: I got banned for using a third party software, yet I never had one.
I'm not the most well versed in this stuff, but I think applications that have in game overlays are prohibited. Anything outside the game is fine, but overlays are not. I'd try to get confirmation about that though. Just in case, send a ticket explaining your situation and presenting evidence that a Riot employee actually made a statement about this particular application. The worst that happens is... nothing. You have already been banned, so trying to argue your case can't make the punishment worse. At best, the ban gets revoked and you get a warning if there is actually a problem.
: Avengers: Endgame had a budget of $356m and grossed $2.796B at the box office. That's $2.44B of profit with one sales avenue in a few months. Tomb Raider (2013) had a production cost of about $100m and sold 11 million copies by 2017. At $60 each, that's $660m. That's $560m of profit assuming no price drops ever, with every possible sales avenue, in four years. > When was the last time you spent $60 or more on a movie? I can't think of a single time I ever have. Games: * Buy a game or DLC and it's yours forever. Movies: * pay per viewing in a theater * DVD * Blu-Ray * streaming * special edition * ultimate edition * director's cut * deluxe edition * remaster * box set * anniversary edition * unrated version * widescreen version > And did you ever have to spend $400+ on a dvd or blueray player? I think not. * The first VCRs sold for about $1000. * The first DVD players sold for about $1000. * The first Blu-Ray player (Samsung BDP-1000) sold for $1000. * The PS3 was considered an inexpensive way to get a Blu-Ray player at $500. > And did you ever have to spend money for additional content (whether it's cosmetic or not) in a movie? No. When you buy a movie, you get EVERYTHING. See above for a description of all the extra content, formats, etc. for movies. And remember, each one involves buying the entire movie again. > The only reason games cost more is greed. Prove me wrong. Even games with one-time purchases are often updated regularly, with not only bug fixes but additional content. I have several games in my Steam library that I finished at one point but now have extra levels to play because the devs decided to create more content _and simply give it to me at no additional cost_. When a movie gets additional content, the closest you can get to real content is deleted scenes that were already made but simply excluded from the original release because they weren't good enough. Deleted scenes are even delivered in lower quality, too, because mastering that footage properly and editing it into the original cut is just too expensive, I guess. And it's always wrapped into a new "edition" which involves repurchasing the whole movie. Want to listen to director's commentary? Pay twenty bucks! Again! None of this $1.99 microtransaction stuff. Do you know how much Atari 2600 games cost? Some were $50-60, most were $30-40. Do you know how hard they were to produce? The infamous E.T. was made by _two people_ in _five weeks_. Of course, that was rushed, and the result was bad, but good games might have a team of half a dozen people working for several months. I remember paying $70 for Mortal Kombat 3 on the Genesis. AAA games nowadays involve hundreds of people working for years. And do you know how much they cost? $60. > Even when inflation is taken into account, Oof. Just $30 in 1979 is equivalent to $112 today. A $50 game? $187 today. MK3 for $70 in 1995? $119 today. Not only have prices not increased, they've plummeted. You're paying less than half of what you used to for a product that involves orders of magnitude more effort. If not for DLC, a lot of the modern games you love probably wouldn't have been approved for funding in the first place.
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1E9guOgb,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-10-13T00:28:19.393+0000) > > Avengers: Endgame had a budget of $356m and grossed $2.796B at the box office. That's $2.44B of profit with one sales avenue in a few months. > > Tomb Raider (2013) had a production cost of about $100m and sold 11 million copies by 2017. At $60 each, that's $660m. That's $560m of profit assuming no price drops ever, with every possible sales avenue, in four years. > > Games: > > * Buy a game or DLC and it's yours forever. > > Movies: > > * pay per viewing in a theater > * DVD > * Blu-Ray > * streaming > * special edition > * ultimate edition > * director's cut > * deluxe edition > * remaster > * box set > * anniversary edition > * unrated version > * widescreen version > > * The first VCRs sold for about $1000. > * The first DVD players sold for about $1000. > * The first Blu-Ray player (Samsung BDP-1000) sold for $1000. > * The PS3 was considered an inexpensive way to get a Blu-Ray player at $500. > > See above for a description of all the extra content, formats, etc. for movies. And remember, each one involves buying the entire movie again. > > Even games with one-time purchases are often updated regularly, with not only bug fixes but additional content. I have several games in my Steam library that I finished at one point but now have extra levels to play because the devs decided to create more content _and simply give it to me at no additional cost_. > > When a movie gets additional content, the closest you can get to real content is deleted scenes that were already made but simply excluded from the original release because they weren't good enough. Deleted scenes are even delivered in lower quality, too, because mastering that footage properly and editing it into the original cut is just too expensive, I guess. And it's always wrapped into a new "edition" which involves repurchasing the whole movie. Want to listen to director's commentary? Pay twenty bucks! Again! None of this $1.99 microtransaction stuff. > > Do you know how much Atari 2600 games cost? Some were $50-60, most were $30-40. Do you know how hard they were to produce? The infamous E.T. was made by _two people_ in _five weeks_. Of course, that was rushed, and the result was bad, but good games might have a team of half a dozen people working for several months. > > I remember paying $70 for Mortal Kombat 3 on the Genesis. > > AAA games nowadays involve hundreds of people working for years. And do you know how much they cost? $60. > > Oof. Just $30 in 1979 is equivalent to $112 today. A $50 game? $187 today. MK3 for $70 in 1995? $119 today. Not only have prices not increased, they've plummeted. You're paying less than half of what you used to for a product that involves orders of magnitude more effort. If not for DLC, a lot of the modern games you love probably wouldn't have been approved for funding in the first place. All of this is very true, and I'm glad someone pointed it out. But I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate and take the other side for a second: While games are cheaper than they have ever been, games are also more mainstream than they have ever been, and practices to increase profits have gotten very shady - the most egregious example would be on-disc DLC, content that is actually in the code of the base game, but you have to pay extra to access it. Microtransactions have also gotten much worse, because people that don't pay attention to games tend to not think about it as they spend money - sometimes for things that are available just by playing - and as a result games have sometimes been modeled to influence this. There are games out there that encourage spending more just to do what you want in them, or not put in as much effort. As for cost of production, this is somewhat skewed. We hear a lot about how 'games are expensive to make' from big companies who throw MILLIONS into advertising games, and then the games are broken messes because the money that could have been used to higher more people, or to improve upon the engine were thrown at shoving the game down your throat. Not to say it is BAD to advertise, but there are times it feels like that is the main cost sink. I feel like cost of development is inflated simply because the people in charge of these projects make poor decisions rather than being truly high cost. Note: I'm not saying game development is cheap. I'm just saying that it feels like it is overstated simply because of bad money management. Again, I agree with your points, but I think it is also fair to note that there are cases that pop up more frequently than they should where publishers and devs (usually publishers) try to get away with nickle and diming customers. DLC is not inherently bad. Hell, even microtransactions aren't inherently bad. But they can be done in a way that leaves a VERY sour taste in consumer's mouths.
: Cho'Gath will kill them if they are with that range because its an execute like Pyke. Garen and Darius don't have flat out execute damage, it's just raw damage.
Cho Gath's ult is NOT an execute. It seems like it is due to how instantaneous it is, and the fact that it deals true damage, but Cho's ult deals the same damage no matter how much health the opponent has left.
: So what about cho?
I think the difference is that Cho's doesn't scale off anything outside of Cho's level and stats. Both Darius and Garen have some outside source of damage increase (Darius gets more damage based on his passive, and Garen gets more based on the enemy's missing health.) Also, for Darius in particular there is a reset upon successfully killing with it. Not having an indicator like Cho'Gath means you have to work more for the reset. Garen might get something, though I don't think Darius will due to the reset he gets.
ApexEtsu (EUW)
: I can't get revard for quest watch matches
Yeah, I haven't gotten it either, and I caught UOL vs CG live. The rewards page even says I watched a game, but I have gotten nothing.
: for the sake of your "thouroughness" its important to note that Heimer maxes W first now due to the changes to his turrets a few months ago making it unnecessary to max Q first since it no longer affects your number of turrets and the damage was moved to the ratio.
I was actually mostly unaware of this. I didn't play for most of seasons 6 and all of season 7, so my knowledge on builds and skill-paths are outdated at best. But I'll still keep to my example since it isn't totally wrong. Just not likely. lol Thanks for that though.
Terchio (NA)
: As much as I hate a gutting, he was already overly safe without using any of his ultimates. That turret was supposed to be the DPS option of the 3, but it had a pretty heavy amount of burst tied to it. I'm not convinced this is the right move, but maybe now the turrets will occasionally focus minions instead of those minions being blown completely away by a single beam. And don't exaggerate on the half thing. Those stupid beams stack up to be impossible to micromanage, with the big one being a strong spell in damage, and I have 2 other skills to dodge on top of it, else basically a double kill for you. It's only the one beam attack that's already the hardest to avoid, but still dodgeable unlike all those regular turret shots. For reference: Regular Turrets: Auto damage: 6 / 9 / 12 / 15 / 18 (+ 30% AP) Beam damage: 40 / 60 / 80 / 100 / 120 (+ 55% AP) Ultimate Turret: Auto damage: 80 / 100 / 120 (+ 30% AP) (!!!) Beam damage: 100 / 140 / 180 (+ 70% AP) Basically, regular turret autos might as well pinch, and regular beam shots are quite strong burst, but that ultimate gets to whap a full homing beam's worth of damage every second ish (Big guy also has higher attack speed). If I were to nerf anything, it would be the autoattack damage of that beefy monstrosity, but at least this is a step in the right direction. If you want 340 base damage beams on Heimer, they need to be brought down to Fed-Cho-sized beams.
I actually agress with you as far as what needed to be nerfed. I'd personally argue the beam nerf went too far (I think 33% would have been safer, and if that still caused issues hotfix it for 50%). Nerf the regular attacks of those turrets, and scale that nerf on the beam back a tiny bit. The beam is a skill shot after all, and as much as you do have other abilities to dodge, it still has a chance of missing just because you are already dodging. Having it hit should be something that actually matters a bit - but not so much that it is going to win the fight on its own. 140/170/200 maybe. Make the level 1 actually mean something, but don't have it too high. And again, if that proves to be too much, scale it back then. I don't know though. Just my personal thoughts on the matter.
: First of all buddy, if you read the patch notes it's only the beam damage, not the entirety of the RQ, second of all if you read dev thoughts yi and trynd are probably getting buffs soon specifically because of the changes and Meddler also said they might consider follow up buffs depending on the impact of this nerf, so that's just you getting shit on because you can't escape a yi with highlander as an immobile champ. Third of all I can show you at least 5 clips of Heimer winning any sort of lane gank by pressing R + Q + Zhonyas, and if you yourself never had success with him on the level of high elo dongers that's just you. He was one of the more oppressive top laners along with "Tank Teemo" in the pre season meta. And you can ask any high elo top laner about it, I think Hashinshin talked about it for like 5mins in a video. Teemo got follow up nerfs for that. This change was talked about for ages before December break, so if you don't understand why this nerf came spare me the whining just because you're salty.
The nerf seems a tad excessive though. I'd understand a 25% damage decrease, or hell, 33%. But at level one it is cut in half. The beam is supposed to be the big shot from the turrets, but at 100 damage it is practically the same as a normal shot - 80 damage + 30% AP scaling. In comparison, the normal turrets by that point - assuming you are leveling Q first for the sake of the example - deal 12 + 30% AP Scaling with their normal attacks... and 80 + 55% AP Scaling with the beam. Granted, they don't get the beam as often, but the point is that the beam now hardly matters at level 1, and is still negligible at later levels, when champs have more health and magic resist - potentially - to survive against the turrets. I'm not arguing against the nerf, I'm simply arguing against the scale of the nerf. I agree that it needed something done to it, but there is such thing as overdoing it. Edit: And yes, I am wasting my time looking up these numbers as I typed this out. If I'm going to argue something, I'm going to argue with ALL the facts, rather than just throwing out arguments with nothing to back them. I tend to be a bit too thorough about that stuff at times.
: I have not seen Yi much, IF at all. Maybe in theory Press the Attack would be strong on him in a similar case to Shyvana, but less reliable because of how his own double auto works. However, Heimer has been a nuisance for a LONG time. Now, with Keystones like Comet, Heimer was just pushed a bit over the edge (if he wasn't already). Poke champions and tanks are ruling Top Lane right now and leaving fighters in the dust. Nerfing Heimer (albeit not enough of a nerf) is a step towards balancing Top Lane.
Agreed, but the nerf does seem a bit... excessive. I mean, that level 1 ult turret had it's beam damage LITERALLY cut in half.
: Patch 8.1 notes
This seems really small, and not targeting things that are being abused. I've heard Overheal is being abused. And Kleptomancy Ezreal is quite annoying, since he can proc it with his Q at more than double his attack range (I realize that is also the case for many melee champs, but they are melee. Even tripling their range only puts them on par with ranged carries.) And even as an Illaoi main, I have to question if keeping the interaction with Kleptomancy and her E is healthy for the top-lane meta. I'm hardly a good player, so I'd understand if people ignored me cause I am not at a good ELO, but I don't feel that I am wrong to point this all out. It really feels like some of this patch is just... misguided. Or in the case of the Heimer nerf, excessive. Say what you will, but that damage was cut in half at level 1, and is close enough to half at levels 2 and 3.
: >Nidalee's Cougar Q - Takedown no longer damages enemies if its empowered attack is dodged Had a game where I was playing Jax and actually got killed by a Nidalee Cougar Q while I was dodging. Went "wtf how" in all chat and everyone is like "that's intended" and "that's how it works". Patch Notes bugfixes vindicate me yet again. Renekton W penetrating through Jax dodge still needs to be fixed though...
I believe there are a few auto-attack enhancing abilities that still hit through Jax's dodge, unless they've fixed more over the last year - I have been inactive for all of season 7, so I barely know anymore. Renekton W shouldn't though... That does indeed need to be fixed.
bT Tb (NA)
: So honestly not being toxic, I'm generally curious: What is appealing about a champion like Heimerdinger (or Ziggs, or even Teemo)? Why would you want to one trick that champion? Mousy, ranged poke, harass type champions I could never relate with. Maybe it's my inner Bruiser being salty about the lane matchup. Just curious, sorry for the nerf. {{sticker:darius-angry}}
I'm hardly a great player, so I may not share the exact answers others will give, but I'll try to offer something meaningful here. Heimer: As much as the turrets may seem boring, the unique way you play around them actually makes them quite fun. They set-up a sort of zone you control to an extent, and allow you to observe movements from a distance, waiting to fire your W. Ziggs: This feel almost the same, but more based on forcing your opponent to move rather than controlling an area. His bombs do decent damage - his Q in particular can hurt, and has a small area of effect - so the opponent has to be aware of his abilities. On top of that, they added the W's ability to destroy turrets at 25-35% health (dependent on W level). Teemo: Teemo is toxic, just like the people playing him. ... ok, jokes aside, Teemo offers a sort of annoying style of control play as well, controlling your opponents attacks and movements around the map. His Q has that blind, which makes all auto attacks miss, and his R sets up trap zones that opponents need to be paranoid about. So in a sense, he controls the ways his opponents play. It is hardly a healthy style of play, but it does have its perks. So... for all three, it is about control. Control the lane, control positioning, or control the opponent. That's just for the champs you named here. The Heimer nerf was honestly a little excessive though. They almost halved the damage of his R+Q beam.
: When people tell you to make realistic pickems
I feel mine are realistic. I drafted knowing how unlikely it was I'd get any right. ... then I got SSG right and almost Misfits. XD If you take it too seriously, all the fun of watching worlds is just lost. I'll cheer on C9 and Fnatic, even if I don't actually think they'll make it all the way. I'd love it if C9 did though. It would be awesome. Besides, who really cares. At this point, everyone is complaining that they have no chance at a perfect draft anyways. So at that point it really doesn't matter what they picked. That chance is lost : P
: I've tried it as Karma against doombots. As far as I can tell, it's not worth wasting it to stack it up since it gets stacked up so quickly anyway and she's pretty well gated by mana. Use once at level 1 in the fountain, then just play normally and you'll stack it up really fast. It's level 11/16 with morello's+CDR boots+the 5% mastery that it starts to get ridiculous - land a multi-person R-Q and it's already almost up, and in scrappy, extended teamfights where she can keep using w and landing qs and Rqs she gets so many off...
Really quickly in this, I want to ask - did you use an ability every time you used Mantra? It goes onto cooldown on cast of Mantra, so you technically don't have to use any mana for it.
: Well let's see: 1. Challenger to Worlds in a year. 2nd seed at that. 2. Expected to be knocked out of Groups with maybe a hiccup of a fight or two. Reality they held their own and went beyond that. 3. Taking a SKT expected to have turned on come playoffs to the full 5 playing even with or an advantage in the majority of the games. For a Western team - given Western team reputations not named Fnatic - that's quite a big deal for an upstart team. At least they didn't go home 0-6 and Total Losers like most thought. But if results is all that matters then that makes your very blind to the road they had to get here. And that's what the praise is for.
I know you mentioned the fact that they went from Challenger to Worlds in a year... but lets highlight that fact. They came from challenger, took 2nd seed, made it through groups when people expected them to get booted out there, and then took SKT to game point with 2 games where they set the pace of the game with all their vision control around Baron AND their readiness to jump right off of Baron to take down any SKT members that got too close too fast. Faker even fell during at least one of these, and used everything to try to escape. They had Faker - the guy everyone claims to be the best player in the world (I'm not saying he isn't, just think saying that makes him seem like more than he is sometimes. Even he makes mistakes after all) - looking tilted at many points.
Barkley (NA)
: Don't particularly like stomps. Would rather see a highly strategic back and forth knock down drag out brawl.
I'd say Game 5 for the MSF vs SKT game would work for that then. The entire series - except maybe games 1 and 2, were fairly back and forth. Games 3 and 5 don't show that as much with the gold leads, as the side that won had the gold lead through the majority of each of those games, but they were still fighting tooth and nail. Game 4 was actually the only one where the gold lead changed several times, so it is a little more obvious that there was a lot of ups and downs for both teams.
Paroe (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gen Nakazora,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fX4TgIya,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-10-20T21:03:40.397+0000) > > That is awesome, but I'm actually more worried about the early game. ... and by that I mean the beginning 5 minutes or so. I mentioned it in my edit to some degree, but Karma can get all 5 stacks for that rune and have it back up at 3:01... without counting any cooldown reduction from anything but runes. Add in Ancient Coin's extra 5% at level 1, and you can cut off about 10 seconds of that. That means around - and maybe even before - the time anyone in bot lane reaches level 3, you have that stacked up. And the cooldown at that point is 32.13. Almost 10 seconds off your level 1 mantra, which gives you so much damage on your Q for those early level trades. 105 base without the AOE detonation, .9 AP scaling without the AOE detonation, and if you add it in... 155 with 1.5 AP scaling. You get some AP from the runes as well, plus any extra damage you may gain from those runes on top of that. That is devastating early game. You could test it yourself, cant you? PBE is open to everyone - as long as you qualify.
Right now I am unable to for various reasons. You aren't wrong though, I definitely could once I find the time for it, and get my computer and internet just a little more stable. That's kind of why I asked, rather than just dive right in there. lol Plus, it does seem like it might have brought this possibility to light a little bit more. I'm sure others have thought about it too after all. I highly doubt I am the first.
Metleon (NA)
: Late game, it looks like you could get her mantra cooldown to 14.4 seconds with max item cdr and the extra 5% from the rune. This means you could use an empowered q and a w and get your mantra right back.
That is awesome, but I'm actually more worried about the early game. ... and by that I mean the beginning 5 minutes or so. I mentioned it in my edit to some degree, but Karma can get all 5 stacks for that rune and have it back up at 3:01... without counting any cooldown reduction from anything but runes. Add in Ancient Coin's extra 5% at level 1, and you can cut off about 10 seconds of that. That means around - and maybe even before - the time anyone in bot lane reaches level 3, you have that stacked up. And the cooldown at that point is 32.13. Almost 10 seconds off your level 1 mantra, which gives you so much damage on your Q for those early level trades. 105 base without the AOE detonation, .9 AP scaling without the AOE detonation, and if you add it in... 155 with 1.5 AP scaling. You get some AP from the runes as well, plus any extra damage you may gain from those runes on top of that. That is devastating early game.
Eggbread (NA)
: {{champion:43}} is the only one Im worried about out of the ones you named. With the others, it wouldn't matter too much and would likely just reduce their 1 second cool down transform cool down to 0.45 seconds max (0.4 with another rune). It does actually work on Karma last time I tested it by the way. Udyr doesn't have an ultimate, so it's completely useless on him.
I expected as much with Udyr, and I agree, the others hardly make a big impact on their cooldowns, but I just thought to ask on principle. Who knows, maybe having the ability to change forms that TINY bit faster on Elise will work for better cocoon combos. Or maybe Jayce will be able to speed through lanes that much faster with the extra movespeed from being able to transform just that tiny bit faster. It isn't huge, like Karma would be, but it isn't totally pointless. Plus, I'm just generally curious about stuff like that.
: The Unfortunate Truth About this G5
It was hardly for nothing. They were heavily the underdogs, and weren't expected to get even one game. They may not have won, but they proved they were capable. And listening to the interview they had with Ignar at the end there, I think they feel that way. This isn't a loss. They have every reason to be happy, because they put that doubt in people's minds. They had people thinking SKT would lose! And they controlled the pace in all but that first game! So... no, it does not mean nothing. Far from it.
: it even more so felt like, except game one, these were misfits game to throw, rather then SKT usual domination
I would even argue they didn't throw the series. They made mistakes, but they were really pushing SKT even while behind. SKT outplayed them in the end, and they won because of that. But you are right, except for game 1, Misfits were dominant. THIS IS WHY I WANTED TO WATCH WORLDS!!! WOOOOOO!
: Even more that that. They had real control of the situation and they did execute really well if not for some mistakes (that SKT charged in after because they couldn't afford not to fully capitalize over them). I think MSF have been one of the best teams we've seen in a lot of Worlds right now.
I agree completely. They were really setting the pace in a good majority of those games. They had some missteps, but everyone does. SKT had a ton as well, thus they came that close. Seriously, I hope people don't try to start getting cocky about this, because honestly... Misfits won even though they didn't beat SKT. They surpassed everyone's expectations. That alone was a massive victory.
: MSF Appreciation Thread
Well, didn't eliminate SKT, but this was an amazing series. This is not a defeat. This was their victory. They didn't need to win. They pushed SKT despite having such low chances of winning. They were fun to watch, and they deserve to walk out feeling proud.
Rioter Comments
: MSF Appreciation Thread
Win or lose, this is unprecedented. A western team taking SKT to game 5? I don't think anyone expected that. This is already amazing. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping they can pull back and find their groove again in this last game. I'd love to see that upset. It isn't about disliking SKT. It is about liking Misfits more. : D They deserve any praise they get from this.
: Looks like the other 98% are reading this and laughing.
Really? Cause I was under the impression most of them thought it would be a sweep. lol It is down to the last game... and it is a EU team that took SKT to that point. This is hardly a failure for Misfits even if they lose.
: 2% 2 freaking %
EXACTLY! Underdog stories are amazing! And this might be one of those. If it does... then anything is possible!
Skorch (NA)
: When you dont know who you want to win.
I feel like the odd one out saying that so far everything is going as I predicted... and I didn't care. I drafted for underdog wins. And this series alone can change a LOT. Kicking out the reigning champs in QUARTER FINALS of all things!!! I can't wait to see how this plays out!
Yseman (EUW)
: EU underdogs is cracking the king SKT ! Faker will not sleep tonight !
He's not the only one. XD This series is so intense! I can't sleep knowing that this could be history in the making. Hell... it already is. This is still amazing.
AdanYEva (NA)
: FINALLY! SKT OUT OF FKN WORLDS, GO F URSELF SKT
Hasn't happened yet. It is going really well, but lets not jinx it.
: this is actually a pretty good point. on some champs(elise, udyr, nid) i dont see it as a big deal. their cds are already super low with karma it could be a problem early game, already having her ult-q makes early game damage pretty nasty, and now she gets 15% cd bonus cd off of it even before other champs hit 6? the simple solution is to make it not apply until lv 6, or when you apply 1 point into it. the question is whether or not it actually is important enough to address. it might not be
I was actually doing the math on it. If you use Mantra at 0:00, so go lightning quick and use that ult immediately, you can use it 3 times before the 2 minute mark. Minions reach bot lane around 1:45ish. You can have Mantra back up after 3 uses by 1:49, give or take 2 seconds. That means as the minions start hitting each other, you'll have 11% on the Ultimate Hat, which puts Mantra at 35.5 seconds (only adding in the 5% from Cosmic Insight. No other source is being considered for these calculations for the sake of accuracy across multiple scenarios.) That's almost 7 seconds off, and using it again after that will just bump it down further. Getting 5 uses before 4 minutes in seems entirely possible. Edit: Yeah, I was off by about 2 seconds on that. So, at 1:51 you have mantra for it's 4th use, and the first one available in lane with this scenario. In other words, before 2 minutes you can have 4 of the 5 stacks for Ultimate Hat. And that is reasonable.
Rioter Comments
Takito (NA)
: No, only 1 person is still in because the others didn't have a perfect group stage...
Leaving this as a separate comment from my last... but it looks like there is no perfect draft. If i am actually looking at the person on the top of the leader board, and reading correctly... one of the groups it says he got 10 of 16 points. I'd imagine that means something got predicted wrong. Maybe which team got which seed? I am not sure, I didn't get around in time to even see the scoring for groups. But Group B is the group in question. Edit: Ok, the rules does have the scoring for groups, I must just be blind. Yeah, they messed up which place Immortals and Gigabyte Marines took. So they lost 4 points for that, and 2 for not getting the entire group perfect. I don't know if I am actually looking at the right person though, so I'm not going to state this as fact. I just saw this and wanted to point out what I had seen, if nothing else.
MysterQ (NA)
: No doubt. Although, some of these organizations are completely new and have only recently started growing due to their financial model attracting people. And there are still plenty of free entries that also give large prizes. I am not asking for millions in prizes. I said 1 skin to the top 16. Not even a new skin (although that would be cool). I may not even be top16, I certainly am not right now. But it would give people more to play for, more to watch for, more reason to care for a Korean esports final. $10skinx16 = $160, that will not break Riot's bank. Even if 1000 people won the "grand prize" (impossible), that is 12,000. A lot of money no doubt... not even 0.0026% of (part of the) profit from Championship Ashe. It is laughable that all these people are calling this a big prize. And again, I am not asking for a bigger prize. I would be ecstatic to win the 4 ultimate skins. But ask ANYONE and it is reasonable to say no one is going to create a perfect draft. It isn't a real prize because Riot isn't taking any risk on. They should just give guaranteed smaller prizes to people.
I do not disagree with you there. They could do more and still not have much financial backlash. Even offering the full prize to the top 16 (I'd probably still set a cutoff in terms of points though, just in case. Can't make it TOO easy : D That is not as fun.) would be quite easy for them. And I'm sure a lot more people would be excited to jump on that chance. I personally enjoy the gamble of it all, but can't actually gamble anything on it anyway (kinda live in a state that doing so is highly illegal in. hahaha). I know I would never win, and I picked in a way that if I even get 2 correct I will laugh my ass off. But it is all about the joy of seeing how good or bad your predictions were, and something anyone can enjoy.
MysterQ (NA)
: It is not supposed to be possible at all. It is literally a rigged contest.
Not 'rigged' per se, nor impossible. Breaking it down, you'd have (My numbers are under the assumption that every team has equal chance, which is not accurate. There would be no hard number to put for individual teams chances though, so making it even between them is the best way to go for this argument): 1 in 4 chance on every first seed for groups, or 1 in 258 for all four top seeds. Same for second seed (since you can't determine who is first seed beforehand with this argument, you have to count all four teams still), meaning perfect guesses in groups are 1 in 65,536 chance. Now, counting Knockout separate to start out, you have a 1 in 2 chance for any single team to make it to semifinals, so 1 in 16. (Again, this is not even considering who the teams are, or how good they look. This is simply flat chances for all teams for the sake of argument only.) Semifinals are 1 in 4 chance, making it 1 in 64 so far. Finals adds the last bit, putting us at 1 in 128 for Knockouts - a much less daunting number. To finish off the argument, we just combine the two, giving us a 1 in 8,388,608 chance for a perfect draft. So... you are actually more likely to draft correctly - even without paying any attention - than winning the lottery. Of course, with sports, even eSports, you have estimated odds for each individual team, making this number higher or lower depending on who you pick - in theory. Remember, they are always ESTIMATED odds. Odds don't decide winners. Winners decide winners. I know this might seem unneeded, but I more just wanted to point out, yes, it is possible. Just very, very unlikely. lol Still, I'd rather take my chances on this than the lottery. It is almost twice as unlikely to win the lottery (closer to 1.6 times from what I'm calculating.)
MysterQ (NA)
: There are plenty of free drafts in other sports, that offer MILLIONS in prizes. Of course an insane prize to the impossible perfect, but also prizes to the top 16 and such.
Alright, here is my counter-argument to that, cause that is a valid point. What organizations are hosting those free drafts? I'd imagine organizations that have the money to do such things. Riot may be a big name now, but they still aren't as financially successful as a lot of these organizations that do offer millions in their drafts - likely because they have many more years of success, more coverage and sponsorships, and a bigger audience.
MysterQ (NA)
: Wolf himself literally said We are in top form, stop saying we aren't. (Granted noone badmouths their team to PR).
We'll see that next, huh? I expect they'll win, but I still hope for another big upset. I really like underdog stories, and that would be the biggest you are going to get, even if Misfits then lose to whoever wins between RNG and Fnatic. SKT losing in quarter finals would blow expectations out of the water, and open up for almost any team to make it. Again, I expect SKT will win, but it is fun to imagine the possibilities. : D
Takito (NA)
: No, only 1 person is still in because the others didn't have a perfect group stage...
I actually realized that long after I made my comment. Sorry about that. My view only had the Knockout stage, cause I found out about Pick'em halfway into groups. lol I actually didn't realize you needed both to be perfect. That is... a little steep to be honest, but meh. It's not supposed to be easy anyways
: There goes my pick'ems. At least I still have a small chance of getting the SKT finals right. This is what I was worrying about in the quarter finals. I figured there'd be at least 1 upset in this round.
FULL FOUR TEAM UPSET! LETS GO! ... lol nah, but you are probably right. Though if the analysts are correct, Misfits has a chance if they can close out the games early, and SKT is still not in top form. But I'm doubting it.
: Ewww that could've been me but my "Nicer logos win" strategy wasn't so hot in the first stage. Did help me now tho.
Hey, better than me - even with guessing Samsung correctly. I found out about it too late, since I only just started following the competitive LoL scene in any fashion recently. I didn't even know that Pick'em was a thing until after groups started, so... I have 5 points, cause I started late : D
: Id be interested in split based pickems that have the opportunity or even placing bets with an over/under on games with ip. Granted I know the bets would probably be out of the question because of laws/esrb ratings.
Yeah... Laws are different anywhere you go. Even in the US it varies from state to state. The state I live in, it is totally illegal to gamble actual money on things like sports drafts - even if it is online. I've tried small things with Lol just to see if I could get lucky, but as soon as money is involved I am locked out. The only gambling here is either lottery and scratch cards, or going to the Native American reservations that have casinos and doing it there.
Miror B (NA)
: And with that LZ loss, only one person is currently still "in" for the skins. While I do agree that challenge needs to be involved, the fact they aren't doing "pick'ems" with regional games bugs me a bit as they could make it actually entertaining. Perhaps have weekly leaderboards across all regions, and have split-based icon/ward rewards should you hit certain "milestones". They could even make it "kid-friendly" by not including any cash-related stuff.
Well, from what I'm seeing in pick'em, it says about 17% of players who guessed are still in. Kind of surprising when you see this explosion of backlash over an upset like this. lol ... of course, this is coming from someone who didn't care about it and picked Samsung because they were the underdogs. I am not expecting to guess them all right, let along all of the Quarter Finals matches. This was just sort of a pleasant surprise for me that my support of the underdogs isn't totally wasted.
: Annnnnnnd this is why Pick'em should be done round-by-round in Knockout Stage.
Its not how it works though. It is a free contest that could be thrown off by anything. You have 7 rounds to guess, each with (in theory) 50% chance. Obviously it isn't actually 50%, but lets just go with that for the moment. 1 in 2 chance. That still means getting all of them right is a 1 in 128 chance, less than a 1% chance. And that is giving each team that fair 50%. As I said, obviously it isn't 50%. Teams like LZ and SKT have (or had in LZ's case) much higher chances. And that is supposed to be the point. These sorts of things aren't meant for you to get them right. If they were easy there would be no prize at all. People can say the $120 prize in skins is 'too little,' but unlike some drafts, this is a free contest. It is still designed so people are not supposed to win though.
: Well its just that mentality man I am sure C9 would have lost the tiebreaker 75% just because the fears of NA week 2 will be hanging in back of their minds that,said yes I think C9 deserves the spot just like FNC even tho EDG and GAM almost made it.I kinda love C9 just because they do have a world class top and mid,other roles are debatable but they did look the best from all NA teams so if they beat WE that itself would be a little redemption for NA which hopefully they will at least try. EDG always are potential contenders but just like TSM they under perform especially in the clutch bo5 series and kinda choke.(note:I said like TSM just because they both are super dominant in their own regions yet under perform when it comes to international events even tho TSM mostly don't get out of groups itself LuL)
I can get behind that reasoning, even if I don't quite agree myself. My only issue is that people are saying C9 was saved as if it was absolute that they would have lost. But even your reasoning gave them 25% chance. Sure, that is still in EDG's favor, but that is not 0% :D As for TSM... yeah, I kinda noticed they do that. I'm not a fan of them personally, so I didn't watch all their games, but I did catch the final Flash Wolves game against TSM, just because. Flash Wolves had nothing to gain or lose no matter how that game went, so it sort of speaks poorly of a team that has some 'top tier' players to lose when they had a lot riding on it. You could say it is pressure though, for the exact same reasons I mentioned. Flash Wolves had no pressure, TSM had a lot. Had they won, they would have at least had a tiebreaker round with Misfits right after they got beat by them. What makes the loss against Flash Wolves more disruptive for them was HOW they lost. It wasn't a come-from behind victory. Misfits was ahead for all but maybe 2 minutes of that game, TSM got no towers, and lost with a 15K gold deficit at the end - which was less than 25 minutes into the game. I'm sorry if I seem to critical, but again... Flash Wolves had NOTHING riding on that game. Maybe a bit of pride, but they were already out. I really don't mean to be over-critical with this, it just baffles me. If they are the 'best team in NA,' why did they seemingly cave under the pressure so easily? ... anyway, I'll stop with my rant on TSM. EDG... yeah, they had a lot of potential, but, even though I don't personally know their history with best of 5 games, the did seem in general to need a little more improvement. They have a great foundation, great players, and they work together pretty smoothly. They just weren't quite there this year. I don't know about their past performances, since I only started to watch competitive this year, but this Group Stage has me really thinking they could make it further next year if they practice at overcoming their weaknesses. I like them : D GAM was fun to watch too, but I don't quite think they were ready to make it that far. They were praised by the analysts and casters for their odd strategies, but after the performance against immortals... they started to play very normally. That was not their strong point, and I think it worked against them a bit. That's just my opinion though.
Hellmet (NA)
: Exactly, they should get rid of the current imports all together. If you want to build a franchise in the America you need to do it with... wait for it.... Americans. I hate the fact that most of these teams can't even communicate in English.. or that the damn coach can barely speak it.
Well... English or French or Spanish (It is NA, not US. Mexico and Canada still count as North America. North America =/= USA) That said, imports feel like they should be a little less common for the sake of communication... but it also helps the players learn these different languages a bit. It isn't quick, but it is something they might be striving to do. What better way to do that than to dive right in. Sure, it would be hard at first, but that's why you don't dive in right before a big competition. lol That just screws up everything.
: I thought i was aggressive putting C9 in semi finals with an upset win over WE. SSG could best LZ as Korea was a fairly competitive region this year, but Longzhu is definitely the favorite. C9 should have a near 0 chance at winning that semifinal. If it's SSG they might have a non-zero chance but it's still quite low. If they make the final, SKT or RNG should both destroy them. There's no way fnatic or misfits makes the final... Basically i give C9 maybe 10% to beat WE. I give SSG maybe 25% to beat LZ, and C9 maybe 10% to beat SSG, 0 to beat Longzhu. I give fnatic and misfits near 0 to make the final, and C9 near 0 to beat the other two potential finalists. I actually put RNG to beat SKT based on current play (even though SKT is almost certain to show up bigger in knockout rounds) but i don't see C9 standing a chance there even if they somehow beat SSG in semis. So around 0.25% chance at C9 making finals. Maybe 1 in a billion that they win it all.
Actually, that is higher than some may expect. That is only 1 in 400 chance. lol But, I'm also a person that doesn't believe in 0% chances with things like this. Sure, the odds are VERY low for Misfits or Fnatic to make it far, but sometimes it just takes one slip up. So... 1 in 10,000 might be fair. lol That extra .01% is just to account for human error. : P
: Even though WE had the edge, I can see C9 pulling the win. I don’t see that vs LZ
> [{quoted}](name=xJLx MCHammer,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=dAnGn34b,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-10-16T21:33:47.598+0000) > > Even though WE had the edge, I can see C9 pulling the win. I don’t see that vs LZ What about, if by some miracle, Samsung beats LZ? Do you think they have a snowballs chance then? ... being legitimate with this question, cause I only just started watching competitive League, and haven't really had time to look into the Korean or Chinese teams very much.
: Who's going to win Worlds
Voting Fnatic here, even if I don't actually think it will happen. It is my wish though, because after just barely making it out of the Groups stage, that would be quite the underdog story. That said, I'm a C9 fan, so I kind of want to see them make it, as unlikely as it is. In reality though, SKT or LZ are the most likely.
: C9 does make it out but I don't know how far they will go, the thing what I feel really bad is why NA choking harder than even sometimes wildcard region , I mean even GAM would have made it out if they didn't lose steam after that amazing game with LZ. C9 again was saved by SKT and their incredible late game team fighting ability. EDG kinda deserved the place more in my opinion.Coming to FNC,I think they have a real good chance at least as far as western teams go, sadly MF ran into SKT and C9 tho has WE in their corner still don't know how it goes.But for now what it seems is we will have KR vs CHN semifinals on both ends as both RNG and WE look stronger.
People keep saying C9 was 'saved' but that is hardly the case. They would have still been in the running for second seed either way, they would have just needed to beat EDG in the tiebreaker. And they had both beaten the other once before that in group stage. So... there was no guarantee that either would win over the other. So... no, they weren't saved. They just didn't have to worry about doing another round and potentially losing. That said, I do agree that EDG did really well. I would not say they 'deserved' a spot in the quarter finals, but in my opinion no team 'deserves' anything - no matter who they are, what they have done, or what history they have. They earn it. And sometimes the challenges they have to overcome are very difficult. EDG had 2 big challenges that made their loss concrete. Their 0-3 in week 1, and facing SKT. They did EXTREMELY well, but they did not overcome those challenges in the end. C9 had less challenges, but still had to work for their spot all the same. SKT had far less difficult challenges throughout, and they overcame them - though their loss against AHQ had potential to even put their advancement in question. (Edit: I'd like to clarify on that last point, as I am not saying 'SKT should have lost' or anything crazy like that. I have nothing against them. I'm saying that that one loss put them in a position where - if the worst happened - even they, with their 3-0 showing the first week, could have been booted. AHQ was the only team they had to beat to prevent even doubt of this from forming... and they lost, putting AHQ at 2-2 with 2 games left, and them at 3-1. If SKT lost all their games - which I'd say was possible if they didn't keep their heads together so well after such a shocking defeat - then C9 would have only needed to beat EDG, and AHQ needed to sweep that week. With that, AHQ and C9 would tie for first seed with 4-2. This all sounds stupid, but it is all hypothetical, and just sort of a show of what the worst case for SKT could have been if all the cards played out against them. ... they didn't though, so all of this is simply idle talk.) I'm going to be a fan of EDG from this point on though, cause I really like how they played, and how well they worked together - especially when you consider iBoy is new to the scene, and the youngest player that made it to group stage, since he was literally just old enough to come into the competitive scene, if what the analysts said is true. That speaks really well of them. And I think next year, with practice to help correct their weaknesses, they could do much better. This second week in groups showed that. So, I'll be cheering for them to make it into Worlds again, and to push further.
: did you notice that they were already lined up in the way the draw went? Its like it was scripted or know before hand.
Well... there was only a 25% chance that they would be lined up wrong after the initial draws for the first seed teams. There were only 2 teams any one of the second seed teams could not face, since they could not face the team from their group, or be in the same half of the bracket as them. It's not scripted, it is just that it is really easy to see what match-ups were possible.
Show more

Gen Nakazora

Level 55 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion