: Preseason: Rise of the Elements on PBE!
The new cloud drake seems EXTREMELY situational and will see a much more rare usage compared to other drakes' powers. Specially for those who have long ult cooldowns. (Every five mins you get a 3 sec movement speed bonus???) Also what happens with Udyr? He has no ult.
Naalith (NA)
: Technically it would only take 13,230 RP because 3 of the species are in one egg and the other 3 are in another egg. Our benevolent Riot Games only wants you to mortgage your house to buy these Little Legends, they would never have you sell your kids as well. I also like that you can only pick your free Legend from the Silverwing, Runespirit, or Molediver. They couldn't even be bothered to let you pick any of the starting 6 lol.
Uh, no. I took that into consideration and 26,460 is the number you get for one series. For both you need to double that (52,920)
: Teamfight Tactics — /dev Update #1
Hit level 6 before round 11 mission is bugged and not updating on PBE, and time is almost running out to be able to finish it :(
Junkο (EUNE)
: it's way over 5200 RP. To get a tier 3 of the one I wanted I needed to spend 9000 RP on PBE(it wasn't even a legendary). And i'm still missing 2 legendary tier 3s so god help those who want them. On top of that I'm missing 1/3 of set one and don't have a single legend for set 2. Edit: I'm tired I misread $200 as 5200 somehow. Still, $200 is is absolutely ridiculous.
Ya it could take upto 26,460 RP for someone with bad luck just to get the little legend they want, which is pure BS.
: Little Legends Series Egg Guide
So what you're saying is someone with really bad luck would need to spend ~$200 in this sick gambling system just to get the little legend they want? Ok Rito.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: March 15
- Minimal preseason change - Not gonna do systematic change on normal patches - Not gonna have a mid-season I know you guys regret changes things so often last season but now you're going the other extreme. The game feels so stale with literally nothing large to look forward to.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: March 13
Hey Meddler, what are your thoughts on jungle? It feels quite a bit gutted in my opinion, hoping for some buffs and maybe even a rework alongside.
Keyru (NA)
: Hot is back to the front page and we're not going to be removing Discussion view. Thanks everyone so far who has chipped in sharing your thoughts about how you use the functionalities and features. Best will continue to be turned off. I've edited the post as such but we're going to explore seeing if a few of the suggestions posted here can be done. In the meantime we'll be: 1) Creating stricter rules for Gameplay since the removal of Gameplay+ 2) Look into reducing repetitive topics from showing up on "Hot" (would mean more deletions from moderators or megathreads) 3) Creating some sort of rant thread/board 4) Exploring if upvotes/downvotes can be shown only in the discussion If you have any other suggestions, feedback, or thoughts to any of the points above, please share because I am reading all the comments and listening!
This seems to be the opposite of what you were planning yesterday, can't say I really like that. Liked yesterday's plan more. I will always dislike a system that relies heavily on mod approval, cause mod bias develops over time. No down-votes is something I'm willing to get behind however.
: Gameplay/Client Feedback Megathread: One +, One -
Positive: I'm glad they will try out more PvE modes Negative: Jungle feels **really** bad to play currently. They need to either rework or buff it, preferably rework (in a buffed state ofc) as the whole iteration of the current jungle is unlikable.
: > [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=qoB7gPrN,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-02-25T21:39:41.927+0000) > > Discussion view is important on certain boards which may be looked at by players who don't normally read the boards, such as people reading Player Behavior threads for information about the system. > > Removal of voting will also negatively affect this, as it allows people who are fast to have their misleading or outright incorrect information at the top of a thread, with no way to identify it as such. It's definitely possible that we don't roll this out everywhere outside of this test, because there may indeed be some boards that it's detrimental to -- part of what this test will help discover. We're also not not really interested in *removing* voting, at least from what I've heard, although we may look into changes or removing downvotes alone (so that good content rises but we don't have downvote brigading). Again, that's all a bit up in the air right now.
I really like the direction you guys are going. I think removing down-votes is a good idea as a lot of people just down vote anything they don't agree with, it'll really help keep the boards from becoming an echo chamber; which is a major problem it currently has.
Keyru (NA)
: As a minor test before the date, we just turned off Best/Hot as a viewable option on Boards home. Let me know how it is. Seeing some overall sentiment, we still might hold off from fully switching but still need more thoughts and feedback!
I really like the direction you guys are going. I think removing down-votes is also a good idea as a lot of people just down vote anything they don't agree with, it'll really help keep the boards from becoming an echo chamber; which is a major problem it currently has.
Keyru (NA)
: [UPDATE 2/26] Boards Testing and Thoughts
I really like the direction you guys are going. I think removing down-votes is a good idea as a lot of people just down vote anything they don't agree with, it'll really help keep the boards from becoming an echo chamber; which is a major problem it currently has.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: February 20
Any plans on buffing or reworking jungle any time soon? It's kinda gutted.
: Writing a pure good character and a pure evil character is really boring and not writing like that is especially important when your doing it for a game where people get attracted to characters. But riot really really has done the good guy is a asshole theme way too much.
I agree Riot has overused that theme way too much. As for you other point I could see your point if that were the case for every single character. But having some champions like that sprinkled throughout is not bad imo.
: Riot writers, what do you have against the "usual" good guys?
I made a similar thread here: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/story-art/4MKKTpX2-forcing-lore-not-to-have-and-good-and-evil-is-just-stupid Forcing lore not to have and good and evil is stupid. Just to avoid having a clear good and evil you're always writing the typical good guys as assholes and the showing the typical bad guys as moralistic. First with Demacia and now with Kayle. Stop it. You're ruining theme. People who are attracted to Kayle are those who like the idea of a Champion being good and actually bringing justice, the new lore ruined that whole champion fantasy. What's wrong with having good and evil in Runeterra? You should embrace it as part of theme and personality. I don't know who came up with the ridiculous idea that good and evil don't exist but it needs to change cause they clearly do. You wouldn't look at someone going around killing people for no reason and say, "hey, that's not good nor evil!" It's clearly evil and it's something that exists so stop trying to pretend it doesn't and stop forcing yourself to color everything gray. There needs to be black, white, and gray for a good story.
Rioter Comments
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: February 8
The ranged "punishment" for taking conq is next to nothing. 3 sec is more than enough for someone actually in a sustained fight to keep up the stacks. ADCs are gonna abuse this.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: February 8
I'm sorry but the new conqueror seems spammable on ranged/non-fighters. Once ranged get the ability to proc it fast enough there is no difference between melee conq and ranged conq. I think melee conq should have an actual advantage at all points of the game.
Ataraxas (NA)
: I feel like Udyr's lore update is a major downgrade
It'd be nice to see a caring side of Udyr who he only shows to one person. (Unnamed Girl)
Rioter Comments
rujitra (NA)
: People can read patch notes. They don't need you to show them the patch notes decreasing exp.
There are many things you can't tell by just reading the patch notes. It's like saying: "what's the point of solving an equation when the equation is already there?"
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ataraxas,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=siENkTGa,comment-id=000b000100010000,timestamp=2019-02-02T20:58:26.756+0000) > > The main point was showing people by just how much the jungle is getting nerfed via a way they could relate to and understand. (How many camps worth of exp you would be missing out on in a full clear during mid-game compared to the previous season.) What you are referring to was just the preface. Couple points here: * What you provided isn't data. It's what we call "spitballing" or "napkin math". These things can be helpful in establishing a starting point or base-checking a thesis, but they shouldn't be confused with actual data. * "Jungle is getting nerfed" is not the entirety of your thesis. You also argue: * Specific junglers will be affected. You do not describe this set and you do not explain the manner in which reduced EXP will affect them. * You argue the changes will make ganks more common, but you don't explain why this would be the case. A contra-argument could be made that reductions in jungle EXP slow level advancement which leads to slower clears, making ganks _less likely_. * You do not address possible reasonings behind the change. For example, outside of ganks, jungling is linear and non-interactive. Have you considered that junglers were gaining too much experience relative to laners with regard to the relative risk? * You do not discuss the net effect of the change, which are to cause junglers to be _lower level_ at their gank windows and to delay the points at which champions obtain certain abilities. > Also you get 1/4th less exp mid-game from the four camps (excluding buffs) if you compare beginning of season 9 to beginning of season 8, which is quite a large portion to nerf exp by for a single role. EXP exists only in relation to the other roles. > Edit: There were even more nerfs in addition to exp nerfs, so that's not even the only thing. Then you should have discussed those things as part of a larger analysis of what jungle changes will mean for the game.
1. That is data, more so data by its factual self without trying to prove anything with it. You don't always have to prove something with data, sometimes data in of itself is the interest. "The absurdity of this logic can be saved for other posts,but right now in this first portion of this post I'm here to talk about just how much, number-wise, power-farming junglers will be nerfed in the beginning of season 9 compared to the beginning of season 8." 2. (This is suppose to be #2) Are you sure that's not my only point? I literally said everything else can be saved for another post and we are just talking about data now. 3+. The rest of your arguments sound like you're upset I was not supporting (or left out) a certain view you may have with my data. Also, which specific junglers did I mention? Power-farmers? Do I really need to explain why nerfing the source of farm will hurt power**farmers?** EDIT: And my thread was removed due to an "attack", which I still can't find anywhere in my post.
: I disagree with calling your line an “attack” as I had noted it to be somewhat rude, or mildly. If anything, I think we could have communicated better with you, considering the time and effort you put into this post. My prior comment to you was to provide feedback on making this a better post. This **is not** a removal that counts as a punishment on your account; rather, your post did not meet criteria to be the published in G+. Apologies for not doing a better follow up, as I have been busy since my last reply to you. Edit: if you have further questions I’d be glad to answer them.
I still don't agree with the removal of this, at all, nor did anything get resolved but at least you're a nice guy. :)
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=CallMeBoomer,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=siENkTGa,comment-id=000b0001,timestamp=2019-02-02T19:47:49.258+0000) > > You honestly cherry picked and left out all of the stats/data the OP had. > > This is why people avoid the boards and use reddit more so these days. The stats were irrelevant to their argument. "There's about a 15-20% reduction in jungle EXP this year" isn't being debated. All those numbers and the way they were structured got in the way of their main point - which is that reducing jungle EXP incentivizes ganking. This is suspect logic, as changing EXP has no effect on clear times. Lowering jungle EXP changes the power of junglers at the points they go to gank, which might even be a disincentive to do so.
The main point was showing people by just how much the jungle is getting nerfed via a way they could relate to and understand. (How many camps worth of exp you would be missing out on in a full clear during mid-game compared to the previous season.) What you are referring to was just the preface. Also you get 1/4th less exp mid-game from the four camps (excluding buffs) if you compare beginning of season 9 to beginning of season 8, which is quite a large portion to nerf exp by for a single role. Edit: There were even more nerfs in addition to exp nerfs, so that's not even the only thing.
Ulanopo (NA)
: So, by way of review, here's the entirely of your submission that isn't just a data dump: > As we all know Riot is planning to nerf power farming junglers because ganking junglers are too dominant. (Cause why not?) The absurdity of this logic can be saved for other posts,but right now in this first portion of this post I'm here to talk about just how much, number-wise, power-farming junglers will be nerfed in the beginning of season 9 compared to the beginning of season 8. > TLDR; A full clear (6 camps + scuttle) in mid-game during the beginning of season 9 is about equivalent to 3.5 camps + scuttle in mid-game during the beginning of season 8. > Ending Note: > Dear Riot, > The current complaint about junglers is that they gank too much. By nerfing power farming junglers so heavily you will have even more ganking junglers picked which will make the complaints even worse. As analysis goes, there isn't much there and the thesis is suspect. Anything that makes sitting in the jungle less efficient is obviously going to result in more ganks. We get that. Let's parse down your primary statement: >As we all know You should avoid statements like this, as you're assuming facts not in evidence. >Riot is planning to nerf power farming junglers Your numbers don't support this. A global nerf to jungle EXP affects all junglers, not just the ones with fast clear times. In fact, junglers with fast clear times would seem to be _less_ affected by lowered EXP, as they could clear, then have more time in lane. You should have analyzed the relationship between EXP and clear speed. >because ganking junglers are too dominant. Speed of clear and quality/nature of gank are the two qualities I tend to look at when I'm considering junglers. Changes to jungle EXP don't change anything about those characteristics other than the level of the jungler during their gank windows. A proper analysis would have looked at which junglers have to change their play style to accommodate the new values. >(Cause why not?) Why is this even in here? It's distracting and seems to serve no purpose other than to express your frustration with a class of junglers, which makes me have to waste time considering the inherent bias that might be lurking behind the post. >The absurdity of this logic can be saved for other posts Unhelpful. If it's worth mentioning, it's worth explaining. > The current complaint about junglers is that they gank too much. Isn't the inverse of that statement that junglers aren't spending enough time clearing? What benefits are there to making it more efficient to stay in the jungle? Have we forgotten prior seasons where junglers did nothing but farm for 20 minutes, then appeared to absolutely wreck team fights? I didn't review your submission, but I would have also rejected it. Hope that helps.
You took out all the data that was the main meat of the post. Data in of itself is something worth noting yaknow. What are you even trying to accomplish here? Ngl these sound like a bs excuses. 1. Let players use general phrases without over analyzing them by a billion miles. 2. Power-farmers are part of the "jungle" you mention and they are logically going to be the most effected by those nerfs. Ya ofc it nerfs the whole jungle, no duh, but it moreso targets the powerfarming playstyle than the other ones. 3. I was talking about the junglers who *were* dominant, which were indeed the early gankers. No need analyze future data for what already is. 4. See point one 5. See point one 6. You disagree with my stance so you would have removed it? Absolute BS. No it did not help.
: Talked with the moderator who removed that post. To your OP. It was not removed for that one comment. Overall, it just was not a stellar G+ post. While I do appreciate the math behind the jungle nerfs you provided, I don't feel like that should be the majority of the post. ---------------- Further points of improvement: -I understand that G+ is for the really deep gameplay thinkers. I do think some context to your post would help. If you're going to relate/cite a post from a Rioter, it may be helpful to link that post at some point. -The Jungle nerfs are present in your post, as is a single conclusion- it's gonna cause more ganks. I think that's maybe too broad of a conclusion. I'd suggest expounding on playstyles and/or strategies; hits to champs (buff/nerfs), in particular how this may affect champions in the extremes (S tier jungles versus D tier jungles).
1. Mate, it literally says in the reasoning of removal that I attacked someone, where is this "attack"? 2. I didn't link something that I quoted AND sourced? That's part of the reason for removal? ???? Really? 3. The main conclusion there was by how much exactly the jungle is getting nerfed shown via a way people could relate to (number of camps). What you stated was just a preface. 4. Even if that was my conclusion the post got removed because you disgree with my conclusion?? That's bs.
Kaìju (NA)
: Except that junglers can snowball a game very easily and if you play a gank heavy jungler you should fall behind. You have enough early game pressure to gank level 2 on some champions and near instantly decide some lanes, that warrants not also being a carry.
To quote from another post of mine: "There used to be carry junglers as well. But riot has been favoring ganking junglers so heavily recently that picking a carry jungle is shooting yourself in the foot. People now seem to think early ganking junglers is the indentity of jungle as a whole." **Ganking junglers are not the only thing that exists.** Junglers gank so much because of the ridiculously high camp respawn timers where they literally have nothing else to do. If respawn timers were shorter ganks would actually cost farm and that'd solve the problem you mention. What Riot did was nerf the entire jungle just to make the dominant jungle paystyle somewhat less than average, meaning the other playstyles feel absolutely trash to play. They are not changing spawn timers to make ganking junglers any less dominant, which is what they should do.
: Powerfarming puts me on par with the support's level. One invade from the enemy jungler + laner and I fall behind the support level too.
Ya, I can relate. Jungle economy, without relying on out side sources, is absolutely trash right now.
sinZsoul (NA)
: I think you should watch Phreak's patch notes on why the jungle changes are fine. In general jungle in the grand history of league has not been the highest carry position. Adc or mid are usually those positions. Support, and somewhat less jungle/top tend to facilitate mid and adc carrying. This isn't too say jungles can't carry or tops or supports can't either, or even that adcs or mids can't play a facilitating the carry role, but traditionally speaking. It doesn't make much sense then if a position that isn't the primary carry of the game most (again keyword is most since there are a lot of jungle carries just not as much as mid or adc) of the time has much higher leveling capacity than the primary carries. A couple notes. Adcs are meant to be somewhat weak early which is why they require support. That is the trade-off for delaying their power till late. I also understand that you feel cheated because of the power loss, but that doesn't mean the power isn't based on some sort of reason. Finally, if you were playing only power farm junglers to carry the game then maybe look to playing mid instead.
One huge flow with the argument that jungle camps used to give this much exp before: ** Camps had much shorter respawn times in previous seasons.** Not to mention jungle felt more like a secondary support before, do we really want to revert back to that state? Edit: I was addressing Phreak's views with the previous paragraph. As for your points, I disagree with the notion that only some roles should be allowed to carry. Every role should have carry potential. There used to be carry junglers as well. But riot has been favoring ganking junglers so heavily recently that picking a carry jungle is shooting yourself in the foot. People now seem to think early ganking junglers is the indentity of jungle as a whole.
: So to note, your post was brought up in Gameplay+, which has an approval process and a higher standard than the Gameplay subboard does. >The absurdity of this logic can be saved for other posts That does come off as somewhat rude. Enough to detract from the point your making in the rest of your post? Eh, possibly. That being said, I don't approve many of the posts there, but I'll try to get in touch with the moderator that did not approve your post. They could be at work, though. If they've got feedback regarding the rest of your G+ submission, would you rather I leave it here or do you want to discuss that with them on the discord?
> [{quoted}](name=Periscope,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=siENkTGa,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-02-01T20:45:42.160+0000) > > So to note, your post was brought up in Gameplay+, which has an approval process and a higher standard than the Gameplay subboard does. > > That does come off as somewhat rude. Enough to detract from the point your making in the rest of your post? Eh, possibly. > > That being said, I don't approve many of the posts there, but I'll try to get in touch with the moderator that did not approve your post. > > They could be at work, though. If they've got feedback regarding the rest of your G+ submission, would you rather I leave it here or do you want to discuss that with them on the discord? My post had a lot of info and statistics in it which I'd consider enough to get into gameplay+ personally. Also that's quite a ridiculous standard to be called an "attack", no offense. And I'd rather discuss here.
dnsup (NA)
: Is that really the only thing in the post that could constitute an "attack"? Without seeing the post, I can't honestly assert much beyond what you already know: the excerpt you quoted doesn't contain an attack. I also can't identify any other rule violations in it. (And presumably, you *can't/shouldn't* quote your OP in full, since the same moderator could then punish you twice for the same post...)
> [{quoted}](name=dnsup,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=siENkTGa,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-01T19:18:13.284+0000) > > Is that really the only thing in the post that could constitute an "attack"? Without seeing the post, I can't honestly assert much beyond what you already know: the excerpt you quoted doesn't contain an attack. I also can't identify any other rule violations in it. > > (And presumably, you *can't/shouldn't* quote your OP in full, since the same moderator could then punish you twice for the same post...) The rest of the post is literally me explaining statistics and numbers: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/f/ELUpwER8/d/5FgxoFk0
Sukishoo (NA)
: Did the removal notice say it was because of an attack? Cause that doesn't appear to be really attacking Riot.
> [{quoted}](name=Sukishoo,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=siENkTGa,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-02-01T20:16:38.687+0000) > > Did the removal notice say it was because of an attack? Cause that doesn't appear to be really attacking Riot. "You need to justify your argument and avoid attacks on people. Stay focused on your argument."
: weird, have you tried contacting riot?
> [{quoted}](name=Quickdeath18,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=siENkTGa,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-01T19:18:33.140+0000) > > weird, have you tried contacting riot? How do I do that except posting here? Riot Support?
Rioter Comments
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: February 1
??? Jungle is NOT in an ok state. You nerfed the exp way too hard, revert it. Powerfarming **barely keeps you on par with solo laners.** If you're giving up early game influence for late game power you should come out with a level or two ahead, not barely on par. That's bs.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: January 16
Meddler, are we getting neither the original spear of sojin nor atmas? That sucks considering we were originally suppose to be getting both and it got postponed only due to too many changes at once.
PhRoXz0n (NA)
: Crit Item Explorations Part 2
Wait so we are not getting neither the original shojin nor atmas? RIP the original goal of giving fighters something to do in teamfights late game and "they will be back preseason."
Rioter Comments
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: January 9
1. More frequent thoughts would be nice 2. I'd likeit to talk about planned upcoming changes and league philosophy we know which direction league is headed. Interesting charts and graphs are fine too. 3. Champions like Udyr going past the level cap sounds fine to me 4. Nice to see these back :) 5. It feels bad seeing junglers always taking the blows for specific strats and getting nerfed over and over.
: The problem is that, with the already existing damage creep that's vastly slanted to one side: You rework conqueror, or you have to individually nerf almost two dozen champions just so 3-4 can continue to enjoy it in a balanced way.
I don't know about you but I would rather have the actual problem of damage creep addressed rather than it be ignored and nerf things that don't necessarily need a nerf as a consequence.
: Well that's the thing. Most people that I've seen don't actually want Conqueror removed, just the AD yanked off it, and maybe the % of true damage reduced.
That's still not the answer though.
: It depends on the champion it's put on. A minor AD boost to a few champions is a monster power spike that they tend not to get until later.
That's a problem with that specific champion's scaling then, why nerf a whole class for it?
Ralanr (NA)
: While it does help fighting tanks, there are complaints that it’s good against squishies as well, making the AD gain from it unneeded.
Fighters are made to out duel in general, not just tanks, both tanks and non-tanks. Gaining 6-35 damage helps them out duel the squishies, it's not really a heck ton damage. You can't say it bursts you suddenly and you can't do anything about it, it's a much lower sustained damage that the fighters are supposed to have for out dueling.
Rioter Comments
PhRoXz0n (NA)
: Crit Item Explorations
I'm happy you guys are trying ro support fighters with Essence Reaver and are trying to open it up to more users. I like that direction, keep pursuing it. I just hope the condition to proc it is reasonable for most cases.
PhRoXz0n (NA)
: Crit Item Explorations
Ngl, these changes seem like they are going to revert things to early season 8 state where everyone was agitated about the ridiculousness of ADCs. Except this time they are going to be harder to kill due to defensive options as well, so it may be even worse. I'd say do a power neutral change that increases satisfaction instead, I think satisfaction is the real problem here, not power.
Meddler (NA)
: NB is our core focus right now for a possible permanent mode. Depending on how this test run goes we'd consider looking at other options. Hoping to have some thoughts to share on what the plan going forward is late January or sometime in February once NB has finished its current run and we've had a chance to dig through all the data.
Would it not be better to try out multiple modes and see the community's reaction to each of them in comparison rather than go with the first one that passes a certain mark? There could be modes people may like even better than NB but they wouldn't have their chance to be tested if NB succeeds right away.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: December 14
Will we have RGM more frequently in 2k19 or will it be once in a blue moon like in 2k18? I really miss RGM, SR amd ARAM can get stale after a while.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: December 14
About how many possible permanent modes do you guys have in development/have ideas for? Or is NB the only one currently?
Meddler (NA)
: Tiamat - bit too strong a spike as a rush item, power of wave clear offered's very high even if not always appreciated. Compensation - Potentially. Might mean we buff WW a bit more than we otherwise would for example. Also open to helping any other champs hit hard who shouldn't be brought down a bit power wise anyway.
Is it possible to make it scale so people who keep tiamat as a basic item for a long time don't get hit too hard later on into the game?
Show more

Ataraxas

Level 194 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion