Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Video Games (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   League of Legends [v2] (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=132864)

PriestREA 02-18-2014 07:36 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkZtar (Post 4080942)

Hybrid pen reds are better, and consider scaling ap blues if your against ad or sure you're gonna crush lane.

I'm starting to replace my mpen with hpen on my AP page. A lot of people including you are saying that they're a lot better and I can see why - do you recommend it on all AP champs?

DarkZtar 02-18-2014 07:44 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PriestREA (Post 4080948)
I'm starting to replace my mpen with hpen on my AP page. A lot of people including you are saying that they're a lot better and I can see why - do you recommend it on all AP champs?

Pretty much, unless you know you won't be able to auto harass very well.

MinaciousGrace 02-18-2014 07:52 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Xiz (Post 4080937)
are you two still bitching about this? Really?

u act like this is an argument lmao

this is pretty much just a retard who said something incomprehensibly fucking stupid trying to make himself look not as retarded with pseudo-intellectualism

but i mean what do i care im not the one stuck in gold

stargroup100 02-18-2014 09:43 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4079952)
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.

I gave you a scenario where the risk was not negligible. clearly that means that there exist scenarios where risks do play into account, and that's only proof of concept. there are lots of other scenarios where the same such case also occurs

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4079952)
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.

ok so you pretty much just admitted that you don't understand game theory at all
1. there is no "more common occurrence" because both options are justified
2. it doesn't matter which is more common, the fact is that your strategy depends on what your opponent picks, so you have to take probabilities into account
3. since the chance of the other player picking either choice is not negligible, your strategy must take into account the risks associated with each strategy

and if you're still not convinced that people are not defaulted to ratting out, let me just tell you that I would more often choose to cooperate, so clearly the problem is not as simple as you make it sound

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4079952)
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.

yes, different situations can change the risks, obviously, this is the point of game theory

in game theory, the strategy each player chooses depends on the strategies of the other players

that means the risks CHANGE, they're not lowered.

in one dimension, team play makes certain risks higher, such as the coordination decisions across the map. however, in solo queue you have a different set of risks, such as: understanding the team compositions to figure out whether or not there will be early invades, determining what locations are being warded to figure out whether or not it's worth ganking via a certain route (failing could result in counterganks, wasted time, and not correctly judging ally contributions could bait allies to death), and what common paths people take to catch people out of position

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4079952)
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.

the difference is that you're wrong. he's right. there's nothing to "take" if you're totally right

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4079952)
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.

assessment of a situation is indeed different from execution. I am more of a smart player than a mechanical player, I don't know if I've mentioned this before. but it's still irrelevant because it's clear you don't understand HOW to assess situations, and that's the difference. mina is able to shit on both shitty players and good players. why? he can watch how a player lanes, and use that information to determine the skill level of a player, and from that figure out how far he can trust his allies and how he can outplay his opponent. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4079952)
As far as the blitz grab is concerned, I didn't list it for a reason. It's a high risk, high reward ability.

durp thx for admitting to an example that proves yourself wrong


as for the calculus limit thing, you actually need to show how it applies to league because I've actually done real mathematics to analyze this game and I'm 99% sure you don't actually know where calculus is relevant in actual mathematical analysis. so you're basically talking about something that is irrelevant to the discussion

plz go back to school and get better, you're making yourself look dumb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

speeddemon 02-19-2014 09:14 AM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4081041)
I gave you a scenario where the risk was not negligible. clearly that means that there exist scenarios where risks do play into account, and that's only proof of concept. there are lots of other scenarios where the same such case also occurs

Sure, there are a lot of scenarios where risk isn't negligible. I'm not saying that every action carries no risk. I'm saying some have none. One counterexample doesn't disprove it. You literally need to list every single interaction and associate a meaningful risk to make your argument work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4081041)
ok so you pretty much just admitted that you don't understand game theory at all
1. there is no "more common occurrence" because both options are justified
2. it doesn't matter which is more common, the fact is that your strategy depends on what your opponent picks, so you have to take probabilities into account
3. since the chance of the other player picking either choice is not negligible, your strategy must take into account the risks associated with each strategy

and if you're still not convinced that people are not defaulted to ratting out, let me just tell you that I would more often choose to cooperate, so clearly the problem is not as simple as you make it sound

Are you telling me people are more commonly benevolent, and don't even take into account the likelihood that the other person with screw them over? Sure, if you know the other person well enough, or have an agreement before going in you can easily both take the lighter punishment. However, most people don't know each other. Most people don't trust each other, regardless of their morality. We don't exactly live in a society where those who trust thrive. You said most often you would choose to cooperate. How would I know that on the other end? I would prefer the lighter sentence, but I'll be damned if you'd give me longer time to save yourself. Rational self interest dominates here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4081041)
yes, different situations can change the risks, obviously, this is the point of game theory

in game theory, the strategy each player chooses depends on the strategies of the other players

that means the risks CHANGE, they're not lowered.

in one dimension, team play makes certain risks higher, such as the coordination decisions across the map. however, in solo queue you have a different set of risks, such as: understanding the team compositions to figure out whether or not there will be early invades, determining what locations are being warded to figure out whether or not it's worth ganking via a certain route (failing could result in counterganks, wasted time, and not correctly judging ally contributions could bait allies to death), and what common paths people take to catch people out of position

You're telling me that a risk cannot change to being negligible? That most risks don't diminish when it's far less common to be punished for it? I'll take Lee Sin as an example. Picking him in a coordinated setting is a far greater risk than doing so in soloqueue. In teams, strong as he is early on, you have to plan for his eventual falloff. If you don't snowball somebody by then, you become a liability that can only perform soft cc maybe twice in a teamfight and a displacement once, usually at the start. Picking him in soloqueue diminishes that risk, as the enemy team is, more often than not, no longer extremely coordinated. They are far less likely to shut you down and prevent you from snowballing anybody.

This can be applied to a large number of choices in the game. Even something as important as counterpicking doesn't apply to well over half the player base when you're in soloqueue. Sure, if you happen to be good at a counter it will aid you greatly, but forcing yourself into a pick you're uncomfortable with loses you far more games than not counterpicking, barring some outlier cases like picking gp into panth.

And then take it a step further into normals. Most people don't play normals with the mindset of ranked. Nobody wants to lose, sure, but nobody is aiming for perfect performance either. There goes even more risk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4081041)
the difference is that you're wrong. he's right. there's nothing to "take" if you're totally right

Are you required to be a bag of dicks to get your point across? Am I being a dick to you currently? You aren't exactly being nice, but you're certainly far less scathing. There really is no need to be cunty in a discussion on a forum.

And if he's totally right, instead of only partially, he should be able to convince me beyond all shadow of a doubt fairly easily. So far all he's been is insulting, and acts like his examples are the end all be all. You've at least tried to provide a decent counterexample with the blitz grab.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4081041)
assessment of a situation is indeed different from execution. I am more of a smart player than a mechanical player, I don't know if I've mentioned this before. but it's still irrelevant because it's clear you don't understand HOW to assess situations, and that's the difference. mina is able to shit on both shitty players and good players. why? he can watch how a player lanes, and use that information to determine the skill level of a player, and from that figure out how far he can trust his allies and how he can outplay his opponent. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT

If I don't understand how to assess situations then how exactly do I survive in my matches? Gold is still the top 10% of players, even if everyone calls it the new bronze. In normals, albeit those are generally less of a tryhard environment, I play with low to mid plats fairly often and perform at their level. If I truly didn't understand any of this, I'd be bronze, or at least silver. There's no way I would have been carried two seasons in a row to an appropriate rank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4081041)
durp thx for admitting to an example that proves yourself wrong

As above, one counterexample doesn't disprove that some abilities have negligible risk attached. You guys have the benefit of debating a more well established point, but the burden of debating for literally every single action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4081041)
as for the calculus limit thing, you actually need to show how it applies to league because I've actually done real mathematics to analyze this game and I'm 99% sure you don't actually know where calculus is relevant in actual mathematical analysis. so you're basically talking about something that is irrelevant to the discussion

plz go back to school and get better, you're making yourself look dumb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

It's not meant to be a full mathematical analysis, I'm simply stating that as a variable approaches a number it eventually becomes negligibly close. the limit as the risk goes to 0, is, in this case, 0. If we were talking about something even mildly more complex then I'd give a more complex answer.

What have you done, exactly? Theoretical numbers for theoretical changes to a champ? Items? What have you analyzed? I'm interested to know in a nonargumentative sense.

And the Dunning Kruger Effect is misplaced here, I'm not saying that mine is the only way, or even the better way, simply that his extreme blanket statement isn't necessarily right. I'm open to a valid argument to the contrary.

Coolboyrulez0 02-19-2014 10:58 AM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
speeddemon more like weed demon hahahaha get it

also take your dick comparison argument somewhere else because im out of your guys league (get it) anyways ;)

Coolboyrulez0 02-19-2014 11:15 AM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
oh also jesse told me i'm perma'd on NA rip cbrx

(account sharing and referrals I'd assume.)

ReikonKeiri 02-19-2014 12:31 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
pseudointellectualism is literally the greatest thing ever. fucking live for this shit

smite arena is more fun than league tho get at me

colt.45 02-19-2014 03:44 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Promoted to Silver II!
Long ways to Gold ....

lumphoboextreme 02-19-2014 03:46 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by colt.45 (Post 4081471)
Promoted to Silver II!
Long ways to Gold ....

zzz bored and ranked disabled. come play? xD

colt.45 02-19-2014 03:59 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lumphoboextreme (Post 4081472)
zzz bored and ranked disabled. come play? xD

I can tonight. Right now Im about to go finish some errands.

lumphoboextreme 02-19-2014 04:09 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
I guess that's fine. Kids bashing me cause I don't know how to kha zix. I'll prob be back on at like 8 or 9

stargroup100 02-19-2014 07:01 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
Sure, there are a lot of scenarios where risk isn't negligible. I'm not saying that every action carries no risk. I'm saying some have none. One counterexample doesn't disprove it. You literally need to list every single interaction and associate a meaningful risk to make your argument work.

1. that's not what we're talking about. if you can't agree on the topic of debate then you shouldn't be debating
Quote:

Originally Posted by MinaciousGrace (Post 4079837)
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"

spamming mundo cleavers while sitting in base is not an "investment of resources"

2. while it's true one counterexample doesn't disprove your statement, you don't actually need to "list every single interaction and associate a risk" to prove my point. do you actually need to list every integer to show that it can be the sum of 2 other integers? clearly you haven't done any real math or you'd never make this claim

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
Are you telling me people are more commonly benevolent, and don't even take into account the likelihood that the other person with screw them over?

this is my general life philosophy because I think it's fundamentally better for humans to help each other

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
Sure, if you know the other person well enough, or have an agreement before going in you can easily both take the lighter punishment. However, most people don't know each other. Most people don't trust each other, regardless of their morality. We don't exactly live in a society where those who trust thrive. You said most often you would choose to cooperate. How would I know that on the other end? I would prefer the lighter sentence, but I'll be damned if you'd give me longer time to save yourself. Rational self interest dominates here.

again, I'm a living counterexample of this. my point again: BOTH defect and cooperate are justified strategic choices, and the fact that you don't understand this means you don't understand game theory

I can't be any more straightforward than this

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
You're telling me that a risk cannot change to being negligible? That most risks don't diminish when it's far less common to be punished for it? I'll take Lee Sin as an example. Picking him in a coordinated setting is a far greater risk than doing so in soloqueue. In teams, strong as he is early on, you have to plan for his eventual falloff. If you don't snowball somebody by then, you become a liability that can only perform soft cc maybe twice in a teamfight and a displacement once, usually at the start. Picking him in soloqueue diminishes that risk, as the enemy team is, more often than not, no longer extremely coordinated. They are far less likely to shut you down and prevent you from snowballing anybody.

I don't know if you've heard of this d1 player named best riven na. I once smurfed with him and he went legendary 12 games in a row with lee sin, something he can only do with few other champions

lee sin is actually an insanely good champion for carrying yourself if you're good. you don't understand this because you're not actually good at the game. I'd explain but it'll all go over your head, just like the last 20 paragraphs I've typed

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
This can be applied to blahblahblah

this whole thing is irrelevant

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
Are you required to be a bag of dicks to get your point across? Am I being a dick to you currently? You aren't exactly being nice, but you're certainly far less scathing. There really is no need to be cunty in a discussion on a forum.

if someone said that ad carries never deal more damage than support champions and someone was being a cunt to him for saying that, it doesn't matter how much of a cunt he is, the guy is still wrong

you're wrong, whether or not I'm a cunt has nothing to do with it. more accurately, I'm being a cunt because you're wrong

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
And if he's totally right, instead of only partially, he should be able to convince me beyond all shadow of a doubt fairly easily. So far all he's been is insulting, and acts like his examples are the end all be all. You've at least tried to provide a decent counterexample with the blitz grab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
try convincing a creationist that evolution isn't "just a theory." I dare you

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
If I don't understand how to assess situations then how exactly do I survive in my matches? Gold is still the top 10% of players, even if everyone calls it the new bronze.

if you understand how to assess situations, why are you still gold

you make this statement as if the top 10% of players actually understand this game on a strategic level

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
It's not meant to be a full mathematical analysis, I'm simply stating that as a variable approaches a number it eventually becomes negligibly close. the limit as the risk goes to 0, is, in this case, 0. If we were talking about something even mildly more complex then I'd give a more complex answer.

if a variable approaches infinity it never becomes "negligibly close" to infinity
whether or not something becomes "negligibly close" depends on what you define as "close" from both situation assessment and error analysis
the limit as risk goes to 0 makes what 0? risk? so risk = risk?????

if you wanna play this "not a full mathematical analysis" game I can say that because of something called chaos theory, any tiny decision you make during a game can completely alter its course, therefore making the associated risks of any decision extremely large and significant. have you never heard of chaos theory? maybe you should go back to school and take a chaos theory class

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeddemon (Post 4081289)
What have you done, exactly? Theoretical numbers for theoretical changes to a champ? Items? What have you analyzed? I'm interested to know in a nonargumentative sense.

And the Dunning Kruger Effect is misplaced here, I'm not saying that mine is the only way, or even the better way, simply that his extreme blanket statement isn't necessarily right. I'm open to a valid argument to the contrary.

sorry but I only share my analysis to people I actually trust

I've spent way too much time working on this to be willy-nilly throwing this information around like it's free to people who won't even understand it and use it poorly and make me look like a cunt. no thx

choof 02-19-2014 07:10 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
posting after bufang

Razor 02-19-2014 09:01 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
went 2-8 in placements, placed gold 4 from plat 2

now i'm 37-25 back in plat 5

i forgot how bad gold players were lel

next stop diamond

hi19hi19 02-19-2014 10:25 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Xenics running the "Yasuo setup comp" vs SKT S
Shyvana Wukong Yasuo Lulu + safe ADC (Cait, Ez, Lucian)

I've seen it a few times before in competitive play, saw it in the NA challenger league games recently. Definitely seems to be the best comp for getting a Yasuo rolling. Reliable AoE knockups in every section of the map at 6, general good scaling and great teamfight potential.

Fun to see the big knockup wombo comboes and the smart rotations the other team has to make to avoid them.


That said I still think Yasuo has an overtuned and overloaded kit and is an un-fun champion to play against

.Gazelle. 02-19-2014 11:08 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolboyrulez0 (Post 4081321)
oh also jesse told me i'm perma'd on NA rip cbrx

(account sharing and referrals I'd assume.)

):

ReikonKeiri 02-20-2014 09:25 AM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Gold being trash is an understatement. I can't believe how hard I struggled last season. Truly embarrassing.

AWlliamaMync 02-20-2014 11:48 AM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
День добрый-

PriestREA 02-20-2014 12:06 PM

Re: League of Legends [v2]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AWlliamaMync (Post 4081894)
День добрый-

I agree, but what about the children?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution