You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but you can’t teach a dumb dog anything.
2 Likes
Yes, 100% yes. This game is decided, NOT by the best player on a team, but by the worst. AKA: Bad player gets ganked and you lose thr 4v5 or the bad player simply is not outputting enough damage or heals compared to the other team and you just lose. Having the weakest player on your team has a MUCH bigger impact than having the best player. Because yes, you cannot solo carry and a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link.
But at the same time, the good players on your team could gank one of the bad one of the enemy side and even the score. Or they could manage to save the terribad on your team. Or warn the terribad that a gank is coming.
Your argument is literally equally applicable to both sides.
You lose because your bad ally got ganked.
You win because your good ally (or yourself) succesfully ganked an enemy.
The difference is that you pretend that the second scenario doesn’t happen.
When you’re making the case that this only happens in a negative way towards you, then you’re just splitting hairs or however that saying goes. It defeats teh entire purpose of playing this game. Why are you even playing it if you truly believe that being skilled and good has 0 impact on the match when the terribad is the one who 100% decides the match?
I for one don’t believe any of that nonsense, but if it makes you feel better about your losses that you can throw 100% of the blame onto the weakest link, then go ahead. It does however also mean that you have been 100% the reason for the loss when you were the weakest link in your team, y’know?
2 Likes
When did I ever say that?
Again, I never said that… you are constructing a strawman here buddy.
Well duh…
You clearly have demonstrated that you “read” what I wrote but understood nothing of it. Mostly because you have your own bias and simply assumed almost everything, you put your own spin on it to support your narrative and at the end you basically attacked a strawman instead of the actual idea or argument that was previously presented.
Now that this BS is out of the way, let me clarify what was said (Pay attention this time or you won;t get another free pass).
I said that the WORST player on a team has a HIGHER IMPACT than the BEST.
Phaseshifter demonstrates this pretty accurately when he says:
Well I just really disagree with the statement that a game is decided by the worst player and that the best player can’t do anything about it.
Which is the argument you’re making. Which is pretty obvious by these simple lines.
Also, Phaseshifter’s post does not involve “A bad player” it involves a “troll”. There’s a very big difference between a guy intentionally trolling and suiciding and somebody who is just not very good.
For the record I’ve won matches with bots from the start. I’ve even won an ARAM where one guy was mad and went afk for the entire game. Literally won 4v5.
Your entire argument is based on that. Because in every single game there’s the weakest link on both teams. Yet your argument implies that only your team has a weak link that can be exploited or is just not outputting enough.
Am I now?
Or do you have memory issues?
Whatever. Keep blaming the weakest link for all of your losses. You are the typical player that only sees the terribads on your own team and doesn’t notice how bad the enemy is. You get a really easy gank on the enemy terribad player and you chalk it up to you being super duper amazing and never questioned why the Azmodan was just mindlessly pushing without paying attention to the map or his own health or why the Azmo barely knew how to play his hero.
2 Likes
Then say THAT, don’t try and make it sound like I said something else… that is SO dishonest… Look you did it again, I also never said that the BEST player can’t do anything about it. Just that the Worst player has more IMPACT than the BEST.
But we can both agree that they are still at the very bottom of this theoretical team? Worst skilled player vs Troll, outcome is the same, they have the biggest impact on the outcome of the game.
Anecdotal and Black & White logical fallacy. Again, I never said it’s set in stone and you will ALWAYS lose if you have the worst player. Again, they have more impact than the best player.
No, that is you making assumptions and overreaching to support your narrative.
Yes
Please look at my other threads and you will quickly notice just how wrong you are. Again, you are making assumptions about me.
OMG, how do you know me SO WELL?
For your internet crimes of logical fallacies, I sentence you to go learn about the art of conversations, debate and logic. Clearly, your brain is broken (or you are simply trolling). Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees through your charade.
https://imgur.com/bGNAf22
A good example of my point.
In this game we had absolutely terribad teammates. The muradin and fenix were truly useless.
But my friend and I were able to carry the game, despite how atrociously bad our team was.
You are contradicting yourself so hard.
I’m done with you, no point in talking to someone who is literally contradicting themselves.
2 Likes
It can be a narrow line.
Some player’s perception of what are the best plays (or picks) can have the same impact as a troll. If your team mate believes that Butcher is OP and the best pick ever, first picks it, then spends most of the game trying to farm minions for meat instead of staying with the team to get kills. The game will go in a very similar way as if you had a troll.
When my Nazaabo leaves in the middle of a fight for the objective, to kill minion and get stacks. It feels exactly like having a troll. The play is illogical, a few quests stack are not worth losing an objective. But in that player’s mind. It’s the best idea ever. And he will do the same thing in his next game.
2 Likes
No, you just can’t address the actual argument and have an ego too big that you can’t even man up and admit it. You got HARD called out for being dishonest and full of fallacies and now you are still doubling down and trying to avoid further repercussions by walking away while claiming that you somehow made good points and that I contradicted myself when everyone can clearly see that I clearly demonstrated how I was not and how YOU are the one using fallacies and just making stuff up.
Stop typing, you have been defeated
100% Agree with the statement, not saying that 100% of the time this is the case… Also, you are cherry picking. Deliberately ignoring that I even clarified what argument I am actually presenting… You are the most dishonest (basically a troll at this point) forum user ever.
My claim is that the Worst player on the team has a HIGHER IMPACT on the outcome of the game than the Best player on the team.
Address this and this only, don’t make up stuff, do no assume anything about me or others, simply address the argument presented.
1 Like
I think the point of the point 
is being relative.
Say, a player normally plays at 80% efficiency. A couple seconds late rotations, a missed camp here, an overconfidence death, an inconfident escape, leaving a healing globe, overstaying to get one.
If you go ahead and throw, you have 0% efficiency. If you are just very out of zone, or badly countered, you can have 40% efficiency.
Whereas if you do your best, it’s just 20 points better.
(In order to make the math work, a typical player has to play at 50% efficiency, but a 100% is just as unlikely, so make it 40%. That sounds very unlikely, standing still a lot, typing, dying to camps, failing to use the ult, succeeding only once over the entire match. Hence I think the conceptual logic above stands.)
So yes, it can happen to both sides, but it wasn’t you performing, but the opponent failing.
Another understanding is simply whether you feel that you carry.
There are some heroes actually which have these moments. I have a hunch that melee heroes have this tendency, as that’s their balance concept. But most people play ranged.
In a game with individual xp, if you go and pick up some xp (and thus coins), you are stronger than your teammates. Then you either deliver or not, but it’s clearly on your shoulders. In this game, if you do a good job, you only get 20% of the benefit (albeit you get theirs, too - so make it 50%, looking at a typical xp chart). You are not ahead in level (=> strength), neither in talents (=> gear). You cannot get ahead of the enemy either.
Every healer main will appreciate that, but that’s it.
There is a difference in “The idiot butcher” and “The running into the enemy fort and dying repeatedly Uther until the game ends”
The idiot butcher is still trying. Of course when the weakest link takes something like Butcher as first pick, it’s a bad a sign for sure and not going to be easy to make up for. There will always be extreme situations.
Yeah sure thing, coming from the guy who first says “Yes, 100% the best player can’t do anything” And then changes it to “no, I said the worst player just has a higher impact”.
Hahahahahahaha, defeated because you say you defeated me? That’s not how it works.
I just don’t believe in the nonsense that the worst player has such a massive impact (Or 100% of the impact as you first said but then changed to higher impact, lol) on the outcome of the game. It’s the reasoning of a loser, somebody who has to blame others for losing every time.
Your whole arugment is based on that there is only one “Worst player” by a noticable margin. Yet for all intents and purposes, all games or more or less balanced (aside from ARAM which literally has 0 matchmaking).
If there’s a 1500 MMR guy on your team, then there’s a 1500 MMR on the enemy team too. Your argument implies that there’s only one on your team, which is where the BS starts. (Exceptions when a group is queuing as 5 or similar)
Honestly, I think I’ll stop here, because you seem incredibly angry at me calling out your BS excusing.
You made 5 edits to slowly write this, sentence by sentence. Talk about being angry.
It’s funny because you keep calling saying that I’m using fallacies, making stuff up, saying I’m dishonest, but not pointing out where or how I am being any of these things. I’m simply stating things based on what you did say. Yet when I point out how you contradict yourself, you just gloss it over.
Whatever, I’ll keep playing my games where I don’t mind if there’s terribads on my team as I know they also exist on the enemy team and that I simply don’t believe in the statement to begin with lest one questions the matchmaker altogether.
That is your claim now but literally this line
is NOT the same as what you’re currently saying. So what happened is that you grossly exaggerated, I pointed out how I don’t agree with your extreme exaggeration, so you corrected it to “The bad player has a higher impact”
1 Like
AKA making assumptions
Yes, I clarified what I was saying because it was poorly written (I can admit it). But now you know what I mean (and probably cannot think of a reason why I am wrong, so you keep finding ways to go back and attack what I said 10 threads ago to win imaginary internet points). And you still ignore the fact that you were dishonest in representing and assuming my intents and experiences.
Please though, address my actual argument, if you think it;s wrong, I’d like to know why…
When you say “100% agree to this statement” and I take that as your stance on the matter, it’s not assuming things… it’s just … reading, I guess. I’m not sure why this is so hard to comprehend for you.
Your own damn fault if you over exaggerate a statement but wont back up that statement and pretend you never said it.
Pathetic.
From my perspective, there isn’t when they play the same way. I mean, I’ve seen players with 14 deaths. The fact that they are not actually trolling changes nothing at that point. The result is the same.
I’ll just leave this here
The Best of Narha:
The actual Argument:
BECAUSE:
AND
I read your statement and based it off that. Nothing dishonest about it.
It’s a difference in our perspectives on the matter. When you say that you believe that a bad player has a much bigger impact than the good player, I disagree, because there is typically an equally bad player on the opposing team as well.
Which means that the baddies cancel themselves out, in a manner of speaking. It is there, then, that the best players on the team can have the strongest influence on the match based on how they exploit the enemy baddie and support the team-baddie. For instance, by warning for ganks, keeping an eye on them, telling them to do mercs, whatever. And by isolating out the enemy baddie and focusing him, you can really make him pay more than the allied baddie.
I am also just very used to the typical mindset of players that they pay extremely little attention to the enemy team. Whether they are good or not. Very rare that people notice that the enemy had a bot, myself included. Oft’ times I go into replay for various reasons and notice “Huh… that guy was a bot…”
Even during ARAM I have seen and heard it quite numerious time … “I didn’t even notice they had 2 rehgar’s, lol” or similar.
To me it changes things. The person that has 14 deaths cuz he is intentionally suiciding and the person who has 14 deaths cuz he’s bad and sucks at positioning are very different.
I don’t mean to bring this clip up as a brag, but it’s a very good example of my point of perspective.
https://youtu.be/fX_Mn2JyXso?t=395
This is from the screenshot I posted earlier of the awful muradin and fenix.
They stink, sure, but were still serious and joined the battle. Thanks to that, butcher used ult on them and they took their attention for long enough that I could do my work on his friends.
But if they were the literally intentionally suiciding types, aka trolls, then that fight wouldn’t’ve happened at all.
@reggi you sure are mad that I focused my arguments around your exaggerated statement that you didn’t stand behind, huh. Sad.
Also, for the record, putting a bunch of quotes out of context is the epitome of cherrypicking, fyi.
Finally an argument! However, the enemy team’s players have nothing to do with the original argument, this is a thread about the impact of players.
NNot who has a higher chance of winning, but the IMPACT of players based on their skill. To properly disagree, you would have to demonstrate how the Best player can have more impact than the worst, we clearly demonstrated that you can make your team lose and there is almost nothing the best player can do about it. (NOT talking about GM playing in silver here, assuming the teams are actual real accounts at their proper rank but with different ranges of skills)
Notice how your argument is basically helping the bad player be less bad? SO that his badness has less impact on the game…
This is what was a good example of dishonesty, you used your own bias and experiences and labelled me with it and tried to undermine what I was saying because of it, when this whole point was a misrepresentation and a personal attack (strawman).
No, I was mad that you acted as if you had done nothing wrong when I clearly demonstrated that you did. Even now, you still refuse to even acknowledge that you used logical fallacies.
I’m glad we agree
While this is true. Its one of the more unlikely cases. I mean how many GM players are there vs how many diamond and lower players are there? I can not even give much credit to the diamond rank anymore cause I see people make some very bad choices or pick heroes they are lvl 1 with and then feed.
I’ve literally said similar stuff since the beginning.
I started a post here because I was responding to you where you said “100% yes” to a statement of “So one person can ruin a game but at the same time, one person can’t save it?”
Yep. That’s what good players do. They cover for their bad teammates. They just don’t leave them to their own devices.
If we assume that both sides aren’t trying to lessen the impact of the team’s baddie at all, then they could still try to exploit the enemy baddie as much as possible. The question is only who does it better. Not which baddie is the worst.
I am not sure what is “dishonest” about it. My arguments or my point is not based on that at all.
And neither did that experience of mine alter anything I’ve said here. It was just a sidenote as to what is typical of people that makes people feel that “The worst player is always on my team” which is a very typical bias people have.
Also on this part:
“Personal attack” (ad hominem) and Strawman are two different types of logical fallacies, btw…
And I love the irony of you taking the highroad when you’ve been using logical fallacies in the form of ad hominem since the beginning.
And you love to claim that I’m using logical fallacies when I’m not.
This was simply an example that even with the extreme version of a baddie, aka a literal intentional afker, that you can still win.
This doesn’t even go under the category of a black & white logical fallacy. A false dilemma involves a fake-but-not-really situation of having only two options to choose from, but in reality, you have plenty of choices. A simple example would be “You either love me or hate me!!!”
Where, in that statement of mine, is a fake 2-way dilemma? Where is the two choices I set up in my ARAM 4v5 example?
It only served as an example that I’ve had games where the “worst player”'s impact - a literal afker - was not enough to stop us from winning.
No we will NOT!
Refer to the wall of quotes
Example please
False dilemma is not Black and white, black and white means it’s either 100% one way of the other, ignoring the grey zone in the middle… False dilemma is when you have an argument saying there are only 2 choices, when in fact there can be more. They are similar, but they address different things. Choices vs All or nothing. At least that is how I use it, some people do tend to think they are the same, perhaps I’m wrong as we all use language differently.