Talk:Kalista/@comment-25562166-20150312012600/@comment-6281696-20150329092343

First of, I'm not going to state that as I find the actual ranking highly meaningless, beyond the distiction professional/amateur as you've said yourself you can lose lanes to gold's and then proceed to curbstomp a platinum. Plus, unless you have a fixed team chances are your rank is inaccurate due to lucky/unlucky teams as individuals generally don't play the hundreds of games necesairy for it to average out for them (not to mention that an individual elo system based on team performance is just odd..).

Anyway, yes of course there is a difference between a professional player and the "average" person in gold (or whatever other rank). However I would argue that that difference doesn't lie in the aiming, or even in the low level tactics you use during the game. The difference lies much more in the high level tactics, in knowing how to play the meta, counterpicking, optimizing builds, knowing all the lame quirks/bugs/glitches like which walls are just a tad bit thicker so your dash can jump over but theirs can't, but the biggest difference just lies in the coordination. By the way this is provided the "average" person gets to have half a braincell, I am assuming that the morrons that charge in with 5% health on their own and then get pissed they didn't win are not accurate representations of the "average" player. If you take these midiots as the "average" then yes, even at the level of aiming and low level tactics there's a massive difference...

O for clarity, by low level tactics I mean the tactics in the moment (will I go left or right, focus the ADC or the APC etc.) high level tactics I mean the strategies that are much more long term, so mostly stuff revolving around the meta (teamcomposition, counterpicking, do we take a tower or do we take the dragon)

And yes of course they aren't purely clickfests, some thought needs to go into it, and for certain roles/champions the degree differs more than for others. However, lol has this annoying quirck where a single lost fight completly decides the entire match, no matter how much you've dominated the rest of the game. And because of that being the first to shoot/click generally means you win. You can have an assasin that's useless the entire match, however if just once he succesfully manages to be faster and unload his combo on a valuable target chances are he'l still have decided the match just because of that 1 time he was faster. WHich frankly is a bit depressing...

Real accuracy is performing significantly better than random, given that professionals are supposed to be experts I'd expect a AUC (area under curve) of at least >=0.7 with respect to their predictions as human experts peek at about 0.8. Yay science.

Anyway, I'm trying to get the point accros that you don't end up predicting the difference in likelyhood between going to say 4 positions with very distinct chances, but between 100's of positions with very similar chances. And since that 1 degree they turn further to the right makes a massive difference in their final position this is rather important. It should be noted that this is less of an issue on for example an cho-gath with 6 stacks but a much bigger issue on a constantly dashing kalista for reasons I presume obvious.