance over the long run.
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-11-10T08:08:16.966+0000) > > End of game has a grade. It is still there, it is just such a useless stat that you probably forgot it is still there. Also you have a stats page in your profile. > > Solo queue is already solo focused. Wins and losses, for all of its flaws, is the best measure of individual performance over the long run. I don't see where I mentioned the grade itself, I'm talking about a new algorithm altogether that includes a culmination of factors. There isn't any strong evidence that solo queue currently accurately measures individual success with so many meta factors and toxic teammates persisting, much less the "best", which you haven't provided any actual evidence for in the first place. Elo was adapted for chess and league obviously isn't chess, it's an intrinsically flawed approach.
: Preseason Dev Update Number 2!
When you say "Decided games resolve faster," it seems like you're saying "forget about every single late game champ, only pick early assassins and assassin-like fighters from now on" which is just going to make the game even less enjoyable than before.
: The system can’t really do better. We saw what happened when riot tried to measure individualized success. As flawed as win/ loss is, that stat is the best measure of individual success riot has. Riot probably had dozens of other systems but given that the best they came up with with the current grading and stats, it is highly doubtful they will come up with one correlates better with individual performance than elo.
When did Riot attempt this? Because that's news to me. They already have a distinction between solo queue and flex. Since Riot already announced it intends two different kinds of games, it doesn't make sense to hold them to the exact same standard. "Better" is a relative term, so changes wouldn't make it better, but rather more appropriate for its intended play-style. Flex should focus more on how well your team coordinates since it allows for larger teams with the expectation they are communicating with headsets, whereas solo queue should clearly focus on the "solo" player.
: > [{quoted}](name=Zelnick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y3P8Lk6l,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-11-10T03:48:48.737+0000) > > Which is literally what the current system does. It looks like you didn't actually read anything because I was a team oriented player, but the the current system punished me for relying on teamwork and the competency of team mates instead of just abusing the meta like others do...great irony you have there. > I've played all the mages, I know what Viktor does, but I'm not going to start shamelessly abusing an oversight I hear about in Riot's balancing and spam him top, I stay true to what I like playing. If Riot hasn't been defrauding consumers, then that shouldn't be a problem. Sorry but what? No you are not a team player and never have been one. Team players don't use dumb stats like "I still have most damage done on most of my loses". You can still win without meta picks and nobody but yourself is preventing you from achieving it. Don't come here complaining because you think that somehow getting high stats should mean you should be rewarded. Don't come here complaining because someone called you out and definitely don't come here lying about being something you are not
On top of refusing to read the content, that I used to very team oriented but only now am no longer, you're making baseless assumptions while providing no reasoning, it's evident that it's not worth the time to regard your words now. You had a chance to be civil.
Madsin25 (NA)
: Have you ever watched high elo one trick zyras/anivias? You can learn a lot from doing that.
It's interesting you'd say that because I'm part of a group of mains for high/higher elo players for that mage and for the most part, I see they often have the same complaints. I'm confident my skill level is at the level it should be for my desired elo, but the problem is that the manner in which I prefer to play isn't supported in the current meta, which is unfortunate because it's the manner that Riot brags about and that people expect. Allegedly Riot will make new balances to items for that, but we'll see.
: Let's punish team players and reward people who just want to pad out stats.. great logic you have there
Which is literally what the current system does. It looks like you didn't actually read anything because I was a team oriented player, but the the current system punished me for relying on teamwork and the competency of team mates instead of just abusing the meta like others do...great irony you have there. I've played all the mages, I know what Viktor does, but I'm not going to start shamelessly abusing an oversight I hear about in Riot's balancing and spam him top, I stay true to what I like playing. If Riot hasn't been defrauding consumers, then that shouldn't be a problem.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
breast milk (EUNE)
: https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/special-event/learn-more-worlds-season-2018-event read the "Event Shop and Loot" section
breast milk (EUNE)
: they're coming back on ~16 nov
Okay, well why would they have a randomly haphazard schedule? And where do you find that information?
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: Its only an update to VFX and SFX = Visual and sound effects of abilities. No VO updates.
Oh, well that's kind of lame then because it's boring to always have the same lines, and ezreal got new lines. I can literally contact the agency that manages the voice actor for anivia myself and do all the post processing, but I don't really want to spend hundreds of dollars on something Riot should be doing.
: Visual and Sound Effect Updates: Anivia, Dr. Mundo, Renekton, Gragas & Teemo
Rioter Comments
: Cannot use my Augments
You have to click on the mission icon for the event under your scroll-shaped mission icon, and where it says "blast off" you have to hit blast off, only then will it start counting completed missions for unlocking slots, and you have to do them all over again.
Zelnick (NA)
: How am I supposed to know when to use an ult in Nexus Blitz?
: Nexus Blitz patch notes
Why does it only give me 30 seconds warning before an event? I always use my ult too early and then whatever team coincidentally has lower cooldown ults automatically wins the event.
Flemman (EUW)
: aren't they always at the bottom of the list? you don't really need to go through them to know those are the 5 riot made page
> [{quoted}](name=Flemman,realm=EUW,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=3biEaTfn,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-26T08:57:37.215+0000) > > aren't they always at the bottom of the list? you don't really need to go through them to know those are the 5 riot made page I don't always see them at the bottom and it takes up space, so when I need to give myself the max amount of time to think through an important decision, it wastes my time. What's worse is if you don't remember my runes until the last last second, you won't be able to find what you're looking for because it's clogged up with pages you don't need.
Flemman (EUW)
: you can hide them with a toggle in your collection tab (if what you want is not seeing them ofc)
> [{quoted}](name=Flemman,realm=EUW,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=3biEaTfn,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-08-26T07:31:24.265+0000) > > you can hide them with a toggle in your collection tab (if what you want is not seeing them ofc) But what about when I'm in a ranked game and I'm wasting time sifting through rune pages I'll never use?
Rioter Comments
Bârd (NA)
: **R: Super Mega Death Rocket** (New) Ride em: During the Windup of this spell, Jinx can reactivate to jump onto her rocket, adding 0.75 seconds to the windup and travelling with the rocket. Jinx has slight control of the rocket's directional movement (half the turn rate of Sion's ult), but she cannot stop early. (New) Collision: If Jinx is riding the rocket, it will explode upon hitting terrain. This will cause Jinx to be stunned for 1.5 seconds. The same effect triggers if Jinx is hit by any interrupting CC while on the rocket. (New) Engine Strain: If Jinx is riding the rocket, it travels 15% more slowly. (New) BADA-BOOM!!!: If Jinx is riding the rocket and it hits a champion, she will proc **Get Excited**.
> [{quoted}](name=Bârd,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AwfYFGIt,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2018-08-21T17:16:40.944+0000) > > **R: Super Mega Death Rocket** > > (New) Ride em: During the Windup of this spell, Jinx can reactivate to jump onto her rocket, adding 0.75 seconds to the windup and travelling with the rocket. Jinx has slight control of the rocket's directional movement (half the turn rate of Sion's ult), but she cannot stop early. > (New) Collision: If Jinx is riding the rocket, it will explode upon hitting terrain. This will cause Jinx to be stunned for 1.5 seconds. The same effect triggers if Jinx is hit by any interrupting CC while on the rocket. > (New) Engine Strain: If Jinx is riding the rocket, it travels 15% more slowly. > (New) BADA-BOOM!!!: If Jinx is riding the rocket and it hits a champion, she will proc **Get Excited**. You made it: ▲Barder. ◄Better. ►Bardster. ▼Bonger.
Zamb (NA)
: Just sounds like {{champion:42}} W w/ package to me :/
> [{quoted}](name=TheZambieSlayer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AwfYFGIt,comment-id=000a,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:27:48.796+0000) > > Just sounds like {{champion:42}} W w/ package to me :/ Except it doesn't leave a flaming trail and is global and explodes on impact???
Show more

Zelnick

Level 161 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion