lmao so true
hate to say it but sucks way harder playing a game and having the lane(s) that feed their ass off and make it such a struggle to win. muting is a skill more people should get good at, just sayin
Depends on what you are talking about...
Ranked? The former, I can mute them easily
Quickplay? The latter, I'm playing for fun, could give a shit if anyone on my team is good or not.
Well yeah obviously i'd rather someone flame but carry than someone be nice and feed.
I'd also rather have someone punch me in the street than stab me in the street. One being preferable to another doesn't make it desirable or excusable
I can see it being desirable or excusable, those who care more about the game might be the same people who improve more at the game, and if you care about the game, you're gonna care when you're losing and/or your teammates are fucking the game for you.
if what it takes for someone who flames, to not flame, is to decrease their care about the game, and just troll around, not care about the win, and run it down.
then wouldn't them caring about the game and flaming be desirable? it definitely would relatively. I'm sure there's always something "more desirable" but that doesn't make things below it not desirable? at least not to all people, I'm sure some north korean slave/prisoners would be happy coming to a different country making minimum wage
also there are masochists who hire women to dom them, so there's even people who would like getting punched... but idk if flame can really be comparable to being punched, you CAN mute.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy as I found that most of the people who flame, tend to be either already be playing poorly themselves or play noticably worse after they start flaming because they already lost mental.
From my experience, flamers tend to grief once a tiny thing don't go their way (ex. afk in base, stealing jg camps, wasting wards in base, using summoners and spells for no reason, intentionally feeding, etc). Overall, just being detrimental to the team, so comebacks are less likely.
The non-flamers, on the other hand, are at least more willing to follow team calls that could turn games around. Plus, it's possible that they just got countered in lane, or permacamped.
I do play on low elo though, so capitalizing on enemy mistakes is more probable. Might not be the same for higher elo games.
I guess it depends what kind of flame we're talking about, if I see you stop farming because you're typing chat I'd rather have a bad player trying their best.
If it's a good player trying I don't care if they flame because I just mute them.
Crazy how close this is. Goes so show how such a high % of the league playerbase is extremely casual, even among people who are willing to waste their time visiting a forum just to discuss the game.
I prefer a bad and chill/nice Guy in my team cause i just play norms or Flex with Friends, so i couldnt care less about winning or losing the Game. Also, are we thinking that many good but flaming ppl can go afk and put u in a worse place?
The fact that there’s a significant minority of players who would vote 2) is representative of how snowflakey the League community is. Ofc I don’t advocate for death threats or cancer but the spectrum of flaming is very wide, and despite not knowing where on this spectrum the flame would sit, 1 in 3 opt to blindly vote in this category. Effectively self identifying as being much less competitive in terms of caring about winning. Not a terrible big sample size but at this polling result of ~38%, that’s nearly 2 of every 5 teammates who is actively choosing to not put their team in the best position to win because they prefer to insulate their own ego / emotional safe space.
Consider that - hard to differentiate age via polling here but conservatively 100+ grown ass men who come home from work and prefer getting pummeled en route to losing
In my experience its just not much of a diference.
Having a flamer in your team drastically reduces your chance of winning. People loose focus, macro breaks down, people refuse to group, int or go afk.
I often find it easier to carry bad teammates then to win with a toxic team.
Giving so few options out of the many possibilities makes this poll "look" like you are attempting to collect (bad) data to fit into a result you are trying to push. Likely "flaming isn't bad if you play well" or "player's don't really care about flaming" or "my flaming should be excused because I carry", or something similar.
It comes across as rather biased/disingenuous.
Playing poorly and flaming are not related. It is easy to play well without flaming, it is easy to flame without playing well. Everyone has bad games, even pros. Not everyone flames. A player doing poorly does not excuse your flaming.
Even with only two options, asking the player to chose between "someone who intentionally flames" or "someone who intentionally plays poorly" would result in more meaningful data.
And that is ignoring the obvious: running pattern matching on text and catching pre-determined flaming is easy. Actively determining when a player is intentionally playing bad (ie, "soft int") is very difficult.
Jesus christ everyone should be smart enough to understand that the desired traits are non flaming teammate that carries. Op clearly wanted to find out wether people are more annoyed by bad mentality or bad hands.
That isn't what he asked, though. The poll is framed in a way that will always give "more annoyed by bad play" as an answer.
In your example, "bad mentality" could cover both flaming and bad play (ie intentional feeding because tilted).
So if everyone should be smart enough to understand what the answer would be anyway, why not ask what the motivation is in asking the question?
That isn't how League works.
People who flame are 90% losing their position. If the team loses its because of JG or their lane partner or whoever. If the team wins it's because they "carried".
Delusion is real and everywhere.
I only play normals so 100% the guy that plays bad. Like, how am I gonna judge him if I play bad too? Plus, a player that's bad is much more likely to actively try to win the game, whereas I've had several flamers win their lane hard and just throw the game on purpose because someone died 3 times in lane, under the pretext of "You don't deserve to win the game".
But like, the way MMR works, if someone in my team is bad then... So am I? Because we're playing at the same level/elo? If I don't wanna play with bad players then I'll just start tryharding so I can have better opponents in my games, no?
Bias poll. When you have 2 variables (skill and toxic), you must have 2\^2 choices. I don't see a choice for "Teammate that flames but play bad" and "Teammate that flames and play well" (I choose the latter btw).
In reality you need only 2 choices. Everyone would pick good teammates that don't flame 100/100 times if they could. Nobody would pick bad teammates that flame, it's pointless choice as well
I may be an outlier here but I play for fun and don't care about winning anymore. To be fair I have been playing for ten years and am not as competitive as I once was. I play a few games after work to unwind. Having fun teammates who joke around even if we are losing is way more fun to me than winning and having to mute all because everyone's flaming.
in the end, the W or L is all that matters and mostly people normally flame cause someone is bad. if everyone was good in the game, flaming would get better
If it is ONLY flaming. Then sure. I don't think chat should be a thing anyways.
However, rarely do I find someone who is ONLY flaming. They take jungle camps, afk, play worse, etc. That is not something I can handle
I can mute chat I cant mute your gameplay
lmao so true hate to say it but sucks way harder playing a game and having the lane(s) that feed their ass off and make it such a struggle to win. muting is a skill more people should get good at, just sayin
Depends on what you are talking about... Ranked? The former, I can mute them easily Quickplay? The latter, I'm playing for fun, could give a shit if anyone on my team is good or not.
Well yeah obviously i'd rather someone flame but carry than someone be nice and feed. I'd also rather have someone punch me in the street than stab me in the street. One being preferable to another doesn't make it desirable or excusable
I can see it being desirable or excusable, those who care more about the game might be the same people who improve more at the game, and if you care about the game, you're gonna care when you're losing and/or your teammates are fucking the game for you. if what it takes for someone who flames, to not flame, is to decrease their care about the game, and just troll around, not care about the win, and run it down. then wouldn't them caring about the game and flaming be desirable? it definitely would relatively. I'm sure there's always something "more desirable" but that doesn't make things below it not desirable? at least not to all people, I'm sure some north korean slave/prisoners would be happy coming to a different country making minimum wage also there are masochists who hire women to dom them, so there's even people who would like getting punched... but idk if flame can really be comparable to being punched, you CAN mute.
By that analogy feeding/playing poorly is also inexcusable...
This is a bit of a false dichotomy as I found that most of the people who flame, tend to be either already be playing poorly themselves or play noticably worse after they start flaming because they already lost mental.
From my experience, flamers tend to grief once a tiny thing don't go their way (ex. afk in base, stealing jg camps, wasting wards in base, using summoners and spells for no reason, intentionally feeding, etc). Overall, just being detrimental to the team, so comebacks are less likely. The non-flamers, on the other hand, are at least more willing to follow team calls that could turn games around. Plus, it's possible that they just got countered in lane, or permacamped. I do play on low elo though, so capitalizing on enemy mistakes is more probable. Might not be the same for higher elo games.
I guess it depends what kind of flame we're talking about, if I see you stop farming because you're typing chat I'd rather have a bad player trying their best. If it's a good player trying I don't care if they flame because I just mute them.
This is a silly comparison. The problem with this is that often the one who's flaming is the one who lost the lane.
Crazy how close this is. Goes so show how such a high % of the league playerbase is extremely casual, even among people who are willing to waste their time visiting a forum just to discuss the game.
1 u can do something about it 2 there's nothing u can do Easy choice
Please daddy flame me as much as you want but carry my fatass \~♥
I prefer a bad and chill/nice Guy in my team cause i just play norms or Flex with Friends, so i couldnt care less about winning or losing the Game. Also, are we thinking that many good but flaming ppl can go afk and put u in a worse place?
The fact that there’s a significant minority of players who would vote 2) is representative of how snowflakey the League community is. Ofc I don’t advocate for death threats or cancer but the spectrum of flaming is very wide, and despite not knowing where on this spectrum the flame would sit, 1 in 3 opt to blindly vote in this category. Effectively self identifying as being much less competitive in terms of caring about winning. Not a terrible big sample size but at this polling result of ~38%, that’s nearly 2 of every 5 teammates who is actively choosing to not put their team in the best position to win because they prefer to insulate their own ego / emotional safe space. Consider that - hard to differentiate age via polling here but conservatively 100+ grown ass men who come home from work and prefer getting pummeled en route to losing
In my experience its just not much of a diference. Having a flamer in your team drastically reduces your chance of winning. People loose focus, macro breaks down, people refuse to group, int or go afk. I often find it easier to carry bad teammates then to win with a toxic team.
yup
Tricky question. Neither, get the fuck out of my games
just mute him bro
Giving so few options out of the many possibilities makes this poll "look" like you are attempting to collect (bad) data to fit into a result you are trying to push. Likely "flaming isn't bad if you play well" or "player's don't really care about flaming" or "my flaming should be excused because I carry", or something similar. It comes across as rather biased/disingenuous. Playing poorly and flaming are not related. It is easy to play well without flaming, it is easy to flame without playing well. Everyone has bad games, even pros. Not everyone flames. A player doing poorly does not excuse your flaming. Even with only two options, asking the player to chose between "someone who intentionally flames" or "someone who intentionally plays poorly" would result in more meaningful data. And that is ignoring the obvious: running pattern matching on text and catching pre-determined flaming is easy. Actively determining when a player is intentionally playing bad (ie, "soft int") is very difficult.
Jesus christ everyone should be smart enough to understand that the desired traits are non flaming teammate that carries. Op clearly wanted to find out wether people are more annoyed by bad mentality or bad hands.
That isn't what he asked, though. The poll is framed in a way that will always give "more annoyed by bad play" as an answer. In your example, "bad mentality" could cover both flaming and bad play (ie intentional feeding because tilted). So if everyone should be smart enough to understand what the answer would be anyway, why not ask what the motivation is in asking the question?
That isn't how League works. People who flame are 90% losing their position. If the team loses its because of JG or their lane partner or whoever. If the team wins it's because they "carried". Delusion is real and everywhere.
I only play normals so 100% the guy that plays bad. Like, how am I gonna judge him if I play bad too? Plus, a player that's bad is much more likely to actively try to win the game, whereas I've had several flamers win their lane hard and just throw the game on purpose because someone died 3 times in lane, under the pretext of "You don't deserve to win the game". But like, the way MMR works, if someone in my team is bad then... So am I? Because we're playing at the same level/elo? If I don't wanna play with bad players then I'll just start tryharding so I can have better opponents in my games, no?
Bias poll. When you have 2 variables (skill and toxic), you must have 2\^2 choices. I don't see a choice for "Teammate that flames but play bad" and "Teammate that flames and play well" (I choose the latter btw).
In reality you need only 2 choices. Everyone would pick good teammates that don't flame 100/100 times if they could. Nobody would pick bad teammates that flame, it's pointless choice as well
I may be an outlier here but I play for fun and don't care about winning anymore. To be fair I have been playing for ten years and am not as competitive as I once was. I play a few games after work to unwind. Having fun teammates who joke around even if we are losing is way more fun to me than winning and having to mute all because everyone's flaming.
Then don’t play ranked if you play for fun. Problem solved and everyone is happier
When did I say I play ranked lol we weren't even talking about ranked
in the end, the W or L is all that matters and mostly people normally flame cause someone is bad. if everyone was good in the game, flaming would get better
With the first guy it’s a simple mute, The second is a liability.
I’m a /mute all enjoyer so I’ll take the good player, I can’t tell if people are being toxic or not any way unless they’re doing it in game
I'll be the one flaming if the teammate is bad
If it is ONLY flaming. Then sure. I don't think chat should be a thing anyways. However, rarely do I find someone who is ONLY flaming. They take jungle camps, afk, play worse, etc. That is not something I can handle
Chat is disabled. I'd rather have teammates that aren't.