Reign of Gaming

I'll be perfectly honest with you, aside from your statement that "Even saying 'correlation = causation' isn't "statistically innacurate" - it's just innacurate. There's no statistical error there, it's just not an appropriate assumption" (There is a statisitcal error there because at no point do the statistics reflect causation, merely correlation. Big difference.), I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. I think the issue here is that you are just far better at putting into words what I was actually trying to say and you misinterpreted the intent of my original post. Many of the statements I made about aggression were intended to be facetious to point out the error in assuming that correlation = causation, but my writing failed to convey that. I wasn't stating the correlation doesn't exist or is not a statistical truth, but that the general public does not really understand what correlation actually means. And I also wasn't trying to argue against the study because it was correlation  I was arguing against the study because correlation studies are the ones most frequently abused by those who wish to ban violent video games. 

So in all, I agree with you. I just think you took what I wrote the wrong way, which is most likely my error since I often times write like a 3rd grader. 

I think its funny that you criticize me and then go on to agree with most everything I said. Makes sense. And I wasn't saying that correlation was statistically inaccurate, I was saying that coming to the conclusion that correlation = causation is statistically inaccurate. And as a financial analyst, I actually work with statistics very frequently and took multiple classes during the process of my MBA. Seems like you may have misread the tone in what I was trying to say, as I am more of a math person then an english person, and for that I apologize. But like I said, from what you wrote, it actually seems like you and I are in agreement since you are making the same argument I was attempting through sarcasm. 

This kind of stuff is ridiculous. Studies that try to tie video games to negative behavior is short-sighted and statistically inaccurate. Correlation does no equal causation. For example, there have been a lot of studies done recently with this in mind, and most have come up inconclusive, but the media has seemed to latch onto one case study in which there was a correlation between kids who play violent video games and their aggressiveness in sports. The media, of course, trumped this up as proof that video games caused violence. But this is simply not the case. Could it just be possible, that a kid with an aggressive attitude towards everything in life chooses to play a FPS rather then Pokemon (not a knock on Pokemon, I grew up on red) because it satisfies a part of his natural and healthy aggressive-subconscious? Could further faulty assumptions then be made that if a kid is aggressive in sports in general, he/she may be violent in real life? By that argument, every football player is a likely candidate to extreme violence, which is flat out absurd. 

Before this post turns into a full-out rant, I'll close in saying that there are crazy and sick individuals out there. There always have been. There is no understanding it or rationalizing it, and the best any of us could hope to do is give those people the help and medical attention they truly need. But by singling out groups of people to point fingers out simply because it is a weak attempt at rationalizing a truly horrible event is both biased and un-American. The true answer is a change in mental healthcare, not blaming guns or video games. Early detection of mental illness and appropriate medical care will do far more for the world then simply banning MA video games. 

This is also focusing mostly on our own proficiency, whether we are incredible at 1 champ or good at many. But neither really matters if you don't know anything about your opponent. Now that the game is fairly older, players have more knowledge, but I still occasionally get teamed with someone who feeds simply because they didn't know the opponents ult or passive. 

Quote from heymaa »

The OP was also playing Cho'Gath, who is by far the most flexible jungling champion in regards to spec. You can go AP or AD, 21/9 or 9/21, and it doesn't really matter for Cho, it just changes his play style in that particular match.

If you did this with other champions, I think you would feel a drastic difference. For example, someone earlier mention going 21/9 on Nocturne for early ganks. That's great IF you get those ganks. However, if you die early or just get unlucky with your opponent escaping, you may have gimped your performance for the rest of the game, since assassin Nocturne relies heavily on gank gold.

When considering something like this, you have to look at these two things. 1) The champion you are playing and 2) what will this build do to me in both success AND failure. Because we all appear to be good when we are winning, but what defines a great league player is how they adjust and account for games where they fall behind. 

After this post, I went 21/9/0 on Nocturne and I have to say, he has MUCH more presence then 9/21/0. Sure 9/21/0 is much safer, but Noc is not a tank to begin with, so he wouldnt be able to tank in team fights. Sure, it's high risk/reward, but in 3 games of dominating, each time the enemy team would run at the sight of me, if they were going for a gank that I wasn't close to I would ult from across the map and they would run just from the sound (really funny to do), and each of my ganks were successful or caused the enemy lane to burn summoner spells and pots. Not to mention, 21/9 Noc counter jungles very well, second only to maybe Lee Sin. 

I retract my statement above. Sure you need to change your playstyle a little, but I am now a big fan of 21/9/0 Nocturne. 

The OP was also playing Cho'Gath, who is by far the most flexible jungling champion in regards to spec. You can go AP or AD, 21/9 or 9/21, and it doesn't really matter for Cho, it just changes his play style in that particular match.

If you did this with other champions, I think you would feel a drastic difference. For example, someone earlier mention going 21/9 on Nocturne for early ganks. That's great IF you get those ganks. However, if you die early or just get unlucky with your opponent escaping, you may have gimped your performance for the rest of the game, since assassin Nocturne relies heavily on gank gold.

When considering something like this, you have to look at these two things. 1) The champion you are playing and 2) what will this build do to me in both success AND failure. Because we all appear to be good when we are winning, but what defines a great league player is how they adjust and account for games where they fall behind. 

Here's an idea I am curious to hear your responses on. What if each team were instead given 4 bans, BUT; each team could use a ban to "un-ban". For example, Team A banned Nidalee and Team B's top is very strong with her. Team B could waive a ban in order to un-ban Nidalee. 

To add more complexity to this, lets say Team A REALLY doesn't want B to have Nidalee. They could then use 2 bans, instead of 1, to lock that ban in. 

This adds a whole new layer of strategy, as well as offering players the opportunity to play their favorite champions even if "weak banned". 

Let's hear your thoughts!

First let me say that I love RoG and read their articles religiously and I agree with the points made in this article. But I think the perspective of this article is a tad off. What I mean is this:

Bans shouldn't be considered a way to of stopping OP champs. We saying that more champions means the likelihood of more OP champions in a given patch, which is probably a true statement. But it is Riot's job to promote parity between champions and to make sure that in any given patch, there are never a large enough number of OP champs to require additional bans. 

Bans should be used as team strategy. In Ranked Teams, this means know what you team comp is and what you are weak against. Additionally, if you are playing a team you know, what bans would hurt their favorite team comp. In Solo, they should be used in order to block counters for champions that you intend. By adding more then 3 per team, you may be making it too easy to win a lane by banning all possible counters to and intended lane(s). 

My point is, so long as Riot does their job and keeps OP champs to a minimum, only 2-3 bans should be necessary to ban the OPness. The rest should be strategically used. More champions =/= more bans needed, just more balancing.

Quote from ohGr »

I kind of scratch my head at the claims that this will open up to more junglers, as it will clearly dick over a bunch just be being more damaging and no longer able to leash. Pretty sure Nautilus jungle is not going to be viable in the least, and Hecarim is going to really struggle unless they finally change his Q to only do the reduced damage to non-neutral minions. Hec already takes way more abuse than he should in the jungle on first clear.

They are trying to get away from the current meta, which is tanky/bruiser jungler kills wolves/wraiths then red/blue then ganks mid/top. Lather/Rinse/Repeat. Now there is incentive to build other types of junglers such as sustain, assassin, or AD/AP that kinda fell out of the current meta because they needed gold or couldn't gank early. So yes, while Nautilus is probably not going to be the best choice for jungling, you will see more champs that are. I personally am hoping that I can dust of my jungle Tryn again and have it be viable (though after his rework, I doubt it). 

Also, junglers may be more concerned with keeping sustain junglers away from an early Dragon kill. So counter-jungling and jungle farming will likely be the new jungling meta with occasional ganks. This will help out top lane a lot since, in the current meta, if you are ganked/killed in top lane, kiss that lane goodbye unless your jungle helps you as well. 

This is really addition by subtraction.