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.

GO TO BOARDS


Issue with how points are earned/lost

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Best Atheist NA

Senior Member

09-24-2011

Quote:
Creamsoda:
Not to feed the Nutcup, but the OP only wants others to agree with him; he cares not if the other viewpoints are well thought out or even logical. Downvote and move on ;|


Not at all, I said I was staying open-minded, and I do agree with what some others have said. I just wanted to see what others felt about it, and I expressed how I felt about it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Homitu

Member

09-24-2011

Quote:
Alden Cross:
If the team is careless for 80% of the game, they lost.

However, if they came back to win, they stopped being careless for at least 51% of the game. The length of the game is for a point to go down to zero, not when it is 320-20. A team that loses isn't being careless for 20% of the game, they got careless for 49% of it and paid the price for assuming 'it was over'.

There is no time limit, Just points, Its not a football match where a 'slip' at the 99th minute will determine loss or victory.

Your constant comparison to Arathi Basin is honestly irrelevant. This is the League. This is NOT world of warcraft.


While I certainly don't agree with pretty much anything Nutcup has said thus far in this thread, I can't let some of the silliness of this post slip by just because it attempts to counter the Nut. Namely because it doesn't counter anything at all as the arguments don't make any sense.

I'd be inclined to agree that if a team is careless throughout 80% of a match, they probably lost. That is, unless the other team was careless for 81% or, oh my gosh, the entire game. Then maybe not. But, you might exclaim , that adds up to at least 161%!!! You see the first problem? Carelessness isn't a quantity of which there is a whole value to be shared between the two teams. By your interpretation, you seem to think that at any given moment during the game, one of the two teams must be behaving carelessly. This is, of course, preposterous. Both teams can play the entire game recklessly, or very carefully.

I would venture to say that both teams in most games play the majority of the game with care. Dominion is marked by sudden, usually fairly small mistakes that can lead to a quick 4 turret cap by the opposing team, which can result in a significant point loss for a precious few moments. I believe it is these periods of time when one team makes significant point gains over the other team that you were referring to when you tried to quantify "carelessness" by both teams into percentages.

A second problem in your reasoning is that points don't always come during a moment of carelessness. In fact, points are almost always ticking down throughout the game, even when neither team is being careless. By necessity your team must leave owned turrets alone for a period while you make plays on the enemies turrets. During these periods of criss-crossing, both teams often swap the 3 turret to 2 lead several times. These aren't mistakes. It is a strategical tug-o-war while waiting for a greater opportunity to present itself.

A third and fourth problem with trying to derive a correlation between victory and time spent being careless are the quests and buffs. Both can adjust the score of the game without having much to do with a sudden lapse in carefulness.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Best Atheist NA

Senior Member

09-24-2011

Quote:
Homitu:

Terrible analogy in this case. Coaches tell their players to play for a full 60 minutes precisely because teams that have played well and dominated for 59 minutes but relaxed during that final minute have lost...many times.

Quote:
..many times.


See, that's where I disagree. Yes, I agree that coaches tell their players to play the full 60 minutes, but thats just to prevent the once-in-a-lifetime comeback that happens maybe once a year? I can already see Dominion comebacks happening quite often. The comeback factor is intriguing, but over a long period of time, I think many teams will win that didn't necessarily deserve to win, if people can understand what I'm saying.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Best Atheist NA

Senior Member

09-24-2011

Quote:
Alden Cross:
If the team is careless for 80% of the game, they lost.


But that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. The team that is careless for 80% of the game, can still win, and I don't know the community will feel about losing to a careless team, that got "lucky" in the last 3 minutes. This is still beta, so only time will tell. I'll be sure to revisit this post after Dominion's been out for a few weeks


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GPEternity

Senior Member

09-24-2011

Quote:
Nutcup:
But that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. The team that is careless for 80% of the game, can still win, and I don't know the community will feel about losing to a careless team, that got "lucky" in the last 3 minutes. This is still beta, so only time will tell. I'll be sure to revisit this post after Dominion's been out for a few weeks


The team that was "careless" only wins if they get their act together and can significantly outplay the enemy team for the remainder of the game. And assuming they are indeed "careless" they have to completely make up the point differential AND finish off their opponent before they can recompose. Many times this will lead to the game being significantly longer as the "careless" team makes up the difference.

You have to tie the game before you can take the lead, so a team that was "careless" for 80% of the game can't win; because they will have not played the game better than their opponents for a long enough period to even make up the point differential. If it comes down one team being 20-400 in points and then going on a 4-1 cap advantage for the next 2 minutes to win the game; than the other team would have had to suffer an immense collapse to allow that to happen; in which case they certainly did not "deserve" to win either.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BigToasterWaffle

Senior Member

09-24-2011

This ought to blow your mind nutcup(if you have one), but all this would do would make games shorter.
It would NOT affect the outcome. How you ask? Well if you are getting two points a second for that last 40 seconds of the game. They were getting that for the entire game, so your 300-20, is now looking more like about a 70-20, you can stop talking now...

Edit: I'm going to supplement some other posts too.
if a team was careless for 80% of the game, then your team won. If they came back, they were only careless 49% of the time, because they couldn't have won if they didn't control more points for 51% of the time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Polaritie

Recruiter

09-24-2011

Quote:
BigToasterWaffle:
This ought to blow your mind nutcup(if you have one), but all this would do would make games shorter.
It would NOT affect the outcome. How you ask? Well if you are getting two points a second for that last 40 seconds of the game. They were getting that for the entire game, so your 300-20, is now looking more like about a 70-20, you can stop talking now...

Edit: I'm going to supplement some other posts too.
if a team was careless for 80% of the game, then your team won. If they came back, they were only careless 49% of the time, because they couldn't have won if they didn't control more points for 51% of the time.


Hahahaha... once you screw up your math, your argument is null, void, and dead on arrival.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lieuu

Junior Member

09-24-2011

What is so hard to understand about this? The 51% rule always applies. If they won, they had more points, more of the time. You were NOT controlling more points for 18 minutes then they "came back" in 2 minutes. It's simple math. You had 120 points left to 20? Well how did they manage to take away 380 of your points? You took 480 of theirs in the same time. That split is 44% to 56%, counting in net captured nodes per second. Think about that. They had at least 3-2/4-1 over you for almost half the game, then they got the last 120 before you got your 20.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Homitu

Member

09-24-2011

Quote:
BigToasterWaffle:

Edit: I'm going to supplement some other posts too.
if a team was careless for 80% of the game, then your team won. If they came back, they were only careless 49% of the time, because they couldn't have won if they didn't control more points for 51% of the time.


/boggleinfrustration

Again, we're incorrectly using the term "careless" as a synonym for"points being removed from one nexus." Points are removed from one nexus or the other almost constantly during a game, and it's not always the result of one team being careless. Both teams can play ridiculously carelessly 100% of the time, throughout the entire game, and one of those teams will still win. You don't split this imaginary carelessness percentage stat between both teams. The game doesn't end when one team reaches >51% maximum carelessness. It ends when one nexus has 0 points.

Likewise, both teams can play incredibly carefully for, say, 95% of the match (Ie. 19 out of 20 minutes.) And yet, one team will still surely win. Wow! The maths iz magic.

Oh, and then there are the quests. You can conceivably never take a majority turret lead, complete every quest before your opponent, and still win.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Alden Cross

Member

09-24-2011

Quote:
Homitu:
While I certainly don't agree with pretty much anything Nutcup has said thus far in this thread, I can't let some of the silliness of this post slip by just because it attempts to counter the Nut. Namely because it doesn't counter anything at all as the arguments don't make any sense.

I'd be inclined to agree that if a team is careless throughout 80% of a match, they probably lost. That is, unless the other team was careless for 81% or, oh my gosh, the entire game. Then maybe not. But, you might exclaim , that adds up to at least 161%!!! You see the first problem? Carelessness isn't a quantity of which there is a whole value to be shared between the two teams. By your interpretation, you seem to think that at any given moment during the game, one of the two teams must be behaving carelessly. This is, of course, preposterous. Both teams can play the entire game recklessly, or very carefully.

I would venture to say that both teams in most games play the majority of the game with care. Dominion is marked by sudden, usually fairly small mistakes that can lead to a quick 4 turret cap by the opposing team, which can result in a significant point loss for a precious few moments. I believe it is these periods of time when one team makes significant point gains over the other team that you were referring to when you tried to quantify "carelessness" by both teams into percentages.

A second problem in your reasoning is that points don't always come during a moment of carelessness. In fact, points are almost always ticking down throughout the game, even when neither team is being careless. By necessity your team must leave owned turrets alone for a period while you make plays on the enemies turrets. During these periods of criss-crossing, both teams often swap the 3 turret to 2 lead several times. These aren't mistakes. It is a strategical tug-o-war while waiting for a greater opportunity to present itself.

A third and fourth problem with trying to derive a correlation between victory and time spent being careless are the quests and buffs. Both can adjust the score of the game without having much to do with a sudden lapse in carefulness.


I was addressing the fact that Nutcup seemed to think that when the game is at 320-20 or whathave you, it is '80% of the game'.

I was not being literal in my reasoning, merely symbolic.

I did not intend to write an essay on what constitute 'carelessness' in Dominion,(which you seem to have done, thank you, it is enlightening, despite missing my point completely) merely to press a point that if you think that if you are 300 points ahead of your enemy, then the game is '80% over', you are wrong, it is merely 80% won.