Barely reached staged 2 and 3 people got 3 stars on their team already. Get into stage three's and those people now have multiple 3 stars. What's worse, you're trying your best barely reaching two stars and you're forced to fight the top 3 players who have multiple 3 stars.
Judah the Hammer5 votesI don't think that anybody is saying that Poker and TFT are the same game. They just mean that the RNG in TFT is comparable to card games.
They COULD make actual LoL poker...
hewhodoesnotcare4 votesPeople keep defending it and their excuse is it's all about skill. There's no skill involve. Pray to the rng gods for good champions and pray for items. More rng then aram and people say aram is too rng base for rank lol
Old Man Bob4 votesYes, that's part of the game, to play AROUND what RNG is giving you. It's gambling. Poker is RNG heavy, and people play it competitively and even professionally.
Let me put it this way: If every now and again, you get fucked by RNG, then you chalk it up to bad luck, it happens, it feels bad. But if you ALWAYS feel like RNG is fucking you, then I'm afraid you might just be bad at the game.
It's kinda like solo Q and your teammates, occasionally they will suck, but if you feel like they suck all the time, it's probably you that is the problem.
Also, you could always just, you know, not play it. SR is still around.
True Garen4 votes[{quoted}](name=Old Man Bob,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=XhlAILX9,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-07-12T20:35:40.725+0000)
Yes, that's part of the game, to play AROUND what RNG is giving you. It's gambling. Poker is RNG heavy, and people play it competitively and even professionally.
Let me put it this way: If every now and again, you get fucked by RNG, then you chalk it up to bad luck, it happens, it feels bad. But if you ALWAYS feel like RNG is fucking you, then I'm afraid you might just be bad at the game.
It's kinda like solo Q and your teammates, occasionally they will suck, but if you feel like they suck all the time, it's probably you that is the problem.
Also, you could always just, you know, not play it. SR is still around.
But the game is already "competitive". We don't even have match history, recorded game stats, or even saved item inventories.
There are options for systems to measure success over time; a ranking system in the style of what LoL currently has is inappropriate.
Titanium701 votesPriorities....
People simply cry for ranekd louder than they do for these stuff. Obviously we still neeed it. Obviously we still get it.
But Riot - as the small Indie company they are - needs to focus on one thing at a time and can't deliver a bunch of features at once. Because they have only a handfull of people coding all of this.
Devilreaper XIII2 votes[{quoted}](name=Old Man Bob,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=XhlAILX9,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-07-12T20:35:40.725+0000)
Yes, that's part of the game, to play AROUND what RNG is giving you. It's gambling. Poker is RNG heavy, and people play it competitively and even professionally.
Let me put it this way: If every now and again, you get fucked by RNG, then you chalk it up to bad luck, it happens, it feels bad. But if you ALWAYS feel like RNG is fucking you, then I'm afraid you might just be bad at the game.
It's kinda like solo Q and your teammates, occasionally they will suck, but if you feel like they suck all the time, it's probably you that is the problem.
Also, you could always just, you know, not play it. SR is still around.
your logic is flawed there, its still possible to be screwed over by rng 24/7, and there is still a possibility you get the worst teammates for 20 consecutive matches O.o if its possible it already happened.
anjogrTest1 votes[{quoted}](name=Devilreaper XIII,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=XhlAILX9,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2019-07-16T09:29:59.396+0000)
your logic is flawed there, its still possible to be screwed over by rng 24/7, and there is still a possibility you get the worst teammates for 20 consecutive matches O.o if its possible it already happened.
His logic is not flawed. The computer generates pseudo random numbers, not actual random numbers, so it is indeed impossible for you, if playing properly, to go on an indefinite losing streak. Actual computers cannot generate actual random coin flips, true randomness requires things like quantum mechanical native probabilistic effects, and that is what would be required for an indefinite sequence of fair coin flips all tails, or, as you say, to genuinely and consistently get "screwed over by [the] RNG 24-7." It is much more likely that you keep trying to force strategies when you are getting perfectly normal item, champ, and opponent rolls which are however suggesting that you adapt strategies to remain competitive in a given game.
Devilreaper XIII2 votesHis logic is not flawed. The computer generates pseudo random numbers, not actual random numbers, so it is indeed impossible for you, if playing properly, to go on an indefinite losing streak. Actual computers cannot generate actual random coin flips, true randomness requires things like quantum mechanical native probabilistic effects, and that is what would be required for an indefinite sequence of fair coin flips all tails, or, as you say, to genuinely and consistently get "screwed over by [the] RNG 24-7." It is much more likely that you keep trying to force strategies when you are getting perfectly normal item, champ, and opponent rolls which are however suggesting that you adapt strategies to remain competitive in a given game.
he even sucks at making comparisons..... you do know you can keep getting the same hand in poker constantly, therefore making a decision to fold or play, heck its even possible to keep getting the exact same setup on the table im combination with the exact same hands you keep getting dealt, this is why the dealer usually gets switched at some point, you don't have the choice to fold in this game, nor will the dealer get switched.
often i would't get the champions i want, so i would sell and choose 2 of the same but different from the one i sold, to increase my chance of getting a tier 2, just to find out the next turn i wouldv've gotten a tier 2 of the champion i chose to sell..... and i would still be stuck with a tier one.
and sometimes i have a full lineup so i choose to sell a tier one of a champion thats already a tier 2, to increase my chance of making a tier 1 into a tier 2, just to find out in the next two turns i would've gotten a tier 3, and i still didn't get the champion to make a tier 2, see my point? even adapting is based on luck.
there is no rng at work in the back, its a system based on quantity and probability, lets say there are 10 cards, but you only get 2 which means 20%, now lets say you don't want equality, which means that you need to script in diversity, if player X gets 1 and 3 and player Y gets 2 and 4 meaning player Y will never get 1 and 3 thus leaving 80% obtainable leaving 8 times 5 = 40 possible combinations, you no longer have 20% chance of getting the cards you want, the odds rise to 2/8 = 25% to 2/6 = 33% to 2/4 = 50% to 2/2 = 100% so if you per chance are the first player you never know what you'll get, but if you are the last you will always know what you get, if you know what the other players have, if per se you do want equality, and player X gets 1-3 in the first round and player Y gets 1-3 in the second round than player X gets 1-3 again at the 6th round, all because you need to take the probability away that all players end up with the same cards., therefore taking the randomness out of it. another note the 20% isnt't the chance of getting two cards that you want thats 10%, 12.5%, 16.5%, 25% and 50%, what you don't know though is whether the cards you want have already been taken by the previous player, so the odds are never true and could always be 0% for any but the first player.
just so you know riot deals cards from a pool containing a certain amount of champions ,meaning they apply the diversity method, any champion not bought remains in the pool any champion bought disappears from the pool, lowering or raising ones chance of getting said champions, so no, its not random if the players themselves affect the droprate, so its possible to end up the same way every match based on player behaviour aka (META).
anjogrTest1 votesYou can get streaks of any finite length, but you have a zero likelihood of getting an infinite streak, with mathematically random coin flips. This is a CH 1 theorem in any measure theoretic probability book. But the game is implemented with pseudorandom numbers, not mathematically random numbers, and so streaks of extremely large but still finite length are also probability zero. Part of the problem is that you are speaking in hyperbole: you keep saying things always or consistently happen, which is impossible. The only way you could always and consistently be losing is if you are exercising a self defeating strategy, and at that, you would have to be really good at it.
And, as regards the deck: there are not enough slots to hold champs, even multistarred champs, so that you could run out of alternatives and consistently receive the same hand. Do the actual arithmetic, instead of making up small numbered examples where your ideas are more likely to obtain.
Futhermore, the statement "there is no rng at work in the back, its a system based on quantity and probability" is self contradictory: RNG stands for random number generator, where the word random refers to a pseudorandom probability distribution sampled by a computer program in a way that simulates theoretical/mathematical randomness. If it is a computer program where outcomes depend on samples taken in accordance with some probability distribution, it is exercising an RNG.
Devilreaper XIII1 votesYou can get streaks of any finite length, but you have a zero likelihood of getting an infinite streak, with mathematically random coin flips. This is a CH 1 theorem in any measure theoretic probability book. But the game is implemented with pseudorandom numbers, not mathematically random numbers, and so streaks of extremely large but still finite length are also probability zero. Part of the problem is that you are speaking in hyperbole: you keep saying things always or consistently happen, which is impossible. The only way you could always and consistently be losing is if you are exercising a self defeating strategy, and at that, you would have to be really good at it.
And, as regards the deck: there are not enough slots to hold champs, even multistarred champs, so that you could run out of alternatives and consistently receive the same hand. Do the actual arithmetic, instead of making up small numbered examples where your ideas are more likely to obtain.
Futhermore, the statement "there is no rng at work in the back, its a system based on quantity and probability" is self contradictory: RNG stands for random number generator, where the word random refers to a pseudorandom probability distribution sampled by a computer program in a way that simulates theoretical/mathematical randomness. If it is a computer program where outcomes depend on samples taken in accordance with some probability distribution, it is exercising an RNG.
lol no, the players chooses from a shared pool, the players decide whats left, so its not random that you end up with whats left -.- lol pseudo random, you do realize you keep saying over and over its not random as well.... you have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about.... pseudo random is the same as mathemathical random, aka not random. my guess it just factors in damage done, team setup up, positioning, what items you got on which champion etc and than decides to distribute based on these factors rather than generating numbers.
1/10 means you have a 1 out of 10 chance to get something, meaning that 9 draws will fail and 1 will succeed, first you have 10% chance, but the more gets eliminated the higher the chance you have, 0% if it has already been drawn, and you just don't know, whats so difficult to understand about it?
anjogrTest1 votesThe phrase "pseudo random is the same as mathemathical random, aka not random" is categorically incorrect. Please, use google, wikipedia, or any textbooks on the subject to at least familiarize yourself with the definitions of the words you are using before digging in in an argument.
Not that you could know this without me saying so, but while I was in grad school for math, I actually taught applied mathematics to honors junior and senior engineering students. This whole argument reminds me of plenty of office hour discussions with kids disappointed and embarrassed that their bad exam grades provide concrete evidence for the fact that they do not understand the material as well as they think they do--in particular, that some of their friends in class do.
I was hoping to find more analytical people here looking to analyze an interesting new game in a systematic way, but, instead the boards are overpopulated by frustrated gamers who do not have the analytical maturity to investigate a simple (dude it's a multiround chess game... the complexity is a fraction of the complexity of LOL itself) stochastic game without fast typing inane defensive responses to strictly mathematical comments.
So, this will be my last post here. I will spare you the further self loathing that interacting with someone who actually knows what they are talking about seems to cause you. But I do hope this message hits a nerve--if not for you, since you seem like a lost cause, then at least for others who might read it. If seeming thoughtful is so important to you, you should put in the effort to actually learn about the tools you are trying to exercise in order to appear so.
Devilreaper XIII1 votesThe phrase "pseudo random is the same as mathemathical random, aka not random" is categorically incorrect. Please, use google, wikipedia, or any textbooks on the subject to at least familiarize yourself with the definitions of the words you are using before digging in in an argument.
lol didn't have to look that up, pseudo means faux, its definition meaning fake, mathemathical random is often called pseudo random, they mean the same thing, since both define the random as FAUX, set up purposfully, orchestrated, to pretend etc. nowhere did i state the terms psuedo and mathemathically share the same definition though.
Not that you could know this without me saying so, but while I was in grad school for math, I actually taught applied mathematics to honors junior and senior engineering students. This whole argument reminds me of plenty of office hour discussions with kids disappointed and embarrassed that their bad exam grades provide concrete evidence for the fact that they do not understand the material as well as they think they do--in particular, that some of their friends in class do.
yes because exam tests are accurate in showing what people understand? WRONG! its nothing but a memory test..... pointless, since everyone reacts different to being tested, and everyone's memory works different, some remember it better and others don't, doesn't mean they don't understand it, besides math is relative today 1+1=2 tomorrow 1+1=10, both of them are correct anyways depending on what the 1 is, language is way more important than math itself. such tests are devised to test if they remember, you can cheat by remembering every solution to the equation without doing any calculations......
I was hoping to find more analytical people here looking to analyze an interesting new game in a systematic way, but, instead the boards are overpopulated by frustrated gamers who do not have the analytical maturity to investigate a simple (dude it's a multiround chess game... the complexity is a fraction of the complexity of LOL itself) stochastic game without fast typing inane defensive responses to strictly mathematical comments.
So, this will be my last post here. I will spare you the further self loathing that interacting with someone who actually knows what they are talking about seems to cause you. But I do hope this message hits a nerve--if not for you, since you seem like a lost cause, then at least for others who might read it. If seeming thoughtful is so important to you, you should put in the effort to actually learn about the tools you are trying to exercise in order to appear so.
all you do is pretend to sound interesting, but most of what you say is nonsense...... non of this strikes a nerf, and no, i don't self loathe. seems like you think you're a whole lot of something just because you think you understand math.
anjogrTest1 votesMy God, man:
In the fifth line of your reply, you wrote "pseudo random is the same as mathemathical random, aka not random."
But, I pointed out to you that they are not the same thing. You then asserted that because you know the Greek origins of the modifier pseudo, you obviously know what the entire phrase meant. But you are demonstrably wrong. Since the demonstration is easy, let's have at it.
Mathematically random numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory) are those where there is an existent measure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_measure) which represents the distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution) of possible numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) in the sense that the integral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_integration) of any particular collection of numbers yields the probability of occurrence of a number from that collection.
Likewise, in this context, a pseudo random number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator) is a member of a sequence of digits generated by a finite memory computing system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis) which, if statistically investigated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_statistics), do not allow for the rejection of the hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing) that they were sampled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)) from a distribution of mathematically random numbers within a small but nonzero margin of error.
The fact that you think a reference to ancient Greek could evince an assertion about modern mathematical and computing definitions is odd. The point has now been demonstrated by cross referenced crowd reviewed evidence; those references themselves refer to peer reviewed journals and canonical textbooks, which at present is the mathematical and scientific community's highest standard for correctness. Continued assertions of the sort you have been making will merely evince that you do not know enough about the relevant subjects to read and understand the articles referenced, rendering your opinion on the matter in question even more dubious.
Now then, to address the other main point you seem to be trying to make. I never said that exam scores correlate with intelligence, or anything of the sort. However, I did very intentionally imply that people who get defensive when they are demonstrably wrong, especially about mathematical or scientific facts, are immature; of course it happens--medical doctors, despite being practitioners of one of the oldest and noblest professions, have an especially poor track record of getting defensive about false conclusions from misunderstood statistics (e.g. the discourse regarding cholesterol in the second half of the last century)--but it is a bad habit that disadvantages everyone involved in the conversation from learning about the subject at hand. So I I will only reiterate that I hope that this exchange will remind any readers of the inevitability of people calling your "bluffs" when you argue about something you actually do not know very much about.
Regarding your tangential point about the relativity of mathematics: the example you cited seems to be a reference to modular arithmetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic) and in general the idea that there is more than one useful system of "numbers;" this is one of a cornerstones of modern algebra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_algebra), but it actually affords yet another perspective from which to discredit your assertions--finite memory computing machines perform arithmetic on numbers with a fixed number of significant digits, hence there is a potential for a loss of significance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis) when you perform digital operations on a digital number; in particular, not every arithmetic operation is invertible in this environment (A + B = C and A + D = C when B =/ D), and this truncation of information is precisely why "tail" events in pseudo random normal distributions are so difficult to properly simulate. If we regard a normal distribution as a result of the central limit theorem applied to coin flips, events like "all heads" is an example of such a tail event. In stark contrast, the real numbers upon which mathematically normally random variables are based make up a complete field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_field): arithmetic is not only invertible but also continuous (except when dividing by zero, of course), and the limits of bounded monotonic sequences of arithmatic operations are even well behaved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolzano%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem); all that is to say, mathematical random variables, and even the number system upon which they are based, are certainly different than pseudo random variables, which are based on a number system which itself differs materially from the real line.
Finally: I want to apologize for saying that you "seem like a lost cause," above. Quite ironically, I let my exasperation get the best of me. The fact that you are at least attempting to exercise deductive reasoning suggests you might well have a promising future in figuring nontrivial things out and getting nontrivial things done. I just wish you luck in redirecting your energy from charlatanistic bluffing to something more productive. Finito.
Devilreaper XIII1 votesMy God, man:
In the fifth line of your reply, you wrote "pseudo random is the same as mathemathical random, aka not random."
But, I pointed out to you that they are not the same thing. You then asserted that because you know the Greek origins of the modifier pseudo, you obviously know what the entire phrase meant. But you are demonstrably wrong. Since the demonstration is easy, let's have at it.
Mathematically random numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory) are those where there is an existent measure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_measure) which represents the distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution) of possible numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) in the sense that the integral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_integration) of any particular collection of numbers yields the probability of occurrence of a number from that collection.
Likewise, in this context, a pseudo random number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator) is a member of a sequence of digits generated by a finite memory computing system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis) which, if statistically investigated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_statistics), do not allow for the rejection of the hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing) that they were sampled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)) from a distribution of mathematically random numbers within a small but nonzero margin of error.
The fact that you think a reference to ancient Greek could evince an assertion about modern mathematical and computing definitions is odd. The point has now been demonstrated by cross referenced crowd reviewed evidence; those references themselves refer to peer reviewed journals and canonical textbooks, which at present is the mathematical and scientific community's highest standard for correctness. Continued assertions of the sort you have been making will merely evince that you do not know enough about the relevant subjects to read and understand the articles referenced, rendering your opinion on the matter in question even more dubious.
Now then, to address the other main point you seem to be trying to make. I never said that exam scores correlate with intelligence, or anything of the sort. However, I did very intentionally imply that people who get defensive when they are demonstrably wrong, especially about mathematical or scientific facts, are immature; of course it happens--medical doctors, despite being practitioners of one of the oldest and noblest professions, have an especially poor track record of getting defensive about false conclusions from misunderstood statistics (e.g. the discourse regarding cholesterol in the second half of the last century)--but it is a bad habit that disadvantages everyone involved in the conversation from learning about the subject at hand. So I I will only reiterate that I hope that this exchange will remind any readers of the inevitability of people calling your "bluffs" when you argue about something you actually do not know very much about.
Regarding your tangential point about the relativity of mathematics: the example you cited seems to be a reference to modular arithmetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic) and in general the idea that there is more than one useful system of "numbers;" this is one of a cornerstones of modern algebra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_algebra), but it actually affords yet another perspective from which to discredit your assertions--finite memory computing machines perform arithmetic on numbers with a fixed number of significant digits, hence there is a potential for a loss of significance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis) when you perform digital operations on a digital number; in particular, not every arithmetic operation is invertible in this environment (A + B = C and A + D = C when B =/ D), and this truncation of information is precisely why "tail" events in pseudo random normal distributions are so difficult to properly simulate. If we regard a normal distribution as a result of the central limit theorem applied to coin flips, events like "all heads" is an example of such a tail event. In stark contrast, the real numbers upon which mathematically normally random variables are based make up a complete field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_field): arithmetic is not only invertible but also continuous (except when dividing by zero, of course), and the limits of bounded monotonic sequences of arithmatic operations are even well behaved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolzano%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem); all that is to say, mathematical random variables, and even the number system upon which they are based, are certainly different than pseudo random variables, which are based on a number system which itself differs materially from the real line.
Finally: I want to apologize for saying that you "seem like a lost cause," above. Quite ironically, I let my exasperation get the best of me. The fact that you are at least attempting to exercise deductive reasoning suggests you might well have a promising future in figuring nontrivial things out and getting nontrivial things done. I just wish you luck in redirecting your energy from charlatanistic bluffing to something more productive. Finito.
did i strike a nerf?
such a lengthy post which i read, my answer won't be to your liking though probably, i'll keep it short, the method as to how these alleged random numbers were generated is irrelevant, the outcome are not really random generated numbers for any methods, as for the accuracy, these generated numbers opposed to actual randomness might vary per method, but can never truly be tested.
True Garen4 votesI agree with OP. We should have ranked ARAM before we have ranked TFT. Ranked TFT won't signify anything.
Right now, it's a pleasant casual game with almost zero toxicity. It doesn't need to be more competitive.
I feel like, instead of pretending that some skill is involved, they should continue with an option for a kind of gambling system, where players can bet tokens or BE. The size of your purse (or your total winnings) would be plenty indicative.
I'm in matches and players occasionally grumble on what they receive. I ask them if they also complain at a casino... (many do, of course)
Because, given any setup in TFT, the choices to give the player the best chance of success are calculable. A computer could play this game. It wouldn't always win. But it would have the best chance for success in any match.
The real skill would probably come, as with backgammon or blackjack, with managing the betting cube over dozens of games.
True Garen4 votesThis game should never have a ranked system. It's absurd.
Pxerkza3 votesbecause the people that climb will be the ones that adapt the most consistently to what the RNG throws at them effectively making them climb instead the people that only rely on getting those RNGeezus drops of 6 recurves while getting only ranger/gunslinger drops will stay stuck in w/e elo they get placed in
øHaruø5 votesExcept those RNGeezus players place high and will climb anyway. Im ina game right now, in early stage 2 and someone has a 3 star vayne already.
Pxerkza1 votesno they won't lol
Immortal Void3 votesExcept those RNGeezus players place high and will climb anyway. Im ina game right now, in early stage 2 and someone has a 3 star vayne already.
The players that rely solely on RNG instead of game knowledge, prediction, and scouting will still win a few games by RNGing the best comp ever with the best items ever, and will gain LP for it. That is not the same thing as climbing consistently. These players will also get many games where they try to force their dream comp, and then complain about how they couldn't find the 3 recurve bows, 2 vaynes, 5 lucians, and MF they needed to win the game, when to win the game, they just had to not force that comp.
This is the same thing as competitive Poker. You don't win every game. You win a higher average than the competition.
3-stars don't mean everything (even early). There are many strategies, including Hyper-rolling at level 4 (ye it can still work if you get a good opening for it) that rush 3-stars, but 3-stars don't just win games, and even if they did, getting a 3-star to win is not a consistent way to win. Climbing is through consistently outperforming the players you are matched with. You can't do that if the only thing you are doing is hoping for good RNG to get a 3-star. You either force RNG in your favor over the course of the whole game, in every game, or you don't climb.
Obviously if you get 0 items all game you are screwed, but they are fixing that and even if they didn't, you would still be able to outperform over several games, since it would happen to everyone eventually.
Just as an example, these are my last two games, and although my items in the Wild/Shapeshifter/Imperials game were fairly good they were far from perfect, and the Glacial/Elementalist game my only two items were Spear of Shomuchfun and Morellos.
https://i.imgur.com/QJbfZ6m.png https://i.imgur.com/PjpFQ1z.png
TheBrothersGrymm1 votesthis is the rants of a fan boy, its all rng, no skill required, ranked would be a shitshow full of bugs. and out the matchmaking if its anything like ranked will be unfair, it should get ranked, but not for 3-5months after its been polished and bug free, if you think diffrent your exactully what riot wants, fanboys for a broken mode you spend money on
anjogrTest1 votesbecause the people that climb will be the ones that adapt the most consistently to what the RNG throws at them effectively making them climb instead the people that only rely on getting those RNGeezus drops of 6 recurves while getting only ranger/gunslinger drops will stay stuck in w/e elo they get placed in
Posts like this keep getting down voted, and that's a shame. Interacting with an RNG that abides the central limit theorem is a skill, its just not a skill that is at all relevant in LOL, where the dominant RNG interaction is matchmaking, for which the CLT doesn't apply, and so dynamic behavior dominates in particular games. TFT is made to appeal to people who like things like Hearthstone, not to cannibalize players from LOL.
iainB853 votesGames with RNG, people with better decision making skills will climb to the top. You can't win every game like being an elite person at an FPS, but that's just the nature of the game. Not sure why you are so concerned, if you don't like it besides a casual fun time, then just don't play the competitive mode.
øHaruø4 votesCasual fun time isn't fun when you play a game and you don't even feel the least bit enjoyment from seeing people with 3 completed items after the first round and you're sitting there with half of an item from carousel
iainB851 votesIn the next patch they are making guaranteed items so this should be less of an issue. No more getting cucked on multiple minion waves with zero items.
Subdue3 votesHow do they have poker tournaments when the cards you're dealt are random...
Dead Anime Dad2 votesPoker is a game about bluffing and making people think you have better or worse cards than you do. I don't they really compare all that well.
00Samwise001 votesI agree. Poker is a terrible comparison. You get a different hand each round, whereas in TFT you're stuck with a bad hand that everyone can see.
True Garen3 votesFor that matter, how can they have ranked in such a buggy mode?
Titanium702 votesBecause it's not about win or loose - which indeed would not work in a ranked mode. It's not abot being #1 - it's all about not being #5-#8!
It's about consistently doing well and adapting to the RNG the game throws at you. Over time there is nothing like bad luck. Only players capeable using what they're given at any time.
Barkley1 votesIf RNG mattered as much as the boards seems to think it matters, you wouldn't have people that consistently place top 4.
There's RNG in Texas Hold 'Em. There's RNG in Magic: The Gathering. There's RNG in any professional sport. There's RNG in League of Legends.
Yet there are people who rise to the top and stay there in all of these sports/activities.
So instead of doing the easy thing and blaming an external force for your bad experiences, do the right thing and evaluate your own performance and analyze what you did wrong and what you could do better, how you can improve as a player.
Unless you're just not interested in improving as a player, and this game mode isn't for you -- that's fine. But say that. Say "This game mode isn't for me."
Not "This game mode is inherently flawed and unfair" -- because that's just blatantly false, and you sound like a sore loser.
Are there things that could be changed/balanced better? Of course there are -- But that's not why you're losing. At least its not why you're CONSISTENTLY losing.
Devilreaper XIII1 votesIf RNG mattered as much as the boards seems to think it matters, you wouldn't have people that consistently place top 4.
There's RNG in Texas Hold 'Em. There's RNG in Magic: The Gathering. There's RNG in any professional sport. There's RNG in League of Legends.
you do realize the randomness is controlled in most of what you mentioned right? tft has rng thats way out of control, with texas hold em they replace the dealer often for instance, you can count cards, there are people that can counter the random factor, magic the gathering has a deck YOU made, the only rng is what cards you get when, what rng in professional sports? you mean randomness since rng means random number generator and is only there with console games O.o
Yet there are people who rise to the top and stay there in all of these sports/activities.
So instead of doing the easy thing and blaming an external force for your bad experiences, do the right thing and evaluate your own performance and analyze what you did wrong and what you could do better, how you can improve as a player.
Unless you're just not interested in improving as a player, and this game mode isn't for you -- that's fine. But say that. Say "This game mode isn't for me."
Not "This game mode is inherently flawed and unfair" -- because that's just blatantly false, and you sound like a sore loser.
Are there things that could be changed/balanced better? Of course there are -- But that's not why you're losing. At least its not why you're CONSISTENTLY losing.
dude i played tons of rng games, going from pokemon trading cards to yu gi oh to hearthstone where the rng certainly isn't as bad as in tft.
