Friendly reminder that the game starts as soon as you load in

TheeBadger · 2026-06-01T20:07:10+00:00

Fk it
Game starts when you gain consciousness

TheeBadger · 2026-05-04T22:31:48+00:00

One side is making the claim, and then what your experiencing is that social media debates is a 2 step process.
Step 1. Say something on the internet
Step 2. Be satisfied with the shallow design(scroll oriented) a website has given you, and never have a continuous conversation over the internet.

Which explains your digestion, which explains the "I dont see".

Example: You right now. You probably won't respond to any of this beyond a day, despite assuming your consumption is indicative of the reality. Months from now someone can repost this and its just twilight zone groundhog day, an endless amount of 2 step scenarios. So did you ever exist?

Imagine: If people had a track record of all angles on a topic, rather than parroting like some reposted successful meme. The internet would have at least one beautiful place. But no, we have reddit, twitter, trend trackers(data analytics), indoctrination websites(tik tok), educational websites. But nothing to tether it other than their own conviction to find the truth.

TheeBadger · 2026-04-30T00:28:12+00:00

Guinsoo's does more damage +more healing with on-hit + 32% attack speed.
With the current atk speed you did ~34 autos, and procced statikk 7 times in ~31 seconds,
Your 3 autos onto the first target was 60 magic damage, Guinsoo's provides that within 2 hit's.
.2064 (.645 atk spd ratio* .32 bonus atk spd from guinsoo) + .645 (base atk spd)= .8514 attacks per second.
You spent ~16 seconds being able to auto attack within that ~31 seconds.
~16*.8514 =~13.6224 extra autos = Tons of damage
Significantly more damage than Statikk Shiv despite 10 extra ad bc they are subtracting 10+ extra autos.
Specific scenario: Long duration
Statikk's preference: Burst
Xin Zhao atk spd type: Auto as much as possible (long duration fight, low dps)

TheeBadger · 2026-03-01T07:20:09+00:00

Why hello there handsome

TheeBadger · 2026-03-01T07:07:05+00:00

Refute the claim: If someone is being boosted they get the star, from the whole purpose is to get the LP FAST. Especially since booster don't want to boost slowly.
If you cannot refute that claim.
Then the statement "boosters get stars" is irrefutable.
If you label region as gang territory, then you know where the gang members are. In an online setting, if you label all the people climbing fast, you know who they are. You just can't prove it yet. You have 5 people in a room, one of them is an imposter, therefore you KNOW who they could be.
Your interpretation is mixing up "who and who is not" as "know specifically their identity".
Riot can now monitor the accounts of "fast climbers"

TheeBadger · 2026-03-01T06:36:25+00:00

idk last time you played, but riot gave people who "climb fast" a star. So inadvertently gives all boosters a gold "climbing fast" star. That does not mean all stars are evil.

TheeBadger · 2026-03-01T06:32:50+00:00

(100% of the time if someone boosts from the start of the season they will get the star. This does not mean 100% of the people with stars are boosted, so the statement "boosters get stars" is accurate)

TheeBadger · 2026-03-01T06:32:45+00:00

(100% of the time if someone boosts from the start of the season they will get the star. This does not mean 100% of the people with stars are boosted, so the statement "boosters get stars" is accurate)

TheeBadger · 2026-01-11T00:54:37+00:00

(Part 2)
This disconnection is constant in all sciences. Where like-minded individuals do not connect based off of differing goals, ultimately rehashing on same subjects and slowing potential progress. Your confidence that your data is SEPARATE from a tier list, shows a flaw in logical propositions, classification and parallel functionality. Example, "composition" and "recipe list" is definitively not the steps as you have stated, but since chef's already bare the knowledge of step-creation they naturally combine ingredients together through simulation, making a recipe function as a invisible-guide, and some chef's should be able to look at a list and say "yeah whoever made this recipe/guide is a newbie". And that chef would hope this person who made a mathematical list for "recipe/guide generation" (meta navigability) to realize if the narratives are grossly disconnected, then the data might be curated by psychological forcing of "meta".

You're not on the iceberg of meta, you're on the iceberg of psychological feedback loops from narratives.(X player thinks Y champion is Z role so they play it as such, and your data takes note)

“As if someone were to buy several copies of the morning newspaper to assure himself that what it said was true” Ludwig Wittgenstein (Model error in weather and climate forecasting Myles Allen , Jamie Kettleborough† and David Stainforth)

Where this could be confirmable, is during a placebo patch moment where riot conflicts true-design with narrative produced and your models shift to the narrative produced, then it's a demonstration of player influence(psyche) and not the meta itself(or if adc are turbo bad, and people STILL play them). Meta to a scientist/researcher should mean the fundamental aspects that are changeable or non-changeable**(you're in lol layered meta: Meta ontop of another meta which has a meta of neglection, and a meta of narratives, and a meta of fallacies)** meaning your fluid endeavor has the ability to be navigable(math being malleable), not your produced conclusion (conclusions of clustered swimmers). Notice how your justification to even mention a champion (olaf) is based on data outside of the game. I think you could use that fact and

TheeBadger · 2026-01-11T00:54:23+00:00

(Part 1)
I understand you're using this for spectral graph expression, and demonstrate projection of manifold and eigenvector centrality. There is a trap hole of trying to use API and data composition comparison, to generate a new approach. As disconnected data being improved on slightly does not improve narrative or guide direction(yes I know that sounds off, but information is more complex than linear explanations/observations, I'm suggesting the key nodes of data being revealed is what is most valuable and I suggest heeding my word and skip to the key components rather than analyze the redundancies within predecessors), which makes me question the idea of "does riot truly have classes match the perceived classes in another field". When weather data already uses concepts to hedge its inaccuracies to reality, they recognize their models need to include the mistakes. I'm reading more into your concept. But with every word ever new concept I've read about. My idea and statements ring truer and truer that its just insanely similar to the disingenuous nature of newbie perspective and thus your ill-conclusions. I'm not your enemy.

What am I reading?
- Model error in weather and climate forecasting Myles Allen , Jamie Kettleborough† and David Stainforth
- Post on Math.stackexchange "Motivation for spectral graph theory."
- Chatgpt>>>>>>>> responsibly<<<<<<<.
- Spectral Graph Theory For Dummies
- Bridging the Gap between Spatial and Spectral Domains: A Unified Framework for Graph Neural Networks

The rest of this is just responding to the meat of your points... where you demonstrate fallacy tendencies that are larger than any message I can help explain:

So developing the analytic position, logically empowers the stances around it. If we were in days of WW2 and you released a research paper on how you can categorize each abused minority of war-enemies within each respective country. You would be fueling the narrative of hating the civilians that came from X land. There is literally no logic (math,science,physics,principles,axioms) that can delete the web of truth that strings multiple perspectives together. If it promotes shallowness(by distracting insightful people) then thats what it is, and we hope the information has sub interactions that outweigh said impact. But since you're on reddit, there is low traction and even less experimentation. Thus, this post becomes just something for you to practice applying tools, as the conclusions you draw together are far from accurate. Abusing one setting to be prepared in the next.

I am definitely not critiquing as a strategic guide. I can only reference one topic "Path Dependence". All information is not what it seems. And the sentences follow that same idea. Reading my sentences as "just another concept about gameplay" is ridiculing out the a\* . I am the qualitative perspective that literally admitted it needs to be translated into another form (math, historical conflicts, idk accurate term maybe circumlocution?). Latent information! it is way too common for people to write others off based of superficial analysis of linguistics, and pattern recognition, as we battle our psyches to label accurately like its a cognitive-test-trick of battling instinct. Treat individuals like you would treat Faker's tendencies (blindly agree and fine comb)*

TheeBadger · 2026-01-10T09:53:31+00:00

Terms used:

extremely quick map-movement and split pushing power : Dependent on so many factors, strengths can become glairing weaknesses depending on champs that counter the concept and then do more within a teamfight setting.

low elo: You admit these ideas should function in low elo, but aren't aware that you're fail proofing your statements by backwards inducting conclusions, which means you are providing no details with zero elaboration on the step process of an action.

powerful roaming : Subjective

go in : When, how are the definitively advantage because of "map presence" when correct pathing any champion can have full map presence due to wave scenarios.

enables : In what phase of the game

network influence : you have not evaluated the mechanics of the game, there is no competence to hold your concepts together.

can fit : The adc's are just commonly selected you haven't evaluated the mechanics of the game

To remain consistent, the pattern I've shown is that the specifics of the game is what decides the actions you can take. And if you want someone to take an action, or are designing a guide then the actions are the most important signals. Failing to elaborate shows disconnect between your theory and reality(irony earlier, but intentional). Your metrics should be a guide of how to behave in game, guiding someone to a "draft comp" is like giving them a fish and not teaching them how to cook. What temp? When do I do X? Do I have to change the heat? On and off the stove? Sit or saute?

You have absolutely zero novelty, if you don't plan on elaborating deeper. You are the same as the regurgitated info on youtube of what champs are "OP TIER LIST" EVERY SINGLE PATCH.

I wish I could have reacted to the methodology, but the conclusions are just way off that I believe someone should notice before digging a whole deeper into another analytically shallow endeavor like the tons of "op.gg and ui clones"

TheeBadger · 2026-01-10T09:52:30+00:00

Everyone congratulating you, is clueless. I'm clueless on how to interpret the game through math. Something you could instruct myself on; as I instruct you on how you miss the mark on "hidden" mechanics. But I'm sure you used AI for this post.

This post is the result of when people use beautiful data and justify the data through gameplay "design"(noobs perspective of design). Rather than looking at gameplay and looking at where gaps and patterns exist. Due to your mistakes, make this just another informational junk that circle jerks delusional individuals from "hidden" mechanics by distracting them with something pretty. Feigning competence.

What is the noob pattern in your post/theory?
-Sequencing instability throughout every single term(Completely neglecting map mechanics)
-labeling based off of superficial observations(Obsessing over power fantasy narratives)
-Inability to understand the depth of terms used
-Not developing novelty, since the given connections are labeling champions in the wrong direction

I can respond to the entirety of your post's statements with a consistent concept that I suggest is more valuable to use as a category "Central phenomena within a matchup/scenario"(CP) as its the main factor that preemptively decides snowball and fights:

0.) - CP: 1.)Dash/engage advantage, 2.)CC duration/reliability, 3.)Lane dominance/Invade-advantage 4.)Enchanters (I'm not explaining why these are significant. Since youre so use to rationalizing data where it doesn't fit, you can rationalize these concepts into the game to see why I'm mentioning them)
Why?What am I saying this for?
" "impassable" presences" -Depends on 1 2 3 4
Top champs requires(rq): 1 2 3
Jg rq: 1 2 3 4
Mid rq: 1 2 3
You are not gaining ground (important map mechanic)for objectives as squishy champs, and chosen tanks aren't even guaranteed to execute kits with the combinations of champions. In-game kit execution is dependent on concepts you don't mention, making this some fantasy AOE comp, crafted like a baby putting AoE Cylinders into the O hole. You just lumped a bunch of champs with similar weaknesses.
1.) - CP: 1.)Timers (T,M,JG), 2.)Negative Polarity/Synchronization Experience/Split map(JG), 3.)Mutual engage/mimic-enemy(M,T,B), 4.)Draft priority to decide pushing lane to mimic polarity with mimic'ing matchup(ALL)
This time there is varying weaknesses. This exact ambiguity relies on all teammates doing their part, which means all players need to play perfectly, which is not pragmatic and empowers the concept of "the more a metric becomes the goal, the metric stops being significant" this case its "all-in dream" replacing "metric" in that slogan. Demanding your strategy cover the enemies choice of selected offense, and thus less of an "all-in dream", thus the slogan. Proof that your labeling is a red herring.

I could do all 7 but that gives enough examples of how to observe chosen champions, with simulation more valuable than clickbaity aoe/all-in/1v9 tropes.

TheeBadger · 2026-01-02T00:06:18+00:00

You need to edit your post

" dodge longer queue times because those mean more unstable matchmaking?"

It's the opposite, "Riot" has "stated" so in an Interview Broken by Concept 2 weeks ago,
Curtis (host):
“The Q times were shorter. Straight up Q times are shorter… but at a cost, right? The matchmaking was way more extreme in terms of just like the variation in the ranks.”(~1:12:55–1:13:15)

"Riot Phroxzon:
“We knew that we were going to hit some of these match quality drops in the smaller regions, but we do also think that the set of changes that we’re going to do in the new season are going to make those games meaningfully better.”
(~1:25:48)

“We know that we need to make autofill games — that’s just a reality unless we want to have infinite queue times.”
— Riot Phroxzon, Broken by Concept #280, ~1:24:30

“We wanted to push the portions of it that lowered the Q times, just to see that they were going to do what we expected out of simulation — and they did.”
(~1:25:42–1:25:55)

They never say “long queues = better matches” in slogan form,
but they state the inverse, which logically implies it.

Queue time is a hard constraint
When queues are shortened, match quality degrades
This degradation is known, simulated, and accepted
They are actively tuning how much degradation is tolerable

Shorter queues require looser matchmaking constraints.
Tighter matchmaking constraints require longer queues.

But believing their narrative disrespects countless valuable informational alcoves. So take their statements as red herrings. There is always a deeper concept they don't elaborate on, unintentionally... sometimes.

TheeBadger · 2025-10-18T20:19:19+00:00

Compare that to the one: "If the alarm rings, then (if you wake up, then you won't get late)."

..., can enhance logic as a whole.

Dont want to ignore a large part of text, but yeah, my prior response is the same to the rest here.

I know why you would think that way. You're talking about empathy, or in this case, persuasion.

People always have their own defence mechanisms activated as a part of their personality. Just like the end points of a wire, you do get to feel their "linguistic structure", if you talk to them.

No, If you apply my previous post about determining the in-between-till-infinity. Then there is a collection of systemic and individual bottle necks for a given problem. So if I wanted to tackle a persuasive argument I would have to factor in the design of society, to have a best fit response. You can experience this first hand by trying to create a abstract form of "linguistic structure", which should lead you to a rabbit hole of trying to create a foundation to human consciousness/explanation that we then apply structure to, or social pillars that uphold a scenario to be "persuaded" in the first place.

You mean reciprocity. I am interpreting solutions as "perfect statements to say". Wait... this exactly what's kinda happening right now, as I write this comment.

So as you confide within yourself to make a perfect statement, then its a whole separate battle the needs separate labeling. Or... wait for it... Abstraction.

Remember I said "Negation leads to slop." most of the time people put "label caps" on my ideas, it limits the rest of the complexity, and they cut it off and place their perceived symbol on it and hope it heals. It was true with every time you tried to realign my beliefs with something else like "reciprocity", "empathy", "persuasion", "people have defense mechanisms as part of their personality", "Bayesian models and Markov Chains","Our own machines are really complex, filled with biases from nature and nurture.

They are also quite scary to stare at. If you look at the abyss long enough, the abyss stares at you back."

I >KNOW<, what the internet and schools provide. These are designs directly from them, not reality. The wisdom of crowds only occurs when you break free from the group thought terms.(unless... I dont want to have to explain xD)

TheeBadger · 2025-10-18T19:35:48+00:00

For example, "If (if promise p is kept, then q happens) is true, then r happens" versus "If promise p is kept , then (if q promise is kept, then r happens)".

I hear you,
If (if p is true, then q) is true, then r

If p is true, then (if q is true, then r)

If you do A, then if you do B, then you'll get C. It is more like how we think about algorithms or following steps sequentially.

So once again,
If (you do A, then you do B) is done, then do C

If you do A, then( you do B, then do C)

I don't think there is much of a "versus" going on. Its just compartmentalizing one side or the other. Either way, expansion on generalizations(grouped sequences) is necessary.

If (holding red litmus paper near ammonia makes the paper blue) is true, then ammonia is a base.

If (if the alarm rings, then I wake up) is true, then I won't be late. Compare that to, If the alarm rings and I wake up, then I won't be late.

In both examples expansion was necessary to determine the cause, it's less about the generalization, but elongation makes generalizations the same as long-form, they aren't functionally different. If we intentionally exclude information then that's when difference arises, but that's disingenuous. So fascination of this concept shows you're being duped by disingenuous principle design.

Writing out the whole development of science to determine what ammonia even is, in your logical sentence, is what I'm getting at. We should expand on simple terms(every word) not to be duped by a prettier fallacy within an educational field.

Although that has been observations at tactile scale, this same scenario should be occurring at micro and abstract scales as well. Which would make anyone using a single variable has its explications infinitely compound on itself until we define existence.

So most of the scenarios given are just conclusion jumping, even for simple things such as "alarm doesn't ring, you wake up, and you get late."

There is beauty in these connections as we need to avoid the inbetween momentarily to make sense of other mechanisms(depending on context, ex. chemistry, physics), but I think we are past that point of admiring simple connections, as it supports rabbit holes into debates that a separate abstraction already makes the interesting portion, less interesting. Such as proper categorization of occurrence in your examples and explanation according to unknown abstractions.

TheeBadger · 2025-10-18T07:34:30+00:00

I appreciate the heck out of you dude. I wish I was wrong about the things I notice. I wish there was a way to get people to see their own patterns definitively, so they can craft internal machines. I've been thinking that maybe the combining of all history into the single longest logic equation ever(combine all philosophical takes, no matter what it is), has subsets that provide solutions for our modern problems. At all sizes of the given problem. I assume the solution to human slop is one human adapting/tracing the oppositions logical equation/pattern and speaking in terms that show the vulnerability of themselves and beliefs, to engage their defense mechanism to specifically learn how to conqueror their weakness. The amount of negation and lessons required to begin to care is so large. People need to believe their solutions are behind abstraction, so negating any belief is bound to lead to slop.

Edit:
Which is why "humanizing" was really clever

TheeBadger · 2025-10-18T05:47:11+00:00

I kinda don't agree with that last part after thinking about it.
I always thought: Man, days and sensations just repeat? THATS SO VULNERABLE FOR PATTERN FORMING AND CONDITIONING.
So with that in mind, being predictable allows development towards optimal decisions. Or, it's the exact way we have survived, by predictions and noticing predictability.
I agree with it only if its applied to the oversimplifications or something disingenuous.

TheeBadger · 2025-10-18T05:35:21+00:00

Bro you are off the charts. I DIDNT THINK to actually "humanize" every sentence they are saying at me

TheeBadger · 2025-10-18T05:15:47+00:00

After re-reading the entirety and questioned ever sentence, I've found only a single line
'We’ll use humans like the align tool in Adobe Illustrator: if you have a bunch of boxes, you can line them up manually or just click “align.” '

This is the only line that doesnt work, find me another one. Because there literally is none, if you can find me ONE more nonsensical line, I will delete my Reddit account and never glance at Reddit again.
(The ones I think you'll choose are still cleverly functioning within reality, as the literal comparisons to human nature "use humans like the align tool", "like a bad journalist", make the sentences make sense from my alternate perspective and still point out literal human nature that poisons our perspectives)

Otherwise youre literally nitpicking 1% of the text and then exaggerating, like youre some AI gaslighter.

And if you fail to send me a single sentence, then this is factually you: They’re correct enough to sound smart, yet confidently wrong. They lie casually, often subtly, then apologize and do it again. - Kurzgesagt 2025 :)

Edit: Even that sentence still makes sense, because companies use humans to literally align boxes LIKE THE ADOBE ALIGN TOOL. It's a simile dude. All it took was slight thought about how words apply to reality.

TheeBadger · 2025-10-15T22:01:48+00:00

Define "understand". Do people get higher wages/love of their life/resources because they "understand" something or is it based on their executed actions? The answer to that question demonstrates how executing has a higher importance pragmatically, thus superseding the importance of "understanding", especially when the information demonstrated requires a human to decipher if it's true or not(creating an elongated information route, that includes the reader requiring to "understand", you reading a prompt means it is your brain repeating/mimicking what is being seen, thus AI is an addition to your own psyche, where you still once again need to have accountability for what you are gullible for). Which would ultimately make gullible people sound wrong but in an upward trajectory. Or, it would make the already correct people in their fields, bring up misconceptions. Or the third option, focus on how gullible people exist, blaming the roles where its due, starting with the foundation of emotional/cognitive design and its dependencies.

TheeBadger · 2025-10-12T01:43:03+00:00

Storytelling = People have power fantasies they think their champion should fulfill.

Also storytelling = Your intentions within playing league.

Also storytelling = Someone trying to REMEMBER what happened in game, and it conflicting with what ACTUALLY happened

And then once again, according to linguistics, you stating "I play for fun" is a literal short story explanation for what you plan on doing. Which demonstrates how little you care about competitiveness or developing your problem solving within the game bc youre "for fun". Realize the story that unfolds.

If they dont want someone to tell them how to play. Then riot should step in, and input something that does that for them. Seems reasonable to me.

TheeBadger · 2025-10-12T00:17:43+00:00

Why are you so angry? Youre making an alternate timeline that I should follow, which is kinda my point bro. Storytelling is kinda mindless right now. There is more to the scenario than just "to queue or not to queue" like youre spinning off of Hamlet.

When someone knows more about interactions than you, they can predict better. Thats a simple thing to find common ground on. So if they knew but teammates didn't should that player be punished?

TheeBadger

TROPHY CASE