FalseoGod wrote:
I think it's very relative. My boyfriend, per example, usually wins his lanes bad but can't manage the team side very well, he often engages versus 3+ people without having the proper backup, etc. Needs constant pings and mic shouts :P
No, see, that's actually my point. In a 1v1 situation, winning lane is much more related to winning the whole game. We all know that 1v1s are not a good measure of a player's skill at 5v5s, for exactly reasons like that, but the correlation between a certain, relatively small, set of skills to winning a 1v1 is higher than the correlation between a relatively small set of skills and winning a 5v5. So the Elo system would be better suited to 1v1s and predicting a player's skill at 1v1s than it is at the regular 5v5.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
Why is this thread still alive? People aren't thinking clearly, or something is going on. If people thought about it long enough they might pick out at least 3 reasons why a 1v1 is not an accurate reflection of skill. Rather than tell you folks you're wrong, I'll let you keep on stewing over it, at least I know Riot would never allow for ranked 1v1s even if a majority of the LoL community cried for it.
Crows foot
<Member>
<Member>
THing is, last 2 pages noone is actually discussing why a 1v1 ranked would be a good idea. THey are discussing why ELo would better reflect if it was 1v1 in the first place.
If you for some reason want to follow my ranked journey to gold, you can do it Here.
I am against asking for rep, only rep me if you think I contributed well or said something wise.
I am against asking for rep, only rep me if you think I contributed well or said something wise.
Well then let me enlighten everyone:
Assuming the current LoL rules are in place. Nothing modified or changed.
1v1s would 75% be decided by champion select. 20% by who got first blood. 5% by actual skill.
Champion selection: Most champs have some sort of counter in terms of opposing champions. Very few don't have counters. Picking a counter or un-counterable champ gives you the majority advantage.
First blood: First blood gives the killer 400g...Without even having to kill a creep they have a ~20 farm average advantage from first blood alone. Factor in time it takes for their enemy to return the lane, potentially double that advantage. Now you've got someone who simply outpicked their opponent and exploited it for first blood.
Where in any of that is ACTUAL skill? Let me know? Please tell me where in any of that was one person more skilled than the other?
LoL is a game balanced for TEAM PLAY. Trying to boil it down to 1v1s where there are 104 champions to choose from complicates the balancing process.
No my math is not "accurate" in terms of the % value for each variable. But the variables I offered speak for themselves.
Tell me how 1v1s can be a valid way to measure actual skill when champions counter each other, and gold gain essentially determines which champion gets the items they need to make themselves stronger.
I've said it enough times now 1v1s prove nothing.
Assuming the current LoL rules are in place. Nothing modified or changed.
1v1s would 75% be decided by champion select. 20% by who got first blood. 5% by actual skill.
Champion selection: Most champs have some sort of counter in terms of opposing champions. Very few don't have counters. Picking a counter or un-counterable champ gives you the majority advantage.
First blood: First blood gives the killer 400g...Without even having to kill a creep they have a ~20 farm average advantage from first blood alone. Factor in time it takes for their enemy to return the lane, potentially double that advantage. Now you've got someone who simply outpicked their opponent and exploited it for first blood.
Where in any of that is ACTUAL skill? Let me know? Please tell me where in any of that was one person more skilled than the other?
LoL is a game balanced for TEAM PLAY. Trying to boil it down to 1v1s where there are 104 champions to choose from complicates the balancing process.
No my math is not "accurate" in terms of the % value for each variable. But the variables I offered speak for themselves.
Tell me how 1v1s can be a valid way to measure actual skill when champions counter each other, and gold gain essentially determines which champion gets the items they need to make themselves stronger.
I've said it enough times now 1v1s prove nothing.
Crows foot
<Member>
<Member>
No no Jeffy. I agree. But the discussion is not about whether lol works for 1v1 but the elo system.
If you for some reason want to follow my ranked journey to gold, you can do it Here.
I am against asking for rep, only rep me if you think I contributed well or said something wise.
I am against asking for rep, only rep me if you think I contributed well or said something wise.
Elo is merely a reflection of your win to loss ratio against players with equal/better/worse elo than you...isnt it?
Edit: as well last i saw this thread was about riot making 1v1 ranked games...an idea which has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Elo itself "could" potentailly refelct 1v1 "skill", but 1v1s are impossible balance making any sort of rating system void...
Edit: as well last i saw this thread was about riot making 1v1 ranked games...an idea which has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Elo itself "could" potentailly refelct 1v1 "skill", but 1v1s are impossible balance making any sort of rating system void...
StealthShock
<Member>
<Member>
I agree, they should add a 1v1 game mode and map, the only problem is the unbalanced champions.
3v3 is great, but I hate when my team sucks so bad it makes me look like a noob.
3v3 is great, but I hate when my team sucks so bad it makes me look like a noob.
Fox Rage
<Member>
<Member>
+rep me and you'll get good karma, wich means you won't be reincarnated into a rock! Isn't that awesome?
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
But yes this idea has been discussed more than Pam Anderson's tits in a plastic surgeons office.
You need to log in before commenting.
Actually... 1v1s would be more suited to the Elo system. I know that the skills involved in 1v1s are only somewhat related to 5v5s, but in 1v1s the correlation of an individual player's skill level to their ability to win games is much tighter. That is, better players are significantly more likely to win games than worse players in 1v1s than in 5v5s, due to teamplay elements. The Elo system was designed for chess, which is much close to a LoL 1v1 than a 5v5.
This is not to say that ranked 1v1s are actually a good idea, of course. It's just that the Elo system (and really only the Elo system) is actually better suited for it.
I think it's very relative. My boyfriend, per example, usually wins his lanes bad but can't manage the team side very well, he often engages versus 3+ people without having the proper backup, etc. Needs constant pings and mic shouts :P