Quote:
Originally Posted by MinaciousGrace
i mean if you're arguing against the statement "any investment of resources comes with an inherent risk" then your position is by definition "there are situations in which investments of resources come with no risk"
your argument is that mundo's passive means you can take unfavorable trades in top lane and still cs with cleaver. news flash dicktard, your cs isn't what matters in this game. it's your differential cs. being forced to play defensively and rely on your passive for sustain precludes you from playing aggressively. just because you farm every creep in your lane doesn't mean fuckall if you played against a jax and gave him a free lane because at level 3 you missed a cleaver trying to harass because you think there's "no risk" involved and got severely punished by a return trade/jungle pressure
wow congrats the inferred benefit of a successful countergank flew completely over your head so let me make the point very clear. You threw a cleaver when two of your teammates are waiting to counter gank. Enemy jungler/mid walks away. You lose 2 kills. Now your team thinks you're a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot.
yes i heard league of legends is a 1v1 game what does getting baited into throwing a cleaver that could have been used instead to defensively stall ganks mean
so by this logic there is no risk associated with spamming skillshots at random targets during team fights. remember your argument is that i'm wrong and my argument is that there is always risk. so by your logic beyond a certain threshold of "high damage and low cooldown" there is no risk to tossing every cleaver at a full hp renekton instead of a 5% adc who is wiping your team
yes but you wouldn't be in your base inactive if you didn't decide you needed to throw a cleaver in base facepalm
|
The thing is, you heal it up again pretty shortly thereafter. You no longer have to play defensively after you get that one or two cs between from that unfavorable trade. Then you can go back to cleaving all day. That was the point. Good job reading between the lines.
Generally in an uncoordinated soloqueue game, which is most of the matches that take place in leagues, btw, people don't rely on their team to countergank, and for good reason. I would rather cleave someone and scare them off than try to bait for a teammate who isn't going to be there a majority of the time. Just because you play in a higher league than most doesn't mean other people don't exist. So while in your division it may be a risk, in gold and lower the risk is more the opposite. The only thing you could hope to gain off of not doing it is to waste their time, and then they again learn you have vision in most of those situations for an unrelated reason. If someone on our team takes advantage of the situation before then, fantastic, if not then great, you mitigated the risk to you by a far more substantial amount.
As far as it being a 1v1, who said that? You do realize getting ganked is a fight, right? You'd be at a far greater risk not throwing that cleaver to slow than you would just walking away. So good job again not understanding what was said.
There is a risk, but would you not agree that's it's riskier to do literally nothing than it is to cleave? Maybe you were peeling that Renekton from your carry on your way to dive theirs. Even if that isn't the case, what if targetting their carry is unfeasible? Those situations arise, you know. Would you again rather your Mundo sat there doing nothing? You claim to take into account other variables, and then don't when it's convenient for you.
Think of the situations you'd be standing in base. Waiting to heal: the health cost is not enough to counter the healing of the platform. Waiting for gold: you've already made the decision to wait, what does cleaving do to make that riskier? Your base is getting roflraped: either you know you can't 1v5 and are just screwing around at that point, or you've already made the decision to lose, at which point you have nothing more to lose by cleaving.
Again, feel free to add more. I can come up with a valid argument for each scenario just as you can come up with a reasonable scenario where it would be inappropriate. At the end of the day you're arguing that literally everything in life is a risk, which is true enough if you scale everything to the macro. Let me approach this in a different way though. Assume you have an impossibly small number. like 1* 10^-30 million. At that point, is it worth calling that number it's specific number? No. For all intents and purposes it might as well be zero. The world won't fall apart if you assume it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargroup100
actually mina is totally right
yes, there are a couple of cases that are totally irrelevant/trivial, such as throwing cleavers from base. but let's suppose for a minute that you're not braindead and we're trying to make a point
1. what I don't understand is why mina's examples (and many of them, not just one) don't get through to you. these are basic concepts that every decent player inherently knows, and by definition most of these situations carry risks
2. yeah mina called you a name or two. we talk like this on the internet sometimes, deal with it. his delivery doesn't invalidate his argument, and instead of thinking critically about what he said, you kinda just brushed him off because he called you a bad word. and you were being a douche too
3. and on top of that, mina's a pretty skilled player in many respects, having played quite a few games with him in the past. just from reading this I am willing to bet 100 bucks that mina is not only ranked higher, but he'd crush him in any kind of [fair] competition. not saying that the guy with more skill has authority in debates, but you would much rather listen to someone who can demonstrate their claims better
here's another example to really get this point across:
you're playing blitzcrank, and you're about to catch the enemy carry off-guard with a grab. if your grab succeeds, you nuke the carry and your team wins the fight. however, you also know that the enemy alistar/amumu/whatever is nearby, and if you grab him, they get a free engage and your team loses the fight. do you grab or not?
you can't deny there is no risk, because if the tank just happens to intercept the grab, your team is fucked. it's possible you can miss and a fight doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean you can't totally screw over your team with that decision
you should probably go read up on some game theory. here's one of the most famous mathematical games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
you might think that it's obvious what strategy you'll pick, but there's always the chance the other person will screw you over with that same strategy. when the game and payoffs are not so clearly defined and evident in a continuous environment, of course there's going to be a lot of these hidden risks you don't realize you're taking |
The point isn't that I don't understand that these things are risks, the point is that the risks being argued are so minimal it would generally be bad form to take the alternative, far riskier option. You link me to the basic prisoners dilemma, and we know what the more common occurrence is there. They both rat each other out, because they aren't coordinated. And therein in lies the rub of this discussion. Are you in ranked teams, or in ranked soloqueue, or even in ranked at all? That changes the question entirely. In ranked teams, suddenly every action you make is important, and it's optimal to coordinate with and understand your team well enough to plan risks accordingly. In soloqueue however, you aren't going to be that coordinated. It just doesn't happen. The risk is suddenly lower, because while you might make a somewhat poor call the enemy team can't jump on it as effectively. In unranked it's even less of an issue. So few people are playing optimally that there really isn't a risk at all, at that point.
I'm aware I was being sarcastic and douchey, but I'm not sure why I should have to roll over and take it when he can't handle a miniscule comment in the same flavor of his initial response to someone else. Pretty simple.
Generally theorycrafting involves a low impact from your skill in a game. do you know how many millions of players understand the point of something like warding, but don't do it in game? The point of that statement is to show that while yes, he's probably more skilled than I am, and yes, he could probably take a shit on my day, that has no place in the discussion. His skill lends to him being able to understand the situation in his mmr better, but not the 98% of the playerbase he doesn't play in. He is part of an outlier group of skilled players. They play very differently because they are able to do things like rely on each other to act, and assume their opponent is skilled. I've been from a low point of 800 elo back in s1 to now regularly playing with low to mid plats on a similar skill level. I've seen the breakpoint at which you can trust your teammates to do anything, and really the game is completely different in each division. The basics are the same, but assessment of the situation is entirely different.
As far as the blitz grab is concerned, I didn't list it for a reason. It's a high risk, high reward ability.