> [{quoted}](name=Its Yuu and Mi,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=JqNpjoLf,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-08T20:13:51.097+0000) > > And people think we're bad. Seriously, you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. You're too nice to become a villain -.-

[Image Link](https://imgur.com/a/h9FYYvK) Right after being promoted? ..._for the eighth time in a row, right after being promoted a division or league?_ I'm starting to think the people who deny it are wearing the tin, not the people who notice the problem. Of course, this'll probably be removed by mods because apparently saying someone's donning a tinfoil hat is okay so long as it's in favor of Riot but not when it's in favor of an unfortunate reality.

> [{quoted}](name=Quality Content,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hdJlpExF,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-12-06T05:30:38.470+0000) > > A lot of staff working on new projects were never on the league team to begin with. These new games have been in development for several years already. You make it sound like client and balance issues weren't a thing before but they absolutely were. In fact they were a lot worse in the past when the client used adobe air and stuff like release Diana and Zyra made it into the game. I'd say the old client was better. It looked simple, but it didn't randomly remove buttons or go blank or not start or crash or lock up or display me as fourth pick when I'm actually first pick leading me to be booted out of the game and given a 5 minute dodge timer and a small dent in my LP.

If you read my post, it was a lot more than a "random political stab", especially @ the >"You people are exactly why this game has such an awful community; you may think you're improving it, I'm sure, but we know how flawed humans are. If this dude wasn't an actual troll, you'd be saying that someone else can be toxic & basically force a loss on the team and that you, for doing something unusual (helping the team, holy shit, instead of someone more focused on flaming than playing) deserve a suspension. Nice job, Holmes. You've cracked the case. > > As for this O.P, help other lanes. Walk into them and support 'em. Don't go feeding intentionally just to spite someone who's intending to spite you. It works to win games that'd otherwise be lost because the enemy team likely won't know how to fight a lane swap like that, especially if your ally in the other lane puts on more tower pressure because you're there. They either have to get the enemy support to go up there with you, or the enemy jungler has to camp you guys meaning that your jungler is free to get objectives n' stuff" bit which took up 95% of my post. Notice how removing the political jab changed _nothing?_ There may not be a single person in the world who wants me to support them & their solo lane (also, I'm not involved in the Nightblu3 and Nubrac drama, I don't care for it; from a purely analytical standpoint, you're more likely to win going into a solo lane and supporting them if your ADC's toxic or otherwise trolling) but my point is simple: it'll never be acceptable to say someone _can't_ if they're trying to win. There's already a political & ideological war in LoL so it's not like it really matters who says what *about* it -- if you don't agree with most people, you're wrong and it's just that simple. I'm not exactly exempt, but I like to think that I have a good reason for saying what I do.

? If you're doing it for a statistical advantage, remember that the people in the division after all that time are unlike that completely blank-slate Akali on your team with a 50% winrate over 2 games. You'll want them on your team. They form the bedrock of a good team, in fact: they're reliable and a good bedrock for your **own** skill, as they are the closest to the baseline 50% winrate you can manage if they've managed to remain in that division for so long, after so many games. The only reason you _wouldn't_ want them on your team is if you'd like to be carried, in which case you're just as much of an asshole as they are to you (supposedly.) Sub-par is when you refer to someone who belongs in Silver 5 but is in Silver 2 or Silver 1, as by literal definition it's _sub-par:_ below par for the course, when in this case the dude with 1.5k games in the division _is literally par for the course, hence why he's in the division still._

I'm going to put it like this: statistics are reliable because they don't lie. You lose 20 LP on a loss, meaning it takes 2 dodges to lose equal LP and, unlike losing, dodging doesn't nuke your MMR. A 30% winrate over 50 games Silver on my team? Dodge unless there's a 70% winrate Silver on my team (as 20% is the variation from 50% (the ideal) between the two numbers.) A 45% winrate team across the board, playing champions they don't play? Dodge. A 45% winrate team playing their 45% winrate over 30 games champions? Why dodge that? It's a 5% uncertainty rating because you average out the winrate of your team and compare it to 50%, which is supposedly the ideal. If you're someone with an above-50% winrate, then you just add your winrate to the total number and divide it by 5. Me on Sona, for example, results in a net (50%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 66% = 266 / 5 = 53.5%) winrate if all things are equal. This is also why I'm almost 100% certain that Riot's system is rigged in some way. Random chance can include super unlikely things like having 4 AFKs on your team, but on the other hand it also at a 55% winrate would only end with a loss-streak of more than 3 individual games in a row 9.1125% of the time. If you up it to four games you'd only lose that many in a row 4.100625% of the time. Up it to five games and you'd only lose that much in a row a mere _1.84528125% of every 5 games._ It gets exponentially smaller. Evidently, that really is not the case. The number of people consistently displaying or reporting their massive loss-streaks & win-streaks seriously go against the mathematical facts. Conveniently, such people also have maintained a 50% winrate over a long period... which tells me that it is, indeed, forced even if just in a subtle way. Especially with all the smurfs and griefers recently, like wtf? Edit: if you want a super interesting factoid, there's only a 0.00032% chance that every player has (increased by 0.00000000025% per player who hasn't, somehow) experienced a loss-streak for only two games. Mathematics are fuckin' _insane,_ aren't they?

Did you notice that you said "Urgot" when you meant to refer to Yorick?

> [{quoted}](name=Three One Four,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nPExhL7N,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-12-06T16:40:17.633+0000) > > I agree. But she is an assassin. Her strong suit is cleaning up and not team fighting. But then why is she a problem? She's not like Zed or Talon or something who actually _can_ teamfight and whoop your ass under turret even if behind, so long as they have R -- Akali **NEEDS** to be ahead or she doesn't have the damage to assassinate someone (due to her hybrid scalings and absolutely garbage AD scalings on top of that) without any counterplay whatsoever. Unlike Zed, if she R's you and she's building AP, you have 2.5s flat to prepare for her actual nuke. Zed? He presses R, mashes W, presses E and Q on you and you're either dead or he's 0/10. Unlike Talon, if she R's you and she's building AD, you have 2.5s before she inevitably tries to escape because she has no damage whereas Talon just presses R, W, Q, and you're already bleeding for 90% of your health unless he's 0/10. I feel like people just focus too much on the "NewKali is dumb" bit when the problem is universally _the sustain and burst._ New Akali is what an assassin _should ideally be: a cleanup crew_ instead of the current iteration of "assassins" which are just more bursty and mobile bruisers. Nevermind the cooldown on her R, which is basically worth a flash in and of itself to avoid -- especially if it means you kill her in return. People want to blame Akali, but she's one of the more fair assassins in this current meta because everything she does is something you can dodge as opposed to {{champion:238}}{{champion:91}}{{summoner:14}} autoing you to death for 300 damage a hit even IF they missed their everything (which, we all know, is really unlikely unless the player is just plain _bad_.)

Only playing my favorite thing + winning + playing with friends (you'll probably notice that the friend I most commonly play with has a 45% duo winrate with me, which I _do not mind_) which hopefully results in getting a high rank. My Ahri and Sona are both exclusively played in the Support role, since I'm exclusively a Support OTP. Shoving me into another lane **might** end alright, especially if it's Jungle, but being decent at Jg because I OTP a role which requires map awareness doesn't exactly make me good. A majority of my Ahri+Sona wins are in Silver 3 to Gold 2. I do notice a massive uptick in challenge between Silver and Gold w/ Ahri (because people actually try to avoid my E) but my OP.GG solves the issue with ADCs tilting, thankfully.

You're still missing the many cases of, say, republicans whom favor universal healthcare or even just cheap healthcare in general, but w/e. If you're so insistent on making everything political then you're just part of the problem and, given I can't talk you into valuing human life over your actual political leaning because you conflate the two... fine. I'm not going to be responsible for the end result, and I certainly won't be feeling like I am. Politics involve people, and apparently your whole "Us vs. Them" mentality is so thorough that you can't even see the hypocrisy in thinking that way and relegating everything to a political leaning. I hate republicans and democrats in equal measure *because* of people like you, no matter how pure you like to pretend your political leaning is (republicans do the same, btw... and it's the same sort of misinformative propaganda you're spreading here & now where they make their own personal set of political values right under any set of circumstances and blame it entirely upon the other party.) It's like watching two children argue. Just ask the people who've improved life without ever getting too political about it. Elon? Einstein? Literally, only Western philosophy is predicated on politics and so by extension it's like you people can't understand the concept of just being a good person even if it doesn't benefit your own political leaning. For actual fact, republicans as a majority are against further healthcare because of how it would be implemented and how difficult it would be to implement it properly. You're just as dishonest as they are if you're telling me that isn't a valid concern. Some are concerned with power, for sure. Some democrats seem concerned with vanquishing the other party, even if the other party exists solely for the reason of ensuring that no one party has all the power, as *every single party thinks they're in the right and that's why they're so persistent.* Humans have a set of psychological traits and a set cause & effect involving their and others' behavior. Deny actual science on the subject if you like, you'll just be proving me right: you really are no different.

I'm going to straight-up say that I can 3v2 a majority of my jungling opponents and yet I still agree they have too much say over how a game flies. Not because jungling is powerful, but because autofill is so awful. Like, filling people to an intensive role is bad enough but then you add in all these changes and the vast discrepancy in jungler power and you have one jungler 0/14 who doesn't know what a map is and the other 14/0 soloing three people.

What I'm saying is that you're complaining to people who can't do anything about it, and you in doing so are doing exactly what the people responsible for it want: you're allowing them to distract you from the issue, even with the issue itself. Your life, due to your political experience, has been biased through the lens of politics and so you don't see it from a human perspective which is, in the end, what politics are all about. You may have had experience in politics, but I've had experience in people -- psychology, to be exact -- and you politically-oriented people prefer to focus on politics of issues and not _the issues themselves_ and wonder why things never get done. You're literally, at this present moment, segregating republicans & democrats by a single set belief (that one side doesn't want what's best for them while the other side does) that goes against the actual human nature and, like, _survival_ n' shit -- a huge majority of the human lifespan has been refining those survival instincts and so I don't want any of your B.S about how we've "evolved past that" somehow to support your political leaning, because fact is you'll just be doing what people're doing with the climate crisis right now: denying the facts because you don't personally like them much. TL; DR: Politics were a means to make the world a better place, and people like you contribute to corrupting them to define peoples' identity to a T and, worse, since that's all you're taught you don't actually know how to think of something any other way. That is literally exactly what's happening with the current democratic & republican party, and you're just contributing to it. I would say "giga-enlightened" if humanitarianism has been defined as something on one side or the other. It's one of the most ignorant things you can do, because humanitarianism is _for_ everyone and _benefits_ everyone no matter their political leaning, and the only support for such an argument is completely ignoring humans' defining characteristics. It's arrogant on the level of ignoring Earth's defining characteristics in favor of it being a fucking asteroid. Or what's going on with Trump. It's just. Fucking. Ignorance. It isn't making the world a better place, obviously, or it'd be a better place. Harsh reality, but true. Don't listen to me and watch your struggle be futile for what you believe in. I'm okay with that. It isn't my life wasted.

I really hate doing this to people, but what if the nationalists only care for their own agenda in the same way the media does, then? It has a human side, one way or the other. Why do we agree on the whole "groups based on censorship shouldn't exist"? I'm saying that's not what's happening: instead, the act of censoring their power in terms of _culture_ just give them more power to call themselves a culture of their own and call the other side out for being hypocritical; This is where the whole 'people' aspect of culture comes up. The people who think someone else is not entitled to their own beliefs have something else going on: it is not the natural state of existence, and often that sort of problem comes up with, say, people who have dealt with abuse or neglect or who otherwise have a neurology defect. You win that war with people, not ideology. Ideology is just a concept that divides because somehow you're trained to see that everything is _different,_ and thanks to the background of the human race anything _different_ is inherently discriminated against. You've fallen into that same trap, but it's innate to human nature so who can blame you? The talking point is more fun than the solution. The people who're responsible have managed somehow to cajole both sides of the debate into fighting each-other instead of dealing with the core facts of the matter, and if we're using political examples then I'm going to say that's _exactly_ what's going on with the White House.

> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=00000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000002,timestamp=2019-12-05T02:31:13.771+0000) > > Oh look, we've come full circle. Riot DOES ban for in game behavior. However, the problem with catching them is three fold. > > Issue #1: Detection of in-game poor behavior requires manual review by a person. With League having 8 million peak concurrent daily users players, there is way too much to do. > > Issue #2: Players far too frequently report people for intentional feeding when they're actually just playing poorly, leading to many false positives and further reinforcing the need for manual review. > > Issue #3: While catching someone running it down into the tower is relatively easy to identify, starting to auto-ban for that will only result in players being more sneaky about it, forcing a loss while not doing so blatantly. > > That being said, when you flame someone, there's really only two ways it can go: > > 1. The person is just doing poorly, and you're being an asshole to someone who is already frustrated at doing poorly. > > 2. The person is acting out to get a rise out of you, and you're the yuppy that's falling for it. > > And then of course, there's the other 3 people on your team that have to suffer through your flaming either way. In all cases, nothing good comes from flaming, and plenty of bad comes from it. Yet here we are, where there are innumerable trolls and griefers who go unpunished for far longer than they would even in DotA2's case. Flaming is far less of an issue only because of the fact you have a mute button, _something Riot's own team once responded to a ticket about toxicity with._ Riot punishes far more for toxicity than griefing, even to the point of quite literally favoring toxic people who do NOT grief but explicitly punishing him for griefing (see: Tyler1 among many others) because toxicity is _actually not that big of a problem?_ 1: sub-point and #2, and therefore it's filler. 2: sub-point of #3, and therefore it's filler. 3: Riot as a company makes $1,600,000,000 a year. That isn't a 1 with 6 numbers after, that's a 1 with 9 numbers after. It has only 2,500 employees (or less) as of now. They make a metric, metric ton of money. Even if they had hired 1,000 people to take care of reviewing reports of griefers, that's only $7,000-$15,000 an hour for a game that makes $182,648 an hour. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe -- and you _yourself_ seriously can't believe -- that a team of 1,000 can't make a dent in the toxicity this game has to offer and that, with their presence, it'd be getting noticeably better instead of _worse._ Even if every one of those 1,000 people worked only 4 hours a day, and if they could only decide if something classified as griefing by watching a full 30-minute match, they would still get through 32,000 reports a day. This isn't accounting for, once again, how easy griefing is to detect -- esp. w/ access to the chat logs and match history -- as well as the fact people can just appeal a claim if they were "just being bad at the game" and be marked as non-hostile for further reviews. Literally, human oversight instead of waiting for reports to pile up under a category before an automatic review is proctored. Oh, and supposedly if toxicity & griefing was only common in 1% of the playerbase, that'd mean those 1,000 people would take care of it within around 3 days and, if supposedly the toxicity was persistent, that still ends with a net reduction of 40% of toxicity a day. (8,000,000 people; 80,000 is 1% of 8,000,000; 32,000 is 40% of 80,000) That's a vast drop in toxicity. A **VAST** drop.

I adore you. Thank you. I'm not being sarcastic, and since I'm autistic I take issue with people who automatically assume that anything over text is sarcasm <3 I guess I have to keep playing? Where do you think I'll end up, Wise One? It's a question. I think you know enough to ask and have faith in the answer of.

> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=00000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T02:00:41.248+0000) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts That was always the goal. I'll cite my first reply. > "_On the other hand, griefing, which does affect the game in a tangible way, is unacceptable and yet here we are where it's the least punished form of behaviour. Idk, but an Olaf who powerfarms all game and walks into enemy towers isn't griefing while bitching about a 'troll team', Riot? That isn't griefing? You punish the people rightfully upset with him for ruining their game, but not the person whom ruined the game?_"

Yeah? Cite me a player who has been banned for behaving badly and I'll show you exactly _why_ their "_harsh words_" aren't the reason they're banned. They've been banned almost exclusively for actual in-game **griefing** which is, weirdly, something Riot doesn't do often enough to make a dent. Yet, apparently, DotA2's less toxic than LoL. Whaaa? OH, right, Riot apparently thinks that griefing people isn't a punishable offense because it _"can't be determined with reasonable certainty"_. If you can't tell, I'm cornering you into admitting exactly what you don't want to admit: LoL's problem is the griefers and trolls -- the source of the toxicity -- and not the flamers or people who hurt your feelings. The people who waste your time through throwing your matches are the problem, not the ones who bitch at them for being such horrible people. Riot thinks otherwise, and that's why while DotA2 is evolving LoL is stagnating.

_"These bans are being served out to players trying to access the **ranked matchmaking** mode within the Dota 2 client, and as of now, there is no answer to exactly what brings about the 20-year ban outside of what Valve changed in the recent update."_ Oh, and "But as for the rule changes, there were three major factors implemented into the new matchmaking update to help combat a recent influx of ‘smurf’ and ‘booster’ accounts: * Players with extremely low behavior scores * Breaking Steam’s ToS regarding the buying and selling of accounts * Players detected using exploits to gain an advantage over other players" Right from the article itself. Did you know that only one of those are related to toxicity, and the one related to toxicity is purportedly the _least severe of the three?_ I think you need to check your own sources before you use them as a source. Riot banning smurfs & exploiters would be beneficial. But they don't. The ones with the "_extremely low behavior scores_" are the ones genuinely griefing, don't you know -- they're **not** the ones telling the griefers off. How I know this is because despite all of my time in DotA2, and being one of **THE** most inflammatory people I've met, I haven't been banned. The people who I've kept track of -- the ones who join a game and pick Io specifically to feed them and their teammates to the opponents -- haven't been online for a long while. As I've said, DotA2's now less toxic than LoL... and I wonder why? It's nothing against **you** but in this case you may need to listen instead of speak. This game only becomes better in the face of people knowing the problems it has, and obfuscating them makes it so much more difficult for all of us to help the game up out of the dumpster-tier state it's currently in.

If you say so. I'll do what I do with anyone who uses "tinfoil hat" as a legitimate counterargument and say "well, I guess you just don't like reality." DotA2 doesn't permanently ban anyone for toxicity. I seriously hope you know that. The deterrent isn't as big of a deal for that very fact -- at worst, if you're reported too much, you're put into a low-priority queue which is more or less just a place akin to Silver with 50% of the people being nice but not all-too-stellar as players, or people who "lul n****' f**ks his mom everyday lol lol" all day long on the microphone. Just so you can't say I have no experience with DotA2... https://imgur.com/a/yxCWzEJ Moral of the story is, sometimes people know more than you do. It isn't your fault, nor is it anything against you -- experience creates knowledge, and it isn't an indictment on you that you don't know specific things. What **IS** an indictment is if you refuse to learn from experience, but if not... well, that isn't my problem. I can just dismiss you as "ignorant" and be done with it, just like you intend to do with the whole "tinfoil hat" thing.

I didn't get my point across, which was and is the point of any of my edits. The thing is, if people deal with more toxicity than they don't... they _will eventually end up being someone who adds to it._ The toxicity's getting worse & worse, and a lot of people -- including myself -- attest to that and so I'm left to think that Riot's doing what they always do: the complete opposite of what they should. The source of toxicity is unchecked & unpunished, and so it gets worse with time. The only people punished are the ones who "flame" (something ill-defined, by the way -- I got punished for telling him that he's a motherfucking asshole) which happens to mean that you can't criticize their behavior. He said "ugh troll team" within the first three minutes and then died under Mid turret spamming the /laugh emote twice in a row, followed by power-farming the jungle without ganks whatsoever for ANYONE on our team. I don't know how anyone can say it's not intentional. I don't mind a chat restriction for flaming him, because tbf it felt like a worthwhile trade-off, but that's kinda' my point.

At least you're asking now. I appreciate that. I'm not interested in how the MMR works. I already know how it should, in theory, work... but on the other hand, that's only the _theory,_ my friend. I'm not coming to a conclusion, but it _feels_ like it should be better than it is given there're these massive discrepancies that have one side being completely and utterly annihilated by another despite this one player who should've been able to solo-carry in a better meta. I am interested in knowing how they got into my game, in detail though. It might make my score relative to theirs a bit less painful for me so I can finally stop thinking about how pointless LoL is.

Problem is when the complete opposite happens and it becomes something publicly derided because of the contextual & fringe uses of whatever imagery is on "trial" by the media. The media hasn't bothered to contextualize _any_ of the aforementioned symbolism and why it's problematic, so people who have used it as a genuine meme or (in my case) a silent hand-sign that it's safe to move or similar are now subject to public backlash. So, in other words, because the public isn't properly educated on a subject -- due to the media themselves preferring emotional impact over validity -- a lot of people end up alienated for no real reason. This happens to be why people like me really don't care at all about limitations on free speech beyond evident things like violent/hate speech that has the purpose of segregating people. Weird... it's almost like 'free speech' only exists when it's something someone in power (in this case, media attention in general) doesn't disagree with and, if that's the case, then free speech doesn't exist at all. I would not advise that you support the behavior or practice, and I would advise that anyone else explain to Riot and... many other people, really, why it's so stupid. Then there's the fact it gives hate groups a way to band together and negatively impact worldwide culture by appropriating and corrupting any imagery they see fit... which means that it didn't solve the problem, it made it worse. A shooter was a furry? Must be furries that're the problem ;)

You believing Riot's own word when they're the company under question is not a great look. You haven't, evidently, done your own research through _actually playing_ the game. It'd still be legal for them to say "99% of people are not penalized" even if they omit the fact they're referring to the LCS alone, which they are. ??? You're really trying to tell me that cases of being abused constantly in any way doesn't result in a dysfunctional or unhappy member of a society? Are you kidding me? Take some educational courses on psychology before you try to debate me. I've studied it for years, and I can tell you haven't even read the first page of a textbook on the subject. Someone who takes direct action to make someone else happy will and is able to consistently do it to more than just that one person, if they aren't punished... and not only that, but the human nature is inherently delegated to survival and success at all costs. This applies to _games, too,_ especially hyper-competitive ones with toxic communities: the people who grief others through actions and not words (when the mute button exists but yet you can't do anything about Olaf going 2/10 to spite you & everyone else) will persist on doing so, if they aren't punished... and for every game that person is in, 9 people who _aren't_ them are affected and taught that toxicity is acceptable and endorsed. The people who grief and abuse are people subject to their ego (_hint, hint: it's a majority of people_) and whom want to protect it at all costs, as being defeated or '**wrong**', God-forbid, are threats to their sense of _self_ and _validity_ and so they must therefore be right at all costs. The current American political climate is an excellent example of how common it actually is, and you pretending like you're not doing that right this very moment is kinda' insulting to both me and anyone who reads your own post. TL; DR: This isn't a case of right vs. wrong when they're terms subjective to any one individual except for in extreme cases, this is a case of _the human nature and how it is and has always been._ You are not exempt, no matter how much you want to be or pretend like others are to support your flawed argument.

The Bronze? Why T.F are they in my game, though?

I'd go out of the way to be less toxic if I could choose to get a hand-picked Legendary skin after 1,000 honors or something. The current iteration of "chances are you'll get a useless recolor from the hextech chest you got for being good over 50 matches" isn't enough to combat the toxicity when the issue is already that random chance makes people feel like they have no impact whatsoever. You start by **actually** rewarding people for being decent people. They don't do that, since just **one** person is enough to set a lot of people off atm. The fact they get a chat ban and keep doing it is kinda' evidence that the chat ban doesn't work, and a more severe punishment will just make people more toxic. Reward the good people, and... when it comes to people going 0/9 in lane, a majority of the time I've found that they ARE just intentionally ruining your match for you. I can count on one hand the number of people going 0/9 because they're new or something, and in that case it's the matchmaking at fault. Me, and every single "asshole" I have seen, _automatically forgive and start tutoring genuinely new people. Saying they'd be affected by letting people flame the 0/9 is dumb, doubly so when there's a mute function._ On the other hand, griefing, which **does** affect the game in a tangible way, is unacceptable and yet here we are where it's the _least_ punished form of behaviour. Idk, but an Olaf who powerfarms all game and walks into enemy towers isn't griefing while bitching about a 'troll team', Riot? _**That**_ isn't griefing? You punish the people rightfully upset with him for ruining their game, but not the person whom ruined the game? Tsk. You're leaving the bad applies in the barrel and taking the good ones with just a bit of rot on them out. And Riot still wonders why there are so many bad applies. They need a behavioural psychologist on their live design team. Lord of the Flies among other psych. evaluations of the human race should have taught a vast majority of people how awful treatment results in awful people.

https://imgur.com/a/UUxH62o Justify that. That's a **RANKED** match. I lost LP for that. I fucking lost LP for that shitshow.

https://imgur.com/a/UUxH62o Supposedly it's a ranked match, but it looks like a norm to me. It's a frustrating joke, probably made to addict and make you play more. People tell me "Oh if you're good enough you'll climb" but I have my doubts.

Senna actually outheals Soraka until the mid/endgame where Soraka can use W every 3s.

I feel as if Riot could balance her by making her healing scale highly, exclusively on AP and not on AD at all, and her damage scale _only_ on AD and not on AP at all. They should also probably remove her %AD bonus on her passive and remove her bonus %LifeSteal from collecting too many souls; free AD is enough, Riot, and free range is toeing the line... but in the end, I am 100% okay with it... If I can fucking play her because she's not banned 99.9999999% of the time because she's unforgivably broken. Her Passive: No free %LifeSteal, no free %Crit, no free %on-hit physical damage (or if Riot insists on keeping it, 15% including both AP and AD akin to how Akali's does, so she isn't pushed into building AD.) Her Q: 50% AP ratio only for her heal, a 75% bAD ratio only for the damage. Her W: 35% AP ratio, 60% tAD ratio. Her E: Persists only until people leave the shroud. Her R: 75% AP ratio only for the shield, 100% bAD ratio only for the damage. The %LifeSteal on her passive NEEDS to be removed as otherwise {{item:3146}}{{item:3812}} will become her main build and she'll just be a drain-tank, and given she's ranged with an ever-increasing range... I support her idea, I really do. I don't support the implementation. If Riot needs to consult me on balance changes, I won't charge them a dime and they have all the rights to all of the ideas and all that legal jargan, even if I have to sign it **in paper after they mail it to me.** All I want is a game that's fun. Edit: the numbers seem a bit high, but think of this: without the lifesteal, without the shroud persistence, without the free damage no matter what she builds, she will either be good at healing and CC or good at dealing damage and for the most part she'll be very squishy no matter how you play her. Edit5: She should build %Crit if she wants to multiply her ever-increasing AD. She shouldn't be given %Crit for free on top of free AD, as for every 20 souls she increases her universal basic attack damage by 15% and, once she hits 100%, her AD is functionally doubled.

Problem is, it quits being a tinfoil-hat theory and starts being a genuine concern right around the time I get the same intentional feeder in my games repeatedly, even as I win more than I lose so in theory I should be out of their MMR bracket because _they always lose_.

... it wasn't an exaggeration. Senna outscales many of the ADCs without items, let alone with... and solo lane 56% winrate Senna? Just forget it. Unless she's fixed, she's maintaining a 60% banrate.

and that is an issue with the non-broken Top roster, not Akali herself. It'd probably be a lot better if she wouldn't heal so easily, eh? You forget about the fact that Akali has to wait 2.5s to use her second dash in a meta where you die in 15% of that time. Similarly, unlike Fiora's dash, Akali has a hefty _160s cooldown_ on her R at rank 1, down to 100s at rank 3. Fiora will block all incoming damage and CC with her W, while Akali's W neither makes teammates invisible nor protects her from damage or CC. Argue semantics all you like, but fact is Akali is a champion made to be good when the person playing them is and she is otherwise completely useless. However, sustain has vastly reduced the need for people to actually _be good with her to do something_ because it allows them to ignore positioning, target priority, aiming, etc. and just mash buttons to win. A fed MF is not more useful than a fed Fiora in this meta. A fed Fiora will 3v1 and win, while a fed MF can be instantly killed easily, while a fed Fiora gets plenty of stats from her itemization to win a 1v1 or a 2v1 or even sometimes a 3v1. Again, it's an issue with the balance team and not an individual champion.

DotA2, implementing things like auto-fill in a more cohesive and less restrictive manner. I can list other things, like the talents and the bounty runes and etc. but, point being, they put effort in that Riot doesn't. Don't say that DotA2 can't be more or less _better_ with fewer players, since that's just a reverse _argumentum ad populum_ and therefor is a fallacy. Many good things aren't popular (circumcision, not smoking, not doing drugs) and many bad things _are._ If you want to say "b- but muh opinion" in response... huh, you just asked a question intended not to be answered in any way that isn't favorable to you. Kind of sly, kind of shy, and very sad from someone supposedly able to argue on a rational basis.

A 50% slow isn't anything compared to Zed and, unlike Zed, she can only land that slow if she hits a skill within a 100-unit radius. Assassins are **meant** to dictate terms of engagement, hence their mobility and efficiency at going in and hopefully getting out. Their entire purpose is to wait for a target to present themselves as a target, and then kill them. Typically this target is the enemy ADC, and (supposedly) if you succeed and killing the enemy ADC then you would win the deadlock. In practice, a fed Akali isn't doing anything against a fed Fiora, and a fed Fiora is a whole lot more useful than a fed MF. Once again, people are focusing on the wrong thing: they're focusing on the symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.

He recovers 30-50 energy when he hits you with things, and he can do it more than once. Akali only recovers 10-20 for crossing her border and 80 for using her long-cooldown shroud. A decent Zed, in general, will recover a **lot** more energy over the course of a fight than a good Akali will. Not only that, but her shroud has a 20s CD that starts _after it ends._ Zed's clone CD starts the moment he uses it. I feel as if you're just somewhat salty over the wrong thing.

That or they could stop giving ranged champions dashes and movement speed bonuses ({{item:3086}} items) on top of their inherent benefit of being ranged. One of the more reasonable ways to balance a mobile ranged champion is as HotS has done with Tracer where they give her weak attacks. If you want someone ranged with mobility and damage, you get stuff like Viktor Top whom was impossible to punish because they, quite literally, _outclass_ anything else... including champions within their own class pool. This leads to stuff like the Juggernaut and Marksman rework, where an entire class has supposedly become invalid but it's only because the top-tier in any individual class outclasses anything but the top-tier in another individual class. That isn't how you create a balanced game, instead it's more or less a Gacha game style of balancing. Champions like Corki are one star, while champions like Senna are five star. The class reworks are to, supposedly, **"fix"** that issue. Hell, maybe that's why people like the loot boxes so much: "do I get a superpowered champion or a useless one?" Of course it matters little when you have them all, but that takes years of play or months of pay to achieve, especially at the rate they release new champions.

Well, yeah, but my point is that the sustain meta's just making it worse and _encouraging_ them to make it worse. I do agree the burst meta is a problem, but I think it's _as severe as_ the sustain meta and that they both persist to reinforce each-other.

She's heavily punished for using her skills badly instead. I would suggest you play her when, without sustain, she'd be either balanced or free food unless fed (like she should be.) If you want an example of what I mean, play her without {{item:3812}}{{item:3146}} or Ravenous Hunter/Fleet Footwork. You'll probably notice that she plays like you'd expect an assassin to -- you have to pick encounters wisely and carefully, and if you get jumped on without your W or R, you're likely dead because you can't just Q>Q someone and recover half of your health. Same for Zed, Shen, Kennen, Talon, LeBlanc, etc. in that you need to waste both a skill and an ult to escape which, since you're an assassin, probably isn't worthwhile. Sustain is her problem.

This may sound really stupid because it makes plain how dumb Riot is about some things, but all this burst is because of the sustain -- if you don't kill someone immediately, you aren't killing them. Why? Because sustain means you heal from 10% to 50% in a single auto. The burst meta is **because** of sustain.

I've been playing and kicking ass with Akali a fair amount, and I'd say that her shroud is somewhat balanced as it is now. The issue is, as I've said in another post, with the sustain that she & many others have access to through things like Fleet Footwork, Conqueror, Hextech Gunblade and Death's Dance where they and anyone else with said items can basically suck complete ass and still mop the floor with you using the sustain they offer. I'm thinking you'd find it more fair if she was basically guaranteed to die if you landed your own rotation on her, but alongside others... that just isn't how it works atm.

Hey look a logical reply that isn't the Souls fandom's "git gud" meme but without the self-aware irony. Have an upvote.

I'll get roasted for saying so, but... ah well, the problem isn't with Akali, it's with the balance team themselves. Akali and many others could theoretically be balanced, even with their unique kit mechanics like true invisibility... but because Riot makes all the money in the world (for not doing their job)... Your issue is with sustain. This problem affects: Akali, Aatrox, Caitlyn, Cho'Gath, **Darius**, **Draven**, **Fiora**, Illaoi, **Irelia**, **Jax**, **Yi**, Vladimir the list goes on and on... but... if you can name me a broken champion, chances are they'll be balanced out by balancing sustain. Unfortunately, many people ignore that and choose to blame the champion themselves like you've just done and, so, the issue never gets resolved. You notice Fiora? Darius? Yasuo? Akali? Aatrox? Lots of healing, right? It's almost like the healing is stacked _onto_ their kit, sometimes in ways that don't even make sense (Irelia) and the champions who don't have self-healing are in turn overloaded as fuck because they, otherwise, _can't keep up._ We have CertainlyT to thank for this, but fortunately he's not going to be designing LoL anymore after releasing yet another ~~overloaded champion~~ balance nightmare. Edit: in some cases, the healing IS literally stacked onto their kit ({{item:3146}}{{item:3812}}{{item:3072}} or Fleet Footwork/Conqueror) and a 40% healing reduction just isn't enough to deal with something like that.

Read the points above as to why it's not a conspiracy and instead is just a theory. Or don't and continue to find every thread like this to comment on, as if anyone in them really cares about what you have to say because they all know you're doing it. It's a waste of your energy and it's a waste of mine to respond.

You're still missing the point: compared to previous seasons and even other games, complaints about the matchmaking are far more common. Want me to total it up? Sources will be [HotS general boards](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/c/general-discussion) and [HotS competitive boards](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/c/competitive-discussion) for HotS, and [the search function set to search every board](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/search?query=Matchmaking&application_id=PEr1qIcT&created_from=now-1d&content_type=discussion) for LoL. Within the last 24 hours from 7:10 A.M CDT on 8/18/2019, there has been one complaint about matchmaking on the HotS boards. Within the last 7 days, there have been 3 total complaints about matchmaking. I'll humor you and go back a month, only to find 12 posts total criticizing matchmaking. Same query for LoL though, 23 within the first month alone... only on the first three pages of the search. Within the past week, we've got 18 complaints on the first page. Within the past day, 7... reduced to 5 if you don't include tenuous ones or the ones that'll surpass 24 hours in 2 hours. Unlike LoL, the HotS design team has actually addressed complaints, proving they care enough to... well, fix a common issue, even if they may not have solved the problem. What has LoL's design team done about the innumerable (literally; Riot's 'sort by age of post' function is useless so I don't know how many posts I've missed) complaints? Nothing at all. I could get into the fact that their acknowledgement in and of itself has likely caused the massive downturn in posts about matchmaking on their boards, but... hey, why would I need to? I just have to ask you, when do you stop being an apologist and start thinking about what people have to say? Even if I'm the only one able to articulate shit like this, everyone else has been **saying** it. I'm acting as an amalgamation of what they have had to say. Claims that the matchmaking is fine and _not_ rigged despite countless pieces of evidence to say otherwise is naïve. You're defending them with proof you don't have, with evidence you don't have and with knowledge that's both flawed and _not your own._ You don't even have any examples, because you _know_ they're flawed: you'll post about how the five people on your team and the enemy team are perfectly-matched with a screencap, and someone else posts about a Bronze 4 on their Gold 2 team w/ their own screencap. None of us know the statistic used to determine that "matchmaking" and, weirdly, they don't seem intent on showing it to us. It's indicative of something more nefarious. If it's so easy to prove us wrong, why won't they just... say... replace LP with MMR? Or show us the two side-by-side? Or show us both on a match-by-match basis? Or release the source code for the matchmaking? If their matchmaking does work as you say it does then there's no reason for them to be afraid of releasing it to the public, if people already know how it works. ...or maybe they do change it to suit their own ends? Seems like the logical conclusion. The same system that matches a full Gold team against a full Gold team is the same one that matches a full Bronze team against a full Gold team. None of us have our MMR -- a statistic -- to look at and compare, we only have a pseudo-statistic (LP, divisions and leagues) that doesn't even do the job it's meant to!

> [{quoted}](name=Teh Song,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fOPPEWdw,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-08-17T21:40:58.093+0000) > > honestly how good or bad people are isn't even relevant to winrate, it's just such an idiotic complaint. > I don't understand how/why some people don't understand what *no matter what skill you are* you'll get a 50% winrate and it's not because it's being forced on you, it's just what happens if matchmaking is any good. Concerns are if the matchmaking is good. A lot of people of all ranks have been saying it's bad, and the only evidence supports the claim. Anyone on the other side's missing any evidence or proof that the matchmaking is good, so the former side's arguments are more compelling on a logical basis and -- as of now -- the people who deny there's a problem with it are akin to flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers. Btw, I say this thinking I'm a rank above where I deserve to be. Beat that, > [{quoted}](name=Jimmy Rustles,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fOPPEWdw,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-08-17T20:21:34.012+0000) > > Alotta people suck ass at this game but don't/can't admit it, it has to be riots fault they aren't winning > > I'm fully aware of how bad I am at least Oh, and what about Faker complaining about it? D+ players? When will you stop trying to dismiss it with your own form of the null hypothesis theory box, where the possibility of anything else is alien because you declare it wrong but then you refuse to see the possibility it may be correct because you declare it alien?

False equivalency. The impact of a bot -- something that actually _does_ fix itself even if it destroys a few matches on the way to doing so -- has nothing on the impact of matchmaking itself. If ranks were decided by skill, there wouldn't be such a vast & visible disparity... which never seems to get "better" as time goes on, like your theory of matchmaking should suggest. Seriously, if all the feeders were to 'filter out', why are they still in my game? You know what's even funnier? The fact that there are more and more matchmaking complaints, season-to-season. S6 it almost always met the response you gave: it's your fault, not the matchmaking's. Now? It's pretty much unanimous that it's rigged. I think you might be changing your tune, if you were present in S6 actively railing against the few threads that were here. Kai, this is just you projecting your own fundamentals onto everyone else like they share the same thoughts, opinions or mindset. You're still using an ideal variation of their matchmaking **as if that's what they use when you have no proof they do.** You are left to **speculate** & **guess** without information. Being a software coder or matchmaking algorithm designer only informs you on their creation. You don't know what they'll be used for, in the hands of the patent owners. You don't know how it'll be changed to suit them, unless you sold it to them under the written condition that they cannot make any changes whatsoever (which is strangely unpopular!) You can guess what they may change and how, but... that's exactly what you're doing: guessing! You made the toy, you sold it... and that's where your responsibility and control ends. You can't change how they use the toy, even if they don't use it for the intended purpose.

As a player who thinks he deserves high Bronze while being in high Silver, think the matchmaking is rigged in some way or other. I've played HotS, DotA2, even more recent games like Apex Legends, and think this matchmaking is discernibly worse at matching people of equal skill up against one-another. DotA2 is a more snowball-heavy game, so the current game-state can't be to blame. HotS is a more team-based experience, so the reliance on your team can't be blamed. If you look at my match history, you'll find a consistent streak of... streaks. WWWWWW followed by LLLLLL in that order. The chance a W follows another W is around 25% at your skill level. The chance another win follows that is 12.5%. The chance another win follows that is 6.25%. The chance another win follows that is 3.125%. The chance another win follows that is 1.5625%. The chance another win follows that is 0.78125%. That happening in a consistent array of 'streaks' is even more unlikely, but yet so common. Now that you know the math, do you really intend to say that something with a 0.01% chance to occur occurring constantly is statistically _normal?_ It happens at every rank, too. People from Diamond have been complaining. Even Faker has criticized it. You also don't have any proof their matchmaking isn't rigged! It's called the 'null hypothesis theory', almost a fallacy, where you need to prove not only that there's another answer but that the **current** answer is wrong. 'God doesn't exist and you need to prove that God does' without any reason to think God doesn't exist in the first place. It's reversible, too: 'God does exist and you need to prove that God doesn't.' You only have an idealized version of how it 'should' work, and you're talking about it like that's how it *does* work... which you don't know. A dishonest way to debate. What **undeniable proof, non-hypothesis,** even evidentially, can you provide that shows matchmaking is working as intended? Evidence including your match history being a 50/50 of interspersed wins and losses? Well-done... now you could be the statistical anomaly. How about, instead, picking 100 people from one rank and then scanning their match history for streak-based similarities like I have, Kai Guy? If you want to find the truth, maybe try something like that instead of telling them about **your** matchmaking system, which Riot -- the company the criticism is targeted at -- most likely does not use. Remember that mention that I'm Silver despite being Bronze an every level? I still think I lose games I have no right to lose, where my team is **somehow even worse than I am** after a streak of wins where my team is as good as I am, or better. I know that I'd **lose ranks** if the matchmaking was better, but I also know I could finally rest at ease knowing what I need to improve upon.