If what rito says is true about "toxic" language. I got a chat restriction about 70 games ago lol...I should have won more games. Nope. Which leads me to my conclusion: my language has nothing to do with the 0/11/0 "well i wanted adc so ima troll instead" players :D.
Jubbinaut2 votes"My personal experience doesn't match up exactly with the statistical average. That must mean that the averages are wrong."
Nucleophilic atk1 votesWhat?
Jubbinaut2 votesYou conclusion is based on the premise that Riot claims all players with chat restrictions - or who do not engage in toxic behavior - win more games than those who are toxic. That's not the case.
Riot's claim is that on average, players who rage lose more games than those who don't. But all that means is that there's a wide range of win/loss ratios on both sides, and that the average W/L for ragers is lower than the average W/L for non-ragers.
Your own experiences don't actually contradict that - they just place you in a certain spot within those ranges.
EDIT: To be fair, my initial post was, perhaps, more snarky than it needed to be. Personally, I found it amusing, and was hoping it would be seen in that light. If not, I apologize.
Nucleophilic atk1 votesPoint is that I'm challenging their statement that "toxic" language causes more lost games.
Jubbinaut1 votesAnd yet, your challenge doesn't actually address that statement. You state your conclusion as "my language has nothing to do with the 0/11/0 "well i wanted adc so ima troll instead" players", which is self-evident.
But it doesn't address games played that are won or lost based on group cohesion (saved by as little as silence, destroyed by little as a single insult). It doesn't address games that are intentionally lost because someone rages about a small mistake.
And I'm not even sure that you're challenging the right statement. I don't know that I've seen Riot assign causality there. The only statements along those lines follow this kind of formula:
- Players who cooperate with their team win 31% more games.
- Players who follow the Summoner's Code win 27% more games.
- Players who break the Summoner's Code lose 23% more games.
- Players who verbally abuse their teammates lose 16% more games.
- Players who curse at their teammates lose 13% more games.
Those are correlative statements, not causative. And they represent averages, not absolutes. These statements are not claiming that if you follow the Summoner's Code you will personally win 27% more games than you did before. They are claiming that there is a correlation between following the Summoner's Code and winning more often.
Nucleophilic atk1 votesWhy are they even reporting random correlative statements? I mean, these statements hold 0 value.
Jubbinaut1 votesI'm not sure I agree. Correlative statements can be a source of extremely useful information, can be used to prime behaviors, and can lead to interesting avenues of query. They're powerful thought exercises (if cursing at teammates correlates to losing 13% more games, but isn't the cause, then what is?).
And simply because they aren't causative doesn't make the connection any less valid. If verbally abusing teammates correlates to a 16% lower win rate on average, isn't that a strong indicator that verbally abusing teammates isn't a behavior that helps you win?
Nucleophilic atk1 votesA simple explanation is that people that have trolls on their team are more likely to lose. Players then bitch at those players. Riot reports it as "oooh seee toxic language made you lose" when in fact, you were going to lose anyway lol. There are far too many confounders (spelling?) for these types of statements to be of any value to me. It is sort of like going out and hitting golf balls. Then the next day, switching balls and hitting them further. You then say X ball makes you hit X yards further without taking into account there were 10 mph greater winds the next day lol.
Jubbinaut1 votes[{quoted}](name=Nucleophilic atk,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=leWAjbFM,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-02-19T18:01:28.102+0000)
A simple explanation is that people that have trolls on their team are more likely to lose. Players then bitch at those players. Riot reports it as "oooh seee toxic language made you lose" when in fact, you were going to lose anyway lol.
Except, as I stated already, that's not what they're saying. They aren't claiming causation, they're clearly claiming correlation, explicitly because of situations like those you've just described.
However, you aren't looking at every situation, either. I've seen plenty of games lost explicitly because one guy decided to rage on someone else for a minor mistake. Or because the ADC started ranting at the support because he didn't like ward placement (or the support ran out of wards). In those games, there's a direct causative link.
So... sometimes it causes losses, and sometimes it happens it merely correlates with losses, and sometimes it seems to have little or no effect. The only way to accurately report something like that is with a correlative statement indicating the average connection between the two things.
There are far too many confounders (spelling?) for these types of statements to be of any value to me.
Confounders is correct, though I prefer to be a bit more specific (and make my spellcheck happier) by calling them confounding variables.
It is sort of like going out and hitting golf balls. Then the next day, switching balls and hitting them further. You then say X ball makes you hit X yards further without taking into account there were 10 mph greater winds the next day lol.
It's more like collecting data on millions of players hitting golf balls every day, and reporting that certain balls seem to fly further sometimes.
Again, you're accusing them of indicating causation, when they aren't claiming that at all. They're claiming nothing more than correlation, with a data-set more than large enough to minimize the effects of those confounding variables.
Drunk Rummate2 votesput all this winning/losing more based on toxicity aside for a second
the main reason you get punished for being an asshole is because you're being an asshole. so stop being an asshole because people dont like that.
Nucleophilic atk1 votesLol, I never said I didn't deserve the chat restriction in my post. But, I also don't like people trolling and playing first time champs in ranked and feeding. Wish there was a way to stop people from doing that since there is a mute button to fix your problem lol.
AJStarhiker2 votesI'd like to see the averages for surrender attempts (both failed and successful) for games with toxic players vs games without. I would be unsurprised if a significant number of those toxic loses are due to players who want out of the game and are willing to take a loss just to get away from the rager.
Jubbinaut1 votesNow that would be some interesting data.
Nucleophilic atk1 votesI speak the truth. People might not want to hear it, but it is the truth lol.
Dangerous Man1 votesLol, you're not a part of that 27% :)
Nucleophilic atk1 votesLol, what 27%?
TeemoJenkins1 votesOh, so you're being less toxic... but looks like you're still afk'ing on about 10% of your games...
Nucleophilic atk1 votesWhat are you even talking about bro? I had one game in which I was afk. It was the game right after the patch that fucked everyone over. I got a game, and while it was loading, it said, "you don't have the necessary files. You need to reinstall League". That is the only game I have been afk in. I'm not sure if you are trolling, or too unintelligent to read.
TeemoJenkins1 votes[{quoted}](name=Nucleophilic atk,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=leWAjbFM,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2015-02-19T18:50:50.720+0000)
What are you even talking about bro? I had one game in which I was afk. It was the game right after the patch that fucked everyone over. I got a game, and while it was loading, it said, "you don't have the necessary files. You need to reinstall League". That is the only game I have been afk in. I'm not sure if you are trolling, or too unintelligent to read.
My mistake I guess... so you're really bad at CS'ing / getting kills / assists? You have 25+ minute games where you're single digit on kills / assist / deaths - guess you're just bad, not afk or just farming and not helping your team? Could be a lot of things.
http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/1735123166/200617327?tab=overview http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/1735037488/200617327?tab=overview http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/1734341068/200617327?tab=overview - Nasus AFK farming while team is losing, team work is for squares, right? http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/1734006017/200617327?tab=overview
That's four matches where you look like you just abandoned your team to do your own thing... but it's their fault right? Team work is for squares, keep playing solo buddy and then blaming them! You da real winner!
Nucleophilic atk1 votesLmfao, you can not determine anything by looking at a few random games. You aren't even intelligent enough to see that my kill contribution wasn't even far behind (and in fact not even in last) in all but 1 of those games. So even though I have close to THE HIGHEST kill contribution on my team, you think I abandoned them? You seem to have afk farming highly confused with my mid laner running into an unwarded jungle and dying by himself. Same for top etc.
Dumb people look at match history and try to determine how that game went. Team work isn't for squares. What is for squares is literally doing to opposite of what I say because the 0/5 yasuo thinks he can 1v3 dive them. I suppose you think I should start getting caught out alone to match my team? You can go troll a different thread now. Thanks.
One last point, you say I'm "afk farming nasus while team is losing". I have the same kill contribution as their enemy top laner. Their enemy top laner stayed top the entire game so I couldn't help, or else we lose all of our turrets. Them feeding in 4v4 is not afk farming Nasus. Please think before you post.