: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=nzzhWE5j,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-25T15:51:47.123+0000) > > If you think armor itemisation is bad then just look at MR. All the MR tank items have been nerfed into uselessness. Spirit Visage is OK if you can abuse the increased healing and Adaptive Helm is ~ok against champions like Ryze or Cassio. But even then 55 MR, 350 health, and 10% CDR isn't amazing for 2800 gold. > > You can buy a kindlegem for 800, ruby for 400, and then a negatron cloak + null-magic mantle for 720 and 450 respectively. That's 2370 gold for 350 health, 65MR which is 10 more than Adaptive Helm, Spirit Visage, or Abyssal mask, and 10% CDR. Of course, that's not slot-efficient but completed MR items are just total trash, way too much of their cost just goes towards passives which you might not even be able to utilise. So what you are telling me is that I need to have 4 components to rival what a completed item gives me? And that somehow makes MR terrible? Ok dude.
A completed item that costs 2800 gold vs components that cost 2370 gold. Completed items are supposed to give you a power spike as they're more gold efficient than their components.
: I think a good idea would just be to slightly increase the hp on the HP with MR/Armor items. That way they allow tanks to come online a touch sooner, cuz the hp is good against both types of damage, smoothing out the curve to 2-3 items where a tank becomes a true front-back dive into 5 people tank. The other huge problem is that diminishing returns from armor/mr makes these items less effective in terms of guaranteed damage reduction. As you get more items, the value of the defensive stats becomes extremely mediocre, and instead becomes mostly just about the hp and the unique active/passive. Here's the problem as far as armor is concerned. Items like Thornmail encourage you to stack armor. Like against an AD heavy comp you'd want like Randiuns, FH, and Thornmail heading into the later stages of the game. The problem is that even tho you are getting ok damage return out of the Thornmail, you are getting like nothing out of the armor. And since FH is armor with no HP, you're essentially paying like 2700g for some CDR and a passive attack speed slow. Myself, I wouldn't mind seeing Riot tune down diminishing returns a little bit. They've made a number of moves that have reduced the amount that assassins and the like get outscaled, and it's pretty hard to get to late game anyway in the current meta. So I don't see any issues with like slightly slightly buffing durability of tanks at like the 3 item. I mean the way the game is designed...at 3 items it's SUPPOSED to be in a state where pretty much just ADC, scaling mages, and scaling fighters can easily melt tanks. At least according to RIOT
>The other huge problem is that diminishing returns from armor/mr makes these items less effective in terms of guaranteed damage reduction The "diminishing returns" on MR and Armour are a bit deceptive, in terms of EHP both Armour and MR stack linearly just like raw HP does. Yes, going from 100 MR to 200 MR gets you from 50% reduction to 66% reduction which looks like diminishing returns but on the other hand going from 2000(base) + 1000(bonus) HP to 2000 + 2000 HP by buying 1000 bonus HP is also only a 33% increase to raw health. Armor and MR damage reduction is always armor/armor+100. This means that 1 point of armour or MR increases your EHP(effective health) by 1% of your max HP. Let's say you have 3000 HP and 200 armor. That's 9000 EHP. If you buy 100 more armor you'll have 12000 EHP(+3000). IF you buy an additional 100 after that you'll have 15000(+3000 again). So neither health or resistances have better scaling but buying them together gives increasing returns compared to linear if you buy only one. There's a form of actual diminishing returns in Void Staff and the Last Whisper upgrades. Those will get more value the more resistances you have but then again there's also a ton of %health damage in the game and even from items like botrk and Lyandri's.
CrimeDog (NA)
: Upgraded Armor is log past due
If you think armor itemisation is bad then just look at MR. All the MR tank items have been nerfed into uselessness. Spirit Visage is OK if you can abuse the increased healing and Adaptive Helm is ~ok against champions like Ryze or Cassio. But even then 55 MR, 350 health, and 10% CDR isn't amazing for 2800 gold. You can buy a kindlegem for 800, ruby for 400, and then a negatron cloak + null-magic mantle for 720 and 450 respectively. That's 2370 gold for 350 health, 65MR which is 10 more than Adaptive Helm, Spirit Visage, or Abyssal mask, and 10% CDR. Of course, that's not slot-efficient but completed MR items are just total trash, way too much of their cost just goes towards passives which you might not even be able to utilise.
: Only a noob Fiora will W Jax for the attack speed slow. You should ALWAYS use her W to parry his E stun. You absolutely will not win trades vs Jax if you only parry for the attack speed slow. Do not forget that Fiora is an auto reliant champion above all and she will do no damage to him when he uses his E. The only exception is if his E is on cooldown while your W is up, but even in such a case, Fiora wins even without the attack speed slow, especially if she has her ultimate. If I were a teacher answering a student on how to win as Fiora into Jax, I'd say always all in him when his E is on cooldown or you manage to parry it into a stun. If you parry and didn't get the stun, run like hell because he will kill you whether you parried too early or too late.
You can't reliably parry his E since he's never forced to E as soon as he's able to. The recast delay is 1 second and the duration is 2 seconds. THe activation is near instant. For Fiora if you want to parry the instant 1s activation you leave yourself open to the full 2s one. If you want to parry the 2s activation you leave yourself to the 1s instant one. The only reliable way to get value from your W is to use it for the AS slow which completely destroys Jax's ability to retaliate. And not surprisingly this is what you most often see master-challenger Fioras doing in the matchup. Q-weakpoint, auto, E1, riposte, E2, Q the fuck out of there. Jax can't afford to Q into your full minion wave even with E up since his earlygame Q CD is too long . And unless he's running ignite instead of TP for some weird reason he doesn't have the damage to just 100-0 you at lvl 3-4.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=p9Ao0FH9,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-07T03:55:28.580+0000) > > This is so dumb. > [...] > I have a master's, thanks. And you're clearly the one who hasn't so much as looked at a math textbook in 10 years, otherwise you'd realise how silly what you're proposing is. It's algorithmically impossible in fact. Oh right, it's so evident you know so much, it's not like you don't even have a clue about the "chapter 1" of any statistics book. What can I say, good luck, kid ;)
What statistics? The only argument you have is "it happens to me personally" and "it feels like it happens a lot" which has nothing to do with statistics. You don't have any hard data supporting your conspiracy theories. There are tons of sites that do statistical analysis on hundreds of thousands of LoL games and none of them have ever reported anything that would support a game rigging system.
KazKaz (OCE)
: Why does Fiora's W (Riposte) slow attack speed?
Because it's a very easy way to make someone extremely good at 1v1ing bruisers earlygame. With the attack speed slow she can easily win trades even if she doesn't riposte a big ability or hard CC. An example would be Jax vs Fiora. If Fiora throws out the riposte immediately she's sure to win the trade because Jax relies on his autos a lot. If she tries to riposte the counterstrike Jax can hold it a bit longer and try to bait out the riposte, getting the stun and a W then jumping out to win the trade. Riot has decided that Fiora absolutely has to win earlygame 1v1s vs bruisers so that AS slow is necessary.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=p9Ao0FH9,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-06T13:14:38.951+0000) > > Congratulations on completely missing the point. > > If their MMR is the same it doesn't matter. You can't use MMR to rig MMR, that requires omniscience which obviously nobody has. Read again my previous message, you're still convinced that they use a _proper and fair_ parameter (MMR) to create a fair system, when they can just use other ways (multiple hidden factors, as I said) to do whatever they actual want. And since the system look everything but fair, they're doing this. > And then what do you do to make those "better" gold players? Match them against even better gold players. And then match those against even better gold players. And then eventually you'd need platinum players and you get to the same problem. Whatever combinatorics you try to use you get to the same problem eventually. Higher ranked players would be in a proportinally much, MUCH higher number of "rigged" games. You're treating 5 people at a time as if they must be the _SAME_ 5 people every time. This is not reasonable, of course. One player can win his next game, another one can lose his next game, and so on. Plus, again, to beat a player you can either match him _against_ better players, **or** you can put him _with_ worse players; so you don't need higher elo players necessarily. > The 40-40-20 rule has nothing to do with rigged matchmaking any everything to do with the fact that you are 1/10th of every game you play. Don't expect to have 100% of the impact on its outcome. Yes, you're 1 of 10 players. Every player is. And every team should be the "50%" in a game. And yet, stomps **show** that sometimes your team count as the 80% and the enemies are like 20, and sometimes is the opposite. AND, these stomps happen **VERY often**. Again, you have no way to explain this in a _fair_ statistics. And actually you avoid to answer to that point ;) I don't know if you're still in highschool or you have just a bachelor, or maybe if you don't study any subject related to the topics discussed here at all. I suggest you to revise some of them before making other (or the same) naive assumptions.
>Read again my previous message, you're still convinced that they use a proper and fair parameter (MMR) to create a fair system, when they can just use other ways (multiple hidden factors, as I said) to do whatever they actual want. And since the system look everything but fair, they're doing this. This is so dumb. You're saying they're using various hidden stats to rig matches but to obtain those hidden stats the matches have to not be rigged. You can't use MMR to rig MMR, whatever algorithm you're using. >You're treating 5 people at a time as if they must be the SAME 5 people every time No I'm not. It doesn't matter which 5 people it is, you're injecting extra wins into a bracket, you're going to have to balance that out or it's going to cause constant inflation. You're thinking about this on a one-game basis instead of systematically. Whether you're matching your supposed rigee with worse teammates or against better players doesn't matter, you're still creating 9 outliers to balance out 1 player. If you do this once nothing happens, those 9 other players win or lose their next games. If you do this AS A SYSTEM you're constantly handing out wins or losses by "rigging" the matchmaking. Those "better players" that you're tracking via your magic hidden stats are now drowning in wins from all the rigging going on and you're going to need to balance that out to keep them at 50%. And for that you'll need higher elo players. If every single gold player was handed out 2 free wins the ladder would break from MMR inflation immediately. That's how dangerous doing this is systematically rather than on a one game basis. And really, it doesn't matter what tracking system you're using, Gaussian distribution applies to all of them. Highly skilled players are always going to be way more rare than average players. Highly unskilled players are also going to be rarer than that. >Yes, you're 1 of 10 players. Every player is. And every team should be the "50%" in a game. And yet, stomps show that sometimes your team count as the 80% and the enemies are like 20, and sometimes is the opposite. AND, these stomps happen VERY often. You're completely misunderstanding the 40-40-20 rule. It means you're going to win 40% of your games no matter what, lose 40% no matter what, and the last 20% are what determines your ranking. Stomps have absolutely nothing to do with matchmaking and everything to do with how snowball heavy the meta is. >I don't know if you're still in highschool or you have just a bachelor, or maybe if you don't study any subject related to the topics discussed here at all. I suggest you to revise some of them before making other (or the same) naive assumptions. I have a master's, thanks. And you're clearly the one who hasn't so much as looked at a math textbook in 10 years, otherwise you'd realise how silly what you're proposing is. It's algorithmically impossible in fact.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=p9Ao0FH9,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-06T11:23:29.333+0000) > Your comment is pretty interesting, but not accurate, in my opinion. > This is straight up impossible to implement due to the 1-9 ratio of players the game is "rigged" for vs the players needed to rig a game. How does the game consistently find 5 players who "need to lose" against 5 players who "need to win"? For that to be possible the number of players who need to lose would be equal to the number of players who need to win. This is not entirely true. A number of players can be in a sort of "limbo", ie. no real need to lose or win. Or, you can just allow some of them to win a bit more, or lose a bit more. Don't take a dynamic equilibrium for a static equilibrium. > This is somewhat possible however to ensure that the players who "need to win" are actually winning you'd need to make sure they're higher ranked than the players who need to lose. And this is where you run into a problem. Not true: you only need to put the player who needs to win in the better team. This only partially matches with higher elo players. A better team can still be made of smurfs, high WR players (I don't know if the 40-40-20 rule is true, but it's reasonable), and so on. > Look at the rank distribution: >... there are twice as many gold players as there are platinum players and 10 times as many gold players as there are Diamond players. That means Platinum players need to be given out twice as many "free wins" for every gold player that "needs to lose" Not true. Just match the gold player with other gold players, or some silvers, against better gold players. This is what happens **regularly**. Also, you could match 1 (bad) plat player who needs to lose with 4 (average) silvers players who need to lose, against 5 (good) gold players who need to win. > This problem happens in the other direction too. Those "shit teammates" the game "rigged" you with will lose. So now what? How does the game balance out that "free loss"? Does it just give them free wins vs bronze players? What happens to those bronze players then? There obviously aren't nearly enough Iron players to hand out free wins and they'd have to sink to the depths of 0 MMR if they were constantly being "set up" for free wins vs bronze players who were "set up" as free losses for silver players. Again, bronze players are not equally skilled. An average good system can track this. Remember that Riot doesn't give **any information** about your actual MMR, and then they can use even other parameters they don't talk about. Finally, the frequency of one-sided games is not statistically explainable with simple standard deviations or so. There is no bell/gaussian curve here. Then, something else is going on, and since they are doing nothing to improve it, nor haven't for years, it must be intentional.
Congratulations on completely missing the point. >A better team can still be made of smurfs, high WR players If their MMR is the same it doesn't matter. You can't use MMR to rig MMR, that requires omniscience which obviously nobody has. >just match gold players against better gold players And then what do you do to make those "better" gold players? Match them against even better gold players. And then match those against even better gold players. And then eventually you'd need platinum players and you get to the same problem. Whatever combinatorics you try to use you get to the same problem eventually. Higher ranked players would be in a proportinally much, MUCH higher number of "rigged" games. The 40-40-20 rule has nothing to do with rigged matchmaking any everything to do with the fact that you are 1/10th of every game you play. Don't expect to have 100% of the impact on its outcome.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=p9Ao0FH9,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-10-06T05:38:10.455+0000) > > Because it isn't. You're not the centre of the universe, there are 10 players in every game. To rig a game just for you they'd have to pull 9 other players into that "rigged" game. That means for every player in a promo 10 total players need to be in a "rigged" game. With that kind of system nearly every game would be "rigged". This is a very naive, and wrong, observation :D First of all, just look at people's promos and try to notice how OFTEN games are just terrible, even more than in common matches. Second, rigged matches happen anytime, not only for people in promos: you need to lose? get matched with the worse team, not necessarily because you have promos. Try to read and understand this very clear message from another user: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/p9Ao0FH9-get-rid-of-promo-games?show=flat&comment=00020000
This is straight up impossible to implement due to the 1-9 ratio of players the game is "rigged" for vs the players needed to rig a game. How does the game consistently find 5 players who "need to lose" against 5 players who "need to win"? For that to be possible the number of players who need to lose would be equal to the number of players who need to win. This is somewhat possible however to ensure that the players who "need to win" are actually winning you'd need to make sure they're higher ranked than the players who need to lose. And this is where you run into a problem. Look at the rank distribution: Iron: 2.41% Bronze: 16.54% Silver: 33.65% Gold: 30.09% Platinum: 13.62% Diamond: 3.58% Master: 0.05% GrandMaster: 0.04% Challenger: 0.02% Silver is essentially the MMR starting point and it will always be the average league because of that as MMR is essentially a zero-sum system(disregarding K-value which gets balanced out over time). But there are twice as many gold players as there are platinum players and 10 times as many gold players as there are Diamond players. That means Platinum players need to be given out twice as many "free wins" for every gold player that "needs to lose" and then furthermore Diamond players need to be given 5 times as many "free wins" to balance out those Platinum players that were given free wins to make the gold players lose. Now Diamond players are being given fucktons of free wins left, right, and centre just to make everyone else lose and there are nowhere near enough Master players to balance them out. And now you have infinite MMR inflation. And this obviously isn't a workable system. This problem happens in the other direction too. Those "shit teammates" the game "rigged" you with will lose. So now what? How does the game balance out that "free loss"? Does it just give them free wins vs bronze players? What happens to those bronze players then? There obviously aren't nearly enough Iron players to hand out free wins and they'd have to sink to the depths of 0 MMR if they were constantly being "set up" for free wins vs bronze players who were "set up" as free losses for silver players. Think about this entire idea for more than 20 seconds, please. How often do you feel like you're in a "rigged" game that wasn't rigged for you? The ratio should be 1:9. For every one game that was "rigged" because you needed to lose you should have 9 other games that were "rigged" because a teammate or enemy needed to lose. This is completely unsustainable.
forbz5 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AETqcK8d,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-06T07:14:18.996+0000) > > Then Riot would have to ban you as well considering you've gone 1/6, 2/9, 3/11, and 5/13 in some of those games you're complaining about. You even won the 3/11 game because your midlaner hard carried your ass. It's difficult to do well after your allies have already fed their lanes. You're delusional if you think that it's solely my fault that these games were lost.
So you get a "free pass" on inting due to your circumstances but your teammates don't? In the game where you went 2/9/5 your direct lane opponent, Neeko, was 10/2/11. Yet you still blame the loss on your "inting top and mid" because they ended the game 0/7 and 1/7. Maybe they only fed because you fed that Neeko, the enemy top and mid aren't exactly super fed(4/2, and 5/2). In the game where you went 1/6 your lane opponent Kai'sa was 7/2/7. Yet you still blame the loss on your inting top and mid. Maybe you should look towards fixing your own mistakes before crying about how all of your teammates should be banned.
forbz5 (NA)
: Riot Please Do Something about Inters and AFKers
Then Riot would have to ban you as well considering you've gone 1/6, 2/9, 3/11, and 5/13 in some of those games you're complaining about. You even won the 3/11 game because your midlaner hard carried your ass.
KazKaz (OCE)
: Worlds just isn't doing it this year...
The real games haven't even started, play-ins always feature wildcard shitters with match quality lower than regional brackets. I'd hold my judgement until worlds actually starts and real teams play eachother.
Weexazys (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fm3db4Zz,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-06T05:56:53.011+0000) > > Because Riot is desperately trying to get toplaners to consider ignite instead of TP so they buff ignite as much as possible. > And TP usage is only going up(despite constant CD and usability nerfs like removing the ability to self-cancel) as people are getting much better at the macro game which makes TP way more useful. But why tho? it is stupid to take ign toplane unless its INSANELY broken, most champions there are splitpushers theres litterally no use to ign for them after laning phase, they are already scaled and the dmg that ignite provides will never outclass a good deep ward tp into a team wipe for baron...
Because back in 2014 when people were much worse at the game they took ignite top for the 1v1 and only very defensive powerfarmers like Nasus would take TP. And in Seasons 2 and 3 basically everyone took ignite and TP was only used to catch waves as people were basically terrible at wave manipulation. So there's this idea that ignite top should always be viable even though it probably never will simply because people are so much better at using TP to freely splitpush and then set up a TP flank. Riot would also want more summoner spell variety. They gave up on nerfing flash like 5 years ago(flash used to be even more ridiculously powerful with double range and the ability to drop projectiles, kinda like fizz E or vlad pool). They basically accepted that everyone will take flash + something else but now you often have like 3 people per team taking TP and they're trying to balance that out by nerfing TP and buffing combat summoners. Ignite being the main target for those buffs as it leads to more action in the earlygame which is what Riot wants.
Weexazys (NA)
: Why is ignite on such a short cooldown?
Because Riot is desperately trying to get toplaners to consider ignite instead of TP so they buff ignite as much as possible. And TP usage is only going up(despite constant CD and usability nerfs like removing the ability to self-cancel) as people are getting much better at the macro game which makes TP way more useful.
KilaraSX (NA)
: Hmm I thought that Norms had their own set of MMR, or another separated grading scheme to match you with opponents. I could be wrong though since I almost never think about it. But I do agree with you that there's nowhere else to go so all that's left to do is play and have fun! Eventually you'll catch on to playstyles and be able to go toe-to-toe with people at that skill range
Normals have their own MMR completely separate from ranked. People who mostly play ranked have rather low normal MMR and when they play normals(usually because they're playing with friends or just dicking around) they get matched with fresh accounts.
: I'll translate for the slower people. Riot has put this system in place to further gimp and manipulate matchmaking to force you to play more games to achieve your desired goals thus increasing the probability of someone getting a skin while playing. If i could actually get all my accounts to d5 in 30 games like i did in the past with fresh accounts by getting 90% w/r then everyone would just be able to power through ( as long as they actually deserved X rank )to their desired rank and quit and play for inactivity thus making it less likely for people to buy skins..but if they gimp you with lose streaks/winstreaks and promos you will take at least 100 more games to get to the rank you want and your personal skill can handle unless you are a high tier smurf and can abuse the han-------ed players you play against.
There's no grand "forced win/lose streak" or "promo specific" matchmaking conspiracy. Fact is, if you try to manipulate matchmaking to get a desired effect for one player you'd have to fuck it up for 9 others. Promo series and LP are just there to slow down your rating climb and do nothing for your MMR(which is what actually determines who you're matched with and is basically the only thing that matters. Essentially, if you winstreak up to a high MMR your LP gains will skyrocket and you'll start skipping series. But to actually reach that high rank you have to "confirm" your MMR by maintaining at least a 50% winrate at that high MMR.
Nea104 (EUW)
: And they still don't admit that the promo matchmaking is "different" (= more rigged) than the usual one. Totally _not_ shady.
Because it isn't. You're not the centre of the universe, there are 10 players in every game. To rig a game just for you they'd have to pull 9 other players into that "rigged" game. That means for every player in a promo 10 total players need to be in a "rigged" game. With that kind of system nearly every game would be "rigged". Besides, how often do you see someone on the enemy team in a promo? Is every one of those games also rigged and do you just easily win most of the time?
: I think towers should be stronger the closer you are to Nexus
Because in the earlygame turrets are there to protect you. In the mid and lategame you're there to protect the turrets. Also tier 2 and 3 towers already deal more damage than outer towers. Their base AD is higher by 20-30 which results in up to 70ish more damage per shot once they're fully ramped up.
: In addition to Gatekeeper's point, the existence of AFKers will always have a net-positive effect on your rank, as long as you never AFK. In a vacuum: there are only 4 people on your team who can go AFK. There are 4 people on the enemy team who will AFK at the same rate. There is then an additional person on the enemy team who also has a chance to go AFK. As long as that chance is above 0%, your enemies will suffer more AFKs than your team. With the added information that some people AFK in response to verbal toxicity: There are only 4 people on your team that have a chance of participating in negative chat. There are 4 +1 people on the opposing team that have that choice. So your opponents will also have an increased rate of going AFK above just matching the rate of your 4 teammates. -------------------------------------- There is another argument against Loss Protection, and that is LP inflation. If in any game there is a chance of 5 winning and only 1 losing (the AFK), there will be an influx of LP into the ranked system. Without an eventual reset (which would need to wipe out exactly the same amount of LP that is lost from AFKs now) everyone would end up in Masters.
>everyone would end up in Masters Wouldn't happen because LP gains are tied to MMR in a way that's essentially self-correcting(it compares your MMR and LP to the average MMR for that LP). What you'd actually get from constant MMR inflation is that playing at a 50% winrate(or even 49.5% winrate) would make you climb the more games you played, favouring the system heavily towards number of games played, meaning ranks would essentially be a reflection of how much you play rather than how good you are.. Some people think it already works this way(it doesn't, playing more games just cancels out the randomness). So if you go on an early winstreak and reach 3.2k MMR you'd be around Masters. Then you play like once a week to stop decay for 6 months and your 3.2k MMR would only be around mid Platinum because the average has gone way up due to MMR inflation. Masters would still be the top 0.04% of MMR or whatever but MMR would stop reflecting your ability to win consistently.
Utok (NA)
: I do not mind losing, what I do mind is when matchmaking has decided the game before it starts...
If you want closer matches you're going to have to increase the number of times people get autofilled. And then everyone would be crying about that. "Just have longer queues xD" isn't a solution if you're not playing during peak hours. The stricter you are about role and rank compatibility the more "leftovers" you'll have. If you have new players constantly logging in and expanding the available player pool(like during peak hours) that's not much of a problem. If you don't then you'll have to match those "leftovers" somehow, violating either role or rank compatibility. Just waiting longer won't magically fix the problem.
Quáx (NA)
: Skill simply doesnt matter in soloq anymore
Diamond requires around +40 to +50 wins. If you play 4 matches a day, win 3, lose 1, you'd climb to diamond in 20-25 days. Someone who plays 20 matches a day and on average wins 11 and loses 9 would need the same time to climb to diamond since you're both going +2 a day.
Vrizongo (NA)
: Because you can go 1/10 many times and not get banned as long as you try? But get insta banned if you question someone on their actions. Telling a person in-game to "stop feeding" is also a ban. I'm talking from experience :'D
No, just saying "stop feeding" can't get you banned. However it's one of the most useless and counterproductive statements you can make. Either the person is intentionally feeding to spite someone or just to fuck around and you telling them to stop just shows them that you're getting upset which is exactly what they want. Or the person isn't doing it intentionally and is getting snowballed on and you telling them to stop as if they're doing it on purpose will just anger them and tilt them even harder. So if you're trying to win you should never use that phrase.
DrDubb (NA)
: And I never said this is how every match is. Obviously it would be an impossible system to pair 5 players who deserve a loss and 5 players who deserve a win every match. Maybe that's what you were trying to say? Thought this was obvious.
It doesn't matter if it's every match or every 5th match, a system that uses lopsided matchmaking to force you towards a 50% winrate can't be done. For example the number of plat players is about half the gold players and the number of Diamond players is a 10th of the platinum players. If you used platinum players to unbalance gold matches you'd be unbalancing way more platinum players. Since you need at least one of both in a match but platinum players are way more rare you'd have to end up using the same ones multiple times. For example you'd end up with gold players having to be "balanced" every 10th match but that would mean pulling a plat player to do it every 5th match. Then those plat players are suddenly getting free wins from golds. Then you'd have to balance them out with Diamond players which are so rare you'd very quickly start using the same ones and you'd have to "balance" those out with master players which are an infinitely small part of the playerbase and can't ever cover all the diamond players with rising winrates. This is why it doesn't matter how large the playerbase is unless it's literally infinite. The ratio of players in each rating would remain the same and that's the core of your problem. You seriously need to start looking at this from the perspective of an algorithm for an entire playerbase rather than what happens in a few of your own games.
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000f00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-04T08:16:54.060+0000) > > But any sort of system that tries to force this onto everyone is literally impossible. All it takes is to set the system to form a party from a lower elo players after X game. And that's all. Yes, you can win one game, but you can not always win if 5 times in a row you in a play in party that on two elo below you. And this is the reason why I give up - every time when I climb into silver 3 I had to play with iron 2-3 every game. And the system continued to form a party with a iron elo until I was demoted to silver 4 again. Then always, I repeat always, in 100% game after demotion I got silver 2-3 and gold 4. And it was repeated more than once, so I know that it is a system, not an accident.
That would require the number of Iron 2-3 players to be 4 times greater than the number of silver 3 players. Additionally, those Iron 2-3 players would need to constantly be placed into silver 3 games, lose them, and then somehow win some other games so they can stay in Iron 2-3 instead of falling to Iron 4. Additionally, every time you're "forced" to lose like this 5 other players are given a free win. You need to pull 4 iron players and give a freebie to 5 silver players simply to get 1 silver player in line. This is unsustainable. Considering LoL has a finite playerbase this is mathematically impossible.
DrDubb (NA)
: That's what I stated how the system SHOULD be, being matched with similar players. This post is about how it doesn't feel like I'm being matched with similar players within my a consistent/fair skill range. The matches feel pre determined due to that.
>This post is about how it doesn't feel like I'm being matched with similar players within my a consistent/fair skill range It might not feel like it on a small scale. It might even be true for your last 10-20 matches which is an insanely small sample size compared to all league games played at your rating. But any sort of system that tries to force this onto everyone is literally impossible. You're experiencing recency bias and negative bias towards matches that were very unbalanced. There's no grand conspiracy, the matchmaker is actually extremely simple. Most of the imbalance you're experiencing probably comes from role compatibility. You keep saying there's some sort of additional system working behind the matchmaker to ensure you'll definitely win some games and lose others. This sort of system simply can't be done for a finite playerbase. All the matchmaker does is place you in a game with 9 other players of relatively similar predicted skill(MMR) and then arranges the teams while adhering to role compatibility and duoQ restrictions. And here's what actually affects MMR: Games won, games lost, and your uncertainty rating(aka K value for an Elo system). With a new or freshly reset( after a season ends) account you'll gain or lose huge amounts of MMR per game. Once the system is fairly certain in your skill rating you'll gain or lose much smaller amounts. Your KDR or overall winrate mean absolutely fuck all. If you play 2000 games with a 51% winrate you'll have 1020 wins and 980 losses for a total of +40. That's +40 games worth of MMR. Someone who played 100 games and won 70 while losing 30(70% WR) will have the same +40 games worth of rating and will be placed in the same game.
DrDubb (NA)
: "This is pretty much what you said in your opening post" lol only reading what you want to and still punching that strawman. I'm not saying everyone should be at a 50/50 win loss ratio. But the system does trend towards that whether you know it or not.
How does the system trends towards that? Aside from the natural result of being matched with and against similarly skilled players how does the system "trend" towards a 50% winrate more than is expected within standard skill deviation?
DrDubb (NA)
: I was amusing your theory, it's not how I was saying the system works, it's obviously not like this. Nice strawman though. I won't even start with this as it truly takes away from the point you're missing.
So what exactly is your grand theory? How do you think the system deviates from simply taking 10 players that are queueing up at any given moment within a certain rating bracket and placing them in a game? > I feel it's the unintentional result of a system that is trying to keep your W/L ratio even. In these styles of ranking systems, the system matches you in such a way that attempts to challenge you and keep your W/L at 50/50 This is pretty much what you said in your opening post. The system isn't trying to keep your W/L at 50/50, all it's doing is finding 9 other players queing at the same time as close to your rating as possible while still maintaining role compatibility. If it can't do that it'll autofill a player and since role popularity isn't perfectly 20% for every role it'll have to do this quite often. Since the system isn't only looking at ratings anymore it has to find a balance between predicted skill(aka MMR) and primary/secondary/autofill roles. Any sort of system that intentionally deviates from "balanced" matches for the purpose of giving everyone a 50% WR is impossible.
DrDubb (NA)
: First off, did you even read what I wrote? You're coming at it from the perspective that I'm complaining because I'm getting paired up with bad teammates, not at all. No need to attack my person and play me out like I was being immature. I like to believe I'm a subjective person, the opposite of being the center of the universe, but I can't be the judge of that can I? I blatantly state it's happening both ways. I never said Riot was "intentionally" doing anything, I even said "...is an unintentional result...". I feel I have plenty impact on games, thank you. You're making up your own narrative completely, and painting a picture that just isn't true. Yea, I've considered all this and you're still missing the point. To entertain your theory... the game could easily find 4 other players who were "due for a loss" and put them against 5 other players who are "due for a win", but still be higher or lower in rank. They make up for this by how much LP you lose/gain. Just because the one team is "due for a loss" doesn't mean they're better or worse than the team "due for a win", they're in two complete different classes. An analogy would be bringing a college football team that was "due for a loss" and matching them against an NFL team that was "due for a win". This would actually be very "mathematically" easy to sustain with such a large player base until you got to the very edge of the brackets. There isn't an infinite player base, and the most perfect system isn't a perfect system, nor am I trying to advocate for one. Just stating that the majority of my ranked matches are predetermined before champions are even selected based on being just completely outclassed, and the stats are only a tool to prove this. Obviously not everyone is going to stay at a 50% win/loss rate,obviously some people are going to break from that, that's the point.
>This would actually be very "mathematically" easy to sustain with such a large player base until you got to the very edge of the brackets. Not at all. You're severely underestimating how quickly this spirals out of control with the number of games played daily and the reducing player count as you go higher(or lower) in rank. This kind of system would break in about a week even with a 300 million player base due to the exponential rise in player number requirements. Stop and think about this properly. If you can't continually find 5 players "due for a win" and 5 "due for a loss" you run into the same problem. And for you to be able to find 5 players due for a win vs 5 due for a loss you'd again need an infinite playerbase. This isn't even a system that can be made to work "close enough" with a Gaussian skill distribution as once you hit the "edge" of the brackets the entire system breaks recursively. When the edge breaks that'll in turn break the bracket next to it and that'll then break the next bracket, etc. In your American football analogy you'd have a few hundred college teams vs 32 NFL teams. To balance out the college teams you'd need to drown the NFL teams in free wins, each of those 32 teams would need to be given like 50 freebies per season which would majorly unbalance their winrate. This shit would work once or twice but if you tried making an algorithm that applies this to everyone(which is what matchmaking is) it would break extremely quickly. You're stuck thinking about a few hundred games you play yourself and aren't thinking about the entire system mathematically. The only consistent way to trend everyone towards a 50% winrate is to match them with and against people of equal predicted skill and that's exactly what matchmaking does with MMR. And because MMR is hidden and doesn't have full correlation with your LP and rank it can often feel like your matches are "rigged". You will definitely have outliers where due to duo queuing and role compatibility the matchmaker is kinda forced to stack one team against the other. But there is no way to algorithmically ensure this happens consistently.
Keiaga (NA)
: Wait a minute. Even if you got all 800 gold worth of plates, that's less than the gold of 3 kills. Even if someone got 2 kills in lane, but both laners went even as far as CS goes, I wouldn't exactly consider the other person "fed". But wait, there's more nonsense. In your post, you're complaining that games are too "snowbally" but then you go and say that bounty gold, something that was added into the game specifically as a comeback mechanic so the losing team can catch up to the snowballing champ, is also bad?
If you get 5 plates you also get the tower gold. Assuming it was the first tower you're getting 800g from plates + 50 global + 250 local + 150 bonus local for first tower for a total of 1250 gold. That's equal to 4 "normal" kills or 6 kills accounting for the negative scaling death bounty. If you see someone's that's 6/0 by getting fed off a 0/6 opposing laner would you not call them fed? Killing someone 6 times in a row gives you 1222 gold due to the diminishing rewards for killing someone repeatedly.
DrDubb (NA)
: Ranked Matches Feel Predetermined
Unless you believe Riot's matchmaker is balanced around you and you alone this is mathematically impossible. There are 10 players in every game. Every time you're "forced" to lose 4 players are forced to lose with you and 5 players are "forced" to win. For the system to keep up a 50% winrate for everyone it would need a literally infinite playerbase which is something that simply can't exist. Stop and think about this for more than 5 seconds. If Riot is "intentionally" matching you against players with shit winrates that you're sure to win against then how is the system working for them? Clearly they're going further and further away from that 50% and into the negatives. If Riot is matching you against total beasts with high winrates that are sure to win then how does the system work? Again, they're clearly going away from 50% and further into positive winrates. The simple fact is that you're not the centre of the universe and every single account you play with or against is just as valid as yours. This kind of "forced 50%" system simply cannot exist. If you try to push the players that were just handed a "free" win into a "free" loss against higher ranked players you're right back where you started. Those higher ranked players just got a free win. You're gonna have to expand indefinitely and you'll hit the ceiling very quickly. With the amount of LoL games played daily this would happen within a week. What you're actually experiencing is the fact that you're 1/10th of every game and you're not gonna have 100% of the impact on its outcome.
: {{champion:141}} ? :DDD
He's talking about Season 5 jungling with camps providing various buffs when smited(wolves gave you a ghost wolf that will patrol your jungle for vision). Also in Seasons 1-4 small camps spawned before buffs did so junglers would often start with those, there was even a degenerate meta in Season 3 where the toplaner would start wolves to get lvl 2 off the first minion(because the wolves spawned so early that you could reasonably kill them and get to lane without missing xp on certain champs).
: Ummm then your playing bad vs kennen since basically every top laner can kill him like ARE YOU JUST AFK OR SOMETHING? MS is not a good escape especially when almost every top laners has cc. Also kennen only scales well in team fights his 1v1 gets worst as the game goes on vs most top laners.
> [{quoted}](name=boricCentaur1,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=P6WFpRgz,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-06-20T11:28:55.914+0000) > > Ummm then your playing bad vs kennen since basically every top laner can kill him like ARE YOU JUST AFK OR SOMETHING? MS is not a good escape especially when almost every top laners has cc. >basically every top laner can kill Kennen Excuse me, have you actually played the game "League of Legends" like, ever? Kennen is probably the safest toplaner, he really shouldn't ever be getting killed in lane unless he disrepects your jungler and gets ganked.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=ZRQdhP2K,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-18T12:18:05.173+0000) > > So according to you... You get matched with worse players against better ones, better ones win. Then you all get matched with better players AGAIN and better players win again. So that's 2-0 for the better players in your mini-scenario. For this to work the game would have to summon players out of thin air or ignore the "forced 50%" winrate for around 66% of the playerbase, otherwise it becomes impossible to balance out. LOL, told you there's still a large enough playerbase, so not the same better players :D Also, you oculd just get matched against worse players, and still win. > If you use induction to expand that to any n games with 10 players it's literally impossible for a system like this to work regardless of the size of the playerbase. That kind of system is mathematically impossible in every sense of the word. You're thinking about undefined iteration, not about combinations and permutations. > If you could somehow construct a system that does this it would be the biggest breakthrough in discrete math ever. It's basically the same it already exists :D But it's much simpler. If you have 6 players, with skill levels: 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6. Trying to actually balance it is hard indeed; 4,4,5 vs. 3,3,6? You cant be sure aboutthe outcomes, the deviation is too broad. Instead, making the 3,3,4 to lose against 4,5,6 is easy. Then, you match the 3,3,4 against some **other** 1s or 2s, or put **one** of the 3s with another 5s or 6s against **other** 3-4s, and so on. Same for the 5 and 6. Match them with 3s to lose against other 5-6s, or directly against 7-8s. Permute.
Except that doesn't work with a finite playerbase. You end up with an infinite need for some other higher or lower ranked players after every game, expanding linearly. A much simpler way to trend towards a 50% winrate(and what Riot actually does) is to match players with others and against others of equal skill on average, which will result in a 50% winrate if the predicted skill(aka MMR) is equal to "real skill".
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=ZRQdhP2K,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-06-18T04:40:40.709+0000) > > How would that ever work? You're not the only person in your games. If the matchmaker is trying to intentionally "balance out" your winrate to 50% by grouping you with worse/lower winrate players then isn't it tanking their winrate even further below 50%. And if it's matching you against better players wouldn't it also spike their winrate ever further above 50%. > This kind of system is mathematically impossible to do for 10 players in the way you describe it(intentionally put bad players on your team). No, it's perfectly possible. The player pool is still large enough, for now. If you just lost with worse players, then you and them are probably gonna get matched with better ones, but with a temporary lower wr, against worse opponents with a temporary higher wr. It's basically a matter of permutations. The wr will be as close as possible to an average 50%; that still means that someone will have a slitghly higher one, and someone else a slightly lower one. The point is, this make things much more controllable (even if the game and the champions are not balanced, e.g.), and, **most of all**, it compels you to play **much more** than with a fair system. Until you get tired of this kind of scam, of course :D
So according to you... You get matched with worse players against better ones, better ones win. Then you all get matched with better players AGAIN and better players win again. So that's 2-0 for the better players in your mini-scenario. For this to work the game would have to summon players out of thin air or ignore the "forced 50%" winrate for around 66% of the playerbase, otherwise it becomes impossible to balance out. If you use induction to expand that to any n games with 10 players it's literally impossible for a system like this to work regardless of the size of the playerbase. That kind of system is mathematically impossible in every sense of the word. If you could somehow construct a system that does this it would be the biggest breakthrough in discrete math ever.
Nea104 (EUW)
: Since games are mostly uneven, or one-sided, I guess it's intentional. 50% wr as much as possible. I'd call it a scam, at this point.
How would that ever work? You're not the only person in your games. If the matchmaker is trying to intentionally "balance out" your winrate to 50% by grouping you with worse/lower winrate players then isn't it tanking their winrate even further below 50%. And if it's matching you against better players wouldn't it also spike their winrate ever further above 50%. This kind of system is mathematically impossible to do for 10 players in the way you describe it(intentionally put bad players on your team).
: Kassadin is ridiculous
The fact that he can go Seraphs, RoA, Zhonya's, IBG and then whatever defensive item and still oneshot people is disgusting. He doesn't even need sorc boots, he can just go tabis or mercs. If the game goes late you'll have to deal with a ~230 armor kassadin with like 3k health and a fat-ass Seraph's shield oneshotting people, it's disgusting. The base damage and mana-scaling on his ult just completely break him if he can spam it at 4 stacks because he has a huge manapool. Just revert that change that capped the manacost at 4 stacks, make his 6th ult cost a thousand mana again. 4 stacks of ulti should actually have a price, it shouldn't just be free damage. It's not even that he's all that "OP" because his early weakness can really screw over junglers looking to secure crabs but at no point does he have 'healthy' gameplay. His earlygame feels terrible for the Kassadin player, his lategame feels terrible for the entire enemy team as there's really not that much they can do unless Kassadin monkeys out and tries to 1v5.
Moody P (NA)
: Why even let anyone other than CertainlyT rework champions?
No thanks. Certainly(shit)Ty is the worst designer by far, never let him do anything, ever. All of his champions have way too many passives and a fuckton of "hidden power" combined with very low counterplay. His designs are focused solely on how fun the champion is to play with no consideration of how fun they are to play against. You either get a counterpick or have a miserable time as there's nothing you can actually do in-game unless you have the right pick. Almost all of his designs have the kinds of kits that can't be balanced and healthy so they're nerfed over and over until they're useless.
Foxstep (EUW)
: How is it okay that Jax can be so tanky while building no real defense items?
He has that tankyness for the same reason that trynd has his ult(5 seconds of complete immortality). Jax is a melee carry, compared to a ranged marksman he has to be "out of position" to deal damage. Because he has to jump into an entire team to do anything he's rewarded with superior damage and tankyness compared to ranged champions. Even with 260 armor and 120 MR he can blow up pretty easily if he gets kited or stunlocked.
D357R0Y3R (EUW)
: I wasn't okay when Akali stat checked me I'm not okay when Kai'sa stat checks me The reason I don't care about tryndamere is that because he's easy to kite especially if you bait his W. Mundo is unkiteable at least in 1v1
Tryndamere's early laning phase is just about the dumbest stat check in the game. He'll spin in and hope he crits you in the first few autos. If he gets that early crit he can chase you down and win the trade, if he doesn't you'll kick his face in and he can't risk it anymore. His early trading patterns are pretty much a diceroll and that's really really dumb. And if the dice roll in your favour and you force him out then teleport back in with ninja tabi he's fucked. If they roll his way and he can complete his tiamat before you get tabi you're fucked.
: ? You can play 100 games of inting sion. How it will not affect. Let's say somebody is hardstuck Gold V. He explore the Sion tactics. He play him for 100 games. Now he is at platinum 2 let's say and now he will destroy 100 games so he again return to gold V.
That makes about as much sense as saying that people who abuse OP meta champs should get less LP because they will "destroy games" once they get nerfed. If you play inting Sion for 100 games and win 65 of them you deserve to climb. What's the problem here?
: I don't know how exactly op.gg determine game-play, but it is definitely not only about most kills and most cs. The game I review now has a player who had best KDA, best cs in game and ended up fourth. Meanwhile the "ace" player had 7.3 cs per minute and better damage then winning team and he clearly did not deserve to lost same lp as other guys.
All of this shit doesn't matter across 100 games. If you're good at winning you'll have a >50% winrate and gain Elo and ranks. If you're not you won't. Giving people ""compensation"" for losing would throw the entire system out of whack in a larger sample size, you could get people climbing with sub 50% winrates which is actually retarded.
: MVP and ACE on op.gg and it's potentionally use in Ranked MMR
No. You don't win games by getting kills. You don't win games by having good cs. You win games by destroying the enemy nexus, everything else just helps you do that. Ranked should measure your ability to win games and nothing else. You really don't want players AFK farming while the enemy team ends to "preserve their KD" and get that "ACE" bonus.
: You’re exaggerating. I’ve been playin Viktor Top since season 7 and was playing Klepto Viktor Top at start of season 8. I’m basing my accusations on my experience. You won’t know because no on plays tanks too anymore, especially since the hype of Viktor Top came into play. Tanks outsustain the damage and forces viktor into last hitting and teleporting back to lane.
If you're not shitting on tanks as Viktor top you need to work on your lane control. If you freeze the wave near your turret and don't randomly push it with E there's almost nothing a tank can do to cs against you. Every time they walk up to cs they'll take 2 Qs and plenty of autos and you'll eventually push them out of lane. With biscuits, manaflow band, and random klepto manapots you'll almost never go oom if you don't have to use W and E.
: > [{quoted}](name=PhantomSpirit101,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lETmBaMb,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-30T09:15:25.423+0000) > > Despite me using Transcendence exclusively, Zoe never really reaches over cdr cap since you don't even buy Lich Bane anymore. Unless you have a blue that is kindly donated to you by your solo queue jungler. All the more reason to take the free bonus 10% CDR?
It's not "free" when you could have 40 AP instead. 40 AP is much stronger than 10% CDR.
GigglesO (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=HopeStartsWithU,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EdpiYInB,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-30T00:32:28.011+0000) > > What are you even talking about??? The boards are ENTIRELY against Riots "new" path for several seasons. They HATE the rise of damage. You either wrote absolute dogshit or you are dreaming about "boards downvoting when you point popular opinions out" They aren't against the way that they are doing the new stat changes where you pick your stats and damage is still the better gold choice.
Yes, people aren't opposed to picking the stats they want instead of getting things you might not want just to grab a keystone/secondary path you do want. But pretty much everyone agrees that 5 AR(150g) or 6 MR(100g) is just stupidly weak compared to 10 AP(217.5g) or 6 AD(210g).
Thryale (NA)
: I don't understand MR
MR reduces magic damage by MR/(100+MR). So 99 MR reduces magic damage by 99/199 or 49.7%. This means your EHP is effectively 2x your HP. You're taking half damage so it's like having double health. If you build no health items all that MR is pretty damn useless because it's amplifying a really low health pool. If your opponent builds 1 HP item and 1 MR item they'll have more EHP than you and be tankier. It also depends on what champion you're playing, some champions just deal more damage than others.
: Why don't we see more of loss prevented?
Easily abusable, creates MMR inflation, generally a poor solution. The only way it would ever work is if you didn't give the winning team their win. And that would be a terrible system, as the team that's already losing is more likely to have someone afk or ragequit.
: > [{quoted}](name=Frikgeek,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=JJEM3pE1,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2017-08-01T23:47:07.890+0000) > > No, you only have 1 option and that's not to gank in that situation. > There are multiple reasons not to gank if your laner is under tower with a big wave. > > * The cs under tower might be equal or nearly equal in value to a kill, making it rather pointless to go for a kill if it means missing that cs > * Suddenly walking past that creepwave makes it as obvious as possible that he's setting up a gank, making the enemy laner back off and escape safely in most cases > * IF the wave is big enough it could seriously hurt your laner if he walks into it and takes aggro, big minion waves can do some serious damage earlygame > > > > So either go do some jungle camp or wait around 10 seconds for your laner to clear the stacked up wave, then try to go for a gank. Note in op's situation he was backing in a bush not behind tower. I do agree if the wave is big enough you should wait but sometimes the enemy doesn't give you that chance so you have to go at that very moment. Also yes farm may be worth more than a kill but for your jungler a kill is a lead over the enemy that the jg can use to help win the game.
What do you mean the enemy doesn't give you that chance? Nobody is stopping you from just letting them go and going back to farming, that option always exists. If you have to force a gank that could potentially go really badly, waste your laner's time for no reason because he has to make it extremely obvious, or even set your laner behind through cs then you're forcing a really terrible gank.
Mimr (EUW)
: Soo... for me as a jungle main there's basically two possible outcomes here: - I gank and the laner is too lazy to come out under the turret to help me (assuming he's healthy) and I get flamed. If the enemy laner gets a double kill, then that's of course completely my fault. - I don't gank and the laner starts yelling OMGWHYUNOGANKIREPORTU. Basically, with the LoL community being as toxic as it is, I have to choose between two possible evils. Why did I play this game again?
No, you only have 1 option and that's not to gank in that situation. There are multiple reasons not to gank if your laner is under tower with a big wave. * The cs under tower might be equal or nearly equal in value to a kill, making it rather pointless to go for a kill if it means missing that cs * Suddenly walking past that creepwave makes it as obvious as possible that he's setting up a gank, making the enemy laner back off and escape safely in most cases * IF the wave is big enough it could seriously hurt your laner if he walks into it and takes aggro, big minion waves can do some serious damage earlygame So either go do some jungle camp or wait around 10 seconds for your laner to clear the stacked up wave, then try to go for a gank. Unless the enemy laner is right up under your tower trying to harass your laner as he lasthits just don't go for it.
Eedat (NA)
: Can we get some clarity on why some items are gold efficient and others are not?
Because certain stats are given away for free on completed items which makes them seem much more gold efficient. Stats that might be too strong on a basic item if they were as cheap as they are on completed items like health regen(imagine if the beads were like 50g instead of 150g) or mana regen(same with faerie charm) become much less important by the time you finish your first item so they're stuck onto stuff for basically free. Hybrid items that provide both AP and AD are naturally undercosted since very few champions need both those stats equally. Even hybrids like Akali, Kayle, or Jax would prefer more AP or more AD. Usually items with purely offensive stats are less gold efficient to prevent extreme snowballing while items with utility tacked onto them are more gold efficient. Things like mana, CDR, or movement speed are often undersold while AP or AD are never given away 'for free' outside of hybrid items(with 2 exceptions I'll get to later). Items that scale with themselves are also often overpriced to prevent massive powerspikes on completion. That's why botrk is slightly overcosted since its own attack speed scales with its passive and AD. The exceptions to this rule are the 2 huge damage only items that also scale with themselves, deathcap and infinity edge. They're intentionally extremely powerful because they're basically the incentives to play an autoattacker or a mage. AD casters get more convenient and more efficient items but these 2 big damage items basically make every item built alongside them way more efficient, balancing out mages and autoattackers. If you had very efficient damage-only items that would work well with IE/Deathcap you would basically break league. Archangel's staff kinda counts but that item requires a lot of time and power investment earlygame to be powerful later. Imagine if everyone could get like 400 AP from 2 items while also solving resource and survivability issues without the weak earlygame you get from going tear.
Show more

Frikgeek

Level 77 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion