MobaFire's Scouting System

[quote=Bioalchemist]guess i can write guides than. because putting together an item build with runes and masteries without any explanation or game play tips is easy as pie. top of the guide charts here i come ;)[/quote]

[quote=DoomGlad]I like the C2V scout option. Sounds fair. Personally, I liked the scouting system until one day I stumbled upon my [[vayne]] guide and some scout gave it a -scout. I have no idea why that person did this but I will never know. Scouting should be public.[/quote]

[quote=sirell][quote=Bioalchemist] guess i can write guides than. because putting together an item build with runes and masteries without any explanation or game play tips is easy as pie. top of the guide charts here i come ;) [/quote] Though I do realise you are joking, I'd just like to point out that I said that the cheatsheet is the bare minimum, not the target. Getting the cheatsheet right is the first hurdle.[/quote]

[quote=sirell][quote=SOAC Bas] [spoiler]You shouldn't "scout" a champion you don't own. There is no logic behind a player approving a guide he has never tested nor could even look at it go that makes sense with that champ. We all know pro players rarely try anything outside of the box in games we can see. A simple blanket statement like this guide is bad because it wouldn't work for specific encounters is a bad way to do things. I play certain champs a specific way because they work better for me and the way that I play them. Does that mean that a guide I write or build is wrong? When it might be correct if you tried it out. Example: We had a well respected guide writer write a Malzahar guide. They pointed out specific functions that they felt were necessary and the way to play. It was voted up and approved by many players. Until several players such as myself who had well over 200 games played with Malz read it. We noticed several issues with the build, and noted that several of their must haves were not must haves but rather options depending on champs. Yet on the scouting system it was getting pluses because the player was respected, and a scout who had not tested the build, nor played the champ that often assumed the person was correct. This is a bad way to do things. Only a player who had tried the build and regularly played Malz would have noticed the issues, and pointed it out which is exactly what happened. In the end, if a player is going to scout a guide they should at least have some experience with the champ in question as well as have tested the actual build to make sure it works. If they don't the scouting system becomes nothing more than a contest of favoritism and who writes best. Final example: IF i wrote a teemo guide, and included Hurricane. It would get so many negative votes, by players who simply assume I have no clue what I am talking about. It would get -scouting from several players that I know simply because they don't like the idea. However, every player that has tried it that way has come away exctied about it's possiblity. I run a specific teemo build every time. It is efficient and works well. However, if a player actually has to test it and player 10-15 games before voting on it than you would see a more accurate representation of what is felt.[/spoiler] [/quote] [quote=Bioalchemist] [spoiler]yeah i completely agree you shouldn't scout a guide on a champ you don't own or rarely play. shit i don't vote on guides if i don't know the champ well. scout points imo are worth more than your typical vote and should be treated as such. also i have seen this theorycrafting excuse so many times on mobafire. and while i agree blatantly stupid item choices or rune choices don't need to be tested...things that COULD work even if they are not what the vast majority go with should be tested. if there was no experimentation things like AP yi (when it worked) or AP rengar (when it worked) or AP tryn (when it worked) would never have been discovered. and one more point. gold/silver play is actually far more relevant to the majority of mobafire users and LoL player base in general. plat/diamond is the minority. though in that regard things that work at the diamond level SHOULD work at the silver level however matches definitely do not proceed/behave the same at the silver level as they do diamond. for instance i have had a ranked game where my bot lane fed 30 kills..YES 30. i don't think that happens in diamond elo so a diamond level player may not be able to relate to a match like that while a silver player could relate. [/spoiler][/quote] I feel like both of you didn't really read what I wrote in context. I see absolutely no objection to having someone else test the guide for me before I scout it. Particularly if they test it in high tier. It's very rarely the case that a Diamond can do something which will only work at high tier but not low tiers. Even so, I can get someone of a lower tier to test it for me also, it doesn't just have to be high tiers. The point stands that I don't have to play the games myself. And I didn't use the 'theorycraft excuse' on its own. I combined it in tandem with all the other requirements of testing - experience and playtesting, even if the playtesting wasn't done by me. And I play a shit [[riven]]. I could play 10-15 [[riven]] games with the most perfect and optimal [[Riven]] guide and still lose simply because my mechanic and decision making skills fail me. Does this mean I can't tell what a good [[riven]] guide can consist of? Absurd. I've seen countless high tier [[riven]] games as well as duoed with a Plat-Diamond [[riven]] for almost 20 matches straight (there were some [[lee sin]] games mixed in there). If you think I can't tell what a good [[riven]] guide should contain from those games alone, I'd say you were deluding yourself. As has been said many times before, you don't need to try something to tell its bad. I can rely on the experiences of other (also better) players, as well as common sense to tell whether something is optimal or not and hence judge whether to upscout or not.[/quote]

[quote=Crows foot][img=http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x146/Pocketdrak/Motivational%20Posters/common-sense-superpower.jpg]Common sense doesn't cut it![/quote]

[quote=Jack Rubino][quote=Lugignaf] [quote=Jack Rubino] The scout system should, as everyone know or should know, reward the most well written, well explained, well coded and well made guides. [/quote] That's more or less what the vote system already does though. :S [/quote] if you keep reading my post, you will know what i mean, and that will be explained better.[/quote]

[quote=SOAC Bas][quote=sirell] I feel like both of you didn't really read what I wrote in context. I see absolutely no objection to having someone else test the guide for me before I scout it. Particularly if they test it in high tier. It's very rarely the case that a Diamond can do something which will only work at high tier but not low tiers. Even so, I can get someone of a lower tier to test it for me also, it doesn't just have to be high tiers. The point stands that I don't have to play the games myself.[/quote] Except we did read what you wrote in context. It seems you didn't really read what we wrote. We aren't saying that you don't know the basics. We are saying your reasoning is wrong, and that the system is flawed. We are not talking about things that work only in lower tiers like ad tristana, which is obviously wrong. We are saying that just because you are a high-tier player doesn't mean that you know everything about a champion that you don't play. [quote=sirell] And I didn't use the 'theorycraft excuse' on its own. I combined it in tandem with all the other requirements of testing - experience and playtesting, even if the playtesting wasn't done by me. And I play a shit [[riven]]. I could play 10-15 [[riven]] games with the most perfect and optimal [[Riven]] guide and still lose simply because my mechanic and decision making skills fail me. Does this mean I can't tell what a good [[riven]] guide can consist of? Absurd. I've seen countless high tier [[riven]] games as well as duoed with a Plat-Diamond [[riven]] for almost 20 matches straight (there were some [[lee sin]] games mixed in there). If you think I can't tell what a good [[riven]] guide should contain from those games alone, I'd say you were deluding yourself. As has been said many times before, you don't need to try something to tell its bad. I can rely on the experiences of other (also better) players, as well as common sense to tell whether something is optimal or not and hence judge whether to upscout or not. [/quote] Except you did state very clearly, that you don't even have to play a champ to know if something is wrong. Your example actually proves our point. If you were to get on and downrank a "Riven" guide because they didn't take tiamat first but felt that going Brutalizer into IE was a better frontloader option. Without testing you would say, no that's ridiculous tiamat is mandatory because you need the sustain against certain champs like Shyvana, Mundo, and so on. This isn't about common sense. This is about having more than just a rudimentary knowledge of a champ you are putting a major negative or plus too. To use your example, You play Riven crappy, and no matter how many games you play riven you will still suck on her. Fantastic, however if you play 20 games on her in a row even if you lose you will get a good preliminary understanding as to why the guide wrote the advice they did. You would then be able to make an educated intelligent recommendation. I love how people use common sense to define anything they want to dismiss as simple. Something simple does not define common sense. Common sense dictates that voting on something you have not tested and have no basic understanding of is wrong, flawed, and a misuse of the power you have been assigned. Basic logical deduction states that ad katarina is a bad idea. However, whether I should rush specific items or bait champs in a certain way or why specific items are preferred over others is not common sense but rather logical reasoning. [i]Example: I spoke with several diamond 1 players about Teemo. All of them asked why I took Hurricane since it's a useless item (their words), and in many cases they were right. I stated that it increased teemo's range so that I could hit the champ behind minions, and that it increased my ability to team fight by adding an aoe to my dot. Each and everyone paused and wondered what I meant by it increases my range. When I explained that hurricane's passive effect will hit a target behind your main target to hit with the passive effect even if the target behind is outside of your 525 range it will extend it to 650. This was the comment I received back, "I never would have even noticed that. That's hilarious and interesting. I don't think I would buy it still, but it makes more sense." Not one of them had even taken the time to understand how a specific item might work within the framework of a fight. Amazingly not one of them main's teemo, not one of them has more than 10 games on teemo so the basic understanding of teemo was not there for them. In fact a majority of them stated, that since they don't play teemo they wouldn't have thought of grabbing Hurricane even on AP teemo, but every single Teemo main player I know has toyed with Hurricane. And in many cases they will pick it up use it for awhile and then sell it and pick up a different item.[/i] [u]This is the difference between practical experience with a specific champ and your less professional more egotistical method. Just because you have a good understanding of league doesn't mean you have the knowledge or experience to judge a champ's guide. This is the inherent flaw in a scouting system without requirements in place outside of you are high elo and post alot.[/u][/quote]

[quote=sirell]No, you honestly didn't understand what I wrote.[/quote]

[quote=NateKiller][quote=sirell] No, you honestly didn't understand what I wrote. [/quote] ha! Another person that doesn't understand you, huh? I think he understood you perfectly. :P[/quote]

[quote=SOAC Bas][quote=sirell] No, you honestly didn't understand what I wrote. [/quote] Except we did and refuted your points. If you don't want to have a logical discussion than say so, but your assumptions that everyone's thought process is so much beneath you that we can't grasp what you are writing is tiresome, trivial, and ridiculous. There are two possible options to this. 1). You think you are writing something clearly, which no one else can see. 2). You cannot conceive how you could be wrong on this and so refuse to see anything outside of your own point. Since I have clearly defined our position, and you clearly seem to believe that you have some unearthly source of knowledge beyond all of ours. I am inclined to go with point 2. Let me reiterate, if you personally have no practical experience with a champ then regardless of your contacts within the game and whether or not they agree with you then you should not be listed as a scout for that champ. That's our point. We don't care how many players you talk too, or how many assorted pro's you claim to know. There is no way for anyone to verify what they said or that they even attempted to try the build. Here is our point put simply. [b]The only people who should have the power of scouting are players/members who have practical experience with a specific champ, and are willing to take the time to test it out. If you don't wish to test it out and then explain your findings than you shouldn't rank or scout that champ. It's not complicated it removes all sorts of confusion, and it removes players who feel they have some incredible ability to see something immediately in every champ regardless of their experience with it.[/b] ((voyboy is well known for his ability to grasp nuances with every champ. Even he refuses to comment on certain champs solely because he does not have the experience with that champ in order to be able to comment directly. Perhaps you are better and more knowledgeable))[/quote]