: Lategame Shaco boxes and can oneshot an ADC. I had a Xayah at 80% HP die to one Shaco box.
You realize nothing about boxes has changed in regards to single-targets, right? It's always been this way--the damage, the ratios, the fear duration...
: > [{quoted}](name=TwitchInMyPants,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=v2QvwTk5,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-11-01T15:10:46.679+0000) > > Imagine this being used to justify anything other than Ranked LP > > "For everyone to have a fresh start, we have had all of your Blue/Orange Essence expire this year" > "For everyone to have a fresh start, we have had all of your RP expire this year" > "For everyone to have a fresh start, we have had all your chests/keys expire this year" > "For everyone to have a fresh start, we have had all your unlocked champions expire this year" > > I know these aren't 1-1 equivalent but seriously, that logic is bad. If you apply it to pretty much anything else it sounds horrible. The only thing that should be resetting is your rank, and even then Riot feels a soft reset is in order so players aren't punished too hard. Allow me to pose a counter-argument: Event tokens expire at the end of the event. If you don't spend them, they're just gone. Should there simply be a universal "Token" currency that's valid during any and all events? Perhaps. The difference being, of course, that Tokens can be earned. Prestige Points are (almost) exclusively acquired by spending money.
> [{quoted}](name=Everyday Legends,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=v2QvwTk5,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-11-01T17:29:10.559+0000) >> Should there simply be a universal "Token" currency that's valid during any and all events? No, and that's how those tokens differ from prestige points: prestige points are recurring, not event-based. Event-based currency can expire because the event is over—this makes perfect sense. Having prestige points expire even though the products you can obtain with those points continue to exist does not make any sense.
Terozu (NA)
: It's not that simple. He can't just 'sound like a rapper'. His voice need emotion and inflection. His delivery is very monotone. As I said before it doesn't feel like someone actually talking, it sounds like someone reading aloud. When were you is highschool, did you ever have to read plays from textbooks? Do you remember how awkward the lines were, because everyone read every line as if they were bored and wanted to take a nap? Versus going to a play and every line is different to convey the mood of the character? Ekkos legendary is like that, it's not terrible, but you can tell the dude isn't an actor. He's just reading his lines.
He doesn't sound like someone talking because for 90% of his lines _he's not just talking_, he's freestyling. There's a cadence that freestylers and hip-hop artists use that's, as you've said before, very monotone. It's an entire style. You not being familiar with it doesn't make it bad.
Terozu (NA)
: TD Ekko doesn't even have a custom homeguard. He does a jump then goes to the normal animation.
He, like....moonwalks. What do you mean it's not different? ._.
Terozu (NA)
: The VO is NOT done well, it is objectively of low quality, mediocre at best. I never said he should sound or act like normal Ekko. The issue is he _doesn't sound like a human being_. His lines are monotone and emotionless. He sounds like he's just reading off a script, not like he's actually talking. His lines sound like someone made a rapper setting for their google home assistant more than they sound like actual speech. They're extremely artificial and forced. His delivery is bland and unnatural. He obviously did the best he could, but it is not on par with other voice overs, legendary or otherwise. Why? Because he's not being voiced by a voice actor. There's a reason there are entire schools dedicated to voice acting, and this voice over shows it very well. Voice acting is a unique skill that takes a lot of patience and years of practice to do well. It's very obvious he doesn't have that practice. This isn't some insult to the person, it's just objective fact. Keep in mind some champs in this game have the same voice actor. Like Morgana, Zoe and Taliyah are all voiced by Erica Lindbeck. Or Yuumi and Nami are both voiced by Cassandra, or Draven, Jax and Vel'Koz sharing Erik. Yet they each have extremely distinct voices. _That_ is good voice acting, because they're professionals. He's a novice in this field. No one should be expecting proffesional work anyways. You are allowed to like it, but don't treat it like it isn't flawed.
Are you a fan of hip-hop or rap at all? Do you listen to freestyles? Do you have any experience at all with these things?
Terozu (NA)
: Yeah, everything except for the voice over is amazing. Understandable since it's not a voice actor doing it, but it hits pretty hard.
I would be interested in seeing the demographics of those who appreciate the voiceover compared with those who do not. I have a theory...
: > [{quoted}](name=OtterlyLost,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=RZT9ogUj,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2019-10-30T13:40:38.203+0000) > > But they still have parts from the original voice Actor. Like I get it, but dont leave half of the original voice work in a skin where the voice *actor* has changed. It makes it super obvious and super jarring. It kind of brings the entire skin down on an otherwise really nice skin As I said I don't think it's supposed to be like that, it may be a bug. He's supposed to get a complete updated VO for that skin.
Yeah, agreed; it's just PBE for now. If this ships to live like this, though, that's a pretty egregious misstep on Riot's part. I honestly think they should just give Ekko a re-voiceover with the same guy who does this skin, because it's a little weird having a white guy voice a black character. :V
: Or they could just nerf her range to 550/500 , nerf her ulti ad ratio to 90/80% and nerf the root duration to go 1-2 seconds. That alone plus a bit of mana cost tweaks would be all she needs. If anything else would be done the best would be to nerf her self heal on q or remove the self shield on ult. If all that somehow isn’t enough just don’t let q damage turrets or runnans proc passive. Either one for these last 2 sets would work, and at the very worst situation all 4 would work if she’s really that broken. I don’t think e or passive themselves need nerfs tbh. Most there would be the mana cost on e.
Now, are these things you think RIOT is GOING to change? Or things you think SHOULD/COULD be changed? Because those two things can and often are two very, vastly different things. :^] But I def forgot to mention the possibility of removing the self-heal from her Q. I think that's a big possibility.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Hilsun,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=2BbPKlRp,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000001000100010000,timestamp=2019-10-30T15:45:24.517+0000) > > Sure. > > I'd be 100% ok with gambling being illegal for everyone for the same reason I support the elimination of legal gun ownership in America. Why? Because I look at the situation with one simple question: "Do the pros outweigh the cons?" > > For guns, what are the pros? Self protection? How often is a gun used in self defense as opposed to murdering or harming innocents? Is someone's right to _statistically negligible_ "self-protection", recreation, or hunting worth the cost of so many children's lives? Of so many broken families? I would argue no, it's not. > > What are the pros of gambling? Who benefits from it? For traditional gambling, some studies report economic benefits, but what are the costs? Gambling addiction is a complex and valid problem, and the legality of gambling legitimizes a company's ability to prey on those individuals, as well as others desperate to escape poverty or financial difficulties that are often not in a position that is a result of anything those individuals have done or were responsible for. > > In terms of loot box-style gambling, it's literally just a money-sink for a _chance_ to obtain a desired product that could simply be offered for a set price instead. The only reason companies use loot boxes instead of a traditional offer is because it is statistically going to earn them more money. > > Think of it this way: let's say there's a loot box with 10 items, each item has the same chance to be obtained (10% chance) and is being sold for $10. The average consumer wants 1 of the items offered by the lootbox, giving them a 10% chance to obtain the item they desire. ON AVERAGE, that means consumer will spend $100 obtaining the product they actually want for a product that is, in reality, worth $10. THAT is what is so shady about lootbox practices. > > So, sure, gambling is a fun past-time for the wealthy, a way to blow some cash they never needed anyway for a chance to bump their numbers up even more; or, with lootboxes, it's just a way for the wealthy to get a skin that they want, because spending money isn't an issue for them. Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where the majority of people or families are financially well-off to afford spending $100 on $10 products. And even if they were, it's still terrible business practice and should not be allowed. Do we ban alcohol too? How about fast food restaurants? How about expensive jewelry? What else would you like banned? There are plenty of things which are harmful when overly consumed, but which are fine when consumed in moderation. In your hypothetical situation, the item being sold isn't worth $10 to the company. It's worth the average amount of money that someone would spend to get it. So, based on your assumption that people are willing to pay $100 for the one they want, and based on the probability of getting an item after x tries, the average price of the skin would be $40. Do you think it's better for the business to price each skin at $40? Do you think that's better for the consumer? Or is it better for the consumer to get $10 worth of skin for $10, and then they have option to buy more if it's not the one they wanted or just be content with what they got? What happened to letting consumers decide what they feel is a fair price for goods? What happened to letting competition determine what a company can or can't price their goods for? What happened to people managing their own finances, buying only what they can afford. What is up with this abdication of personal responsibility? https://i.imgur.com/FVlQ4Pi.png
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=2BbPKlRp,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000010001000100000000,timestamp=2019-10-30T16:49:23.033+0000) > > Do we ban alcohol too? How about fast food restaurants? How about expensive jewelry? What else would you like banned? There are plenty of things which are harmful when overly consumed, but which are fine when consumed in moderation. > I'm not going to answer these questions because they are ultimately tangents to the main point about loot boxes. I mentioned the gun control as a simpler comparison because the situation is much less nuanced—the questions you're asking are significantly more complicated and require a more complex answer than simply "yes" or "no" without explanation. > In your hypothetical situation, the item being sold isn't worth $10 to the company. It's worth the average amount of money that someone would spend to get it. So, based on your assumption that people are willing to pay $100 for the one they want, and based on the probability of getting an item after x tries, the average price of the skin would be $40. > In my example, $100 is not the amount a typical person is WILLING to spend—it is the average amount REQUIRED to spend to get the desired product. That is a notable difference. But I do agree that $10 is not the amount the skin is worth to the company, and your $40 mark is about what I would have marked it as a standalone product as well. Which comes to my next point... >Do you think it's better for the business to price each skin at $40? Do you think that's better for the consumer? Or is it better for the consumer to get $10 worth of skin for $10, and then they have option to buy more if it's not the one they wanted or just be content with what they got? > Yes! You have more or less made my point: that, on average, the company is making $100 for a skin that, to them, is worth $40. This is essentially what I am saying is a better business practice: guarantee the $40 price point in lieu of the CHANCE at getting it for $10 or $100 or $200 or never. I personally think the best practice is to include both as an option: Do you know you want it and aren't a gambler? Spend $40 and get it. Don't really care THAT much about which product you want? Nab 4 boxes and get 4 products for the same price, with the caveat you may not get the one you actually want. This is a format that is reasonable to me. > What happened to letting consumers decide what they feel is a fair price for goods? What happened to letting competition determine what a company can or can't price their goods for? What happened to people managing their own finances, buying only what they can afford. What is up with this abdication of personal responsibility? > > https://i.imgur.com/FVlQ4Pi.png Consumers are gullible, fallible, and human—consumers often consume more than they are financially capable of consuming; that's why debt is such a huge issue in the world. If the option to consume more than is reasonable exists, there will be people who do it; this is exactly why the point I'm making is that it should not be allowed for companies to prey on and take advantage of the humanity of their consumers. The expectation that people should be responsible for their own finances and managing their expenditure is a rule established by those in power to place blame on the victims and provide legitimacy for establishing predatory practices that take advantage of human nature. I'm not ok with that.
Rioter Comments
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Hilsun,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=2BbPKlRp,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000010001,timestamp=2019-10-29T20:47:36.305+0000) > > I would argue it should be the full responsibility of the company. The simplest and most effective way to eliminate this problem is to hold companies accountable for participating in this sort of practice. The argument, then, becomes "well only IRRESPONSIBLE people will be hurt by this!!" > > "But isn't that predatory??" I hear some of you asking. Yes. Yes it is. And it shouldn't be allowed. > > Anyone who is ok with practices like this that bait people into gambling are essentially saying: "People and companies should be allowed to exploit and take advantage of vulnerable people." To which I say: take your completely inconsiderate and predatory ideologies outta here. Should gambling be illegal for everyone? Is that what we're saying here?
Sure. I'd be 100% ok with gambling being illegal for everyone for the same reason I support the elimination of legal gun ownership in America. Why? Because I look at the situation with one simple question: "Do the pros outweigh the cons?" For guns, what are the pros? Self protection? How often is a gun used in self defense as opposed to murdering or harming innocents? Is someone's right to _statistically negligible_ "self-protection", recreation, or hunting worth the cost of so many children's lives? Of so many broken families? I would argue no, it's not. What are the pros of gambling? Who benefits from it? For traditional gambling, some studies report economic benefits, but what are the costs? Gambling addiction is a complex and valid problem, and the legality of gambling legitimizes a company's ability to prey on those individuals, as well as others desperate to escape poverty or financial difficulties that are often not in a position that is a result of anything those individuals have done or were responsible for. In terms of loot box-style gambling, it's literally just a money-sink for a _chance_ to obtain a desired product that could simply be offered for a set price instead. The only reason companies use loot boxes instead of a traditional offer is because it is statistically going to earn them more money. Think of it this way: let's say there's a loot box with 10 items, each item has the same chance to be obtained (10% chance) and is being sold for $10. The average consumer wants 1 of the items offered by the lootbox, giving them a 10% chance to obtain the item they desire. ON AVERAGE, that means consumer will spend $100 obtaining the product they actually want for a product that is, in reality, worth $10. THAT is what is so shady about lootbox practices. So, sure, gambling is a fun past-time for the wealthy, a way to blow some cash they never needed anyway for a chance to bump their numbers up even more; or, with lootboxes, it's just a way for the wealthy to get a skin that they want, because spending money isn't an issue for them. Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where the majority of people or families are financially well-off to afford spending $100 on $10 products. And even if they were, it's still terrible business practice and should not be allowed.
Doge2020 (NA)
: In my opinion: it is the child’s, the parents’ and the company’s responsible to protect the child from simulated gambling. The child has some responsibility to protecting themself on the internet. the parents are responsible to know the nature of the games that the child is playing, what type of content they bring and they are responsible for taking the appropriate measures to protect their children. Lastly, it is the company’s responsibility to add measures to protect children from gambling.
> [{quoted}](name=Doge2020,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=2BbPKlRp,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-10-29T19:56:59.240+0000) > > In my opinion: it is the child’s, the parents’ **and the company’s** responsible to protect the child from simulated gambling. I would argue it should be the full responsibility of the company. The simplest and most effective way to eliminate this problem is to hold companies accountable for participating in this sort of practice. The argument, then, becomes "well only IRRESPONSIBLE people will be hurt by this!!" "But isn't that predatory??" I hear some of you asking. Yes. Yes it is. And it shouldn't be allowed. Anyone who is ok with practices like this that bait people into gambling are essentially saying: "People and companies should be allowed to exploit and take advantage of vulnerable people." To which I say: take your completely inconsiderate and predatory ideologies outta here.
SirEnds (NA)
: its called Ultra rapid fire for a reason bro.
Yes: the reason is because you can cast abilities ultra rapidly--not because the game is supposed to end in 5 minutes.
: What Do YOU Want Karma to Become?
Honestly I'd like to see her original form (or an updated version of it) return. That AoE fan+heal were amazing, and shield bombing was some of the most fun I ever had playing League—not to mention the super fun interaction that used to exist with her tether.
: TFT Beta Pass V.3 Coming Soon!
: Activate 6 unit traits 3 times
This mission is an examples of egregiously poor language. The first time I played a game I thought the same thing as OP: certainly what this is saying is "Activate 6 *different* unit traits at once for 3 rounds." Ended the game after doing so: still incomplete. Then I hovered over the mission and saw that what it MEANT was "Activate _a 6 piece trait_ 3 times" so I thought OH! Poor language, but I can do that! I'll definitely activate 1 6-piece trait for at least 3 rounds! That will activate the 6-piece trait 3 times. That MUST be what they mean! Still wrong. I had 6 demons for like 12 games in a row and it only counted for one instance. So either this mission should read "Activate *6-unit* traits over 3 games" (the hyphen is incredibly important here) or "activate 3 different 6-unit traits." Or maybe both are possible. I have no idea because the descriptions for these are always so poorly written/explained.
: just wanted to give yall some good news.
If that Panth change goes through he is legit going to be busted--and I have been playing him nonstop and love him. I would MUCH rather see a reduction in his ult delay than the crit on his Q tap. I like the full damage to monsters with E though. :D
: You can dash blink out of and not get stun, when pre rework panth w stun even if you dash, blink away. It really hurt him alot against some of the popular rop laners atm, make his ganks weak and hurt him in the damage department if you try to use empowered w.
Oh. :< I haven't even noticed that. It must not have happened to me yet. That does really hurt him.
Hi im 12 (EUNE)
: pantheon is weak af, I got 1v1ed by the 1-7 darius as a 8-2 pantheon, the problem is pantheon got a new defensive tool while losing damage, thing is he never really did much damage and has close to no utility so he lost the only thing he really did. once you do nothing it doesn't matter how good your defensive tools are. PS: his new ult is a lot fucking worse than the old one tfw you cash in on the downvotes but none of em has any arguments
Your problem was you fought a Darius and that dood's just broken af regardless.
: I mean, he is weak though. The fact you can dash/flash his W is also ridiculous. The fact bruiser build only works (bruiser builds work on everyone who’s garbage, even release Elise) is a testament how gutted his damage is. He lost his lane bully status and got nothing in exchange for late game. I don’t want lane bully Panth back, but I definitely want to do something late game.
I don't think I agree that he lost his lane bully status. :0 Maxing Q and using the thrust puts it on like a 3 second CD and does tons-of-damage™ when empowered. Then once you get your opponent under 25%hp you either kill him with a charged Q or you zone him off the wave. Of course, dealing with ranged champs is a little more difficult now because you don't get a free block to auto attacks every three attacks, but what his E now provides more than makes up for it in all-ins where you can completely negate all their damage if they are a burst-style champ. Gives and takes, I say. He's different for sure, but I think he's just as good/better than before.
Flemman (EUW)
: his W is bugged, they need to fix that first
What's bugged about it? :0
: I mean, most defensive abilities nowadays has one or two of those negatives, not 5. His kit needs a power shift adjustment. Currently the stab is the only thing that does damage on the kit, hands down. The execute blows if something just happens to walk into the thrown spear and be the first target hit. Shit drops 50% of its damage.
> [{quoted}](name=Ragnaveil,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8lMownwT,comment-id=0001000100000000,timestamp=2019-08-16T14:38:05.245+0000) > > I mean, most defensive abilities nowadays has one or two of those negatives, not 5. His kit needs a power shift adjustment. Currently the stab is the only thing that does damage on the kit, hands down. The execute blows if something just happens to walk into the thrown spear and be the first target hit. Shit drops 50% of its damage. I think the power shift adjustment was to move his old "under 15% hp crit" thing to the new "under 25% hp charged q does way more". But The one thing I'll say is I feel like there is way more delay now on his ult than used to be there. It feels almost impossible to land any damage on anyone with it outside of people being perma CC'd by a teammate, which feels kinda bad. I wouldn't mind just a bit less delay on the cast/arrival of his ult. As for q doing all his damage--I think that's the point. That's how old Panth *mostly* functioned (barring max level E and good items) but all told, his Q used to be about the only thing of his worth damage, and I think they were trying to maintain that sentiment with the rework. I honestly like the new Q and think it's interesting.
: > [{quoted}](name=ImTheJuggernauty,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8lMownwT,comment-id=0001000100000001,timestamp=2019-08-16T17:14:50.732+0000) > > Everybody complains about the dumbest of things. Panth's new E is actually pretty awesome and 10X cooler than the old one. i agree his e is good but pantheon has no passive now? is it me or im i the only person seeing this issue here? pantheons old passive was actually pretty good;not as good as his current e but it was good enough. but now he has no passive technically. since its just a description of his enhanced spell mechanic.
I disagree--the empowered abilities are impactful and significant in my opinion, and they would be much too strong if they kept the empowerment mechanic in addition to another passive. His ability to enhance his spells is his passive--MOST other champs with empowered spells have other means to empower them (like Karma's ult, Kai'sa's stat requirements, Syndra max-level spell requirement) but Pantheon and Renekton sacrifice their passive ability to empower their spells under certain conditions they can meet through a resource they always have access to.
: Actually that's a good point. They should have retained his low hp crit passive. I never really found it problematic or unfair as an opponent, just something to be aware of and take into consideration.
I'm pretty sure that same sentiment is supposed to be felt by the new Q thing, where throwing it does bonus damage to people under 25% hp.
iiGazeii (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=LegendmakerGTX,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=l8pdBU02,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-15T09:19:54.461+0000) > > problem is you can't actually cancel it when activated. Enemy can walk through you and deal way more damage while you're stuck using E, yes it can be use defensive to do good trades but his mana pool is extremely low so don't recommend spamming E at all. You CAN cancel it. Hit the button again to end the ability early. The cooldown is very long, you can't spam it at all. Did you even play the new Pantheon?
: Cursed blade is insanely OP and should be gutted/remove like today.
Agreed, completely. At absolute MINIMUM the thing should not be able to lower a champ's level more than once.
floo (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Hilsun,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gwAd5T7x,comment-id=00000003000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-23T20:13:37.201+0000) > > I think there are a lot, but I'll just point out the most egregious kits for escaping/surviving: > > {{champion:103}} = Three dashes. Q gives large movement speed buff. E to hard CC pursuers. > > {{champion:268}} = Very long dash if skilled enough to pull it off. Literally pushes away an entire group of pursuers if desired. Can construct a turret. > > {{champion:141}} = Literally walks through walls; amplified speed/length in Assassin form with heightened CDR. His q-dash is on a very short CD. Not to mention in Rhaast form he gains AoE knockup. Ult makes him untargetable for a free evasion. > > {{champion:7}} = Can double dash on a short CD and return to the point of origin to confound even skilled veteran players. Has a long-range snare. Passive invisibility+clone for tricky escapes. > > {{champion:246}} = I dunno if you've seen this champ but between her W being a short dash, her E being a long dash to a target, and her Q with bush empowerment invisibility, she is absurdly difficult to lock down. And if you do get on her she can just ult you away. > > {{champion:497}} = Free dash, AoE knockup, dash to allies, taunt + movespeed buff—just about all of his abilities are for escaping/surviving. > > {{champion:92}} = Riven requires no explanation > > {{champion:67}} = Condemn + (ult + q) (go watch highlight reels of good Vayne players surviving 1 v 3+ > > Again, I think there are a LOT more champs that fit into the "has as many escape/survive abilities as Pyke" but I will leave you with the definitive worst offender in the game in terms of escaping from anything if played well: > {{summoner:4}} {{champion:91}} {{summoner:4}} {{champion:103}} 3 short range dashes, while mobile, skillshot reliant. Granted she can turn pretty hard if she doesn hit her E. {{champion:268}} Can be blocked by simply standing in his way, also only measure of movement. {{champion:141}} One of the 4 most cancer mobilities imo, however his can be interrupted easily by any dmg or him messing up. {{champion:7}} Probably one of the safest, true. {{champion:246}} Haven't played with or against her enough to tell but her dashes are very short ranged and one requires a target iirc? Could be wrong, doesn't have survivability though. {{champion:497}} His W has a large cd, also locks him down in place shortly. E is short ranged, requires allies nearby. Isn't as slippery by miles. {{champion:92}} Other cancer mobility. Her not having a resource or cds at all, make her very annoying to follow. Would not consider her more safe than Pyke still. {{champion:67}} No. Her Q is a joke of an escape, requires auto to be on short cd which puts her back into a fight. Passive useless in escape as well, R invisibility too. E while good, single targetted. {{champion:91}} Is probably on the same level as Pyke in terms of mobility. Lacks survivability. Now {{champion:555}} . The fact that his E has a follow up stun in delay is one thing that makes him impossible to catch. It doesn't even have a noteworthy cd, and get's him in range to be invis in W. That is also the second part that makes him as slippery. Huge ms steriod combined with stealth. And if that wasn't enough he heals back a great margin of the health he lost in any fight. You can't tell me any champ is safer than Pyke. Too much mobility paired with heavy regen and uncondicional cc. (That doesn't even factor in his R dash which is technically also a way for him to move, but extremly situational to use)
We must have very different interpretations of the term "survivability." If Talon can literally jump over any wall in the game on a 0 second CD, I would consider that incredible survivability, as it allows him to SURVIVE otherwise impossible situations for other champs; I don't see how being able to jump out of harm's reach no matter where he is on the map is not on par with Pyke's survivability. Same goes for Riven: she ultimately has 4 dashes—one of them grants her a shield, one can hop over short walls; none of them require a resource. She also has a brief AoE stun which gives her an opening to start her dash-fest and SURVIVE situations she has no business surviving in. If you don't think Qiyana's bush-empowered Q allows for more absurd survivability than Pyke, then I can only assume you are not viewing each champ's kit and assess their survivability in an objective manner. https://livestream.clips.gg/FrigidDeliciousShrimpTBTacoRight I don't think a Pyke would have survived this. I have responses to all the points you mentioned about the champs I pointed out, but I digress. Having a delayed stun follow up on you after dashing is good for escaping, yes, I agree with that; I do not agree that it is the impossible-to-deal-with mechanic that it's being painted as in this thread. The hitbox is fairly wide, but it's not impossible to sidestep. 15 seconds is a long CD, too; if he uses it to engage, he's pretty much done for if the engage goes poorly. Someone else has already pointed out that, sure, if Pyke gets mondo-fed he can basically own the map, but there's a big handful of other champs like that, too. The trickier a champ is to pin down, the more impossible it feels to deal with one that is fed. The biggest point to take away from this discussion is: **don't play to his strengths**. He's really good at escaping? Don't all-in engage without lots of lockdown and knowledge of your damage. He's really good at engaging if he lands a q? Play cautiously when it's off CD. I have found the most success not necessarily with lock-down champs, but with range and poke + wards. He doesn't want to miss exp, so keep the lane bushes warded and he can't even use his heal. Poke him and his ADC down; I find Karma a particularly good counter due to the high poke as well as the large shields+movespeed to either disengage or deny the ult execute and reset. He doesn't have much HP so even with aftershock he is pretty squishy, especially since he doesn't build resistances to buff that rune anyway. Take advantage of his long cooldowns; if he uses W to engage, he can't use it again for ~12 seconds. Abuse him for using it aggressively after you play safe to avoid being caught by the q. If he uses E to escape, he can't safely get close for another ~15 seconds. Get aggressive in this time—back off when it's back up. This is how all of League of Legends is played—knowledge of champions (both yours and your enemies') and working around cooldowns. Hopefully that helps!
Rioter Comments
: "First off, I'm assuming this post was sparked by your last game" I'm gonna stop you right there, this makes you a hilarious and pretentious jerk. Even if EVEN IF, this sparked his inspiration for this post, it's actually the final straw that broke the camels back and not "the only reason he would want a champions nerf!" I personally believe that Riven needs to have several power shifts and a mechanic removal, but it's not because I lost a game last night, but because I've played against her 200 times in the last season. sooooooo. Btw, your post is a joke, your _points_ about Pyke are flat-out wrong. >> He's way too safe for a assassin >No, he's not. Yes he is. He has a substantial amount of CC and mobility along with an "I don't want to lose this fight" button. Which as an assassin I would argue is disgusting and entirely too safe. >>a stun-dash with a fucked hitbox >His E much like his Q, W, and ultimate, is very telegraphed and can be dodged with ease. The hitbox isn't that bad. The hitbox on his E is a good 25% wider than his model on both sides, and yes it can be dodged like all skillshots, but unless you burn flash or a substantial mobility ability he should hit you with it. (provided he isn't just stupid) >>instant health regen, >Doesn't activate while in vision, meaning a few wards will shut his regeneration down entirely. You do understand his W right? Most of the time he even doesn't need to engage with his W thanks to {{item:3117}} {{item:3142}} or even just land his Q. >If you can't consistently lock Pyke down with hard CC, poke his ADC. Don't poke him. Not a lot of bottom lanes have consistent enough CC to lock down pyke, dunno which meta you're in atm. And if you attempt to poke his ADC he will focus you down instead, he is and assassin first and foremost regardless of his support role. HE fucking hurts. >His hook only flings you behind him if you're at point blank distance. His Q has a slow on it to allow followup through his E and Ultimate. The slow is handholdy which is counter intuitive for a "_high skill assassin_." It's not defend-able and half decent E timing removes the need for help with setting it up, as such, handholdy. I just... what the hell is this last portion here? I UGH WELL SEE YOU CAN INVALIDATE THIS EXECUTE!!! JUST NUMBERS COUNTER IT. Are you serious? Like really serious? What a joke man. Again, you are playing against other human beings here, so 90% of those champion interactions are meaningless. Finally you mentioned a total of what, 3 ADCs?, and half a dozen supports, half of which are just heal slaves. (Imagine if he went after and killed the healing support first or waited until they pop their shield and kill the other. hmm that'd be a shame.) You're arguing a terrible point and pretty everything you said was worthless and either falls into the "duh" or the "useless information" categories. Let's not do this again, thanks.
> [{quoted}](name=LatetotheRace,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gwAd5T7x,comment-id=00000007,timestamp=2019-07-23T18:42:10.304+0000) > Not a lot of bottom lanes have consistent enough CC to lock down pyke Uh {{champion:12}} what {{champion:3}} did {{champion:40}} I {{champion:89}} just {{champion:117}} read {{champion:99}} with {{champion:497}} my {{champion:44}} own {{champion:9}} eyes.
floo (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Vıvıd,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gwAd5T7x,comment-id=000000030000,timestamp=2019-07-23T18:55:00.615+0000) > > did you... really just say pyke is the SAFEST champion in the game? hes the safest? the most, safe, unrisky, extremely easy to play safe champion in the entire game? no fucking way, how delusional are people in your elo? W-WHAT Which other champ has as many escape and survive mechanics as Pyke? Also I spoke of safest, not easiest to play. Calling me delusional while listing any champ in the game with a dash to prove Pyke's ult is easy to dodge. And fucking Bard ult...
> [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gwAd5T7x,comment-id=0000000300000000,timestamp=2019-07-23T19:35:13.160+0000) > > Which other champ has as many escape and survive mechanics as Pyke? Also I spoke of safest, not easiest to play. I think there are a lot, but I'll just point out the most egregious kits for escaping/surviving: {{champion:103}} = Three dashes. Q gives large movement speed buff. E to hard CC pursuers. {{champion:268}} = Very long dash if skilled enough to pull it off. Literally pushes away an entire group of pursuers if desired. Can construct a turret. {{champion:141}} = Literally walks through walls; amplified speed/length in Assassin form with heightened CDR. His q-dash is on a very short CD. Not to mention in Rhaast form he gains AoE knockup. Ult makes him untargetable for a free evasion. {{champion:7}} = Can double dash on a short CD and return to the point of origin to confound even skilled veteran players. Has a long-range snare. Passive invisibility+clone for tricky escapes. {{champion:246}} = I dunno if you've seen this champ but between her W being a short dash, her E being a long dash to a target, and her Q with bush empowerment invisibility, she is absurdly difficult to lock down. And if you do get on her she can just ult you away. {{champion:497}} = Free dash, AoE knockup, dash to allies, taunt + movespeed buff—just about all of his abilities are for escaping/surviving. {{champion:92}} = Riven requires no explanation {{champion:67}} = Condemn + (ult + q) (go watch highlight reels of good Vayne players surviving 1 v 3+ Again, I think there are a LOT more champs that fit into the "has as many escape/survive abilities as Pyke" but I will leave you with the definitive worst offender in the game in terms of escaping from anything if played well: {{summoner:4}} {{champion:91}} {{summoner:4}}
Antenora (EUW)
: I also strongly believe that Katarina did not need that Grievous Wounds on steroids buff. It should have gone to a champion who is actually underwhelming such as Varus.
Varus already has AoE healing redux on his E.
Rioter Comments
: There was a time, long ago, when people could recognize bleeding obvious sarcasm without /s
Unfortunately we now live in a world where people may unironically say something like that and mean it.
: I think the biggest problem is item rng. Having one player simply get more than another independent of what the players do but just because rng dictated it is by definition bad design. Also. while the carousel is a good implementation to the autochess mold, it's very clunky and you can't see any of your stuff but since this is just beta, I assume it will be upgraded in the future.
100% agree that item (amount) RNG is the most frustrating aspect of the RNG. Everyone should be able to receive the same AMOUNT of items, and how you use the items you find with the champions you roll should dictate victory, rather than whether you were able to solidify two completed items by round 1 or not.
macspam (NA)
: it's more like Swain E, except faster and with a larger hitbox
Morde's E is definitely AoE like Darius's, and Swain's doesn't pull. It's more visually like Swain's, but it's more functionally like Darius's.
giantZorg (EUW)
: An analysis on the question whether Riot buffs champions which get a new skin
I think that this effort is wonderful, and the detail to each aspect of the study is meticulous: the only thing I would like to see included in the study is a breakdown of this correlation specifically with buffs and nerfs, whereas your study focuses on any changes at all. Still, fantastic work!
DeusVult (NA)
: Riot, do not make me individually have to forge 10 BE at the end of the event for all my shards
: Fixed it
I don't know what everyone's so butt-hurt about when it comes to pluralizing the word "game" in their company name. These guys release a new game every year. :^]
Kei143 (NA)
: Why was the faction quiz so hidden in the client?
Completely agree here—I had already selected my house when a friend of mine asked "is that the one you got on the test?" I was like, "what test? ._." Never even saw it, and I did quite a bit of looking around before I selected my house.
Rioter Comments
: Thanks, but the maximum number of games to get 500 reports is not a finite number of games :P
Yeah that's only true assuming you get reported at least once in every single game. It's entirely possible he played games where he did not get reported, making the logic faulty.
Yara0 (NA)
: Actually i do only flame inters and im still suspended for it atm lol. As for not blaming myself you don't even know the start of it. I literally only flame once i cant find anyway to blame myself and even then i try to just push it to the side yet i still flame every 50 or so games. But yes go nuts assume who i am what i look like and how i play if it makes you feel good about yourself i could care less what you think of me cause trust me what i think of myself is ten times worse then what anyone could ever say about me. {{sticker:katarina-love}}
That's good--flaming is definitely against the Summoner's Code. That means the system is working. :D It really doesn't matter whether someone is actually inting or just having a poor game--you can't personally know one way or the other, and flaming isn't helpful in either case.
Rioter Comments
: I won and kinda carried with her, BUT I HAVE YET TO REACH LEVEL 16 LOL Or see her reach level 16.. starting to think it's impossible!
I hit level 16 in a game last night and got a pentakill.
Hilsun (NA)
: Consensus: New W/Passive Mostly Sucks
It's funny seeing the difference between the general league forum and the ViMains reddit page--here I'm at -1 and there I'm at +10. It's almost like people who main Vi know the champion better... ::thinking::
Rioter Comments
: I like that Vi can be built many different ways, and depending on how you build her, different abilities are used in different situations. It's what makes her one of my favourite champs.
The real problem isn't that she can be built many different ways--it's that the niches are stretched so thin that none of them are particularly viable to a reasonable degree. They are cheesey and fun, sure, but they aren't objectively good. That's more my point.
Rioter Comments
: Most times I see Vi max W second, going QWE. Ranking up E doesn't give as much damage as ranking up W, and the extra attack speed for clearing certain camps (especially dragons) is very nice. Just for numbers sake, a rank in E is +20 damage, while a rank in W is +1.5% max HP per 3 attacks. At 1333 HP on a single enemy, one combo will deal the same amount of damage, and only gets stronger the more HP they have. A rank in W also increases the mana cost by 6, which isn't that great.
You don't level E second for the bonus damage, you do it for the significantly reduced cooldown so you can auto-reset more often. It's what I've been doing every game with her for years. The only time I W max second is when I'm up against a team of 2-3 tanks and prefer the bonus %hp sustained damage.
: Did Vayne sell enough Firecracker Skins yet?
I don't understand why they can't just change the true damage to physical damage to make it so building armor would at least require her to build last whisper. % max HP true damage is such an absurd mechanic to include in the game.
Show more

Hilsun

Level 151 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion