: You know new morde is broken when even tahm kench loses to him.
I beat and always have beaten Tahm Kench top with Gragas and Olaf no sweat, were/are they broken?
: Video games is anything from console to PC to mobile. Even the industry is no longer male dominate.
Are you serious? You are pulling strawmans whole the time against me and fighting with them and you refuse to acknowledge several statistics without backing up your reasoning with solid arguments/evidence against them all while getting unreasonably angry to the point that - as you admitted - you want to insult me and have a hatred towards me. How old are you? 12? I did not generalize women as playing only trashy games, I even laid that out in second comment because you have serious problems with reading comprehension. Nearly half of the population is not more than half population (and this is dominance) + according to these stats there is between 10-18 percentage points difference between male and female players which is a lot statistic wise, this is dominance at its finest. Fragdolls or The Sirens are your evidence for there being female dominance? Really? And that is your counter point to **statistics**? Honestly people like you ashame me. As a leftist I'm compared irl to dummies like you because of your bullshit.
: Video games is anything from console to PC to mobile. Even the industry is no longer male dominate.
Work on your reading comprehension a bit. You said that male players no longer dominate video gaming which is false [1](https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-computer-and-video-gamers/) [2](https://www.wepc.com/news/video-game-statistics/) [3](https://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-esa-essential-facts) Yes, they don't play just them but they are more likely to play just them, they are more likely to play only [mobile games than male players](https://www.altvil.com/our-ideas/mobile-tipping-point-70-in-u-s-now-play-video-games-on-smartphones-leading-mobile-to-overtake-pc-and-console-as-largest-market-segment/) and like above statistics show they take PC/console gaming much less seriously than male playerbase + on many of these mobile games they are often more dominant group than male playerbase though I forgot where I saw this statistic so take that one with a grain of salt. I didn't say anything sexist so stop with this bullshit tactic, I didn't even take a stance in this discussion just pointed out empirically false information.
: Video games is anything from console to PC to mobile. Even the industry is no longer male dominate.
Video games are women dominated only if we include trashy mobile games that people play on boring lessons in school or during breaks in work. When you take PC or console platforms like PS, Xboxes or other Switch then it looks veeeeery differently.
Bazerka (NA)
: What inner dialogues do you have / actively try to defeat?
"You're not as intelligent as you and everyone else think" "Don't even do that, you will certainly fail" "You're too dumb to work there/study there" "Everyone thinks you're a freak" "You are dumb, you have zero talents whatsoever therefore you have no future" And good old suicidal ideation everytime I think about my future.
: Old league lore was bad, like really bad.
Old lore is shit but so is new one. 5 years (?) of development and still no solid **foundations**, has zero external sense, has nothing to do with the game itself and everything written so far is shallow and cheap both narratively and thematically.
KaiSá (NA)
: for all the people who are sitting here saying good and evil are relative i have one question for you. was Hitler and the holocaust, good or evil?
> [{quoted}](name=KaiSá,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=jkcdO7OL,comment-id=0017,timestamp=2019-02-22T22:28:34.626+0000) > > for all the people who are sitting here saying good and evil are relative i have one question for you. was Hitler and the holocaust, good or evil? If that question is supposed to prove people that morality is objective then lul. People who are subjectivists/relativists/whatever can say that their moral system and/or value system makes them despise Hitler and his deeds and according to them he was evil. People can subjectively value certain moral systems above others and enforce that and it doesn't make it absolute or objective in any way. Subjective/relative =/= do whatever you want, everything is permitted. There are better arguments against relativism, just research them.
RJay123 (NA)
: Unpopular Opinion: Good and Evil are not relative @Riot
First of all Nietzsche never said that everything is meaningless and he wasn't nihilist. His philosophy is pure opposition to nihilism, it was made to destroy nihilism. Second of all objective morality is the most popular view on morality in both academic (https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl) and standard settings (experience with social media and dealing with people on daily basis). So your post is bullshit.
Ecophile (NA)
: The gap is closing!
The gap has widened... in the different direction
: > [{quoted}](name=Octahedron,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=s2MhYz8B,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-02-17T15:43:07.265+0000) > > Mira **Arya** Enthe and **Arya** Riven. > Coincidence? I don't think so. > > (⌐ ͡■ ͜ʖ ͡■) > ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ノ⌐■-■ i have been looking at this for 2 years and still dont understand\
Putting off glasses after uncovering mystery.
Yago (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Octahedron,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=000500000000000000010001,timestamp=2018-09-11T18:57:00.633+0000) > > Power + prejudice racism/sexism is one of several academic **stipulative** definitions and painting it as the only real one is kinda baffling especially that it is used only in context of academic research to simplify things and not to replace other definitions (especially when people in academic world still argue different theories and definitions constantly and there seems to be no consensus on the matter). Yeah, I know. This is the Ledge o' Legos forms. It's not my job to educate the sea lions here. I'm speaking casually. This isn't my dissertation. The rudimentary outline I've provided is more than enough to serve as an introduction to these matters. I don't really care to have a discussion on the minutia of the various stipulative definitions of sexism or any other system of oppression. Not here, anyways. I'm just acknowledging that there's been a concerted effort to reframe the colloquial definition to recognize the asymmetrical power dynamic, and the resistance to this is inherently sexist. It's not about the definitions, though. I've had these conversations using entirely their terms and still don't get anywhere. They're asinine and so devoted to their ignorance that they reject the findings of decades worth of research from multiple academic fields. >There are some precising definitions that extend traditional definition of racism by adding the institutional racism into it but they do not neglect traditional meaning. > You're both arguing semantics and downplay what the other side means essentially just shouting at each other from your castles. This sort of tone policing and 'both sides'-ing is cantankerous for the sake of it. Quite frankly, I'm not the one barking for citations on shit that's easily Google-able and has been common knowledge for decades or whining about a space for women/NBs because I am feel uncomfortable when we are not about me? So, like...I don't really give a fuck, tbh. Their opinions are bad and rooted in bigotry and they don't want to learn.
> [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=0005000000000000000100010000,timestamp=2018-09-11T20:02:37.218+0000) > > Yeah, I know. This is the Ledge o' Legos forms. It's not my job to educate the sea lions here. I'm speaking casually. This isn't my dissertation. The rudimentary outline I've provided is more than enough to serve as an introduction to these matters. I don't really care to have a discussion on the minutia of the various stipulative definitions of sexism or any other system of oppression. Not here, anyways. I'm just acknowledging that there's been a concerted effort to reframe the colloquial definition to recognize the asymmetrical power dynamic, and the resistance to this is inherently sexist. It's not about the definitions, though. I've had these conversations using entirely their terms and still don't get anywhere. They're asinine and so devoted to their ignorance that they reject the findings of decades worth of research from multiple academic fields. I agree though my point is that I don't see much sense in talking about it with that tone on such forums. It's in the anecdotal evidence area but everytime I saw something like that there happened to be more hostility and stubborness when it comes to understanding different perspectives so why bother? The only sense I see is convicing at least few people to educate themselves though I think that with more humble tone more people would be eager to do it rather than creating stereotypes or grounding themselves in their opinions because adversary is hostile and gives bad impression. > This sort of tone policing and 'both sides'-ing is cantankerous for the sake of it. Maybe, I won't hide that seeing tones of lengthy "discussions" like that one lately which go nowhere makes me more and more annoyed + what I said in first paragraph.
Yago (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=HateDaddy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-09-10T22:29:37.003+0000) > > I don’t really care honestly. And let me be clear, I’m not saying what Riot did was right. It was wrong. It was sexist. They need to answer for that, too. However, let’s be real and call this what it is: the anti-SJW crowd hijacked this issue and made it about themselves. And that’s wrong, too. We can acknowledge that sexism took place both ways but let’s not pretend it’s even close to being the same in terms of severity of mistreatment. Because it’s not. The panel was for women/NBs and DIRECTLY RELATED to their careers and inclusion in a field HOSTILE to women/NBs. That's not discriminatory any more than a gynecologist is discriminatory. "We've had maybe four women apply to any of our casting or esports programs ever, but as soon as we advertised that one would be women only, we got over 400 in one hit. Because in that moment they knew they wouldn't be excluded." @chhopsky on Twitter It's blatantly obvious that the most effective way to encourage women/NBs to work in the games industry is to create programs that only they are eligible for. If you have a problem with that, what you're actually saying is that you're only willing to support them when it's convenient and useful for you. And that's fucking disrespectful. Seriously. We have actual data. We can turn this into a math problem. Women/NBs who apply when everyone is welcome **= 4 ** Women/NBs who apply when everyone is welcome, when Riot announces that "Women and NBs are encouraged to join us!" **= X** Women/NBs who apply when only women/NBs are welcome **= 400** I think we can agree that X will never be more than 400. So how big does the difference between 400 and X have to be for you to think it's fair to exclude men? Huh? 0 That's the fucking answer. If you got something else...what you're saying is that it's acceptable that someone felt they shouldn't apply because they'd be overlooked on account of their gender. Because that's precisely why there's such a massive difference between the 4 who applied when everyone was welcome and the 400 who applied whenever only women/NBs were welcome. That's the only thing to change. There are five men who play League for every one woman who does. Any man who chooses not to apply because of this instance of 'sexism' isn't the sort of person who deserves the job in the first place. After being informed that they didn't get the job, men don't have to worry that maybe they were rejected because of their gender. The larger volume of women/NBs applying does nothing to stop the bias that will likely cause them to be overlooked after their interview, if those same biases even let them get that far. It does nothing to stop the bias that runs rampant in the industry which will likely cause them to quit or end up mashed against the glass ceiling. Again, if you have a problem with Riot's decision to make the panel women/NB exclusive, what you're actually saying is that you're only willing to support them when it's convenient and useful for you. > [{quoted}](name=HateDaddy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-10T23:50:41.534+0000) > >this indicates to me that a large majority of these allegations are true. Riot's relative silence is actually damning. If they were to deny the allegations and it were to be discovered that they were aware that such things were happening, but did not fire or reprimand the employee(s) in question...they are liable not only for that, but also for covering it up. This is especially true if things continued to escalate after Riot was made aware of the situation. Obviously, if they were to admit the allegations were true they'd be accepting liability. You know how they mentioned consulting a lawyer or two? The ones they're working with are known for union busting and being anti-employee. Quite frankly? Riot's trying to avoid getting sued, because they damn well know they could be...and that they'd lose if it happened. > Crazy far left libs say that kind of stuff. They are the minority but the vocal minority. All of the sane folks like myself acknowledge in a heartbeat that men can be victims of sexism (look at custody cases and the disproportionate amount of women awarded custody). The reason that the definition of sexism refers only to the institutionalized oppression of women and non-men...is because that's the way it has always existed historically. It saves a lot of time in academic fields not having to tack on asterisks clarifying that a given assertion doesn't apply to men. It also serves as a reminder just how one-sided things are and how long it has been that way. That's it. It's that fucking simple. It's not a grand conspiracy theory. It doesn't ignore that men can be unfairly discriminated against in some contexts. It doesn't try to! _It just doesn't call it sexism._ It calls it prejudice or discrimination. You already acknowledge that it isn't fair to compare the PAX panel to what women go through. You know a good way to do that without having to point that out? Don't call it sexism! That entire 'debate' is just y'all being too fucking stubborn to accept the academic definition because one or more of the following: 1. You don't actually understand WHAT the academic definition is. 2. You don't actually understand WHY the academic definition is what it is. 3. You think that it's fair to compare the 'sexism' that men experience to what women experience. 4. You think that it's part of some kind of misandrist conspiracy theory. 5. You're being deliberately obtuse. Those things are all caused by ignorance, willful or otherwise. >But you also don’t post things along the lines of “sjw feminazis mad that they aren’t actually oppressed, etc.” And I’ve seen a TON of that garbage here and on other boards get modded out. _**Look, if your stance can be easily co-opted by literal nazis and bigots that deny sexism even exists...there's probably a fucking problem with your stance!**_
Power + prejudice racism/sexism is one of several academic **stipulative** definitions and painting it as the only real one is kinda baffling especially that it is used only in context of academic research to simplify things and not to replace other definitions (especially when people in academic world still argue different theories and definitions constantly and there seems to be no consensus on the matter). There are some precising definitions that extend traditional definition of racism by adding the institutional racism into it but they do not neglect traditional meaning. You're both arguing semantics and downplay what the other side means essentially just shouting at each other from your castles.
DearPear (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=000800000003000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-06T13:47:32.809+0000) > > To the death. Gender and sexism have _everything_ to do with what happened. Concerts are public, but that's not an invitation to get up on stage after the first song and immediately open up with, "Allow me to disagree *slightly*". He wasn't asking a question. He was trying to correct her and directly contradict her _professional opinion_. And you are assming his intention because... of what, exactly? Also, your analogy sucks donkey balls, to say the least. At a concert, unless invited to, You are **expected** not to go on stage. Twitter, on the other hand, invites you to react, discuss and share threads. The whole thing started because miss Price felt offended at having a **man** reply to her thread. If the replier was a woman, none of this would have happened. But hell, go on and defend miss Price, despite her own blatant sexism and aggressivity. Whatever floats your ideology and twists reality.
> [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=00080000000300000000000000000000000000000001000000000005,timestamp=2018-09-07T18:26:00.339+0000) > > She's a professional. If you respect her competence as one, you should trust that she can identify unqualified and disrespectful responses. She's a woman. If you respect her competence as one, you should trust that she can identify sexism. There's nothing to suggest she's not credible. She's not asserting that pigs can fly or that she's found a unicorn. I value insights of people who know their craft, know their work but I'm the guy who is moderately sceptical of everything. No one is alpha and omega, people constantly make mistakes, they can have better or worse days and their own biases and it can all affect someones perception. Especially when every serious elite community there is be it scientific or scholar one is not based on blind trust or authority but evidence, argumentation that holds up under scrutiny and is communicated in civil manner and Jessica Price's statements in my opinion failed on all three criterias (I have no reason to trust her on this one other than her authority which is argumentum ad verecundiam). I don't talk about her knowledge on writing in this case (from my basic education in creative writing what she's saying seems alright and that guy is making a fool of himself) but her assertions about sexism. And second thing is that in this industry criticism is something normal and happening on daily basis and most people don't know anything about professional industry standards of writing so they will often speak out of their ass (Dunning-Kruger effect also plays big role here), that's also pretty normal and that happens to most authors (anecdotal evidence: I have friend who is screenwriter and he has to deal with this shit on every fan convention there is much to his annoyance). Venting like she did on that guy is nothing more than unprofessional behavior. Criticism in video game writing is also something normal and to be encouraged because it is seemingly worse than in any other medium we have. There is also case that in writing your own audience can give some insights or point out something that was pretty basic but nevertheless was overlooked (like in production of Deus Ex game writers forgot about some of their characters halfway in the story and their testers pointed it out to them for them to fix it), these things happen. The only bad thing this guy did was literally talking when he has no real idea what he is talking about which is what entire population does on almost any topic there is. I've seen plenty people on the internet like this guy talking in that way and no one was acting like an adult child, they disagreed, gave reasons why and corrected whatever false information there is. > Sexism isn't a rare occurrence. Even if it were, she doesn't gain anything by throwing the claim around flippantly! It's not but throwing serious claims around that are likely to easily socially brand someone is neither very mature nor something to encourage and not bash when happening. She didn't back up her accusations with anything substantial other than authority and appeal to emotions all while acting unprofessionally. > You should be the one justifying your skepticism. I did already but that's beside the point. Scepticism as a general stance is very healthy, lets you grasp whole picture better and force you to seek evidence and convincing arguments instead of relying on eristics or intuition.
DearPear (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=000800000003000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-06T13:47:32.809+0000) > > To the death. Gender and sexism have _everything_ to do with what happened. Concerts are public, but that's not an invitation to get up on stage after the first song and immediately open up with, "Allow me to disagree *slightly*". He wasn't asking a question. He was trying to correct her and directly contradict her _professional opinion_. And you are assming his intention because... of what, exactly? Also, your analogy sucks donkey balls, to say the least. At a concert, unless invited to, You are **expected** not to go on stage. Twitter, on the other hand, invites you to react, discuss and share threads. The whole thing started because miss Price felt offended at having a **man** reply to her thread. If the replier was a woman, none of this would have happened. But hell, go on and defend miss Price, despite her own blatant sexism and aggressivity. Whatever floats your ideology and twists reality.
> [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=00080000000300000000000000000000000000000001000000000002,timestamp=2018-09-07T13:07:21.103+0000) > > Why are you doubting her claim that he's being sexist? I'm not DearPear but it probably has something to do with no compelling evidence for him being sexist and at least two more explanations that are much more likely to be true (and which he pointed out clearly). You honestly must have very strong ill will to focus on the worst possible scenario and consider it to be true without any scepticism whatsoever. EDIT: It is adressed to Yago but Riot's forum directs message to other people, dunno why.
Adanim (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=marpatt11,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=r8QEsH9I,comment-id=00090002,timestamp=2018-09-03T01:17:33.898+0000) > > So you're saying to me that, since im not black, if I receive hate speech, it ain't racism? Or to put it in simpler terms, if I was black and was the target of racism, it would be racism, but since im not black, if I was the target of racism, it wouldn't be racism? Same with sexism. If I was a woman and said "death to all males" it wouldn't be sexism, but say the same thing and replace males with females and it would be? > > I'm just trying to understand your point here sir. This is going to be quite a large wall of text to explain my point, so bear with me. The point I am trying to make is that Racism is defined and painted in a dictionary with a very broad brush. Racism is defined as discrimination on the basis of race (ethnic background is what I prefer to use since there are no "races" of humans, humans are all one "race" but I digress on this point). This is the literal definition that is only applicable in a world where everyone is equal. Sexism is the same for sex. Sociology, history, psychology, economics, and politics have defined racism as exerting power over a group of people on the basis of race, and using race as a means to maintaining power. Therefore it is impossible for someone to be racist towards whites, sexist towards men, heterophobic, cisphobic, or christianophobic because those are the groups in power. They exert their dominance every single day in every possible subtle and obvious way that they can, and every person who is a member of any of these groups is guilty of it. If you are white and receive hate speech because you are white, that is not racist. Someone who isn't white is expressing to you their hatred of the oppression of non-whites. White people cannot be targeted by racism because racism is exertion of power that is defined by ethnic background. Whites have maintained all of the political, social, and economic power in the world, and they have done so by telling non-whites that they are lesser than and they behave in ways that reinforce those beliefs. People with "black sounding" names aren't hired as often as someone with a "white sounding" name. It's a fact. A black man at a company meeting has to prove that he is worthy of respect and prove he is worth being taken seriously, whereas a white man doesn't. If a Latino doesn't hire a white guy on the basis of him being white, that isn't racist because the white man still has all of the power in society and therefore can easily find a job where he will be hired. Someone non-white will struggle to find a job anywhere because it is unknown whether or not he/she will be denied employment because of their ethnic background. Affirmative Action is often times considered racist towards whites and sexist towards men because it forces companies to hire non-white and non-male employees. It isn't because those people struggle to find work simply on the basis of them not being white/male and a white/male can and will find another job elsewhere easily. Affirmative Action is racially driven, but far from racist. Let's say that you're in high school and a group of Asian kids beats you up simply because you are white. That isn't racism. They are assholes, they did something wrong, and no one should be physically harmed ever, but it wasn't racist. It was essentially them wrongfully taking out their frustration at a white-dominated society on a white kid. If a group of white kids beat up a Latino because of their ethnic background, it's racist because it's an exertion of power, they are telling this kid "remember your place, it's beneath us." If you are a man and hear "death to all men!" are you afraid it will happen? Do you actually fear for your life? Of course not, because sub-consciously you know that it's not going to happen. If a woman hears "death to all women!" by a group of men, she WILL be in fear because it could possibly happen because men have power over women in our society. On another note, women are harassed and attacked and raped every single day by men who are angry that they aren't getting the chance to exert their power as males to get what they want. These are isolated and extreme cases, sure, but women are blamed for the bad things that happen to them, and men aren't blamed at all. If a woman beat up a man, she will be blamed for it. If a man beats up a woman, it's called into question of whether or not she was obedient or if she was rude to him. So women saying "men are trash" aren't sexist. They can't be. They don't have the power that men do in society. You can't exert and maintain what you don't have. I'm just making the point that we like to use the dictionary definition to call out sexism or racism, but the people who do that are often times white, cis, heterosexual, christian males who claim they are being oppressed. They have power, and they are angry that it's not being recognized and it's not getting them their way. "In the eyes of those with power, equality looks and feels a lot like oppression." You have to push back to make change, it's not a line that is drawn, it's a pendulum. It has to swing the other way briefly before it can equalize. If you still don't agree with me by the end of this, then I can't change your mind or force you to see my way of things (@anyone reading this) but I want to bring light to the fact that if we follow the textbook definition of discrimination, then no change will be made because it is accurate only in a perfect, everyone-is-equal world, and we don't live in such a place. I'm a white, cis, heterosexual male so I can understand the discomfort people may have towards my way of thinking, but it's the only way to be able to fight against discrimination on our end. To recognize that we can't be discriminated because we have all the power, and then accept it and fight to make everyone equal. Brofresco is causing more harm than good. Even though he may feel like he's fighting for equality, he's actually damaging it's chances in the way he's going about it.
> [{quoted}](name=Adanim,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=r8QEsH9I,comment-id=000900020000,timestamp=2018-09-03T18:25:57.113+0000) > > Sociology, history, psychology, economics, and politics have defined racism as exerting power over a group of people on the basis of race, and using race as a means to maintaining power. Therefore it is impossible for someone to be racist towards whites, sexist towards men, heterophobic, cisphobic, or christianophobic because those are the groups in power. They exert their dominance every single day in every possible subtle and obvious way that they can, and every person who is a member of any of these groups is guilty of it. Correction: some of the sociology, psychology, economics and politics do. They are related to marxist theories and while they are treated seriously in academic world they are far from being taken as granted or as a proven truth of some kind. > If you are white and receive hate speech because you are white, that is not racist. Someone who isn't white is expressing to you their hatred of the oppression of non-whites. White people cannot be targeted by racism because racism is exertion of power that is defined by ethnic background. Whites have maintained all of the political, social, and economic power in the world, and they have done so by telling non-whites that they are lesser than and they behave in ways that reinforce those beliefs. According to these theories, yes. But I find jump from something like "all whites should die" or other blatant threats to "hatred of opression of non-whites" as something that needs much more thought put into it. I mean yes, person expressing something like that is likely to hold that belief and that might be the reason for what that person communicated BUT it overlooks completely apsect of what **directly** was expressed and it's a serious thing. Whites for all the wrong deeds they did in history and still do are still human, they are still people, they are still feeling beings and something so emotionally loaded will affect them in some kind. Inducing fear, blaming people for things they are not responsible directly or often are not even aware of will lead only to more suffering, more hostility and more misunderstanding. Targeting hate speech at white person leads to similar psychological outcome that it would to any other person and these theories tend to forget about that in pursuit for solutions to problems they identify. By using means which are used by the "group in power" against them leads to same psychological issues as it did in oppressed groups and while it may solve the problem of discrimination and inequality (which I don't believe it will) at least temporarily it will be achieved at the cost of mental well-being of members of that group just like these means did to oppressed groups before + current generations that are in fact not responsible for cultural background and are blamed, hated and "positively discriminated" for it will act like an oppressed group in the future. You just can't fight fire with fire because it will backfire ;] > A black man at a company meeting has to prove that he is worthy of respect and prove he is worth being taken seriously, whereas a white man doesn't. If a Latino doesn't hire a white guy on the basis of him being white, that isn't racist because the white man still has all of the power in society and therefore can easily find a job where he will be hired. Someone non-white will struggle to find a job anywhere because it is unknown whether or not he/she will be denied employment because of their ethnic background. It perfectly applies to what I said paragraph above. Latino guy not hiring white guy on the basis of his race has the same personal psychological effect and reactions as the reverse situation would lead to. White guy as you pointed out lives in society that is dominated by people like him so he won't be economically affected very much making his suffering lesser BUT being rejected on the basis of your race, culture you were born in, **things that you have literally no control over** will lead to rejected person feel wide array of emotions: humiliation, anxiety, self-hatred, hatred for people like this Latino guy and it has its own consequences. They may not be immediate or noticeable immediately but they can grow over years and show up later in the future. It may lead to racial tensions, civil unrests, radicalization of people affected. If we really strive for equality, well being of all mankind then this is not the proper way to achieve that. > Affirmative Action is often times considered racist towards whites and sexist towards men because it forces companies to hire non-white and non-male employees. It isn't because those people struggle to find work simply on the basis of them not being white/male and a white/male can and will find another job elsewhere easily. Affirmative Action is racially driven, but far from racist. The problem with Affirmative Action is that it often works like "we have an Asian girl that has better qualifications but we need to fill quota of equal number of members of all races/genders so we will hire someone that is way worse because of his skin color/gender" which leads to A) lower standards in that institution and overall lesser quality of services they provide and B) Rejected person deals with same mental problems that unfairly discriminated person deals with and may lead them to view other races/genders negatively because of increasing hostility and overall suffering and C) Person that got hired and has worse qualification may lead to grounding of stereotypes referring to that particular gender/race (for example "women really are bad in IT stuff") and even lead to that person believe in that. Affirmative Action works well when we fill quotas only and only when candidates have same qualifications and rejected person knows full context of that decision (i.e. that other person was chosen because had the same qualifications and we need to help people that aren't represented fairly because of cultural bias), otherwise it's double-edged sword. > Let's say that you're in high school and a group of Asian kids beats you up simply because you are white. That isn't racism. They are assholes, they did something wrong, and no one should be physically harmed ever, but it wasn't racist. It was essentially them wrongfully taking out their frustration at a white-dominated society on a white kid. If a group of white kids beat up a Latino because of their ethnic background, it's racist because it's an exertion of power, they are telling this kid "remember your place, it's beneath us." What if I'm beaten up by group of Asian kids in Japanese high school then? Japan is known for racism, right wing "activists" and that they are very homogenous society where they are the ones in control, power. Something like "I hate you dickhead because you're not like us" doesn't exist anymore? What you describe here reffers to something else entirely and doesn't invalidate hatred and brutality on the whole premise of someone being of different race. They may hold belief that it's taking out some kind of frustration but nothing really inclines every single one of them to hold that belief and it doesn't really reffer to other motivations for their action which this definition conveniently overlooks. > If you are a man and hear "death to all men!" are you afraid it will happen? Do you actually fear for your life? If a popular trend within society is to direct more hate speech at people like me and/or I have met with situations that discriminated me on the basis of my sex and lead me to believe that I'm being treated like that because I'm viewed as worthless piece of garbage then yes, I would be afraid of extremist, radical positions like that growing in society and then fear for my safety. Just like women that met with same behaviour and that caused same feelings do. Whatever "power" group of white men can have will not save me from direct, physical agression just like the same "power" didn't save that white kid from high school from your example. > These are isolated and extreme cases, sure, but women are blamed for the bad things that happen to them, and men aren't blamed at all. If a woman beat up a man, she will be blamed for it. If a man beats up a woman, it's called into question of whether or not she was obedient or if she was rude to him. There are often blatant examples of victim shaming though whole western world treats abuse of women seriously, to the point that even in non self-evident cases man figures as the violator before anything was proven. We have some examples of false accusation of rape coming from women and before anything was settled down innocent men suffered from social stigma, custody and because of these from psychological problems https://www.gov.uk/government/news/false-rape-accuser-jailed-after-solicitor-generals-referral Fighting for equality with that mean led us from one kind of culturally built sexism to another one which is as unfair and valueless as previous one. That whole theory as you presented and as internet folks from left scene tend to interpret doesn't hold up under scrutiny i.e. it overlooks serious issues that come from behaviours it covers. The whole take on power structures and so on is a needed perspective but it shouldn't be the only one if that theory stays as it is.
: Men experience sexism but you have to acknowledge it still all happens because of a large patriarchy. Sexism isn't all rainbows and sunshine for men but the ways women experience it regularly vs the ways men do, has no real comparison. The sheer torment women go through you couldn't comprehend if you truly believe these examples are the worst it can get.
> [{quoted}](name=Erol The Nomad,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=MR5d8k0q,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-02T23:54:14.280+0000) > > Men experience sexism but you have to acknowledge it still all happens because of a large patriarchy. Sexism isn't all rainbows and sunshine for men but the ways women experience it regularly vs the ways men do, has no real comparison. The sheer torment women go through you couldn't comprehend if you truly believe these examples are the worst it can get. Oh is it? I live in a country where legislation and culture oppresses men on daily basis. We have law where divorced man has to pay ailments to her ex-wife and **her** kids (she betrayed him). Even when the guy has proven that kids are not his he is ordered to pay for her. Do you even comprehend how humiliating betrayal can be for men? Do you comprehend how cruel that law is when we pair that humiliation and losing a shit tones of your money for years for kid that is not even yours and has no contact whatsoever with you? Not to mention that the ex-wife is the person who gets and distributes the money how she feels like anyway and not the kid directly. And it happens on daily basis. It doesn't help that average wage is piss poor. The same court laws also widely favor women when it comes to who gets the children (because the common view, or much more fitting term: stereotype, is that all women are naturally better parents). The culture as a whole raises young people in "you have to man up, don't be weak you're a man, you're not manly so fuck off etc." mentality that is practiced by both genders equally. My country also is in top 50 gender equality rankings and is among the most gender equal countries in Europe (wage gap and that sort of things). Despite that women are blatantly favored in many aspects of life: their retirement age is lower than men (60 years for women 65 for men), court law favors them as I pointed out earlier and society at large push little pressure on them in comparison to men. The problem of domestic violence against men is largely overlooked and downplayed by society at large (you're bullied by a girl, haHAA). That leads to serious mental health problems, depression, anxiety, apathy, breakdown and they don't treat it because that's not "manly" and fear social stigma. And then we have the icing on the cake: suicide ratios. See the maps for yourself: [suicide ratios in Europe](https://jakubmarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/suicides-europe.jpg) and [male to female suicide ratio in Europe](https://i.redd.it/3t55ldmi4zjy.jpg). Ask yourself: how tormented a person must be that he takes his own life, that he overcomes his will to live, his survival instinct and takes means that will for sure end his life (men are more likely to take methods that are effective i.e. use of guns, dropping under train and so on). Ask also yourself why there is such a high suicide ratio in Poland and why 8 times more men commit suicide there than women do, tell me how their torment is not comparable to that of women especially when women are much less likely to take such drastic means. In the light of above hearing shit like "Sexism isn't all rainbows and sunshine for men but the ways women experience it regularly vs the ways men do, has no real comparison" is ridiculous as it gets. Pseudocompassion and pseudoempathy, that's how you look.
Adanim (NA)
: He's an idiot who doesn't even begin to understand what racism/sexism actually is aside from the obvious. It's actually impossible to be racist towards whites and sexist towards men. Marginalization occurs when a group in power suppresses other groups under the basis of ethnicity/gender/etc. It is impossible to be racist/sexist towards the group(s) committing the oppression
> [{quoted}](name=Adanim,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=r8QEsH9I,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:24:31.936+0000) > > He's an idiot who doesn't even begin to understand what racism/sexism actually is aside from the obvious. It's actually impossible to be racist towards whites and sexist towards men. Marginalization occurs when a group in power suppresses other groups under the basis of ethnicity/gender/etc. It is impossible to be racist/sexist towards the group(s) committing the oppression AFAIK the most common and the most widely recognized definition of racism is something along "belief in superiority of one race over another which leads to discrimination and prejudice based on race". According to this definition you can be racist towards white people and it happens (unless whites aren't race for some reason). Sexism is similar, replace race with gender and analogically you can still be sexist to men and that also happens (unless again you don't count men as a gender). Marginalization is not sexism/racism in itself but just a single manifestation of that. And group of women can be a group in power as you call it and oppress men under the basis of their gender. Misandry is a thing, you know. In some european countries there are symptoms of men discrimination (woman %%%%philia is treated as nonexistent and evidence for such is often downplayed which is a cultural thing contrary to men %%%%philia) or we have examples of men discrimination in legislation (divorced men are nearly always paying alimony to their ex-wives for her children even though these children are not his, she betrayed him and divorce was her fault).
: For anyone wondering which Rioter Daniel is, he is; Riot ZenonTheStoic and he's always been an asshole, but he's never really acted up quite like this until recently.
> Riot ZenonTheStoic > > and he's always been an asshole, but he's never really acted up quite like this until recently. It's kinda hilarious that person that is so emotional and lacking any self control would name himself Stoic, lul
: Bethesda can't make any more money off skyrim remasters so they went ahead and did TES 6
Todd is not based untill he makes game that isn't a huge downgrade in comparison to Morrowind and Daggerfall and cheap money grab
: > [{quoted}](name=Cinquino Show,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=wBLjk8Ah,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-04-08T14:08:36.072+0000) > > Not a played in competitive, not a problem right? ? http://www.gamesoflegends.com/champion/stats.php?id=81&tournament=ALL&season=S8&split=ALL Singed might not be op, but at the very least his gameplay is as toxic as old poppy
Well his main damage spell is toxic cloud, makes sense.
: the amplifying tome is actually a book titled "how to make red things turn blue"
: tl;dr It's okay to intentionally throw games at the end if you think the server you're on is toxic. Riot has said over and over that responding to toxic behavior with toxic behavior is still punishable. They've said over and over that leaving the game at any time is punishable. "They're dicks to me too!" has never been an excuse. Deflecting it onto the entire server as a whole is dumb, even if those complaints are valid.
Game was already thrown out of the window before he left it and not because server is toxic but because players themselves in that specific game were toxic as shit. And it isn't just one in hundred situation but it's happening on daily basis which is the problem Cowsep's post is trying to make noticeable. People focus on "teh Riotz rulez" without much thinking if the rules themselves are on point. He did bad because he shit on a certain rule not because of consequences of breaking said rule which there are none in this situation. With how entire team trolled that game him leaving it didn't do any damage to anyone, he just saved his precious time (and Riot with this rule seems to not care about their players time at all).
: Wait, is that actually official merchandise? Because that’s completely wrong! That’s not a kindred plush! At best, it’s half of one!
> [{quoted}](name=The Blue Rajah,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=XfUxPMFd,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-03-29T20:39:32.683+0000) > > Wait, is that actually official merchandise? Because that’s completely wrong! That’s not a kindred plush! At best, it’s half of one! The second half is in the DLC
: AP Junglers Need Help
Gragas has pretty powerful buffs happening on PBE so he is getting looked at and in a good way (they want him to build more AP oriented builds so maybe they will finally push him away from being Tank).
: gragas CAN NOT get 8% damage reduction per % per 100 ap
I think that direction they're going is awesome but these numbers are too big but it is normal for PBE experimental changes. Extremes makes certain data aspects much more noticeable and they can learn what works, what doesn't and understand what they want to do by that better. I'm pretty sure that it won't go live immediately and for sure not in the current state as Riot August said that they will probably get changed. Warwick E and Gragas W aren't so comparable besides the damage reduction thing because Gragas has to channel it, it lasts 2.5 second from which 1 second is channel (unless player knows how to animation cancel but even then some time is spent on channeling) and it doesn't have any massive AoE hard CC tied to it. And Warwick gets his damage reduction ON TOP of his very tanky builds while Gragas is expected to change his playstyle from tanky to more squishy ones and he is and will be very easy to blown up after W wears off (and judging by how the damage is so damn high and game is bursty as shit it shouldn't be a problem at all).
: Hottest male: champion round 4
What is the point of this post? Everyone knows that Gragas is the pinnacle of everything that's sexually atractive and aesthetically pleasing.
Rioter Comments
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: March 23
Hey Meddler Got anything on Gragas? He is among the weakest champions now and you said that he will get looked at after Runic Echoes changes (which was quite some time ago) and what about changes you spoke about 6 months ago that were about to be tested just after Worlds?
: So, I kind of like the lack of compromise with your vision here. I've come to appreciate games that determine that they have a niche, and don't try to water down their edges (holy mixed metaphors) in order to try to appeal to everyone. They unashamedly say "This is a specific game. If you don't like it, that's ok - there are other games for you." It's super hard to stick to your guns with that - especially big game developers/publishers generally want to appeal to as many people as possible (due to increasing dev costs, etc.). I can appreciate a game that is more of a 'black licorice' sort of experience. (Or Marmite experience, if you're familiar). With a smaller market (an enthusiastic niche) comes a smaller budget - so you need to be smarter with what you're hoping to provide. For example - it would be wildly unlikely for a game with a budget like GTA5 or the Witcher3, to be designed to appeal only to the sorts of players who play Factorio for example. Going with something that looks a bit more retro (like Fallout 1 or 2) could help. I am surprised by your focus on XP though - surely you could move to a breakpoint system, more than a granular XP system to help avoid problems with avoiding combat not providing XP. For example, you could instead of having dozens of skills to choose from, you could have 3-6 decision points that dramatically change how your character develops - and as long as you get to that story point, you get to make your choice. Doesn't matter if you killed a million wolves to get there, or shapeshifted into one and became leader of the pack, permitting your passage.
> So, I kind of like the lack of compromise with your vision here. I've come to appreciate games that determine that they have a niche, and don't try to water down their edges (holy mixed metaphors) in order to try to appeal to everyone. They unashamedly say "This is a specific game. If you don't like it, that's ok - there are other games for you." There is not many games trying to fill niche nowadays (especially true for AAA industry) as they are driven by corporate needs of what sells best. And most creators that share sentiment to achievements of older RPGs aren't hoping to surpass older games, they make new games with sentiment that they can't do better than that (looking at you Tides of Numenera). Most of AAA games have unique elements worth playing for but this is just it - elements. It's good to fill a niche because it makes experience unique, lets it dwell deeper on certain themes/design approaches. It won't be for everyone as you noticed but it will be a marvelous experience for the audience it aims for (and still people that don't like game as a whole can appreciate certain elements and expect them to be used in other projects that are more in their tastes which further advances creativity and diversity in the medium). > With a smaller market (an enthusiastic niche) comes a smaller budget - so you need to be smarter with what you're hoping to provide. > For example - it would be wildly unlikely for a game with a budget like GTA5 or the Witcher3, to be designed to appeal only to the sorts of players who play Factorio for example. Sadly, that's true. That's why one of the most praised modern old school alike RPG: Age of Decadence from 2015 is built on really low budget with resources dating back to 2004, although it's built on design approach that I find boring gameplay wise it has outstanding achievements in roleplaying capabilities, worldbuilding, game responding to player actions and such. My game of dreams can only be possible to achieve when taste of broad audience changes and that is very unlikely to happen. > I am surprised by your focus on XP though - surely you could move to a breakpoint system, more than a granular XP system to help avoid problems with avoiding combat not providing XP. For example, you could instead of having dozens of skills to choose from, you could have 3-6 decision points that dramatically change how your character develops - and as long as you get to that story point, you get to make your choice. Doesn't matter if you killed a million wolves to get there, or shapeshifted into one and became leader of the pack, permitting your passage. Well XP system seems to be industry standard for some time and it was present in many old school RPGs and many people expect it to be. I liked it in Torment because of how it ties with dialogue system but ultimately I would see something more grounded and less abstract. My point on Deus Ex/Planescape: Torment example was to get rid of XP system and be rewarded by finding stuff, exploring and discovering. By doing that it wouldn't matter how you got to that place: you killed everything that moves, you sneaked through, you talked down the bandits to let you go here reward is the same and your roleplay is intact (just as you suggested). It would also tie with world design in both types of story. Player would earn his skills not by killing/sneaking/whatever but by finding stuff through exploration and unique social interactions (like in Deus Ex by exploring maps you found augmentation canisters to learn new skill, like in Torment where by talking to a creepy crisped floating fire mage you learned a spell). It would also extremely tie with the point of the plot-driven story that put emphasis on fleshing out the setting, what better way to do it than to encourage player to explore game's world and seek social interactions with its denizens?
: So I'm sensing quite the old-school preference there - games more like, maybe Dragon Age: Origins (with its optional real-time combat) or Divinity: Original Sin (2) with its updating of the classic Western CRPG traditions. Interesting. Now, popular media informs me that those game styles aren't very popular - I'd be super interested to hear the reactions of the folks on this Board (small sample size and all), because I rather enjoy those games too. Especially when they're co-op playable. So in this RPG of yours, Octahedron, do you imagine this being a small, personal story of your character - perhaps told within a single city or location (maybe more of a Planescape: Torment thing, though that was a HELL of a city) or do you see it more wide ranging and epic in scope, visiting varied locations (more like Baldurs Gate). Obviously, this would impact the scope of the game. Fallout got away with a large landscape and many locations by having a very similar tile/graphic set for each place, but Runeterra (as we've seen with the updates) can look dramatically different. Would you then, in the spirit of this thread being about Noxus, want it to be set solely in the capital city of Noxus, or would you want to visit the borders, the newly invaded lands, and even lands far from Noxus's territory? Deep into the Ionian mountainsides? Along a Freljordian chasm? Gazing out over a Blue Flame Isles volcano? Also, personal question - you mention you should have action but would you support a non-combat playstyle for the 'high charisma' players amongst us? (Or the stealth players). Usually that's something that RPG players wish for, but it is a huge restriction on the design. You'd need to decide if that was the hill you were willing to die on and decide early and _never_ compromise if that's what you wanted (or other decisions of that ilk).
CONTINUATION > Would you then, in the spirit of this thread being about Noxus, want it to be set solely in the capital city of Noxus, or would you want to visit the borders, the newly invaded lands, and even lands far from Noxus's territory? Deep into the Ionian mountainsides? Along a Freljordian chasm? Gazing out over a Blue Flame Isles volcano? I would look for single place that would evoke the themes and motives of my story the best if I take the theme-driven structure. It would be probably capital city as it's place full of social interactions and various problems. I would look for this + other areas in plot-driven structure to make plot more engaging and interesting and explore fictional setting better but I can't decide at this point which ones besides capital city (but probably one border land, one land outside of capital but still deep in Noxus territory).
: So I'm sensing quite the old-school preference there - games more like, maybe Dragon Age: Origins (with its optional real-time combat) or Divinity: Original Sin (2) with its updating of the classic Western CRPG traditions. Interesting. Now, popular media informs me that those game styles aren't very popular - I'd be super interested to hear the reactions of the folks on this Board (small sample size and all), because I rather enjoy those games too. Especially when they're co-op playable. So in this RPG of yours, Octahedron, do you imagine this being a small, personal story of your character - perhaps told within a single city or location (maybe more of a Planescape: Torment thing, though that was a HELL of a city) or do you see it more wide ranging and epic in scope, visiting varied locations (more like Baldurs Gate). Obviously, this would impact the scope of the game. Fallout got away with a large landscape and many locations by having a very similar tile/graphic set for each place, but Runeterra (as we've seen with the updates) can look dramatically different. Would you then, in the spirit of this thread being about Noxus, want it to be set solely in the capital city of Noxus, or would you want to visit the borders, the newly invaded lands, and even lands far from Noxus's territory? Deep into the Ionian mountainsides? Along a Freljordian chasm? Gazing out over a Blue Flame Isles volcano? Also, personal question - you mention you should have action but would you support a non-combat playstyle for the 'high charisma' players amongst us? (Or the stealth players). Usually that's something that RPG players wish for, but it is a huge restriction on the design. You'd need to decide if that was the hill you were willing to die on and decide early and _never_ compromise if that's what you wanted (or other decisions of that ilk).
> So I'm sensing quite the old-school preference there Exactly. I mean I'm not a big fan of old RPGs (as I mentioned before I'm not a fan of turn-based gameplay and some design directions of for example Baldur's Gate II or Fallout 2 are not my pair of boots) but I really love their depth, their unmatched immersion and quality of roleplaying elements. These things are rarely seen in RPG games that are released these days as they tend to be very shallow to gain very large audience. > Now, popular media informs me that those game styles aren't very popular - I'd be super interested to hear the reactions of the folks on this Board (small sample size and all), because I rather enjoy those games too. Especially when they're co-op playable. I'm not surprised because games like that require to plan how to develop your character, have a vision of how to play this kind of character and not many people play game to read tones of stuff. They rather want to do some cool things. That's understandable as this type of game is just not for everyone, people have different tastes after all and different visions of what to do with one's free time. > So in this RPG of yours, Octahedron, do you imagine this being a small, personal story of your character - perhaps told within a single city or location (maybe more of a Planescape: Torment thing, though that was a HELL of a city) or do you see it more wide ranging and epic in scope, visiting varied locations (more like Baldurs Gate). Obviously, this would impact the scope of the game. Fallout got away with a large landscape and many locations by having a very similar tile/graphic set for each place, but Runeterra (as we've seen with the updates) can look dramatically different. It depends on what kind of story I want to make. Do I want to share a story with audience that explores various philosophical themes/explores characters? I'll go with a personal one to make scope of things smaller to focus on proper thematic/character exploration (and not compromise gameplay by that as its really hard to build proper theme-driven/character-driven story in really big games) just like Planescape: Torment did. Or maybe I want to make enjoyable story that fleshes out setting? In that scenario I'll go with an epic plot-driven story large in scale. But in second scenario we deal with a problem that as you pointed out Fallout got away with. I would solve that problem with different story acts: each act would explore different part of Noxian Empire (kinda like Diablo 2 changed its environment in every passing act). > Also, personal question - you mention you should have action but would you support a non-combat playstyle for the 'high charisma' players amongst us? (Or the stealth players). Usually that's something that RPG players wish for, but it is a huge restriction on the design. You'd need to decide if that was the hill you were willing to die on and decide early and never compromise if that's what you wanted (or other decisions of that ilk). I would certainly go with that, pacifist and/or stealth playthroughs are among my favourites in gaming. If there is a way to not kill anybody I'm for sure going that route, that's what I love about Deus Ex series (especially Human Revolution) and in Fallouts. Yeah it's huge restriction for world design but would go well with realistic worldbuilding as having something interesting or something dangerous to fight with every 3 minutes of journey makes world not so believable and makes these points of interest not so compelling or interesting (and that's what I hate about Skyrim and Witcher 3). Another problem might be how to reward these types of playstyles: you get skill points for killing, sure but how to reward someone who doesn't fight at all? You can't talk with hostile wildlife or with some people because that is unrealistic (some people just want to watch the world burn ;]) so you won't get experience for talking them down all the time while people who kill stuff will every time. Lowering EXP of fighting class would feel like favourizing certain playstyles which can feel bad for some players. Maybe go with original Deus Ex and somewhat Planescape: Torment way? Unlocking skills from exploration, talking with right people, discovering world.
: You know what; to heck with it, let's chat about this. So after seeing the Noxian stuff, you want a game about Noxus - what sort of game are you talking about? Now understand that I can't say if Riot is working on anything, nor can I make promises if any of you come up with something astoundingly awesome - but let's have a convo about this now, while we're on the topic, to get a feel for what the Story, Art and Sound board population would want to see if such a thing were to ever happen. Like - Sharjo mentioned RPG, Berserknurple says RTS, HeroGilgamesh (good name) says Skyrim-like, and OP FrontlineFury says Diablo-like. Tyrsfal wants something with PVP and territory control (unsure of the genre or camera type), and Tesla Effect just wants it to be lore focused. Shall we dig a bit deeper? Beyond just a genre, how game-y are you thinking? Singleplayer? Multiplayer? (The ever elusive co-op?) Game with an end, or not? You play as a champion, or you make your own character? I swear I'm not asking you all to design it for me (promise I could design a dozen games before breakfast - any designer can) what I'm interested in is what this very particular microcosm of players wants. So tell me. No harm in it, right?
I guess that RPG would be pretty neat but not the modern action RPG alike but more into Fallout 1/Fallout: New Vegas territory. What do I mean by that? Interacting with world, tones of dialogues, learning about the setting should be more emphasized than action. Yes, there needs to be action too but not as much as in modern games like Skyrim, Witcher and other. There should be very rich character customization. Not like in Skyrim that every possible build plays the same and the only true customization is how your character looks like but more like in Fallout where they are distinct (like each route you take is like playing different game). System of skills and perks should be very rich in order to make roleplaying deep and game's world responsive to them (immersion) while also increasing replayability. Character should be player made "ordinary" citizen and not some kind of a champion (as it ruins whole roleplay potential). Game world should be very responsive to what character looks like, which skills player upgrades, what perks he has, what statistics he has (like if character has 3 points only in intelligence character should talk like idiot and be treated as such by others). I'm not a fan of turn-based action so I would prefer it to be real time like in most modern games. Game of course should be singleplayer, should have an ending (though you should have an option to continue your journey if you want to). As for camera it can be isometric like in old RPG, it can be TPP like in modern RPGs or FPP like in some of the modern RPGs (though my personal preference is either TPP or FPP).
BigOat (NA)
: Thank you for your response, you showed me that my argument needed a little more clarity. When I talk about this interaction, I am not talking about the whole 1 second it takes to channel. That is easy enough to react to, Malphite's ult takes almost half a second to travel its furthest distance and people still flash that. Gragas's W needs to be interrupted WAY earlier than half a second, probably 1/8 of a second in order for it to be canceled. And just for reference, 1/8 of a second is 125 milliseconds (the average human reaction speed is about 250 milliseconds + ping). So, no, you're typical gold, plat, and probably even diamond + player will usually not be able to react in time to SUCCESSFULLY cancel it (and for argument's sake, I finished last season Diamond 5, so I think I have a good understanding as to how gold and plat players play). Not only that, but it isn't even certain that CCing the Gragas as he casts the ability will cancel it. I tested it out with a friend for almost an hour, and the argument that this interaction was intentional is not convincing at all. Only around 50% of the time would the "W" cancel, and sometimes the animation for the empowered auto would stay but the extra damage would disappear. Furthermore, after doing a bit of research on "How Gragas "w" is affected by CC" I couldn't find any kind of information regarding the matter. I feel like if this really was intended, I would be able to find this out on an in-depth ability description, but there was absolutely nothing to be found. I still believe this to be a bug. I will record instances of it in a custom game at the soonest availability.
Well I have more than 500k mastery points on Gragas and people (the ones who have instant/fast traveling CC) consistently cancel my bonus damage from W, as I said all it takes is to react before fatty burps (not while he burps, that is already too late). I see sometimes Gragas doing his empowered auto attack that does nothing but being standard attack but it's just visual bug, it means that either your opponent succesfully canceled your damage or your empowered buff happened to end midway through animation. He channels W for 1 second, if you have instant CC (like Maokai Q in close range) you can easily react to that, if your CC is delayed then most likely you need to predict his W before to cancel it. As to information about that you won't get specific for Gragas. All channeled abilities in this game can be canceled by CC (be it Katarina R, Master Yi W, Xerath Q and R, Karthus R etc.). Gragas W clearly is a channeled (which is pointed out in spell's description) ability so this rule applies to him. Though I didn't play this game consistently since december so maybe this interaction got bugged in patches that went live meanwhile.
: Cactopus, a public declaration of vendetta against you.
That's one of the funniest things I read on this forum.
Ñaofumi (NA)
: Depression in college? (serious)
The first thing you should do is to visit psychiatrist or psychologist. If you have doubts about their competence change them for another ones. The earlier you do it the easier it will be for you to contaminate depression, prevent it from developing any further and ultimately get rid of it. Later stages are very hard to treat. Second thing you might do is to think why you feel shitty, why would you fail at college etc. When you diagnose the cause of that thought just start practicing to get rid of the cause, try to be better and don't get discouraged that it's hard to do, you can't and stuff just try to do that. I was never diagnosed with depression but I had many long lasting insecurities that greatly affected my mood for years. For example I remember I was very upset for several years that I'm ultra dumb at Math to the point that I was called names by teachers and my classmates, I was afraid of school and thought that I'm stupid piece of shit so I started to practice. It took me some time to learn basics that I couldn't grasp before, took even more time to think mathematically but finally I did it and my greatest insecurity at that time vanished. Third thing might be reading some optimistic philosophy. Nietzsche is the philosopher that helped me greatly through hard times, motivated me to constantly be better, love life, utilize bad situations/experiences to self-improvement , never surrender and see light there where one thinks is dark. You should visit psychiatrist and/or psychologist immediately, there's no jokes with depression you need professional care. **Try out my second and third advice only after you consult them with specialists and they are OK with it as I'm not expert in depression**, who knows maybe these advices aren't appropriate for people suffering from depression.
: He's as special as a pair of militant harpies {{champion:498}} {{champion:497}}, or a sadistic child with fire magic {{champion:1}}, or a naïve girl with a icicle bow {{champion:22}}, or a generic ninja {{champion:98}}, or a boy with a knack for magical devices {{champion:245}}, or some blonde kid with a magic bracelet {{champion:81}}, or a lot of other champions who aren't god level beings, but just really impressive mortals, like {{champion:86}}, {{champion:55}}, and {{champion:43}}.
Well fair enough, didn't think about it at first though some of them are very influential and more extraordinary people (more than Gragas). Karma is spiritual leader of Ionia wielding powerful magic, Ashe is leader of one of the most powerful barbaric tribes, wielding bow made of True Ice and she is very skilled diplomat, Katarina belongs to one of the most influential families in Noxus (the most powerful state in the world) while also being one of the best assassins in the world, Ekko can manipulate time and rises to be very influential player in Zaun in the future. Didn't read lore of the others so not gonna comment on them.
: > [{quoted}](name=Octahedron,realm=EUNE,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=ixL8Tf38,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-02-03T21:15:35.065+0000) > > His new lore states that he can't be drunk so he aims to make brew so powerful that will make him finally drunk. Incorrect, he is merely in search of the perfect pint of ale. His new lore even states he is "Often intoxicated and extremely impulsive, he is legendary for the brawls he starts, which often end in all-night parties and widespread property damage." Edit: I see where the confusion comes from. "Gragas has an eternal love of good drink, but his massive constitution prevented him from reaching a divine state of intoxication." He is still able to get drunk, but not completely shitfaced to a point of divine stupor.
Then his lore contradicts itself as it also states: "Gragas has an eternal love of good drink, but his massive constitution prevented him from reaching a divine state of intoxication".
: Then that's what makes him special, his high resistance to intoxication, his intense resolve to fix that, and his capabilities as a brewmaster above all other mortal brewmasters. There's something to be said for someone who's a master of their craft.
Yeah, that's also what makes Gragas attractive as a champion for me though I still do feel like it's not enough for him to be one of the 140 most special beings. There are as many masters of craft as there are crafts and if he is in the same extraordinary league as star making intergalactical dragon, mage built from pure energy able to destroy cities in seconds or warlock ruling half of the world Grag must achieve something more than only that what he did already.
: > [{quoted}](name=Octahedron,realm=EUNE,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=ixL8Tf38,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-02-03T21:13:07.927+0000) > > Champion is a lore term too and that's what I'm asking about. Is not, it was in the old lore but not anymore.
As far as I know only Summoners and related institutions got entirely threw out the window (though I remember several Rioters said that Summoners will come back at some time but with different role and context). Champions are still discussed lore wise as extraordinary entities.
: As was stated in the powercreep thread, Gragas extraordinary ability is to be drunk literally all the time.
His new lore states that he can't be drunk so he aims to make brew so powerful that will make him finally drunk.
: The criteria for being considered a champion is being a playable character in the game.
Champion is a lore term too and that's what I'm asking about.
Rioter Comments
: Ye the point you missed is that there are entire swaths of people, cultures, race, etc. that experience discrimination every. fucking. day. Oh boohoo the straight white christian male was discriminated against a handful of times he OBVIOUSLY knows what its like to live it! The only snowflake here is the one who can't understand why people who experience discrimination on a daily basis don't want to see it in a game that has supposedly taken a hard stance against it. "B-b-but my first amendment rights of free speech!" Inciting violence/hate/discrimination/harrassment against others is not free speech, its hate speech and should be punished accordingly.
Every expression of hatred and discrimination is not right no matter if affected person is white, black or blue and it doesn't matter if person expressing it has also certain characteristics. And frequency in which someone experiences hatred doesn't invalidate his feelings. As a person who is clearly concerned about this topic you should know that pretty well but you act like a hypocrite. Though I do agree with rest of your post (sort of).
BigOat (NA)
: Gragas "W" Bug?
This is intended counterplay. There are plenty of CC skills that will hit him in less than second preventing him from using that spell all it takes is reaction time (people in plat+ or even in gold do that consistently). Drinking animation paired with very loud audio makes it very easy to notice that he uses that spell + it has audio clue when his empowered auto is online (after he burps he gains bonus damage on next auto, if you CC him before that clue he won't get his damage).
: F tier you say? {{champion:79}} This man’s only real power lore wise is that he’s drunk literally all the time.
He's a master of Kung Fu (and other arts...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-eQbzL8fg And lore wise he can't even get drunk. His whole quest is to make brew so powerful that it will make him finally drunk.
kargish (EUW)
: Swain's theme sounds like a true dictator
Not surprising because his theme has tones of obvious references to Soviet Union Anthem
: I know they're not the same (Noxus and Russia). I'm saying there are an absurd amount of CLEAR parallels between Stalin's Russia, and Vlad!Swain + Russia. I mean the splash artist said outright that he wanted the splash to look like a propoganda poster, and I don't know if you saw the picture but it sure as Hell wasn't an Allied Forces propoganda poster. I mean there's nothing wrong with drawing inspiration, it's just starting to get a little into the "okay, we get it, they're Soviet" territory and it feels a bit too ham-fisted to me.
Pretty much my thoughts. Art looks like Soviet propaganda poster and his theme is not even subtle with Soviet Anthem references ( for example listen at 0:13, it repeats several times later on).
: Buff Gragas Chapter 420
Stop it, get some help. They will buff him afer they see how Runic Echoes changes will suit him.
: > [{quoted}](name=Octahedron,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=zhzHVVAd,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2018-01-19T21:25:58.588+0000) > > Well he got some magic capabilities thanks to the drinks he brews (true ice and shit) + he is far larger and higher than average man. He also makes explosive alcohol and throws heavy casks full of said explosive alcohol which makes him actually pretty strong. > > He doesn't put random things into a jug, he actually carefully chooses rare ingredients to make the best brews in the Runeterra. He wouldn't be called the greatest brewmaster if he just brews from whatever he sees. That is only really true in his old lore though, which isn't true anymore. Yes the true ice makes his brew amazing, but I didn't see any mention of it granting magical abilities. It is true he is larger and taller than the average person, but imo Draven and his axes (Which is our current basis for the weakest champion) are the far more likely winner of a fight. When it comes to a strong guy who gets into a lot of bar fights and a professional gladiator style executioner I put my bets on our local mirror lover.
> [{quoted}](name=Fondling Gems,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=zhzHVVAd,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2018-01-19T22:11:56.222+0000) > > That is only really true in his old lore though, which isn't true anymore. Yes the true ice makes his brew amazing, but I didn't see any mention of it granting magical abilities. It is true he is larger and taller than the average person, but imo Draven and his axes (Which is our current basis for the weakest champion) are the far more likely winner of a fight. When it comes to a strong guy who gets into a lot of bar fights and a professional gladiator style executioner I put my bets on our local mirror lover. True Ice in lore gives various objects incredible properties (Ashe has a True Ice bow shooting ice arrows, Braum's magic shield is made of True Ice, Olaf's axes are tempered with it and Sejuani's bola is also from True Ice and judging by powers of Ashe's bow Seju's freezing abilities come from that bola). It is said in Gragas lore that using True Ice Shard not only kept his lager cold 24/7 but it also gave it unspecified incredible properties. He was about to share his discovery with world but he happened to walk into negotiations. Funny thing is that when Gragas got his updated lore there was an actual item called True Ice Shard that gave mana regeneration and ability power. Professional gladiator executioner always fights unarmed opponents who are at heavy disadvantage. Gragas is far stronger when it comes to physical strength so he may just throw his explosive cask at him from distance and shield himself with barrel. As an acrofatic champion he is also quite agile.
: My vote goes to Gragas. The only combat mentioned in his lore never actually mentions how well he does, and is comprised of tavern brawls and one fight between two tribes in the freljord. He is literally a drunk turned brewmaster who just wanders around putting random shit into a jug to see if it will get him "Truly" drunk.
> [{quoted}](name=Fondling Gems,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=zhzHVVAd,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-01-19T16:52:33.045+0000) > > My vote goes to Gragas. The only combat mentioned in his lore never actually mentions how well he does, and is comprised of tavern brawls and one fight between two tribes in the freljord. He is literally a drunk turned brewmaster who just wanders around putting random shit into a jug to see if it will get him "Truly" drunk. Well he got some magic capabilities thanks to the drinks he brews (true ice and shit) + he is far larger and higher than average man. He also makes explosive alcohol and throws heavy casks full of said explosive alcohol which makes him actually pretty strong. He doesn't put random things into a jug, he actually carefully chooses rare ingredients to make the best brews in the Runeterra. He wouldn't be called the greatest brewmaster if he just brews from whatever he sees.
Show more

Octahedron

Level 51 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion