The reason why champion mastery has to be more about winning than performing well

Totalis·Jun 7, 2015·18 votes·1,083 views

If you got more points for just performing well than actually winning, than say goodbye to teamwork and communication, because suddenly every nonranked game becomes more about performing well than actually trying to win. Getting 1000pts for winning with a C as opposed getting 50 points losing with an A+ means that no matter what your goal should be trying to win, and if to do so, you need to perform better that's even better.

24 Comments

EkkoFrofflesJun 7, 20158 votes

My friend has died, on average, every 2.6 minutes his past 10 matches. He's also had the absurd luck of his teams covering for his feeding, resulting in wins. Tell me how it is remotely fair for someone like that to get 5X the points of someone on the opposite side of the coin, doing everything in their power to carry a team of failures, only to end up losing because they just couldn't do enough.

Valuing winning is one thing, but when someone can perform horribly and yet get 5X more points than any player on the losing team that's not even remotely right. For example, I barely won a 5v4 that the enemy Ekko nearly carried for them singlehandedly. Even if I feel I did my share of carrying for my team, I think he should've at least been somewhere near the same ballpark points wise.

Some matches simply are not winnable. Some matches it's you and maybe one other person who's competent trying to carry a bunch of dead weights and failing. They either need to make it so the difference between winning and losing is less in general or so, if you earn (for instance) an S- while the rest of your team were Cs or or below, you get a slight boost in points compared to your teammates.

TotalisJun 8, 20151 votes

You're right! It's not fair, not even a little bit. But think about the other four people on your friends' team, where if the only thing they cared about was doing well and not winning, because champion mastery points didnt depend on winning, than there would be even LESS desire to win, because you could expect a lot of points even when you do not win.

I'll im saying is that I understand why they made winning such a higher factor in gaining mastery points than simply performing well.

EkkoFrofflesJun 8, 20152 votes

And all I'm saying is it's weighted too heavily based upon whether you won the match or not. I'm not asking for you to get the same amount regardless of whether you won or not. I simply want it to be less lopsided, and that's what most people want. That wouldn't make people stop caring about winning. There'd still be an incentive. But somewhere around 5 times the points for a win, no matter your personal performance, is too much.

DreadlocksJun 7, 20156 votes

The entire thing is pointless and stupid to me.

Vistha KaiJun 7, 20151 votes

Guy basically says: you can play like shit, all that matters is you got carried.

Yup, pretty stupid.

I Main SwainJun 7, 20153 votes

honestly, I entirely disagree. just because you lost doesn't mean you had poor teamwork, and just because you won doesn't mean you had good teamwork. in fact, I would say you can tell more of an indevidual's teamwork based on their score than whether they won or lost. if I see a guy whose 12 3 7 or 2 6 24 I'm going to assume that they probably had some pretty good teamwork. if you just look at the win or loss, all you can tell is that they won or lost.

Jungle Lux GodJun 8, 20153 votes

You should always be aiming to win, but the current system is too lopsided.

Someone that plays well and loses should be rewarded similarly to someone who plays poorly and wins.

It feels terrible to play well and not get the champion mastery points you deserve.

It also feels terrible to play like complete shit and get rewarded just because you won.

Live2LetDieJun 7, 20152 votes

Champion mastery is your skill on that champ. Has nothing to do really with the outcome of the game. That's it. Simple

OnegarionJun 7, 20154 votes

But someone who doesn't know how to play their champ won't win games as much. It has a correlation with it. Stats alone don't show how good of a player you are.

Live2LetDieJun 7, 20154 votes

I agree, still doesn't mean they don't know how to play their champ. You could go 30/2 as Kat and still lose because you didn't end the game. Does this mean you don't know your champ? No. It means you didn't close out the game which is champ independent.

OnegarionJun 7, 20152 votes

While yes this happens its not champion specific. Knowing how to end the game or not doesn't matter about the champ at all. Since winning gives you a lot more mastery points its part of what knowing your champ is. I've seen ADCs rek and then go farm just to lose. It also has to do with personal score. Someone who dies a lot isn't playing their champ right. Yes some champs are more prone to dying like the frontline, but even then they shouldn't be dying something like 9+ times in a typical game.

Both of these factors dictate how much you earn. Score shows micro lvl and Winning shows macro lvl of knowledge. You need both to be a great X player.

Angry MonsterJun 7, 20152 votes

Lets be honest here, The mastery system is a joke and a failure.

I personally know people that take champs cause they are level 5, not cause they are good for a situation.

This might be the worse idea the boards ever had; and then riot put into the game. The only thing mastery proves is why you can not use in game performance for LP.

Vistha KaiJun 7, 20151 votes

I'll counter your argument with:

If your skill - high CS, high number of wards place, good KDA, damage dealt, etc. - with the champion will rise then it will be easier to win games. Performing well is the first and most important step in winning a game.

AndThePigGoesMooJun 8, 20151 votes

I'm fine with a winner getting a bonus to their mastery points since winning is the ultimate goal in this team oriented game. I'm not fine with how big of a boost it is.

The other day, I had a decent game but we lost. I had the most kills, highest kill participation and possibly kda (didn't do the math on this) on my team, most gold, etc. I got 203 mastery points.

In comparison, was a game I was top Hecarim but having connection issues along with some others in the game. I went 0/1/0 and had absolutely no impact on the game. My team won due to our bot lane being the only people without any issues. I got 1055 mastery points.

I consistently see 800-1000+ points just for winning. You can't tell me that a game I performed better than anyone else on my team but lost is worth 800 fewer points than one in which I did nothing but happened to get carried. In my opinion the points for your actual performance should be increased slightly.

Ace Access Jun 8, 20151 votes

I personally don't care about mastery points, I play champs I enjoy playing and I will not play a champ I hate playing under any circumstances other than to see if the recent patch made them fun to play

mastery points don't even affect my next game, sorry they are worthless because they give us nothing, I'd like something like addition point to add in my mysteries page if I managed to master X number of champs or something

Only Play DariusJun 8, 20151 votes

You know what else is bullshit? Going 30/6 and losing anyway because literally every single person on your team either fed or was AFK.

Sorry but for once, i'm happy to see a metric that actually grades on personal performance. In games where i'm literally the only person who won lane, and ends up losing the match because a ridiculously fed enemy botlane camped me starting at 12 minutes for the rest of the game, at least I can see that I got an A+ and not feel so bad about losing.

LP is what really matters, and it is based solely on whether you win or lose (I am a firm believer that we should get LP adjustments based on match grades). No need to make the metric that has no impact, also dependent on whether you win or lose.

cFlameJun 8, 20151 votes

So you think winning is what this game should be about, huh? Well not everyone agrees with you here, there is a reason a lot of people don't play ranked. We would be playing the same champions all the time, or they're counters for when we can't play them specifically. It would get boring fast, not to mention the system is pretty bad as it is. Sometimes, people don't play to win; That's why they didn't pick the best mid laner but instead picked that slightly weaker pick, they wanted to have fun. Winning isn't the most fun part of this game and it shouldn't be treated as IF that's even remotely what its about. Its about learning, and learning how to have fun while doing it. In no way, should winning automatically increase mastery of a character by even 100%, the effects of having people that play and concern more on doing well with they're champion would not really change. The thing is, a person like that is easily persuaded, and they would already be like that over the current champion mastery system.

skyfall619Jun 8, 20151 votes

the argument of playing for individual performance doesnt win game is just pure bull shit. if everyone was playing based on individual performace they would most likely win more games. dont tell me that getting kills and assist doesnt greatly increase your chance at winning, dont tell me that places and clearing wards doesnt greatly increase your chance at winning, dont tell me that not wanting to ruin your KDA doesnt greatly increase your chance at winning. if you arent aware but individual performance is the main way to win games. if you perform bad your chance of winning falls greatly, if you perform good chance of winning increases greatly.

rewarding people for performing bad doesnt teach them a damn thing but it has a negative effect.

getting a S but loosing shouldnt be 1000+ point less then the guy that got a D but won.

item 3070 im really sad that this system could have been great but it turned out very poorly executed and misleading.

Sona PingJun 8, 20151 votes

Seriously, why are you guys still complaining about this?

It's pretty obvious this is just "Champion Achievements" like Xbox Achievements or Playstation Trophies or Steam Achievements. You collect points for little fluff icons so gives people a little goal and something to keep playing for. That's all it ever was. Just change "Mastery" to "Achievement" in your head and you won't be bothered by it again.

FórsaJun 8, 20151 votes

No. You are wrong and you know why.

BastionKrossJun 8, 20151 votes

Champion mastery isn't about winning or doing well with a certain champion, it's about how often you play a champion. Yes, playing a champion well or winning with them will make the process much quicker, but they're not required to climb the ranks of champion mastery. In fact, because you don't lose mastery points for having bad games or losses, anyone can master any champion simply by picking them a lot even while knowing nothing about how to play them.

Champion mastery often doesn't reflect your skill with a champion, it reflects how often you pick them. Granted if you pick a champion a lot you should be better with them than the average player, but it's not Garen -teed.

Hyrum GraffJun 8, 20151 votes

Champion mastery is serving its purpose.

Your post is about why people's rank needs to be based on wins and not champion mastery.

BhargoJun 8, 20151 votes

That argument is so ridiculous I cannot accept that you are not trolling here.

Make people not want to win? Seriously? Zeus man that is so stupid.

JustMyBassCannonJun 8, 20151 votes

{quoted}

If you got more points for just performing well than actually winning, than say goodbye to teamwork and communication, because suddenly every nonranked game becomes more about performing well than actually trying to win.

Except teamwork and communication are just as important in an individual's performance as it is to the team.

You can't realistically operate any champion without your team, unless the enemy team is so uncoordinated that they'd lose to Intermediate AIs.