Vad Nova (NA)
: Game has gone downhill hard (rant warning)
I see this thread with almost exactly the same issues that were plaguing the game for a long time before I stopped playing back in March. I just thought I'd check in and see if anything has changed in the past year, and this post just confirms that it hasn't. League used to be fun when it was still a game about strategy, now it just seems to be a game about picking certain champions, having fast reflexes, learning mechanical combos, and looking good while doing so. Riot have been slowly running the game farther and farther into a direction that no longer appeals to players like me, and there's no way to go back to that game that I came to love 7 years ago.
: I'm sorry that your League experience hasn't been as enjoyable this year as past ones. I sympathize with some of the points you bring up and I just wanted to give some of my perspective as an individual who works on the Live Gameplay team. First, I think there's a tendency for some players to think that our balance approach is directed at creating a game state that generates the most LC$$$. This is simply false. As a person who's worked on changes for the game over the past ~2 years, I've never once been asked to consider eSports revenue as a factor in my design decision making. If this was truly our goal, I'm sure you'd be hearing a lot more "ha-sa-ki" in the pro games you are watching. As a designer, I value the pro-game as an expression of what optimized behavior looks like. Having an eSports scene illuminates what is powerful and what is weak to every player and helps designers understand what systems need to be re-balanced in order to achieve more variety in League's gameplay. This is both good and bad because even though it helps live players discover new strategies, it also accelerates the solving of the meta-game when something is over-tuned or lacks counter-play. Ideally, being informed by pro-play allows us to make changes that improve the holistic experience for all players over time. But balancing our timing with what's healthy for pro play has historically been very challenging. This year we tried to be more accommodating to the pro players with the degree and timing of our changes nearing Worlds. I personally feel like this was a correct decision, but it also meant we took on different risks than previous years which have manifested different costs. I also want to highlight that some opinions about the game aren't uniform at Riot. Designers argue and discuss about what the game needs every day but efforts to make change need to be balanced with features that the design team is already aligned on delivering. For example, I personally think League's pacing should be re-examined and that Duskblade should probably be re-shaped, but it's unlikely that I could work on those changes properly without seeing what the game looks like after Runes Reforged shakes things up. To close, I realize this post isn't very specific about particular solutions we might have in mind with the pain points you brought up, but we are most definitely examining the game with similar lenses. I'm sure all of the devs on League are striving to do better in this new season as well and I hope we can earn back your trust with the efforts you'll see in the coming months and new year.
Honestly, it's not just season 7 which is the problem. The game has slowly been shifting to be more about mechanical complexity and twitch reactions instead of strategy, since probably back in season 3, and it just moves more in that direction with each season. The issues that a lot of older players see aren't problems as far as Riot are concerned - they're an intentional change in the nature of the game.
Thryale (NA)
: I know. It's a strawman tactic. He's trying to draw validity away from you by making your claim look less impressive.
To be fair, a lot of people equate "main" with "one-trick". I was never a one-trick, she was just my most-played champion.
: It's honestly sad how Riot aspires to preserve some of champions' gameplay identity while completely ignoring how much the character itself is important to people who like them. And you'd think they'd learn after ~~relaunching~~ deleting Karma and Galio. Some were completely unsalvageable, true - like how Sion's entire "character" was "a walking bag of Arnold references". Not really much of a character you can build around that. Champions like Galio, Zac or Poppy, however, were already well written without too many cliches and what Riot did to them was a clear downgrade.
Maybe I'm being really forgetful, as it's been years, but I don't recall Karma's character changing that much? She became a bit more proactive and less calm than she was before, but wasn't changed hugely. Even the lore was more of a progression of her existing lore. The fact that she came with a traditional skin with the old voice lines certainly helped. Her *kit* changed a lot, for sure, and in so doing she lost a lot of the cool duality that connected her character to her kit.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nameless Voice,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Z5mgrxL0,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2017-10-07T10:42:15.107+0000) > > Explain to me why deleting a champion and replacing them with a new one with the same name is even a thing that anyone would want. > > The idea behind VGUs is supposed to be to bring older champions up-to-date, to expand on what already existed and to make it greater. > To take the best parts of the character and amplify them. > > Yes, that can mean throwing out the poor parts of their kits, but to entirely change the personality and character of a champion that people have enjoyed playing for years? No, there is no excuse for that. > > Everyone in this thread only talks about her kit changes, when my post was primarily criticising the complete replacement of her *character*. > Just like Galio before her, the team behind her completely ignored what her original character was like and just made a completely new character with a completely different personality using the same name. Her live kit is that of a sustained damage dealer except for her passive. Her passive is the exact opposite of her Ult, Q, and W. Her E was always useful. What would you have done to make her more of a balanced champion? I rather like the rework and I see the similarities. Until you come up with an alternative, I would rather that we give Riot the benefit of the doubt.
We can give them the benefit of the doubt about how her kit will play out - honestly, it seems fine apart from the untargetability on the ultimate - but we can't give them the benefit of the doubt about her personality and character, since we've already seen exactly what those will be.
Paroe (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Nameless Voice,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Z5mgrxL0,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2017-10-07T10:42:15.107+0000) > > Explain to me why deleting a champion and replacing them with a new one with the same name is even a thing that anyone would want. Because thats how riot works? Some kits just cant be salvaged. Sion and shen are examples of this. No one wants their main changed, especially with riots track record. > The idea behind VGUs is supposed to be to bring older champions up-to-date, to expand on what already existed and to make it greater. > To take the best parts of the character and amplify them. Yeah no. The idea behind a relaunch is to take the theme of an existing champion and build a new one around that theme. Warwick was a modernization, his kit was salvaged. Eve? Eves kit cant be salvaged but whats iconic about her - the stealth and her Q - was retained as much as possible. > Yes, that can mean throwing out the poor parts of their kits, but to entirely change the personality and character of a champion that people have enjoyed playing for years? No, there is no excuse for that. You DO realize that riot follows trump practicies and not buffet practices right? Their way of doing things isnt "We keep whats good and only change what needs to be changed while respecting the original vision" Their way of doing things is "Were giving it to a new designer who will change it how they want it to be changed without respecting the original vision" > Everyone in this thread only talks about her kit changes, when my post was primarily criticising the complete replacement of her *character*. > Just like Galio before her, the team behind her completely ignored what her original character was like and just made a completely new character with a completely different personality using the same name. Yeah thats kind of what a relaunch does. Sion: Went from being an undead cannibal with the best VO in the game to being an undead orc from warcraft Poppy: Went from being a surly politcal bridge between yordles and demacia to being a typical unwitting "good" hero. Warwick: Went from being a blood thirsty man transfigured by science into a werewolf who wanted sorakas heart to return to being human into a chimera anti-hero bent mostly on revenge. Relaunches dont usually retain their previous versions story line. Thats kind of the point of a relaunch; visuals, gameplay, AND lore all get changed. You get a NEW champion entirely. A new champion with the same name.
That's true enough. It's what Riot does. Doesn't meant that people have to be *happy* about it, though. Every time, a lot of the old mains complain, but players who have never played the champion tend to be happy and prefer the new one. I've even been on both sides of that myself. Some of the reworks I absolutely hated because they completely changed an iconic character, whereas others I didn't mind at all because it wasn't a character that I was invested in.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nameless Voice,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Z5mgrxL0,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2017-10-07T10:42:15.107+0000) > > Explain to me why deleting a champion and replacing them with a new one with the same name is even a thing that anyone would want. {{champion:48}} {{champion:3}} {{champion:14}} {{champion:43}}
Well, you must admit that most of those were not something that the mains of those champions wanted. The former Karma mains were always very vocal about her rework, even years afterwards, and she was the one of those whose personality and character were changed the least.
Thryale (NA)
: dude... 500hrs equates to 750-1000 games played (depending on game length) anyone who's played at least 100 games as a champ is usually entitled to say they "main" that champ. If you put in 1k games on a champ, yer practically an authority on said champ.
I even specifically said I'd played just under 1000 ranked games in the first post. (I don't even know how many unranked games I would have played.)
Paroe (NA)
: This rework isnt a rework.... Its a relaunch. Do you understand that? _A RELAUNCH_. This isnt "oh its the same champion but slightly different". NO, its a NEW champion with the OLD NAME. You CANNOT compare a relaunch like this to a rework; they are _ENTIRELY_ different and the purposes of them are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ The relaunched eve is great. She takes the old out dated concept of eve and brings _in line with riots current definition of assassin rather than a diver_. She lost her stat check abilities and gained an engage. Hard CC. A balanced Q. Everything she was has been streamlined with a single, cohesive _THEME_ rather than this strange mismatch of "we want her to be a diver but also be able to assassinate but also be able to build AP but also be be able to build AD" that was eve previously. Lastly... Shes fun to play against with clear counterplay. Thats the real kicker here; people ENJOY playing against the new eve.
Explain to me why deleting a champion and replacing them with a new one with the same name is even a thing that anyone would want. The idea behind VGUs is supposed to be to bring older champions up-to-date, to expand on what already existed and to make it greater. To take the best parts of the character and amplify them. Yes, that can mean throwing out the poor parts of their kits, but to entirely change the personality and character of a champion that people have enjoyed playing for years? No, there is no excuse for that. Everyone in this thread only talks about her kit changes, when my post was primarily criticising the complete replacement of her *character*. Just like Galio before her, the team behind her completely ignored what her original character was like and just made a completely new character with a completely different personality using the same name.
: you main a champion for 6 years and you got only 500 hours on her?? i think either your math are very bad ... or you are lying
That feeling when you realise that you spent at least 21 solid days playing a champion... and you aren't considered obsessive *enough*.
Rioter Comments
: Evelynn's splashes
Really high-quality artwork, but they look nothing like Evelynn to me.
Reav3 (NA)
: This is actually a pretty big myth on these boards. We survey players regularly about our Champions and VGUs and we get data from old mains and new mains. Galio has been one of our most successful VGUs we have ever done from a player reception point of view. These boards are a very small percentage of our players and also can be a bit of a echo chamber sometimes. He had also been one of our stickiest champion updates maintaining a high playrate for a Tank despite having a low winrate.
Successful from players who actually played the old Galio, or just players in general? Because as a new champion he would have been fine, but that's just what he is - a new champion. He has almost no relation to the original Galio at all. He has a completely different personality.
: After 5 years of League, I am calling it quits at the end of the season.
Not sure why I'm bothering to write this, but I never did write anything to explain why I haven't felt like playing League in a long time. I think a lot of the old-guard players who've been playing since season 1 have begun to realise that Riot are taking League in a direction that is very different from the game that we originally fell in love with. Back before League, I used to play Starcraft 2. I always liked the "micro play", making good use of your units and their abilities. Over time, I became disillusioned with it because I realised that the game wasn't actually about micro. You mostly won games based on who mined the most minerals and had the largest armies, rather than who used those armies the best. But what really bothered, me and really drove me away from SC2, was the realisation that a large part of the difficulty and skill representation of the game was actually nothing to do with strategy or tactics - it was fighting the interface. In SC1, APM - actions per minute - was always a measure of how good a player was. The more things you could click on quickly, the better. The interface was always awkward - such as limited unit selection, build queues that constantly had to be babysat, etc. - so you needed to do a lot of fast clicking to get everything working as you wanted. It was probably intentional even back then, but I could give it the benefit of the doubt for a game made back in 1998, and especially considering how much of an improvement it was over Blizzard's earlier interfaces, back when they were still experimenting with the RTS command formula. But with Starcraft 2, I finally realised that Blizzard had intentionally kept the interface bad, because they thought that fighting the interface with massive APM were actually an important representation of skill. They thought that the game really should be decided by who is better at managing their build queues in their base, moving their army, and managing various no-thought base mechanics, all at the same time - while I honestly thought that a strategy game should be far more about deciding what to do and executing it well. So, I started playing League. It was all about micro-managing one unit, but also apart from last-hitting there were very little by way of brainless activities that you had to perform quickly to excel in the game. It wasn't about APM - it was about making the best strategic decisions and then executing them properly. Over the seasons, I felt that League slowly switched focus from strategic complexity to mechanical complexity. We got more and more champions who could overcome or even outright negate better strategic play with well-timed button presses. More "nope" mechanics, like low-cooldown untargetability or play negation mechanics, allowing reflexes to substitute for tactics and decision-making. This problem was growing for a long time, but started to accelerate even more in the later seasons. We saw a steady increase in damage output for champions, which lead to a lot of situations being decided by who could unload their abilities first and delete their opponent. We saw towers and epic monsters become weaker and less impactful, further pushing the game towards aggression over strategy. We saw a decrease in vision options, especially in mid and top lane, forcing the laners there to play the types of champions who could react to ganks when they happened rather than ones who preferred to avoid them with strategic use of vision. We saw more and more champions with play negation in their kits. Other issues were also starting to creep in. Champions who were flashy, impressive, or *popular* were allowed far more leeway in terms of the kinds of mechanics they were allowed, to the point that it didn't seem to matter if a large amount of people absolutely hated playing against a champion - so long as people enjoyed playing *as* them, they were allowed to keep incredibly badly-designed and unfair kits. Generally, these champions are the ones whose kits allow them to overcome tactical mistakes with mechanical play, often to the point of negating any plays their opponent can make. Such champions had been in the game for a long time - honestly, the first was already in the game before I started playing in Season 1 - but their number grew over time, so such champions began to appear in more and more games and it became increasingly difficult to avoid them. I also increasingly realised that Riot didn't care about these problems, because they were in line with the type of game they were trying to move League towards. One of Riot's founding goals was supposed to be for League to be a curated game where players' pain points were addressed quickly, and yet the game still had some of the exact same pain points and "problem children" year in, year out. They are never addressed and Rioters usually refused to even acknowledge they were a problem - because, as I said a before, they fit the fast-paced, reflex-oriented game that League is supposed to be now. The champions with genuine kit health issues, negativity affecting the games of many players, were ignored in favour of reworking champions that almost no one played and who didn't quite fit with League's modern thematic. I finally realised that these issues, which were negatively affecting most of my League games, were intentional parts of Riot's direction. There was no hope in holding out and waiting for Riot to finally listen and address those issues, because it was never going to happen. This was the game that League was supposed to be now. That's not to say that those are the only problems that grew over the years. The community was always problematic, and honestly it didn't really get *worse* in recent years - but it didn't get better either. I used to keep records of the types of players that I met in my games, for several years, and the numbers didn't really change much. There was at least one negative or toxic person in around three-quarters of all my games, be that in season 5 or season 7, with usually about one very toxic player in every 5 games. But my tolerance for it shrank. It felt like nothing was being done to try to address those problems, and in recent years we'd barely even heard anything from the player behaviour team, not since Lyte left. Maybe the toxicity wasn't getting worse, but it was already so bad that it was ruining a lot of games. While of course there were a lot of nice people to be met while playing League, the sheer number of games with unpleasant folks made playing League feel like an unhealthy activity. Also, it often felt like the outcome of games was random, based more on which team had the most toxic players, rather than based on the skill levels of the respective players. It was actually the Galio rework that finally made me stop. I was never a Galio main or anything like that, but the way the rework completely destroyed his personality and character and replaced him with something far more generic made me see that Riot really has no respect for the things that made the old League great. I haven't played since then, back in March. I do occasionally think of firing it up and having another game, but then I decide to check out the boards and I see that nothing has really changed. All those things that drove me away are still there, and will probably never go away. It's sad, because League *was* great once. Even now, I can still see the very high quality put into a lot of areas of the game, but that doesn't change that the game has slowly changed away from the great game that I used to love playing. ---- tl;dr: - The game is more fast-paced and action-oriented now, by design, with a larger focus on mechanical skill and reflexes than on strategy. I miss the days when it felt more about strategy. - There's too much emphasis on "fun to play" at the expense of "not incredibly frustrating to play against". - The community is also still very toxic. - I haven't felt like playing in months because unfortunately, I can't see those things changing.
AD Yuumi (NA)
: So a common misconception is, "Riot nerfs things that do things they didn't plan for." Looking back, there's a lot of examples that seem to support this theory, AP Janna and AP Lulu being a couple. The reality however is that we're fine with offbuilds/offlanes. What we're not fine with is when these different builds result in play patterns we find to be degenerate. The reason we tend to kick supports out of mid is that support kits inherently lack counterplay to many of their defensive (and sometimes offensive) actions (they need this, else they would be ineffective at keeping their allies alive as supports). This often creates creates problematic midlane experiences where an assassin like Zed has no chance to succeed against old AP Janna or Lulu as he has no way to get around their cornucopia of CC and Defenses. Nerf AP Janna's waveclear/offensive potential and she's no longer able to mid (there's a baseline of damage/clear you need to function in mid). Nerf her reliable "Screw you for being aggressive" utility and she becomes much worse at support. In regards to Lucian, it's true that he can be obnoxious, but he still brings a number of tradeoffs when picked as a midlaner, and he isn't unapproachable in the way that AP lulu was. TLDR: We don't nerf supports out of mid because "OMFG JANNA IS BEING PLAYED MID. GET HER BACK TO BOT AND BUY A SIGHTONE #NOFUNALLOWED" off-builds. We nerf them because when they're strong there it's often because their kits make them unapproachable in ways we would prefer not to support and changing that reality would risk forcing them out of the support role (we saw this happen to Lulu).
So: A champion who can easily hold out in a lane against an assassin or other aggressive lane enemy, can scale to be useful in late-game teamfights, but pays for that by having almost no kill potential is apparently a degenerate gameplay pattern. Meanwhile, a champion who can easily hold out and mostly negate most mage enemies, can scale to deal massive damage in late-game teamfights while also having teamfight utility, and pays for that by having above-average damage and kill potential is a perfectly acceptable gameplay pattern.
: does this mean i can finally get my 4 back? ever since riot forced us to us that slot its been tilting me.i use the 4 slot on actives i need to get to fast like using {{item:3153}} {{item:3146}}
You do realise that you can rebind the trinket key, right? The first thing I did when trinkets were introduced was to bind them to the key to the left of "1", and put the active items back on 1-6.
: For me it was Poppy then the Targon lore rewrite done basically one after the other. That just killed my investment.
What really bothered me was never the kit changes, it was completely destroying the personality and character of reworked champions. Galio was just the worst example. I also hated how they completely changed Taric by tacking on that Mount Targon stuff - why couldn't he just stay as a cool human, instead of some over-the-top possession victim? The same applies to the other Targon champions, but at least they haven't had all their lines rewritten... yet. I imagine they'll do something awful with Pantheon as well.
: Fewer VGUs they do a year the longer I have with my main until they turn him into a magical space parasite. So, I'm fine with them focusing more on new champs. After they take my main from me, honestly I don't think I'll care what they do.
If this had been asked after one of the great reworks, such as Sion, I'd have been all in favour. But these days, I can't help but think of what they did to Galio.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nameless Voice,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=MKb9ElYY,comment-id=0006000e,timestamp=2017-08-12T11:16:13.033+0000) > > So, in the past, when champions have been considered to have toxic kits, they've been left in the gutter until a rework. > Why does the one who probably has the most toxic kit of all get special treatment to keep him viable? Because elo matters. He feasts on players who are bad and drops severely in effectiveness against players who are good. His kit is only toxic when his opponent doesn't understand the game; that's why he's not gutted.
People hate playing against him at all ELOs. It's not about his power level.
: Ah, just want to chime in quick, but the initial pull on surrender@20 didn't include a line to his passive where we're changing the shield scaling on his passive to 100-510>>>60-555
So, in the past, when champions have been considered to have toxic kits, they've been left in the gutter until a rework. Why does the one who probably has the most toxic kit of all get special treatment to keep him viable?
Rioter Comments
Leichy (EUNE)
: Quinn even though I know she wont make it to another round hehe Wait tahm has the most votes? Really?? Wow
I think this says more about the kinds of players likely to read the boards. Seems to include a lot of Rengar mains!
: Its literally impossible for him to have run into "medium toxicity" half the time (49%) while only 6% of the players are toxic. 6% = 6 out of 100 players which is a less than one per game average. (10/100 or 1/10). this is why x/100 is so important for this data and his data is meaningless without it(everything needs context).
You need to check your maths. If 6% of players are toxic, and there are 10 players in every game, that means that there could be toxic players in up to 60% of games. The reason that it's 49% instead of 60% is because there are games with more than one toxic person in them. If there were *more* than one toxic player per game, then 100% of games would be toxic...
: you're missing X/100 for toxic games, not just players. if two people get into an argument and rile each other up that's still only one game ruined (and i bet sometimes even more joined in).
That's what the second set of percentages are, games with at least one toxic player. Games with two or more still only counted once there.
XLC (NA)
: 5% means we should see one on either side every other game. Is it really that high? O.o
Should be higher. I used to keep statistics of toxicity in ranked, and the toxicity rates I recorded were higher than that. Out of 100 sample games in 2017, the rates were: 13% total toxicity (including minor offences such as "gg ez" and report-calling) 6% for medium levels of toxicity and up 2.5% for high levels of toxicity 1.8% for leavers/ragequits/trolls (Each percentage includes the percentage for the group(s) lower down the list.) (Statistics are for the number of toxic players encountered out of a sample size of 100 games / 1,000 players. The actual percentages of games with at least one toxic player is much higher, at ~73% for all toxicity, ~49% for medium levels of toxicity, and ~22% for high toxicity.) (Edit: Come to think of it, that's a sample size of 901 players, not 1,000 players. I was in every one of those games. Excluding me, all of the toxicity figures above should be increased by ~11%. So, closer to: 14.5% total toxicity, 6.5% medium, 2.7% high, 2% trolls.)
awdaf (NA)
: Please give us an option to vote to disband lobby so we don't have to dodge.
What they could do is allow multiple people to all choose to dodge, so each of them only get a fraction of the penalty. So that if four people agree to dodge, each only loses 1 LP and gets a 2-minute timeout.
Wrekzzz (NA)
: Runes Corner: Stormlord's Mandate and Spellslinger's Surge
Will Lux still be able to proc it with her ability+auto combo due to her passive? (Plus the other champions who can currently apply two procs with one auto for Thunderlords.) That always felt like an odd interaction.
: Yeah, right now the game searches your teammates based on rank, and your enemies based on MMR. Since to rank up you should prove to be better than people your rank, instead your mmr, The ideal matchmaking should search allies based on mmr and enemies based on rank.
The game uses only MMR to match players on both teams. Source: you get people with different ranks (sometimes even different tiers) on both teams in a game. Furthermore, it can't possibly match your teammates based on a different criteria than that which it uses to match enemies, because your team are the other team's enemies. Unless you're saying that it has a specific, different matchmaking algorithm exclusively for the team that *you* happen to be on?
Elikain (EUNE)
: Troll like that is easy to detect by us. Not by an automated system that has to have safeguards in place to ensure that other people don't get canned in the process. People who don't deserve it. Not even Blizzard kicks people out of a game and grants pardons to everyone else involved in the process. If you're a dumbass, they punish you afterwards. "Loss forgiven" is reserved for server problems and in rare circumstances, live maintenance that doesn't put the servers offline for a couple of hours.
And yet, players will continue to feel that the competitive integrity is compromised so long as other players suffer penalties for having trolls on their teams. Riot are still the makers of the world's largest MOBA. They should be pioneering new technologies and methods, rather than only doing what other companies (such as Blizzard) are already doing.
Elikain (EUNE)
: It's not about "real" people having to respond to your ticket. Riot can't physically punish a player for one game and they don't make it a point to do so. Even if you report him to the support and he's on their watch list, they still won't be able to tell you the verdict. Yea, some people are real %%%%s and clearly troll a game and in these instances, even i can get discouraged when they aren't immediately punished for their shit. But you have to understand that intent needs to be determined in order for some dumbass to eat dirt. I wish Riot's system was a little more strict with players like these (something Blizzard isn't afraid to do for their Overwatch community) but i honestly couldn't tell you that harsher punishments for milder offences (less games) would do us any good. You'd then also be held accountable for responding to their taunting and could also face penalties for even acknowledging a troll and that really depends on how fiercely you react to them trolling your game. There are always two sides of the same coin.
It all goes back to the lack of true instant feedback. A troll like this case is extremely easy to detect automatically. The system shouldn't even wait for the end of the game. It should immediately detect them as trolling *during the game*, apply a punishment immediately, and give the other players loss forgiven. There is no excuse whatsoever for this kind of behaviour, and no excuse for Riot to allow this type of behaviour.
: You pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of how I view it. When you play with / against Urgot, the chains flying out and grabbing the target is more-or-less just visual flair, not an actual projectile. The projectile is the giant spike sent out by the first cast. When I initially played him I actually thought the chains were already attached to the spike and you just reeled the target in. My personal solution would be to patch Windwall and Braum shield to not block cosmetic projectiles (Soraka, Urgot, and I wonder if Kayn passive is affected) as well as Taliyah ult and Vel W because they aren't really "projectiles" but are effects travelling across the terrain.
And Nami's wave. Yes, the proper effect would be to just remove / block a chunk of it, because not blocking it at all is still a lot better than deleting it entirely.
: The worst part about it is that Riot never responds to these types of threads, they never offer any insight as to what is being done, they don't ever acknowledge that players are becoming increasingly frustrated with the toxicity of the community. I really don't understand that part at all. Riot is seemingly keeping their heads in the sand and keeping the playerbase in the dark---as usual---with regard to this issue. Things were never this bad during the Tribunal system. While the fancy automated system may catch the most egregious or idiotic offenders, it seems to be doing nothing for the run-of-the-mill toxicity that permeates this game.
The biggest problem with the Tribunal was that it was *slow*. I seem to recall seeing cases where the games were already weeks old by the time they came up for review. There simply weren't enough players reviewing games compared to the number of reported games. Even if there had been enough, it still would have been relatively slow, since the games would be added to the back of a queue, and would need to wait for reviewers to become available. One good thing about the automated system is that it's much faster, and can get the toxic players out of the game faster (either by educating them, or by banning them.) I'd still say it isn't fast *enough* and, as others have stated, it also tends to only punish the worst of the worst. To really make a difference, the system would need to be scanning games in real time. If someone starts to troll or AFK in a game, it should immediately warn them, then punish them (and maybe give everyone else on their team loss forgiven.) If someone starts to flame, it should immediately inform them that their words are becoming toxic, or maybe even outright block/censor offensive messages. But I think a bigger problem is player education. People simply don't seem to know that their behaviours are wrong. They see toxic behaviour in most of their games, and don't see any direct signs of those players being punished, so they assume that it's the appropriate way to act themselves, and/or that they won't be punished for it. I wrote a long thread about this a few months ago, so rather than repeat it all here, I'll just link to it: [@Riot: Can we do something to educate players regarding behaviour?](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/2gYz19Mm-riot-can-we-do-something-to-educate-players-regarding-behaviour) --- I should probably add that I stopped playing League a few months ago, partially because I'd got sick of the toxic behaviour in the majority of my games. I just check in on the boards occasionally to see if things have changed (e.g. with the new Honour system) - from this thread, it looks like they haven't.
: Presets are ***nice***, but not required. I would not buy the option to have an additional preset with RP, that would be an IP only purchase.
I don't get why anyone would have bought rune pages with RP in the first place.
: Evelynn will still have heels!
: Personally, I'm not such a fan of ideas like these and Perxie. I think that's because I like to feel like the things I'm doing ingame are stemming directly from the champion I'm playing. That's cool to me, because each champion has distinct lore, visuals and gameplay, and I play champions that I like for those things. If a significant portion of your power and gameplay comes from something that isn't unique in that way, I feel it detracts from champion identity. If every champion midlaner is lobbing meteors, then it isn't special or unique or cool at all. And I'll be less interested in the choice between playing, say, Lux or Syndra, because whichever I pick I'll just be throwing the exact same meteor at people. This is doubly true for stuff like this that has a major visual effect, since inevitably they won't fit in with most champions' aesthetics, making the game seem more disjointed and discordant visually. Of course, this is already the case to some extent for summoner spells and keystone masteries, but I don't mind them too much because they have very long cooldowns (in the former case) and limited impact (in the latter case). I have to say, I particularly dislike Perxie, mostly because of the way it seems mostly intended for supports. When I'm playing support, I usually feel like the champion I'm playing just isn't as awesome as all the other champions in the game, because I don't have nearly as much power and gameplay impact. In part, that's because a big element of playing support is warding and vision, and that doesn't really feel all that cool and doesn't make you feel like you're fulfilling some kind of champion fantasy. No-one's champion fantasy is buying a sightstone and throwing down wards, and no-one's fantasy can be that because all supports do that. I think this is part of why support is an unpopular position. For me, Perxie would make this even worse because I would feel like as a support, my job is to carry around wards and play taxi service for a magic cat, with my champion starting to feel secondary to that.
I feel like this was already the biggest problem with the keystone masteries. When so much power comes from non-champion sources, it homogenises champions based on their choices. Keystones are a prime example of this: all tanks get a shield when they CC you, all assassins get extra burst if they hit you three times in a short window, all enchanters heal/shield for more, etc. While actually having multiple possible runes (as opposed to the almost-solved problem that keystones are) will lessen that problem somewhat, it will still be there. Every piece of power that comes from a non-champion source makes champions less important and the interactions between them less unique.
: > So just wondering why there isn't IP bans, at least for perm bans, like what Overwatch does, and that's a paid game. Good question. 1.) An IP is really easy to change, therefore isn't a very good method. Most people have dynamic IPs that frequently change. 2.) A lot of people would get caught in the crossfire. Imagine someone in a college dorm getting banned, and nobody from that college could play. That same goes for PC bangs.
This answer, and in fact the question itself, don't quite touch on the real issue. The question shouldn't be about IP bans specifically. It should be about punishments applying to all of the accounts owned by the offending player. While IP bans are a (flawed) way of doing that, they are not the only way. Riot have already alluded to the fact that they have "fingerprints" for all players, which they use to detect boosting and account sharing. Basically, each player has a unique way of playing, based on a number of factors, from the way they assign their summoner spells to the way they move the mouse and input controls. If a player's fingerprint changes drastically, it suggests that someone else is playing on their account instead of the normal player. The same fingerprinting system could be used to track and link any secondary accounts that a player might have. Most likely, the fingerprinting data isn't enough to uniquely identify one player out of the millions who play League, but it should be enough to significantly narrow it down. If it were combined with extra information such as an IP address, it should be enough to have a fairly good idea of which players own which accounts. Once the accounts are linked, then punishments to one of the accounts can be applied to all of the other accounts. Note that there is no blanket ban of IPs here. The proposed system would just automatically detect the original owner of new accounts, and apply punishments to the other accounts accordingly. It would be a complicated system, and you can debate as to whether or not the effort required to build it would be worth it, but the technology exists to make a system like this.
hitted (EUNE)
: 2 Years ago someone posted this.
I remember that thread. Has any of it actually changed in the intervening years? Because that old post still seems to describe the state of League the last time I played.
Rioter Comments
: Greasemonkey script to filter the Red Tracker
Updated to also work via HTTPS, since the boards now use secure connections.
: Am I the only one that Genuinely hates Galio's new look and kit?
I also don't like the new look, but even more than that, I hate his new personality and voice lines. This rework is the biggest change to a champion's character that Riot have ever done. All of the other reworks, even the ones that I'd consider to be failures, at least kept their character's theme mostly in tact, but the new Galio is just a completely different character with almost no relation to the original at all. He might as well have been a new champion with a different name. The fact that Riot are willing to do such a complete departure from the personality of one of their characters really puts me off the game. I feel sorry for the Galio mains, and worried that this is the same team who are starting the rework of *my* main next.
: jinx healthy when the girl steals the niche of like 2 or 3 adcs when she is viable topkek of the year
I think the biggest issue with Jinx is the interaction between her rockets and Hurricane. Without that, she'd be perfectly fine.
: make delayed/cast time spells interruptible
: Ivern is COMPLETELY BUSTED
My main issue with Ivern is that he can just walk in and steal your camps, almost instantly, even from level 1. No other jungler can do that. If I am playing against Ivern, I am guaranteed to have one of my first buffs stolen, and fairly certain to have a fair number of my others stolen throughout the game. Other junglers have to at least risk spending a fair amount of their time in your jungle to steal your camps, but not Ivern. Effectively having most of your power as a jungler taken away because someone can freely steal your camps from the very start of the game is *not fun*. Even facing a Nunu (and when Nunu was a stronger / meta pick) feels much fairer than this guy.
Rioter Comments
: Yeah...he will lose his most overpowered ability of all time...his W. But the roleplay value and fun of a rework is always nice :) Lets all just have a moment of silence for the loss of his W {{sticker:zombie-nunu-tears}}
I thought his W was really his most interesting ability, and one of the main parts of his kit that should be preserved (alongside his ult.) I guess Riot disagreed.
: Totally agree. Just hearing his voice I was instantly put off. Galio, the Sentinel's Sorrow was sad and tired. He is no longer.
I hate when they take a character with an awesome voice (if far too few lines) and replace that with a completely new type of voice that completely changes their personality (with tons of lines.) I'm not even talking about the *lines*. I'm talking about the voice itself and how the lines are delivered. It happened with Taric - his old voice was awesome, yet his new voice and personality just don't appeal to me at all (and presumably, don't appeal to most other people, since I see him played far less than even old Taric.) Now it looks like the exact same thing is happening to Galio.
Eedat (NA)
: I have a theory for all the people who say "I ALWAYS have trolls/feeders on my team"
I've kept records. I tracked 97 of my games this season: Of those games, there was a troll, ragequit, AFK, or extremely toxic player in 20.4% of my games. They were on my team in 11.22% of games, and on the enemy team in 10.20% of games. I'd imagine that the extra % is probably because it's harder to spot someone trolling on the enemy team. What this says is that I get a roughly-equal number of game-ruiners on either team, but I certainly notice the ones on my team much more often. It also says that a massive **20%** of games my games are decided by random chance based on which team got the incredibly-toxic team mate, and that is rather depressing and doesn't say good things about League's competitive integrity.
: Games stopped being about actual skill and started being who picked the more broken champions
League has been about picking the top-tier champions for a long time, honestly. Yes, you can still win with "normal" champions, but you will always have significant disadvantage compared to playing the top-tier ones.
sobi999 (EUW)
: When i get a kill as supp
The way I see it, when I play support I'm giving up all the gold income from minions to make my ADC stronger. That's it. Any kills are fair game. I will rarely stop fighting an enemy just to make sure my ADC gets the kill, because I've seen ADCs die too often for that nonsense. The main advantage of a kill isn't even that extra 300 gold, it's the extra free-farming time that your ADC gets. If you take the kill, the ADC still gets 150g anyway.
: {{champion:202}} {{champion:110}} {{champion:21}} {{champion:412}} {{champion:40}} for the bottom lane {{champion:133}} {{champion:80}} {{champion:92}}{{champion:57}} {{champion:114}} for top lane {{champion:7}} {{champion:91}} {{champion:238}} {{champion:245}} for mid lane {{champion:121}} {{champion:107}} {{champion:120}} {{champion:64}}{{champion:35}} for the jungle much variety such wow
You forgot a few Top: {{champion:122}} {{champion:126}} Jungle: {{champion:104}}
Show more

Nameless Voice

Level 30 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion