So, I finally uninstalled LoL from my computer.

[Fidchell Attano]

I like how everyone who can't improve their ranking in these games can't do so "because everyone else is shit" or something to that extent. Everyone who plays has to put up with the same shit. You can't improve your rank because you're just not good enough.

A naive viewpoint of what really goes on in ranked gameplay.

No, the naive viewpoint is that you're the only one who puts up with that crap. The better players are able to work their way through it, the lesser players are not. You might lose an individual game because your team is just too dumb, but the overall trend relies on your own abilities. Any suggestion otherwise is a delusion of your ability.

Trying to parody the scholar or the philosopher does not MAKE you the scholar or the philosopher.

Righto mate, you keep telling yourself you're just really unlucky with the teams you get placed with, even though it's most likely not the case.

And keep telling yourself you know soooo~ much about my case as well as everybody else's.

I don't claim to know the specifics of your case, but I do know simple statistics. The more games you've played, the smaller the error in your ranking. If you've played more than about 30 games, your ranking is very likely to be a good estimate of your ability relative to other players. You'd need a monumentally implausible string of luck, good or bad, for that to not be the case.

The problem with statistics is that they demand the end without the means, and on what grounds are over 30 games a good estimate of my ranking? I mean when I started this season my record was 25-7. Then bad players started showing up.

 

[Davroth]

Okay, let's apply math to the claim that it's everyone else's fault that you are stuck in an ELO/whatever the system is.

If you are a good player, and you it's not your fault, then you should constantly rise in rank. Let me explain. If you are constantly a good player, then your team consists of one good player and 4 players that have an even chance of being good or bad team mates. Now here's the kicker: The enemy team consists of 5 players who have an equal chance of being good or bad.

So statistically, a good player would end up with more victories then losses, provided you play enough games.

Feel free to turn your back on the game, but stop lying to yourself about the reasons why the game frustrates you.

Those were my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[smithy_2045]

I like how everyone who can't improve their ranking in these games can't do so "because everyone else is shit" or something to that extent. Everyone who plays has to put up with the same shit. You can't improve your rank because you're just not good enough.

A naive viewpoint of what really goes on in ranked gameplay.

No, the naive viewpoint is that you're the only one who puts up with that crap. The better players are able to work their way through it, the lesser players are not. You might lose an individual game because your team is just too dumb, but the overall trend relies on your own abilities. Any suggestion otherwise is a delusion of your ability.

Trying to parody the scholar or the philosopher does not MAKE you the scholar or the philosopher.

Righto mate, you keep telling yourself you're just really unlucky with the teams you get placed with, even though it's most likely not the case.

And keep telling yourself you know soooo~ much about my case as well as everybody else's.

I don't claim to know the specifics of your case, but I do know simple statistics. The more games you've played, the smaller the error in your ranking. If you've played more than about 30 games, your ranking is very likely to be a good estimate of your ability relative to other players. You'd need a monumentally implausible string of luck, good or bad, for that to not be the case.

The problem with statistics is that they demand the end without the means, and on what grounds are over 30 games a good estimate of my ranking? I mean when I started this season my record was 25-7. Then bad players started showing up.

30 games gives enough time for you to have moved to where you belong based on your rating.

So basically, what you're saying is, you're not good enough to win if you have to compensate for lesser players on your team. Sounds like your rating might be too high.

 

[Fidchell Attano]

I like how everyone who can't improve their ranking in these games can't do so "because everyone else is shit" or something to that extent. Everyone who plays has to put up with the same shit. You can't improve your rank because you're just not good enough.

A naive viewpoint of what really goes on in ranked gameplay.

No, the naive viewpoint is that you're the only one who puts up with that crap. The better players are able to work their way through it, the lesser players are not. You might lose an individual game because your team is just too dumb, but the overall trend relies on your own abilities. Any suggestion otherwise is a delusion of your ability.

Trying to parody the scholar or the philosopher does not MAKE you the scholar or the philosopher.

Righto mate, you keep telling yourself you're just really unlucky with the teams you get placed with, even though it's most likely not the case.

And keep telling yourself you know soooo~ much about my case as well as everybody else's.

I don't claim to know the specifics of your case, but I do know simple statistics. The more games you've played, the smaller the error in your ranking. If you've played more than about 30 games, your ranking is very likely to be a good estimate of your ability relative to other players. You'd need a monumentally implausible string of luck, good or bad, for that to not be the case.

The problem with statistics is that they demand the end without the means, and on what grounds are over 30 games a good estimate of my ranking? I mean when I started this season my record was 25-7. Then bad players started showing up.

30 games gives enough time for you to have moved to where you belong based on your rating.

So basically, what you're saying is, you're not good enough to win if you have to compensate for lesser players on your team. Sounds like your rating might be too high.

Moved up to Silver III and dropped back to Silver IV and on series for IV to III again, your move, prick.

 

[smithy_2045]

I like how everyone who can't improve their ranking in these games can't do so "because everyone else is shit" or something to that extent. Everyone who plays has to put up with the same shit. You can't improve your rank because you're just not good enough.

A naive viewpoint of what really goes on in ranked gameplay.

No, the naive viewpoint is that you're the only one who puts up with that crap. The better players are able to work their way through it, the lesser players are not. You might lose an individual game because your team is just too dumb, but the overall trend relies on your own abilities. Any suggestion otherwise is a delusion of your ability.

Trying to parody the scholar or the philosopher does not MAKE you the scholar or the philosopher.

Righto mate, you keep telling yourself you're just really unlucky with the teams you get placed with, even though it's most likely not the case.

And keep telling yourself you know soooo~ much about my case as well as everybody else's.

I don't claim to know the specifics of your case, but I do know simple statistics. The more games you've played, the smaller the error in your ranking. If you've played more than about 30 games, your ranking is very likely to be a good estimate of your ability relative to other players. You'd need a monumentally implausible string of luck, good or bad, for that to not be the case.

The problem with statistics is that they demand the end without the means, and on what grounds are over 30 games a good estimate of my ranking? I mean when I started this season my record was 25-7. Then bad players started showing up.

30 games gives enough time for you to have moved to where you belong based on your rating.

So basically, what you're saying is, you're not good enough to win if you have to compensate for lesser players on your team. Sounds like your rating might be too high.

Moved up to Silver III and dropped back to Silver IV and on series for IV to III again, your move, prick.

I'm not sure what your point is.