Some kind of time multiplier for points please!

Vicarious117·Feb 15, 2015·3 votes·1,094 views

The past couple weeks now I've lost my matchup cause my team(s) have won quick games by utterly stomping and then getting like single digit points cause the game was so quick, and my opponent getting like 20-30 points per player from teams who have thrown and come back or have been unable to breach the other teams defenses for a long while.

They're essentially being rewarded for not doing as well. Makes absolutely no sense.

So Riot, please next season add in some kind of point multiplier for finishing games quickly or something like that, cause teams who dominate and finish quick should not be punished for it in fantasy scoring.

That being said it is just a fantasy league and it's first year, right? So these kinds of oversights have to be understandable, just make sure to include something this integral next season plz lol

11 Comments

NegocromnFeb 15, 20152 votes

I agree with you, actually.

D16 QuindiFeb 15, 20151 votes

i agree as well but hey the players know if they r ahead to think fantasy at least NA people.

Sage TroyFeb 16, 20151 votes

Summer split of s4 was the beta. So it is kind of first year. The problem I have with a point multiplier is that it adds subjectivity. The system as it stands now is completely objective. Players either get the stats or they don't. A multiplier would mean that points awarded early in a game are dependent on what happens in the rest of the game. A kill at 20 minutes would be more valuable if the game ended quicker...win or lose. A multiplier tries to infer quality of play based on game length. Quality of play is often related to game length, but it does not equal game length.

It also normalizes scores for team performance. All players within a team would be factored equally. The goal is to score the individual players, not the teams. That's the point of picking individual players.

Fantasy sports don't award points for doing well. They measure quantity not quality, because quality of individual plays is subjective.

Vicarious117Feb 16, 20151 votes

That logic doesn't necessarily work though, cause if a team stomps and wins a quick match it doesn't mean the individual players didn't do well or as well as a team that took forever, but infact the opposite is true. If a team stomps and ends quickly it's more often then not when the individual players of the winning team out perform the other side themselves then press their advantage through teamwork afterwards.

And I honestly think a kill earlier in the game should count for more then one later on cause it's typically harder to secure them early game where as in late game multiple members of each team die in every fight cause that's high teamfights typically work in late games, so each kill should have less value then ones secured earlier. So a multiplier sounds perfect to me.

Sage TroyFeb 17, 20151 votes

That's not what I said. If you use a multiplier then the same kill at the same point in the game counts differently based on what happens in the rest of the game. Ex. triple kill at 20 min, other team roles over and dies before 30 min would score more points than a triple kill at 20 min when the other team fights back and stalls out to 50 min. That triple kill would also be worth more if you lost in 30 min, than if you won in 50.

Losing teams would score better when the games are shorter (relatively to the current system). Fantasy scoring would be determined by how long the game takes. Generally, teams that win faster played better. Generally, teams that lose faster played worse. A multiplier doesn't distinguish between these two.

It uses the principle that if the game was shorter the quality of play MUST have been higher. It doesn't distinguish between a game where a winning team just couldn't close it out and a game where a losing team wouldn't give up.

The multiplier tries to make a determination on quality based on game length. It only works in most specific cases, but no where near all of them. Fantasy games are about both managers choosing specific cases (players) If the cases aren't factually accurate then the system fails. The current system is flawed, but it is factual and transparent.

Vicarious117Feb 17, 20151 votes

Not sure why you assume a team that loses has to get the same multiplier as the team that wins, cause honestly if you get stomped quickly then you deserve those single digit points.

But a team that does the stomping getting single digit points cause they're "too good" just doesn't make sense no matter how you put it.

And obviously it wouldn't be a straight up baseline multiplier for game length, duh! I never assumed Riot would be that dumb, no idea why you would. But I mean a triple kill 10 mins into the game is more impressive then one 40 mins in cause at that point in time the carries are SUPPOSED to be getting multi kills, early on it's far more impressive, so if a team gets fed early and pushes objectives quickly they should be rewarded for it with a multiplier on what they achieved early on. Even for teams that take forever to win still get multipliers though, once again OBVIOUSLY, if a carry gets a triple at that 10 min mark they should still get a bonus for it, but once they get held up until that 40-50 min mark those massive kill streaks they ALWAYS get shouldn't count for as much because they're far easier to acquire at that stage of the game.

Objective points should honestly be where most the multipliers would be though, like if a team kills the nexus towers at 30 mins those nexus tower kills should count for more then a team finally winning a game they couldn't finish and killing that nexus 50 mins into the game.

I mean this is all basic as sh*t, you cannot assume who ever implements this will be at a 3rd grade level of math here, if they do implement it they WILL know what they're doing and there are plenty of ways to do it.

Sage TroyFeb 17, 20151 votes

The current system is flawed. I am not proposing that the current system is fine. I am not even proposing that it is more accurate. It is not.

I was not talking about an early game triple kill versus a late game triple kill. Two identical triple kills, at the same point in separate games. Either they are scored on a baseline multiplier and the 2 identical plays produce different point totals based on when the game finishes. Or you score small periods of time on separate scales. This creates several arbitrary time points. The scoring becomes subjective by having an event be worth more if it happens just before a time point. But it means the system is scoring on what should be instead of what actually is. It's a guess that one situation is more impactful because it happened earlier. It's not factual to the specific situation.

Sports are team games, fantasy sports are not. That is why we draft individual players, to build our own dream team. Team stats are made for the team score. Wins and losses are not relevant to individual players scores in fantasy. No major fantasy leagues award points for team stats to individual players (The only exception is pitchers in baseball). This is also why separate multipliers for losing teams don't fit in fantasy either. They infer that everyone on the losing team played worse than everyone on the winning team. It removes some of the individual aspect of fantasy sports.

The multiplier system would be more representitive of quality of play, but it also would make a lot of mistakes. Representing quality of play accurately is not the only goal. It needs to be as factual and as objective as possible.

Vicarious117Feb 17, 20151 votes

You also can't forget that all other actual fantasy leagues are for games with set time limits, something that doesn't exist for this game so comparing it to those leagues in a conversation about game length is redundant at best.

But that is essentially what I think would improve the scoring system, yes a triple at 9 mins would count for more then one at 10 mins, not by a lot ofc but yes that is the definition of what I think should happen. That is the point of early advantages, no matter how much earlier it would be.

Also yes it's base don individual scores, that's the exact reason I think this should happen! Individual players getting shit scores cause they performed TOO well is ridiculous.

And obviously it has to be as factual and objective as possible, that's just a given no matter what you're talking about here, and awarding more for time doesn't remove either of those things.

CyberxionFeb 16, 20151 votes

Right now the riot answer is to give teams +2 points for a win under 30 minutes. It's not much, and it doesn't affect the individual players, but it is something. I also agree with them that the team should be awarded the points, because it is impossible to win that handedly without phenomenal teamwork.

Soxconfused16Feb 16, 20151 votes

When you know certain teams are winning fast and thus the players on those teams aren't racking up as many points, it's likely a good idea not to have those players as starters. Take Copenhagen Wolves and C9 for an example. I got very few points from C9's win on Saturday because it was such a stomp that objectives couldn't be contested (= no kills). CW has very drawn out games and, so Soren and Freeze have garnered more points than the quality of the team would infer that they should get.

TL;DR. Strategy mate. Pick players based on points not based on their team winning handily.

Vicarious117Feb 16, 20151 votes

Well obviously, mate, but that doesn't mean next year they should ignore this issue, winning with "mid-tier" players and teams just cause of their match lengths isn't an answer, just a way to win this season.