Possible solutions to Ranked Solo

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

If you go 0/10/2 in 100 games the likelihood of winning is pretty bad, but regardless the premise is that the comparison should be weighed in compared to your teammates. If you are 0/10/2, and teammates are all in the 7/2/15 range, do you not think they should be rewarded? Or conversely, if you are 5/1/17 and your teammate is 0/10/2, do you not think you should be rewarded in comparison to the 0/10/2?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

You guys also haven't weighed in on the duo queue argument. Do you not agree that duo queue prevents an equal playing field? You seem to be ignoring that one.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KarmicKatri

Senior Member

01-23-2013

Can't fix human stupidity.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smushynumnum View Post
If you go 0/10/2 in 100 games the likelihood of winning is pretty bad
You would think that, generally.

But the fact of the matter is, the only thing that actually matters is destroying the enemy Nexus. Even if my teammates all have positive KDRs, what if my KDR is a result of dying to turrets frequently as I split push? Perhaps my teammates were mostly just team-fighting in mid, and maybe they took out one turret, but while they were doing that, I split push down all the turrets in top and bottom lane.

So while my teammates were getting plenty of kills and managed taking out one turret, I took out 8 turrets and 2 inhibitors essentially securing the win for us.


I mean, it really doesn't matter.

The point is, you don't win by having the best KDR. You don't even win by being on the team with the most kills, fewest deaths, or most assists. You win by being on the team who destroyed the enemy Nexus.

If I've come up with a strategy that is extremely effective at destroying the enemy Nexus (more effective then how we typically play the game) but consistently results in a poor KDR for myself, I shouldn't be punished with less Elo than my teammates if it's actually my strategy that's winning the match.

And if my strategy isn't a superior strategy for winning, then over the course of those 100 games, I'll win fewer games than my teammates that consistently go 5/2/0 (to my 0/10/2 consistently). The person with the best strategy for destroying the enemy Nexus will have the most Elo after a large sample size of games, regardless of their KDR.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

[QUOTE=PogoPogoPogoPogo;33806477]You would think that, generally.

But the fact of the matter is, the only thing that actually matters is destroying the enemy Nexus.


Have to disagree here. Destroying the enemy nexus is not as easily accomplished should someone afk or feed. And, should this happen, the likelihood of destroying the enemy nexus is much smaller. Thus, you are penalized regardless of your actions for someone else's doing.

Do you not agree that you should not be penalized in terms of elo, as much as the afker or feeder? Conversely, Do you not think you should be rewarded more so that the afker/feeder should you win?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smushynumnum View Post
Have to disagree here. Destroying the enemy nexus is not as easily accomplished should someone afk or feed. And, should this happen, the likelihood of destroying the enemy nexus is much smaller. Thus, you are penalized regardless of your actions for someone else's doing.
Can you please read my post?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Please also note Pogo that KDR is only part of what I think should be taken into consideration. The reason in worked so well in Halo3 is because all palyers were on an equal playing field from the start. I agree that there should be other variables considered.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Can you please reply to my questions, you seem to be dodging a bunch of them - reading post now.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smushynumnum View Post
Halo3
And I'm now officially done with this thread.

I had a feeling this was going to be the case, since it's always the case in every thread where someone wants KDR considered in some formula that impacts Elo.


Halo, Call of Duty, whatever. Whatever the FPS that you're playing, the game mode is typically Team Deathmatch.


In Team Deathmatch game modes, a KILL directly contributes to your team's winning chances, as it gets your team one kill closer to victory.

In Team Deathmatch game modes, a DEATH directly contributes to your team's losing chances, as it gets your team one death closer to defeat.




This is League of Legends. The objective, the SOLE objective, is to destroy the enemy Nexus. By any means necessary.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Regarding your post - "And if my strategy isn't a superior strategy for winning, then over the course of those 100 games, I'll win fewer games than my teammates that consistently go 5/2/0 (to my 0/10/2 consistently). The person with the best strategy for destroying the enemy Nexus will have the most Elo after a large sample size of games, regardless of their KDR."

Typically what I've seen with support that perform optimally, is that their K/D ratio is not typically as high, however their assists certainly are. I think someone who performs 3/3/5 with 0 turret kills, 50 minions, should not be rewarded nearly as much as someone who is 0/3/26, with 2 turret kills, 100 minion kills. Would you not agree that the 2nd player influence the win of the match much more so than the first?