Reign of Gaming

Quote from GentlemanGustaf »

Quote from pumis»

Again you are making here two assumptions.
I will list them.
1. Being a good player is what gets you played

^ Fixed it for you

Again it's irrelevant how often pros are right when compared to average players (I still haven't seen you making study about this yet but that is another point). WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT debating which IDEA IS TRUE.

It's a joke that you think we even NEED a study about this. Do you think your average person knows as much about blacksmithing as your average blacksmith? Does your average person know as much about wiring as your average electrician?

Heck you have admitted times ago that authority is bad thing to use in debates and still you keep defending it. Why? Were not debating should you justify your personal usage with it. We are debating should you use it in argument where people want to know which one is true.

No I haven't. I've said that authority is not a valid argument. An argument is valid iff "its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises and each step in the argument is logical."

However, this is only important to formal proof. You can say that we're debating whether you should use it in an argument where people want to know which one is true, but we're not. Because that's not how you get better at something. Yes, mathcrafting is one way to do so, but it is by no means fail proof (because of the number of factors in the game which, while in their mathcraftable, remain un-mathcrafted). As such, we have to resort to other things, such as observing professional play, discussing intuition, and otherwise doing ANYTHING to better your play. Therefore, it is entirely relevant how likely authority is to benefit you.

I agree with you that authority is not a VALID argument. I do think authority is still a good heuristic to use, because it will get results.

As I have said again and again and again (and as you have also said), NOBODY is saying that authority is a logically valid argument.

Therefore, that cannot be what this discussion is about, because we BOTH AGREE ABOUT THAT. The point I am taking issue with is your really weird infatuation with the idea that pro players aren't more knowledgeable than average players, that there are no advantages to having your WHOLE DAY dedicated to LoL. (and no, I'm not saying that no average players do that, but almost ALL pro players do that, most average players have jobs and other things to do)

TL;DR: Chance/most likely is irrelevant when we are trying to find truth.

Tell that to quantum mechanics; probabilistic models are used quite extensively there.

It's only a joke if you like pseudoscience.

Also if anyone would come and tell me that he knows about Quantum mechanics I would say that he lies. BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW YET ABOUT THEM. That's why we use chances to describe it. Anything that we don't know we explain with chances. Even a rolling a die simply because we can't calculate which number we will get.

Also WORLD OUTSIDE QUANTUM doesn't work by chances. And neither does League of legends balance.

"As I have said again and again and again (and as you have also said), NOBODY is saying that authority is a logically valid argument."

No Shit. I have already said that I don't believe that you think like it. However few people here does actually.

ALL I'm Saying here is that if it isn't valid argument then we shouldn't use it when it comes to debate about balance, builds and champions. Which you have done.

Quote from GentlemanGustaf »

While player B could practice and strategize AS MUCH as player A (i think it's unlikely, given that they are, in fact paid, and as such, don't have to worry about things like jobs), the average player certainly doesn't. More reason to trust pros over average players.

Ok. Here's my follow-up question. Do you think a pro player is more likely to be right about something LoL related than an average player?

You seem to be confusing "proof" with "argument". You can argue something is more likely to be true without proving that is true, and the fact that you don't think "more likely to be true" is an important distinction is just weird to me.

Again you are making here two assumptions.
I will list them.
1. Getting paid makes you better player.
2. That this point is even relevant when we are arguing which one is right rather than who might be right.

Again it's irrelevant how often pros are right when compared to average players (I still haven't seen you making study about this yet but that is another point). WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT debating which IDEA IS TRUE.

Heck you have admitted times ago that authority is bad thing to use in debates and still you keep defending it. Why? Were not debating should you justify your personal usage with it. We are debating should you use it in argument where people want to know which one is true.

TL;DR: Chance/most likely is irrelevant when we are trying to find truth.

Quote from GentlemanGustaf »

Quote from pumis »

Sure, IF he is right even 1%. Again you should make study out of it before claiming that they do know more. However, my whole point is you should never use authority in argument. This is different from using their strategies (I wouldn't repeat unless it looks efficient enough), than argue that they are doing right. And I believe this is the case in whole context.

See, this is the problem. You think I'm arguing that authorities are always right. What I'm arguing is that pros know more than average players, on average. You keep turning the debate to 'authority isn't an argument'.

And no, I don't think it really warrants a study, but if you want some evidence, here it is:

What proportion of pros/ex-pros are in Challenger? I count at least 12. Let's assume that there are 8 pro teams per region (so 32 in total). Let's also count almost-pro teams (those who are about to be in the up-down matches), so make that 48 in total. Let's assume each team has 7 players. That makes 336 players in total. 12/336=about 3.5%

So about 3.5% of pro players are in Challenger Tier. Almost all of the other ones are in Diamond 1 or 2.

What proportion of non-pros are in Challenger? Well, there are 12 million players, and 38 non-pro Challenger Tier players (actually fewer, given that pros like WildTurtle have multiple Challenger Tier accounts, but let's give the non-pros the benefit of the doubt there). 3/12 million =2.5*10^-7

So whatever pro players are doing, it's getting them to Challenger Tier at almost 140000:1 odds. Me? I want to be doing what they're doing. Is it always right? No. But it gets results.

http://competitive.na.leagueoflegends.com/ladders/na/current/ranked_solo_5x5

No this is why you are wrong and you suffer from ability to listen others. I have stated that you don't believe that pro i always right. Again if you admit that it isn't good argument then you SHOULDN'T USE IT AS ONE. That is the only thing I have been saying here.

Rest of your evidence is about assumptions and we can't use these as evidence how things works. Simply because we can create scenario where we both would be right if we assume certain things without proving these assumptions right.

Also it's irrelevant do you want to mimic pros when it comes to debating are they right or wrong. Seriously why do you keep going back to this "I want to do what they do, since they might be more likely right"? When the subject is that you shouldn't never use authority in debate/argument. 

It's different thing to personally play like someone than debating which play style is best.

Quote from OJFrost »

You assumed wrong. And in any case, I would make another point.

Two people have equal, very high skill as League players. They both get the opportunity to become pros. Player A takes it, while Player B declines for whatever reason. I am inclined to believe that Player A will at some point, become better than Player B (even if it's only by some tiny margin) simply because of what being a professional League player means: Practicing 12-14 hours a day, strategizing and coming up with great new team comps, testing new builds, etc. Since Player B is NOT in an environment like Player A, it is highly doubtful that he will not remain on equal footing.

Edit: I should probably clarify. 'Pro' means being on a professional, probably sponsored team that is dedicated to winning tournaments at the highest level, and can actually compete as such.

'Your point has very fundamental fault. You are assuming that player B doesn't practice or strategize stuff. In fact I'm not a pro player(obviously) but I still practize, strategize and test new builds.

In fact we all have seen when totally new team just beats old teams in pro scene. Even when according to your logic these old people should be better. I know what pro means, but do you know what is different from pro and amateur? Pro get's paid for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
"A professional is a person who is engaged in a certain activity, or occupation, for gain or compensation as means of livelihood"
By your defination of pro we would be forced to say that kids who play  basketball on high level(kids standard) are pro players.

This is starting to become spamming. I will write thread about same subject tomorrow so let's continue there if you desire.

Quote from GentlemanGustaf »

Quote from pumis »

No you are assuming that only best get paid. You totally ignore that there are people who doesn't even want to be pro players no matter how good they are. Some people just doesn't care about money or fame.

They get paid because someone is ready to pay them for reason X. Either because people love to watch his games (whitera from starcraft as example) or because the guy who pays them believes that these people are best to present their products or company. Some people prefer people who wins a lot of tournaments, and some people prefers people who are famous. Team solomid is good example of this. There was moment when they did badly, but they still got paid because people loved to visit their site and watch their streams.

Tell me you did not just talk about Papa-Ra that way. He did PRETTY ok for himself in tournaments.

Also, in LoL (and in many other sports/e-sports), pros are determined by tournament/ladder success.

I'm fan of him. Him doing OK isn't enough when compared how well koreans dominate the scene. There are huge amount of people who play better than him, but people like whitera which is why he is still in scene. I wouldn't pay him if I want to pay money for person who wins tournament. But I would love to sponsor guy who is famous and has a lot of viewers. Heck I would even invite that kind of person to tournaments just to have more viewers.

Quote from GentlemanGustaf »

Quote from pumis»

No you are assuming that only best get paid. You totally ignore that there are people who doesn't even want to be pro players no matter how good they are. Some people just doesn't care about money or fame.

Only the best get paid. You seem to have that confused with 'all of the best get paid'

Doesn't help his argument at all. Beside he was surely implying it. However if he thinks like you said, then in that case his argument is wrong by default.

Quote from GentlemanGustaf »

Quote from pumis»

What? If you need to test which build is best you need to test them both. Tournament isn't testing ground because of this.


This way new champion would be played. Also you can't decide that with dice roll. Only way to do that in legit way is you to make calculations how often pro players are right and then make calculations how often normal players are right. For example make test for them and then you can do your math about what are the chances.

The dice roll was a metaphor for pro players being (on average) more right. Not for rolling an actual die. If pro players are right even 1% more of the time, that means if you have a pro player's opinion and a regular player's opinion, you should pick the pro player's opinion. I'm not saying the average player may not turn out to have been right, but you maximize your utility for that choice, right then, by going with the pro player.

Sure, IF he is right even 1%. Again you should make study out of it before claiming that they do know more. However, my whole point is you should never use authority in argument. This is different from using their strategies (I wouldn't repeat unless it looks efficient enough), than argue that they are doing right. And I believe this is the case in whole context.

People who are ready to argue which build is best want to know better reasons than "X player did build it". It isn't very convincing argument and you know it. It is much better argument if they say "well X gives more damage for less cost" or saying "X is better in this meta,because of Y".

Worst of all for you since you are professional writer (assuming you get paid atm.) you will lose you creditably in front of common person if you say that "X is good because pro player Y uses it" and it turns out that it was wrong. Lucky for you there are people like me who still wouldn't care about it, but people like OJfrost they would go batshit crazy.

Quote from LPF »

No sir.  I have read everything here.  An calling me thick is exceedingly rude.

I didn't you specifically that you are I said PEOPLE are. However that did also include you I admit that one.
And I doubt that you have read everything, simply because what you have said has been said before. So I'm sorry if I insulted you, but this is just observation that I did notice. The moment when I'm calling someone idiot or retard then I'm being intentionally rude. This is how I treat OJfrost not you. 
PS: he deserves it and has proven in action that he really is.

Quote from OJFrost »

No actually they got paid because they qualified at the beginning of the LCS season (key point here) *because they were considered some of the best* and they sign a contract that has them playing through the end of the season.

I did already gave you example of people who get paid from playing without actually being best players there is. 
Pro doesn't mean that you are highly skilled person. If there would be tournaments in north korea and we couldn't go there. I bet there would be people who would be called as pro. These same people would win tournament but would still probably lose to you in match.