NA-SR Open Inhouse. October 7th

[quote=CasterMaster][s]I'm in Ethenite[/s] I'm a loser :P[/quote]

[quote=Nighthawk][quote=CasterMaster] I'm in Ethenite [/quote] ok next year you can come play.[/quote]

[quote=Lugignaf][quote=CasterMaster] I'm in Ethenite [/quote] T'was yesterday. :P[/quote]

[quote=CasterMaster]oh fuk I'll come back next year :D[/quote]

[quote=astrolia]Just a thought: For "constructive criticism", wouldn't it actually be ideal to have the experienced people play against the less experienced people so they can tell them what to improve on? I recall someone on EUW did an "experiment": Does ELO hell really exist and 1200-1300 people are genuinely weighted down by their team, or is there an actual skill difference between 1200-1300 and 1600-1700 that keeps them from climbing? He had 5 low ELO people play versus 5 higher ELO people, and the higher ELO team ended up giving tips/advice to the lower ELO bunch on all chat.[/quote]

[quote=Lugignaf][quote=astrolia] Just a thought: For "constructive criticism", wouldn't it actually be ideal to have the experienced people play against the less experienced people so they can tell them what to improve on? [/quote] I've actually sort of done that. I played against my ~900 ELO friend, me being ~1200 right now, and I absolutely trounced her. Of course, this isn't true for all lanes so, I guess having [i]good[/i] other lanes will help in that regard. We might try something like that for next week.[/quote]

[quote=Temzilla][quote=JEFFY40HANDS] The issue with "open" in houses is that it becomes hard to place the less experienced players. Even when placed well, they need to be matched up against each other. As seen in that game (Technically game 3) Cuddowls got pooped on top, and Vulk in mid. In (technically game 2) the winning team put Cuddowls in a role where his impact was limited. A support not getting fed/farmed doesn't matter compared to a carry or jungle. Which meant that the more experienced players were all playing roles that could freely win a game at will essentially. And that's what happened. I suggest (as I did on the previous page) if we end up doing more of these "open" in houses, we need more structure. Meaning that sub 500 win players will be matched against each other WHERE/WHEN possible. Otherwise these in houses aren't much of a learning experience (per say). Additionally we should start posting the roles we wish to play IN the thread(s) created so we can possibly set up a relatively fair set of lanes. That's just my opinion. [/quote] I almost cried when he didn't have any boots on janna :([/quote]

[quote=Lugignaf][quote=Temzilla] [quote=JEFFY40HANDS] The issue with "open" in houses is that it becomes hard to place the less experienced players. Even when placed well, they need to be matched up against each other. As seen in that game (Technically game 3) Cuddowls got pooped on top, and Vulk in mid. In (technically game 2) the winning team put Cuddowls in a role where his impact was limited. A support not getting fed/farmed doesn't matter compared to a carry or jungle. Which meant that the more experienced players were all playing roles that could freely win a game at will essentially. And that's what happened. I suggest (as I did on the previous page) if we end up doing more of these "open" in houses, we need more structure. Meaning that sub 500 win players will be matched against each other WHERE/WHEN possible. Otherwise these in houses aren't much of a learning experience (per say). Additionally we should start posting the roles we wish to play IN the thread(s) created so we can possibly set up a relatively fair set of lanes. That's just my opinion. [/quote] I almost cried when he didn't have any boots on janna :( [/quote] I ragged on him in the, [i]apparently not on[/i], stream for it too. I'll try to get it on youtube. <.<[/quote]

[quote=JEFFY40HANDS][quote=astrolia] Just a thought: For "constructive criticism", wouldn't it actually be ideal to have the experienced people play against the less experienced people so they can tell them what to improve on? I recall someone on EUW did an "experiment": Does ELO hell really exist and 1200-1300 people are genuinely weighted down by their team, or is there an actual skill difference between 1200-1300 and 1600-1700 that keeps them from climbing? He had 5 low ELO people play versus 5 higher ELO people, and the higher ELO team ended up giving tips/advice to the lower ELO bunch on all chat. [/quote] While that's a nice thought, the issue arises when people are told what they're doing wrong opposed to actually finding out for themselves. I didn't have a group of "high elo" players coddling me and spoon feeding me my fuck ups as I leveled my account. No one learns from being "told" something all they do is memorize it and catalog it; that's not really learning. Learning means they actually take the time to realize what they did wrong/right and try to repeat/prevent it again and again and again. Others might argue that being told something IS learning, in reality though (to me) it isn't. I can't remember half of the shit I learned in high school and that's because a majority of my experience was memorizing things. I would think the only way to help less experienced players improve would be for them to actually play games with/against players of similar "skill" level. That way they aren't getting face rolled by someone who is 2 million ELO triple diamond class SSS. (That's right TRIPLE "S" RANK). LoL is a game of action and reaction, you can only be told what to do in "X" situation, but if "X" situation never arises in a game, whatever anyone told you just got thrown out the window. Having more experienced players discuss matches after the fact (weather they are "open" in houses or "+/-" in houses) where a replay may be possible means a less experienced player can try to at least guess at what they may have done wrong while the experienced player guides them. To summarize, if you tell someone what they did wrong it only serves as a memorization, they never actually learn anything. If they start learning for themselves with someone there to give additional insight they will actually learn something.[/quote]

[quote=Mooninites][quote=Nighthawk] [quote=Mooninites] [quote=Nighthawk] lol lugi i'm sorry but that last game was ridic unbalanced :P [/quote] because the inhouses you have set up have just been a shining example of balance [/quote] Never said I did the best job either, I know Lugi did the best he could and it's not like I'm mad or criticizing him, i'm just saying the teams were unbalanced. Really appreciate your constant positive attitude towards me though, makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside :) [/quote] I'm just letting you know where you stand. Wrath said the inhouses went to shit after he stopped hosting them, at first I thought he was just being arrogant, but he's dead on. The inhouses have been absolutely terrible since he has stopped hosting them. And considering we all know who picked up where he left off, it was pretty easy to come to a conclusion...[/quote]