Summoners who verbally abuse their team lose 16% more games.

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Trylobyte

Senior Member

12-27-2012

In my experience both sides here have a valid point, but they go together to make the stat correct. The abuse generally starts in earnest once there's a downward slide, or at least when the rager perceives one such as losing their own lane. So the game is already probably losing... but it's not lost yet. The rage goes a long way in ensuring they will eventually lose, though, usually by pissing off the support or the jungler who are the two most common victims of rage. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; the player who begins raging at his team for losing is preventing his team from rallying or coming back, which ensures they actually do lose.

The one thing I'd be interested to know though, and one thing that could skew this statistic a little, is if people get reported more often for verbal abuse in losses than in wins. A lot of people are willing to put up with a bit of rage as long as they win.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Blaine Tog

Senior Member

12-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotDerivative View Post
You are correct that correlation != causation, but it can be assumed that this statistic was computed from a population. That is, this statement comes straight from the data and is not an inference about future data.
Yeah, but it would be naive to think the data wasn't presented with the intention to have us draw conclusions about it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ronnie Law

Senior Member

12-27-2012

Honestly, there needs to be better tutorials.
People enter into SR and especially ranked games with extremely poor fundamental skill levels.

You CANNOT be a highly positive active force when you don't even understand the expectations placed upon you by your team.

I know nothing about football, and if I were to go QB a Pro NFL game, the players on my team would obviously be frustrated with my play, and I would not receive alot of positive feedback on my performance.

While this game is not played on the professional level at all skill levels, the inference of the example is quantative on every level of play.

I think what incites most rage is players who do not respect other peoples time.
A commitment of 45 minutes with an objective to win can be totally thrown by a bad player.
It's equivalent to being down a person, a weakness that your enemy can, should and is expected to take advantage of.

An example of what I mean:
I had an Orianna in a ranked game not to long ago, and she clearly had no idea what she was doing.
Fed hard and lost lane, even got the jungler killed when he tried to stablize the lane.

We were sure at the 5 minute mark that we had an incompetent AP Carry.
This placed a burden upon the other 4 players to play OUTSIDE their elo range to equalize the deficiency, challenging to be sure, but not necessarily a positive one.
Be better than you are reasonably expected to be, or lose.
This is not fun or productive, and if the only facet holding a group of strangers together is a common interest, once that interest is unobtainable, the group will obviously lose cohesion.

After some aggressive inquiry, her rationale was that she could not properly practice in a normal game because there were too many trolls.

She thought anyone who did not understand mechanics and was learning was a troll, and that her only way to NOT be paired with trolls was to troll herself.

Now the interpretation of troll here is very loose and subjective, but this example to me clearly shows the flaws in matchmaking and the way the game promotes and teaches BASIC fundamental skills.

Yes, she had other options, but the important part is that those options were ignored in favor of ruining other peoples games because they were unknown to the player or to frustrating to deal with.

I rage.
However, I do not, nor am I promoting it.

That being said, maybe if people were not grouped with people who are clearly out of depth from a skill perspective, and played positively with their team instead of negatively against their team, there would be alot less animosity all around.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Catches Axes

Senior Member

12-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaine Tog View Post
Yeah, but it would be naive to think the data wasn't presented with the intention to have us draw conclusions about it.
It's presented factually but in a leading way, that's true.

Is it really so bad if it's presented in a leading way that might lead one or two people to try harder not to verbally abuse their team, though? It's not like it's leading people to do bad things.

(Incidentally, I would be honestly surprised if there didn't turn out to be SOME causal connection where once you start raging, you're more likely to lose... I've seen quite a few comebacks, but I don't believe I've *ever* seen a comeback once a team started raging, even if it's not that dire a situation... but the data doesn't capture that, it just captures the overall correlation)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Oyxl

Senior Member

12-27-2012

I would change it into: Players are 16% more likely to be idiots in real life if they verbally abuse their teammates


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Catches Axes

Senior Member

12-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Law View Post
That being said, maybe if people were not grouped with people who are clearly out of depth from a skill perspective, and played positively with their team instead of negatively against their team, there would be alot less animosity all around.
Honestly, there's not a lot players can do about this; blaming the player is just wrong.

I play a substantial portion of my games as the ADC for a couple of gold level ranked teams, and another decent chunk as ADC practicing for those games. I get far more practice at ADC than at other roles.

In solo queue, I let my team know that I'm best as an ADC but that I'm willing to fill in. I know a couple champions in every role and I can apply my general skills to them, but I'm no expert on the champions and especially on the matchups. I probably get to play ADC in solo queue about 50% of the time, which further exaggerates how much more practice I get at ADC than at everything else (probably 75/25 of my total playtime).

My solo queue Elo, however, reflects both my 50% of games where they do let me ADC and my 50% of games where they don't - I usually (but not quite always) win as ADC and I usually (but not quite always) lose as not. I'm trying as hard as I can, but there's legitimately a few hundred point difference in my 'true' Elo based simply on role swaps - not because I'm trying to play just one role, but because my opportunity to practice that one role far exceeds my opportunity to practice the other four.

So, yeah, when I get placed top, jungle or mid, I'm out of my depth. What can I do about that? Even if I take all of my non-organized games and put them into practicing other roles, I'll still be playing something like 50% ADC/50% everything else.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AdmiralWarron

Member

12-27-2012

At first, OPs arguments look sound but most players who verbally abuse their teammates also do so when they are winning. The percentage of players who ONLY verbally abuse when they lose is very likely to be extremely small simply because its almost always possible to turn a game around.

For that reason we should take the statement even more literally: "If you flame at any point during the game you are much more likely to lose the game!"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Blaine Tog

Senior Member

12-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumyr View Post
It's presented factually but in a leading way, that's true.

Is it really so bad if it's presented in a leading way that might lead one or two people to try harder not to verbally abuse their team, though? It's not like it's leading people to do bad things.
A bad cause can have a good effect. Whether that justifies the bad cause is a fundamental question in philosophy with your choice of answers.

In this specific case, I do think the point being made (that raging makes you more likely to lose) is totally correct, but stating a correlation in order to prove that's just kinda lazy. If there's a causative relationship, then there should be some way to tease that out of the data.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Robtard

Junior Member

12-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotDerivative View Post
Thanks! I appreciate it. New around here and have to remember I am not talking to stuffy statisticians :-).
I'm a stuffy statistician, dont worry about it. i'm finishing up my degree at UoM and yeah, you're definitely right in saying that because they come from the same population isn't a case of correlation vs causation. Being that you just ran the variables against each other within the same pop there is no inference or extrapolation happening. Simply an analysis.

On a side note, as a statistician myself I recently took Calculus 4: Multivariate & Vector calc and am wondering how applicable this stuff is in real world use. I'm assuming that there are programs and everything already in place and that the need to use spherical/polar/cylindrical coordinates in triple integrals isn't ever practiced. How much modeling do you do that is anything beyond possibly calculus 2?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ronnie Law

Senior Member

12-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumyr View Post
Honestly, there's not a lot players can do about this; blaming the player is just wrong.

I play a substantial portion of my games as the ADC for a couple of gold level ranked teams, and another decent chunk as ADC practicing for those games. I get far more practice at ADC than at other roles.

In solo queue, I let my team know that I'm best as an ADC but that I'm willing to fill in. I know a couple champions in every role and I can apply my general skills to them, but I'm no expert on the champions and especially on the matchups. I probably get to play ADC in solo queue about 50% of the time, which further exaggerates how much more practice I get at ADC than at everything else (probably 75/25 of my total playtime).

My solo queue Elo, however, reflects both my 50% of games where they do let me ADC and my 50% of games where they don't - I usually (but not quite always) win as ADC and I usually (but not quite always) lose as not. I'm trying as hard as I can, but there's legitimately a few hundred point difference in my 'true' Elo based simply on role swaps - not because I'm trying to play just one role, but because my opportunity to practice that one role far exceeds my opportunity to practice the other four.

So, yeah, when I get placed top, jungle or mid, I'm out of my depth. What can I do about that? Even if I take all of my non-organized games and put them into practicing other roles, I'll still be playing something like 50% ADC/50% everything else.
I think blaming the player is a grey area, while there might be better matchmaking tools that could be made available, there is a responsibility on the player to be a TEAM player.
It is certainly possible to fail your team because you have selfish bias towards what YOU want to do.

I have 9 years of service in the US Army, and I can tell you, sometimes you just have to shut up and do what is expected of you to accomplish the mission.

I feel like far to many players lose focus of the fact that the TEAM is trying to WIN.
That is the goal.
Sometimes getting it done YOUR WAY is ancillary to simply getting it done.
Sometimes you have to let go of your own perspective and look at the totality of the situation, and give ground to your team.

Now, I am going to be honest with you man, you sound EXACTLY like what I view as the fundamental issue in regards to raging.

You play a very specialized playstyle, and are very good at one position.
Is a player that is an excellent ADC more desirable and better for a team than a well rounded player that can fill out any position?
I would rather go with player that can play in a broader field.

And by the way, I really need to point out that your "true" elo is not higher because of specialization, it's actually lower.
ELO is a reflection of win/loss ratio's with no bias towards any given position.
Realistically, in an even spread only ~1/5th of your ELO should account for your ability to ADC.
Your "true" ELO is much lower than you think it is, not higher.
Simply put, you are not as good as you think you are.
And that is a problem.

To be fair, it is a typical problem, and I find that ESPECIALLY ADCs suffer from this way of thinking. I really don't want you to think I am bashing on you.

But given your example, it really is a problem.

If at 1800 ELO, you get randomly grouped with a bunch of other players with the same skill level characteristics as yourself, overall, your team will play at a lower ELO level.

Whereas if your opponents are more well rounded, they will be closer to that 1800.

I feel like matchmaking should not be about which team is worse and which weaknesses develop in matchmaking and pregame, fundamental incompatibilities of playstyles, but rather the opposite.

A team should win because they were better, not that they should lose because they were worse.

It seems that alot of focus is built into highlighting bad players and their impact on the game, rather than GOOD players.

To address your question, you can stop playing ADC.
Force yourself into other roles and get better at them.
It is far easier to comprehend each game as a whole when you can look at it from each players perspective.
Being familiar, understanding the conditions and concepts of each role and finally and IMO most importantly, complimenting and accentuating your teamates style of play is the best, most solid way to create a victory.

I still stand by my assessment that the game could be alot easier in allowing players to learn without being detrimental to each other.

Edit: some cleanup

Also, I feel like I need to state my opinion for the record.
Raging is a symptom of perceived ineptitude.
It is not the cause for lost games.
Outlier examples do exist sure, but generally the root cause of both the loss and the raging IS poor play.

Winning more games will win more games 16% of the time, the correlation to raging is IMO irrelevant.
In order to draw meaningful data, we would have to know if a game in which a player raged and subsequently lost would have had a actually been a win if said player had not raged.
My bet is that in most instances, had the player not raged, they would have lost anyway.
However, there is no evidence of a game in which time was reversed, conditions were reset exactly, and that single factor was changed, resulting in an opposite result.