Trias000 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=u2mLK4Bu,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2019-12-08T02:55:44.079+0000) > > Poor logic. > What you're doing is throwing out a lottery ticket you already bought because you don't like the odds. But you can only have one ticket at a time. So when you throw this one away, you can buy a new one with much better odds.
> [{quoted}](name=Trias000,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=u2mLK4Bu,comment-id=0002000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-08T22:29:54.657+0000) > > But you can only have one ticket at a time. So when you throw this one away, you can buy a new one with much better odds. Fallacious logic. Your odds are the same regardless.
: > [{quoted}](name=Der Lindwurm,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BQOfMv04,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-12-08T18:31:46.399+0000) > > I got flamed for doing that in the past, but maybe it'll become a thing now. it's the only champ I have mana troubles on. her Q burns allot of mana fast.
> [{quoted}](name=Inkling Commando,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BQOfMv04,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2019-12-08T21:17:09.386+0000) > > it's the only champ I have mana troubles on. her Q burns allot of mana fast. With how Manaflow Band works, her Q is less of an issue than her E. I run Manaflow on her without too much trouble. Sometimes I have to fall back onto using her E to farm it. I also tend to be less liberal in my Q casts now that I can't just stack mana regeneration runes on her.
: Riot Please revert rank distribution
Let's not forget that Iron was supposed to take up a chunk of the Bronze players to better represent the total distribution.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:41:17.847+0000) > > Now remember that there are new accounts that exist. These can be due to smurfs, bots or actual new players. > > A new account is now able to earn tons of free skins without paying a cent. All it needs is those S ranks. Doesn't need to own the champion or do it on a different one. Just easy chests. > > Riot is going to lose money because of that restriction being removed. There is no way you can argue differently on that. Riot will, in turn, impose new limits on chests whether it be reducing how many can be earned per year or what can be earned from the chests. > > **That is the problem the proposed system faces. Riot will lose money from new accounts because of the restriction being dropped.** > > I can't tell if it's purposeful ignorance at this point. Okay, hypothetical situation #1: I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical situation #2: Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. How many chests per week do I earn?
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:52:33.765+0000) > > Okay, hypothetical situation #1: > > I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? > > Hypothetical situation #2: > > Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical 1 doesn't actually apply because you still need to own the champion to earn the chest (it can't just be on free rotation). New players can only get as many chests as they own champions. They are getting less over the course of the year because they can't just unlock a new champion every week. This also comes with the assumption said players can even earn S ranks quickly enough over a variety of champions. In the second case, that player is almost guaranteed a chest per week because that champion restriction is no longer there. New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. Seriously, drop this "It's still once per week! We aren't breaking the hard limit" Because neither you nor OP are taking an objective look at how much easier it is to earn a weekly chest and how it affects new players in a way that Riot won't approve of.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:07:10.533+0000) > > Look, if you're going to just dismiss what I'm saying with "you're wrong" and "that's not how it works" without actually reading what I'm putting on the damn screen, then I'm done. > > Snip. There is already a fixed amount of awards you can earn... Whether you are playing a one-trick and you get that chest in one game, or you're playing a new champion and it takes you a whole week, you earn the same number of chests per week, which is 1.
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:16:23.304+0000) > > There is already a fixed amount of awards you can earn... Whether you are playing a one-trick and you get that chest in one game, or you're playing a new champion and it takes you a whole week, you earn the same number of chests per week, which is 1. Now remember that there are new accounts that exist. These can be due to smurfs, bots or actual new players. A new account is now able to earn tons of free skins without paying a cent. All it needs is those S ranks. Doesn't need to own the champion or do it on a different one. Just easy chests. Riot is going to lose money because of that restriction being removed. There is no way you can argue differently on that. Riot will, in turn, impose new limits on chests whether it be reducing how many can be earned per year or what can be earned from the chests. **That is the problem the proposed system faces. Riot will lose money from new accounts because of the restriction being dropped.** I can't tell if it's purposeful ignorance at this point.
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: At this point, i've deconstructed this whole problem and my idea to a simple arithmetic of 1 + 1 and you're trying to convince me that the result is not 2. Your logic doesn't make sense because you keep returning to the same issue of "people will be earning more rewards", one that i have already addressed and that there is no more chests in the system than it's already possible to earn. >Riot put in the extra hoop to jump through because they didn't want any players to be getting massive amounts of free content. That is what happens when you straight up remove restrictions. How can i already have 44 chests earned, out of a possible 50 in this season? The season's still not over so that means a few more weeks (few more chests) + 2 in the bank i already have. Do you believe i am somehow cheating the system when Riot themselves have put this yearly limit to every account already? I am not an outlier of a player. Everyone can already earn 50 chests per season. >Because some players are that damn consistent with specific champions (regardless of the dynamic grading) and would **quickly max out their earned chests above other players.** #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. _**No player would be able to earn chests at a faster pace than the other player!**_ I can wait for 4 weeks and earn 4 chests in one sitting - the same thing i can do now. The other player can earn 1 chest per week. If i wait more than 4 weeks, i lose 1 chest per week because i cannot earn any more than 4 at one time. If the other player has been earning them consistently and keeping his chest bank clear, he's going to be ahead of me - as he should. No player gets to earn their loot faster than any other player. No player can farm 50 chests at once. > **Riot would start losing money**. and would need to reduce paid content you're getting. #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. Riot wouldn't lose any money because there wouldn't be ANY MORE LOOT to give out, other than Riot's already imposed limit of 50 chests per season and 1 chest per week timer. Removing the champion restriction DOESN'T ALLOW PLAYERS TO GET ANY MORE CHESTS THEN THEY ALREADY CAN. The system doesn't allow players to "farm" chests nor does it give them out for free. The limit is still 50 chests per season, per account (per owned champion). The rate at which people earn the chests is still the same (4 in the bank + 1 per week). The requirement to earn chests through S- ranks is still the same.
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T17:45:11.473+0000) > > At this point, i've deconstructed this whole problem and my idea to a simple arithmetic of 1 + 1 and you're trying to convince me that the result is not 2. Your logic doesn't make sense because you keep returning to the same issue of "people will be earning more rewards", one that i have already addressed and that there is no more chests in the system than it's already possible to earn. > > How can i already have 44 chests earned, out of a possible 50 in this season? > The season's still not over so that means a few more weeks (few more chests) + 2 in the bank i already have. Do you believe i am somehow cheating the system when Riot themselves have put this yearly limit to every account already? > > I am not an outlier of a player. > Everyone can already earn 50 chests per season. > > #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. > > _**No player would be able to earn chests at a faster pace than the other player!**_ > I can wait for 4 weeks and earn 4 chests in one sitting - the same thing i can do now. > The other player can earn 1 chest per week. If i wait more than 4 weeks, i lose 1 chest per week because i cannot earn any more than 4 at one time. If the other player has been earning them consistently and keeping his chest bank clear, he's going to be ahead of me - as he should. > > No player gets to earn their loot faster than any other player. > No player can farm 50 chests at once. > > #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. > > Riot wouldn't lose any money because there wouldn't be ANY MORE LOOT to give out, other than Riot's already imposed limit of 50 chests per season and 1 chest per week timer. Removing the champion restriction DOESN'T ALLOW PLAYERS TO GET ANY MORE CHESTS THEN THEY ALREADY CAN. The system doesn't allow players to "farm" chests nor does it give them out for free. > > The limit is still 50 chests per season, per account (per owned champion). > The rate at which people earn the chests is still the same (4 in the bank + 1 per week). > The requirement to earn chests through S- ranks is still the same. Look, if you're going to just dismiss what I'm saying with "you're wrong" and "that's not how it works" without actually reading what I'm putting on the damn screen, then I'm done. Here is what you're conveniently ignoring: - Consistency of earning rewards of paid content for free under your system - No two players are equal - Your system still favors one trick players over others because of consistency - Higher consistency of earning paid content for free results in less being given out because Riot is still a business One player cannot earn more chests than another player. All you're changing is which players have an easier time getting chests. And your system, without a shadow of a doubt, blatantly favors those who are one trick players. If Riot finds that too many players are earning paid content for free, they're going to cut down how much paid content is given out. BY STRAIGHT UP REMOVING A RESTRICTION TOWARDS THE EARNING OF PAID CONTENT, YOU HAVE MADE IT EASIER TO OBTAIN PAID CONTENT AND RIOT WILL BE QUICK TO REDUCE HOW MUCH IS GIVEN OUT THE INSTANT IT CUTS INTO THEIR PROFITS. And, news flash, that will happen immediately. It doesn't matter if the paid content is partially RNG locked because the Emporium is a thing so excess Blue Essence from chests can still be used on otherwise paid only content. That restriction is what keeps players from earning all of their chests in a season. For a new account with a handful of champions, this means that said account will not be overloaded with free stuff quickly due to the champion restriction. Riot would VERY quickly lose money from new/smurf accounts and immediately impose new, harsher limitations on how much content is earned. In short, I'm saying you're being exceptionally short sighted about this. Riot still wants their money and handing out tons of free content with extremely loose restrictions is not going to help them make more. That is going to be the long term penalty of your system if Riot were to implement it. You're free to believe otherwise. That doesn't mean said belief is founded in the deeper logic beyond simple math.
KingYusa (NA)
: I think Riot is way too strict when it comes to punishments
Obviously a chat restriction was too light of a punishment for you to stop breaking the rules. Are you really surprised that continuing to break the rules resulted in a more severe punishment?
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: #Let me be extremely simple in my logic here **Explain to me the difference between these hypothetical players:** _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player2 (focused)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player3 (OTP)** earns 1 chest per season. **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. **Player1 (diverse)** and **Player4 (new)** are the ONLY ONES which the system treats the fairest (and equally). Are **Player2 (focused)** and **Player3 (OTP)** not trying as hard to earn their S- grades? **Player3 (OTP)** is by far treated the worst as he gets close to nothing, barely getting ahead of **Player5 (inactive)**, who's currently an inactive account! **There is no fairness in this system with "1 chest per owned champion" restriction.** Players who play equally good, but diversify their picks to a lesser degree, get proportionally less rewards! >The more players play the game and earn their grades, the system dynamically aggregates the data and moves the line accordingly to the average performance of said champions. The more popular the champion, the stricter the line for a good grade is. The less popular the champion, the more loose the line is. > >The system cannot be cheated by "easy" grades from more familiar champions because the grading is dynamic and it constantly integrates new data from players. --- #REMOVING THE "1 CHEST PER OWNED CHAMPION" RESTRICTION **Same example, FAIR results:** _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player2 (focused)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player3 (OTP)** earns 50 chest per season. **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. **Player1 (diverse)**, **Player2 (focused)**, **Player3 (OTP)** ALL HAVE the SAME number of chests, according to their number of S- grades. **Player4 (new)** gets 10, ACCORDING to their number of S- grades. **Player5 (inactive)** gets 0 because they didn't play the game at all. ##THIS IS A FAIR SYSTEM! >A system that rewards players according to their capability of getting the desired results (S- grades on champion performance). Since the rewards aren't personalized per champion, this restriction doesn't make sense except **TO FORCE** players to diversify their picks. This system works exactly as the above one, there are NO MORE rewards (chests) being issued to the already imposed maximum limit of ~50 chests per season. The only thing that this change insures is that there are NO LESS rewards (chests) being issued. The timing and quantity of rewards doesn't change, the CONSISTENCY of issued rewards is the only thing that goes up. The minimum requirement for chest eligibility is to have one chest available and S- rank or higher grade. "Specific champion" requirement is an obstacle that doesn't have anything to do with performance grading. It should be general performance grading, not champion specific.
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T22:51:09.704+0000) > > #Let me be extremely simple in my logic here > > **Explain to me the difference between these hypothetical players:** > _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ > > **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. > **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. > **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. > > **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player2 (focused)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player3 (OTP)** earns 1 chest per season. > **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. > > **Player1 (diverse)** and **Player4 (new)** are the ONLY ONES which the system treats the fairest (and equally). Are **Player2 (focused)** and **Player3 (OTP)** not trying as hard to earn their S- grades? **Player3 (OTP)** is by far treated the worst as he gets close to nothing, barely getting ahead of **Player5 (inactive)**, who's currently an inactive account! > > > > **There is no fairness in this system with "1 chest per owned champion" restriction.** > Players who play equally good, but diversify their picks to a lesser degree, get proportionally less rewards! > > --- > #REMOVING THE "1 CHEST PER OWNED CHAMPION" RESTRICTION > > **Same example, FAIR results:** > _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ > > **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. > **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. > **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. > > **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player2 (focused)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player3 (OTP)** earns 50 chest per season. > **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. > > **Player1 (diverse)**, **Player2 (focused)**, **Player3 (OTP)** ALL HAVE the SAME number of chests, according to their number of S- grades. **Player4 (new)** gets 10, ACCORDING to their number of S- grades. **Player5 (inactive)** gets 0 because they didn't play the game at all. > > ##THIS IS A FAIR SYSTEM! > > This system works exactly as the above one, there are NO MORE rewards (chests) being issued to the already imposed maximum limit of ~50 chests per season. The only thing that this change insures is that there are NO LESS rewards (chests) being issued. The timing and quantity of rewards doesn't change, the CONSISTENCY of issued rewards is the only thing that goes up. > > The minimum requirement for chest eligibility is to have one chest available and S- rank or higher grade. "Specific champion" requirement is an obstacle that doesn't have anything to do with performance grading. It should be general performance grading, not champion specific. Riot put in the extra hoop to jump through because they didn't want any players to be getting massive amounts of free content. That is what happens when you straight up remove restrictions. If Riot went to your system, they would immediately cut down on all chests you could earn, probably down to one per month. Why? Because some players are that damn consistent with specific champions (regardless of the dynamic grading) and would quickly max out their earned chests above other players. Riot would start losing money and they won't allow that. I'm all for LOOSENING the champion restriction, just not removing it. I understand why Riot put it in place and you need to understand that Riot will reduce the paid content you're getting for free if it is too consistent.
Terozu (NA)
: Hey, as they say, "more than a handful's a waste". Jinx is the hottest girl in the game.
Jinx doesn't have enough to fill a finger's grip.
Bevdog101 (OCE)
: "Flat"
Considering Neeko has more boob than Jinx does (without transforming), I would say Jinx is flat.
AdamrCc (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Y26q1vGG,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-12-07T07:58:11.966+0000) > > No, we just expect you to not act like a monkey in chat over the fact something you can't control isn't going your way. I'd expect an adc main to say that. You're just trying to save your own ass because you adcs feed the most.
> [{quoted}](name=AdamrCc,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Y26q1vGG,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-12-07T08:58:21.722+0000) > > I'd expect an adc main to say that. You're just trying to save your own ass because you adcs feed the most. The point is that you're losing it over something you can't control and letting your in game chat reflect that. And from the looks of things, it's not simply "I'm fed up." Being consistently negative is what gets you punished. Not a one-off game where you finally snap. But then again, since you were so quick to attack me I don't think any of the above matters. You'll probably work your way through the punishment tiers. Then get permanently banned for your consistent behavior. Then blame Riot for the fact you chose to consistently be a raging jackass in chat despite multiple chances to turn it around.
AdamrCc (EUW)
: Match me with monkeys and expect me to be nice to them?
No, we just expect you to not act like a monkey in chat over the fact something you can't control isn't going your way.
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T23:23:10.435+0000) > > The point is that it's not easy to farm S rank chests with a single champ. > > I can consistently get A and S ranks on several Marksmen. Do I deserve to just spam them in SR and get my chests super easily in turn? I feel like i'm repeating myself a lot here. You can't spam earn chests because of the 1 chest per week timer restriction. Nothing i proposed chances the way you earn chests nor the rate at which you earn them. You still need an S- or higher and you still need to have a chest available on your account in order to bank it. Listing this champion restriction just makes earning chests consistent because you can play WHATEVER you want and if you get an S- or higher performance rank, you get a chest (if one is available per your own account's chest bank). Both ARAM and SR are covered by this change and no player is left behind. That's the whole point. This one less restriction makes it so that the system doesn't differentiate between any players or maps, everyone is equal. Riot themselves have set the pace of how much chests you can earn per season, there are no shortcuts. If you're consistent under this (right now) system, like i already am, my progress doesn't speed up one bit under the new one. If you're not consistent in earning S ranks on champions, you're not getting more chests than you're getting them now. This change is literally net neutral but it gives players more consistency because their picks don't matter, only their grade at the end of the game does. >Side note, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, S rank chests handing out champion shards (because they're Hextech not Masterwork) greatly invalidates the effort put into obtaining the S rank. Why should my S rank game equate to a lucky level up capsule? You're gonna have to ask Riot why this is the case. It could be just to make Masterwork chests a bit more expensive since they're dishing out only cosmetic content and not also champion shards. I don't like getting champ shards either from my chests but i've found a workaround to this problem by opening my chests 10 at a time (in a bulk). Yea, it takes more time to gather the chests and keys but at that point, i know i'm not gonna disappoint myself in getting a single champ shard and sit on that negative feeling for a week before i get to open another one potential disappointment.
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T02:00:15.904+0000) > > I feel like i'm repeating myself a lot here. > > You can't spam earn chests because of the 1 chest per week timer restriction. > Nothing i proposed chances the way you earn chests nor the rate at which you earn them. > You still need an S- or higher and you still need to have a chest available on your account in order to bank it. > > Listing this champion restriction just makes earning chests consistent because you can play WHATEVER you want and if you get an S- or higher performance rank, you get a chest (if one is available per your own account's chest bank). Both ARAM and SR are covered by this change and no player is left behind. That's the whole point. This one less restriction makes it so that the system doesn't differentiate between any players or maps, everyone is equal. > > Riot themselves have set the pace of how much chests you can earn per season, there are no shortcuts. If you're consistent under this (right now) system, like i already am, my progress doesn't speed up one bit under the new one. If you're not consistent in earning S ranks on champions, you're not getting more chests than you're getting them now. This change is literally net neutral but it gives players more consistency because their picks don't matter, only their grade at the end of the game does. Okay, for one, it DOES change how you earn chests because it is currently limited to one per champion and you have to go out of your way to get every possible chest you can in a season. Second, it just plain affects how easily you earn them. Anyone who can consistently earn an S rank on a champion is suddenly hugely favored by the system and anyone who can't consistently manage S ranks (either because they need to abuse meta or simply don't understand the game). So, no, the new system doesn't "balance out". It straight up favors players who are ahead of the game on specific champions, which is what I was trying to get across. The only group that's "net neutral" are those who go with friends to get S ranks. That's why I put up the new restriction on repeat chests for champions. Any player with consistently good gameplay on a single champ suddenly isn't hugely favored because they have to maintain that consistency. > You're gonna have to ask Riot why this is the case. > It could be just to make Masterwork chests a bit more expensive since they're dishing out only cosmetic content and not also champion shards. I don't like getting champ shards either from my chests but i've found a workaround to this problem by opening my chests 10 at a time (in a bulk). Yea, it takes more time to gather the chests and keys but at that point, i know i'm not gonna disappoint myself in getting a single champ shard and sit on that negative feeling for a week before i get to open another one potential disappointment. The short version is because Riot didn't update S rank chests when they moved from IP to BE. And Riot didn't care to because tons of players go "stop complaining about free stuff". And, frankly, it's disappointing no matter how you slice it because S rank chests are a heavily limited resource.
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: >However, each chest requires twice as many S ranks as the previously earned chest This is way worse. It's still excluding ARAM and is requiring exponential S ranks to earn same chests that you can at that point, easily earn from other champions if you simply decide to play with them. If anything, this feels like a punishment for playing the same champ, not the other way around. The point of removing per champion restriction is to allow players to simply worry about S- grades, not about diversifying their champion pool with S grades. Players shouldn't be forced to branch out unless they want to do so. This way, EVERYONE gets to earn chests no matter how they decide to play, even if you're a one trick pony. They get by far the worst deal out of this Hextech Loot. Even new players are cut out of the yearly chest earnings loop as they don't have many champions in their pool either. >If you have enough mechanical skill, the diversity requirement isn't so bad. Mechanical skill means very little on ARAM, considering i don't get to pick my champ at all. And the very idea that my random pick is viable depends on the enemy and my team comp. Also, mechanical skill means nothing if you get a champ like Tham, who's been gimped severely with nerfs. Nothing about him is good and he can just tank the damage. Too bad that doesn't count towards his score, the only thing that matter is KDA and minions, which champs like him cannot farm anyway unless they have an alternative build that works (AP or AD).
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-06T23:08:30.126+0000) > > This is way worse. > It's still excluding ARAM and is requiring exponential S ranks to earn same chests that you can at that point, easily earn from other champions if you simply decide to play with them. If anything, this feels like a punishment for playing the same champ, not the other way around. The point is that it's not easy to farm S rank chests with a single champ. I can consistently get A and S ranks on several Marksmen. Do I deserve to just spam them in SR and get my chests super easily in turn? > The point of removing per champion restriction is to allow players to simply worry about S- grades, not about diversifying their champion pool with S grades. Players shouldn't be forced to branch out unless they want to do so. This way, EVERYONE gets to earn chests no matter how they decide to play, even if you're a one trick pony. They get by far the worst deal out of this Hextech Loot. Even new players are cut out of the yearly chest earnings loop as they don't have many champions in their pool either. My solution still takes that into account and actually rewards mastery of a single champion. Why? Because if you can consistently get S ranks on a champion, then it's that much easier for you to grab chests with him/her. > Mechanical skill means very little on ARAM, considering i don't get to pick my champ at all. > And the very idea that my random pick is viable depends on the enemy and my team comp. Also, mechanical skill means nothing if you get a champ like Tham, who's been gimped severely with nerfs. Nothing about him is good and he can just tank the damage. Too bad that doesn't count towards his score, the only thing that matter is KDA and minions, which champs like him cannot farm anyway unless they have an alternative build that works (AP or AD). It matters a lot more than you might think. Sure, it can't guarantee you'll have the ability to score an S rank due to either team's composition. But it will make said S rank in ARAM much easier. I farm my S rank chests there because I am good enough to switch it up. That still doesn't change that the vast majority of my skill investment is in marksmen and mages. Side note, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, S rank chests handing out champion shards (because they're Hextech not Masterwork) greatly invalidates the effort put into obtaining the S rank. Why should my S rank game equate to a lucky level up capsule?
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: Why are Hesxtech Chests STILL tied to champions?
If you have enough mechanical skill, the diversity requirement isn't so bad. That said, I do believe it should be possible to earn chests multiple times per champion per season. However, each chest requires twice as many S ranks as the previously earned chest (with a maximum of 8 S rank games per chest). So it goes to 4 levels. 1 S rank, then 2, then 4, then 8. Anything above 8 is excessive yet 8 is not a small amount of gameplay. Players dedicated to a small pool of champions have an opportunity to demonstrate their consistent mastery of a champion. Players with general skill or skilled friends can still do the variety pack.
: Riot declares ally bots in PvE not their problem to correct
One, Moderator decision to remove the post (because they can't simply move it). Two, it isn't an actual bug so it's definitely in the wrong board.
: Did all of the old school forum goers leave? Is Jikker and Rift Herald Djinn the only two left?
: Ok in order for this game to be fixed we need to address the multiple problems that exist with this game, and with this in mind I'm going to list the problem and the possible solution to set problem, so here we go. 1) Extremely unbalanced champions.This game is over a decade old, now each season they basically try to change a ton of stuff but the thing they keep changing the most is the balance of the champions. And the problem is the WAY they change the balance. See they don't actually try to balance the champions all around, the way they do it, is they balance them in reference to other champions, which of course isn't a big problem when you have 40 champions but is impossible when you have 150+. So what is the solution to this problem? Well I've thought about this problem at some length and here is the solution I've come up with. It's not only impractical but impossible to balance this many champs against one another. So what could be done? They could flatten out every champion to literally the same starting stats. So at level 1 every champ in the game has the same damage, def, and speed. Now these stats with NEVER scale, and the reason is because scaling of base stats is one of the main things that breaks this game. So how will they differentiate? Instead of scaling on champs we will simply give them stats based on items, and maybe runes. This way everyone starts out even, and as the game progresses their builds will be their main factor. Now yes there are some obvious problems with this like what if one team pulls ahead and the other has less items, but honestly that's kind of the way the game is now, if one person pulls ahead items or no items currently they snowball into a win, so it wouldn't actually impact the current meta ideology, all it would do is finally balance out the drastic differences between balanced champs and broken champs. 2) Matchmaking, so riot has this thing where their matchmaking system is absolute garbage. As in it will put people that are clearly bronze with people who are plat. And for some reason they keep thinking that this system works well. It doesn't, it never has. So how do we fix this? Well, they did put a determination system in place now, a ranking system based on letters at the end of each match. And to that end if they can just fine tune that to place people who play similarly together that would be perfect. I think it can come a long way towards being better. The problem is they only seem to apply this system to ranked play. In norms and the like there seems to be no coherent system at all and that has to change. 3) The Punishment system, ok this is a HUGE issue. And the reason is because this game has progressively gotten worse in this regard. Now from season 1-3 they had people who would look over punishment systems and as a result a lot fewer players got punished or outright banned. From season 4+ they started trying out different system ranging from the tribunal to what we have now which is just autobot banning. And here's the problem with this. Autobots ban you and punish you for literally the smallest of infractions. And whats worse is even some of their "tips" on the loading screen are complete lies like this little gem "it's ok to trash talk but don't be toxic". That is a complete lie, if you trash talk in this game, it's immediately considered toxic and you will get punished and eventually banned for it. Another thing about this is that this is one of the most competitive games in the world. Made worse by the fact that unlike most competitive games every member of your team is relevant to you winning or losing, so when things go sideways there's a lot of anger and blame. And in this game they expect people not to be angry or blame anyone or they'll get banned for it. See the problem? They expect people to not react like people. So what's the solution. Ok here's the thing, in any competitive sport no matter what it is people will always lash out and name call, and be rude, and everything else. That is the nature of heated competition. If you act like a scumbag company and don't allow that behavior the only thing you're going to do is lose a good portion of your players and eventually people will quit playing your game. Which is exactly what's happening right now. They already have a mute button for everyone, they don't need a punishment system for chat, they never have. The only reason they have it in there is so they can ban accounts for talking so they have to remake a new account and potentially spend more money. So they actually shot themselves in the foot on this one. They should either remove the autoban bot for chat, or alternatively remove chat entirely, we already have pings we don't actually need a chat box.
> [{quoted}](name=p3tm4ster,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=wszGG6Ej,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-04T20:01:25.733+0000) > > Ok in order for this game to be fixed we need to address the multiple problems that exist with this game, and with this in mind I'm going to list the problem and the possible solution to set problem, so here we go. > > 1) Extremely unbalanced champions.This game is over a decade old, now each season they basically try to change a ton of stuff but the thing they keep changing the most is the balance of the champions. And the problem is the WAY they change the balance. See they don't actually try to balance the champions all around, the way they do it, is they balance them in reference to other champions, which of course isn't a big problem when you have 40 champions but is impossible when you have 150+. > > So what is the solution to this problem? Well I've thought about this problem at some length and here is the solution I've come up with. It's not only impractical but impossible to balance this many champs against one another. So what could be done? They could flatten out every champion to literally the same starting stats. So at level 1 every champ in the game has the same damage, def, and speed. Now these stats with NEVER scale, and the reason is because scaling of base stats is one of the main things that breaks this game. So how will they differentiate? Instead of scaling on champs we will simply give them stats based on items, and maybe runes. This way everyone starts out even, and as the game progresses their builds will be their main factor. Now yes there are some obvious problems with this like what if one team pulls ahead and the other has less items, but honestly that's kind of the way the game is now, if one person pulls ahead items or no items currently they snowball into a win, so it wouldn't actually impact the current meta ideology, all it would do is finally balance out the drastic differences between balanced champs and broken champs. > > 2) Matchmaking, so riot has this thing where their matchmaking system is absolute garbage. As in it will put people that are clearly bronze with people who are plat. And for some reason they keep thinking that this system works well. It doesn't, it never has. So how do we fix this? Well, they did put a determination system in place now, a ranking system based on letters at the end of each match. And to that end if they can just fine tune that to place people who play similarly together that would be perfect. I think it can come a long way towards being better. The problem is they only seem to apply this system to ranked play. In norms and the like there seems to be no coherent system at all and that has to change. > > 3) The Punishment system, ok this is a HUGE issue. And the reason is because this game has progressively gotten worse in this regard. Now from season 1-3 they had people who would look over punishment systems and as a result a lot fewer players got punished or outright banned. From season 4+ they started trying out different system ranging from the tribunal to what we have now which is just autobot banning. And here's the problem with this. Autobots ban you and punish you for literally the smallest of infractions. And whats worse is even some of their "tips" on the loading screen are complete lies like this little gem "it's ok to trash talk but don't be toxic". That is a complete lie, if you trash talk in this game, it's immediately considered toxic and you will get punished and eventually banned for it. Another thing about this is that this is one of the most competitive games in the world. Made worse by the fact that unlike most competitive games every member of your team is relevant to you winning or losing, so when things go sideways there's a lot of anger and blame. And in this game they expect people not to be angry or blame anyone or they'll get banned for it. See the problem? They expect people to not react like people. > > So what's the solution. Ok here's the thing, in any competitive sport no matter what it is people will always lash out and name call, and be rude, and everything else. That is the nature of heated competition. If you act like a scumbag company and don't allow that behavior the only thing you're going to do is lose a good portion of your players and eventually people will quit playing your game. Which is exactly what's happening right now. They already have a mute button for everyone, they don't need a punishment system for chat, they never have. The only reason they have it in there is so they can ban accounts for talking so they have to remake a new account and potentially spend more money. So they actually shot themselves in the foot on this one. They should either remove the autoban bot for chat, or alternatively remove chat entirely, we already have pings we don't actually need a chat box. None of your solutions are valid and your 3rd complaint lacks a lot of the context behind the "issue". Dealing with the first one is a massive wall of text issue that would make people think they're reading a novel. So I'm gonna skip that. I'll address number 3 first because I want to get that out of the way. Players being banned for consistently bad behavior according to a bot comes from several problems. First, the punishment was slow to be enacted during tribunal. Second, some players had a habit of spamming "punish" without actually reviewing the case. Tribunal punishments were often much tamer compared to now. Between the first and third point, players would stack up THOUSANDS of chat restricted games and not care because they would never actually be banned and still technically allowed to continue their disruptive behavior. So Riot changed the punishments to skip the middle man of "chat ban" and escalate further for players who absolutely refused to reform, all the way to a permanent ban. And this is why bots can get you permanently banned, because you were THAT consistent with your behavior of "lightest of infractions". The mute button exists because of toxic players. So it is not the responsibility of everyone else to mute the toxic player. It is there to make the match bearable to play because you agreed to play it from start to finish. Therefore it's a fallacy to say that the mute button is a reason to not ban players for their disruptive communications. Additionally, pings can only say so much. Creating a complicated ping system just slows it all down and hinders communication further. The competitive environment is not an excuse for the toxic behavior either. Acting out of frustration does not change whether or not said act is against the rules. What is expected is that you keep your frustration out of the chat. Not "don't be frustrated". There's a major difference and players shouldn't get a free pass for being assholes because of "mute", "competitive environment" or "lack of self control". Someone playing poorly in a PVP game is inevitable. Getting pissed off over it is never going to improve things nor will taking out your frustration on said ally. All that happens is reducing your chances to win. In regards to the grading system affecting your rank? Anyone can have a bad game. So should a consistently platinum player be instantly demoted to bronze for having a single game where he plays like a Bronze? It's not a simple matter. The team based nature affects the difficulty of your climb but matching by individual rating on a champion doesn't help matters since a champion isn't chosen until champion select, AFTER you've been matched with players and AFTER bans occur, at which point you could be stuck with champions you can't play well in roles you're not proficient at. There's simply no way to make personal performance a solid and reliable metric for affecting ranked matchmaking.
: ff should be 3 v 2 after 20.
I'm just gonna remind you that 3/2 is still almost a 50/50 vote based on a total of 5 voters. Do you think you deserve a surrender when 3 out of 6 players want to surrender? As Dusk said, you signed up to play the game. Stop whining because you didn't get the surrender you wanted.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T15:57:06.697+0000) > > Because Rengar could be full build from being fed with grievous wounds while Mundo was already very behind and possibly with zero armor items on top of the fact Rengar is designed to one shot targets from stealth. > > The Zed case isn't a big exaggeration anyway. He could still delete his target in one rotation without even using his shurikens because he doesn't need them while escaping anyway because of how his safety works. I literally gave you math on why your proposal that a lvl 7 zed can just E Q AA ignite a target to kill them (from full hp) is flat out impossible. Even if he sneaks in 2 additional autos (which is the max 3 autos he can do before his ult pops), he still wont 100-0 them, unless the laner is lvl 5 or something. If the enemy is smart and buys armor, youre going to need to land at least 2 qs and 2 autos to kill them. You havent reallyprovided a counter argument. Every assassin has some form of safety. Its not exclusive to Zed. Khazix has a reset in his jump after takedowns. He can jump back out. He has invisibility. Rengar can cleanse his and heal back his way up after one shottinf a squishy. He has camofaluge Katarina gives up safety fir high teamfight damage. She still has resets, but she has less safety than other assasins. Talon can escape over walls. He has invisibility, and is the best roaming assassin. In terms of raw mobility, he doesnt have a lot compred to other assasins, combat wise. Zed has 1 untargetablity, 3 blinks. In terms of raw mobility and target access he is S tier. He also has delayed damage, and the most counterply. Leblanc has invisibility and 2 dashes, 2 blinks, and hard cc. Akali has 3 potential dashes, and insibility. Fizz has untargetability which does not require a target. Also on a very short cooldown. He has hard cc, but I consider him more of a fighter than an assassin. Assasins have the tools to get in and out of a fight, while deleting their primary target. Thats their job. The counterplay to assassins, is to work on you positioning in teamfights. Also, a fed Rengar will delete tanks if they dont even have their tank items. But you can say that about any fed assassin.
> [{quoted}](name=MrSîsterFister,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T17:32:20.871+0000) > > I literally gave you math on why your proposal that a lvl 7 zed can just E Q AA ignite a target to kill them (from full hp) is flat out impossible. Even if he sneaks in 2 additional autos (which is the max 3 autos he can do before his ult pops), he still wont 100-0 them, unless the laner is lvl 5 or something. If the enemy is smart and buys armor, youre going to need to land at least 2 qs and 2 autos to kill them. You havent reallyprovided a counter argument. Yes, must be very smart for a marksman to load up on armor items. They don't need to do the one thing they're designed for (damage), just need to survive Zed! Rushing GA and sacrificing the damage spike they need is 30000 IQ! Mages aren't in a much better spot either. They are simply because they can rush Zhonya's against Zed which not only has armor but an active that can deny Zed the kill. That's still the only armor item they can reliably use. Your counter argument doesn't actually work. Additionally, you didn't put in that much math. You didn't even take into account his first item is going to be Duskblade, which WILL proc on his one AA for extra damage on his ult and help trigger electrocute prior, ALSO stacking onto his ultimate's damage. Electrocute deals a huge chunk of a squishy champion's health, at least 20% with no health items. And, again, a Marskman isn't gonna be rushing one of those except in really weird strategies. I can't think of any Marksman that would want to rush Black Cleaver unless they're massively behind, and at that point Zed's definitely pulling off easy deletions. > Every assassin has some form of safety. Its not exclusive to Zed. > > Khazix has a reset in his jump after takedowns. He can jump back out. He has invisibility. > > Rengar can cleanse his and heal back his way up after one shottinf a squishy. He has camofaluge > > Katarina gives up safety fir high teamfight damage. She still has resets, but she has less safety than other assasins. > > Talon can escape over walls. He has invisibility, and is the best roaming assassin. In terms of raw mobility, he doesnt have a lot compred to other assasins, combat wise. > > Zed has 1 untargetablity, 3 blinks. In terms of raw mobility and target access he is S tier. He also has delayed damage, and the most counterply. > > Leblanc has invisibility and 2 dashes, 2 blinks, and hard cc. > > Akali has 3 potential dashes, and insibility. > > Fizz has untargetability which does not require a target. Also on a very short cooldown. He has hard cc, but I consider him more of a fighter than an assassin. I said "with how his safety works". I wasn't saying jack shit about it being exclusive to him. > Assasins have the tools to get in and out of a fight, while deleting their primary target. Thats their job. > > The counterplay to assassins, is to work on you positioning in teamfights. The problem is that a lot of assassins have tools that allow them to ignore your good positioning. Kayn goes through walls, so you might need more wards to properly cover yourself. Zed can similarly ignore walls with his shadow. Talon uses walls for some of his mobility and can approach while invisible. Kha can use invisibility to prevent preliminary reaction. Rengar can stealth up and leap without being detected. Eve has a short detection radius and ignores wards almost entirely So, no, my counter play doesn't matter much when there's so much damage crammed in that an Assassin doesn't need to play as a high risk opportunist. Their job might be to delete a high priority squishy. They shouldn't be allowed to just do it with impunity. > Also, a fed Rengar will delete tanks if they dont even have their tank items. But you can say that about any fed assassin. And even if they don't end up deleting the tanks, Assassins still have the tools to evade or ignore them. Their job is meant to be high risk and high reward. The problem is that Riot crammed in so much damage that there's less risk for the same reward and defensive play (in an attempt to prevent snowballs) comes with a punishment in the form of towers being outright ignored because they can't protect you. Riot took a lot of the risk out for assassins. The only reason you don't see them in professional play is because teams actually work as teams in that environment.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T03:41:20.079+0000) > > Someone doesn't understand hyperbole for the purpose of making a point. You can undo your downvote now. Perhaps, why 99% of boards comments dont make sense. Because you Cant make apoint by exaggerating at all. Exagerrating = making incorrect claims of what actually happens in game. Hence why you don’t actually have a point. “Rengar just one shot me as full tank mundo”. Who would actually believe such an exaggeration?
> [{quoted}](name=MrSîsterFister,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T04:15:38.416+0000) > > Perhaps, why 99% of boards comments dont make sense. Because you > Cant make apoint by exaggerating at all. > > Exagerrating = making incorrect claims of what actually happens in game. Hence why you don’t actually have a point. > > “Rengar just one shot me as full tank mundo”. Who would actually believe such an exaggeration? Because Rengar could be full build from being fed with grievous wounds while Mundo was already very behind and possibly with zero armor items on top of the fact Rengar is designed to one shot targets from stealth. The Zed case isn't a big exaggeration anyway. He could still delete his target in one rotation without even using his shurikens because he doesn't need them while escaping anyway because of how his safety works. Either way, Riot pushes for these flashy deletions and calls it "fun to play" in a game meant to be "strategic and objective based". But Riot still pushed this sort of Call of Duty Hardcore TDM so even the tanks don't bother building like tanks.
: So like, is no one going to talk about aphelios?
I think he's complex for the sake of being complex while also being poor design by means of RNG reliance. The fact he's switching between 4 or 5 weapons, a rotation he can sort of manipulate at best, means he requires tons of planning and puts up a huge burden of knowledge on both the player and his opponents. Both of these are design choices that don't fit well in League. He feels like "Loot Crate the Champion" and it's not a comparison that should ever be made.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-03T11:51:08.633+0000) > > Riot: "What do you mean you don't like being deleted starting at 7 minutes? You sure you don't like how Zed massively outplayed you by missing everything possible but still killing you from one auto, ignite, Electrocute and his ultimate?" Thats like, not even possible. Perhaps at lvl 16 yes, when his lethality and pen are maxxed out, at level 7, he only has one Lethality item, his ult does less damage than most ults (100% ad, 25% non true dmg dealt in past 3 seconds) In other words, you will usially see his ult do around 250 dmg lvl 1, assuming he lands a triple q and 2 autos. Lvl 16 ult, on a squishy with just e aa ignite electrocute, youll see it do around 800 dmg. But the premise of saying he can just E AA IGNITE eltrocute ti kill you, level 7, straight up bullshit.
> [{quoted}](name=MrSîsterFister,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-12-03T18:43:59.048+0000) > > Thats like, not even possible. > > Perhaps at lvl 16 yes, when his lethality and pen are maxxed out, at level 7, he only has one Lethality item, his ult does less damage than most ults (100% ad, 25% non true dmg dealt in past 3 seconds) > In other words, you will usially see his ult do around 250 dmg lvl 1, assuming he lands a triple q and 2 autos. > > Lvl 16 ult, on a squishy with just e aa ignite electrocute, youll see it do around 800 dmg. > > But the premise of saying he can just E AA IGNITE eltrocute ti kill you, level 7, straight up bullshit. Someone doesn't understand hyperbole for the purpose of making a point. You can undo your downvote now.
: You want mages to be useless if enemy picks a heavy tank? No thank you.
> [{quoted}](name=Farih Danh,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-03T13:20:52.017+0000) > > You want mages to be useless if enemy picks a heavy tank? No thank you. Implying that a single heavy tank being picked somehow denies a mage's ability to attack any of the other 4 targets. Implying that mages don't have tools to deal with heavy tanks Implying that mages have worse penetration items compared to Auto champs.
MarijaCarry (EUNE)
: Please give me just one non assassin patch
Riot: "What do you mean you don't like being deleted starting at 7 minutes? You sure you don't like how Zed massively outplayed you by missing everything possible but still killing you from one auto, ignite, Electrocute and his ultimate?"
: Trusted devices ...
Seems like a little more than a compromised account. It's possible your email or even your PC has been compromised.
: Daily reminder to those who complain about the lack of skins being released
I don't think it's a matter of how many skins are being released, but rather the variety of champions outside of the standard skin sellers group.
: Why do people not just forfeit ffs?!
You're gonna need to provide some evidence that your claim is the exact situation that happens consistently.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiBiULMM,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-12-01T23:59:00.370+0000) > > Bolt > Fires an interrupting bolt (0.1 sec silence) at target champion. Deals some damage. The bolt also hits all other champions in its path towards the target. Range is a little longer than ignite but damage is roughly 1/2 of Ignite's total. i think that bolt spell should be instant because if the bolt has travel time/cast time and is a projectile then it'll be a pretty useless summoner spell if it only lasts 0.1 seconds. if its going to have all those delays it should atleast last 1 second to 1.5 or even 2.
> [{quoted}](name=On My Kill List,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiBiULMM,comment-id=00030001,timestamp=2019-12-02T00:41:23.704+0000) > > i think that bolt spell should be instant because if the bolt has travel time/cast time and is a projectile then it'll be a pretty useless summoner spell if it only lasts 0.1 seconds. > if its going to have all those delays it should atleast last 1 second to 1.5 or even 2. I just meant its ability to hit targets is unique. It would still be an instant cast beam (fuck you Yasuo) that goes from the caster directly to the target, damaging and interrupting the target and all enemy champions on the path. Also, even if it was a 0.2 delay (because Riot might code it as a tether), it won't hugely affect the interrupt power.
Kythers (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiBiULMM,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-02T00:43:03.345+0000) > > Summoner spells don't count for electrocute stacks. Ignite absolutely procs electrocute https://streamable.com/bhzw0
> [{quoted}](name=Kythers,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiBiULMM,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-02T00:48:48.720+0000) > > Ignite absolutely procs electrocute > > https://streamable.com/bhzw0 Okay, my mistake. Shouldn't do it though. But we all know how Zed mains need that extra help with the proc.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiBiULMM,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-12-01T23:59:00.370+0000) > > Bolt > Fires an interrupting bolt (0.1 sec silence) at target champion. Deals some damage. The bolt also hits all other champions in its path towards the target. Range is a little longer than ignite but damage is roughly 1/2 of Ignite's total. This is interesting. If you have any familiarity with Heroes of the Storm, it reminds of Alarak's Lightning Surge ability, except his ability also heals him based on the number of enemies struck. "Bolt" could definitely provide more offensive options, especially in the late-game. It'd also be a good way to trigger Electrocute.
> [{quoted}](name=Everyday Legends,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiBiULMM,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-02T00:17:35.847+0000) > > This is interesting. If you have any familiarity with Heroes of the Storm, it reminds of Alarak's Lightning Surge ability, except his ability also heals him based on the number of enemies struck. > > "Bolt" could definitely provide more offensive options, especially in the late-game. It'd also be a good way to trigger Electrocute. ~~Summoner spells don't count for electrocute stacks.~~ (Edit: Zed safety nets. Cause he totally needs those.) Anyway, the major point of this is to provide a more unique interaction method than simply "point and click" as is the case with the other summoners, currently.
: Let's Make a New Summoner Spell
Bolt Fires an interrupting bolt (0.1 sec silence) at target champion. Deals some damage. The bolt also hits all other champions in its path towards the target. Range is a little longer than ignite but damage is roughly 1/2 of Ignite's total.
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Sewer Side,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EQ48Z1Zr,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-11-30T11:46:20.655+0000) > > Why do you feel the need to comment about game modes you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about? > > Either that or you’re god awful at TFT and still blame RNG, lmao I don't have to be good at a game to understand how it works or how it's played. I'm not good at poker but that doesn't change I understand how hands are dealt, what beats what and so on. I'm not great at Yugioh because I'm picky about what I play but it doesn't change I know how the various mechanics work. Any bronze player in League knows how to play it and how it works, but they're obviously not good at it. Besides, what I said is true. RNG gates your decisions. It's not the sole factor, it's just the most prevalent for roughly 90% of the game. It can and will beat any amount of skill you have in the mode. On top of this, raw mechanical skill can trump a bad champion roll in ARAM (both "I'm not good at this particular one" and "this one isn't very good in ARAM"). You can also choose the items you build in ARAM, making it much easier to counter enemy comps.
: > [{quoted}](name=Degnisyllort,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EQ48Z1Zr,comment-id=00010000000000020000,timestamp=2019-11-30T21:15:09.714+0000) > > As someone who has been playing since season 7 yes the free rotation has always been a part of aram It's clear you misunderstood what said(Not sure how). I said the past **_SEVERAL_** free rotations was a recent change. I never said it was never part of ARAM, I've been play far longer than you have, I know the changes that have been going through with ARAM much more than you.
> [{quoted}](name=TheLastShadow45,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EQ48Z1Zr,comment-id=000100000000000200000000,timestamp=2019-11-30T23:25:25.821+0000) > > It's clear you misunderstood what said(Not sure how). I said the past **_SEVERAL_** free rotations was a recent change. I never said it was never part of ARAM, I've been play far longer than you have, I know the changes that have been going through with ARAM much more than you. I don't think it was a RECENT change, but it was definitely a change made.
: > [{quoted}](name=TheLastShadow45,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EQ48Z1Zr,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-11-30T06:17:17.138+0000) > > They actually made that past couple of free rotations available in aram to reduce the aram only accounts from getting the few champions they own pretty much 95% of the time. Its been that way since the beginning of ARAM that’s nothing new...
> [{quoted}](name=Degnisyllort,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EQ48Z1Zr,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-11-30T08:06:16.608+0000) > > Its been that way since the beginning of ARAM that’s nothing new... No. ARAM initially only took from your standard available champions (owned + free rotation). The change to increase the available champions from "owned + current rotation" to "owned + current rotation + past 2 rotations" was made years back to combat ARAM accounts.
: If we have ranked tft why don't we have ranked ARAM?
Shh! People don't like being called out on RNG gating all of the decisions in TFT! And yes, champion placement IS gated by RNG because the ones you're placing are still based on what you're buying from the RNG gated shop.
Cõmega (NA)
: God damn, Skye looking a little think, or is is it just me https://i.imgur.com/JMpGF0q.png[]
> [{quoted}](name=Cõmega,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=WE0Nd40i,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-11-30T03:52:36.925+0000) > > God damn, Skye looking a little think, or is is it just me > > https://i.imgur.com/JMpGF0q.png[] It's not polite to stare at a woman's bombs. Also, Lian all the way!
iMidg3t (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=0008000200000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T23:41:04.398+0000) > > The fact you're promoting players being disruptive verbally. And how am i doing it exactly? > The fact you've encountered a life situation where words can very easily be part of that equation boggles my mind as to why the hell you're not against players being decent in game. Not friendly. Not helpful. Just non-disruptive. Because compared to that real life situation, toxicity in chat is child play. To me, mean words in chat are just pixels on the screen. Videogame toxicity will NEVER be on the same level as RL one. You could say that shit helped me to develop a thick skin for toxicity in chat. > So yes, I'm utterly confused as to why you'd support players not being punished for being disruptive in chat. ..... Find me the EXACT QUOTE where i said that I "support players not being punished for being disruptive in chat"? After you fail at finding it, refrain yourself from twisting other peoples words to fit your argument. And lastly, stop assuming that just because some1 aint bothered by toxicity, it means they support toxicity. it's just immature, which is again, the same thing youre calling all those toxic players.
> [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00080002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-30T01:48:49.567+0000) > > And how am i doing it exactly? > > Because compared to that real life situation, toxicity in chat is child play. To me, mean words in chat are just pixels on the screen. > Videogame toxicity will NEVER be on the same level as RL one. > You could say that shit helped me to develop a thick skin for toxicity in chat. > > ..... > Find me the EXACT QUOTE where i said that I "support players not being punished for being disruptive in chat"? > After you fail at finding it, refrain yourself from twisting other peoples words to fit your argument. > And lastly, stop assuming that just because some1 aint bothered by toxicity, it means they support toxicity. > it's just immature, which is again, the same thing youre calling all those toxic players. We can start with this post right now. > Because compared to that real life situation, toxicity in chat is child play. To me, mean words in chat are just pixels on the screen. > Videogame toxicity will NEVER be on the same level as RL one. > You could say that shit helped me to develop a thick skin for toxicity in chat. Not everyone is going to just shrug it off. That should be common fucking sense. The way you've addressed my posts has come off as relatively hostile and without saying anything of agreement or disagreement. So based on the hostility, I'm inclined to believe you're disagreeing without actually saying it. Like here: > [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00080002,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:23:51.535+0000) > > So if we dont agree every single meanie word should be bannable, we're T1 fans? > And it's funny to call some1 "immature brats" because not only it's toxic, but these types of arguments (if you dont agree with me youre X and Y/there are 2 opinions, mine and the wrong one) are immature aswell. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but attacking me for making a point about how Tyler1 cultivated toxicity sounds like an indirect defense of said toxicity, especially if you're not even trying to sound like you agree with me. So, it's based on assumptions because your posts and words have indirectly sided with "let the verbal abuse continue" even though you personally don't give a fuck when it happens. Now, rather than going "stop assuming", perhaps you'd like to actually VOICE your side on the issue instead of continually attacking me. Because repeat attacks without points of discussion are just attempts to dismiss what I've said, which is its own defense of the other side. After all, I did that TWICE when someone claimed I was defending another form of toxicity (intentional feeding and AFK). This isn't a spectrum based issue. It's a "yes or no" on "should chat be punished". How far the punishment goes is where the spectrum lies but is ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
iMidg3t (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00080002000000000001,timestamp=2019-11-29T11:17:59.283+0000) > > Oh, and because I may as well take a page from your books on how to handle the intentional feeders/trolls, just stop playing League. A lil explanation would be helpful. > Guess you just wanted to join those bullies by driving other players into ruining games through whatever means they turn to. Where did you get that from? Quote me where i said that. While I'm here, I'll respond to another comment of yours > If I'm in the wrong for just trying to enjoy a game with other people without that behavior, then I never want to be right. No1 said that dafuq u on dude??
> [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800020000000000010000,timestamp=2019-11-29T18:17:35.213+0000) > > A lil explanation would be helpful. Already said it's the equivalent to "just mute the disruptive ally". > Where did you get that from? Quote me where i said that. The fact you're promoting players being disruptive verbally. > While I'm here, I'll respond to another comment of yours > > No1 said that dafuq u on dude?? It was partly in reference to the voting that had been going on so far. I am dealing with a triple team of "words can't be disruptive!" players (which includes you). The fact you've encountered a life situation where words can very easily be part of that equation boggles my mind as to why the hell you're not against players being decent in game. Not friendly. Not helpful. Just non-disruptive. So yes, I'm utterly confused as to why you'd support players not being punished for being disruptive in chat. If players were not verbally disruptive in the first place, the mute function wouldn't exist (because it would have no use). That is why chat can be punished. It can still be disruptive (particularly when it's in the form of flaming an ally) and it just makes everyone play worse. It's kinda like saying "well because this toxicity isn't punished, we shouldn't bother punishing the other forms". Again, chat is just the easiest to detect and punish, like a speeding ticket. And, like a speeding ticket, you don't get jail time until you get tons of speeding tickets.
: You shouldn't get banned in a game for talking shit unless it's extreme. "Dogshit" is, at best, trashtalking. The fact that you can lose your account because you talk badly in a game is mind-boggling to me, but I guess Riot has to make money any way it can.
> [{quoted}](name=Turtles Are Okay,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000d,timestamp=2019-11-29T19:07:19.501+0000) > > You shouldn't get banned in a game for talking shit unless it's extreme. "Dogshit" is, at best, trashtalking. The fact that you can lose your account because you talk badly in a game is mind-boggling to me, but I guess Riot has to make money any way it can. It's because players are trying to justify directing it towards their allies. Even if it wasn't a punishable offense in any metric, trash talking allies almost always reduces your chances of winning. And the only time you actually get banned for it is after being told to stop 3 times via 2 chat restrictions and a 14 day suspension, which only happens if you're reported for being disruptive with it. So if someone is being so disruptive for hundreds of games that they're getting banned, it's on them and not everyone else.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00080000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:42:09.477+0000) > > Simply playing badly is gonna happen whether you like it or not. Even Faker can have a bad game. It can happen regardless of whether you're playing in ranked or norms. > > What I'm not going to justify is INTENTIONALLY bad gameplay, which is not what you specified. On top of this, getting mad at someone and spouting profanities over bad gameplay, intentional or not, isn't going to make them change. Someone who's intentionally doing it will laugh off screen, mute you, keep going, then report you because they know you've helped make the experience even worse for 3 teammates. > > So there's no point in getting mad about it. In almost all cases, it's going to make everything worse. You will play worse. Your poorly performing ally won't play better. And 3 random teammates who are trying to win now have two teammates who aren't cooperating. > > This is just you fishing for something to dismiss me with. It's not only false but it's proof that you have nothing to actually counter my arguments. We're done. I'm completely fine with you being a for fun normals player. What I'm not fine with is when you take that attitude into competitive ranked games. In my opinion if you play bad enough in ranked you should be temporarily banned with an escalating duration. It's pretty easy to find if someone is inting with the stats they already have. Damage to objectives/turrets, damage to enemies, CS, kill participation, which can all be compared based on matchup, role, and rank to determine if a player was inting. Also I never called you in particular a seven season silver player I was just using that as an example plus it rhymes.
> [{quoted}](name=LightswornLance,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T12:59:53.783+0000) > > I'm completely fine with you being a for fun normals player. What I'm not fine with is when you take that attitude into competitive ranked games. In my opinion if you play bad enough in ranked you should be temporarily banned with an escalating duration. It's pretty easy to find if someone is inting with the stats they already have. Damage to objectives/turrets, damage to enemies, CS, kill participation, which can all be compared based on matchup, role, and rank to determine if a player was inting. Also I never called you in particular a seven season silver player I was just using that as an example plus it rhymes. First off, even if I'm playing to win, I can still have a few fuck ups and end up playing like shit for the rest of the match. At no point does fucking up a few times change whether or not I'm trying to play at my absolute best. Expecting me to have my best game ever in each ranked game is impossible. My best game for that particular match might just be below my normal, and everyone on the team has to accept it wasn't good particularly myself. Getting on my ass for playing badly is only going to switch me from "play to win" towards "stop caring". Secondly, even raw numbers aren't going to be enough to determine whether or not someone is INTENTIONALLY playing badly. If you're playing super defensive but still getting dove because towers can't protect you, your stats will still be absolute shit because you're dead so often but you're not trying to die either because you're still sitting near your turret and trying to minimize your death count. Lastly, your phrasing implies I fit said description. Bringing rank into the argument, regardless of whether you were implying or directly calling me on it, is still "rank shaming" (which is against boards rules) and falls under what I said about dismissal and lacking arguments.
: should i practice ADC ?
I main marksmen, and I'm competent in all lanes including Jungle. Even then, I'm horrible with tank champions. So you don't need to practice ADC, especially if you don't enjoy the role. The only reason you should practice ADC is in the event you're autofilled to the role. With that in mind, Miss Fortune is rather forgiving when it comes to CS and is pretty straightforward. Just remember that her passive can also punish your ability to CS if you don't manage your targets. She also has a solid early game with plenty of late game potential.
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Spice and Wolf,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800020000000000000002,timestamp=2019-11-29T11:24:16.567+0000) > > You and the bubble people society that you are part of are the reason western society is full of soy boys and snowflakes who get offended my anything. You can't say a word because someone's feelings get hurt. Well guess what, fuck your feelings, and your so called "hate speech" which by the way it doesn't exist. > I don't agree with you = free speech. > I offend you = free speech. > I insult you = free speech. > I tell you to commit some act of violence = crime punished by the law. The single reason that people should get banned in this game based on speech is when they tell someone to commit suicide because is violates criminal code 1899 (Queensland - or what country you are) You seem to have a very common misconception about Free Speech in the USA. It does not, and never will, protect you from any consequences of what you say. The amendment itself only applies to government punishing you for what you say and even that has limits (as you've illustrated). Even though I've disagreed with those 3 players on whether or not chat punishments should be allowed, at no point have I said "they're not entitled to their own opinion nor allowed to voice it". Whether my reasoning has been understood or not is somewhat outside of my control.
iMidg3t (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00080002000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:53:14.403+0000) > > So based on this, you support everyone on the internet spouting all varieties of hate speech, encouragement of suicide or harm to others, promoting destructive actions against anyone/anything for the smallest of reasons and that anyone who can't handle it should never use the internet again. Sound about right? Again, nice assumption, but youre wrong. Is that 2nd or 3rd assumption? Idk what youre trying to do by putting words in my mouth but it aint working bruh. Cant people just not care about toxicity nowadays without some1 flaming them for it? jeez..
> [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800020000000000000001,timestamp=2019-11-29T11:12:50.044+0000) > > Again, nice assumption, but youre wrong. Is that 2nd or 3rd assumption? > Idk what youre trying to do by putting words in my mouth but it aint working bruh. > > Cant people just not care about toxicity nowadays without some1 flaming them for it? jeez.. It was hyperbole for the purposes of illustrating that not everyone is willing to handle some kid spouting more lava in chat than an Everest sized Volcano. If I'm in the wrong for just trying to enjoy a game with other people without that behavior, then I never want to be right.
iMidg3t (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800020000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:34:48.898+0000) > > Regardless of whether you're a fan of Tyler1 or not, the mentality behind "don't punish for mean words" is often "I want to insult my allies with impunity". So it's pretty damn fair to lump you in with that lot. Nice assumption, but youre wrong. I simply dont care about mean words on the internet. > Riot set the rules. If you don't agree with them, stop playing the game. Stop acting like you're entitled to whatever behavior you want regardless of where you're at. I'm not acting like that tho. Assumption No.2 > Besides, these standards aren't much different from real life. So the idea that these rules are hard to follow is absurd. It is, i got the chance to experiecne it first hand. Throughout the whole highschool people were fucking with me in every way they could, while non of the professors did anything about it, but as soon as i fought back because I was sick of it, guess who got in trouble? Me. Wanna guess what was the end result? I tried to slit my wrist because i couldnt take it anymore. So yea, once you learn a nasty side of life then try to tell me the same thing youre saying now :) Same with league. So yea, thats the reality of "real life rules" which are similar to league. People can ruin you in any way possible while you can do nothing except lay low and take it....until you cant anymore. Same thing with league, you cant do shit about some1 ruining your game, but as soon as you snap cuz of it, youre the one getting banned, not the ones who drove you to that state.
> [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=0008000200000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:43:15.912+0000) > > It is, i got the chance to experiecne it first hand. Throughout the whole highschool people were fucking with me in every way they could, while non of the professors did anything about it, but as soon as i fought back because I was sick of it, guess who got in trouble? Me. > Wanna guess what was the end result? I tried to slit my wrist because i couldnt take it anymore. > > So yea, once you learn a nasty side of life then try to tell me the same thing youre saying now :) > Same with league. > > So yea, thats the reality of "real life rules" which are similar to league. People can ruin you in any way possible while you can do nothing except lay low and take it....until you cant anymore. > > Same thing with league, you cant do shit about some1 ruining your game, but as soon as you snap cuz of it, youre the one getting banned, not the ones who drove you to that state. Congratulations, your high school life was similar to mine. We even had similar results. That's ultimately irrelevant. The problem is that you're still trying to make that fighting back within the rules and putting every single ounce of that blame on everyone else. You are still to blame for going and fighting back, even though it was a result of constant provocation. Arguably minuscule compared to the rest but that's beside the point. I'm not saying you can't be frustrated, mad or whatever. Riot doesn't simply punish you for a one off snap anyway unless it crosses a zero tolerance line. I've had my games where I snapped at allies because of their shit. I've NEVER gotten anything more than a chat restriction. The school doing nothing is outside of your control. Riot being unable to do anything is outside of your control. Being mad about those things isn't gonna change them. Oh, and because I may as well take a page from your books on how to handle the intentional feeders/trolls, just stop playing League. You know, equivalent to "just mute". That's been one of the answers to "handle the mean words!" Oh, wait, you snapped because that shit got to you in high school, didn't it? Guess you just wanted to join those bullies by driving other players into ruining games through whatever means they turn to.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800010000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:23:16.904+0000) > > I meant Tyler1 set the example to be followed as a League streamer. That behavior was promoted despite being blatantly unacceptable. And the rest. This game is private property, sure - whatever, I'm not breaking those rules, I don't even findt it hard not to - what we're doing now, if you hadn't noticed, is discussing those rules. I disagree with them and resorting to the "These are the rules" is the dumbest argument ever - I perfectly know that, I just don't agree with them. Toxicity that ruins the game is not saying three letters on chat, it's afking and trolling which is never punished properly. Now, imagine the shoulder bump wasn't accident but intended attack on you and after that, the person disappears - do you chase him or do you ignore that?
> [{quoted}](name=Ensign Tor%%%%,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=0008000100000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:49:17.556+0000) > > And the rest. This game is private property, sure - whatever, I'm not breaking those rules, I don't even findt it hard not to - what we're doing now, if you hadn't noticed, is discussing those rules. I disagree with them and resorting to the "These are the rules" is the dumbest argument ever - I perfectly know that, I just don't agree with them. > > Toxicity that ruins the game is not saying three letters on chat, it's afking and trolling which is never punished properly. Now, imagine the shoulder bump wasn't accident but intended attack on you and after that, the person disappears - do you chase him or do you ignore that? I've already said I'm not gonna justify intentionally bad gameplay (which includes AFK). As I said on page 1, chat offenses are simply that much easier to detect. Machines aren't gonna distinguish troll gameplay the vast majority of the time even if it's consistent. It needs human eyes which Riot can't just hire or implement. And as I also said, spamming chat with flame isn't gonna make things better. This is true regardless of whether it's someone having a shitty game but still trying or straight up buying 6 faerie charm on Zed and dashing down mid lane. And that rule exists because said behavior, even without the aforementioned "provocation" of poor gameplay/intentional trolling, simply doesn't help.
iMidg3t (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800020000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:34:48.898+0000) > > Regardless of whether you're a fan of Tyler1 or not, the mentality behind "don't punish for mean words" is often "I want to insult my allies with impunity". So it's pretty damn fair to lump you in with that lot. Nice assumption, but youre wrong. I simply dont care about mean words on the internet. > Riot set the rules. If you don't agree with them, stop playing the game. Stop acting like you're entitled to whatever behavior you want regardless of where you're at. I'm not acting like that tho. Assumption No.2 > Besides, these standards aren't much different from real life. So the idea that these rules are hard to follow is absurd. It is, i got the chance to experiecne it first hand. Throughout the whole highschool people were fucking with me in every way they could, while non of the professors did anything about it, but as soon as i fought back because I was sick of it, guess who got in trouble? Me. Wanna guess what was the end result? I tried to slit my wrist because i couldnt take it anymore. So yea, once you learn a nasty side of life then try to tell me the same thing youre saying now :) Same with league. So yea, thats the reality of "real life rules" which are similar to league. People can ruin you in any way possible while you can do nothing except lay low and take it....until you cant anymore. Same thing with league, you cant do shit about some1 ruining your game, but as soon as you snap cuz of it, youre the one getting banned, not the ones who drove you to that state.
> [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=0008000200000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:43:15.912+0000) > > Nice assumption, but youre wrong. I simply dont care about mean words on the internet. > > I'm not acting like that tho. Assumption No.2 So based on this, you support everyone on the internet spouting all varieties of hate speech, encouragement of suicide or harm to others, promoting destructive actions against anyone/anything for the smallest of reasons and that anyone who can't handle it should never use the internet again. Sound about right? What you've said is an indirect contradiction. You're promoting the entitlement to said behavior even if you won't partake in it yourself.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000800000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T09:55:10.776+0000) > > First off, you clearly lack both perspective and accountability because you're blaming your use of words on the guy playing badly for whatever reason. Getting mad at me for putting the fault of YOUR behavior on YOU is what I was referring to. > > Players doing badly in games are often aware of it in the first place. They don't need you insulting them as if that's somehow going to flip a magic switch that prevents them from dying, automatically scoring 3 pentakills in a row and making them play 20x better than Faker for the rest of the game. All it's gonna do is discourage them from working with you and care even less that they're playing badly because they now have someone they definitely don't want to work with. > > You're not helping anyone by going off on a poorly performing ally. If anything, you're ruining the chances of your team getting a victory because your ally is, again, much more likely to stop cooperating. And that will be YOUR fault since you couldn't just stay quiet about his poor gameplay. You know, for the one game he was matched with you and because he didn't play to your standards for that one game. > > Besides, it's a PVP game. Someone has to lose. And with League's snowball shit where it is now, going 1-10 isn't exactly super difficult over a 30 minute game. If you can't handle a teammate playing badly, then you need to stop playing team based PVP games. > > So please, shut up. Justifying bad play is the worst possible thing you could ever do. This isn't normals we are talking about. It's ranked competitive play and if a player is queuing up for a competitive game they best be ready to deal with the repercussions of them not playing competitively. 100% of the time I would rather have a good player that flames on my team than a nice / no typing player that ints. Maybe if you're a for fun seven season silver player or whatever its different but I'm a competitive gamer. For fun players should be playing normals anyway.
> [{quoted}](name=LightswornLance,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=0008000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:30:42.903+0000) > > Justifying bad play is the worst possible thing you could ever do. This isn't normals we are talking about. It's ranked competitive play and if a player is queuing up for a competitive game they best be ready to deal with the repercussions of them not playing competitively. 100% of the time I would rather have a good player that flames on my team than a nice / no typing player that ints. Maybe if you're a for fun seven season silver player or whatever its different but I'm a competitive gamer. For fun players should be playing normals anyway. Simply playing badly is gonna happen whether you like it or not. Even Faker can have a bad game. It can happen regardless of whether you're playing in ranked or norms. What I'm not going to justify is INTENTIONALLY bad gameplay, which is not what you specified. On top of this, getting mad at someone and spouting profanities over bad gameplay, intentional or not, isn't going to make them change. Someone who's intentionally doing it will laugh off screen, mute you, keep going, then report you because they know you've helped make the experience even worse for 3 teammates. So there's no point in getting mad about it. In almost all cases, it's going to make everything worse. You will play worse. Your poorly performing ally won't play better. And 3 random teammates who are trying to win now have two teammates who aren't cooperating. > Maybe if you're a for fun seven season silver player or whatever its different but I'm a competitive gamer. For fun players should be playing normals anyway. This is just you fishing for something to dismiss me with. It's not only false but it's proof that you have nothing to actually counter my arguments. We're done.
iMidg3t (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-11-29T08:57:59.864+0000) > > Wow, Tyler1's cult of toxicity came through here based on the votes. > > And these 3 posts are proof that his cult is spreading. > > And if any of them are mad that I'm calling them out as the immature brats they are, then it's just more proof that I'm correct. So if we dont agree every single meanie word should be bannable, we're T1 fans? And it's funny to call some1 "immature brats" because not only it's toxic, but these types of arguments (if you dont agree with me youre X and Y/there are 2 opinions, mine and the wrong one) are immature aswell.
> [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00080002,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:23:51.535+0000) > > So if we dont agree every single meanie word should be bannable, we're T1 fans? > And it's funny to call some1 "immature brats" because not only it's toxic, but these types of arguments (if you dont agree with me youre X and Y/there are 2 opinions, mine and the wrong one) are immature aswell. Regardless of whether you're a fan of Tyler1 or not, the mentality behind "don't punish for mean words" is often "I want to insult my allies with impunity". So it's pretty damn fair to lump you in with that lot. Riot set the rules. If you don't agree with them, stop playing the game. Stop acting like you're entitled to whatever behavior you want regardless of where you're at. "Being on the internet" isn't an excuse. "Others just can't handle me" isn't an excuse. "I disagree with the rules" isn't an excuse. All of those are "I'm not at fault"; thus "no accountability". Two of them (first and second) are "no perspective". The medium of communication doesn't change the fact you're saying these things to someone else. The difference is that you're not face to face, you're still being an ass to someone else and it's extremely likely to be unwarranted. The other is that you're pretending that you can't possibly be disruptive/toxic/problematic with that behavior. Besides, these standards aren't much different from real life. So the idea that these rules are hard to follow is absurd.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-11-29T08:57:59.864+0000) > > Wow, Tyler1's cult of toxicity came through here based on the votes. > > And these 3 posts are proof that his cult is spreading. Yeah, because Tyler and popular streamers are the only League players. Fuck off, I'm not watching a single League content creater (Except for used-to Dunkey, Siv and Uber) because all of them are subs (Hope you get what I mean by that short version) - all my opinions are based on mine and only mine (Well, the "shot down the street like the degenerate he is" case is relevant to me too) experience - I bet that you agree with T1 on more things than I do simply because I have no idea what he's doing - except for being banned again and again - which is some crazy shit, Riot should seriously stop doing that. Toxicity is not an offense that should be bannable. These are just words in a video game. Imagine banning someone for calling his rune page "n00ck Jaws". Crazy? Crazy. > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-11-29T09:01:36.290+0000) > > If someone's hitting you, just put on a bandaid and go away right? > > It's a bandaid fix, not your justification to act like an idiot. While the analogy's correct, the scale is completely off. The correct one would be "If someone hits you with his shoulder in public, do you ignore that or do you call the cops?". My answer is ignore, because GETTING HIT SO MUCH YOU'RE BLEEDING IS NOT EQUAL TO SOMEONE TYPING ONE WORD ON A CHAT IN A VIDEO GAME. No matter how much you'll be telling me - I still won't be seeing a chat in game as a "public space" or "place where you need to be accountable and responsible for what you're doing". You gotta man up, grow up and stand up to the fact that nobody is going to hurt himself because someone assaulted him online - there are literally zero cases of someone hurting himself because someone offended him in an online game. If your feelings are hurt - it's only your problem and you can't expect someone to get punished for it. Unless you're on Facebook or Summoner's Rift. But these are unreal realms. Offtop - it's funny how my nickname is censored
> [{quoted}](name=Ensign Tor%%%%,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00080001,timestamp=2019-11-29T10:04:33.400+0000) > > Yeah, because Tyler and popular streamers are the only League players. Fuck off, I'm not watching a single League content creater (Except for used-to Dunkey, Siv and Uber) because all of them are subs (Hope you get what I mean by that short version) - all my opinions are based on mine and only mine (Well, the "shot down the street like the degenerate he is" case is relevant to me too) experience - I bet that you agree with T1 on more things than I do simply because I have no idea what he's doing - except for being banned again and again - which is some crazy shit, Riot should seriously stop doing that. Toxicity is not an offense that should be bannable. These are just words in a video game. Imagine banning someone for calling his rune page "n00ck Jaws". Crazy? Crazy. I meant Tyler1 set the example to be followed as a League streamer. That behavior was promoted despite being blatantly unacceptable. So no, not crazy. Riot set the rules for how to act on their property (on their account on their server in their game). You break those rules, you get punished. Doesn't matter if you disagree with the rules because those are the rules that you are expected to adhere to. And they're rules I haven't really had any trouble following. These aren't unreasonable rules either. If a hospital says "no guns allowed for any reason" then you're expected to never bring a gun onto the hospital campus. Toxicity is the term used because it can ruin the game for up to 9 other players (in League). It's not healthy for providing an environment where the game can be enjoyed win or lose. Riot's balance is just one reason the game can be hard to enjoy. But even a perfectly balanced game will be difficult to enjoy if the only players you're dealing with are making it a miserable experience, aka being toxic. Now, tell me, is it on me to tolerate disruptive behavior? It's not simply an accidental shoulder bump. It's someone going up, pushing you to the side and saying "deal with it, pussy". These are players going out of their way to be disruptive through a lack of self control. Give me one good reason to believe that their behavior is my fault.
Show more

Busty Demoness

Level 202 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion