The points tracking would be to determine winners of the night, as when you get more than 4 teams, it's really tough to play all the games. If people want to setup a fantasy league, I'd be down, but we need to build enough players to do it, as last week we barely had enough for 4 teams. To do that, we need at least 6 per Painhouse and a reliable group of players.
teh sc2 thread had a team league going for a while, and made the teams "even" by splitting the players into tiers, and forcing a certain # of picks from each tier.
What would we use as a basis for the Tiers though? ELO would be the first thing but some of us don't play Ranked on principal so it would be harder to place us.
I consider myself probably around 1300-1400ish just because I consider myself on par with the people I play with and that's roughly an average of their ranked scores.
Number of wins? I mean its not perfect but its not a bad indicator of experience.
That might work, what about Win Ratio? I'm coming up on roughly 500 wins and my ratio is almost a perfect 1:1 (I tend to try out lots of silly crap in normals and generally don't care much about my ratio)
@Delphinidaes Will you be playing Fiora this week? I'm really interested to see your Fiora top lane. I am really excited about this week, because I can finally play with everyone. The past couple of weeks work has kept me late so I haven't been able to join.
Talith have you ever posted about the meta of high level dominion? If I wanted to maybe start playing dominion, what are the things you might say to me as advice?
Also what is the link to your tier list, heh.
Great write up on the ins and outs of Dominion by Sauron, currently the #1 ranked Dom player.
Question, looking at a Akali rune/mastery build to get the passives to activate at level 1, maybe Westrice's guide is old, but don't the AP skills in the offensive tree contribute to passive actiavtion? My layout doesn't use havoc and uses 3 AP at the top instead. His guide makes it sound like you -must- use runes, and you can't use scaling AP, but if the masteries do work you come out over 1AP over what you need to have them both at level 1. The difference of what he was counting apparently without masteries was 24 AP ( a bit more than needed, and the combo of a few flat and the rest scaling would have been 20. After factoring in masteries, just flat quints and the offensive tree gives you 19.79 (Need 19.5) so I should be able to get away with scaling AP after all. Right?
"Talith’s Kassadin: For a guy who is able to play so many high skill cap champions at such a high level, it never ceases to astound or amaze how thoroughly and utterly useless he is when he plays Kassadin. If you see Talith playing Kassadin, feel free to pick anything--and I mean absolutely anything. You’ll still probably win. "
The points tracking would be to determine winners of the night, as when you get more than 4 teams, it's really tough to play all the games. If people want to setup a fantasy league, I'd be down, but we need to build enough players to do it, as last week we barely had enough for 4 teams. To do that, we need at least 6 per Painhouse and a reliable group of players.
teh sc2 thread had a team league going for a while, and made the teams "even" by splitting the players into tiers, and forcing a certain # of picks from each tier.
What would we use as a basis for the Tiers though? ELO would be the first thing but some of us don't play Ranked on principal so it would be harder to place us.
I consider myself probably around 1300-1400ish just because I consider myself on par with the people I play with and that's roughly an average of their ranked scores.
Number of wins? I mean its not perfect but its not a bad indicator of experience.
That might work, what about Win Ratio? I'm coming up on roughly 500 wins and my ratio is almost a perfect 1:1 (I tend to try out lots of silly crap in normals and generally don't care much about my ratio)
@Delphinidaes Will you be playing Fiora this week? I'm really interested to see your Fiora top lane. I am really excited about this week, because I can finally play with everyone. The past couple of weeks work has kept me late so I haven't been able to join.
Doubtful, they banned my fiora in every game I played in the last PAinhouse I was part of . I would like to play this time though so I may be able to sneak her in (She's not even my best champ guys, GOSH)
I would love to play her top though this week
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
OK, so I tried a botgame...... apparently masteries aren't working at all towards her passives. Westrice says 7 AD runes and the extra 3 from masteries should work and it doesn't. Neither does the ton of AP I get either.
EDIT Tried a custom game and they do work.....something is definitely screwy. Guess I'll chalk it up to a patch bug and try another botgame.
I was going to be productive today, look for a job and stuff. But then I got sucked up into the 4pl casts and I know when this is over I'm going to want to derp around. Ohh well.
So, about a week before people break down and want a full fledged PA team league?
I'll run that too if people want, but mainly I just want to have Painhouse Thursday nights become a thing, so we always have somewhere to go for good games. It's good for the community, it's good for making friends, and it's good for getting casters practice.
Honestly, I'm not particularly enthused about the idea of a team league. Mostly because, well, I'm not all that great at this game and I'd like to play.
In my eyes, Painhouses will NEVER be a team league. If we get too many stompfests, we may bracket teams or start having team picking restrictions, but until then I'd like to keep it fairly informal and fun.
So, about a week before people break down and want a full fledged PA team league?
I'll run that too if people want, but mainly I just want to have Painhouse Thursday nights become a thing, so we always have somewhere to go for good games. It's good for the community, it's good for making friends, and it's good for getting casters practice.
Honestly, I'm not particularly enthused about the idea of a team league. Mostly because, well, I'm not all that great at this game and I'd like to play.
In my eyes, Painhouses will NEVER be a team league. If we get too many stompfests, we may bracket teams or start having team picking restrictions, but until then I'd like to keep it fairly informal and fun.
Yeah. If we're going to do a league it'd probably need to be a separate entity. We're still tinkering with the formula for Painhouse, though, as is probably apparent.
Talith have you ever posted about the meta of high level dominion? If I wanted to maybe start playing dominion, what are the things you might say to me as advice?
Also what is the link to your tier list, heh.
Great write up on the ins and outs of Dominion by Sauron, currently the #1 ranked Dom player.
Question, looking at a Akali rune/mastery build to get the passives to activate at level 1, maybe Westrice's guide is old, but don't the AP skills in the offensive tree contribute to passive actiavtion? My layout doesn't use havoc and uses 3 AP at the top instead. His guide makes it sound like you -must- use runes, and you can't use scaling AP, but if the masteries do work you come out over 1AP over what you need to have them both at level 1. The difference of what he was counting apparently without masteries was 24 AP ( a bit more than needed, and the combo of a few flat and the rest scaling would have been 20. After factoring in masteries, just flat quints and the offensive tree gives you 19.79 (Need 19.5) so I should be able to get away with scaling AP after all. Right?
I assume the guide is before the buff to flat ap runes since that is fairly recent.
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
The points tracking would be to determine winners of the night, as when you get more than 4 teams, it's really tough to play all the games. If people want to setup a fantasy league, I'd be down, but we need to build enough players to do it, as last week we barely had enough for 4 teams. To do that, we need at least 6 per Painhouse and a reliable group of players.
teh sc2 thread had a team league going for a while, and made the teams "even" by splitting the players into tiers, and forcing a certain # of picks from each tier.
What would we use as a basis for the Tiers though? ELO would be the first thing but some of us don't play Ranked on principal so it would be harder to place us.
I consider myself probably around 1300-1400ish just because I consider myself on par with the people I play with and that's roughly an average of their ranked scores.
Number of wins? I mean its not perfect but its not a bad indicator of experience.
That might work, what about Win Ratio? I'm coming up on roughly 500 wins and my ratio is almost a perfect 1:1 (I tend to try out lots of silly crap in normals and generally don't care much about my ratio)
Your hidden ELO should be more about your normal win differential and not the ratio.
Not sure if you can "ruin" that by playing custom games
Is it just me, or is the game you watch via spectator smoother than when you're actually playing a round?
Like the animations and stuff.
Well, the fact that you're receiving the info from the server with no disagreements with what is happening compared to you getting the information from the server which might disagree with what is happening on your screen, will make animations more jumpy when you're playing than watching.
Talith have you ever posted about the meta of high level dominion? If I wanted to maybe start playing dominion, what are the things you might say to me as advice?
Also what is the link to your tier list, heh.
Great write up on the ins and outs of Dominion by Sauron, currently the #1 ranked Dom player.
Its not a secret, or at least it shouldn't be: you have to be a positive player. Got a teammate or someone who's feeding badly? Instead of harassing them about it, you should try to help them do what they're doing, or guide them otherwise. Teammate having lots of bad positioning? Just use a ping or two. Enemy assassin simply destroying you? Chances are they're simply taking advantage of your mistakes and are willing to point them out after the match, so don't rage at them.
In general though I think you should focus on excelling at a few champions you like that cover different roles. Then you just keep playing them until you are mechanically solid with them. Solid execution of a champion will win you a ton of games through sheer carry and raise your ELO. The higher your ELO gets, the more the actual dynamics of the map matter, and so you then have to start learning how to play the map better.
The easiest way to learn to play the map better is to have someone more experienced call the shots for you over voice chat. It's great when everyone on the team has a great sense of the game, but it isn't really necessary. As long as one person knows what needs to be done and when then they can call the shots and let everyone else just play their champions as well as they possibly can. Over time, and if you apply enough effort to it, you will steadily improve and be able to go into solo queue and influence other players to make smarter plays as well, improving your win rate.
The points tracking would be to determine winners of the night, as when you get more than 4 teams, it's really tough to play all the games. If people want to setup a fantasy league, I'd be down, but we need to build enough players to do it, as last week we barely had enough for 4 teams. To do that, we need at least 6 per Painhouse and a reliable group of players.
teh sc2 thread had a team league going for a while, and made the teams "even" by splitting the players into tiers, and forcing a certain # of picks from each tier.
What would we use as a basis for the Tiers though? ELO would be the first thing but some of us don't play Ranked on principal so it would be harder to place us.
I consider myself probably around 1300-1400ish just because I consider myself on par with the people I play with and that's roughly an average of their ranked scores.
Number of wins? I mean its not perfect but its not a bad indicator of experience.
That might work, what about Win Ratio? I'm coming up on roughly 500 wins and my ratio is almost a perfect 1:1 (I tend to try out lots of silly crap in normals and generally don't care much about my ratio)
I just wanted everyone to realize that Delphin is the king of terrible ideas because this is one of them. The entire point of the matchmaking system is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio. It's not the quantity of wins and losses that matter, it's who you won and lost against. If I break even but I'm 1800 elo, that's way different than at 1200.
Every once in a while Sampsen is amazed because we'll beat someone who has like a thousand wins or something. Well, that dude also has about a thousand losses.
they are fixing the irelia skin face, buuuuut aviator is still better
that's a tough question. what makes someone better than other people? logically we would all be capable of the same thing.
This doesn't even make sense as a question. Skill and talent make people better or worse at things than other people. Logically people have varying levels of both.
Every once in a while Sampsen is amazed because we'll beat someone who has like a thousand wins or something. Well, that dude also has about a thousand losses.
Not amazed that we beat people with 1000 wins, we do that all the time. I'm amazed that they are still as bad as we are after playing that many games.
The points tracking would be to determine winners of the night, as when you get more than 4 teams, it's really tough to play all the games. If people want to setup a fantasy league, I'd be down, but we need to build enough players to do it, as last week we barely had enough for 4 teams. To do that, we need at least 6 per Painhouse and a reliable group of players.
teh sc2 thread had a team league going for a while, and made the teams "even" by splitting the players into tiers, and forcing a certain # of picks from each tier.
What would we use as a basis for the Tiers though? ELO would be the first thing but some of us don't play Ranked on principal so it would be harder to place us.
I consider myself probably around 1300-1400ish just because I consider myself on par with the people I play with and that's roughly an average of their ranked scores.
Number of wins? I mean its not perfect but its not a bad indicator of experience.
That might work, what about Win Ratio? I'm coming up on roughly 500 wins and my ratio is almost a perfect 1:1 (I tend to try out lots of silly crap in normals and generally don't care much about my ratio)
I just wanted everyone to realize that Delphin is the king of terrible ideas because this is one of them. The entire point of the matchmaking system is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio. It's not the quantity of wins and losses that matter, it's who you won and lost against. If I break even but I'm 1800 elo, that's way different than at 1200.
Every once in a while Sampsen is amazed because we'll beat someone who has like a thousand wins or something. Well, that dude also has about a thousand losses.
Not quite. The goal of matchmaking is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio over the most recent set of games. If you're +50 wins the game will not give you harder and harder matches until you're +0. It will give you harder and harder matches until you stop winning more than you're expected to.
This will/should leave you with a difference between your wins and losses that is roughly equivalent to your hidden ELO.
This is why we can't see a players loss numbers and why we have to ask questions about whether or not custom game wins/losses show up in your normal wins/losses [if they do, they can pad your win differential without increasing your actual hidden ELO because of the quality of the opponents]
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
The points tracking would be to determine winners of the night, as when you get more than 4 teams, it's really tough to play all the games. If people want to setup a fantasy league, I'd be down, but we need to build enough players to do it, as last week we barely had enough for 4 teams. To do that, we need at least 6 per Painhouse and a reliable group of players.
teh sc2 thread had a team league going for a while, and made the teams "even" by splitting the players into tiers, and forcing a certain # of picks from each tier.
What would we use as a basis for the Tiers though? ELO would be the first thing but some of us don't play Ranked on principal so it would be harder to place us.
I consider myself probably around 1300-1400ish just because I consider myself on par with the people I play with and that's roughly an average of their ranked scores.
Number of wins? I mean its not perfect but its not a bad indicator of experience.
That might work, what about Win Ratio? I'm coming up on roughly 500 wins and my ratio is almost a perfect 1:1 (I tend to try out lots of silly crap in normals and generally don't care much about my ratio)
I just wanted everyone to realize that Delphin is the king of terrible ideas because this is one of them. The entire point of the matchmaking system is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio. It's not the quantity of wins and losses that matter, it's who you won and lost against. If I break even but I'm 1800 elo, that's way different than at 1200.
Every once in a while Sampsen is amazed because we'll beat someone who has like a thousand wins or something. Well, that dude also has about a thousand losses.
Not quite. The goal of matchmaking is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio over the most recent set of games. If you're +50 wins the game will not give you harder and harder matches until you're +0. It will give you harder and harder matches until you stop winning more than you're expected to.
This will/should leave you with a difference between your wins and losses that is roughly equivalent to your hidden ELO.
This is why we can't see a players loss numbers and why we have to ask questions about whether or not custom game wins/losses show up in your normal wins/losses [if they do, they can pad your win differential without increasing your actual hidden ELO because of the quality of the opponents]
Yes, what you're saying is possible but usually really only very early on in your ladder career when there's uncertainty. Over time, you should find a place where you win just about as much as you lose, and your ratio may be forever skewed in the time it took to get there but it will eventually even out.
If a pro makes a smurf and wins 50 games to go 50-0 to get to 2400 ELO or something, after that, he'll probably start winning and losing evenly. Then, over the long run, his ELO will approximate 50:50. It might take a thousand games or something but the +50 will eventually be a meaningless percentage of his wins, a statistical blip.
Furthermore, this just proves what I'm saying. Your win loss ratio is pretty much irrelevant to how good you are unless it's just really really low or really really high. Most people who play enough games for the ELO system to have a lot of statistical accuracy will settle around 50%. That is the entire point.
they are fixing the irelia skin face, buuuuut aviator is still better
that's a tough question. what makes someone better than other people? logically we would all be capable of the same thing.
This doesn't even make sense as a question. Skill and talent make people better or worse at things than other people. Logically people have varying levels of both.
talent at pressing buttons? no. that takes no talent.
Jars on
0
Options
SaldonasSee you space cowboy...Registered Userregular
Back when I used to play normals I was like +50 wins out of about 500 matches, pretty sure I was and am not incredible but probably above the average. Garen got me a ton of wins when I was first learning how to play before he became FotM.
In general though I think you should focus on excelling at a few champions you like that cover different roles. Then you just keep playing them until you are mechanically solid with them. Solid execution of a champion will win you a ton of games through sheer carry and raise your ELO.
This is pretty dang important at any level of play in this, honestly. It is mind-blowing when people tell me they "only solo top" in queue; at some point someone else will end up with it through sheer hardheadedness if nothing else. Once you find a champion you're pretty good at, get in the practice to play them well, then go back to shopping for a new dude to play. Having a few different characters you play reasonably well is really, really helpful for winning games in the long term.
they are fixing the irelia skin face, buuuuut aviator is still better
that's a tough question. what makes someone better than other people? logically we would all be capable of the same thing.
This doesn't even make sense as a question. Skill and talent make people better or worse at things than other people. Logically people have varying levels of both.
talent at pressing buttons? no. that takes no talent.
Are you saying it takes skill and no talent?
I mean by definition talent is a natural ability or aptitude, which is very closely related to skill
they are fixing the irelia skin face, buuuuut aviator is still better
that's a tough question. what makes someone better than other people? logically we would all be capable of the same thing.
This doesn't even make sense as a question. Skill and talent make people better or worse at things than other people. Logically people have varying levels of both.
talent at pressing buttons? no. that takes no talent.
Are you being serious Jars
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
they are fixing the irelia skin face, buuuuut aviator is still better
that's a tough question. what makes someone better than other people? logically we would all be capable of the same thing.
This doesn't even make sense as a question. Skill and talent make people better or worse at things than other people. Logically people have varying levels of both.
talent at pressing buttons? no. that takes no talent.
Are you saying it takes skill and no talent?
I mean by definition talent is a natural ability or aptitude, which is very closely related to skill
Talent is your natural ability or aptitude for something.
Skill is basically the sum of your practice and experience.
@Jars Saying this game takes no talent is bonkers. Some people will intuitively grasp the systems and play better. Some people will naturally have better decision making, map awareness, etc. Even though this game is no RTS or FPS, reaction time and stuff still matters, things like how accurate are you with your mouse, how well are you at aiming skillshots. These are all things that people can be naturally better or worse at.
And people can get better or worse at those things, which is where skill comes into play.
You've never known anyone who can just pick something up better than someone else?
the physical input of video games is nothing. you press buttons. anyone can do that. it doesn't take years of training to press buttons in a specific order.
The points tracking would be to determine winners of the night, as when you get more than 4 teams, it's really tough to play all the games. If people want to setup a fantasy league, I'd be down, but we need to build enough players to do it, as last week we barely had enough for 4 teams. To do that, we need at least 6 per Painhouse and a reliable group of players.
teh sc2 thread had a team league going for a while, and made the teams "even" by splitting the players into tiers, and forcing a certain # of picks from each tier.
What would we use as a basis for the Tiers though? ELO would be the first thing but some of us don't play Ranked on principal so it would be harder to place us.
I consider myself probably around 1300-1400ish just because I consider myself on par with the people I play with and that's roughly an average of their ranked scores.
Number of wins? I mean its not perfect but its not a bad indicator of experience.
That might work, what about Win Ratio? I'm coming up on roughly 500 wins and my ratio is almost a perfect 1:1 (I tend to try out lots of silly crap in normals and generally don't care much about my ratio)
I just wanted everyone to realize that Delphin is the king of terrible ideas because this is one of them. The entire point of the matchmaking system is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio. It's not the quantity of wins and losses that matter, it's who you won and lost against. If I break even but I'm 1800 elo, that's way different than at 1200.
Every once in a while Sampsen is amazed because we'll beat someone who has like a thousand wins or something. Well, that dude also has about a thousand losses.
Not quite. The goal of matchmaking is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio over the most recent set of games. If you're +50 wins the game will not give you harder and harder matches until you're +0. It will give you harder and harder matches until you stop winning more than you're expected to.
This will/should leave you with a difference between your wins and losses that is roughly equivalent to your hidden ELO.
This is why we can't see a players loss numbers and why we have to ask questions about whether or not custom game wins/losses show up in your normal wins/losses [if they do, they can pad your win differential without increasing your actual hidden ELO because of the quality of the opponents]
Yes, what you're saying is possible but usually really only very early on in your ladder career when there's uncertainty. Over time, you should find a place where you win just about as much as you lose, and your ratio may be forever skewed in the time it took to get there but it will eventually even out.
If a pro makes a smurf and wins 50 games to go 50-0 to get to 2400 ELO or something, after that, he'll probably start winning and losing evenly. Then, over the long run, his ELO will approximate 50:50. It might take a thousand games or something but the +50 will eventually be a meaningless percentage of his wins, a statistical blip.
Furthermore, this just proves what I'm saying. Your win loss ratio is pretty much irrelevant to how good you are unless it's just really really low or really really high. Most people who play enough games for the ELO system to have a lot of statistical accuracy will settle around 50%. That is the entire point.
What gounmin is saying is that the ratio is less important than the magnitude of the amount above/below .500. Which is in most cases true. Almost nobody with a fairly high normal ELO has less than 50+ wins over 500 regardless of their total win total and most are higher than that. The magnitude of that number is a clue but not always an indicator of somebody's level above or below the starting point for ELO as the matchmaker should eventually roughly stick everyone with a 50/50. How that always plays in with people horribleness when they start playing vs. how fast they improve can come in to play to make this a less reliable indicator, but there is little doubt that the difference above or below 500 tends to be a fairly strong indicator of player ability while the ratio is kind of a crapshoot because it takes total number of games into account and eventually will kinda fizzle to insignificance. I'd wager pretty confidently that most people who are considered really good on this forum have at least 50 more wins than losses and in most cases probably decently far north of +100 in their normal games. I'm sure there are a few weird exceptions, particularly if people who play very differently in ranked than normals, but for the most part it's about as decent a metric as you can dig up without normal elo exposed.
Posts
@Delphinidaes Will you be playing Fiora this week? I'm really interested to see your Fiora top lane. I am really excited about this week, because I can finally play with everyone. The past couple of weeks work has kept me late so I haven't been able to join.
Great write up on the ins and outs of Dominion by Sauron, currently the #1 ranked Dom player.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1949008
The tier list:
http://www.reignofgaming.net/tier-lists/dominion-tier-list/20243-dominion-tier-list-hecarim-era#c26
Just ask me directly if you have any further questions. :^:
trolled hard
Doubtful, they banned my fiora in every game I played in the last PAinhouse I was part of
I would love to play her top though this week
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
EDIT Tried a custom game and they do work.....something is definitely screwy. Guess I'll chalk it up to a patch bug and try another botgame.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
That poor ryze.
In my eyes, Painhouses will NEVER be a team league. If we get too many stompfests, we may bracket teams or start having team picking restrictions, but until then I'd like to keep it fairly informal and fun.
Now I am like, 1700 or so probably. Lost so many gamesssssssssssssssssssss
Like the animations and stuff.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Yeah. If we're going to do a league it'd probably need to be a separate entity. We're still tinkering with the formula for Painhouse, though, as is probably apparent.
Serious Question: How to become as good as you? It's the music isn't it? WHAT MUSIC DO I HAVE TO GET?!?!
I think you just have the luxury of paying more attention to trivial stuff like that when you're only watching.
skin thing?
tumblr | instagram | twitter | steam
Your hidden ELO should be more about your normal win differential and not the ratio.
Not sure if you can "ruin" that by playing custom games
Well, the fact that you're receiving the info from the server with no disagreements with what is happening compared to you getting the information from the server which might disagree with what is happening on your screen, will make animations more jumpy when you're playing than watching.
I completely agree with Sauron on this:
In general though I think you should focus on excelling at a few champions you like that cover different roles. Then you just keep playing them until you are mechanically solid with them. Solid execution of a champion will win you a ton of games through sheer carry and raise your ELO. The higher your ELO gets, the more the actual dynamics of the map matter, and so you then have to start learning how to play the map better.
The easiest way to learn to play the map better is to have someone more experienced call the shots for you over voice chat. It's great when everyone on the team has a great sense of the game, but it isn't really necessary. As long as one person knows what needs to be done and when then they can call the shots and let everyone else just play their champions as well as they possibly can. Over time, and if you apply enough effort to it, you will steadily improve and be able to go into solo queue and influence other players to make smarter plays as well, improving your win rate.
Also: http://www.wushuplaya.com/boundtogether/
I just wanted everyone to realize that Delphin is the king of terrible ideas because this is one of them. The entire point of the matchmaking system is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio. It's not the quantity of wins and losses that matter, it's who you won and lost against. If I break even but I'm 1800 elo, that's way different than at 1200.
Every once in a while Sampsen is amazed because we'll beat someone who has like a thousand wins or something. Well, that dude also has about a thousand losses.
Nah, I have plenty of time for that. I mean, I usually end up last-pick support.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
that's a tough question. what makes someone better than other people? logically we would all be capable of the same thing.
This doesn't even make sense as a question. Skill and talent make people better or worse at things than other people. Logically people have varying levels of both.
Not amazed that we beat people with 1000 wins, we do that all the time. I'm amazed that they are still as bad as we are after playing that many games.
Not quite. The goal of matchmaking is to get everyone to a 1:1 win ratio over the most recent set of games. If you're +50 wins the game will not give you harder and harder matches until you're +0. It will give you harder and harder matches until you stop winning more than you're expected to.
This will/should leave you with a difference between your wins and losses that is roughly equivalent to your hidden ELO.
This is why we can't see a players loss numbers and why we have to ask questions about whether or not custom game wins/losses show up in your normal wins/losses [if they do, they can pad your win differential without increasing your actual hidden ELO because of the quality of the opponents]
Yes, what you're saying is possible but usually really only very early on in your ladder career when there's uncertainty. Over time, you should find a place where you win just about as much as you lose, and your ratio may be forever skewed in the time it took to get there but it will eventually even out.
If a pro makes a smurf and wins 50 games to go 50-0 to get to 2400 ELO or something, after that, he'll probably start winning and losing evenly. Then, over the long run, his ELO will approximate 50:50. It might take a thousand games or something but the +50 will eventually be a meaningless percentage of his wins, a statistical blip.
Furthermore, this just proves what I'm saying. Your win loss ratio is pretty much irrelevant to how good you are unless it's just really really low or really really high. Most people who play enough games for the ELO system to have a lot of statistical accuracy will settle around 50%. That is the entire point.
talent at pressing buttons? no. that takes no talent.
Switch: SW-1493-0062-4053
This is pretty dang important at any level of play in this, honestly. It is mind-blowing when people tell me they "only solo top" in queue; at some point someone else will end up with it through sheer hardheadedness if nothing else. Once you find a champion you're pretty good at, get in the practice to play them well, then go back to shopping for a new dude to play. Having a few different characters you play reasonably well is really, really helpful for winning games in the long term.
Are you saying it takes skill and no talent?
I mean by definition talent is a natural ability or aptitude, which is very closely related to skill
Are you being serious Jars
Talent is your natural ability or aptitude for something.
Skill is basically the sum of your practice and experience.
@Jars Saying this game takes no talent is bonkers. Some people will intuitively grasp the systems and play better. Some people will naturally have better decision making, map awareness, etc. Even though this game is no RTS or FPS, reaction time and stuff still matters, things like how accurate are you with your mouse, how well are you at aiming skillshots. These are all things that people can be naturally better or worse at.
And people can get better or worse at those things, which is where skill comes into play.
You've never known anyone who can just pick something up better than someone else?
What gounmin is saying is that the ratio is less important than the magnitude of the amount above/below .500. Which is in most cases true. Almost nobody with a fairly high normal ELO has less than 50+ wins over 500 regardless of their total win total and most are higher than that. The magnitude of that number is a clue but not always an indicator of somebody's level above or below the starting point for ELO as the matchmaker should eventually roughly stick everyone with a 50/50. How that always plays in with people horribleness when they start playing vs. how fast they improve can come in to play to make this a less reliable indicator, but there is little doubt that the difference above or below 500 tends to be a fairly strong indicator of player ability while the ratio is kind of a crapshoot because it takes total number of games into account and eventually will kinda fizzle to insignificance. I'd wager pretty confidently that most people who are considered really good on this forum have at least 50 more wins than losses and in most cases probably decently far north of +100 in their normal games. I'm sure there are a few weird exceptions, particularly if people who play very differently in ranked than normals, but for the most part it's about as decent a metric as you can dig up without normal elo exposed.