All those threads talking about role-queuing.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KlunkTheSpaceCat

Member

01-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereAreFourPogo View Post
the time it takes the match-making system to fill a match
[...]
the search parameters are widened so that the match can be made in a reasonable amount of time.
Why couldn't the RBQ system just wait a little longer to make matches that look the same in terms of Elo spread as the current system? I'm sure the code is insane and whatever database Riot uses to make queues would need heavy alteration; but I think that in theory it should be possible.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

xrisingforce

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

01-22-2013

no.. your argument as i've summarized and laid out above does not make sense. c) is only true if a) is telling the whole story, which it isn't. this is a textbook example of the cherry picking fallacy, that your conclusion c) is predicated on your misleading premise a), where a) misrepresents the impact of selective queues on lol in that it withholds its pros. i hate to sound accusatory, but did you even read the article?

this is like saying
a) interviews increase the time between sending one's job application and getting hired
b) increasing the time between one's job application and one getting that respective job is undesirable
c) therefore interviews are bad

???

i can give you a) and b) as true, simply for the sake of argument, and it still wouldn't follow that c) would be true! because premise a) clearly doesn't account for where interviews fit into the big picture of hiring new people, and disingenuously misrepresents (i'd even say fails to recognize) the role that interviews play. so arguing for the dismissal of the entire interview process based on a disingenuous misrepresentation of it is clearly fallacious! your argument, as represented earlier, has a conclusion which undermines an entire system when it's based on a premise that accounts for maybe 5% of the big picture. that is, in its most blatant form, a conclusion that outstrips its premises. a bad chapter doesn't necessarily make a bad book. i dunno how else i can explain this!

successful arguments are arguments with conclusions that not only follow from their premises, but have premises which are clearly defensible. which, in other words, means that your argument, at the very least, has to interact with the salient counter-points that would undermine a), which it currently does not.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Your analogy is ridiculously horrendous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrisingforce View Post
this is like saying
a) interviews increase the time between sending one's job application and getting hired
b) increasing the time between one's job application and one getting that respective job is undesirable
c) therefore interviews are bad
There are two possibilities.

Possibility A: I'm applying to a company that does not conduct interviews and decides whether to hire or not based purely on the application. In this odd scenario... an interview would be a pointless waste of everyone's time.

Possibility B: I'm applying to a company that interviews all potential employees before deciding whether or not to hire that person. In this scenario, and interview is only bad if... I only filled out the application to keep getting an unemployment check or something... but if I want the job, I have to complete the interview.



So while your analogy is a perfectly fine example of what you're trying to accuse me of (cherry-picking) it doesn't really apply to my argument.


a) Role-based queuing increases queue times. (You haven't even attempted refuting this point, so I'll assume you agree.)


b) Increased queue times are undesirable.

All right, do you or do you not want to discuss point B and why it's a perfectly valid point? Or do you still want to continue to tell me that my perfectly valid logical statement doesn't work?


You can prove my point c "role based queuing is bad" wrong (at least, for queue time reasons) simply by proving that B is an invalid point, which is what you're trying to do.



But the A & B, therefore C that I layed out is perfectly fine from a logical standpoint.

You're merely questioning the validity of point B.

So let's get on point B.


I'll give you a hint. Increased queue times are bad for more than just "Wah! I don't want to wait this long."


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

xrisingforce

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

01-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
So while your analogy is a perfectly fine example of what you're trying to accuse me of (cherry-picking) it doesn't really apply to my argument.
i've lost all faith in logic. is anyone else reading this? i really want to give you an honest reply pogo, but at this point i am simply confounded.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Eagle X D

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Pogo.. got another http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=3034095 was hidden in general discussion :P


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BiIlCosby

Senior Member

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

I really like the idea of role-based queues. WoW has a similar system in their dungeon finder, works great, chooses the role for you, and the queue times are fantastic.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KnightxSScarlett

Senior Member

01-23-2013

^ Didn't read the first 27 pages.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KlunkTheSpaceCat

Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smushynumnum View Post
I really like the idea of role-based queues. WoW has a similar system in their dungeon finder, works great, chooses the role for you, and the queue times are fantastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mageinta Warrior View Post
^ Didn't read the first 27 pages.
Or maybe he did and just wants to add his voice to the thread. Thanks for posting, Smush. Welcome to the mega RBQ thread! =D


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

OoziHobo

Junior Member

01-24-2013

Hi, relatively new to League and forum.

By now we've read a lot of reasons why RBQ's are not a good idea, but yet it remains appealing because the thought seems like an easy fix to an seemingly easy problem. But what is the problem? Que pops and you ready your Ctrl+V to call the role you want most, 2-3 people call top or mid, and then people fight or are unhappy. Sometimes you get someone who doesn't say anything but picked a champion that either competes for someone's role or could fulfill a number of roles. What really sucks, is when this person locks in. But what is the real issue here?

Warning! Anecdotes: I remember one time a player swore up and down they didn't mean to take smite, and that they understood that I had called jungle. But then while leashing blue he steal the buff with his smite and forced me into lane. Then proceeded to "lol" about it when I called him on it in chat.

Another time I actually called support, the role I just get by default if I don't call anything. But the champion everyone thought was solo'ing top refused to leave bottom lane. Forcing me to either surrender top lane, or go up there and try to make do with my support runes/masteries.

When I look at these instances, I see two issues:

1) There are not enough people who try to work together to create the best team/lane composition. No one actually goes in open minded about their roles and are willing to discuss alternatives or make cases. It's just a contest of speed.

2) People are absolutely obsessed with the meta to hilarious extremes. I don't play ranked, I haven't got a huge number of wins, but for a long as I've been playing League people have been handing me these arbitrary rules and telling me they are absolute. That's silly.

Solution? Well, I can't think of a role based que idea that I like, and I have no idea how to shake people free from blindly following a meta, but I do have a suggestion for the first problem. BE the change you want to see in pre-game chat. Instead of getting ready to paste "Solo top" or frantically type "mid" try engaging the people you're about to play with by pasting, "I would like Jungle or Solo Top." After everyone is appropriately confused and trying to contest you for both roles, open up a dialogue and see which champions they would use for said roles. You might be surprised by how often this creates an immediate "we're in this together" camaraderie as everyone tries to piece together the best team.

Will this work every time? No. People are jerks. But you can't just slap a band-aid on a problem without any kind of accountability. If you don't like how people call roles and fight over lanes then don't be one of those people. Call out those people. This ubiquitous "first dibs" mentality has got to go, and someone (like the people who care enough to read and post on this thread) has to lead by example.

Again, there will always be trolls, jerks, and people who don't understand english. But that doesn't give anyone license to give up on being a positive force for improvement. I'm sorry if this sounded preachy, but the atrocious behavior just really gets to me sometimes.