Eidleon (NA)
: IE and FH need nerfs badly
IE and FH have received nerfs for patch 9.20 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGCiw9iUUAA--us.jpg:large
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: EVERY TIME I GO INTO RANKED
I looked at your match history and you over exaggerate.
Porglit (NA)
: I'm a fan of them just adding a "ready" button, where if everyone is ready it just goes regardless of time left.
I agree they should also give additional gold for being ready earlier than the given time frame.
Rioter Comments
Xhandel (NA)
: Akali Hotfix?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with akali it's the items.
Brodka (NA)
: FIx the garbage win/loss lp ratio
I second that motion. First place should get 200 LP and 8th place should stay the same.
Dynikus (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Summoned By Who,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=lGGKEYEo,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-01T00:14:54.787+0000) > > They aren't winning more they're just playing more games. The top player can be dethroned by multiple other challenger players if they decided to put as much time in to the game. There needs to be more skill involved and less RNG starting with something like if the person got 1st place in their last game they have last pick at the carousel in their next game 2nd in last game, 7th pick and so on. so you want someone to be penalized for winning, but you also want it to be somehow faster to rank up than it already is? I'm curious, how do you think that would work for matchmaking? What if 3 1st place finishers are in the same game? And you want it to be faster to rank up, but you also want to make games take substantially longer with as many as _32 players_ in a single game? do you know how much that would increase game length?
Thank you for pointing that out. I guess it would be best to take your MMR in to account and have your position picked that way. They could increase the champ boxes to 10-20 and reduce the size of them eliminating the need to re-roll as often especially if they intend to add more champs to the game. Also a reduction in planning time especially for the NPCs. 32 players might be a bit too much but 16 is doable.
: > [{quoted}](name=Summoned By Who,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=lGGKEYEo,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-09-30T23:54:35.969+0000) > > The thing is right now it's not a ladder of the best players it's a ladder of who plays the most look at the top ranked players usually it's multiple accounts with around 1k or more games played I still think the player pool size should be increased to 16-32 but if rewarding the top 5-10 players is the issue just keep it the same and reward the top 3-4 like it currently is but reward them more LP If they are winning more than the rest then guess what? THEY ARE THE BEST PLAYERS CURRENTLY.
They aren't winning more they're just playing more games. The top player can be dethroned by multiple other challenger players if they decided to put as much time in to the game. There needs to be more skill involved and less RNG starting with something like if the person got 1st place in their last game they have last pick at the carousel in their next game 2nd in last game, 7th pick and so on.
: > [{quoted}](name=Summoned By Who,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=lGGKEYEo,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-09-30T23:41:33.249+0000) > > But if you're ranking up you are winning consistently... I'm just saying long game hours shouldn't be encouraged by any game company. A good balance would be encouraging players to play 3-4 days a week max at 2-4 hours tops a day. Sorry but what is this even? Why shouldn't long hours be encouraged? Who the hell are you to be telling others how long they can play a game? You play a game for as long as you want.
You need to understand that anything for excess periods of time isn't good for you especially when it eats in to other aspects of your life there is such a thing as gaming addictions.
Ztoka (NA)
: Top 2 or 3 get "victory" as it counts towards your win of the day. Only thing that makes sense to me really. Really isn't a win though, but does count to the first win of the day bonus.
But he is ranked first in the picture I think what he's saying is why is he placed first when he really got second place in game.
Sukishoo (NA)
: If you could rank up faster there'd be no reason to rank at all. It's meant to be a ladder of the BEST players at the top and the not as good at the bottom.
The thing is right now it's not a ladder of the best players it's a ladder of who plays the most look at the top ranked players usually it's multiple accounts with around 1k or more games played I still think the player pool size should be increased to 16-32 but if rewarding the top 5-10 players is the issue just keep it the same and reward the top 3-4 like it currently is but reward them more LP
Dynikus (NA)
: It only takes long to rank up if you aren't winning consistently. If you aren't winning consistently, you don't deserve to rank up quickly. I went from silver 4 0lp to plat 4 8lp in 1 day over 15 games with a promotion every 1-2 games. If that's not quick enough, I don't know what is.
But if you're ranking up you are winning consistently... I'm just saying long game hours shouldn't be encouraged by any game company. A good balance would be encouraging players to play 3-4 days a week max at 2-4 hours tops a day.
Rioter Comments
Kei143 (NA)
: It is bigger, which is why you lose LP at 4th place, cos the game expects you to win and be placed better.
That doesn't make sense top 4 sometimes gives you LP
Rioter Comments

Summoned By Who

Level 55 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion