In boards, just like on any feedback platform, ppl tend to write only when they feel treated badly or when they experienced something bad. If you would look only at board topic titles you would think riot bans way too many ppl. There are so many who write about how their punishment was unjustified, then you take a closer look or ask them for their chatlogs, and turns out, it often was just whining. That's why i said, if you think, your experience justifies the believe that there are too many inters, why not tell us about it. Point us to match histories, evaluate the occurance rate. Yes, it might still not be statistically significant, but at least it is effort. Right now, your post is just you blowing off some steam. For me personally, i encounter inters maybe at an rate from 1 in 150 games. Yea, sure you encounter ppl who hard lose their lane more often. Or ppl who troll when the game is basically over, but while i would classify that as "negative attitude", i would not classify it under "intentionally feeding". So personally, i think the encounter rate is pretty low and that the actual problem is that ppl need to accept the fact, that one can lose lane, instead of flaming and shittalking, while not focusing on playing the game. Plus, theres not rly any idea in my mind, how to possibly make it easier to detect. The latest tweek of automatic int detection was a big fail, in that it flagged people who were just majorly outclassed and hard lost their lane. Nobody would want that back ... So right now, were kinda stuck in that it happens, and there will be manual review of reports with actual game footage review to determine a case, so yeah, thats kinda costly, so it tends to happen slowly...

1) You're comparing 2 things that have little to do with eachother, both in their effects and how they are currently handled. 2) Without really showing if and how big the alleged problem really is (it's hard to come by to official statistics, personal statistics can help (how many you reported, how many still played on, how many inters you encounter), but are ofc always biased, not only by test size but also in what you consider inting.) 3) Without making a proposal to solve alleged problem All in all, a nice little rage post, but what does it really help?

1) i was speaking about the CONCEPT. Yes, pinks could reveal it, but its clear that this rather big change would lead to other changes also. OR it could be a different item, like old oracles, which did cost you 400 (?) gold and wouldve be bought continously. (Compare this to one time 800g Executioners purchase) 2) Vaynes ult in particular gives bonus AD, bonus movements speed, less cd on the q AND invis, you wont counter the entire ulti with a pink ward, but you would at least reveal her IN A CERTAIN AREA, so you could actual fight her. Right now you pretty much just have to run, which you cant, because she actually has higher movement speed, what counterplay is that?

1st) a pink ward doesnt reveal shit (only camouflaged units, not invis), a sweeper lense shows you the silhouette. 2nd) sweeper works in a CLOSED RANGE, around a SUPPORT probably, with DELAY. 3rd) and even when you magically hit a NONTARGETED spell, these have often MINIMAL SNARES, often not even a stun and 4th) you STILL CANT CLICK an invis unit, even when stunned under sweeper

Invisibility is just a toxic concept as a whole. There is no counterplay left in the game, since pinks and trinkets cant reveal invisible units anymore, and the sillhoute hardly is of any help ... sweeper can help against stuff like Rengar, when they actually get revealed after the next action, but against vayne or akali, who can just literally go invis -> attack -> invis -> attack with very litte to no timeframe to actually target them, you're just fked if you dont have a malphite in your team, and even then he has to hit the prediction of the movement of the silhouette... It was better way back, when you know you had to buy a pink or an oracles to counter it, yes, the mechanic was countered by an item, but so does QSS with many abilities and Morellos/Executioner with heals ...

Simple, because normals are not a competitive environment. The matches are not made the same way, the approaches of players differ quite heavily from ranked and the overall experience is quite different.

After the cancel of the plans for positional ranked, i think it is reasonable to make a smurf acc to practice other roles. Or if you want to play other playstyles of your main role. Or if you want a practice account, which one could not scout (for clash or tournament play) What is not okay: - Trying to eloboost someone - Deliberatly losing to stay in a low elo to either: a) stomp future games, b) boost winrate on an otp-champ, c) reaching a low enough elo to be able to boost someone What is okay: - Just trying to get a seperate ranking or practice account and - playing as best as one could and therefore trying his hardest to climb as fast as possible What one can do to make this better for everyone: - give players the ability to make proxy accs invisibly linked to the main and making placements easier for these accs - enable a faster climb (but therefore also a faster decline ...) What is also possible, but very unpleseant: - restrict accs to some sort of unique id/thing, like a phone number (even though one can have multiple numbers) or social security - why is this bad: because it doesn't rly address the (imo) valid needs for smurf accs and it forces ppl to decline and climb in their mains every time they wanna experiment.

It should be brought back, there are multiple advantages: 1. you have a true 5v5 experience 2. no restrictions on rank differences, you can play with your friends and get a team rating, even thought you might differ in soloqrating 3. switching players without altering the ranking of the team, making replacements and player rotations more seemlessly 4. a real teamrating, which can not be achieved by soloing (flex ratings dont rly represent a 5v5 skill rn) IMO there should be 3 queues: Solo (without duo), Flex (1,2,3,5, possibly 4, even though theres a point in not including 4) and Team (5v5 only). The only question is, is the playerbase broad enough to support all 3?

Just dont get personal. And if you want to ff, put it to a vote, but dont try to force push it. That are basically my limits, and it's working out fine ...

Onhit Neeko is played top on ladder and in competitive play. We did see a comeback of traditional crit adcs, also in ladder and in competitve play.

https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Surrendering You can still remake, even when the enemy got first blood, if the following is true: 1) A player was not connected before the first blood and 2) remains unconnected and 3) the other remake conditions apply.

League without poros is possible, but meaningless. {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}}

The issue were arguing here is, whether or not splashing is a good idea for positional ranks. And the whole point of splitting the MMR's for different positions is to split the MMR's for different positions. Whether you agree with the idea of positional ranks as a whole or dont agree with it, is a different issue. But if you agree to split, then theres no logic behind introducing splashing. Either you split or you dont, any "middleground" takes the worst of both. And in competitve play there are basically 0 players who flex in positions. Specialisation is a thing in league. Position and to some extent champion is a factor in how well you play. Choice of champion is like choice of opening in chess, it's a game decision, but since matchmaking tries to match a position for you, that should be taking into account when making teams IMO.

Splashing MMR/LP to other roles, when you didnt play said roles affects matchmaking (on those roles, you didnt play). So it has all to do with matchmaking, because it literally revolves around MMR only.

You forget that there is literally 100% splashing right now, and ppl still troll. Splashing is not something that solves the issue. The issue is not people getting more or less elo after an off-role game. The issue is ppl getting off-role games, when all they want to get is a main-position-game. They dodge maybe the first, but in the second they do the mexican standoff thing, and when nobody dodges, try to shorten game length by tolling. The goal for them is not to lose less LP, the goal is to get as fast as possible into the next game with their main position. And the fix for that is simple, add an option for people to queue exclusively for 1 position. And if that is not possible bcs of queue times, then dont fk over matchmaking, but instead think about dodging penalties and the ban system against intentional trolling. Plus, the fact, that people can now enjoy their off-role games, because they are not a senseless slaugther, makes them less likely to troll. So many things, but overall, splashing is a MM-alteration to combat a non-MM-issue and therefore is pretty much nonsense IMO.

It's sad actually. But they mustn't have let the community fk over the idea. The idea is good, just splashing and shit was a horrible addition and the season start as a whole was a mess. Make a coldhearted position ranking without splashing and fix the season start problems, and it would be effective. The stats were on their side (more wins off-role, fairer games with off-role-players, more primary-position matches), it's just that ppl had such a shitty season start, that they needed to complain about stuff. And no, the community doesn't always knows whats best for them. This is not a decision that can be made democratically, ppl who actually understand how matchmaking works, should decide about the system, and that system should use IMO all the information avaiable. And when you can distinguish the skill of a player wrt position, then you should adjust matchmaking in that way.

> Positional rank should no longer effect your mmr. However positional rank will effect your LP. LP are a representation of MMR, if something affects MMR it affects LP, there's no way around that. You cant hide anything behind promotion helpers or demotion protectors. These methods alread try to closen the gap between LP and MMR, that could arise bcs of the current mapping. Your proposal only widens the gap and does not close it.

Demand and Supply, my friend. I certainly will never buy as expensive stuff as this. But if someone else wants to throw his money at Riot, so Riot might be able to get better servers, do more community events, develop better interfaces or do other stuff, why not? The only thing that pisses me off, if they release skins that have so much eye candy, strange animations or strange opaque colors, that it becomes hard to see, where the skillshots will land or what other action is going on ("who doesnt immediately can guess the projectory of a double helix, lets use that for a skillshot"; "why not make this color indistinguishable from the ground, just setups the oneshot"; "why not emit 10k sparks when this hits, will certainly not overlay some important teamfight action!" ), thats a bit of a bummer.

Stop using the strawman fallacy: By *my* own logic you *CAN* be promoted beyond one division, with a WR<80%. If you're interested how matchmaking works, then look up the elo system, it was used first in competitive chess and from there the concept carried over to basically any Matchmaking system. Details for League can vary , and mapping to ranks is a difficult aspect (see problems in the dev blogs), but overall, there's nothing new or scandalous about MM in league. Just to try to give an answer: you win games, you win MMR, you lose games, you lose MMR. BUT: you win (lose) games against lower MMR enemies, you gain less (lose more) MMR, reverse for higher MMR enemies (high/low wrt your current MMR). So %wins are not the only thing that counts, MMR in which you win/lose counts, and therefore order. One can win incredible many matches in Bronze and have a 90% winrate there, doesnt matter when you win 50% in Silver, you will be stuck in Silver. But on the other hand, someone with 55% in Bronze, but also 55% in Silver, Gold, Plat,... will eventually climb out of Silver, Gold, Plat. The hardstuck dude in Silver might have higher Win-Ratio overall (because of the games in Bronze), but it doesn't mean he deserves a higher rating. Overall Winrate is just not a good indicator, where your MMR lies. Winrate over the X-last games can be an indicator for if you're climbing/declining, but underlies varience wrt the choice of X. Plus, it just takes many games for MM to rank you correctly, due to variance. Many ppl then go on and eventually reach their technical/skill/other-limit and stop to climb, clocking in at a 50% WR, which with enough games will dominate the overall WR. This then requires to solve their technical/skill/other-problem and increase their limit, so they can climb further, this might or might not be possible. TLDR: You can climb with anything >50%, keeping it above that threshold is the problem, at some point you will clock in that 50%, and that will be your place on ladder. Because that is what it means to be evenly matched (it is just as likely that i win vs that you win). And MMR tries to achieve evenly matched games.

Because you take basic concepts of matchmaking and try to frame them in a way that fits your agenda. Even though literally everything is speaking against it. That MM tries to get you to 50% WR doesn't mean it tries to "mess with you" or that it tries to give you worse teammates. It actually just tries to find fair matches and your "true" place on the ladder. MM might present you with harder opponents in the process. If you cant win against harder opponents, then it reduces your MMR and matches you with easier ones. And when you are in the 50% WR area, you need to improve your skill to further climb. Pros and Streamers are constantly proving that it is possible to climb the ladder (on season reset and on new created smurf accs). There were and might very well be some problems with matchmaking, but it actually only matters for the top 1% (masters+ elo, see the latest dev blogs about this). But what you are doing is just taking some quotes and strawmanning the hell out of them, that's disingenious. Sure you're entitled to your opinion, as much as im entitled to point out that it is shitty.

Since you didnt specify tiers, i take it that it was something like Iron 2 <-> Bronze 3 or something? Does this seem unusual to you? There is no Bronze5 anymore and new accs start in Iron, even if they have Bronze MMR or higher after placements. But it is hard to judge the real team MMR's, but either way, the system tries to match similar team MMR's and pretty much all of your games seem just fine. Mastery points are basically eye candy, and if they even matter in bronze is disputable... But most of all it is 1 single game. You need to understand, that your performance over many games matters. How consistently can you win over many games. The many games part is to diminish the effect of some random elements, like matched teammates. Imagine, your true elo is somewhere around Gold. Then in Bronze your expected winrate should be >50%. It is not necessarily 100%, it is just >50%. So let's say its 60%, which is fairly high. Then it means you're expected to lose 4 out of 10 games, even though you are the better player. You might get camped, you might get worse teammates, other RNG elements. The problem kicks in, when you "go on tilt". In that state, you alter your own ability to play and maybe perform worse aka only on bronze lvl or worse, ruining the climb. So instead of fussing over certain RNG elements, you should focus on how to achieve a win, even though there are some obstacles in your way. Making it as easy as possible to carry you, when you fk up, or trying to look for windows to come back is also a part, too.

No, it doesn't. The whole post comes from a missunderstanding on how the system works. Playing successfull strategies is already incentivised. But successfull doesn't mean what you think it means. The elo system rewards playstyles that maximize the probability to win. It doesn't maximize some arbitrary stat formula, all that matters is, if you win or not. Yes a strategy might not net you the win always, but it might do so very often. I already won with 1/13/1 toplaners or worse. Did it suck to have to stall the game against a fed enemy top? Yes. Did our top maybe still play it right, by splitpushing and taking objectives? Yes. Did he still tried to maximize the chance to win for our team after he fked up? Yes. I also sometimes have bad games, then try to stall, and still have impact later, you just cant put it down on some stats. Sometimes the right strategy after a fk up is to try to get the opponents attention and sometimes it very well be to completly diminish and try to afk farm up again. In one case you often get worse and worse stats and in the other you might very well do nothing dmg wise for a long time, to later pop off, hopefully. No, the solution is not to stat-maximize, the solution is to look at how consistently, you did work towards a win. And the best estimator for this is if you can win or not, seen over many games. Even with the RNG-elements, that you might win, just bcs your team was good, or might lose, just bcs your team was bad.

You talking about Twitch in the 44 min game? He finished 0/1/0 and had 4cs, looks like he got invaded at his 2nd buff and ragequit afterwards. Remake is not supposed to work in cases like that. Sucks, you lost to RNG. Happens, when you play a teamgame, especially when you queue up solo.

Your team has an MMR, the enemy team has an MMR, calculated on the MMR of the players. Now you can calculate the probability of a team winning or losing. If you win, you gain MMR, the exact number depends on how great the team differences were and how much your MMR contributed to the teams MMR. Vice versa for a loss. It is just not true, that everybody will get the same MMR, it just often happens to be the case (atleast approximately), because the system tries to match teams and players with close MMR-values. And yes, if you didnt play well in a game but your team nets you a win, and you didnt play worse enough for the team to lose, then yes, you did win, so you gain MMR. In many games there's an RNG based element, which can net you undeserved wins or vice-versa lose you games. That's what the first part of the video tried to make clear (granted, in chess there's no such RNG, but you can still have a bad day). You can still lose a game against worse players, but you are expected to win more over many games.

https://youtu.be/AsYfbmp0To0 You lose/win points based on the projected probability for you to win the game. The only outcome that matters is, if you win or not. No formula based on cs/kills/dmg/heal can account for you working towards any kind of win condition. Playing a champ in normals is a different environment than playing him in ranked. Besides you can perform macro game knowledge even on a fairly newly aqquired champion.

I mean you could also try a fun / trolly counterpick and also be competitive aka try to win the game. There's nothing wrong with an unconventional pick in any pick format. And actually, pretty much every elo does it. Granted silver players might do it for different reasons, but you also see pros do it. Both with varying kinds of success. And if you really want a ranked environment, play ranked games ...

I think this is a legitimate issue. Keep in mind that there are different kinds of colorblindness or impairments to color-perception (Deuteranopia, Tritanopia, Monochromacy, ...). Providing a specific example, like you did, certainly could help the developers, if they choose to persue this. I think Riot might have an open ear for this issue, who knows, maybe some dev will comment here, would be cool. Nevertheless, i dont think, there can be the perfect one fits-all colorblind mode. Making different colorblind options could help. But even when hiding eyecandy, i think some problems are just inavoidable. Different shades of green on green or blue on blue (champ on grass or river) are even hard to distinguish with colorvision (when these shades are at the same point in a brightness scale / would be mapped similar on a greyscale). And contour-lines are hard to add, without overloading the visuals. How to display things in full-color is already an issue, micro-optimizing several colorblindness modes is probably too hard. But modes with intelligent shading and/or color transformation, and a few notches for certain problems, that would be a cool solution, that could help many ppl out.

It was edited, the earlier version was confusing (stated as question, without quotation marks and not directly connected to ezreal in that sentence)

TLDR: Target bans are acceptable, ROX punishment is unjustified imo. Prolonging a game just because you want to humiliate your opponent is not acceptable, VS punishment is justified. Letting low diamond players with contradictory position-preferences play in a pro-team is questionable at least. Lets be honest here, there are several actions and tactics teams deploy to obscure their intentions, work against their opponents intentions, put their opponents under psychological pressure or throw them off the standard line of play. Some are commonly accepted, like camp-to-tilt, stutterstepping, target-bans, obscure bans or trolly picks. Some are vaguely accepted, like emote/dance/laugh spamming and soft bm. ROX's bans were not against any rules and could be argued for, since they target banned the championpool of their opponents and obscured their possible picks. However, there was quite some bm ingame, but that is hard to judge though, imo. What Vega Squadron did, did indeed hurt competitve integrity and was just disrespectful.

Well, technically, you did threaten or maybe actually troll (i didnt review the replay) > Hajrulla: I'm not carrying this Ezreal, from minute 1 toxic. > Hajrulla: ezreal say sorry or I afk > Hajrulla: if Ezreal doesn't say sorry you guys can win > Hajrulla: Ggwp guys, u can win So, yeah... i think thats definetly finger-pointing, being negative and possible griefing. It's not that severe, but i guess your title means, you did get a "warning shot" before with a chat restriction, so yeah, now theyre unforgiving.

And this upsets you why, exactly? Cause he was in one of your ranked games, you lost and bothered to add and question him? I mean, i guess you're right in that it is account sharing, but if only ever one of them has access to the account and this is a onetime thing, it is probably the mildest form of it. What ppl have in mind, when they talk about acc sharing are boosters or friends with large elo differences, who continously share, that fk up the ladder and matchmaking, not an acc transfer that maybe affects 10 games, cause the initial reset point was off ...

dmg foresight and dmg output are basic skills like csing and can be used to gain an advantage either by cs or kill advantage, the whole idea of zoning an enemy comes from the potential to kill them. Ofc a cs lead is not the same as a kill lead, in that is not aquired the same way, but ofc it is the same in that it leads to you having more gold than your opponent. It is not within your power to stop your teammates from dying nor from falling behind in cs, it is within your power to lane in such a way to not fall (too far) behind in cs or to not get killed...

Why are you punished for playing well and getting many kills. It's just a reasonable continuation of the bounty logic. You get more gold than you're opponent, making it easier for you to win teamfights and making it harder for your opponent to get a comeback. Therefore, if your opponent manages to kill you, they should be rewarded more, according to the underlying logic of the bounty concept. Whether this makes sense to you or not, whether this should be an ingame mechanic or not, is up to you. It makes it so that comebacks are still possible and the game keeps tension to the end, or atleast thats what it tries to achieve, but ofc it punishes snowbally champions/team compositions. But when there is a bounty for Kill-Advantage, then there should be a bounty for CS-Advantage as well, in continuation of the concept.

Wait, what? Janna and Soraka are getting stronger every patch from season start and the meta slowly shifts to ardent/redemption again. But i would agree for traditional engage supports like Leona, Taric and Rakan, at least for SoloQ. The notable exception here is Alistar. Reasons are manifolded. Rakan got skimmed with several patches, cause he was (and still is) a popular pick for initiation. But in SoloQ it's rly hard to make him work now. Generally, initiation requires communication and that is difficult in SoloQ, but found on highest lvl in competitive play. And since balancing is done for competitive, initiation is always a bit weaker, than just picking a poke support, which can punish mistakes, like missjudgment of dmg, misscommunication or bad placement. But as mistakes get scarcer with higher MMR, ppl value to protect their carry more and play more peel/shield supports. Thats why ppl like to pick brand/zyra/pyke/blitzcrank in lower elos in SoloQ, but you will see mostly Lulu/Janna/Braum/Thresh in competitive.

the whole point of +13/-22 is to close the gap between MMR and Rank. Its basically telling you, look your Rank is higher than your MMR suggests, if you want to keep this rank, you need to win more than you lose, till your MMR is at the point your rank would suggest. Remember, you climb MMR, LP is only the representation.

Your mmr gains are not fked, your LP gains are. You can still try to get better and win more and gain back your MMR. This will make your LP gains symmetric to your LP losses again. Or you can simply play some more games, wait till rank catches up with your MMR and the numbers will eventually be symmetric again.

You are unranked ... So im assuming you're talking about another acc of yours, that you dont post from for whatever reason... But it's pretty normal for someone coming from a losestreak to gain less LP when he wins than he gains when he loses. Rank needs to catch up with MMR and ur MMR might took a considerable larger hit from your lose streak than your rank. Its the opposite for winstreaks. Basically rank tries to shield you from these fluctuations in MMR by putting promotion series and demotion protection in place.

It's just a game design choice. Ranks provide users with a tournament like experience and motivate to play more (to get to the next tier/division) and it makes for a sports-like feedback. To display MMR would be the more precise and direct metric to display your place on the ladder, but it is also boring for the majority of the playerbase. For the professional players and the high rated ones it would prolly be better to see their mmr, but to display both comes with problems. First, ppl could feel cheated with the demotion protection ("why does this dude have 1395 mmr and is gold5 and i have 1415 mmr and i am silver1?") and secondly, evryone would flame about MMR Ratings, like imagine someone losing lane 0-3 and the typical "ofc my dia toplaner feeds against the plat toplaner" or the "ofc i get the plattoplaner who feeds", just with clear MMR ratings instead of marginal division differences. And third, accomplishments would feel underwhelming, theres little difference between 1390 and 1410, but to know, wow, i got that gold rating now, i earned it through the promotion, that provides also fun for a large part of the playerbase. And last, in Master+ it already only matters how much LP you accumulate, giving you some pseudo - MMR rating.

In any language that has no mechanism to combine words to arbitrary large length or where this is basically only used to a certain length, the set of words is finite and so is the set of combinations to a certain practical length, whether it is feasible to save them all is a different matter. But since there are certain rules to combinations (grammar), there is basically no need to save them all, just stems and combination rules. And actually just banning a few words solves already 90% of the problem. Nobody writes elaborate sentences to insult someone, 90% of the time it is one word or that one word characterizes the whole insulting phrase. You can basically never solve a problem 100%, trying to archieve a 100% catch rate is probably the worst approach you can have, since this would almost certainly trap many innocent ppl in your net. No, the idea is to take the most practical, most precise method to identify the worst cases of toxicity. And a simple stem list does it, and btw. even neural networks need feature lists and often work with the bag of words approach. When it's about the problem that ppl want the list to try and avoid it but still be toxic, then that is one argument against riot compiling and publishing such a list.

Wait, what, sry, but stopped in the middle. First such a list would be finite, 2nd such a list would be used by machines, which could easily detect variations, for human review a comprehended list of the stems would be sufficient, 3rd more complex interactions are often not required, but could be in theory tested for. But all aside the logic flaws, what is the point of this post, after half this block of text, i still dont get what you're going at, from the end i take, you are against Riot publishing such a list? If it is for technical reasons, then i would disagree, it would be technically possible. Personally, i think it is just something that isn't rly necessary, we all know, what insults and slurs are, it's no secret...

Sadly, I think you wont get a definitive answer of a Riot spokesman here, since there is no official linux distribution for League of Legends. However i wish you all the best and hopefully no bans bcs of wrongfull flagging.

Yes, that is exactly what im saying, if you take a game lightly or play it in a fun mode, ofc you experience a different game than the players who play it competetively. Balancing should be done around the competitive scene and maybe you can go the extra mile and do special patches for fun game modes, but you dont balance the map and the system used in competitve around the experience of low rated, normal or aram players ...

It would start with showing actual remorse and insight...

Dude, you play ARAMS and Normals.... I can assure you, the effect of bounties is very noticeable. And the winning team has also worked for the advantage they got, to mitigate that, simply because, would make the game very unsatisfying and unrewarding. The reasoning behind bounties is, that despite being on the losing side and having less gold, you actually won a fight and therefore should be rewarded. And even now, bounties cause heavy gold swings, that can make the game very hard for early dominant champions. But implementing free gold for the losing team would be even worse and is an unreasonable idea...

I think the fact, that there will be always optimal runes for a champion, is unavoidable. There might be some matchup variations, but not every row will have a real choice for a given champion matchup. But at least it is a real choice w.r.t. different champion taking different runes in that row. I mean since the absolut focus nerf, there's no real choice between Transcendence, Celerity and Absolute Focus, you just always on every champion take Transcendence. Pretty much the same for Cosmic Inside (X), Approach Velocity and Time Warp Tonic, even though Approach Velocity is a bit underrated imo.

There's more than KDA to the game: lane manipulation, objective and vision control, damage foresight, opportunistic engages... Plus, getting killed in the lategame is 2 times worse than on lane, especially in low elo, where ppl tend to run in one after another. Just count how many of your teammates can follow you against how many of them can participate in the fight, and if you win take some objectives. But know when to cut and what objective to let go, its okay to let the first turret go, if you cant defend it. Nothing good comes from them getting first turret + a kill. Similar for greed for another turret/inhib, instead of going back in time. This can usually lead to heavy gold swings in low elo, when ppl lose their bounties. Edit: Not saying you're doing anything wrong, just wanted to point out common things ppl tend to forget when talking about performance purely on KDA.

I would say hes good against brand, zyra and soraka. So basically against low cc, squishy champs, that you can poke easily bcs of range advantage. It gets tricky with engage supports, if played well, velkoz can be good here too. Con: (Itemless) Scaling is a bit weak, knockup is hard to land when you want to engage, often requires a front to back / kite playstyle.

Ezreal is a caster ADC and relies on spell rotations, Caitlyn is a crit ADC and relies mostly on autoattacks. Ofc the caster has the higher burst, crit ADCs have the better scaling and the higher dps, when they can autoattack throughout an extended teamfight. Plus, ezreal most likely got bonus gold from runes (coin) and maybe had the better powerspike. So its not that suprising. The problem is, that in the current meta, evryone just kills evrybody, who does not build full tank, in 1 rotation. So why bother picking ADs for extended fights... They're still there, they just cant play out their potential in the current meta.

These are no unordinary scores in a 50 min game in low elo. And these are no unordinary rank differences for the start of the season. Focus on consistency across many games and gl in soloQ.