### Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

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

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dingly Donuts

Member

More like you are 16% more likely to verbally abuse your team if you are losing

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Boloney

Senior Member

Quote:
RedHaro:
This doesn't make sense...

"Correlation does not mean causation" is a theme taught to me by my statistics teacher in highschool.

It is equally likely that the team that loses are more likely to verbally abuse their teammates

Hence this is misleading

That's not necessarily true. It depends on how exactly they calculated the number.

Counter example:

1. Riot splits LoL population into two groups; A and B.
2. Anyone who's been punished for verbal abuse goes into group B, everyone else in group A.
3. Comparing the average Win/Loss ratio of the two groups, they find group A has a 47% chance to lose and group B has a 54.5% chance to lose.

It is now fair to say group B loses 16% more games (47 * 1.16 = 54.52), including the implication of at least some level of causation. Saying that it's just as likely that losing games caused the verbal abuse, rather than vice versa, would be incorrect. This is because:

a) Obviously group A lost games as well, yet they did not exhibit verbal abuse.
b) The only selection criteria for group A and group B is verbal abuse.
c) Group A still has a higher win ratio in spite of a) and b).

Of course, I don't know if they actually calculated it like that. That's just an example of a case where it can be inferred that the verbal abuse had a causal role.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

JevelFaithful

Senior Member

Quote:
Ronnie Law:

[interesting story]

Now, all of this may seem very negative, and in many ways it is.
But the point is, without that challenge to the worldview when a flawed conclusion is reached, improvement and invalidation of bad logic cannot happen.

The hope is that he was beaten so badly, demoralized so completely, that he either plays Pantheon on a level much higher than he was, thus ACTUALLY being able to perform the role he accepted, or he does not choose Pantheon for that role again.

This is beneficial for both him and his future team mates.
And as I will not be playing with him again, could be argued as altruistic, even though all I really did was beat up on him.

To be clear, I don't believe that negativity in team games is blatantly good or always results in wins. I just don't believe it is sufficient to say that flaming is a qualitative cause of a significant percentile of losses. There's a leap of logic happening there that seems more akin to rationalization rather than causation.

I'd just point out something in your story. You lost the game where you flamed him (if I read correctly). What you did might actually do him good. Even tought, as you said, you don,t know if he will change or not. I realize that's how you learn from your mistakes but he probably won't listen to you and keep playing. Hopefully he might try to improve or not.
Either way, flaming him cost you your game. In some cases, these games can be salvaged by advice and leadership. Giving you both a win. Afterward, there's nothing stopping you from challenging him and telling him what he needs to play panth in the jungle. Best case : he actually gets good. Worst case : he quit playing after a while. Either way, it's a win for his teammates.

tldr : You could have challenged his worldview and all AND have got a win that game and still beat him up if it pleases you or make him a better player. You know, I'm much more likely to listen to you if you helped me in a game than if you just won a few games 1v1.

You say it's not a significative source of loss. But the time you take to flame and the loss of performance I have heard from every one I've met disagree with you. I have never seen anyone say they played better because they were annoyed by a stranger calling him noob. Some people might ignore it, but they still aren't playing better. Some player might give a boost to get back in the game, but they'd do it with or without flaming.
A player plays worse when he is flamed repeatedly. Challenging him and crushing him after the match might be good. But for the given match, it's a loss for both of you.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ronnie Law

Senior Member

Quote:
Statiqhock:
I'd just point out something in your story. You lost the game where you flamed him (if I read correctly). What you did might actually do him good. Even tought, as you said, you don,t know if he will change or not. I realize that's how you learn from your mistakes but he probably won't listen to you and keep playing. Hopefully he might try to improve or not.

Important point.
I did not lose because I flamed him. I lost because he was bad.
He will not continue to lose games because I flamed him, change or not.
The inference is still invalid.

At this point if people want to believe it isn't, that's fine.

EDIT: I think my point is being missed.

Flaming doesn't cause the perception, real or not, of losing.
Losing causes flaming.

People don't abuse their teammates when everyone is performing.
The people that flame or are flamed are involved in a perceived loss caused by one party, perceived by another.

Here's the reality.

Look at any given game 10 person sample spread.
Those people are ranked in order based on performance, while it would take very detailed and complex analysis, there would always be an MVP and a Worst player.
Here's the problem.
First, the game is VERY good at punishing that worst player.
They are constantly behind in development and continue to fall behind by orders of magnitude, and the paradox is that it takes skill to close that gap, the one element that is missing.
Second, the game is completely unbiased as to which player will be performing which role or roles on the team.
However, these roles are typically exclusive and redundancies tend to be wasteful.
Therefor, if there is any aberration from a homogeneous spread of role assignment in player skill levels, there will be a deficiency created by the system itself placing the a player at an undue disadvantage, which tends to compound as the game progresses until a losing and unwinnable situation is perceived, logically this perception is not necessarily incorrect. (In fact, continuing to correlate the statistic provided, it means that a given flamer only has about a 16% margin to incorrectly predict the outcome of a game, which is pretty damn good.)

Really there are three things that can happen at this point.
Things can devolve further.
Things can remain the same with no attitude shift in overall play, individually or as a group.
Things can change to adapt to the situation and a win may be salvageable. <--- This is where flaming happens.

When this point is reached, players may bicker or continue, however, there is no evidence presented that proves that the break in solidarity causes the loss.
The loss is what is being reacted to with the bickering or flaming.

If a team devolves generally there was already a problem that escalated unchecked, and a loss is extremely probable.
Now, here's the thing, the person flaming generally wasn't the one causing the problem.

I'll give you this, if people generally accepted criticism better, flaming probably wouldn't be as prevalent a problem as it is.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Prandine

Senior Member

Quote:
Phalron:
Well there is a profanity filter, and many people choose to turn it off because they curse themselves. If you ignore you're entire team at the beginning of the match, you are never cursed at. So if you prevent being verbally abused, will your win rate increase by a certain %?

"A chat filter is not an excuse for you to excessively curse."

One of the many tooltips that you see in the game. Just because there's a chat filter in the game that doesn't mean that you can constantly cuss at people, and since many people seem to do that these days, they tend to lose allot more games as evidenced by the many lost game tribunal reports that we so often see today.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Pure Phoènix

Member

Quote:
Boloney:
That's not necessarily true. It depends on how exactly they calculated the number.

Counter example:

1. Riot splits LoL population into two groups; A and B.
2. Anyone who's been punished for verbal abuse goes into group B, everyone else in group A.
3. Comparing the average Win/Loss ratio of the two groups, they find group A has a 47% chance to lose and group B has a 54.5% chance to lose.

It is now fair to say group B loses 16% more games (47 * 1.16 = 54.52), including the implication of at least some level of causation. Saying that it's just as likely that losing games caused the verbal abuse, rather than vice versa, would be incorrect. This is because:

a) Obviously group A lost games as well, yet they did not exhibit verbal abuse.
b) The only selection criteria for group A and group B is verbal abuse.
c) Group A still has a higher win ratio in spite of a) and b).

Of course, I don't know if they actually calculated it like that. That's just an example of a case where it can be inferred that the verbal abuse had a causal role.

They've been doing this already for years. Anyone who's been previously banned goes into group B. I tested this as a social experiment and to prove riot are lying about their ranked ladder, i have 3 other accounts that i deliberately got banned and abused the crappas out of people.

I still have over a 1:1 win/loss ratio
I STILL do great in most of my games
I STILL hit gold elo almost in all 3 seasons.

Riot don't know what they're talking about. Verbal abuse has zero impact on gameplay.
Even if you're already in a group known to lose more often and known to waste more time being verbally abusive, it has zero impact on the game.

Why? because most conversations end up in /all chat, which involved the ENEMY team as well.

Both teams are equally wasting time typing, which actually evens it out.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

samson920

Senior Member

RiotDerivative I LOVE YOU

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Raaspu

Member

First time seeing this RiotTFAvatar and he comes out with a boom, spitting statistical knowledge everywhere.

OVERWHELMING.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ronnie Law

Senior Member

Quote:
Pure Phoènix:
They've been doing this already for years. Anyone who's been previously banned goes into group B. I tested this as a social experiment and to prove riot are lying about their ranked ladder, i have 3 other accounts that i deliberately got banned and abused the crappas out of people.

I still have over a 1:1 win/loss ratio
I STILL do great in most of my games
I STILL hit gold elo almost in all 3 seasons.

Riot don't know what they're talking about. Verbal abuse has zero impact on gameplay.
Even if you're already in a group known to lose more often and known to waste more time being verbally abusive, it has zero impact on the game.

Why? because most conversations end up in /all chat, which involved the ENEMY team as well.

Both teams are equally wasting time typing, which actually evens it out.

So...

What I got is that
A) You have an agenda that is not relevant to the conversation.
C) You're a compulsive liar that is probably insecure about his own ego.

Constructive post Bro!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Pure Phoènix

Member

Quote:
Ronnie Law:
So...

What I got is that
A) You have an agenda that is not relevant to the conversation.