: Fuck Marry Kill League of Legends Edition
Fuck Eve (dangerous but doable). Marry Qiyana (bossy). Kill Maokai (fuck that tree).
: Waaah free stuff waaah
I'm gonna need that in English, i don't speak baby boomer.
AdamrCc (EUW)
: Sylas is lean, not buff. The average man can hit Sylas levels of muscle mass in a year by hitting the gym and adding in two more meals a day.
Genetics play a way more important role to muscle mass, the position of insertions, their shape and muscle gain. Getting buff to Syals' level while you look like Fiddlesticks would imply you have some hidden, untapped genetic potential but at that point, you would on a basic level (if not starving consistently), at least look in somewhat good shape. It would mean that you would have a solid foundation to build upon. That physique is not possible within a year, for an average bloke. Because not a single one of us eats enemy ults for breakfast, lunch and dinner. That's like, pure magical protein for our prison break boi.
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2019-12-09T15:47:03.456+0000) > > Not every OTP is you. > I don't play Nidalee all that much and i love her skins. > I make it a point to get as much of her skins as i can, mostly through sales. > > There's an easy solution to your particular problem - Don't open your chests. > But why are you not allowed to earn them, if your performance is good enough (and consistent) on Taric alone? > > The point is that the ENTIRE REQUIREMENT is for people to earn S- ranks for chests. Riot wants good performance. But good performance on 50 champions instead of just 50 good performances? Why do people need to play 50 champions? Why force it? > > The Hextech system is for EVERY PLAYER, equally. > Right now, it's not an equal distribution because players who diversity their S- ranks are PREFERABLE to players who don't BUT still get S- ranks. Loot was clearly made for EVERY player in mind, it doesn't make sense to have 17 different restrictions placed on it, just so people can earn 1 chest, in a very special circumstances. > > There's also no need to make them earned differently on ARAM, as in the less champions you have left to earn the chest on, the more and more difficult it is to RANDOM them, and then get an S- in those tiny number of games. This practically makes a few chests (in a large champion pool of earned chests) unobtainable and people are forced to play SR instead. Riot put in a way to abuse the system as well though. My friends do it all the time. If they have a chest available, they can pick whoever they want and just have me play Taric top because I get an S in probably 2 out of 3 games on him. If I wanted to I could do that right back. Just join a friend playing on their main to farm chests.
>Riot put in a way to abuse the system as well though. Well, that's not logical and isn't even true. Here's why: There are a few restrictions to earning chests on any account: * At least Honor level 2 * Owned champions only (max ~50 chests per season, per account) * **1 chest per OWNED champion, per season** * S- performance rank or higher * Time-gated chests (max 4 in the backlog, +1 chest per week) Changing the rule of "1 chest per OWNED champion" and making it "ANY NUMBER of chests per OWNED champion" doesn't increase anyone's chest gains, given that all previous restrictions exist and are unchanged. It ONLY makes the chest earnings A LITTLE more consistent since the "only 1 OWNED champion" restriction is tweaked. This is especially more fair towards ARAM players. The less and less champions they have a chest on are left, the less of a chance it is to get them AND THEN ALSO in the very least get an S-, in that very limited number of games. SR doesn't have this problem because you can pick your champion there and play the shit out of it until you get that S-. If Hextech Loot only required S- ranks AND wasn't also CHAMPION SPECIFIC, there would literally be no difference between SR and ARAM in terms of Hextech Loot earnings - that's the whole point. That rule is way too restrictive and tweaking it like i have outlined, makes for a FAIR experience for every player on any map and Riot DOESN'T PAY a dime more for it. >My friends do it all the time. If they have a chest available, they can pick whoever they want and just have me play Taric top because I get an S in probably 2 out of 3 games on him. If I wanted to I could do that right back. Just join a friend playing on their main to farm chests. That's not a workaround or a cheat. Riot had implemented this from the start and it still requires that at least SOMEONE in that premade gets an S- so that everyone gets a chest (if one is available, per account basis). I can already farm chests with my intentionally shitty performance if i so choose, if i want to leech chests from my premade while i put in no effort. But why play this game, if you're this disinterested? And ultimately, so what? Earning loot on champions is not Champion Mastery specific. It's only a "requirement" to earn it because it has players put in effort to learn a champion in the process. It's not a free chest for owning a champion and playing a one measly game on them. And that premade requirement is still present which means that SOMEONE has to put in the effort but everyone benefits. It's just a bit loosened up, for having fun with friends and not being left out. My proposed change, wouldn't change this at all.
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lh8Gk5Fl,comment-id=000600000001,timestamp=2019-12-09T14:36:27.917+0000) > > That's a load of BS and you know it. > This isn't enough to ban anyone, let alone a single game and 4 disgruntled teammates ganging up on someone who isn't experienced on a specific champion or is having a really bad game. Shit sucks to lose like that either way but banning someone without a CLEAR and DEFINITIVE proof they're inting, is loading a shotgun and pointing it at a crowd of people, hitting many just to also, maybe, hit the killer too that's somewhere in the crowd. > > This version of the system would have many innocent casualties and it would literally be auto-Tribunal, where everyone's guilty even at the possibility of a slightest offense. > > Imagine the same system working it's magic on you. > You have a very shitty game and people just decide to remove you. They all report, the system says "this guy's clearly trolling so fuck him" and that's the end of that. Would you agree with that sentence, even if you weren't guilty as charged? Of course you wouldn't. > > Riot has to manually review some of the reports because the system cannot catch and punish fringe cases consistently. And neither every fringe case deserves the same action. Submitting a support ticket TELLS RIOT that they should review a specific player manually since the idea is that he has done this before AND that the automated system isn't fast enough. So context doesn't matter when its about words, but someone actively ruining games requires context to be banned???
> [{quoted}](name=NontoxicKappa,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lh8Gk5Fl,comment-id=0006000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-09T22:32:53.019+0000) > > So context doesn't matter when its about words, but someone actively ruining games requires context to be banned??? If you're being a racist, a homophobe or telling people to kill themselves, the context is pretty clear in that regard. There're many cases where the full chat history (from a single or multiple games) tells you exactly with what kind of a player you're dealing with. The context always matters. "Actively ruining games" needs to be examined through the match history. But banning someone for a single game, you can't prove they've fed or not UNLESS they've done something that raised your suspicion about that possibility. If it's a single game, a Rioter reviewing the case would need more than the stats in order to decide on a verdict - footage (a replay) of the game and with the report cards from the teammates outlining the offense. It is still possible to punish someone for a single trolled game but again, this needs to be proven first. Calling someone out for "trolling" while they're just having a shitty game and then hammering them in-game for feeding/trolling when they're not, doesn't help the player play better one bit. I'm not arguing that Lee didn't troll, i'm saying that if you've reached that conclusion, a Rioter who's supposed to manually review the case should be convinced in that as well.
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:52:33.765+0000) > > Okay, hypothetical situation #1: > > I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? > > Hypothetical situation #2: > > Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical 1 doesn't actually apply because you still need to own the champion to earn the chest (it can't just be on free rotation). New players can only get as many chests as they own champions. They are getting less over the course of the year because they can't just unlock a new champion every week. This also comes with the assumption said players can even earn S ranks quickly enough over a variety of champions. In the second case, that player is almost guaranteed a chest per week because that champion restriction is no longer there. New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. Seriously, drop this "It's still once per week! We aren't breaking the hard limit" Because neither you nor OP are taking an objective look at how much easier it is to earn a weekly chest and how it affects new players in a way that Riot won't approve of.
#Finally we're getting to the bottom of this. >In the second case, that player is almost guaranteed a chest per week because that champion restriction is no longer there. New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. You think i am asking Riot to remove every champion restriction, making every player unlock 50 earnable chests from the start, regardless of owned champions! That's not, AT ALL, what i was describing all this time. I want "1 chest per OWNED champion, per season" restriction removed so that players CAN PLAY THEIR OWNED CHAMPIONS and literally earn chests just by getting S- ranks, while still being restricted with their owned champions in terms of how many earnable chests they get per season. If you own only 16 champions, the current total chest limit of your account is 16. If you buy 3 more champions, the new limit is 19 (+1 chest per new champion). Unless you buy more champions, that limit isn't going up. Owned champions are essentially used as TOKENS to increase the chest cap of any account to maximum of 50 (since there's only 52 weeks in a year). #Playing unowned champions doesn't earn anyone a chest, like the system right works. This restriction is fine. I've never made an argument to remove it, once. >neither you nor OP are taking an objective look at how much easier it is to earn a weekly chest and how it affects new players in a way that Riot won't approve of. I'm the only one here being objective, it seems. Making chests earnable by consistent performance on any OWNED champion instead of consistent performance on multiple OWNED champions, is MARGINALLY "easier". The limits on how much you can earn per week, and S-ranks requirement still exists. People who own less than 50 champions, get an imposed chest limit proportional to their OWNED champion pool, per season. There is no downside to this simple and minor change. The system works exactly like it does now but is more consistent. ##Simple math here: 1. Riot doesn't increase the number of chests in the system. 2. Players get more consistent rewards, even across the maps. 3. Players who don't own many champions, can't abuse the system. 4. Players still have to earn S-, which is for good performance so no free loot. 5. Every player can earn chests at the same rate (1 per week).
: Why should a one trick even care about chests? I play almost exclusively Taric and am currently sitting on 36 keys with 4 chests available. I don't care in the least because I already have every skin for Taric and at least one skin on every other champion I play like Amumu, Cho, Tryndamere, Nautilus, and Mundo.
Not every OTP is you. I don't play Nidalee all that much and i love her skins. I make it a point to get as much of her skins as i can, mostly through sales. There's an easy solution to your particular problem - Don't open your chests. But why are you not allowed to earn them, if your performance is good enough (and consistent) on Taric alone? The point is that the ENTIRE REQUIREMENT is for people to earn S- ranks for chests. Riot wants good performance. But good performance on 50 champions instead of just 50 good performances? Why do people need to play 50 champions? Why force it? The Hextech system is for EVERY PLAYER, equally. Right now, it's not an equal distribution because players who diversity their S- ranks are PREFERABLE to players who don't BUT still get S- ranks. Loot was clearly made for EVERY player in mind, it doesn't make sense to have 17 different restrictions placed on it, just so people can earn 1 chest, in a very special circumstances. There's also no need to make them earned differently on ARAM, as in the less champions you have left to earn the chest on, the more and more difficult it is to RANDOM them, and then get an S- in those tiny number of games. This practically makes a few chests (in a large champion pool of earned chests) unobtainable and people are forced to play SR instead.
: > [{quoted}](name=Periscope,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lh8Gk5Fl,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-12-09T05:24:08.891+0000) > > Always tough to weigh in on these games where it's impossible to look into, as it's not a match you yourself have played recently. Could have been a bad game, but if you feel they were intentionally feeding, you should submit a support ticket. Submitting a support ticket is way too out of the way when you have a perfectly fine report system right at the end of each game. Very simple fix for Riot honestly, if you have a terrible scoreline and are reported by the majority of your team then clearly your inting and should be banned. I can write the code for Riot for this if they need me too and it would solve so many problems. Same goes for if you AFK. No humans needed it can be completely automated
>if you have a terrible scoreline and are reported by the majority of your team then clearly your inting and should be banned. That's a load of BS and you know it. This isn't enough to ban anyone, let alone a single game and 4 disgruntled teammates ganging up on someone who isn't experienced on a specific champion or is having a really bad game. Shit sucks to lose like that either way but banning someone without a CLEAR and DEFINITIVE proof they're inting, is loading a shotgun and pointing it at a crowd of people, hitting many just to also, maybe, hit the killer too that's somewhere in the crowd. This version of the system would have many innocent casualties and it would literally be auto-Tribunal, where everyone's guilty even at the possibility of a slightest offense. Imagine the same system working it's magic on you. You have a very shitty game and people just decide to remove you. They all report, the system says "this guy's clearly trolling so fuck him" and that's the end of that. Would you agree with that sentence, even if you weren't guilty as charged? Of course you wouldn't. >Submitting a support ticket is way too out of the way Riot has to manually review some of the reports because the system cannot catch and punish fringe cases consistently. And neither every fringe case deserves the same action. Submitting a support ticket TELLS RIOT that they should review a specific player manually since the idea is that he has done this before AND that the automated system isn't fast enough.
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T22:51:09.704+0000) > > #Let me be extremely simple in my logic here > > **Explain to me the difference between these hypothetical players:** > _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ > > **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. > **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. > **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. > > **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player2 (focused)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player3 (OTP)** earns 1 chest per season. > **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. > > **Player1 (diverse)** and **Player4 (new)** are the ONLY ONES which the system treats the fairest (and equally). Are **Player2 (focused)** and **Player3 (OTP)** not trying as hard to earn their S- grades? **Player3 (OTP)** is by far treated the worst as he gets close to nothing, barely getting ahead of **Player5 (inactive)**, who's currently an inactive account! > > > > **There is no fairness in this system with "1 chest per owned champion" restriction.** > Players who play equally good, but diversify their picks to a lesser degree, get proportionally less rewards! > > --- > #REMOVING THE "1 CHEST PER OWNED CHAMPION" RESTRICTION > > **Same example, FAIR results:** > _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ > > **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. > **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. > **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. > > **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player2 (focused)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player3 (OTP)** earns 50 chest per season. > **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. > > **Player1 (diverse)**, **Player2 (focused)**, **Player3 (OTP)** ALL HAVE the SAME number of chests, according to their number of S- grades. **Player4 (new)** gets 10, ACCORDING to their number of S- grades. **Player5 (inactive)** gets 0 because they didn't play the game at all. > > ##THIS IS A FAIR SYSTEM! > > This system works exactly as the above one, there are NO MORE rewards (chests) being issued to the already imposed maximum limit of ~50 chests per season. The only thing that this change insures is that there are NO LESS rewards (chests) being issued. The timing and quantity of rewards doesn't change, the CONSISTENCY of issued rewards is the only thing that goes up. > > The minimum requirement for chest eligibility is to have one chest available and S- rank or higher grade. "Specific champion" requirement is an obstacle that doesn't have anything to do with performance grading. It should be general performance grading, not champion specific. Riot put in the extra hoop to jump through because they didn't want any players to be getting massive amounts of free content. That is what happens when you straight up remove restrictions. If Riot went to your system, they would immediately cut down on all chests you could earn, probably down to one per month. Why? Because some players are that damn consistent with specific champions (regardless of the dynamic grading) and would quickly max out their earned chests above other players. Riot would start losing money and they won't allow that. I'm all for LOOSENING the champion restriction, just not removing it. I understand why Riot put it in place and you need to understand that Riot will reduce the paid content you're getting for free if it is too consistent.
At this point, i've deconstructed this whole problem and my idea to a simple arithmetic of 1 + 1 and you're trying to convince me that the result is not 2. Your logic doesn't make sense because you keep returning to the same issue of "people will be earning more rewards", one that i have already addressed and that there is no more chests in the system than it's already possible to earn. >Riot put in the extra hoop to jump through because they didn't want any players to be getting massive amounts of free content. That is what happens when you straight up remove restrictions. How can i already have 44 chests earned, out of a possible 50 in this season? The season's still not over so that means a few more weeks (few more chests) + 2 in the bank i already have. Do you believe i am somehow cheating the system when Riot themselves have put this yearly limit to every account already? I am not an outlier of a player. Everyone can already earn 50 chests per season. >Because some players are that damn consistent with specific champions (regardless of the dynamic grading) and would **quickly max out their earned chests above other players.** #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. _**No player would be able to earn chests at a faster pace than the other player!**_ I can wait for 4 weeks and earn 4 chests in one sitting - the same thing i can do now. The other player can earn 1 chest per week. If i wait more than 4 weeks, i lose 1 chest per week because i cannot earn any more than 4 at one time. If the other player has been earning them consistently and keeping his chest bank clear, he's going to be ahead of me - as he should. No player gets to earn their loot faster than any other player. No player can farm 50 chests at once. > **Riot would start losing money**. and would need to reduce paid content you're getting. #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. Riot wouldn't lose any money because there wouldn't be ANY MORE LOOT to give out, other than Riot's already imposed limit of 50 chests per season and 1 chest per week timer. Removing the champion restriction DOESN'T ALLOW PLAYERS TO GET ANY MORE CHESTS THEN THEY ALREADY CAN. The system doesn't allow players to "farm" chests nor does it give them out for free. The limit is still 50 chests per season, per account (per owned champion). The rate at which people earn the chests is still the same (4 in the bank + 1 per week). The requirement to earn chests through S- ranks is still the same.
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T02:00:15.904+0000) > > I feel like i'm repeating myself a lot here. > > You can't spam earn chests because of the 1 chest per week timer restriction. > Nothing i proposed chances the way you earn chests nor the rate at which you earn them. > You still need an S- or higher and you still need to have a chest available on your account in order to bank it. > > Listing this champion restriction just makes earning chests consistent because you can play WHATEVER you want and if you get an S- or higher performance rank, you get a chest (if one is available per your own account's chest bank). Both ARAM and SR are covered by this change and no player is left behind. That's the whole point. This one less restriction makes it so that the system doesn't differentiate between any players or maps, everyone is equal. > > Riot themselves have set the pace of how much chests you can earn per season, there are no shortcuts. If you're consistent under this (right now) system, like i already am, my progress doesn't speed up one bit under the new one. If you're not consistent in earning S ranks on champions, you're not getting more chests than you're getting them now. This change is literally net neutral but it gives players more consistency because their picks don't matter, only their grade at the end of the game does. Okay, for one, it DOES change how you earn chests because it is currently limited to one per champion and you have to go out of your way to get every possible chest you can in a season. Second, it just plain affects how easily you earn them. Anyone who can consistently earn an S rank on a champion is suddenly hugely favored by the system and anyone who can't consistently manage S ranks (either because they need to abuse meta or simply don't understand the game). So, no, the new system doesn't "balance out". It straight up favors players who are ahead of the game on specific champions, which is what I was trying to get across. The only group that's "net neutral" are those who go with friends to get S ranks. That's why I put up the new restriction on repeat chests for champions. Any player with consistently good gameplay on a single champ suddenly isn't hugely favored because they have to maintain that consistency. > You're gonna have to ask Riot why this is the case. > It could be just to make Masterwork chests a bit more expensive since they're dishing out only cosmetic content and not also champion shards. I don't like getting champ shards either from my chests but i've found a workaround to this problem by opening my chests 10 at a time (in a bulk). Yea, it takes more time to gather the chests and keys but at that point, i know i'm not gonna disappoint myself in getting a single champ shard and sit on that negative feeling for a week before i get to open another one potential disappointment. The short version is because Riot didn't update S rank chests when they moved from IP to BE. And Riot didn't care to because tons of players go "stop complaining about free stuff". And, frankly, it's disappointing no matter how you slice it because S rank chests are a heavily limited resource.
#Let me be extremely simple in my logic here **Explain to me the difference between these hypothetical players:** _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player2 (focused)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player3 (OTP)** earns 1 chest per season. **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. **Player1 (diverse)** and **Player4 (new)** are the ONLY ONES which the system treats the fairest (and equally). Are **Player2 (focused)** and **Player3 (OTP)** not trying as hard to earn their S- grades? **Player3 (OTP)** is by far treated the worst as he gets close to nothing, barely getting ahead of **Player5 (inactive)**, who's currently an inactive account! **There is no fairness in this system with "1 chest per owned champion" restriction.** Players who play equally good, but diversify their picks to a lesser degree, get proportionally less rewards! >The more players play the game and earn their grades, the system dynamically aggregates the data and moves the line accordingly to the average performance of said champions. The more popular the champion, the stricter the line for a good grade is. The less popular the champion, the more loose the line is. > >The system cannot be cheated by "easy" grades from more familiar champions because the grading is dynamic and it constantly integrates new data from players. --- #REMOVING THE "1 CHEST PER OWNED CHAMPION" RESTRICTION **Same example, FAIR results:** _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player2 (focused)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player3 (OTP)** earns 50 chest per season. **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. **Player1 (diverse)**, **Player2 (focused)**, **Player3 (OTP)** ALL HAVE the SAME number of chests, according to their number of S- grades. **Player4 (new)** gets 10, ACCORDING to their number of S- grades. **Player5 (inactive)** gets 0 because they didn't play the game at all. ##THIS IS A FAIR SYSTEM! >A system that rewards players according to their capability of getting the desired results (S- grades on champion performance). Since the rewards aren't personalized per champion, this restriction doesn't make sense except **TO FORCE** players to diversify their picks. This system works exactly as the above one, there are NO MORE rewards (chests) being issued to the already imposed maximum limit of ~50 chests per season. The only thing that this change insures is that there are NO LESS rewards (chests) being issued. The timing and quantity of rewards doesn't change, the CONSISTENCY of issued rewards is the only thing that goes up. The minimum requirement for chest eligibility is to have one chest available and S- rank or higher grade. "Specific champion" requirement is an obstacle that doesn't have anything to do with performance grading. It should be general performance grading, not champion specific.
Audhulma (NA)
: I mean the original rework was a fucking travesty anyways, what makes you think they're going to stop mindlessly plowing through opposition now? There was nothing wrong with old Karma aside from not being a popular pick. She was strong in the right hands without being overbearing, and she had a reasonable skill floor. You can't tell people that it's fine for champions to have a very niche community of players, and then decide to rework a champion just because it isn't as popular as you want it to be. I dunno, I'm so far beyond the ability to forgive that asinine decision that it's best I don't even get started.
>shield nukes on minions were OK I played a lot of old Karma and she was entirely BS for this part. Playing against it meant you couldn't farm because she was always threatening you with an AP bomb. Also, her Mantra on Q was damage + heal. Her E was mostly useless given how it worked and her passive (more AP the lower HP you are) meant your utility (shield bombs) and stronger heals were a nightmare to face. Old Karma was like Lulu or Janna mid of yore. A full utility support/mage that was hard to kill since all of the utility was usable on herself + she had the damage to lane solo.
: This is embarrassing but I don't know how to build items correctly
I don't even use Item Sets. It's good they exist but personally, i know what i'm buying. I do the same with my rune page, i use one page for every champion by changing the page entirely, every time.
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-06T23:08:30.126+0000) > > This is way worse. > It's still excluding ARAM and is requiring exponential S ranks to earn same chests that you can at that point, easily earn from other champions if you simply decide to play with them. If anything, this feels like a punishment for playing the same champ, not the other way around. The point is that it's not easy to farm S rank chests with a single champ. I can consistently get A and S ranks on several Marksmen. Do I deserve to just spam them in SR and get my chests super easily in turn? > The point of removing per champion restriction is to allow players to simply worry about S- grades, not about diversifying their champion pool with S grades. Players shouldn't be forced to branch out unless they want to do so. This way, EVERYONE gets to earn chests no matter how they decide to play, even if you're a one trick pony. They get by far the worst deal out of this Hextech Loot. Even new players are cut out of the yearly chest earnings loop as they don't have many champions in their pool either. My solution still takes that into account and actually rewards mastery of a single champion. Why? Because if you can consistently get S ranks on a champion, then it's that much easier for you to grab chests with him/her. > Mechanical skill means very little on ARAM, considering i don't get to pick my champ at all. > And the very idea that my random pick is viable depends on the enemy and my team comp. Also, mechanical skill means nothing if you get a champ like Tham, who's been gimped severely with nerfs. Nothing about him is good and he can just tank the damage. Too bad that doesn't count towards his score, the only thing that matter is KDA and minions, which champs like him cannot farm anyway unless they have an alternative build that works (AP or AD). It matters a lot more than you might think. Sure, it can't guarantee you'll have the ability to score an S rank due to either team's composition. But it will make said S rank in ARAM much easier. I farm my S rank chests there because I am good enough to switch it up. That still doesn't change that the vast majority of my skill investment is in marksmen and mages. Side note, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, S rank chests handing out champion shards (because they're Hextech not Masterwork) greatly invalidates the effort put into obtaining the S rank. Why should my S rank game equate to a lucky level up capsule?
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T23:23:10.435+0000) > > The point is that it's not easy to farm S rank chests with a single champ. > > I can consistently get A and S ranks on several Marksmen. Do I deserve to just spam them in SR and get my chests super easily in turn? I feel like i'm repeating myself a lot here. You can't spam earn chests because of the 1 chest per week timer restriction. Nothing i proposed chances the way you earn chests nor the rate at which you earn them. You still need an S- or higher and you still need to have a chest available on your account in order to bank it. Listing this champion restriction just makes earning chests consistent because you can play WHATEVER you want and if you get an S- or higher performance rank, you get a chest (if one is available per your own account's chest bank). Both ARAM and SR are covered by this change and no player is left behind. That's the whole point. This one less restriction makes it so that the system doesn't differentiate between any players or maps, everyone is equal. Riot themselves have set the pace of how much chests you can earn per season, there are no shortcuts. If you're consistent under this (right now) system, like i already am, my progress doesn't speed up one bit under the new one. If you're not consistent in earning S ranks on champions, you're not getting more chests than you're getting them now. This change is literally net neutral but it gives players more consistency because their picks don't matter, only their grade at the end of the game does. >Side note, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, S rank chests handing out champion shards (because they're Hextech not Masterwork) greatly invalidates the effort put into obtaining the S rank. Why should my S rank game equate to a lucky level up capsule? You're gonna have to ask Riot why this is the case. It could be just to make Masterwork chests a bit more expensive since they're dishing out only cosmetic content and not also champion shards. I don't like getting champ shards either from my chests but i've found a workaround to this problem by opening my chests 10 at a time (in a bulk). Yea, it takes more time to gather the chests and keys but at that point, i know i'm not gonna disappoint myself in getting a single champ shard and sit on that negative feeling for a week before i get to open another one potential disappointment.
: If you have enough mechanical skill, the diversity requirement isn't so bad. That said, I do believe it should be possible to earn chests multiple times per champion per season. However, each chest requires twice as many S ranks as the previously earned chest (with a maximum of 8 S rank games per chest). So it goes to 4 levels. 1 S rank, then 2, then 4, then 8. Anything above 8 is excessive yet 8 is not a small amount of gameplay. Players dedicated to a small pool of champions have an opportunity to demonstrate their consistent mastery of a champion. Players with general skill or skilled friends can still do the variety pack.
>However, each chest requires twice as many S ranks as the previously earned chest This is way worse. It's still excluding ARAM and is requiring exponential S ranks to earn same chests that you can at that point, easily earn from other champions if you simply decide to play with them. If anything, this feels like a punishment for playing the same champ, not the other way around. The point of removing per champion restriction is to allow players to simply worry about S- grades, not about diversifying their champion pool with S grades. Players shouldn't be forced to branch out unless they want to do so. This way, EVERYONE gets to earn chests no matter how they decide to play, even if you're a one trick pony. They get by far the worst deal out of this Hextech Loot. Even new players are cut out of the yearly chest earnings loop as they don't have many champions in their pool either. >If you have enough mechanical skill, the diversity requirement isn't so bad. Mechanical skill means very little on ARAM, considering i don't get to pick my champ at all. And the very idea that my random pick is viable depends on the enemy and my team comp. Also, mechanical skill means nothing if you get a champ like Tham, who's been gimped severely with nerfs. Nothing about him is good and he can just tank the damage. Too bad that doesn't count towards his score, the only thing that matter is KDA and minions, which champs like him cannot farm anyway unless they have an alternative build that works (AP or AD).
Saezio (EUNE)
: > I play a lot of ARAM too and the point is that the less champions i'm left with to earn chests on, the more impossible of a task that is to achieve because i get these 15 champions less and less and then i can't even get an S- in that random point... Why do you only own 57 champs tho? Buy them all and you have tons of options to earn a chest
Because i want only champions i want to play. I am not interested in wasting my BE for something i have no interest in trying out.
Sirsir (NA)
: The Ryze Problem
I think you're forgetting the fact that Ryze's ult gives his Q (through Spell Flux), a damage boost in a %, upwards to 100% more. I like the idea of a Rogue Mage having the ability to fast-travel throughout Runeterra and between realms but in terms of his gameplay, i don't like Ryze's been turned to a utility mage and dumped the entirety of his damage to the basic kit, that was now even more simplified. Everything else about him, building Tear into Catalyst, is true. He literally power-spikes off mana items and when he gets more AP (and Conqueror), he's big problem as his pattern of bursting you from EQEQ combo is insanely short to just how much damage he can dish out in that point in time, which also spreads to any other targets in the primary target's vicinity, that spreads the same damage to them. You can't fight him 1 on 1, you can't fight him clustered and you always have to pay attention to what he does.
: Time to move on: Insurmountable issues with the current platform
>The consistent use and the immediate profound impact of upvote botting/brigading makes it impossible to look at the Hot page without wondering if the community got it there, or a single individual did. I'll just use my own post i made a couple of hours ago as an example. I've raised a good point (imho) about the certain limit of the Hextech Loot and i've written a lengthy post about it in order to make it a relevant and good read, instead of just an irrelevant, hate-filled bait that would attract certain people. What i wanted is a discussion and out of two people who've been there (and even if i assume they've both downvoted it), that's -1 and it currently sits at -3. So people are allowed to vote/downvote and essentially bump up/down a post without even wanting to engage in a discussion at hand. Voting up or down should only be used to push down irrelevant discussions to the topic at hand instead of being used for "visibility" of the post at any point at time. In fact, mods could move posts to the relevant board if that's the case (i know that this Boards doesn't have the capability to do so). If you disagree about something, feel free to express that through verbal conversation. Disagreeing about something through the shadows and essentially making sure that the post you're clearly not interested to engage in never sees the light of the day, is dumb as shit. I'm not accusing anyone of botting, i just find i amusing that people still complain about toxicity while they turn 180 and do this kind of stuff, without thinking twice about it.
Saezio (EUNE)
: I disagree because tying chests to champions means more diversity. You are encouraged to try and get a good game on champs you aren't that comfortable on. It also encourages grouping. I like it, although I would prefer if you could only earn like 1 chest per month from SOMEONE ELSE's grade. And we get compensated with having 4 personal chests and 1 chest someone else can earn for us. I play a lot of aram and the one complaint I have is I can't know if I have a chest or not on a champ in champ select. I would like that to be visible. 45 chests so far this season and I have 1 available but it's getting difficult to remember all the 45 champs I have a chest already during champ select.
>I disagree because tying chests to champions means more diversity. Forced diversity is not diversity. It's the same exact thing you're complaining about Riot "forcing" champions in the meta, in order to be "pro play certifiable" and eliminate champions that can play it safe, like the gutting of Tahm Kench. I play a lot of ARAM too and the point is that the less champions i'm left with to earn chests on, the more impossible of a task that is to achieve because i get these 15 champions less and less and then i can't even get an S- in that random point in time i manage to get them. This in turn forces me to get 5 friends to play with because leeching a chest indirectly is a far easier task than me trying to play against a system that wasn't designed to level the playing field. So am i now forced to expand my champion pool to more than 57 champions, just so that i can get more chances at more chests? Well, fuck that since i'm getting my champions at a rate i'm comfortable with and champions i, at some point, wanted in my champion pool. Is 39% of my champion pool too low of a number of owned champions? I don't think so. If i'm forced to expand my roster for no justifiable reason, that's already a fault in the system. >although I would prefer if you could only earn like 1 chest per month from SOMEONE ELSE's grade Don't you dare go here. Just because you prefer playing solo, playing in a team shouldn't be punished. If you're more comfortable earning chests by yourself, that's your thing. What i want is Riot to level the playing field for every type of a player, not just a hard core solo enthusiast, who is also a completionist and plays all 145 champions at once and can slot in 70 games a day. That's an insane requirement and an unreasonable one to make. What i want is consistency out of the system. The number of chests you can earn doesn't change and neither does the timing. And you're still required to get an S- or higher to earn a Chest. There's absolutely no reason why earning a chest should be gated to 1 champion per season.
: Why are you complaining about Riot way to give you free skins?
What part of my post was me complaining about "free skins"? I'm asking for everyone to have an equal footing about getting their loot, regardless if they're people who are OTPs, ARAM players or players who enjoy a diverse champion pool. Prioritizing only forced champion diversity does not give people the satisfaction of playing champions when they want to because in order to get loot, they're forced to try them and actually play them to get an S, which isn't for 1 or 2 games. ARAM doesn't alleviate that problem either.
arowin242 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=3ETPnoya,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T03:50:31.722+0000) > > Sylas' magic doesn't come from perticite shackles. > He can absorb people's magic at will. Granted, he has his limits (Sylas' new story in Freljord) but it seems like if he can touch any person, he can freely absorb and use the magic - but this doesn't apply to magical items always. > > Hurling magic at him would likely have him absorb it and he's most likely to use his petricite shackles as a capacitor to defend himself from magical attacks and to draw the magic from them in return. Sylas himself doesn't have much magic as he takes it from others. He can actually absorb magic from items (such as garen's enchanted sword, the walls of demacia's palace, ext) but either his shackles or the chains have to touch the source of it, this ability can also backfire as seen in the freljord story: he tried to absorb a true ice weapon's magic and it instantly started to harm him because he is no iceborn (tough he can achieve a temporary iceborn status) the argument here is that ryze can fight for hours just hurling magic at his opponent he drops dead, even if sylas can absorb it he's prone to mistake like anyone else and would get hit here and there. it would come down to a battle of attrition: one that ryze knows all to well. as for xerath: Nasus and renekton where unable to kill him and had to imprison him in order to stop him: if TWO ascended beings cannot kill xerath then i doubt some revolutionist such as Sylas can even come close.
The point about Sylas is how his magic works. Sylas is smart but he's no Ryze level smart. The second point is what kind of magic he can absorb. His ability to absorb magic isn't tied to Petricite shackles. The shackles are meant to suppress his magic but he's since learned that Petricite also absorbs it, it doesn't nullify it as Demacians thought. Petricite chains (as his in-game mechanics and ult work) extend his range of magic stealing so he essentially isn't limited to touching people and items in order for him to absorb it. He's absorbed magic from petricite walls (when he was going to kill King Jarvan) and he's absorbed magic from others (even from items). In his introduction story, he wasn't shackled with Petricite and he still absorbed the fire magic from the little girl he wanted to protect and managed to kill all 3 people due to him not able to control it. But it seems that ancient magic (Freljordian) cannot be so freely taken as there are some requirements. Iceborn were made by the Watchers and the weapons that essentially control True Ice magic require a "magical fingerprint" to be used as such. Only Iceborn can wield them. But being an Iceborn is in itself a magical ability, to which no True Ice weapon possesses on its own. True Ice is deadly to anyone but Iceborn. Ascension magic is likely to work in a similar manner. We know of people who've tried taking Ascended magic when they aren't compatible with it, they become failed Ascended called the Baccai. So Ascension is likely to be a Shuriman version of a ritual to imbue the person with great power but it also requires a "magical fingerprint" in order to be successful. And Ascended change their form after absorbing the magic (Nasus, Renekton, Azir, Xerath). We also have Shuriman versions of Ascended weapons, Chakram called Chalicar that once belonged to Setaka - the Warrior Queen of the Ascended. And Sivir is able to wield it (or use it to its full potential) due to her carrying Azir's bloodline - who's also fit to become an Ascended Emperor. Darkin are Ascended (with their weapons) who changed form due to hemomancy and their prison was the weapons they carried themselves to battle. The sheer influence of carrying such a weapon allows Darkin presence to influence and overtake their new host (Aatrox and Varus) while Kayn is exerting his own influence on Rhaast and does not allow for a full transformation. I feel like Sylas and Xerath would see eye to eye, considering that Xerath hated Azir and nobility in general for being born a slave. His ticket out of it (and taking revenge on Shurima and Azir's bloodline) was to take the power of Ascension for himself. Sylas is largely in the same hole, hating Demacians for looking at him from above as a beaten pitiful dog, needing to be put down. He's always hated the way they treated people like him (mages) and he had 15 years in prison to let his anger and hate simmer, unleashing almost the same amount of destruction upon Demacia - much like Xerath did to Shurima. But Xerath is far beyond his humanity (thousands of years ago) and he likely doesn't care about anything else but destruction at this point.
Rioter Comments
: It was a comment made on a forum where I say that I dont think the meta is apocaliptic but I don't quite enjoy it neither. So instead of playing in this meta when there are not even rankeds that matter and bruning out the joy of playing I decide to give this game a time, play other and return once PreSeason is over. It was quite simple and normal imo.
But why even mention WoW in the first place, as if it's somehow related to League? As if it's not implied that you have other things to do/play, besides League? Everyone has other game(s) they play when they've done playing League for the day. And even if this happens to be the only game you're playing, you have other things to do then wait like a sad puppy in front of League's Ranked door and wait until it's "playable" again. I'm assuming you're a functional human being and that you have other hobbies/priorities in life besides League and that it isn't on your mind 24/7.
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=M5AoKe45,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-12-05T14:09:41.865+0000) > > Ah yes, your hypothetical idiotic top laner who stands in the wave for her 4-5 Qs (post nerf) and takes unnecessary "uncontested" damage. You understand if you don't contest you just give her priority every wave, so you're constantly forced between losing trades or losing priority. The problem is either choice you make you're losing and there isn't anyway to outplay her for like 80% of the roster. That's really toxic and overpowered for a champ that can be played in multiple roles.
You understand that not every champion can duel her or do you think that you should just win trades against her if you so much as want to force them? There's plenty of ways to counter her and having her spend her Shroud to take a wave actually opens a window for an engage.
arowin242 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=3ETPnoya,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-12-05T14:10:22.486+0000) > > Sylas would fuck them up. most likely he wouldn't die instantly: but he would lose any extended fight, Xerath has become arcane magic incarnate and ryze is noted to have fought against similar high-level mages for hours on end. this is not to mention the fact that ryze is most likely aware of petricide's magic absorbing properties. (considering he is using a massive vault to house a couple of world runes.) as for xerath? he can fly at will, sylas wont be able to reach him anyway.
Sylas' magic doesn't come from perticite shackles. He can absorb people's magic at will. Granted, he has his limits (Sylas' new story in Freljord) but it seems like if he can touch any person, he can freely absorb and use the magic - but this doesn't apply to magical items always. Hurling magic at him would likely have him absorb it and he's most likely to use his petricite shackles as a capacitor to defend himself from magical attacks and to draw the magic from them in return. Sylas himself doesn't have much magic as he takes it from others.
PzyXo (EUW)
: I wish Demacia was stronger so they kill all mages so we don't have Ryze and Cassiopeia
: > [{quoted}](name=kda akali,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=M5AoKe45,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-05T01:16:11.083+0000) > > it's decent nerf to her waveclear imo, it now takes 4-5 Q's to clear an entire wave while before it took only 3. > > The hitbox nerf also hurts a little. On live Akali can stand on top of the melee minions and clear the whole wave because the Q hitbox goes slightly behind her. She can no longer do this so clearing requires you to Q both parts of the wave separately or position the wave carefully so that they all bunch up. She can literally just shroud on ever wave and out trade basically every melee champ in the game with zero counterplay. Which basically means she get to clear the wave uncontested so nerfing her wave clear doesn't do shit.
Ah yes, your hypothetical idiotic top laner who stands in the wave for her 4-5 Qs (post nerf) and takes unnecessary "uncontested" damage. Meanwhile Akali cannot cast 4 Qs in rapid succession because of its cost and her energy reserves, 3 Qs are max if you're casting Shroud to replenish your Energy for the 3rd hit. And that literally has to be your combo every time (wasting Shroud) if you want to clear waves "fast". Which also means that Akali cannot cast E (because there's no energy to do so in the same ability roration with 3 costly Qs) and cannot proc her passive unless she leaves her range to proc it. In short, you haven't played as Akali once to know her engagement pattern and to even think that nerf to waveclear "doesn't nerf her one bit" is a fallacy in itself. Maybe in Iron this is possible because players there have reaction times that of a Slowpoke but then you're also giving the Akali player supremely above average game knowledge and reaction times, to play Akali effectively - in Iron.
: It was a bait. He thought he could 2 v 3. Not realising that the enemy is fed, too fed is stupid not troll . " Seriously the boards are not dumb". Is that why same boards defended Noobrac( suits him better) but attack this guy. No, the boards are the very definition of stupid. Compare Nubrac to this and tell me this is worse.
Bait for what exactly? She didn't try to juke, she took Naut's hook head on while he danced on the spot. Only to get mauled to low HP, Flash out and then continue the same thing - dancing and coming back to get hit more. Her team didn't do anything and couldn't because to me, this didn't look like she was there to gank or push a lane, she was there to leech EXP or force a fight. Flashing that Mastery emote into a team of 5 people while you're all alone going into them, is a pretty inting behavior to me - even if the game is over. Trying to fight that stunlock Nautilus as a Kindred is pretty bad in itself and Nautilus wouldn't be engaging if his team wasn't nearby to profit from Kindred's death. So either Kindred has big balls or she doesn't know when to back off and was playing tilted already.
: > [{quoted}](name=Hotarµ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pcInTYKw,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2019-12-05T03:06:38.555+0000) > > At first I was pretty skeptical, the games didn't look _too_ bad, but I did some more digging and I'm leaning towards this ban being warranted. Let me explain. > > ________ > > ##First and foremost: You never buy mobis on Kindred. Doesn't seem like that big a deal on the surface, but here is why it's important: > > The only other time you've done this was [**in this game right here**](https://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/3201824740/246169660?tab=overview), which I assume was the first time you got punished for intentionally feeding. That game was played on 11/10/19, the next game you played was on 11/24/19. A 14 day gap inbetween these games, I don't think it's a coincidence that the first punishment for intentionally feeding is a 14-day suspension. > > I just think that's very important to note. Buying mobis does not automatically mean someone is intentionally feeding, but when you're punished two times in a row and the first one also had them built, it makes me skeptical and maybe you built them for a reason. > > In almost every one of your games you go tabi and it's **VERY** interesting to me that in a game with a fed Katarina, a fed Miss Fortune, a fed Nidalee, and a strong Riven/Nautilus, defensive boots didn't cross your mind. > > ______________ > > ##Secondly: here's the video evidence of the Kindred game _**(I will edit this comment when I finish the Volibear game)**_ if anyone else wants to follow along and see what I saw. > > https://streamable.com/4tlaq > > [_(Here's the direct link if you want to fullscreen it.)_](https://streamable.com/j68wk) > > Now, in order of the shown clips: > > - **Q'ed into entire enemy team** - Yeah, I think this one is pretty bad. You walked up, underleveled, Q'ed into the entire enemy team, and then died instantly. This was towards the end of the game, so you should have been playing much more defensively and/or, at the very least, not jumping directly into the entire team. > > > - **Walked directly into a fed Nautilus + MF** - Honestly, at first glance this looked like an honest mistake. Maybe you didn't realize they were strong, but either way it seemed a bit fishy and I began to rethink it for various reasons. More on that below. > > > - **Walked directly into a fed Nautilus + MF X2** - This is what made me rethink the above point. The area was warded, your team was not around you, you just walked directly into Nautilus and Miss Fortune again. **(EDIT: And while there's no sound in this video, throughout the majority of this game I can hear your team pinging you to back off.) ** > > - **Walked directly into a fed Nautilus + MF, danced, then walked back in and died.**- Same as the first point, this one is really bad. You walked up into lane, danced, got caught in a combo, flashed out, then kind of half-walked into the enemy team. Something that _everyone_ should be taking into consideration: OP is Plat+ and [**is a 673k mastery point Kindred main. **](https://championmasterylookup.derpthemeus.com/summoner?summoner=AZUL+1v9&region=NA) These just don't look right to me knowing all of that, even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you weren't intentionally feeding, you clearly weren't trying here. It shows. > > __________ > > #Will edit when I finish reviewing the Volibear game. But the Game is about fun and he choose to buy mobis on a jungle champ. Just cause its not meta dosen't mean it cant be done? Their was the {{champion:17}} support who ditched lane a roamed and screwed the bot laner but that's allowed and not this. I really don't understand sometimes.
Teemo isn't the person we're talking about here. We're talking about OP who was playing Kindred.
: You can' t punish someone for a past offence a second time. That goes against all principals of law. A guy murdered someone, went to jail for 25 years went out and 5 years later hit someone. He should not be sentenced to 20 years instead of 2 months, " because he had a previous history". In penal law A person is considered innocent until proven otherwise. You judge this player as if he is already guilty( listing past offences, which he has already " been to jail for"), not as if he were innocent. Now enough of my law student rants. In the game he admitted to being bad but so was his team. If the enemies are fed af of course I won't try as hard. Griefing is when the game is very much winnable but you fuck it up with troll builds, plays etc. Inting also. Here his game is just bad and his equally bad team, who unlike him don't have the balls to admit that they are bad, rep him.
His "past" (game) was never used to ban him the second time. Hotaru only said that he looked at his past offense for any similarities between the cases and the itemization was pretty similar while IN ANY OTHER GAME, his choice of boots was very clearly leaning toward something way more useful for Kindred. OP wasn't "griefing" because he went with Mobis that game. This was a red flag that warranted a closer look at his games where he was griefing. The natural next step is to review the replay(s) and see if anything sticks out. Secondly, if you have been recently punished for griefing (or anything), your account is already on thin ice. Which means that it's closely monitored by the system as repeated violations trigger more serious punishments. People don't immediately go to 14-day suspensions out of the blue and for a first offense. >You can' t punish someone for a past offence a second time. That goes against all principals of law. Although this statement is true, if you have a history of DUI, you're gonna rack up the penalties that will eventually culminate in your drivers licence getting taken away, along with paying the increasing fines. Not to mention if you hurt someone else or cause a collision, then it's jail time. League's system works in the same way. Your recent violation history is remembered and you can rack up punishments, even if they're for different things (like hate speech and then transitioning to feeding consistently).
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IN0u2OsR,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T02:12:23.776+0000) > > How does one compare WoW to LoL? > These are two different games and genres. Bubble hearth was removed because players did not find it fair. Zed can combo someone under tower with no risk people find it unfair, but Riot thinks its fair, Simple enough.
>Bubble hearth was removed because players did not find it fair. Ah yes, how can i be so dumb? Of course! One instance where Blizz "balances" their game makes them many times better than Riot. Not to mention the whole elitist shits who don't let "dead" classes to raid. Or after a single wipe, they immediately disband the party, forcing everyone to wait for another 30 years to queue up instead of working to a better strategy. One look at Blizz's own forums and you'll see there's plethora of complaints about WoW, just like there is for League. You're comparing apples and oranges here. WoW has its own set of issues and the difference between these games is that Riot's patch cadence is every two weeks while for WoW, months (which is typical for MMOs). So once a broken item/class appears, it takes months before Blizzard does something, even if its destroying PvP.
: There was no comparison? He just stated that he was going to continue playing WoW since ranked games don't count right now. He isn't comparing the two.
Why was this worthy of an announcement? Just go play whatever you want to play.
: I don't find the meta to be extremly bad, but pretty mediocre. That combined with the PreSeason which means that rankeds dont matter until months...yeah I'll stay on WoW with my priest.
How does one compare WoW to LoL? These are two different games and genres.
: I would like that. Sitting on 10 gemstones currently and I am just willing to spend them on Zaunite or Piltovan champions. Having such a list would do 2 things for me. 1. It would inform me if there is finally going to be a skin I can buy with these gems in the near future. 2. It informs me if there are more than 1 Zaunite/Piltie going to receive such skin, so I know if I can buy the one coming up immediately or if I should wait for the other to drop to decide which one to get first before saving up another set of gemstones for the other.
The thing about Gemstones is that they're rare and cannot be bought by any other means than getting them from Chests (Or Essence Emporium). Even if you have 10 stocked up and you knew a year in advance of champions who would receive a Gemstone skin, Gemstones are actually that rare that you'll need more than a year to collect 10 more. Masterwork Chests don't offer anything more than regular Chests, except that Champion shard pool has been removed so you only get cosmetic content. I don't think it's worth turning your Gemstones into Masterwork Chests, given their extreme rarity. Eventually you'll see a skin up there you'd like and there would be no other way to obtain it but waiting for the next 10 gems. Simply forget that Gemstones exist until you see a Gemstone skin worth getting.
PaladinNO (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=b3Eyp0bR,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T14:17:48.496+0000) > > Adobe Air was also a major resource hog. > It could've literally compared to what Chrome does to this day. Which is ironic, as the new client is built on a version of Chromium... Yes, they said they can apply patches and content updates without the need to restart the client...but we still often need to restart the client to "refresh" the content, like unlocked hextech loot (emotes in particular for some reason). I'll say this though. The old client was heavy on the RAM in comparison, whereas the new is heavy on the CPU. I don't know which is better, personally, as I have plenty of RAM (32 GB). The CPU, however, albeit overcloked...not so much (3770K).
Riot recently fixed a long standing slow cycle for the skins picker in champion select and in the collection tab.
: It makes no difference to me. If I opened 10 chests and got 3 skins and 8 champion shards I would be equally frustrated. Even more, though, because from my point of view I've waited longer for that - waiting 2 months for one skin seems worse to me than waiting a week for a champion shard. It would still be shitty loot.
>If I opened 10 chests and got 3 skins and 8 champion shards I would be equally frustrated. Impossible, considering that champion shard drop rate is only 25%. You're talking about specific instances on your side, which isn't a real representation of the drop rate in general. Granted, this drop rate is extrapolated from a very large sample size but from your perspective, if i assume you can realistically open 1 chest a week (get an S + get 3 key frags) and you manage to get 2 champs shards back to back, you'd think that there's nothing but champion shards and that skins are a rarity. This is exactly why i'm telling you to open in bulk. Because this way (10 at a time is already a limit), you are not subjected to a luck of the draw in just one chest, you are looking at 10 chances at once (and like i said, there's always more than 10 things you will get anyway). >CONTENT TYPE ---- % OF OPENINGS >Skin Shard --- 50% Champion Shard--- 25% Emote Permanent --- 10% Ward Skin Shard + 150 Bonus Orange Essence --- 11.5% Summoner Icon Shard + 150 Bonus Orange Essence --- 3.5%
: Not really a fan of waiting 3 months to open a chest
Then don't open chests, period. What's the point of complaining about the loot you don't want when the sheer number of things that the chest can actually contain is in thousands? You likely don't want every single skin either so that Sad Pharaoh Amumu can f itself anyway, since it's really cheap and for a champion that was steamrolled by time, in terms of looks and gameplay, 7 years ago. The payoff in waiting for 10 chests is that you get a lot more stuff to look through. And it's never just 10 things, it's always more because chests also contain chests + keys, emotes, gemstones, OE, ward skins, icons, etc. There's no golden middle here. Either you'll patient and allow yourself to open chests in bulk for more stuff (and less disappointment) or you're going to commit to a miserable (but more frequent) experience in getting stuff you mostly don't want in singles and having all the time to contemplate the negative emotions that follows it - until the next chest opening. Think of chests as birthday presents. You can always open that single present and be disappointed with a mug - mugs you already have. It's functional, it's going to serve its purpose but you're in no need of more mugs (you already have 10). Or you can wait until you get 10 presents and have more variety in between your gifts. It's your call really.
PaladinNO (EUNE)
: Can confirm. What sort of irrelevant change have they done now to make something completely different bug out? :/ I thought they made the new client, coding it "from the ground-up!" (their words), to avoid these things... EDIT: Status message has reset too.
>I thought they made the new client, coding it "from the ground-up!" (their words), to avoid these things... It's irrelevant if the client is old or new, both had bugs. A bug is not something a developer plans for, they happen for variety of reasons (and sometimes, mismatch of values, missing/different variables or even wrongly referenced ones). And they made a new client to make the implementation of future features easier on the new tech (compared to old and almost deprecated Adobe Air), which would allow developers to literally not break their back implementing a feature that's easy to do but hard to fit in the sea of spaghetti code and hoping that the dam doesn't break with a band aid put on its crack, that's right below the functionality they're trying to add. Adobe Air was also a major resource hog. It could've literally compared to what Chrome does to this day.
: Getting honor orbs is just grind - you progress every game, honors you get have nearly no influence on your score. It is, however, a big grind - and the reward is fucking hilariously low - considering that the chest drops is as low as possible already - I think that they should just give everyone 3 chests and keys for every honor orb of honor 4 and higher so you can actually get at least one skin shard. I own every single thing from Essence Emporium, i've got 20 rune pages (Always using one of course) and I'm still at 50K BE surplus. I really don't need no champion shards. Can't you make a system that would guarantee a skin shard from every other chest? My last 4 were some shitty champion shards. I am an honorable player, I have 6 keys and 0 chests - and I still don't expect even one skin shard from these once I get them. This system is so frustrating that I think it was designed by EndlessPillows (The guy responsible for Rakan, Xayah, Yuumi and Pyke). Give me a break.
Never open single chests. Always open in a bulk of 10.
Infernape (EUW)
: Nothing is more infuriating than getting a honour 5 orb, getting key fragments to open one of the 13 chests I have to only get a fucking champion shard.
Invest in key shards/keys from events. There's literally no point in investing in anything else. Riot doesn't give out a ton of event tokens, they give you just enough so that you can essentially buy the event Orb again and have something leftover to sink into a key shard or two (or BE). Essentially, unless you're looking for golden chromas or borders + icons, the only realistic (and affordable) items are emotes and icons. But from my experience, sometimes buy the event icon (like True Damage one), and one emote, if i find it nice (UwU Nami was sweet). Everything else gets converted into key shards/keys, which makes me damn sure that i can open my chests when i want. Secondly, don't open single chests EVER. Given just how much loot can you get from there, you're only setting yourself up to be disappointed from rolling on one possible type of loot and then the specific shard of that type. Open 10 in a row. That takes time to farm up sure but the reward from opening a bulk is that you always get more content to look through and sort out instead of being disappointed by a champion shard.
: > Wait, you don't use a password manager? Not everyone uses password managers and there are different inherent risks that come with them that may dissuade an individual to not use them.
> [{quoted}](name=ADapperOctopus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Y2KpxUN7,comment-id=00020001000000010001,timestamp=2019-11-28T17:23:33.347+0000) > > Not everyone uses password managers and there are different inherent risks that come with them that may dissuade an individual to not use them. Keeping your own tabs on possible hundreds of logins on a piece of paper, notepad or cloud, carries the same, if not bigger risk of being lost or taken. At that point, where your online presence is an inevitability, you're far better off remembering just one username and password and keeping other hundreds in a vault of a password manager, where everything is encrypted. I'm sure that the options you're currently using don't have any kind of encryption and that you're not putting your password/username ledger under your mattress either. Keeping this information not one one place might technically be a safer alternative but that's a proverbial hill you've chosen to die on. Asking Riot to not add to your struggle is not their problem as they have to take care of the security of their systems.
: I have never wanted to delete LOL more than in this preseason
Yea OP, it's like you haven't played previous seasons at all. As if solo laners (or jungler, mid laner, marksman and support) were never ahead of levels if they were winning their lanes and had like 5 kills up to a certain point. 5% (or 6% for the jungle) more solo lane EXP is not 4-5 levels ahead at any point in time, from raw farming. It makes a difference, not that much difference. Jungle being left behind by a small margin makes it so that they don't start turning the game around from their first gank, due to their raw power. Duo lanes don't get ahead of solo lanes that easily and they technically can't just start murdering people with one and a half item power spike, after their laning is essentially over (destroyed enemy turret and rotating to a different lane for the pressure).
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Y2KpxUN7,comment-id=0002000100000001,timestamp=2019-11-27T13:21:30.409+0000) > > Wait, you don't use a password manager? Unless you're using an application that encrypts everything that's insecure AF Every web browser has them built in but I try to let it memorize as few as possible. If your PC ever ends up compromised you just give away a bunch of accounts someone could possibly steal. Lets be real, assuming I interact with very few people the most secure way for me to memorize this stuff is physically writing it down, but just from attempting to do that for a few sources it becomes clear that if I care about password security I end up with a ton of different usernames and passwords. With everything I'm expected to memorize in my daily life I'm almost certainly going to forget something. Acting like people can't forget their log-ins when every site every has a "Forgot username/password" prompt is ridiculous. When you're dealing with banks, work, every game site, every social media site, additonal payment sites, whatever personal sites you like, ect you end up building up a lot of these.
>Unless you're using an application that encrypts everything that's insecure AF That's exactly why i use LastPass as my password manager, not default browser managers. I save every login to my vault and the only thing i need to remember is my email and a master password. Shit, if i don't have a hundred websites in there, there's no way i am going to remember every single one. At least 50% of those i have used only once. You NEED a password manager as every bit of "your own" method is insecure - notepad, your own cloud, a piece of paper... Online services use accounts for most things and you cannot avoid signing up for something, unless you live in the dark age and you don't use internet at all. >Acting like people can't forget their log-ins when every site every has a "Forgot username/password" prompt is ridiculous. If you don't make it easier for yourself to remember potentially hundreds of logins, passwords, emails, etc, of course you're going to forget something.
Amphysvena (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YBdEObJ0,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-11-27T14:27:36.367+0000) > > Just add some numbers to it... > Then you have the same username but with a different identifier. > > Example: username: smalldicc > New username: smalldicc135 > > Is it that hard to add some numbers? > What the fuck is the issue here? > > Then don't. > If you have this short of a fuse, i imagine you're not any better as a teammate either. Maybe Riot should just add some numbers. To their IQ.
: I have multiple accounts, it's going to be real fucking annoying to memorize new usernames for 7 different accounts.
Do you live in this current day and age where password managers exist or are you from 1300s? Change username and password, login to the boards with that active account (each one) and save them as separate logins to the site. Now you don't have to remember 7 different accounts or put them on a piece of paper.
SSG Elmo (NA)
: I refuse to change my username login.
> I refuse to change my username. Just add some numbers to it... Then you have the same username but with a different identifier. Example: username: smalldicc New username: smalldicc135 Is it that hard to add some numbers? What the fuck is the issue here? > I'm not going to log in until this is resolved. Then don't. If you have this short of a fuse, i imagine you're not any better as a teammate either.
: > [{quoted}](name=22 Caliber Rifle,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=P6PzXAwc,comment-id=00000008,timestamp=2019-11-27T11:11:32.515+0000) > > Literally submitted a riot support a few days ago in regards to this and they said this: > > Forced changing of Riot usernames to log into client: > Hey there, buddy! Lunar rushing to your general direction! Dizzy Dino here from Player Support reporting in! It simply means that your username has similar ones to other regions including PBE accounts. We understand that changing your name can be a bit of a bummer, but this will ensure that you are you, no matter which Riot Game you’re playing. Since I can see here that you successfully changed your username on your end. Your Riot Account's username will be globally unique from now on. If you have any other questions or concerns, lemme know. Dizzy Dino🐱‍🐉 Riot Games Player Support "The Moon has judged you." 🐱‍👤The Poro Collector🐱‍👤 > > My name used to be Gliave for login. > > Now its RiotGliave > > Like come on? Thanks man for opening the ticket and to at least get some Riot answer. Now, onto my reaction all this. WHAT THE F**K RIOT - I have been playing this game for 10 years, right after beta ended and you force me to change the name "biciiise it liiks similir ti ithir rigions so wi kniw yi ire yi" mi mi mi mi mi... F*CK YOU Bitch, there are 80 million accounts or so... the name is a fucking data point in trillions of 0 and 1. Nobody gives a shit what it is EXCEPT for the people who need to actually USE IT. Which are the fucking players you dumb rito goons. FuckYouRiotNameChange is my new user name. Let's see how long will it take before some automated BS robot will suspend my account just because I use this freedom to express the inability and stupidity of your customer service. All this shit so that Riot can then at the end of the year go and say that the player base grew by 83% in 2019. I dont see any other point. WE ALREADY HAD AN ACCOUNT TO EVERYTHING. What the hell were we using? To all those sites, boards... "LoL account" my ass. You are a ONE GAME COMPANY riot - but once you decide to make more games, suddenly you cannot f**king ALLOW these "LOL ACCOUNTS" to be THE account?! F**king unbelievable. No wonder it is owned by Chinese mega-conglomerate
Calm your tits... Fucking hell... Just change your damn username to something else. Or use the same username but add a few numbers to it. That's all you have to fucking do. It's literally the same amount of work as them asking you to change your password. Nothing about your account changes, your IGN is still yours and everything is in the same place, just as you left it yesterday. You're literally throwing a tantrum like a small child and threatening that you'll hold your breath until papa Rito gives in to your demands. >No wonder it is owned by Chinese mega-conglomerate This change doesn't have anything to do with China, you buffoon. This also being the literal go-to argument every time Riot does something that upsets someone's stomach, is dumb as shit. >WE ALREADY HAD AN ACCOUNT TO EVERYTHING. What the hell were we using? To all those sites, boards... What sites? Your one LoL account is tied to the Boards, you just have to select your proper region first. You can still access and comment on any boards (except PBE). PBE is its own account. What else is there except for League and Boards?
Drezden (NA)
: I just got this resolved. It seems it was my PBE account getting in the way. Copy that link to the name change, Open a "Incognito window" to clear any presignin information you may have saved, and post the URL (https://update-account.riotgames.com/) Change the drop down "NA" to "Public Beta" and change your name on there instead to like...your name PBE or something. That worked for me and let me back into my account!
For me, this didn't work. I know PBE used the same username as my EUNE account because my PBE access is tied to my Honor Level so i assumed that my account is accessing the PBE too. All you needed to do was "verify" this through their PBE signup page and it was streamlined later that you can just login with the same credentials but just change the server to PBE. I thought my PBE account was the only one using the same username but it's possible that i have yet another account on some server i'm currently forgetting that shares the same username as my main on EUNE. So yea, instead of digging this up (i changed my PBE username tho and it didn't work), i just changed the username entirely. Nothing about your IGN changes so it's not really a big issue.
: > correct me if im wrong, but it's not your ign its your physical login stuff so sure it may be annoying to change but its not gonna affect your in game stuffs. The most common reasons for people and myself included is that we have had these names for a very long time, we use the same name and will likely forget the new one because it isn't ingrained in our brain like the original, and the most important reason is that we shouldn't have to change it in the first place. There's really no precedent for it, as some have mentioned before they could have just gone off of emails, used a verification for the account name, or ya know just let you keep the one you're using since you're overwriting the account info anyway.
>we use the same name and will likely forget the new one because it isn't ingrained in our brain like the original, Wait, you don't use a password manager?
: It just isn't Vlad though. Riot should be doing a lot more for their older champions. Half of their champion pool (the older generation ones) are outdated in terms of art and some of their kits are a problem. Instead of addressing these issues Riot is releasing new champions with updated art and overloaded kits that forces them to rework these champion 2 - 4 months later. Riot Game Developers DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR OLDER CHAMPIONS, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THEY MAKE MISTAKES ON AND OTHER ONES WHO ACTUALLY NEED THE WORK. New champions bring in the money and that is what they prioritize all of their teams and resources into. A billion dollar company who cannot be bothered to hire new talent to get s**t done on older champions, but other mobas and games do it on a regular basis. Riot should be doing more Ezreal and Morgana level mini-VGU but that is not on the tables when they have champions like Ryze and Lux that need their yearly art updates and kit reworks.
>>"Riot doesn't care about champion updates" >>Mentions Ezreal and Morgana champion updates wat >Instead of addressing these issues Riot is releasing new champions with updated art and overloaded kits that forces them to rework these champion 2 - 4 months later. Last year Riot updated more champions than they released. They're at best, keeping a 50-50 ratio. Both new champs and reworks/updates are content for League and we both know that both need to exist. Changes like Ez were minor because Ez already worked, he just needed a new W. So Riot got the opportunity to update his visuals and add flavor to his kit (and a new, usable spell). With Morgana, i would argue they missed the mark. I was hoping Riot would make her into a relevant mid lane mage (she hasn't been one in many years), and the minor changes did absolutely nothing to fix her issues. Her issues are that, with a kit that she has, she is just too outdated and simple to deal with, against the usual champions that occupy mid nowadays. And i think they were unwilling to upset the support mains in order to do so, which i would argue again that Morgana has transitioned bot lane because mid lane was evolving, while she had not.
: The worst part is that the only reason you can't use it is because it is taken......BY YOU!
Show more

Tomoe Gozen

Level 160 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion