rescued (NA)
: Yup... I watched the LCS all the time last year, but this year the matches are so boring to watch.
There was a time in Warhammer Online that a designer thought it would be a good idea to speed up the action by reducing the delay timers for reopening captured objectives as neutral. Instead of increasing the frequency of fights over objectives, the opposing sides merely ran in circles, avoiding each other, so that each objective would be recaptured as fast as possible. Capturing the objectives was the way to gain experience in that game. We see a similar thing happening here in LoL. In fact, I had a recent game where the enemy went four top for more than the first turret. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of a game where both teams choose a different side lane to push with 4 or 5 until one gets too close to the inhibitor to ignore.
: Turret Diving. See, THIS is an aspect right here of Risk/Reward (like you discuss). Back in the day you took a Leona or Braum specifically because you knew by Level 3 you were going to push that wave and Dive. Period. It was part of the plan as soon as you took the champ. Which meant your Jungle would start Top and work Down to be there... not to save you from the Enemy Support/ADC but to ensure if the Enemy Jungle joined it was a fair fight... sometimes even finding him BEFORE he could get to lane and going 1v1 there. It was super High Risk/High Reward. As Leona we'd usually get the Double Kill (or I'd have to take one so they die quicker and I get out alive... but hey, Sightstone all the faster then!)... so we'd have a HUGE advantage. BUT, and this is even without our Dive failing... what if our Jungle engaged there Jungle to buy us time to Dive, and Died? So now our Bot is ahead, but likely can't take the Turret yet and with no Smite certainly can't do Early Dragon (despite the debate if a true Early Dragon is worth it)... AND their Jungle is ahead to balance that, which can greatly impact Mid/Top even if he can't come for us. And oh my if I don't dodge a stun or what ever, or Tank 1 to many Turret Shots... now we either Draw or Lose the Fight, can't take the Turret yet, and still can't Rotate to Dragon... so a TON of Risk and only the slightest of Reward... or even complete Failure that sets us back. But now, Turrets are so Weak you don't even defend them in the Early Game. You have Karthus 'diving' Turrets... what used to be the role of a small group of Support or Jungle Tank Hard Engage Champions (or if rotating Mid and Jungle to Top your Top Tank Hard Engage *Malphite/Pantheon/etc*) to have a role and play style. And they HAD to get ahead early and Tank up with Items so they could CONTINUE to dive the other Turrets. You failed, your entire Comp was out the window and you had to find other ways to Win... but if you were good early on you could get so strong you'd Dive every Turret with your team in tow and Ace away. Sure, it was a big Snow Ball Mechanic, but the Risk could Counter Snow Ball in return. This was right and proper... now it doesn't take anything special to Dive a Turret. They are garbage. It SHOULD be a great risk to fight me near MY Defenses.
You spelled out a lot of good scenarios when it was exciting and made sense.
: > [{quoted}](name=FuntaC,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ERMtveJj,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-01-31T18:48:43.644+0000) > > First the rules, > 1. It should be accurate. The current system is extremely accurate. > 2. It should meet general expectations. It is. Just because trolls and verbal abuse still exist doesn't mean an effort isn't being made to get rid of it. > 3. It should enhance the enjoyment of the game for all valued players. It does. It removes players who are regularly destroying the fun of other players. > > Aren't we getting to the point where we can majority agree that negative account actions based upon chat logs is unreliable? It lacks context. It lack full comprehension of the situation or past predicaments. It lacks proper evaluation of player and language. It lacks so many more things that are needed to adequately asses a claim of harm. You're right. The player reporting them does. I player won't get reported for swearing if they say "I fucking suck" after they miss a kill or fail at something. A player will get reported if someone else fails and they say "you fucking suck". One is frustration and venting their own personal failure. The second is also frustration, but abuse of another player. That said, someone being a troll doesn't automatically allow you to disobay the rules. Some guy feeding? Doesn't give you the right to abuse them. Sure it's frustrating to deal with, but you give them exactly what they want, and they don't care how angry you get. > > The best and only trustworthy solution is to leave it up to players to mute. One argument is that damage was already done. That argument ignores the responsibilities of people in society: to not be so emotionally fragile, honestly, and to exert one's personal power to manage social exposure. For this reason, players should have more control over chat. That would be enough of a fix. No. Mute is a **band-aid**. Mute is so that you don't have to deal with the verbal abuse of a player until the end of your current game. In the real life concept, you walk away from someone who is spewing abuse. Sure, you can argue with them for a bit, but if you would rather not have to deal with this person, you can leave. You can't leave the situation in League. You can only make it a bit better until the end of game, where you can report the player and potentially get them banned. At the same time, would you say that a 'responsible person in society' would speak the way verbal abuses do to random strangers? If you see a guy at the store yelling at an employee and belitting them and telling them to kill themselves, would you want to interact with that person? > > That leaves us with the real problem of social gaming - those that grief. We'll just use griefing as the catchall of ineffective play. There only needs to be one report option, and that is to tag a player for griefing. Why? Because a good player buster system already has the data needed to identify a griefer without a player report. Player reports would simply remove false positives; a game where a team of friends are harassing each other for fun, for example. This is the depth of what we will fathom in the new system. That's what the current system is already doing. It is recording text. It is tracking K/D/A ratios. It. Tracks. Everything. And by having multiple options of reporting, Riot can respond differently. For example, a verbal abuse report will net you a chat ban, but an intentionally feeding report will most likely get you temp banned. > > HOW THE SYSTEM WILL KNOW A GRIEFER > > This is what people replying to this thread can add - ways the system might recognize a griefer automatically. What follows are my ideas. I would like to read yours as well. > > -- standing in spawn for X time Current system does this > -- standing still and using no abilities while being attacked Current system does this > -- a gold ranked adc Caitlyn not using an ult or a bush trap for the first 10m This isn't reportable > -- wandering without engaging the enemy for X time This isn't reportable > -- engaging the enemy repeatedly without minimally effective use of skills That is why 'intentionally feeding' reports already exist > -- engaging a turret without minimally effective use of skill That is why 'intentionally feeding' reports already exist > -- engaging a turret and failing X attempts per X time This isn't reportable. Context is needed > -- consistently waiting to engage in a team fight to only land a last hit This isn't reportable. Context is needed > > Can you see how easily this stuff could be tracked using data streamed or logged? We could literally build an algorithm right here in this thread. Everyone add your own indicator of player griefing. ...Do you have any idea what you're asking? You want to track the data of every single gameplay element in the game and to assess automatically. That's not 'easy' that's incredibly complex. That would take months, if not potential **years** to ensure everything functions properly. If a single thing were to screw up, everything screws up.
Thank you for your thorough reply. It would be bad justice to presume the honesty or intent of a player reporting another player. There are trolls that provoke and then report. Any system worth its salt will need to address that reality. More so, a social product that bans consumers must be protected from mischievous abuse, because it risks losing revenue at an accelerating rate. Something as fickle as chat log assessment for account action is bad business and is easily abused. However, conditioning a consumer base with minimum expectations of performance in a performance based social game is a critical feature. Some asides: I know the system does not track player data the way you think it does. Also, stating that something is not currently reportable for a system that this thread postulates must change is not really an argument against the proposed new system. Lastly, the word "fathom" is a nudge to not be limited while imagining a new system, like in your last paragraph. Again, thank you for the thought you put into your reply.
JRobin31 (NA)
: "for all valued players" "We'll just use griefing as the catchall of ineffective play" "without minimally effective use of skills" The problem is the view that additional punishments should be meted out to players who under perform in a game. The proper punishment for players that under perform is that they lose games! Sure players will complain about the players that they can't carry. But making it a reportable offense for being unskilled was removed for a reason: it doesn't lead to any meaningful social reform. You want players to feel worried that if they miss their skill shots, then they can be punished in ways besides MMR and LP loss? wtf man, wtf
lol, get good? Really, though. The system would identify obvious cases, so it wouldn't be one missed skill shot that causes a warning. The requirement of player reporting also prevents unnecessary punishment. The proposed system actually works more like a verification of wrongful action. If you consider the simple condition comparison given by the small number of instances listed in the original post, then you will realize how flawless the system could be.
nerak23 (NA)
: > The best and only trustworthy solution is to leave it up to players to mute. One argument is that damage was already done. That argument ignores the responsibilities of people in society: to not be so emotionally fragile, honestly, and to exert one's personal power to manage social exposure. For this reason, players should have more control over chat. That would be enough of a fix. Don't agree with you, I feel like people shouldn't be so emotionally fragile that they feel the need to be a jerk in the first place. Why do people try to turn it around? Positive players who are offended by being needlessly harassed are Not the problem it's those who can't help but say nasty things.
>"... I feel like people shouldn't be so emotionally fragile that they feel the need to be a jerk in the first place." Would you say that boxers are so physically fragile that they box? What you stated was illogical. >"Positive players who are offended by being needlessly harassed are Not the problem it's those who can't help but say nasty things." Nonetheless, a player that has maximum control of chat does have the power to prevent repeat exposure. Is a player clicking mute unacceptable? Players have a responsibility to understand the social environment. Solo queueing is a chance to play with anyone. Nothing can be done to preclude all unwanted chat per each player's unique sensitivities. Bro, you need to take responsibility for what you include yourself in. If your expectation of exposure is not met, then mute is the ultimate and adequate fix. What I am saying here, is that the only thing, past chat, that a player buster system can and should deal with is griefing via gameplay.
: You can't diminish true damage.
> [{quoted}](name=Melledoneus,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yJQenGUY,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2016-01-31T19:35:20.387+0000) > > You can't diminish true damage. {{champion:75}} disagrees with you.
: I don't understand how "Low Priority Queue" is a "Punishment."
I am not an instigator or a griefer in any game, except in rare occassions. One example being a LoL game last year where I intentionally fed 30 times into mid turret after being matched with known and prior reported trolls game after game. I do, however, respond in kind sometimes. Anyways, DotA's reporting system was worse in 2014 than LoL. I was frequently placed into the low priority queue because of trolls that report. You know the type. Frankly, I enjoyed the low priority queue in DotA. It required three wins to exit. During that time I griefed my team. I didn't care how long I was restricted to low priority games. It was a reason to become the troll. Sure, there were probably players wrongly put into the queue, as I, but why care right? It is "waste my time" queue, not "low priority" queue. I forced my team to win despite my griefing. It was more fun than regular games. It felt like I was doing my part to give back to those griefers that were rightfully in the queue.
: How to win the most annoying matchups in the game: A comprehensive list.
Fiora is countered by any champion with ae stun, frequent stun, has significant sustain (i.e., lifesteal, spellvamp, high health), or that can diminish her damage significantly.
: People really need to stop comparing Ahri to Leblanc and Zed- Ahri is a mage first and an assassin second- she's not meant to be the same as the other assassins. And when did Ahri become such a bad thing? I have not seen any complaints about her and suddenly today they're everywhere in threads. I'm sorry the champion with 2 skillshots that she **has** to land to 100-0 kill you is so hard to play against. I'm sorry the squishy that by her nature has to dash into AA range to use her burst is so hard to kill. And I'm sorry her reliability to destroy a target is curbstomped with one item. {{item:3140}}
I know you are not an official voice, but I want someone to apologize for making {{champion:4}} so squishy, with the most telegraphed stun countered with one item {{item:3140}}, for being immobile, and lacking real burst or a high damage ult. Well?
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=Sub HeroCro,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=nxEcenLh,comment-id=001e,timestamp=2016-01-31T17:19:35.514+0000) > > I agree with everything you said except : > > -I dont see whats problematic with Kalista she is kinda balanced ATM > -Removal of mana pots was good decision. Whats the point of high mana cost if you can ignore it with mana post. Same philosphy whats the point of sustain champs if anyone can be a sustain champ with few potions.. Basicly I think that Potion changes were good > > Besides good player really never needed mana pots . I used to buy maybe one mana pot on orianna from time to time. But seriously Cookies and doran ring passive outclassed mana pots anyway > > -There is no Power creep in Riot changes > Riot has been reducing the power of all champions since 2009 . Their new reworked champions just get more interactive gain more solution but in no way the get Power creep. > Thing is Riot nerfs way more then they buff. > > You could argue there is a complexity creep but thats a good thing As you said, experienced players don't need mana pots, so the removal of mana pots achieved nothing but gimping less experienced players. In normals or whatnot, a new player trying PVP is not going to spend their mana wisely, nor will they do anything but attempt to spam their entire skill bar repeatedly to last hit and defend themselves when put under pressure. Thus, mana potions helped them a lot. Now, when a newer player ends up spending excess mana to defend themselves against a player, they're screwed and they'll end up dying more often or losing their lane because they have to recall, giving a very clear advantage to players who are more experienced. This is bad for the game, because if new players can't enjoy the game, they leave, and things stagnate.
The mana restrictions are out of sync with prior mage balancing. {{champion:4}} is the most dorked up mage. The W was reworked last season to incentivize the use of the blue card, and additional damage reduction also was supposed to accomplish this. Along with that was some counter-logic that supposed an increase in cd for all casted abilities would also help. The result? The restriction caused less wave clear with red card (ae dmg slow), fewer uses of yellow card (stun), and less waveclear (damage and repeat uses) with Q. Also, turrets took longer to topple. These nerfs were not reverted with the recent reduction in mana, and the ability cost balance now requires several blue cards to recoop one spell worth of mana. It is practically useless to use blue card again. Oh, and there was even an extra 20dmg further reduced on the Q waveclear for no apparent reason. The turret nerf did not make dropping a turret with TF easier, since the vulnerability of an extended TF is much higher now. We still have mana regen on pots, and I would argue that some champions still require them.
: I'm finding it harder and harder to stay interested in League in 6.2
It is often spoken in business that smarter people have less common sense. it is a fact that many of the pinnings of game mechanics are built upon common sense factors. This idiom versus fact becomes a paradox. A rioter stated in January that recent changes have questioned some long held anchors of LoL game design. I am assuming that the current devs are very smart, since the common sense factors were being questioned. This is the root of all the problems you listed. We can talk about turret diving as a prime example. The reason stronger turrets make for a better game is that the risk:reward ratio is more reasonable. It is a common sense factor. The enjoyment of watching a turret dive is knowing that there is a high risk. Now, we have no risk turret dives, and the result is boring. The thrill of turrets was nothing more than the tradeoff of damage given versus damage assuredly taken. That is the player and viewer perception that incites emotion. That effect is also common sense. So, we have devs that are too smart, so the product becomes more stupid. Interesting twist right? The only solution is to hire devs that understand this balance, and that have the power to enforce it.
: Never thought I'd have a ranked game trolled/ruined by a Rioter
So some Riot guy was showing off for some woman by letting her kid play on his company account, and you want to shame him for it?
Relus (NA)
: Broken Ranked
It is a crap shoot in bronze. Some players have less than a 20% win rate. Some players tank to B5 intentionally. Your only hope is to consistently be on the team that opposes the one or more players with 20% win rate. Good luck
Woook3r (NA)
: God I love Ranked Reset.
If it is not an absolute reset, then it is no reset at all.
: It takes much more skill to WIN a game then to just have a good KDA and everything else you listed.
Think that through. Take the two high and low cases. Player 1 goes 10/0/10 against pro teams, but loses every game. Player 2 goes 10/0/10 against B5 players, but loses every game. Stats alone do not suggest a difference in the ability of each player, but the competition they face does suggest a variance in their ability. Now, let's say that player 2 (the one in B5) wins 66% of the time, but is so unlucky that the losses always occur in the promos. Would you say that player 2 is better than player 1, since player 2 is the only one that has wins? NOTE: we can reduce the data set enough that the plausibility of player 1 remaining in pro contention is legitimate. This is how I figure it. Everything requires context. Game statistics other than win/loss are a good evaluation of a player when in the context of the competition. Although, win/loss does matter when comparing the results of similar challenges, it does not give relative player strength across greatly diverse challenges. More diversity or difficulty makes the comparison of wins/loss less accurate in assessing player rating. Game stats are more accurate than win/loss record when calibrated by a difficulty factor.
Kept 1 (NA)
: Former Master Player Streaming Road to Challenger!
It only counts if it is bronze 5 to challenger.
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=FuntaC,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=vzqf6n6j,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2016-01-30T18:45:43.310+0000) > > A legitimately high ranked player should not have to carry boosted trash. I agree. You don't? You think one should not be allowed to state that during game runtime? Boosted trash exists, and should be called out and stripped of rank. Or u could report them, be quiet and let authorities handle it? Also if u would look at his match history, u would see that in last 15 games , that Lucian that was "boosted", was very good. That was his 1/15 bad game. Do you honestly think that someone who does bad in one out of 15 or even 20 games is boosted?
It would be easier to say if tencent would implement a player rating that required skill checks by completing regular individual challenges. Boosting can happen by friends or family, and that is probably the most common case. What I have noticed is that gold ranked players that are too cautious telegraph that they do not deserve the rank. A true gold player going 1/15 would not happen, ever. A boosted ranked player playing cautiously going 1/15 is expected. Normally doing much better is a sign that the player is boosted by daily games with talented friends for family.
: {{champion:107}} **First blood** {{champion:59}} {{champion:107}} [All]: ez pz {{champion:107}} **Has slain an enemy** {{champion:59}} {{champion:107}} [All}: too easy baby {{champion:107}} **Has slain an enemy** {{champion:59}} {{champion:107}} **Double kill** {{champion:64}} {{champion:107}} [All]: tooooo easy baby {{champion:107}} _(team chat):_ lol these guys are idiots #"You have been suspended" ######"Only this bullshit percent of players are ever punished. We don't take into account any inactive or bot accounts."
> [{quoted}](name=Inquizelus,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=jN8roR75,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2016-01-30T19:33:41.320+0000) > > {{champion:107}} **First blood** {{champion:59}} > {{champion:107}} [All]: ez pz > {{champion:107}} **Has slain an enemy** {{champion:59}} > {{champion:107}} [All}: too easy baby > {{champion:107}} **Has slain an enemy** {{champion:59}} > {{champion:107}} **Double kill** {{champion:64}} > {{champion:107}} [All]: tooooo easy baby > {{champion:107}} _(team chat):_ lol these guys are idiots > > #"You have been suspended" > ######"Only this bullshit percent of players are ever punished. We don't take into account any inactive or bot accounts." PvP arenas were integrated into RPGs in the past, and most had areas where massive battles occured that included hundreds of players. Banning accounts for foul language or harassment was not common. Muting was the fixall for a foul chatter. Someone that flaunted their skill by griefing others was handled differently, too. If that player was truly exceptionally skilled, then everyone would count that player as an asset. Otherwise, that player would have mobs or the enemy trained onto them. The top players were often trash talkers. They earned that right. The general consensus was 'get good or get griefed.'
: > [{quoted}](name=Nagato110,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=sUFmJzQa,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2016-01-30T18:38:46.477+0000) > > yeah, but aren't certain roles generally more skill oriented? I always thought it was adc and jung. > > If they play top they can just button mash and usually be AIGHT. > > If they play mid, then they either just poke, which is not hard, or use a one shot assasinate combo. Also, not hard. > > > As support they just meatshield and ward. > > As adc they don't know how to position. > > As jungle, they don't understand pathing. im a low elo player, i play best as jungle, worst as adc. lots of low elo jungle players get bad raps cause their teams have little to no map awareness and never follow up. but, as low elo players, we all suck at the game and every position we play.
> [{quoted}](name=jimlaheysadrunk,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=sUFmJzQa,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2016-01-30T18:41:01.330+0000) > "... as low elo players, we all suck at the game and every position we play." Agree, and, with that insight, you might be moving up in the ELO world.
: Why is Graves allowed to have the highest winrate in 3 different roles?
Because {{champion:104}} uses a shotgun. Believe it.
: Report Riot for nerfing towers
: First of all, thanks for taking the time to give us your thoughts. It goes without saying that this has been a disruptive - and in some cases really disappointing - stretch for fans of the NA and EU LCS. You raise some great questions - here are a few thoughts on some of the issues, at least from an NA perspective. We’re working closely with the EU team on these issues to ensure that collectively we’re raising the bar across the board. We agree with you that it’s a really crappy situation when players are held back by visa issues - both for them and for fans hoping to see them. Having to bench a player in the middle of the split due to circumstances out of their control is the worst case scenario for teams. Gaining visas for international players, as you say, is a complex process - made even more complex when it comes to multiple organizations taking responsibility for the process and players of several nationalities. One of our major realizations moving forward is that we need to draw a much harder line, with teams proving that their players are fully work eligible before getting into a competitive split. In the past, as we said in the Echo Fox competitive ruling, we relied on guarantees from teams and high-level spot checks: it’s clear that isn’t enough. We’ll be taking a close look at this within this split and will enter the mid-season break with a stricter process that guarantees each starting roster is fully eligible for the LCS. This will place additional pressure on teams to lock down a roster far earlier than they might have in previous splits, but we will also be providing additional resources and structure to support them. Behind the scenes we already offer help with visa resources, including access to law experts, but I think the points you make here are valid. There’s more that we can do to get newer team owners the resources they need before they reach crisis stage - and we’ll be looking into ways to beef us that support. Legally this burden is on the teams, they employ the players. But practically this burden is shared between us, teams and players. We will be stepping up our support to ensure that players aren’t getting left behind in the rush to start the season. Finally, when it comes to stricter penalties, we’re certainly establishing a zero-tolerance policy for any non-eligible players within the LCS moving forward. Our goal is for there to be no surprises about whether or not a player can legally play within the country they’re competing in at the beginning of the split. Some of this will come with new definitions and structure around what a roster is, possibly with a Reserve and Active roster allowing for more fluid states (signed but not eligible yet). We know that setting clearer expectations and regulations will hopefully put this right in the future.
The simple answer would be to require team rosters to be completed early enough, so that a critical moment in a series does not happen. That requirement would include a statement in regard to a "number of appropriately ranked completed games" by team composition, and that there be a minimum "accumulated time of residence in the jurisdiction of pertinent authorities of the professional venue" that would give the competition holders reasonable confidence.
Ternt (NA)
: Would you go into a unlit house owned by a known murderer?
Sometimes, there is no other choice than to face check a bush. The alternative to avoid what you do not see, and hope there is nothing there. How is that going to work for you?
: report this boosted trash pls Really? And you think u dont deserve ban?
A legitimately high ranked player should not have to carry boosted trash. I agree. You don't? You think one should not be allowed to state that during game runtime? Boosted trash exists, and should be called out and stripped of rank.
Uiraya (NA)
: Pretty sure every one of them would take the bullet and lose three weeks getting their mains ranked-ready in order to prevent idiots from first timing LeBlanc in their games. Ranked MUST be harder to get into, because people just straight don't care. If making them earn it scares off even one lazy shitbird, it'll be worth it.
100% agree, +1 Sadly, that is not the prevalent problem. Players choosing to lose is it. I recently played as Nasus support in ranked with a gold ranked Caitlyn. Most people reading this would do exactly as Caitlyn did, which is throw the game. After ten minutes without dropping a ward or a trap, without ulting, and auto-pushing lane against a Leeona support and a Rek'Sai jungler; after I had been a good sup by saving Caitlyn twice at the cost of my death; she began the usual rant against my skill and choice of Nasus support with encouragment to the team to all report me. Maybe it was a paid gold account, so the player really was the most noob, idk. Anyways, at that point I had no stats to defend myself, of course, and her failure to carry meant that both of us were useless. I did indeed get a warning for supporting an adc that threw the game for no other reason than she hated my pick. Players choosing to lose is always going to be the problem that cannot be fixed.
: Why did so many people leave on fiddlesticks release?
Relative strength. Fiddlesticks couldn't be beat. I watched Fiddlesticks successfully 1v5 in two game on the day of release. I didn't join in on another game where Fiddlesticks successfully 1v4 my teammates, and I was reported for it. Actually, the reports had a lot to do with it also. So many people were reported for feeding just trying to top versus Fiddlesticks. One person in my game was reported by the whole team for not getting a kill in the first 5m. That player stated they felt bad for the opponent, and didn't want them to quit. It was that bad.
: Gary Kasparov?! How old are you anyways?
What? The man is a living legend of chess. He is an iconic being. LoL-esque, no?
: The Best NA Roster
I would say the best NA roster is Immortals. Can anyone prove me wrong?
Kotex (NA)
: IMT shouldn't get ALL the credit for their TSM win...
wait wat? is op to confuse us? u say if tsm did not lose they would have won? umm ya
: TSM - "We're a new team"
Wait, who is TSM? Are they a new team? I've heard of Immortals, but everyone knows who Immortals is.
: I'm a support main and I've been trying to decide whether to become a secondary ADC, Mid, or Jungler Maybe I'll just uninstall and wait for this to blow over
That's what I did after {{champion:9}} release. There were multiple hot fixes that same day, some longer than others. People have discussed Xin's release as if Xin was the worst in this thread. It could not have been worse than Fiddlesticks. I swear the player population dropped by half soon after Fiddlesticks release.
: LMAO I GET THIS! I play chess competitively, is honestly pretty funny. But rito isn't doing THAT bad, are they?
: Riot: If I report someone, don't make me support them again in the next lobby
This happened every promo prior to the reporting system update last season. "Oh yeah, he threw your promo huh? Well, give him another chance."
: Silver player explains the relative importance of objectives
As if no one types during play? One must stop playing to type. Here is a revision for those that use chat. 1. Normal win-the-game stuff if not ff@20. Otherwise, 2. Think of someone to blame. 3. Type something blaming. 4. Remember who was blamed (and for what) to be consistent, because consistency proves skill. 5. Repeat the blame to reinforce. 6. Rationalize behaviors. 7. Default to #5, and try to add something new.
: I still don't really understand why you don't directly get the Rift Herald buff
.. but it is easier to steal it now. Just pick up the artifact?
Rioter Comments
: Agreed. Placements should only be for new players. Players from last season should just be autoplaced based on their current MMR instead of wasting their time on a system that already knows where it wants to put you.
The change in the meta threatens some player standings, so ranking should not be granted according to a prior season. I agree with the concept of an absolute reset. All records and ratings to zero for all players. Players whining about not having a closely balanced match in ranked games is the only argument against an absolute reset, and it is not a valid reason to neglect an absolute reset. If I join a chess tournament that is open to all levels of players, then I surely can not complain about competing against the best in the world should they attend. Why would there be a different expectation in League of Legends ranked games, which are open to anyone worldwide? If I lose a chess match against the best player in the world, then I still get rated by that game. This comparison between an LoL or chess tournament exposes the rating system as the failure in the LoL.
Korillo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=DeathBurs7,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1AKe9frE,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2016-01-27T15:49:17.527+0000) > > That's not the issue. The issue is why bother playing 10 games outside the league/LP system if it won't really change what league your affected to in the end? Just make it 1 or 2 game and put me into that league already... It's a ranked reset. The idea is to start somewhat fresh in a new season. They used to do hard resets but that was far too unforgiving and was a total pain to balance early games, so they opted for a soft reset. If you were silver 3 you should have been in the 1290-1359ish mmr range. Let's say you were in the middle, so about 1325. The ranked reset would put you at (1325+1200) / 2 = 1263 mmr (so silver 4). You then play your 10 games to let the reset not hit you quite has hard as it would if you played 0 placement matches. If you went 7-3 your mmr should have increased slightly rather than dropped, so you should have been placed in silver 4, maybe silver 3. However, you were placed in Bronze 1 (1080-1149ish mmr). So it is likely that your mmr was lower than your season 5 ranking of silver 3. You likely had silver 5/bronze 1 mmr at the time, so that would be the reason you were placed back into bronze 1. If you only played 1 or 2 games, you likely would have dropped to bronze 2 - so I'm not sure you'd prefer that or not. But the idea is to have your season 6 rank reflect your mmr _**in season 6 (not season 5)**_, so that is why they do a soft reset and why you have to do placement matches.
You are still not comprehending what the op asked the devs. Also, the information you are trying to give here is inaccurate. That math equation is not what happened to all accounts.
: Well there was some racist slurs being slung about. I am sure that helped.
I am sure you have no idea how many reports you have incurred. Some players think it is funny to report the worst stat player on the team every game. You probably got many of those unwarranted reports. Those don't usually turn into an account action, but they remain as points against it.
: Good strawman quote to start off to make me seem clueless. I'm saying that people don't talk like that no matter where you go in the world if you say "America/American" people will assume you are talking about U.S.A before they assume you mean The Americas. If you want to specify one or the other you say "North America" or "The Americas" (I've literally only seen the latter mentioned in history books never in a conversation) People don't say it because they have some hidden political agenda to power up the federal government over the states (which, where have you been for 100 years? already happened...) They say "America" or "'Murica" because it is way shorter than saying "United States of America"
You can still find images of old maps that name the entire landmass as America. The added "s" at the end, Americas, is a way to reference the landmass in the context of continental theory. Yes, continents are still a theory, and the designation of "North" and "South" is an intentional directional division of the contiguous landmass named America. Just like the word "of" in United States of America is an intentional article of speech meant to convey inclusion of the United States in the location known as America. Part of the agenda of americanism is to use any willing nation(s) as a home base for externationalization operations. Maybe you will like this argument. We are all residents of dry land, because that is what our biology needs. We could all call ourselves Terrans; Terra being a name for dry land; and a political movement to unify the universe of dry land living beings could start in some random country, Mexico for instance. The state official media would begin calling all people Terrans, and the laws would start to incorporate the term in lieu of Mexican or citizen. Do you see how this goes further?
: "America describes **the whole continent**. North America is part of America" Obvious troll is obvious, but I'll bite. You tell me when we made the switch to six continents. No body in the world hears just the term America and immediately thinks of the entire western hemisphere. You never gonna ask some body about something happening in "America" and have the person try to guess where your talking about naming off a bunch of South American counties.
I do not know how old you are, or what grade you have completed, but you should talk to a historian about this. You're really hurting yourself here.
: you can dodge E?
I have to do it all the time, and I am immobile. signed, {{champion:4}}
Hay5eed (NA)
: Why can't we up the ban amount to 5 per team?
I have thought the same in the past. It didn't seem right that the first person in the queue should get three bans, while the rest have none. It seemed right that, if bans were to be spread across players, each player should have one ban. However, after considering what I would rather see happen in pro games, I think it would be best to do away with bans altogether. A pro should be able to play with or against any champion, and I want to see them play their absolute best. The argument against this is a what-if for a truly overpowered champion that wins the game for whichever teams gets it first, but the balancing team has proven that it can and will make, at least, one overpowered champion that exceeds the maximum ban limit. Additionally, it encourages the balancing team to create champions for the sole purpose of banning, and it lets them off the hook for mistakes.
: Your Support Is Not Expendable Garbage
I applaud you for trying, but you will not change their mind or behavior.
: "America describes the whole continent. North America is part of America" Lol wtf? North and South America are two separate continents. Who the fuck taught you there's only one continent in the western hemisphere?
> [{quoted}](name=YCitizenSnipsY,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=9vcile4V,comment-id=00000000000100000001,timestamp=2016-01-21T23:16:51.573+0000) > > "America describes the whole continent. North America is part of America" > > Lol wtf? North and South America are two separate continents. Who the fuck taught you there's only one continent in the western hemisphere? Who taught you that "America" refers to a continent, the U.S.A. school system? America refers to the landmass that separates the oceans in this hemisphere. The continent names are a science designation that theoretically separates the one land mass into North America and South America. Notice the "North" and "South" designations to differentiate the contiguous land mass. Sometimes this is further subdivided into regions, such as during prior war eras where it was (conceptually) delineated as North America, Central America, and South America. The more you know, the less you don't know. On a serious note, every person that calls themself American puts that identity above their national identity; mine being a United States **of** America citizen. The political insinuation is that the federal government of the U.S.A. actually presides as an American government, yet there is no such government. Be careful about which politics you support with imprecise words. The error of using imprecise words for the sake of brevity and simple communication is why the French say that "Americans" have lazy tongues. The French do not say that about United States of America citizens. Be aware of the difference.
Hellmet (NA)
: I tend to agree with the OP, it's boring watching teams with players who can't speak English, who we can't relate to at all. Where are the Brothers, the Mexicans, the Red Necks, the Yankees, the Cowboys, where are the people that define what North America is? Where is the character at in this league?
The op stated "American," not "North American."
: I'm aware of the strict definition I'm saying that no one does it because no one does and you are still being ridiculous.
>STILLNAME: "What does a dictionary matter?" The way you have implied that standardized definitions of words means nothing in discourse is an American idiosyncrasy. The controlling U.S.A. political bodies prefer that U.S. citizens represent themselves as Americans to further the americanist agenda, because the U.S.A. is the peddler of the ideology. Sadly, most U.S.A. citizens do not realize that americanism seeks to supplant the constitutional federal government of the U.S.A., not expand it. You side with the enemy, and you do not even realize it.
Treget (NA)
: I want more Americans in NA LCS
News flash, the term "Americans" includes anyone residing in America; a name originally referring to the land mass that blocked direct travel westward from Europe to India and Asia; currently called North America and South America. Was your intention to ask for more United States citizens, or American natives, or the historic native American cultures that have been marginalized and segregated into quasi-nation states by way of a series of broken faith treatises? News flash, americanism is a political idea that spawned the american exceptionalism theory, and that purposed that anyone who experienced a model America would become a believer in the ideology, such that an open invitation to the world's people would create a world of Americans. The doctrine intended to win the hearts and minds of the people, while using a dominant navy to present the big stick to ruling bodies abroad that would oppose such externationalization of the international populations. Because nationalization (or externationalization in this case) requires a nation state to which the patriotism is applied, the goal of Americanism was to unite the entire land mass, North America and South America, into a nation that monopolized this hemisphere of Earth. Are you still sure you are correctly asking for "good ole american folks," because that would include all the players in the LCS who have been exposed to the United States, which politically conforms with americanism, thus it is presumed their hearts and minds have been won over by the experience; aside the fact that they are considered American by their residency.
Show more


Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion