: We’re talking about averages here. All things equal, a taller, heavier person will be quite literally stronger. They are larger, so their muscles are larger. This is basic stuff. They weigh more and their muscles have to be capable of normal function, which requires them to be stronger. The male Walrus that has 800 lbs. of mass (mostly muscle) on the female is unquestionably stronger. And no, the reason I believe this is because I literally study anatomy and biology as part of my job. Again, men are stronger on AVERAGE, that’s the point we are making here. If someone quite literally has a larger bicep than you, AND has better vasculature to supply blood (I have dissected cadavers and personally see this, it’s not bias), they will be able to pull more weight, for longer than you. There is no way around that. Testosterone is extremely well-understood. Trans-men undergoing hormone therapy become stronger and gain muscle mass because of it. This is well documented and well known. If we didn’t understand chemical receptors as well as we do, 90% of medicines would be ineffectual. It’s incredibly insulting to woman athletes that you are implying they just “aren’t trying hard enough” to accomplish what male athletes can. These women don’t train less than men. They don’t put in less work. They aren’t even any less genetically gifted. These are the best of the best. Implying some kind of “mental block” prevents them from excelling is so backwards and thickheaded I’m having trouble taking you seriously. These athletes don’t give a damn about cultural inhibitions. Many aren’t beautiful. They don’t care. Their lives are dedicated to very specific physical feats. Keep in mind that the pool of athletes is very large, even for women. Individual differences can’t account for the marked differences in averages. The correlation between gender and averages is so close. It comes down to biology. If you can provide any evidence that there is another factor at work here, you’d likely get a Nobel.
> [{quoted}](name=Berserknurple,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-20T00:57:35.623+0000) > > We’re talking about averages here. All things equal, a taller, heavier person will be quite literally stronger. They are larger, so their muscles are larger. This is basic stuff. They weigh more and their muscles have to be capable of normal function, which requires them to be stronger. And they also get a lot less shit when they try to opt into physical things. Again, jumping at something you've been fed your entire life when there are tons of factors _right in front of you_ that you actively refuse to consider. Like, > [{quoted}](name=Berserknurple,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-20T00:57:35.623+0000) > > And no, the reason I believe this is because I literally study anatomy and biology as part of my job. I don't know if this is saying you're a researcher or just someone who keeps up with every new discovery in those fields, but if it's the former, you've justified my questioning incredibly well as you're the perfect example of someone who goes forward trying to prove something without also trying to disprove _every other factor to it._ That's exactly an internal bias affecting studies. > [{quoted}](name=Berserknurple,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-20T00:57:35.623+0000) > > Testosterone is extremely well-understood. Trans-men undergoing hormone therapy become stronger and gain muscle mass because of it. This is well documented and well known. If we didn’t understand chemical receptors as well as we do, 90% of medicines would be ineffectual. And that's a really good reason to think that men _aren't_ stronger than women, just because of how malleable the human body is. I mean, it's not like hormone treatment isn't a fairly common thing in women to treat post-menopausal symptoms and such, so utilizing it to promote muscle growth doesn't seem like too big of a stretch. Raw testosterone would bring up too many issues, of course, but we utilize artificial hormones in fields like food production all the time to do what natural ones are unsuitable for - it's not a stretch to assume testosterone's effect on muscles and bones can't be replicated without dragging in heaps of its other effects on the body. > [{quoted}](name=Berserknurple,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-20T00:57:35.623+0000) > > Implying some kind of “mental block” prevents them from excelling is so backwards and thickheaded I’m having trouble taking you seriously. These athletes don’t give a damn about cultural inhibitions. Many aren’t beautiful. They don’t care. Their lives are dedicated to very specific physical feats. Gov, you're going to have to change the world so that a majority of women _don't_ get society's toxic norms buried into their heads and forced to listen to them the entirety of their life to dismiss this. The human mind is too complicated to take someone's "I don't care" at face value, considering that can easily mean "I don't _think_ I care, but it really eats away at me in the back of my mind every time I lay down at night." Especially considering that they _can't_ admit this, at least not to the public. They have to appear as strong as possible both physically and mentally to justify themselves being there. You really have too high of an opinion of humans, to be honest, considering you're insulted that I'm insinuated that people would have issues in a world _that fights against them._ Like, seriously, who _wouldn't_ have issues when they have such goal posts to reach that people like you don't think they'll even come close to?
: I highly disagree unlike normal runes, there's clarity when comet is up and there's several times there spells would put the thing off CD but if it were to also trigger off AAs I could follow up on the spell like for ex. ziggs/lux/xerath/tf/viktor etc. if they use their spells and put comet off CD, they'd have to wait until their spells were up again to even use comet.
But then they'd have to avoid using their autos on champions entirely until _their spells were up again anyway_ to make sure they could slow / stun / snare / etc. the target before the comet hit the ground. It really doesn't change anything aside from making the comet that much more annoying to use.
: Man, i do also 'member when the amazon empire almost took over Europe, before the mighty Patriarchus Maschiubs took their power with a cunning and vile trick. Oh w8, matriarchal society actually fell, becouse the moment men realize they re so weak compared to them, they topple as always, if not by inside, from an outside male based society when the strong wins, the weak perish. You re still clinging to the individual case, it dosent matter, you can be the mighties warrior, but you re still going down if you get cornered and stabbed with spears and arrows. You know the old saying, a chain is strong as the weakest link, thats why you try to reach an average in the armed forces instead os pushing for the absolute best (thats left for special forces), becouse a decent mass of soldiers will always win agasint strong warriors, who base their force on the individual, while the masses are the key to success, both in war and in buisness.
So, basically, what you're saying is that military might is literally entirely decided by raw force, and a particular society can only be taken over due to being too weak and not, say, because they have poorer resources, less advanced technology, a smaller military, or subpar tactics?
Destínum (EUW)
: I do realize that no, they in fact would not. Cause that's not how sexual dimorphism work. Read up on it and you might realize everything isn't a social construct. Am I going to be able to make you understand, or are you too stubborn to accept facts and reality? Because if it's the second, we're done here.
So you're saying that, even in situations where the guys do nothing but eat and jack off all day for the entirety of their lives, whereas the women actually did everything from food production, tool production, and so on, you'd _still_ think the women would be weaker? Man, that's some deeply ingrained sexism.
: You're getting very absorbed in a tangential point. The point is that sexual dimorphism exists in human beings. We can go back and examine any number of other points of dimorphism, such as sexual organs, differences in the size of certain body parts, as well as general size (women are typically shorter). Biology is not my field of science, nor particularly one I care about so forgive me if I make an anatomical mistake. It's not pertinent to the discussion. The mammary glands in a male's nipples are not functional as they lack the hormones required to work. This is just a matter of semantics though and not worth further discussion. You're choosing to ignore the fact that the conditions you are outlying can and do get met. People literally live in a research facility being monitored 24/7. This is performed on a large number of people to reduce the effects of variables such as metabolism. Data is then analysed from an array of similar studies on this topic to continue to further reduce the effects of said variables, variance, and other factors that could impact. The result is a piece of data that is as close to being proven as humanly possible. You are correct that this doesn't guarantee that it's 100% true. You are naive to say "Science can't prove anything so it is wrong.". The effects of, in your eyes, unproven science are affecting your every day life, improving it, enriching it, and your viewpoint appears to be that we shouldn't trust things like streetlights, medicine, cars, or even bicycles. After all, the science behind all of them is not proven.
> [{quoted}](name=IveChangedMyName,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600010001000100000000,timestamp=2017-11-20T09:07:05.313+0000) > > The mammary glands in a male's nipples are not functional as they lack the hormones required to work. This is just a matter of semantics though and not worth further discussion. It really isn't. You're really underestimating how much of sexual dimorphism is done strictly through puberty, and saying that that doesn't count because of hormone availability is completely forgetting about trans people. > [{quoted}](name=IveChangedMyName,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600010001000100000000,timestamp=2017-11-20T09:07:05.313+0000) > > The result is a piece of data that is as close to being proven as humanly possible. You are correct that this doesn't guarantee that it's 100% true. You are naive to say "Science can't prove anything so it is wrong.". Well, that sure is a powerful strawman.
: Ok, I understand your argument about how internal biases can affect studies. Unfortunately, in this particular instance it doesn't apply. You're basically arguing that men can also give birth because biological studies are subject to gender discrimination. We are different. It's very well-known biology. Sexual dimorphism is incredibly common in species around the world. Humans don't have as big of a disparity as say, walruses (males have 800lbs of additional mass on average) but we still have that disparity. Let me ask you a few questions: Do you agree that the average male is taller than the average female? Do you agree that the average male weighs more than the average female? The answer to both of those should be yes, because it's well-documented and I'm sure you've noticed this anecdotally. A taller, heavier person will be stronger than a smaller one barring intense training. Already you should understand that men are on AVERAGE stronger than women (note that this doesn't mean some women can't be stronger than some men) BUT men have other advantages. Men have greater vasculature in their extremities which means they can cycle blood more efficiently through large muscle groups, important to any physical actions. Testosterone means men will naturally grow larger muscles than women, even with little to no exercise. Male bone structure is denser, and hips don't need to be shaped to accomodate birth. If this won't convince you, let's go to anecdotes. Personally, my girlfriend is a very intense powerlifter. She works out multiple times a day of heavy lifting. I work out 2-3 times a week, or less. If we wrestle I can easily overpower her. I lift larger weight than she does. I have visually larger muscles. I weigh 60 lbs more than her, and I'm only 3 inches taller. None of that is because I'm working harder than her. Or take a look at the Olympics. These are people at the very top of their game, they are training as much as is physically possible for humans to do. Yet men's times and men's weight are almost always significantly better than women's. This doesn't mean men are better. It's not sexist, it's just biology. In the world we live in today, these physical differences mean almost nothing and the cultural differences mean everything. Cultural differences encompassing the patriarchy and inherent sexism in the system.
> [{quoted}](name=Berserknurple,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=0006000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-19T23:01:59.173+0000) > > A taller, heavier person will be stronger than a smaller one barring intense training. No, they'll be _more massive,_ as in literally having more mass. Which means they'll be able to resist force more easily, as well as passively put more weight on something just by being on top of them, but it means nothing in terms of actively exerting force. > [{quoted}](name=Berserknurple,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=0006000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-19T23:01:59.173+0000) > > If this won't convince you, let's go to anecdotes. Personally, my girlfriend is a very intense powerlifter. She works out multiple times a day of heavy lifting. I work out 2-3 times a week, or less. If we wrestle I can easily overpower her. I lift larger weight than she does. I have visually larger muscles. I weigh 60 lbs more than her, and I'm only 3 inches taller. None of that is because I'm working harder than her. > > Or take a look at the Olympics. These are people at the very top of their game, they are training as much as is physically possible for humans to do. Yet men's times and men's weight are almost always significantly better than women's. And this _specifically_ means that men are stronger than women? It can't possibly be because of anything else, either related to other parts of the genes, individual health, or inhibitions due to culture? The only reason why you jump at the "men are stronger than women" explanation is because you've been fed it your entire life without questioning it. You're banking on that by default without diving deeper in what other factors there could be. That's exactly what I'm talking about with those internal biases.
: > Perhaps this would be true if everyone on the planet could sit an observe that the study is 100% mirrored, the data is put down 100% correctly, and the subjects are 100% comparable within what's reasonable ( read: obviously, the groups would have to be different sexes, but what about metabolism, medical conditions, and genetics regarding muscle growth? ) It is true in the sense that these people live observed lives and do follow quite strict restrictions. Guys do not develop functional mammary glands except in very rare scenarios that are related to genetic defects (these are not fully biologically male). They DO develop blobs of fat on their chest. This is not the same thing as developing breasts.
Are you saying guys don't have nipples? Because those are mammary glands, fully capable of producing milk via reaction to a hormone. Also clearly separate from having breasts, considering guys without those still have nipples.
Destínum (EUW)
: Don't really need to make an argument, because pretty much everything has been said. Statistics saying one thing overwhelmingly speak for themselves. Also, once again, if you're going to be that person and question everything just in case we're living in the matrix or something like that, literally just look at the people around you, like family, friends etc. It's not difficult to notice a trend.
> [{quoted}](name=Destínum,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=0006000200000000,timestamp=2017-11-19T22:44:11.006+0000) > > Also, once again, if you're going to be that person and question everything just in case we're living in the matrix or something like that, literally just look at the people around you, like family, friends etc. It's not difficult to notice a trend. ... Y'do realize that anyone coming from a place with a culture that stems from matriarchal hunter roots would instantly make this implode, right?
Queenpin (NA)
: Where'd you get those qualifiers from? Scientific fact? {{sticker:sg-ahri-3}}
Destínum (EUW)
: After reading through this entire conversation; Did you actually go to school or do you just get your ideology straight from tumblr? Because denying that men are on average physically stronger than women is just ridiculous. Just god damn look at the average man compared to the average woman. Notice that height and overall size difference? Yeah, that's not just for show.
Gov, at least try to make an argument like the others that isn't instantly destroyed by the fact that people can be fat and tall with little muscle, while others can be thin and short with a lot of it.
Queenpin (NA)
: What's true then? What study has been conducted that's been "interpreted" correctly and by the right people? Maybe mom was wrong about the dangers of jumping off bridges eh? Maybe the *physics* of the human body hitting a surface at a certain speeds was "flubbed" by a scientist who had politicly incorrect body standards? {{sticker:sg-lulu}}
Really depends on the height we're talking about, the makeup of the water, hell, whether there's water there in the first place, whether or not a boat is currently going under the bridge ... Yeah, a blanket "don't jump off bridges," while a good life tip, isn't always with merit.
: > You seriously overestimate the power of raw willpower, and this is coming from someone who loves shonen anime. You can't beat self-loathing and depression with willpower alone. They don't go on willpower alone, they have friends, family and other people will good sense to tell them it's alright to keep going even if they deviate from the general beauty standards of society, because that is how you have to go to reach the pinnacle of physically intensive sports. > Yes, but society doesn't peg men's worth on their looks. That's the major distinction I don't know how you are doing over in america but if anyone tried pulling that shit in Sweden they´d be facing a lawsuit and a horde of angry feminists and another horde of reporters and police if you try to run. > We as a species are literally making the only planet we can inhabit uninhabitable just for paper we claim has any value. We're doing it for a lot more than that, energy to warm our homes, keep our cities and societies functioning and a multitude of other things, good and bad, useless or needed. > Just to have that paper. Not to actually use it. As far as i know the average ~~American~~ person doing work considered bad for nature does it not out of malice towards the world, they do it just to feed themselves and their families, to live. At least, that's the average workers. > You really seem to have a poor grasp on how stupid humanity gets, and that's just for intentional grasps for power. The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper when you just go about assuming what they were raised to think as normal as being _right._ And you underestimate how clever and driven people can be when they get focused, inspired. Countless geniuses, scholars and inventors, years of dedication, work and sacrifice. All for the sake of a few goals that to others looked small and insignificant, but changed the world when truly understood. And while it's true that political games and power-struggles have caused oceans of strife and pain it's also true that in the past such things could be hidden, or in some case when tyrants forced their people to look the other way with force. This world as we know it, the societies we live in, are built on the trial and error processes of those who came before us, they lived to the best of their ability and they passed down what they learned so we might avoid their mistakes and go forward. But along with the wisdom we inherited we also got the poison, lifestyles we now know cause issue's, the usage of substances that cause's harm to nature and more. However how many problems haven't been fixed? How many more are we not looking for solution to? You need to cheer up a bit i think, for while it's true that people can be stupid,greedy and shortsighted the opposite, open minded, clever, generous and far sighted also exists. If they didn't we'd still be in either the dark ages, the industrial revolution or a part of the third Reich. But we are not, all manners of progress is faster than it has ever been, things are improving, both technological and social aspects. So cheer up, become a scientist or donate to some and help&watch them change the world right in front of our eyes^^ And before you ask no, i am not a idealist or the type to close my eyes and pretend everythings alright. But i recognize there is a limit to what i myself can do, and i also recognize how powerful the emotions of desire, ambition can be, just look at history and you can see what the ambition of a few can accomplish. And when such ambition turns towards science, towards possible fame, riches and improvement for mankind all at once? I don't really doubt that the scientists aren't capable of working hard, not even a little despite my general distrust and lack of faith. For i truly do trust that people will follow their ambitions, be they small or great.
I realize I sound like I have no faith in humanity, but I do. It's just a matter that you really shouldn't neglect how incredibly flawed we are, especially nowadays when those flaws are causing so much damage so quickly and they really need to patched-up before nothing will have any faith in humanity. Because we'll be gone. As well as everything that we know of that has even the slightest bit of intelligence.
: > We still have a major variable in the way, though: we're stuck with humans doing the research, and humans raised up in a culture that influences their view of the world _incredibly._ > > I mean, you're only giving me more reason to question his and your's scientific knowledge, since you seem to be under the impression that modern sciences don't fall under all the same pitfalls intrinsic to older sciences. Facts as we define them don't really exist - we just flat-out don't have the ability to understand the universe in such a way that we can truly find out the facts about it over just making really educated guesses. I really dont think you understand how studies work, opinions dont affect data. If I thought my class had low iq's and made them take an iq test that wouldnt affect the results In regards to your second point thats just stupid and you know it. Our understanding of the world is mostly correct or we wouldnt be able to create things like computers. They are based on theories on how electrons move and how they can be influenced and interact with elements and if our theory didnt really exist then we wouldnt have the tech we have now. Youre honestly just speaking nonsense and its kind of funny. In addition, we dont have the the same pitfalls as ancient science because we can actually prove and test things with the technologies we created. For instance, before they had to go based on star movements and came to the wrong conclusion but we can actually see the planets now and we know for a fact that we are in a heliocentric solar system. Unless of course youre going for the arguement that nothing is real and were all in like some thought bubble in which case??? Or you might be thinking theres always a chance that something could be different from how we percieve it, in which case you are going for the 0.00000000001% arguement so just... why
> [{quoted}](name=The steam life,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=00060000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-11-19T19:59:35.249+0000) > > Our understanding of the world is _mostly_ correct This is where you've lost me in why you're arguing against me, because you've just admitted I'm right. Yes, we're a lot closer to what's really factual than we were in the past. No, that doesn't mean we can take that knowledge as fact, because _it's still only what we currently understand of the universe._ We make new discoveries that contradict sciences that were taken as indisputable all the time. Based on your examples, I feel like you've under the assumption that humanity is perfect and can do no wrong, unintentionally or not. But really, if you misplace a 0 when writing down the results of that IQ test ( also, side note, do you really want to bring up IQ when talking about our flawed sciences ), you've affected the results. If you have a grudge against someone and slash their results in half, you've affected the results. If you take an IQ test of third graders and compare it to the highest IQs of all times, you've affected the results - not in the numbers, sure, but in what people interpret from them. There's plenty of ways studies can be flawed and their results very questionable, and unless we can remove the human element from them then they'll always be.
: Let me try to phrase this in a way you'll understand. Empirical data is not affected by a person's world views. If you bother to read anything into the science done into this topic, you will find evidence which is as undeniably established as is possible with modern science. Studies where they take men and women who have similar lifestyles, get them to eat and exercise in specific manners. Through that they can measure muscular growth and see what differences there are between men and women. They can do this for a range of people from a range of lifestyles. What's the result they find? Men build muscle more quickly, peak at higher muscular tissue and other things, presuming they lead the exact same lifestyle that the woman does not through a subjective opinion but with numerical data. This means that societal views of women, the researcher's world views, and other bias **do not factor in**. You would be absolutely correct to state that a societal view that discourages women from becoming strong would cause the average woman to be weaker. You would be wrong to state that a woman living an identical lifestyle will be weaker because society. This does not mean that a woman is incapable of matching or surpassing a man in terms of strength or any other metric you wish to use. What it means is that a woman is at a biological disadvantage that will require her to work harder. This means that for the people in the top 0.0001% - women who I assure you do not care about society not finding them pretty - who cannot work any harder, the man will end up stronger. And it's not sexist to say that. Sexual dimorphism exists, both in this and in other things. After all, you aren't going to state that the reason guys don't naturally develop breasts is due to our culture, right?
> [{quoted}](name=IveChangedMyName,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=00060001,timestamp=2017-11-19T19:31:42.699+0000) > > This means that societal views of women, the researcher's world views, and other bias **do not factor in**. Perhaps this would be true if everyone on the planet could sit an observe that the study is 100% mirrored, the data is put down 100% correctly, and the subjects are 100% comparable within what's reasonable ( read: obviously, the groups would have to be different sexes, but what about metabolism, medical conditions, and genetics regarding muscle growth? ) But no, there are so many factors both out of and _in_ the researcher's hands that are free to flub the results. Hell, we're only getting the researchers' _interpretations_ of the results. This doesn't even have to be intentional misinterpretation for personal gain - but even the intentional stuff only gets called into question if there are people who disagree enough to do so in the first place. > [{quoted}](name=IveChangedMyName,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=00060001,timestamp=2017-11-19T19:31:42.699+0000) > > And it's not sexist to say that. Sexual dimorphism exists, both in this and in other things. After all, you aren't going to state that the reason guys don't naturally develop breasts is due to our culture, right? Guys do develop breasts, though. Like ... that's not even an uncommon thing.
: You seriously underestimate the dedication and willpower that people truly dedicated to sports posses. Women considered ugly with too much muscle? As if men are not? When a man starts beefing up for real he'll start looking hella ugly by society's current standards, because that much muscle is considered aesthetically displeasing, very much so. Men will not look like the male supermodels you see in movies when they are into heavy weights, nothing like that at all. But still there are men and women who go into it and keep pressuring themselves like few others to reach the top and beyond, to archive their dreams and even leave their names behind in the history of their chosen sport. That or they just like the feeling of challenging themselves physically, some people do that. Both men and women who go into that kinda deal for real know full well they´ll be become ugly looking by the end of it, they are by no means stupid. And it has been scientifically proven, that men gain muscle and mass faster, and can hold more of it, its because we naturally produce more testosterone which in turn helps build more muscle and makes it stronger. It's completely 100% certain that testosterone functions like that, because it's easy to observe and female scientists have worked on the subject as well their research came out with the same results. Because of genetics, mainly the need for males to have muscle and endure stress to those muscles, so as a result of those genetics male muscle are about 5-10% "stronger" than a female muscle of equal size. We also posses more skeletal muscle as well, this along with the testosterone is the reason why a man will end up with noticeably bigger muscle compared to a woman doing the same training. So, men build muscle faster, muscle's are specialized in sudden power, and we can support more of it with less health issue's. Women however, posses a few advantage's as well. Their muscles and genes have evolved for endurance, recovery, and not at all surprising really, pain tolerance as well as movement efficiency. So women are basically better at long time exercises like marathons and other similar stuff that require....well good endurance. While men are better at stuff that requires a lot of explosive power, like wrestling, short distance runs, single time heavy weight lifting. This is all science, science that women have participated and double and triple checked, and it has been proven true hundreds if not thousands of times by now. You seriously think the female parts of the science world would ever take it lying down if the male ones went around claiming that women were weaker and build muscle slower if it was false? Now the degree of difference in muscle power is small, the muscle building part is important and significant as is the womens superior recovery, and their ability to pace themselves near automatically. Men and women are equal, but we are not exactly the same, accepting differences and working to ensure they don't get in the way of what's truly important is what people should focus on rather than futilely claiming that there is no difference and everything aside from that between the legs and chest size is exactly the same. You can argue best you wish but a large part of these studies on genes were carried out by women, and/or inspected by them. This kinda stuff would never go public in todays society if it were incorrect, anyone trying to spread it around it would face hell on earth dealing with the repressions. Do you really believe anyone would be that stupid? Just for a lie that is easily proven false?
> [{quoted}](name=Thefrostyviking,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000100000001,timestamp=2017-11-19T19:22:38.435+0000) > > You seriously underestimate the dedication and willpower that people truly dedicated to sports posses. You seriously overestimate the power of raw willpower, and this is coming from someone who loves shonen anime. You can't beat self-loathing and depression with willpower alone. > [{quoted}](name=Thefrostyviking,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000100000001,timestamp=2017-11-19T19:22:38.435+0000) > > Women considered ugly with too much muscle? As if men are not? When a man starts beefing up for real he'll start looking hella ugly by society's current standards, because that much muscle is considered aesthetically displeasing, very much so. Yes, but society doesn't peg men's worth on their looks. That's the major distinction > [{quoted}](name=Thefrostyviking,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000100000001,timestamp=2017-11-19T19:22:38.435+0000) > > Do you really believe anyone would be that stupid? Just for a lie that is easily proven false? We as a species are literally making the only planet we can inhabit uninhabitable just for paper we claim has any value. Just to have that paper. Not to actually use it. You really seem to have a poor grasp on how stupid humanity gets, and that's just for intentional grasps for power. The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper when you just go about assuming what they were raised to think as normal as being _right._
: No I'm pretty sure a female weight lifter would not put her job on the line lifting a few less pounds just to look pretty. I know your trying to pull the social justice card but you basically just insulted the willpower and willingness to work of an entire industry of the people you're trying to protect so good on you, you've defeated us degenerates.
It's pretty clear you have no business in this conversation, considering you're trying to spin your own refusal to accept how fragile humans are as a way to twist what I'm saying into an insult. Willpower and willingness to work have nothing on the power of self-loathing. If they did, depression wouldn't be something that people need help with - but as is, all that willpower goes to getting help, not getting rid of depression directly.
: No what he's saying is that there have been studies and that generally in our day and age we know how to conduct it so that there are minimal variables getting in the way. Based on your total exaggeration of his point I could also say you think every study done on a controversial statement is falsified and that all males and females act look and are the same in every way if there were no outside factors. Theres nothing wrong with saying women have naturally less muscle mass than men just as there is nothing wrong with saying males and females have naturally different biological structures that cause us to act and perform in certain ways. Also I like how you had no counterarguement to his mantis point and just went immediately to insulting him like wow good one you really got him with that and then basically questioned his scientific knowledge and science in general when up to this point hes given a ton of facts and all you've supplied are your opinions and assumptions
> [{quoted}](name=The steam life,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-11-19T18:25:17.608+0000) > > No what he's saying is that there have been studies and that generally in our day and age we know how to conduct it so that there are minimal variables getting in the way. We still have a major variable in the way, though: we're stuck with humans doing the research, and humans raised up in a culture that influences their view of the world _incredibly._ > [{quoted}](name=The steam life,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-11-19T18:25:17.608+0000) > > basically questioned his scientific knowledge and science in general when up to this point hes given a ton of facts and all you've supplied are your opinions and assumptions I mean, you're only giving me more reason to question his and your's scientific knowledge, since you seem to be under the impression that modern sciences don't fall under all the same pitfalls intrinsic to older sciences. Facts as we define them don't really exist - we just flat-out don't have the ability to understand the universe in such a way that we can truly find out the facts about it over just making really educated guesses.
: Except the studies of genetics and stuff is already pretty advanced, And it had been confirmed that if a man and a woman, eating the same stuff and doing the same training will end up with the man being stronger. Because genes. It's the result of evolution, it has been mainly the males hunting and doing heavy lifting since the stone age and it was the primary system going from the dang bronze age to the middle/end of the industrial age. We're talking several thousands years here, if it wasn't already clear, and i am fairly sure that animals have evolved with less time. Heck, even when some american elite army group opened up for women they had to make the intro test easier because it was too difficult for women, because it was made for the average military man at the physical peak. And the 2 who did the test still came out completely exhausted, while men who did the easier version came out tired and sore but still able to keep going. Despite the fact that the men and women who did the test had eaten basically the same food while in the army and had the same training for a few years up until that point, and still the men came out of it a noticeable lot stronger. Nope fact is, that due to the gender roles enforced since the time monkeys were still busy evolving men and women have evolved slightly differently. With men having a advantage in physical strength, due to their lifestyles and the lifestyles of a hundred thousand generations of ancestors. Men also have it easier to build muscle while training when in their teens(and a little bit later as well), due to hormones and other things, because genetics. So yes, men posses a greater magnitude of brute physical strength, we also tend to be taller and heavier due to this. While women, seems to have evolved to have a better sense of pacing and movement efficiency when running&moving, among other things but this for the physical aspect. If you have complaints you can invent a time machine and go back to the first humans and tell them their idea of how to do stuff is wrong and that they should work on a equality system.....provided you find a way to communicate with them. I myself am just rather thankful we aren't in a society where social status is based of physical strength, due to problems with my lungs. Thus it makes sense, that Demacian's in league, a society heavily inspired by the medical dark ages, would be quite sexist and biased towards men. Because in a society ruled by warriors and knights the most important thing after wealth is physical ability, which is why they look down on Fiora so much despite her being a skilled fencer and wealthy noble. Because in a real fight she´d stand no chance at all in beating something like a fully armored knight, for she could never wear a equally good armor and she could never swing a equally heavy weapon. That is how muscle headed medieval men judge a persons worth :(
I'm inclined to believe that your evidence is pretty damn uselessly biased. See, you can _say_ that it's genetics that the current strongest women aren't as powerful as the current strongest men, but you're forgetting to factor in that the current cultural landscape considers strong women ugly and ugly women worthless pieces of shit that deserve to be endlessly mocked and ignored until they develop serious self-esteem issues and start believing that, too. That's a _pretty significant_ issue with any sort of practical evidence to your case, before you even factor in the fact that women rarely have to compete with men physically in the first place and the avenues for them to do so only just opened up recently. It's not like when competitions of raw strength first began that there were suddenly people just as strong as Aleksey Lovchev stepping up. If anything, this is pretty comparable to two people racing with one guy getting a handicap of starting 90% of the way through, then using the results as evidence for immutable physical superiority / inferiority of their kind.
: did you think for maybe a second that my point is exactly that being the problem? i couldnt understand you with your technical mumbo jumbo and denial of your own fucking eyes
I think you're the one with the denial of your own eyes, considering you seem to think that that wasn't what I was saying from the start. There's just a massive difference between it affecting player input ( aka, a target point higher than your current location resulting in _actually_ having less range, due the distance check including that height difference in determining the distance between you and the target ) and it just looking like it does.
: Autoattacks AND spells would trigger comet both it's effect and it's CD reduction effect, aery would be spells only. Think you're misunderstanding me o_o Think of it like adding onto current comet that AAs trigger it and it gets reduction off AAs like karma's ulti.
I mean, attacks triggering the _CD reduction_ would be fine, but attacks triggering the effect itself would be ass unless you're like Gnar or Teemo with a Frozen Mallet. You'd miss every single proc from an attack, and just waste the cooldown.
: Because aery is too good. Thus comet which is inferior had a superior way of being triggered it'd balance it out.
Autoattacks would make Comet super trash, though, unless you like made it homing or something so it could actually land on an uninhibited enemy with boots.
: I edited my post to include a video that is not mine, but mine is actually meant to be an extension of the 2nd video. In it, Wolle examines part of how elevation impacts the game. its 2 minutes long
... But that's still just a combination of the camera angle and the range indicator just being a non-occluded, translated texture being applied at _your current location_. There's no actual game logic adding extra range or stuff like that, it's just the fact that the game isn't played from a directly top-down perspective.
: What you're doing right now is entirely based on the philosophy of nothing. "This science might not be true" is entirely a view you can take on something, until you see it for yourself you don't fully know if something is real. You know only what happens around and to you. But of course if you're gonna have that view on studies on Sexual Dimorphism you should also take that view with everything else you don't fully know. Basically, if you're gonna be wary of studies based on male and females because cultures are typically male dominated then you should also question white historians researching cultures and continents that correspond with their heritage, studies on animals by people who like animals, and geology studies done by those who like keeping the planet clean.
> [{quoted}](name=TsunamiWave22,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-19T02:13:42.803+0000) > > then you should also question white historians researching cultures and continents that correspond with their heritage, This is a terrific comparison. > [{quoted}](name=TsunamiWave22,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-19T02:13:42.803+0000) > > studies on animals by people who like animals, and geology studies done by those who like keeping the planet clean. These ... not so much. I mean, they're still very much limited by the fact that any human science is going to be subjective because we're far from actually having an objective perspective on the world, but there's a lot less corruption that can leak into these perspectives relative to their opposites. A researcher who doesn't care for animals would be far more willing to bow to smudging some damning info about modern beef production for the sake of being friendly with beef businesses, whereas someone who loves cows would likely be even more likely to publish it should some guys in suits try to wave some money around to stop them. In the end, they're all vulnerable to bias and political, cultural, or financial power grabbing, but it's unfair to imply that stuff like sustainability research is as vulnerable as research used to better justify the greater power held by men. This is especially true of newer fields and topics, since they have less legacy baggage dragging them down ... but as I've implied in a previous post, we're still far off from a world where we can say some studies aren't instantly flawed due to the scars of exploitative politics, culture, and economics.
: well i just proved that the visual elevation affects player input. so the Z axis isnt PURELY aesthetic
No, you actually proved that is it purely aesthetic. But this posts also proves how you completely underestimate how aesthetics alter gameplay, if only through player perception - i.e., a camera angle combining with non-flat terrain causing you to think two points are within a straight line of each other when they're actually not, resulting in two different angles with a significant deviation at long distances. Similarly, because the range indicators are not drawn onto the ground yet ignore occlusion, a point outside of your cast range can appear to be inside the range indicators without said indicators having a significant amount of inaccuracy. This is why when you see someone proudly proclaim that "graphics don't matter!", you can immediately dismiss them as someone who knows nothing about game design ( nor have they really experienced any games with horrendous graphical design ) and use this as an example of how even small flaws in it can have real impact on a game.
: > Like, let's say someone's lift is 3054lb and a 3051lb. One is unambiguously stronger than the other, no? But it'd be absurd to section off the latter from competing with the former, even if it's caused entirely by genetics, because the difference is completely insignificant. Strength differences between sexes are way more extreme than that in the real world. See this article: http://jap.physiology.org/content/83/5/1581.full for data showing even the strongest women are weaker than the average man. > Not to mention that the entire "men are naturally stronger than women" is based entirely on research of a world heavily impacted by sexism in the first place, so it's pretty useless. So you're saying that the biology was formed by culture and not the other way around? The female mantis being larger and stronger than the male mantis is entirely based on mantis culture?
What I'm getting from this is that you still think the universe rotates around the Earth, because human science is perfect and can never be completely fucked with by culture.
: If sexual dimorphism in Runeterra is anything like in our world, and judging by character heights and weights it is, peak female strength will never be as much as peak male strength, assuming same training and diet. I don't think it's sexist to state that, but feel free to convince me.
It's sexist to assume that this matters and act on it. Like, let's say someone's lift is 3054lb and a 3051lb. One is unambiguously stronger than the other, no? But it'd be absurd to section off the latter from competing with the former, even if it's caused entirely by genetics, because the difference is completely insignificant. Not to mention that the entire "men are naturally stronger than women" is based entirely on research of a world heavily impacted by sexism in the first place, so it's pretty useless.
: I could've sworn riot said that there was no elevation.
There's _visual_ elevation, and a z-axis in-engine. The actual game logic only utilizes x and y coordinates for collision detection and stuff, though.
: A somewhat controversial thread about Demacian culture and petricide.
> [{quoted}](name=Blood Magicks,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-11-18T18:01:23.951+0000) > > **Hence men, being far stronger on average, could subdue and control women for centuries** On one hand, this where the argument pretty much falls apart, but on the other, the fact that this appears in an argument that tries not to be sexist really kinda builds it back up. Shame a population for trying to be physically strong and fit, and of course they're going to be "weaker on average" because the average _isn't going to want to deal with that social pressure._ So while the actual difference in strength can't be the reason, the _perceived_ difference in strength could propagate the sexism further. As we see in this very post.
: Swap their triggers, Let comet trigger off AAs as well and aery proc only on spells. Boom. no lost of uniqueness, aery can have it's dmg nerf reverted without it being as powerful. And comet will have more flexibility on triggering it.
Why would you ever want to trigger Comet on autos? That sounds _terrible_ and would just force the users to never auto a champion ever so they don't waste its cooldown on an assured miss.
: It's so much more reliable and flexible than Comet I can't see why you'd want Comet compared to it.
Comet is really nice on Anivia. First time I ever ran it on her I got a 95% or 96% accuracy rating, and the only miss was because the guy died after it launched.
Tortunga (EUW)
: Or just completely remove it and change all the champions that have this in their kit. Creep block does nothing then just annoy the crap out of you. I can't think of any reason why creeps should be able to block me.
I mean if they didn't, you could just stand in them to become immune to skillshots.
: > [{quoted}](name=Atanchan,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Yf6VEus7,comment-id=000500010000,timestamp=2017-11-13T18:06:48.377+0000) > > Not really. For a long time now, there've been abilities that are more like special attacks than spells, such as Mystic Shot and Parrrley. Subsequently, they were treated as attacks and not spells, applying on-hit effects but not spell effects. Exactly. It's important for Ezreal's Q to apply on-hits because Sheen is an on-hit effect, basically. Actually, Muramana is both on-hit and on unit-targeted spell. That means theoretically Ezreal's Q might apply it _twice_ now. I'm gonna go check that really fast and edit my post when I know. Edit: Tested and confirmed! **Ezreal's Q currently applies Muramana's proc twice.** Numbers: Ezreal level: 1 Ezreal AD: 146 Ezreal Mana: 1360 Target Dummy Armor: 100 (meaning all physical damage is divided by 2: 100/(100 + 100) = 100/200 = 1/2 = 0.5) Q damage: 35 (+182) = 217. After armor, Q damage alone = 108.5. Muramana: consumes 3% current mana to deal 6% current mana in extra damage. Please note that I'm using Manaflow Band in testing, so Q's mana drain is moot. Muramana damage from one proc: (1360 mana)*0.03 [aka 3%] = 40.8 mana. Doubling that, it should give 81.6 damage, or... 40.8 damage after armor. Imagine that. Second proc: 1360-41 mana = 1319 mana. 1319*0.06 [aka 6%] = 79.14 damage, or 39.57 after armor. Total after armor with two procs: 78.97 damage. Now, actual damage dealt: 187-188. I'll call it 187.5, since that's close enough. 187.5-108.5 (from Q) = 79 damage left. That's _significantly_ more than the 40.6 damage that he should get from 1 Muramana proc. However, post-armor damage from two procs is 78.97, which is rounded to 79 in 97% of cases. 79 being exactly how much damage is left to find after the Q damage. Uh-oh.
: > [{quoted}](name=Atanchan,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Yf6VEus7,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-13T18:04:57.468+0000) > > Not after the first version of Runeglaive, anyway. That's different. That was a Sheen item, so that was an on-hit effect (so for instance Annie's Q doesn't proc Sheen). The new Runic Echoes is a Luden's Echo type item, which is a spell effect.
It was an on-hit effect, yes, but it was an on-hit effect _that procced spell effects_. There was actually a short period of time where mid Ezreals were taking Smite just so they could build it, because the lesser Lich Bane that was Runeglaive combined with stuff like Luden's gave his Q unreal poke. Then Runeglaive got immediately patched so it acted like other Spellblade effects.
: I'm kind of a fan of locking items such that you can only ever have 1. I know that this will ruin a very popular build ({{item:3070}} {{item:3070}} {{item:3070}} {{item:3070}} {{item:3070}} {{item:3070}}) but I think it's for the best.
How would you build Dirk or Warhammer, then? Or Recurve or Stinger?
: > [{quoted}](name=The Red Skaarl,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Yf6VEus7,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2017-11-13T13:15:31.627+0000) > > Wait ez Q didn't apply spell hits before? I thought it was a spell so it would do that normally ^ Makes total sense for it to count as a spell as it is...a spell, right? It costs mana and has a CD doesn't it? *has never played as Ezreal, but I feel this is something that should've existed a loooooong time ago and Riot just snuck it in realizing that too perhaps?*
Not really. For a long time now, there've been abilities that are more like special attacks than spells, such as Mystic Shot and Parrrley. Subsequently, they were treated as attacks and not spells, applying on-hit effects but not spell effects.
: On hit effects and on spell effects are different. If you played AP ezreal then you should know his Q **never** applied luden's echo for an example.
: Takes cojones? What does he have to fear, players saying bad words to him?
hey look it's somebody who manages to slam their face into the keyboard to create something that looks like words arranged in a manner that proves that they can't actually be words because that would mean their words mean nothing and that'd just cause an infinite loop
: > [{quoted}](name=NTrumpWeTrust,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=am1sXcWE,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-12T01:33:32.305+0000) > > Wrong. lmao, ok buddy. its literally bandit turned into a keystone rune. and bandit was used by melee and ranged champions. they advertised the rune with melee and ranged champions in their sample games. but i guess its pointless to argue about it with you.
I'm pretty sure it was designed for champion who easily proc Spellblade effects on champions, hence the fact that it's a Spellblade-esque effect that only procs on champions. Which would mean it's designed mostly for ranged champions, but melee champions that can trade easily or have a faux-ranged attack like Gangplank also get to benefit from it. Y'know, just like how Electrocute is designed mostly for ranged champions that can toss an ability or two in between autoattacks, but also works for melee champions that have enough attack speed or a multi-part burst combo to also proc it easily. Or just like how Press the Attack is designed mostly for ranged champions for them to get extra damage while kiting or chasing someone down, but also works for melee champions that have enough sticking power to keep wailing on someone while they try to run away. Like ... ranged champions are basically the default to design around due to the lack of disadvantages they have. Melee champions sometimes get extra _benefits_ ( it's really not the way around ) so that they can have tools that full power without also giving access to those tools to ranged champion at full power, but that's ... not really necessary on everything, especially on something already pretty niche.
: Except that... they _are_ tied to your rune pages. _**You **_ don't get to decide whether they're more akin to the old runes or the old masteries, they're their own thing, that's just how _**the game developer**_ made them. The only resemblance to the old system is that their pages are tied to your previous number of *rune* pages. I understand change is uncomfortable, but constant change is what keeps League going. Yeaaah alright the layout looks more like the masteries from before... but that's pretty much about it. They're all available to you from the get go. If you disagree they're both runes and masteries, then just see them as what they actually are: neither runes nor masteries. They're new. And they're what's called "runes" now.
That still doesn't change the fact that they function far more like masteries than runes. That rune page thing is literally the only thing that connects them to runes, and it's easily the worst aspect. Might as well say that the sun is the same thing as Hitler because it's going to commit genocide when it destabilizes.
: Should't opponents also have "time to react" to AD damage?
They do. See: Mega Gnar W, Sion Q, Kayn W. If you specifically mean _attack_ damage, well, it's not like there's more time to react to Veigar R than there is to ranged attacks, or any time to react to Sunfire and similar damage.
: Preseason Attack Speed Tweaks
wouldn't it make more sense to just leave base attack speed in as like "base attack time" and use the name "base attack speed" to refer to a champion's level 1 attack speed like the rest of the stats ala dota
: ***
Wow, you really just went and said you literally never went out of your echo chambers. That really explain why you're such a gigantic twatwaffle, though.
: Huh. First you compared yourself to paraplegics, now you're comparing yourself to people who commit suicide. We are discussing a _game_ here. _This is not serious business._
So you don't think you're communicating with a human being. Got it. Man, you really are someone who'll probably cause genocides from your apathy alone.
: Ah yes, name calling, that helps your case. Be more entitled with this FREE game that you play. I'm sorry you're having issues, but blaming Riot for improving a bad system is pretty ridiculous.
> [{quoted}](name=MalrothDragonia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=qkuEEEWV,comment-id=00050000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-08T21:56:10.589+0000) > > I'm sorry the mental effort of choosing a playstyle is a bit much for you. Seems like a personal problem. Maybe invest some BE into extra pages then. that's an incredible amount of self-loathing you have there
: They really are! they grant flat stats (splashing to a secondary tree!) as well as helpful passive abilities.
That's ... the exact reason why they _aren't_ runes. Masteries did both of those, while runes only did the former.
: Look man. I don't expect I'll have any problems because it's honestly not even remotely difficult. You can either flame me for not having problems while you do and continue to have problems, or you can ask yourself why others don't struggle with what you do and change your approach instead of just complaining.
Humans aren't created equal, you know. That's why we have ramps instead of only having stairs. Or are you going to say that people in wheelchairs should just suck it up and reevaluate why they struggle with getting up stairs when others don't?
: I'm sorry the mental effort of choosing a playstyle is a bit much for you. Seems like a personal problem. Maybe invest some BE into extra pages then.
I'm sorry that your face is a literal ass and the only thing you're capable of putting out of it is the smuggest shit in the world. Maybe you'll realize that the extra pages barely help, because you'd need like twenty of them to streamline the process and even then it doesn't cut out any of the decision making.
: There's no reason to insult me just because you can't remember your masteries. Most champs have maybe 2 or 3 actual legit setups with 5 or 6 total competitive ones. So unless you are trying to read every mastery, it shouldn't be a problem. I created every mastery pregame before and had plenty of unique rune pages to choose from. Enough legit rune pages that it was actually a difficult choice sometimes. It's pretty brainless rn. Basically just think "what do I need" and you're ezpz ready to go. if you need lifesteal there's only 2 options. If it's late then go yellow early go red. If it doesn't matter then you should prob make that your secondary.
It's not so much an insult as fact, considering ... the previous system really was that brainless. Not to mention, you're severely underestimating the complexity of this system. Yes, lifesteal is easy, because both options are on the same path ... except it isn't, because you have to evaluate if you need lifesteal for the lane or if you just need to gave more safety in the late game. Either way, though, you're committed to Precision no matter what, and committed to it as your primary if you need it in lane. What about mana sustain? You have three different options split across three different paths, with very different ways of going about it. Now you've got to figure out which of these fits best, both in how it goes about sustaining your mana, which path has the best other runes for you, _and_ whether or not you can afford to take the tree as a secondary or if you need to take it as your primary for to sake of a different secondary path, which then rolls into whether or not you can justify that path as a primary too. Seriously, unless Riot completely dropped the ball and the tier list of the new runes looks a lot like Brawl's, being able to put thought into this doesn't seem like a stretch at all.
: What I said is not incorrect. They added time. You don't think it's enough time, that's your opinion, but it's six decisions, and you have access to what they all are before you enter into a game. It's not 'objectively worse' because it's more time for fewer decisions. Trying to build a mastery page from scratch each game was more decisions with less time. That's objectively better. It's temporary because it's new, and eventually you won't need it. Also, I mistakenly thought you were the same dude arguing the system was unfair from before, missed that you were a new poster, which I'm sry about. The 'benefits YOU' comment was directed at that person.
It's nine decisions. Which paths you take, which secondary tier you exclude, and which runes you take. Considering how those all link together, it's completely disingenuous to compare even one of those to like deciding between 6% heals or +50 health. Also, the thing about building the mastery pages from scratch each game? You didn't have to, simply because you didn't actually _make_ the maximum amount of decisions the mastery tress provided. Hell, you only needed six mastery pages period, because you didn't actually need to make any decisions not based around your champion class besides primary tree, secondary tree, and keystone. And sometimes those weren't even decisions, either. So the amount of mental energy put into the old system was only a tiny fraction in comparison to the amount put into this one.
: they actually added time to pre-game to help people adjust to having to make more new decisions. It's like you don't really care about 'fairness' and just want things that benefit YOU the most. Crazy. You'd think someone really concerned might have looked at the patch notes and pre-season discussion to see what the full changes were.
> [{quoted}](name=MalrothDragonia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=qkuEEEWV,comment-id=0005000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-08T21:24:59.839+0000) > > It's like you don't really care about 'fairness' and just want things that benefit YOU the most. Crazy. huh > [{quoted}](name=MalrothDragonia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=qkuEEEWV,comment-id=0005000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-08T21:24:59.839+0000) > > I'm going to call you out for bringing up an idea that benefits _literally everyone_ because I don't like it, and hide it under the pretense of you being unfair to make it seem worse. 🤔 Also, you seem to have issues reading the patch notes yourself, considering it's only like 15 seconds they've added and it flat-out says they're temporary.
Show more

Atanchan

Level 47 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion