If you upgrade his Q with maxed CDR you are speedy McDeathstun.
I think if I was going to do anything to Viktor I would speed up the Q projectile (since by the time the damn thing gets back to you to start the shield up you will have already been attacked) or give it an additional effect like applying the shield to team mates like Lux's W.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
2) Winning/Losing takes into account all of those factors
No, it makes a fundamental attribution error, in considering all of those variables as things that the player has control of and factor into their skill.
Yeah, as a non-leader you are responsible for 0% of bans and 20% of champ selections. Now, you can offer suggestions, but there is no mechanic to select politer, better teammates besides duo queueing, and even that is only partial. However, it gets worse. Not all champ selections are created equal. If you are last pick, and you have a top, mid, jungle, and AD bottom, well, your choices are limited. You can buck the meta, but there's only so many places you can physically go on the map. I consider myself a significantly better than average player, and it would disrupt my entire laning phase if someone decided to say, duo top with my Trynd, or double jungle on our side, etc. So, while there is something to be said for playing what you are good at, well, my last Karma game is an example of what can happen when you do that. I almost won the lane by myself, but my poppy was arguably less useful than being AFK, as she provided no help, fed kills, and caused me to play over aggressively (I was playing expecting at least mediocre play from my lanemate. What I got was a dead fish).
And even over large sample sizes, you can get a disproportionate number of last picks, even (especially?) as a solo queue. Ask Pacstar, he was running the numbers for a while.
3) player skills, while sometimes disparate across areas, tend to be highly correlated. I.E. it is possible to be a good laner and a bad jungler, but the better you lane the better a jungler we expect you to be.
This is exactly what I was objecting to. The idea that you can lump in every aspect of the skills needed to be a perfect player to determine whether someone is "good" or "bad" as if it accurately presents their skill.
Skill in this game is not a one-dimensional attribute. It is multi-dimensional, and there's plenty of interplay between those dimensions.
If you've seen a top player play a role they're very unfamiliar with (saint did quite a fun experiment while his account was banned, which was to play a role he was unfamiliar with from starting elo; you could easily see he wasn't performing at the level he does on a jungler) you can see where elo starts to fall down when you're trying to assert that it's an accurate representation of a player's individual skill.
Yeah. I'm a pretty unevenly skilled player, personally. I think 1400 is a reasonable estimate of my support skill, but a jokishly low estimate of my jungling / solo top skill, for example. If I end up bottom more than 40% of my games, well, I'm going to be undervalued relative to an even distribution of roles, and hell, a lot of people don't actually want an even distribution. If I was running a full premade, I wouldn't have saint play a support, for example, because it wastes his skill.
What I want, and I think others would agree, is a system that puts me in a position to succeed, and then challenges me with opponents of a level that will win 50% of the time despite my best efforts (well, I wouldn't mind a 60/40 split. I like both challenges and winning. ). What I've got is a system that is radically inconsistent in terms of enemy and ally skill level and random bullshit. I don't want to win because of an enemy DC, and I don't want to lose because my bottom lane is 200 Elo overrated but it hasn't caught up with them yet. I realize that is like wishing for a pony, but the incredible, gigantic gap between "What I want" and "What I've got" is why I sometimes complain about how the Elo / MM system works, and why many other people level legitimate complaints about the system.
I'm not sure it can be done better, (I think a preference system that matched people who love jungling with 4 people who don't love jungling could improve both fun and success rates significantly, though you could run into "LF1M healer, please, before the world turns to dust under a blood red sun, send tell" like in MMOs) but arguments about how Elo actually measures your skill correctly, esp. at say, 20 games, are just silly, because they are patently untrue, except in the most broad, long term sense. No one wants to be the one guy who catches plague during that year, even if <1% of people get it annually.
No, it's the very definition of a FAE. You're attributing an error to the player that cannot be attributed to them. Sorry, but this has bugger all to do with induction; it's an FAE plain and simple.
Maybe you should google "fundamental attribution error" because it has nothing to do with "cannot be attributed to them".
Note also that we do not care if a player "failed" or not, it matters little whether or not, when I am playing a chess game, that i lose because i made an error or because I got stomped.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, this prediction also makes zero sense at lower elos (it holds true for higher, more consistent elos).
Correlation basically means that if we were able to record someones actual skill, when we randomly grabbed a person out of any game and checked their skill at "portion of the game A" we would expect that it would be be a similar deviation from the norm of their skill at "portion b of the game". Uncorrelated basically means that if we check how good you are at laning we don't get any information about how good you are at jungling.
If anywhere this is not going to hold true, its going to hold true at middle ELO's. At low ELO's if you're significantly better laner than you are jungler you can simply not have a jungler and do OK because there is little chance the enemy jungler is going to be awesome (else he would have higher ELO). It is only when you start to become "forced" into a role that you can no longer just pick your best area and do it regardless.
But really we expect that it is going to roughly hold at all ELO's. Simply because we have a reasonable belief that people understand how the game works. I mean look, if skill in one area were uncorrelated with skill in another then we would have no reason to believe that SV would be a better laner than any random person in the game. But we do believe it and we don't believe it for no reason. ~P->~Q implies Q->P
No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the attribution of the system that because the team failed, the player must have failed.
If the team failed then the player didn't win...
That is also not a fundamental attribution error, what you're talking about is the impossibility of induction. And i can tell you right now that even if induction is "impossible", we can prove it works more often than not by showing that it does not "not work".
What you are literally saying is that if a player goes 0-50 in his fist 50 games we cannot reasonably assume that he is bad. I am pretty sure that is bollocks.
Except that if an excellent jungler only plays as a jungler, you're no longer measuring "overall skill", are you?
If he can always jungle then he must be quite skilled at the meta game that allows him to always jungle, so what do we care? I am not good playing EVE, fortunately i am very good at not picking EVE...
What I've got is a system that is radically inconsistent in terms of enemy and ally skill level and random bullshit. I don't want to win because of an enemy DC, and I don't want to lose because my bottom lane is 200 Elo overrated but it hasn't caught up with them yet.
[...]
but arguments about how Elo actually measures your skill correctly, esp. at say, 20 games, are just silly, because they are patently untrue, except in the most broad, long term sense. No one wants to be the one guy who catches plague during that year, even if <1% of people get it annually.
Actually what you have is a huge case of the fundamental attribution error. You lose games because "they picked jungler and they are bad" and not because anything your team does or anything you failed to do. You may be a better jungler, communicate that to your team, seriously when you get in team chat say "i lose a lot more games when I lane, i want to jungle, its not that I am an ass, i just want to win and will not play as well as someone who is good at laning if i lane" Over a shockingly low number of games relative to what you've probably played your ELO will be accurate. It will be accurate to include the fact that you are not as good a jungler and sometimes get stuck laning. Getting stuck at something you're not best at is part of the game.
This is because of chat being completely dead the for the two weeks I was in it.
I do need some people to play, though, since Kaorti is always off playing Warmachine and my other friend uninstalled for the Tribes beta.
Played with Kaorti last night. Quite a nice guy, would definitely play with him again. He said it was his first time with a 0cs support, which amazed me. I refuse to play AD carry if I don't have a 0cs support. Even if they're bad, at least they tried, but if they take my cs and push the lane, I get so frustrated.
My group is always looking for decent human beings to play with, so add me ingame and we'll get a game going sometime. Not sure about today, but I'm on most days.
This is because of chat being completely dead the for the two weeks I was in it.
I do need some people to play, though, since Kaorti is always off playing Warmachine and my other friend uninstalled for the Tribes beta.
Played with Kaorti last night. Quite a nice guy, would definitely play with him again. He said it was his first time with a 0cs support, which amazed me. I refuse to play AD carry if I don't have a 0cs support. Even if they're bad, at least they tried, but if they take my cs and push the lane, I get so frustrated.
My group is always looking for decent human beings to play with, so add me ingame and we'll get a game going sometime. Not sure about today, but I'm on most days.
I could have sworn I 0CS'd for him before (can't stand being the AD carry). Most of the time I'm jungle or solotop, though.
I'm 'Das Frolic' on LoL, I'll invite you when I get home from fixing my sister's comp.
Has the Tribunal system been discussed in this here forum?
My only problem with the tribunal system is that I can only vote to punish the individual in the case/report. On the average tribunal case chat log there are about 3 people who ought to get a ban of some kind.
Has the Tribunal system been discussed in this here forum?
The tribunal system is nowhere near hard enough on the jerks and asshats in the game. You'll see a lot of complaining and whining on the general LoL forums about how they didn't deserve the ban, then one of the Rioters will come in and give a list of things they've done, it's quite humourous. They've even stated that the people voting on the tribunal actually vote to pardon more than the Rioters themselves would.
That said, I know it's too light, or people don't report enough, because people like ChaosHat have never even gotten a warning. ChaosHat is one of my favouite people to play with, but DAMN does ever troll the other team sometimes. He's even wondered it himself.
Interesting. I just read up on it and Im' kind of appalled by it. I have gone through and read what many of the Tribunal players have said they banned for. Complaining too much about a certain OP champ, not laning properly, item selection. it seems to be less of a "Summoners Code" and more of a "What does this particular player think the game should be" with little to no recourse for the players. I agree many should be banned or suspended, I tolerate absolutely zero racism and homophobia. But when I see people suspended for playing a champion "wrong" or going against the grain (taking a mid lane with a non popular champ), I see it as harmful to the community.
Interesting. I just read up on it and Im' kind of appalled by it. I have gone through and read what many of the Tribunal players have said they banned for. Complaining too much about a certain OP champ, not laning properly, item selection. it seems to be less of a "Summoners Code" and more of a "What does this particular player think the game should be" with little to no recourse for the players. I agree many should be banned or suspended, I tolerate absolutely zero racism and homophobia. But when I see people suspended for playing a champion "wrong" or going against the grain (taking a mid lane with a non popular champ), I see it as harmful to the community.
People report for that, but you are not banned for that. Most often, you'll see three reports for a person. Two will be just general whining from another teammate and an undeserved report, but the third will be something racist and BAM, punished. Those other two are there, but that's not why they were punished.
You also have to have a huge number of reports against you to actually end up in the tribunal.
I've never seen a tribunal report come up for playing a champion "wrong" or taking the wrong lane. I've seen them come up for the player playing poorly and being an ass about it.
Yeah, it's not one report that gets them banned, it's being a jerkface in game after game. Most of the tribunal cases are 3-5 different games that you read through. Most of the people are really just kind of terrible team mates. Always bitching at someone else, raging like a rage machine, cutting loose with the racial or ethnic slurs.
But everyone who judges the cases has their own hot button items that are instant punishes. Someone says that N word? Yeap, that's a punish. I don't care why, I don't care that they 'were just joking about it'. This isn't 4chan, that shit doesn't belong here. I have never punished someone because they weren't playing a character the way the reporter wanted them to play it. I don't care if someone wants to build an AP Taric and they won't be punished from me for that.
Interesting. I see a lot of otherwise said on the Tribunal board of LoL and from talking with players that have participated. I have seen players that know each other all report one person and then that person is banned becuase, welp, that's 5 chances for a Tribunal member to punish them.
Edit-Is there an age limit, or is it just level 30? Can anyone participate in this? If so, and after having been in a few ranked matches, woe be unto us normal folk.
Interesting. I just read up on it and Im' kind of appalled by it. I have gone through and read what many of the Tribunal players have said they banned for. Complaining too much about a certain OP champ, not laning properly, item selection. it seems to be less of a "Summoners Code" and more of a "What does this particular player think the game should be" with little to no recourse for the players. I agree many should be banned or suspended, I tolerate absolutely zero racism and homophobia. But when I see people suspended for playing a champion "wrong" or going against the grain (taking a mid lane with a non popular champ), I see it as harmful to the community.
I wish they would just remove that reporting option; I have sat on a lot of tribunal cases and those never really make it up there. And besides, the tribunal is up to YOU.
If I did see a report that said "X player was a bad tryndamere" from a few people, I wouldn't punish them for being bad, unless they were also a douchebag.
It is a great system, it just needs to be expanded, as some said.
I think that reporting for unskilled player should report the dude reporting instead.
I suggested this as well
I like the way you think
I think the idea behind it is that they can look at it and drop your hidden ELO. Also, I haven't really seen any tribunal cases that were dudes "playing wrong", lots of intentionally feeding reports that are borderline and I usually just skip, but most often it's someone spamming or being an ass in chat, and they get punished.
Interesting. I see a lot of otherwise said on the Tribunal board of LoL and from talking with players that have participated. I have seen players that know each other all report one person and then that person is banned becuase, welp, that's 5 chances for a Tribunal member to punish them.
Edit-Is there an age limit, or is it just level 30? Can anyone participate in this? If so, and after having been in a few ranked matches, woe be unto us normal folk.
I dont think you have any idea how Tribunal works.
Only people with a large number of reports against them end up in there, so a single game of 4 jackasses team reporting you for a gag wont put you in the Tribunal.
Next, the Tribunal requires consesus from the 10 people assigned to your "cases" because I have never seen someone in the Tribunal have only a single match of getting reported. So if you have 3 games you have been reported in, and you legitimately deserved it in 1 game, then you are going to get punished by all 10.
Then, after the Tribunal has consesus on whether or not to punish you, then RIOT decides what your punishment will be, anything from a warning to a ban.
I consider rampant flaming the only thing that ruins the game experience, so it's the only cases I punish. Other cases I skip because they are usually boring.
Interesting. I just read up on it and Im' kind of appalled by it. I have gone through and read what many of the Tribunal players have said they banned for. Complaining too much about a certain OP champ, not laning properly, item selection. it seems to be less of a "Summoners Code" and more of a "What does this particular player think the game should be" with little to no recourse for the players. I agree many should be banned or suspended, I tolerate absolutely zero racism and homophobia. But when I see people suspended for playing a champion "wrong" or going against the grain (taking a mid lane with a non popular champ), I see it as harmful to the community.
It should be noted that players who are banned via Tribunal and then post about why they were banned, most of the time are lying and/or just have no comprehension that they were doing something wrong. There are quite a a few interesting posts where a community member will call out the worst offenders and list specifically why they were banned, and most of the time it has nothing to do with why they posted that they were banned.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I dont think you have any idea how Tribunal works.
Only people with a large number of reports against them end up in there, so a single game of 4 jackasses team reporting you for a gag wont put you in the Tribunal.
Next, the Tribunal requires consesus from the 10 people assigned to your "cases" because I have never seen someone in the Tribunal have only a single match of getting reported. So if you have 3 games you have been reported in, and you legitimately deserved it in 1 game, then you are going to get punished by all 10.
Then, after the Tribunal has consesus on whether or not to punish you, then RIOT decides what your punishment will be, anything from a warning to a ban.
There has only been ONE time I have seen a person on there from one report. I don't know how that happened, but it did. It was also the funniest tribunal I have ever read. All four teammates reported him, none of the enemies, and there was also not a word of chat in the log, which means it was a premade, and they were talking on mumble or vent or something. Two of the reports said nothing, but the other two were "He is mean, please ban him forever", and the other was "He kicked me out of his house and told me I'm not allowed to play at his house anymore. Please ban him for kicking me out of his house."
The names were all spanish, so I believe they were a Mexican premade and one of the friends just lost it on the others. I pardoned him, but it's a month later and I still chuckle about it.
Interesting. I see a lot of otherwise said on the Tribunal board of LoL and from talking with players that have participated. I have seen players that know each other all report one person and then that person is banned becuase, welp, that's 5 chances for a Tribunal member to punish them.
Edit-Is there an age limit, or is it just level 30? Can anyone participate in this? If so, and after having been in a few ranked matches, woe be unto us normal folk.
Your first issue is reading their tribunal board on the official forums and taking it as fact. It's 95% people whining over 'unjust' bans and people complaining about the system without understanding how it works.
I do the tribunal quite regularly, ever since it came out, and there have been maybe 4 cases that required me to actually look at everything and mentally weigh it. Most of the reports have either a 1:10 KD ratio and someone level 14 at 36 minutes, or giant streams of profanity through the chatlog. Or else there's nothing off, and they were reported for a reason not evident and so its a pardon.
And it is true. To be considered for a ban you have to have a large number of reports. Riot revealed their ban list before the tribunal and the nicest person on their had 66 reports against them. The tribunal just makes it so that you get to decide, and save Riot work.
It should be noted that players who are banned via Tribunal and then post about why they were banned, most of the time are lying and/or just have no comprehension that they were doing something wrong. There are quite a a few interesting posts where a community member will call out the worst offenders and list specifically why they were banned, and most of the time it has nothing to do with why they posted that they were banned.
Isn't that kind of counter intuitive to improving the community?
It should be noted that players who are banned via Tribunal and then post about why they were banned, most of the time are lying and/or just have no comprehension that they were doing something wrong. There are quite a a few interesting posts where a community member will call out the worst offenders and list specifically why they were banned, and most of the time it has nothing to do with why they posted that they were banned.
Isn't that kind of counter intuitive to improving the community?
Calling out people who are flat out lying and trying to make it look like the tribunal system is somehow persecuting them and banning them for no reason?
No I'd saying calling them out for that crap and showing that the tribunal system actually works quite well is pretty conductive to improving the community.
It's not like they were mean about it, they came on and pointed out. "So and so you were not banned for spitting into the wind on a friday, you were banned for multiple counts of swearing and threatening to disembowel your fellow players over the course of 50 games. This activity is not in adherence with the Summoner's Code"
Letting the players perpetuate false claims is counter intuitive to improving the community.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
It should be noted that players who are banned via Tribunal and then post about why they were banned, most of the time are lying and/or just have no comprehension that they were doing something wrong. There are quite a a few interesting posts where a community member will call out the worst offenders and list specifically why they were banned, and most of the time it has nothing to do with why they posted that they were banned.
Isn't that kind of counter intuitive to improving the community?
I don't understand where your question is coming from. You improve the community by letting the jerks know that no matter how much money they spend, they can and will be removed from the community for being jerks. These people get MULTIPLE warnings and temp bans before being permanently removed.
Unfortunately, they truly believe they have done nothing wrong, when in fact they are toxic and destroy the game for others. What Dephinidaes is talking about is when they post in the forums saying they were unjustly punished, that they did nothing wrong(which they then add on to, saying they should be allowed to rage at people who feed or troll, that it's not their fault they rage). Forum members then pop in and say "Hey, I did one of you tribunal cases! You are a terrible person for doing ________ and deserved the ban." If it goes on, Pendragon will sometimes go into the thread himself and list off reasons they were banned. I have never seen him say a ban was unjustified.
No, no I meant isn't is counter intuitive to hand out bans and suspensions without actually telling the players why. It would give the system much more legitimacy since. Say I disconnect or something (which can be reported) but its an accident, then in the next game i say "GG noobs" to someone (but apologize later cuz I'm super nice, say), then in the next one I do horribly and they threaten me with a report for feeding. I find myself suspended the next day. How am I to know, as a player, what my penalty is, and how am I to know whether other players are being punished for what I report them for?
Tried victor in a bot game and he seemed
Like he'd be great in team fights. Good DMG/Range poke with E and W and R can turn fights.
Take the old team fight turret dance. Tank comes out just a bit too far and drop a W. He can retreat and get stunned, or advance knowing his team can't advance. And while I don't get how his R works exactly, I know that adds a silence an that can be fight changing.
No, no I meant isn't is counter intuitive to hand out bans and suspensions without actually telling the players why. It would give the system much more legitimacy since. Say I disconnect or something (which can be reported) but its an accident, then in the next game i say "GG noobs" to someone (but apologize later cuz I'm super nice, say), then in the next one I do horribly and they threaten me with a report for feeding. I find myself suspended the next day. How am I to know, as a player, what my penalty is, and how am I to know whether other players are being punished for what I report them for?
Those people are not being banned. This is the part you seem to be missing. The people who get sent to the tribunal are sent there for many offenses. Even then if they are found to be punished by the tribunal RIOT takes a look and will send a warning if it is their first offense. If they continue to be reported and continue to be punished eventually they will be banned.
They aren't getting banned for a disconnect here, or a "GG noobs" there. (By the way I doubt anyone gets banned for that particular statement" It is the repeat offenders. You should look through the tribunal cases some time and you'll see the sort of person who is being reviewed. It is not anywhere near what you think it is.
Most of the ones I've seen involve constant trolling in the game, intentional feeding, a plethora of racial slurs and generally foul and unfun people doing their best to make the game miserable for anyone they play with.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Maybe you should google "fundamental attribution error" because it has nothing to do with "cannot be attributed to them".
It's the [direct quotation] "over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors."
i.e. over-valuing the player's individual skill as the explanation for the loss rather than the situational explanation, i.e. the entire set-up of each individual player and their effect on the sample (game).
Note also that we do not care if a player "failed" or not, it matters little whether or not, when I am playing a chess game, that i lose because i made an error or because I got stomped.
A chess game has 0 - count them, 0 - confounding variables. It's why elo works for chess; because it's a good way of recording a player's success rates with the strategies they choose to play against other players in a 1v1 environemtn. Those players have perfect agency; they are not in a team whose team strategy will vary wildly at any given time because it's a team effort and each player is employing personal strategies that they aim to co-ordinate with other player's strategies.
Getting stomped in chess implies you made errors, incidentally. You don't lose with a perfect strategy against your opponent.
Simply because we have a reasonable belief that people understand how the game works. I mean look, if skill in one area were uncorrelated with skill in another then we would have no reason to believe that SV would be a better laner than any random person in the game.
They're obviously correlated, but that doesn't mean there's a strong correlation.
The way you're presenting this, you apparently believe that one person with five accounts, one for each role, would end up with the same elo because elo is an accurate representation of their player skill.
I propose they would end up at 5 distinct elos, based upon their personal proficiency at each role as well as how great an effect that role has upon a game's result.
If he can always jungle then he must be quite skilled at the meta game that allows him to always jungle, so what do we care?
This is a terrible response and you know it. Especially if the player is well known, they are able to demand a role they know inside out. Saint and TheOddOne rarely have to play anything other than jungler, Shushei is regularly allowed solo top or mid AP carry, HotShot gets to play solo top as much as he likes, and so on.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the attribution of the system that because the team failed, the player must have failed.
If the team failed then the player didn't win...
Yes, and the important question is "if the player didn't win, does that indicate they are less skillful than the system believed them to be, and must it then adjust its belief"?
You believe that if they win they must have succeeded and if they fail they must have lost, and this will average out any inconsistencies.
I on the other hand think that it depends entirely upon what sort of strategy you decide to employ to win a game, and whether that strategy a) fits with your teammates and b) works against your opponents.
You will lose games if you pick a support strategy and your carry is an imbecile. You will lose games if you pick a jungle strategy and your team pushes their lanes to the point of being ungankable constantly.
What your win:loss ratio reflects is the success of the strategies you chose to employ for each game, and not your overall "skill level". And I have anecdotes to demonstrate exactly what I mean by this.
HotShot carried himself out of S2 starting elo in solo queue because rather than always employing strategies that involved co-ordinating with his team, he employed strategies that allowed him to be a dominant force in the game (carrying games hard by split pushing so heavily he took multiple inhibitors).
Melissan lost 250 elo in solo queue at the start of S2 because he employed his normal strategy - play support and help his team out - and his team were consistently dreadful. He eventually switched to duo queue with Wickd - who had similar problems employing a squishy ranged AD carry strategy - so that the two of them could get out of lower elo.
At no point at the start of S2 were Melissan or Wickd's elos accurate to their player skill; they were representative of the confounding variables in the equation. If you think Melissan is a 1200 rated player because his support strategy only works when his teammates are competent, I have literally no clue what you think elo is supposed to represent.
This is because of chat being completely dead the for the two weeks I was in it.
I do need some people to play, though, since Kaorti is always off playing Warmachine and my other friend uninstalled for the Tribes beta.
Played with Kaorti last night. Quite a nice guy, would definitely play with him again. He said it was his first time with a 0cs support, which amazed me. I refuse to play AD carry if I don't have a 0cs support. Even if they're bad, at least they tried, but if they take my cs and push the lane, I get so frustrated.
My group is always looking for decent human beings to play with, so add me ingame and we'll get a game going sometime. Not sure about today, but I'm on most days.
I could have sworn I 0CS'd for him before (can't stand being the AD carry). Most of the time I'm jungle or solotop, though.
I'm 'Das Frolic' on LoL, I'll invite you when I get home from fixing my sister's comp.
It sounds like you are badly needed in the normal groups. 90% of the time I am jungling Shy, and wouldn't mind being able to middle lane or support more.
You don't go straight to suspension or ban though, you get a warning first. Riot said that in over half the cases those that receive a warning don't appear on the tribunal again, which lends belief to the statement that people don't get accidentally suspended or such.
No one should ever say "GG noobs" anyway, that's just not on.
Those people are not being banned. This is the part you seem to be missing. The people who get sent to the tribunal are sent there for many offenses. Even then if they are found to be punished by the tribunal RIOT takes a look and will send a warning if it is their first offense. If they continue to be reported and continue to be punished eventually they will be banned.
They aren't getting banned for a disconnect here, or a "GG noobs" there. (By the way I doubt anyone gets banned for that particular statement" It is the repeat offenders. You should look through the tribunal cases some time and you'll see the sort of person who is being reviewed. It is not anywhere near what you think it is.
Most of the ones I've seen involve constant trolling int he game, intentional feeding, a pletheroa of racial slurs and generally foul and unfun people doing their best to make the game miserable for anyone they play with.
I have looked at it a bit and I indeed see quite a bit of people being reported for just those things. You and I both know that it is silly, but we are not the majority of the Tribunal. Also I'm not talking about banned, I'm talking about being punished in general.
I have looked at it a bit and I indeed see quite a bit of people being reported for just those things. You and I both know that it is silly, but we are not the majority of the Tribunal. Also I'm not talking about banned, I'm talking about being punished in general.
If you are pardoning them for it, how would they get punished? Many people feel "gg noobs" is not a punishable offense, so those many people would pardon it. When I'm ingame and see this, it really depends on the situation. If it was a roflstomp, I'll take my lumps and not report it. If it's a 5v4 and we lose ONLY because we were short a person, I am reporting your unsportsmanlike ass.
Also, for me personally, I put a lot of stock into whether or not someone types in the reason box or not. If only one person says "Negative attitude" without explaining it, I just skim the chat box. If they write out what it was that offended them, I'll find it and pretty much always punish those.
Those people are not being banned. This is the part you seem to be missing. The people who get sent to the tribunal are sent there for many offenses. Even then if they are found to be punished by the tribunal RIOT takes a look and will send a warning if it is their first offense. If they continue to be reported and continue to be punished eventually they will be banned.
They aren't getting banned for a disconnect here, or a "GG noobs" there. (By the way I doubt anyone gets banned for that particular statement" It is the repeat offenders. You should look through the tribunal cases some time and you'll see the sort of person who is being reviewed. It is not anywhere near what you think it is.
Most of the ones I've seen involve constant trolling int he game, intentional feeding, a pletheroa of racial slurs and generally foul and unfun people doing their best to make the game miserable for anyone they play with.
I have looked at it a bit and I indeed see quite a bit of people being reported for just those things. You and I both know that it is silly, but we are not the majority of the Tribunal. Also I'm not talking about banned, I'm talking about being punished in general.
The people who actually take the time to sit down and go through the Tribunal generally understand how it works. And anyone who is punished enough by the tribunal to receive some sort of action on their account (whether that is a warning, suspension or ban) will be reviewed by RIOT before any action is taken. RIOT is the one actually issuing anything account related, the Tribunal system is merely a system in place to weed through the massive amounts of reports and organize them in to a manageable list that can then be given the personal attention of RIOT employees.
People are not punished/suspended/warned by the tribunal system alone. The system merely flags repeat offenders who are then personally assessed by RIOT.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
What I've got is a system that is radically inconsistent in terms of enemy and ally skill level and random bullshit. I don't want to win because of an enemy DC, and I don't want to lose because my bottom lane is 200 Elo overrated but it hasn't caught up with them yet.
[...]
but arguments about how Elo actually measures your skill correctly, esp. at say, 20 games, are just silly, because they are patently untrue, except in the most broad, long term sense. No one wants to be the one guy who catches plague during that year, even if <1% of people get it annually.
Actually what you have is a huge case of the fundamental attribution error. You lose games because "they picked jungler and they are bad" and not because anything your team does or anything you failed to do. You may be a better jungler, communicate that to your team, seriously when you get in team chat say "i lose a lot more games when I lane, i want to jungle, its not that I am an ass, i just want to win and will not play as well as someone who is good at laning if i lane" Over a shockingly low number of games relative to what you've probably played your ELO will be accurate. It will be accurate to include the fact that you are not as good a jungler and sometimes get stuck laning. Getting stuck at something you're not best at is part of the game.
It's like you've never played LOL before.
XXSephirothCokk420xX: "mid"
XXSephirothCokk420xX: "or"
XXSephirothCokk420xX: "I feed"
I consider rampant flaming the only thing that ruins the game experience, so it's the only cases I punish. Other cases I skip because they are usually boring.
Intentional feeding is the worst, because you cannot /ignore a 20/0 carry. Though I do agree that people who flame the entire god damn game, regardless of what happens, are annoying in the extreme as well.
Posts
I think if I was going to do anything to Viktor I would speed up the Q projectile (since by the time the damn thing gets back to you to start the shield up you will have already been attacked) or give it an additional effect like applying the shield to team mates like Lux's W.
This is because of chat being completely dead the for the two weeks I was in it.
I do need some people to play, though, since Kaorti is always off playing Warmachine and my other friend uninstalled for the Tribes beta.
Yeah, as a non-leader you are responsible for 0% of bans and 20% of champ selections. Now, you can offer suggestions, but there is no mechanic to select politer, better teammates besides duo queueing, and even that is only partial. However, it gets worse. Not all champ selections are created equal. If you are last pick, and you have a top, mid, jungle, and AD bottom, well, your choices are limited. You can buck the meta, but there's only so many places you can physically go on the map. I consider myself a significantly better than average player, and it would disrupt my entire laning phase if someone decided to say, duo top with my Trynd, or double jungle on our side, etc. So, while there is something to be said for playing what you are good at, well, my last Karma game is an example of what can happen when you do that. I almost won the lane by myself, but my poppy was arguably less useful than being AFK, as she provided no help, fed kills, and caused me to play over aggressively (I was playing expecting at least mediocre play from my lanemate. What I got was a dead fish).
And even over large sample sizes, you can get a disproportionate number of last picks, even (especially?) as a solo queue. Ask Pacstar, he was running the numbers for a while.
Yeah. I'm a pretty unevenly skilled player, personally. I think 1400 is a reasonable estimate of my support skill, but a jokishly low estimate of my jungling / solo top skill, for example. If I end up bottom more than 40% of my games, well, I'm going to be undervalued relative to an even distribution of roles, and hell, a lot of people don't actually want an even distribution. If I was running a full premade, I wouldn't have saint play a support, for example, because it wastes his skill.
What I want, and I think others would agree, is a system that puts me in a position to succeed, and then challenges me with opponents of a level that will win 50% of the time despite my best efforts (well, I wouldn't mind a 60/40 split. I like both challenges and winning.
I'm not sure it can be done better, (I think a preference system that matched people who love jungling with 4 people who don't love jungling could improve both fun and success rates significantly, though you could run into "LF1M healer, please, before the world turns to dust under a blood red sun, send tell" like in MMOs) but arguments about how Elo actually measures your skill correctly, esp. at say, 20 games, are just silly, because they are patently untrue, except in the most broad, long term sense. No one wants to be the one guy who catches plague during that year, even if <1% of people get it annually.
Maybe you should google "fundamental attribution error" because it has nothing to do with "cannot be attributed to them".
Note also that we do not care if a player "failed" or not, it matters little whether or not, when I am playing a chess game, that i lose because i made an error or because I got stomped.
Correlation basically means that if we were able to record someones actual skill, when we randomly grabbed a person out of any game and checked their skill at "portion of the game A" we would expect that it would be be a similar deviation from the norm of their skill at "portion b of the game". Uncorrelated basically means that if we check how good you are at laning we don't get any information about how good you are at jungling.
If anywhere this is not going to hold true, its going to hold true at middle ELO's. At low ELO's if you're significantly better laner than you are jungler you can simply not have a jungler and do OK because there is little chance the enemy jungler is going to be awesome (else he would have higher ELO). It is only when you start to become "forced" into a role that you can no longer just pick your best area and do it regardless.
But really we expect that it is going to roughly hold at all ELO's. Simply because we have a reasonable belief that people understand how the game works. I mean look, if skill in one area were uncorrelated with skill in another then we would have no reason to believe that SV would be a better laner than any random person in the game. But we do believe it and we don't believe it for no reason. ~P->~Q implies Q->P
If the team failed then the player didn't win...
That is also not a fundamental attribution error, what you're talking about is the impossibility of induction. And i can tell you right now that even if induction is "impossible", we can prove it works more often than not by showing that it does not "not work".
What you are literally saying is that if a player goes 0-50 in his fist 50 games we cannot reasonably assume that he is bad. I am pretty sure that is bollocks.
If he can always jungle then he must be quite skilled at the meta game that allows him to always jungle, so what do we care? I am not good playing EVE, fortunately i am very good at not picking EVE...
Actually what you have is a huge case of the fundamental attribution error. You lose games because "they picked jungler and they are bad" and not because anything your team does or anything you failed to do. You may be a better jungler, communicate that to your team, seriously when you get in team chat say "i lose a lot more games when I lane, i want to jungle, its not that I am an ass, i just want to win and will not play as well as someone who is good at laning if i lane" Over a shockingly low number of games relative to what you've probably played your ELO will be accurate. It will be accurate to include the fact that you are not as good a jungler and sometimes get stuck laning. Getting stuck at something you're not best at is part of the game.
Played with Kaorti last night. Quite a nice guy, would definitely play with him again. He said it was his first time with a 0cs support, which amazed me. I refuse to play AD carry if I don't have a 0cs support. Even if they're bad, at least they tried, but if they take my cs and push the lane, I get so frustrated.
My group is always looking for decent human beings to play with, so add me ingame and we'll get a game going sometime. Not sure about today, but I'm on most days.
I could have sworn I 0CS'd for him before (can't stand being the AD carry). Most of the time I'm jungle or solotop, though.
I'm 'Das Frolic' on LoL, I'll invite you when I get home from fixing my sister's comp.
My only problem with the tribunal system is that I can only vote to punish the individual in the case/report. On the average tribunal case chat log there are about 3 people who ought to get a ban of some kind.
The tribunal system is nowhere near hard enough on the jerks and asshats in the game. You'll see a lot of complaining and whining on the general LoL forums about how they didn't deserve the ban, then one of the Rioters will come in and give a list of things they've done, it's quite humourous. They've even stated that the people voting on the tribunal actually vote to pardon more than the Rioters themselves would.
That said, I know it's too light, or people don't report enough, because people like ChaosHat have never even gotten a warning. ChaosHat is one of my favouite people to play with, but DAMN does ever troll the other team sometimes. He's even wondered it himself.
People report for that, but you are not banned for that. Most often, you'll see three reports for a person. Two will be just general whining from another teammate and an undeserved report, but the third will be something racist and BAM, punished. Those other two are there, but that's not why they were punished.
You also have to have a huge number of reports against you to actually end up in the tribunal.
MWO: Adamski
But everyone who judges the cases has their own hot button items that are instant punishes. Someone says that N word? Yeap, that's a punish. I don't care why, I don't care that they 'were just joking about it'. This isn't 4chan, that shit doesn't belong here. I have never punished someone because they weren't playing a character the way the reporter wanted them to play it. I don't care if someone wants to build an AP Taric and they won't be punished from me for that.
Edit-Is there an age limit, or is it just level 30? Can anyone participate in this? If so, and after having been in a few ranked matches, woe be unto us normal folk.
I wish they would just remove that reporting option; I have sat on a lot of tribunal cases and those never really make it up there. And besides, the tribunal is up to YOU.
If I did see a report that said "X player was a bad tryndamere" from a few people, I wouldn't punish them for being bad, unless they were also a douchebag.
It is a great system, it just needs to be expanded, as some said.
I suggested this as well
I like the way you think
I think the idea behind it is that they can look at it and drop your hidden ELO. Also, I haven't really seen any tribunal cases that were dudes "playing wrong", lots of intentionally feeding reports that are borderline and I usually just skip, but most often it's someone spamming or being an ass in chat, and they get punished.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Only people with a large number of reports against them end up in there, so a single game of 4 jackasses team reporting you for a gag wont put you in the Tribunal.
Next, the Tribunal requires consesus from the 10 people assigned to your "cases" because I have never seen someone in the Tribunal have only a single match of getting reported. So if you have 3 games you have been reported in, and you legitimately deserved it in 1 game, then you are going to get punished by all 10.
Then, after the Tribunal has consesus on whether or not to punish you, then RIOT decides what your punishment will be, anything from a warning to a ban.
MWO: Adamski
It should be noted that players who are banned via Tribunal and then post about why they were banned, most of the time are lying and/or just have no comprehension that they were doing something wrong. There are quite a a few interesting posts where a community member will call out the worst offenders and list specifically why they were banned, and most of the time it has nothing to do with why they posted that they were banned.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
There has only been ONE time I have seen a person on there from one report. I don't know how that happened, but it did. It was also the funniest tribunal I have ever read. All four teammates reported him, none of the enemies, and there was also not a word of chat in the log, which means it was a premade, and they were talking on mumble or vent or something. Two of the reports said nothing, but the other two were "He is mean, please ban him forever", and the other was "He kicked me out of his house and told me I'm not allowed to play at his house anymore. Please ban him for kicking me out of his house."
The names were all spanish, so I believe they were a Mexican premade and one of the friends just lost it on the others. I pardoned him, but it's a month later and I still chuckle about it.
Your first issue is reading their tribunal board on the official forums and taking it as fact. It's 95% people whining over 'unjust' bans and people complaining about the system without understanding how it works.
I do the tribunal quite regularly, ever since it came out, and there have been maybe 4 cases that required me to actually look at everything and mentally weigh it. Most of the reports have either a 1:10 KD ratio and someone level 14 at 36 minutes, or giant streams of profanity through the chatlog. Or else there's nothing off, and they were reported for a reason not evident and so its a pardon.
And it is true. To be considered for a ban you have to have a large number of reports. Riot revealed their ban list before the tribunal and the nicest person on their had 66 reports against them. The tribunal just makes it so that you get to decide, and save Riot work.
Isn't that kind of counter intuitive to improving the community?
Time for Reckoning
:evil:
Calling out people who are flat out lying and trying to make it look like the tribunal system is somehow persecuting them and banning them for no reason?
No I'd saying calling them out for that crap and showing that the tribunal system actually works quite well is pretty conductive to improving the community.
It's not like they were mean about it, they came on and pointed out. "So and so you were not banned for spitting into the wind on a friday, you were banned for multiple counts of swearing and threatening to disembowel your fellow players over the course of 50 games. This activity is not in adherence with the Summoner's Code"
Letting the players perpetuate false claims is counter intuitive to improving the community.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I don't understand where your question is coming from. You improve the community by letting the jerks know that no matter how much money they spend, they can and will be removed from the community for being jerks. These people get MULTIPLE warnings and temp bans before being permanently removed.
Unfortunately, they truly believe they have done nothing wrong, when in fact they are toxic and destroy the game for others. What Dephinidaes is talking about is when they post in the forums saying they were unjustly punished, that they did nothing wrong(which they then add on to, saying they should be allowed to rage at people who feed or troll, that it's not their fault they rage). Forum members then pop in and say "Hey, I did one of you tribunal cases! You are a terrible person for doing ________ and deserved the ban." If it goes on, Pendragon will sometimes go into the thread himself and list off reasons they were banned. I have never seen him say a ban was unjustified.
Like he'd be great in team fights. Good DMG/Range poke with E and W and R can turn fights.
Take the old team fight turret dance. Tank comes out just a bit too far and drop a W. He can retreat and get stunned, or advance knowing his team can't advance. And while I don't get how his R works exactly, I know that adds a silence an that can be fight changing.
His Q does seem worthless though
Those people are not being banned. This is the part you seem to be missing. The people who get sent to the tribunal are sent there for many offenses. Even then if they are found to be punished by the tribunal RIOT takes a look and will send a warning if it is their first offense. If they continue to be reported and continue to be punished eventually they will be banned.
They aren't getting banned for a disconnect here, or a "GG noobs" there. (By the way I doubt anyone gets banned for that particular statement" It is the repeat offenders. You should look through the tribunal cases some time and you'll see the sort of person who is being reviewed. It is not anywhere near what you think it is.
Most of the ones I've seen involve constant trolling in the game, intentional feeding, a plethora of racial slurs and generally foul and unfun people doing their best to make the game miserable for anyone they play with.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
i.e. over-valuing the player's individual skill as the explanation for the loss rather than the situational explanation, i.e. the entire set-up of each individual player and their effect on the sample (game).
It is a
Fundamental
Attribution
Error.
A chess game has 0 - count them, 0 - confounding variables. It's why elo works for chess; because it's a good way of recording a player's success rates with the strategies they choose to play against other players in a 1v1 environemtn. Those players have perfect agency; they are not in a team whose team strategy will vary wildly at any given time because it's a team effort and each player is employing personal strategies that they aim to co-ordinate with other player's strategies.
Getting stomped in chess implies you made errors, incidentally. You don't lose with a perfect strategy against your opponent.
They're obviously correlated, but that doesn't mean there's a strong correlation.
The way you're presenting this, you apparently believe that one person with five accounts, one for each role, would end up with the same elo because elo is an accurate representation of their player skill.
I propose they would end up at 5 distinct elos, based upon their personal proficiency at each role as well as how great an effect that role has upon a game's result.
This is a terrible response and you know it. Especially if the player is well known, they are able to demand a role they know inside out. Saint and TheOddOne rarely have to play anything other than jungler, Shushei is regularly allowed solo top or mid AP carry, HotShot gets to play solo top as much as he likes, and so on.
Yes, and the important question is "if the player didn't win, does that indicate they are less skillful than the system believed them to be, and must it then adjust its belief"?
You believe that if they win they must have succeeded and if they fail they must have lost, and this will average out any inconsistencies.
I on the other hand think that it depends entirely upon what sort of strategy you decide to employ to win a game, and whether that strategy a) fits with your teammates and b) works against your opponents.
You will lose games if you pick a support strategy and your carry is an imbecile. You will lose games if you pick a jungle strategy and your team pushes their lanes to the point of being ungankable constantly.
What your win:loss ratio reflects is the success of the strategies you chose to employ for each game, and not your overall "skill level". And I have anecdotes to demonstrate exactly what I mean by this.
HotShot carried himself out of S2 starting elo in solo queue because rather than always employing strategies that involved co-ordinating with his team, he employed strategies that allowed him to be a dominant force in the game (carrying games hard by split pushing so heavily he took multiple inhibitors).
Melissan lost 250 elo in solo queue at the start of S2 because he employed his normal strategy - play support and help his team out - and his team were consistently dreadful. He eventually switched to duo queue with Wickd - who had similar problems employing a squishy ranged AD carry strategy - so that the two of them could get out of lower elo.
At no point at the start of S2 were Melissan or Wickd's elos accurate to their player skill; they were representative of the confounding variables in the equation. If you think Melissan is a 1200 rated player because his support strategy only works when his teammates are competent, I have literally no clue what you think elo is supposed to represent.
It sounds like you are badly needed in the normal groups. 90% of the time I am jungling Shy, and wouldn't mind being able to middle lane or support more.
No one should ever say "GG noobs" anyway, that's just not on.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
I have looked at it a bit and I indeed see quite a bit of people being reported for just those things. You and I both know that it is silly, but we are not the majority of the Tribunal. Also I'm not talking about banned, I'm talking about being punished in general.
If you are pardoning them for it, how would they get punished? Many people feel "gg noobs" is not a punishable offense, so those many people would pardon it. When I'm ingame and see this, it really depends on the situation. If it was a roflstomp, I'll take my lumps and not report it. If it's a 5v4 and we lose ONLY because we were short a person, I am reporting your unsportsmanlike ass.
Also, for me personally, I put a lot of stock into whether or not someone types in the reason box or not. If only one person says "Negative attitude" without explaining it, I just skim the chat box. If they write out what it was that offended them, I'll find it and pretty much always punish those.
The people who actually take the time to sit down and go through the Tribunal generally understand how it works. And anyone who is punished enough by the tribunal to receive some sort of action on their account (whether that is a warning, suspension or ban) will be reviewed by RIOT before any action is taken. RIOT is the one actually issuing anything account related, the Tribunal system is merely a system in place to weed through the massive amounts of reports and organize them in to a manageable list that can then be given the personal attention of RIOT employees.
People are not punished/suspended/warned by the tribunal system alone. The system merely flags repeat offenders who are then personally assessed by RIOT.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
It's like you've never played LOL before.
XXSephirothCokk420xX: "mid"
XXSephirothCokk420xX: "or"
XXSephirothCokk420xX: "I feed"
Right-o.
Intentional feeding is the worst, because you cannot /ignore a 20/0 carry. Though I do agree that people who flame the entire god damn game, regardless of what happens, are annoying in the extreme as well.
It's not a real report. You'll never seen an "unskilled player" in tribunal. It, at best, adjusts elo.