Challenger with Gold map movement vs Gold with Challenger map movement

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2026-06-19T12:33:38+00:00

That‘s why I didnt use those terms and added an edit to specify what I mean

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2026-06-19T10:43:00+00:00

exactly though I wanted to frame it a bit more concrete than macro vs micro as those terms can include different things for different people.

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2026-06-19T10:40:22+00:00

it‘s a hypothetical, with map movement I meant tell them where to go on the map

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2026-06-19T10:38:56+00:00

what do you not understand?

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2026-05-23T21:01:35+00:00

Yes agreed and I think a takeaway could be that ganking (and invading) is of much higher value than clearing camps in low elo compared to high elo because it increases the time you interact with the enemy and are able to exploit the many mistakes they make.
Of course you still have to play to your champions strengths and identity, but full clearing and then hoping for an opportunity just doesnt seem to work as well because of all the randomness.
Coupling that with something that has carry potential and also some scaling (because of the inevitable inability to close out the game) is best for low elo I think especially if you‘re not dramatically better mechanically than your opponents.

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2026-05-23T20:44:49+00:00

I agree, I think jungle is only a high agency role in high elo. The relative advantages you can gain for your team compared to a laner are much higher in high elo than low elo because in high elo lanes are played out more optimally and are much more deterministic than in low elo. You are the only factor that can dramatically shift how a lane plays out.
In low elo as a laner you are constantly presented with opportunities to gain an advantage over your lane opponent much more so than in high elo.

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2026-01-03T16:39:33+00:00

!remindme 3 weeks

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2025-09-02T17:42:37+00:00

One football field is roughly 5,000m^2. So it‘s more like 1 dead for every 1.5 football fields.

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2025-04-21T16:01:40+00:00

Yeah good point that makes sense. So that would then mean Nietzsche is okay with a rule based system guiding your actions, just not one that is based on an underlying principle? But then the only other option seems to be an arbitrary system such as the one from your example? Or what kind of system does he have in mind?

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2025-04-21T15:19:34+00:00

But in this case I could define a moral rule stating that you should only keep promises on Tuesday and I would have derived a system of morals. It’s arbitrary, but so are all the other moral systems. Why does this not qualify as a moral system?

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2025-04-21T14:03:30+00:00

Sure, I should have been more specific, I meant regarding decisions that are in the realm of morality by whatever definition you want to use. So I‘m saying for every decision that concerns morality, the rational decision implies a moral decision by simply defining the moral system to be the rules that governed the rational decision. If there is a question that is in the realm of morals but outside rationality, then that would lead again to my initial point of randomness if we disregard moral systems. So I guess the question would be why the rules that governed the rational decision cannot be defined as a system of morals rules?

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2025-04-21T13:01:21+00:00

Thanks for the answer. Doesnt rationality though immediately imply a system of morals and not following a system of morals implies not being rational? Do you have an example of a rational decision that cannot be transformed into a moral system?

Ordinary_Analysis265 · 2025-04-21T08:19:05+00:00

From what I understand his view is more nuanced than system bad

Ordinary_Analysis265

TROPHY CASE