: And people think we're bad.
> [{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 -.-
floo (EUW)
: Out of your 10 last games, you played against 10 different champions. Out of your 10 last games, you played against 9 different jungle champions, Hecarim appearing twice. One of those Heca players played him regularly. Can't say how "weak" Garen is against Hecarim, but you tell me. 3 of those people played their champs "regularly", Urgot, Darius and Vayne (if you want to count ~30-40 games out of 100+ as regular). I'm not that familiar with matchups for Garen, but looking at winrates he doesn't seem to struggle against any of them immensly, even though Vayne should be quite tough. Correct me if I'm wrong. So not only did you get all different champs against you, none of them were actual mains of counter matchups for your champion. Also none of your enemy junglers could've been systematically put against you. Again, it's quite hard to predetermine what people will actually pick. A lot of those players in your games play many different champions in their respective roles. If you are just playing one and the same champion, it's gonna be obvious you'll see counterpicks to exactly your champion quite often, especially if they are picked after you. Tbh to me it sounds like someone who's spent thousands of games in ranked, playing a lot of different champions with a 4x% winrate except for your mains, who's had a 48% winrate over 1.6k games last season alone. You may take off your tinfoil hat.
[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.
: 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.
> [{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.
: "Random political stab, I rest my case." lmao. There's a couple *actual* points: firstly - nobody likes Nubrac. There were a lot of people who defended him cause Nightblue is a dick who literally invoked Riot, but at the end of the day, there's not a single person who *wants* someone to "support in the solo lane" in their game. Death threats and everything aside, if you just *play your best game, doing your role's job* then report them, it doesn't really matter. Riot is not the police - if you feel legitimately threatened, Riot is not the group you send that to. But of course, OP isnt gonna do that, cause then he's gonna get arrested for just swatting people that never made any threats, I'm sure. Lastly, and the reason I post here, is that the boards typically try to avoid political talk. You know the internet taboo: don't talk about religion or politics, cause you're gonna start a war. I'll refrain from starting the war, cause I'm a *civilized* asshole. But some not-so-civilized assholes will probably show up eventually.
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.
Tokishi7 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Jesus is Savior,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EtdJO92x,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-07T03:33:41.986+0000) > > Only dodge when YOU are at a disadvantage (eg: YOUR champion is banned). You can't actually predict your teammates. You can look at their stats, but you really have no idea how they will perform, so you might be throwing LP away. eg: if I think my ADC is going to do bad (but he's not actually going to do bad) and I dodge even though I get my one-trick and the enemy team doesn't counter me.... I'm throwing away LP. And then my next game I might get an 80% winrate Vayne who lands on Vayne and plays poorly because, again, you can't predict your teammates. If you're in plat+, dodging is a legitimate strategy. If you have a guy with over 1500 games for the season still in the same division, lets be honest, he's going to perform subpar and that's why he's hovering 0 lp lol
? 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._
: > [{quoted}](name=Revech,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EtdJO92x,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-12-07T06:26:16.743+0000) > > it's worth it even when you burn 10 LP and have a 1 hour timeout?
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?
: They really didn't try to keep the playstyle of any of those champs lol {{champion:3}} was a self sustaining poke machine with an all in ult, new Galio melee/tanky fella that has the same ult concept but is worse because they gave him a weaker and less functional version of his old ult on the W {{champion:83}} was a mid range aoe guy who got passive tankiness (which was kinda strong/weird) and basically shut down his opponent because of it, he wasn't a great split pusher or team fighter. Current Urgot is a melee lane bully who just split pushes {{champion:6}} was a long range anti everything basically (which could have been tweaked instead of removing him) who had one of the scariest engages because it was a suppresion and AoE fear/Damage reduction. Current Urgot is a melee range "ranged juggernaut" who just lunges as people and hits W, now with an execute for some reason {{champion:266}} was about self healing and AA's as well and trading HP for more damage, current Aatrox has the same self healing mechanic and has a very similar ult to old Aatrox, but I wouldn't consider them similar either
Did you notice that you said "Urgot" when you meant to refer to Yorick?
: > [{quoted}](name=Torkl,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nPExhL7N,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-06T16:23:18.579+0000) > > She needs atleast 15 kills from lanephase to not be totally useless late and even with alot of kills she can still be useless in 5v5 I agree. But she is an assassin. Her strong suit is cleaning up and not team fighting.
> [{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_.)
Kai Guy (NA)
: I don't do great with compliments but thank you, thou I'd rather ya just use Kai. What benchmark rank do you want to make? Your Ahri and Sona Stats seem solid to the point that if you removed some of the poor winrate champions from last season you kept playing then you should be able to snag gold, thou I don't have context on what MMR your majority of wins on them are in. I enjoy helping folks so if you want then your welcome to add me. I also hesitate to rush to your max end of skill if your looking to improve on other roles or champions. Its pretty frustrating when you feel ready out of norms or flex to go get stomped in lane. So before deciding when or what to aim for as a goal Imo you need to know what do you enjoy from the game? Mastering new things. Playing multiple things. Only playing your favorite thing. Winning. Getting as high of a rank as you can. Playing with friends. Etc.
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.
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EYOyjnAZ,comment-id=0000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T08:46:19.699+0000) > > 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'm sorry but if you think there is any equivocation between the goals of one party and the goals of another party then you are horribly mistaken. You seem to think that one line of thought can maintain the motives and goals of every human without understanding that many people's goals run completely contradictory to other peoples goals. Healthcare for instance, one party wants to make it universal, one wants to privatize it. Do you think that there is a "humanist" answer here? I mean there is, its completely universal healthcare. They are completely polarized choices. There is no overlap here. In fact, there is no meaningful discussion either. One is just objectively worse than the other, but because of money and lobbyists one of them gets to exist in the political sphere despite no other developed country taking it seriously. Dude, there is absolutely no issue where compromise with an enemy party has been beneficial to a broader populace. Its a lie that "civil" people tell themselves because they mistakenly believe that cooperation is value that can be extrapolated to people who have completely different interests for similar topics. IDK what you mean politically minded people only focus on the politics of issues and not the issues themselves, they aren't mutually exclusive and solutions to problems are part of the political process. You can't get important and helpful policy through without debate and a fair political process. Lobbyists, money, propaganda from for profit news sources and lieing politicians make it difficult to do this, but you aren't advocating for an alternative. Also, Biased doesn't mean I'm wrong. Reading studies and understanding more about solutions to problems that other countries have implemented, and forming opinions based off of them makes me both biased and right in a lot of cases. being biased and being objective aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either. I've been on both sides of the political isle, and after realizing I fell for propaganda campaigns proposed by billionaires I realized that the solutions you propose to support are being stifled by people who benefit from keeping status quo. I don't know what you are trying to propose here. All I'm seeing is a lot of flowery language around the word "people" with no clear direction, proposition or solution. I mean, republicans and democrats have entirely different values. One wants healthcare to be universal and cheap while the other wants it to be privatized so they can make shareholders more money. There would be no support for republicans if they didn't have for profit propaganda arms funded by billionaires. Whats the humanist solution to this? how do you propose to get a humanist solution through? Do you think that we should compromise between the two parties again? It didn't work last time with the ACA considering we are back to paying $1000 a month for insurance again for 3 people. Compromise always gives shitty results to people. I don't know why you are talking about human nature when there is nothing natural about how we live today. We aren't hunter gatherer societies, we dont walk around naked in small groups. We live in developed societies based off of agriculture with complex government structures that allow us to organize areas with millions of people in them. Humanist isn't even mutually exclusive from anything I have been talking about. If you value solutions that help people rather than maximize profits then you are probably somewhere within the Social Democrat-Democratic Socialist range, which is probably the only ideology that value human life more than money or obscure and frivolous concepts like traditional values. If you want to push ideas (policy) that will help people then you need to start swaying people from conservatism as a whole, which is essentially, the definition of politics. im probably not gonna respond to any more replies.
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.
Rioter Comments
: Me in early s8- You know nerfing the JG isn't gonna help you actually learn how to play the game and the JG is gonna continue to punish your poor lane play. JG isn't actually OP, it's just a scapegoat for your own failures. Boards on crab patch- hallelujah JG isn't OP, you're just mad JG now requires skill Boards 2 weeks later- OMG JG still OP Me in late s8-You know nerfing the JG isn't gonna help you actually learn how to play the game and the JG is gonna continue to punishs your poor lane play. JG isn't actually OP, it's just a scapegoat for your own failures. Boards in S9 preseasons- hallelujah JG isn't OP, you're just mad JG now requires skill Boards 2 weeks later - OMG JG still OP Me in Mid Season 9 - You know nerfing the JG isn't gonna help you actually learn how to play the game and the JG is gonna continue to punish your poor lane play. JG isn't actually OP, it's just a scapegoat for your own failures. Boards after 3rd set of nerfs - hallelujah JG isn't OP, you're just mad JG now requires skill Boards 2 weeks later - OMG JG still OP Me in preseason 10- You know nerfing the JG isn't gonna help you actually learn how to play the game and the JG is gonna continue to punish your poor lane play. JG isn't actually OP, it's just a scapegoat for your own failures. Boards after 4th set of nerfs hallelujah JG isn't OP, you're just mad JG now requires skill Boards 2 weeks later - OMG JG still OP Me in Preseason 10 - FUCK THIS {{champion:31}} MID {{item:1401}} {{summoner:11}} {{summoner:4}}
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.
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EYOyjnAZ,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T03:24:38.586+0000) > > 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. I literally just said that the media only cares about turning profits, and will focus on stories that drive their ratings up (because there is correlation between the two). Thats their motive, its their ONLY motive. That is why they do a bad job, they don't care about accurately informing the public, they are there to make money. One of the ways they do this is by clinging to a political party because sponsorships, lobbyists the media and politicians are pretty much a pipeline to each other. Whats different between the media and nationalists is that nationalists genuinely want to make life worse for other people on a policy basis. It will cause actual harm if their beliefs gain traction and a say in actual political policy. Driving them into their little nationalist groups doesn't increase their recruitment in any way. What does bring people into their ranks is seeing people like Richard spencer on CNN or college campuses. And if "your personal beliefs" involve deporting mass amounts of minorities from the country, or rewriting the holocaust to support your political beliefs, then they are a threat to the concept of democracy and need to either have their freedom of speech stifled by any means necessary. I have no clue what argument you are trying to make actually. Is this some giga-enlightened centrist argument? Like, no. Ideology is a set of policies and values that you want society to hold. Its one of the most important components to a democracy, and people who do not like democracy, and are invested in conspiracies want to dismantle it. By ensuring that people who want to destroy it cannot recruit more people, it can be more easily preserved. I really don't know what you are trying to say about the people in the white house trying to get us to argue? Are you trivializing politics or something? I get if political issues don't affect you in any shape or form but healthcare for my family has been the top of the priority list for years now, and there is a lot of other issues that directly affect my family. Voting is the only way that people can make their life better in a lot of ways, so if you are trying to handwave political discourse as a concept then, IDK what to say really. Congrats on stuff not affecting you? If you are saying that the parties need to cooperate with eachother then thats a hard no from me. I do not want any conservative to get a SINGLE word in healthcare policy because they are diametrically opposed to solutions that would most benefit me and my family. Its like that for a lot of issues.
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.
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EYOyjnAZ,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:59:09.620+0000) > > 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 ;) The media are cooperations that have a fiduciary responsibility to generate as much wealth as possible for their shareholders, that's why they focus on stories that will get them the most money. They don't have any responsibility to report on whats important. I mean, free speech is good for expressing unpopular opinions, but what white nationalists are doing is engaging in historical revisionism and dog whistling to dishonestly get their points into public discourse. They actively target people with mental issues to indoctrinate them into conspiracy theories. Its dishonesty, and it needs to be addressed publicly so that people understand what is going on and don't end up falling for this stuff. A lot of their talking points need a deeper historical context to debunk than what you get in highschool. They are actively lieing, and IDK if that should constitute free speech. Ideologies professing to revoke the rights and freedoms of different groups probably shouldn't even get an opportunity to spread their message or beliefs. If they ever become popular, then groups will lose their right to exist, or share their own free speach. Its the classic paradox of tolerating intolerance. If intolerance is tolerated, then when those groups gain political power they will revoke rights from the tolerant. No like, the shooter had a manefesto that listed many white nationalist talking points, like how "his people" were being replaced by immigration. bruh ur joke wasn't even comparable.
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.
: 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.
> [{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.
Kai Guy (NA)
: > At least you're asking now. I appreciate that. I don't do that well communicating via text. Need body language for social ques and it helps when people can interrupt me. I am trying to work on it. Using Italics for sarcasm. Trying to post shorter so folks don't get lost. Trying to remember that people will take a conversation to be 1 on 1 if you have a string of reply's when I still treat it mentally as an open ended conversation any one around might join in. Not being able to communicate efficiently when I want to be helpful is frustrating. Still have the same agenda thou, I want the average poster to be educated on the systems to the point that quality conversations are made on how to add quality and apply community pressure to achieve the logical ones. I think its Easy for Riot to ignore Bullshit posts they know are wrong. Anyhow "I am interested in knowing how they got into my game, in detail though." Riots demotion protection for Ranks is huge. People are often found 2-3 Division averages lower mach averages. Dropping from X to Y feels really bad so Riot added extra padding to avoid players losing their shit about it. So theres a massive pool of players with a sub their rank average MMR who don't quite fall so low they get demoted. Pretty [visible](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/rankings/rank-distribution) Gold 4 is the current worst area. So when folks get out of Placement games, 8 is just not enough games for high statistical relevance. PvP gameplay relys on players heavily, I am pretty confident that every experienced League player has had the _wonderful _ experience 2-3 back to back Games high toxic teammates that destroyed any hope of quality matches. Anyhow point being the rank you get out of placements is absolutely not expected to be accurate. Going off Match averages you can see the Ranks right out of placements that get given trend to be below the listed Game average of that account. I don't have any Red comments on it so the logic far as I can tell is 1. It Give folks incentive to play and "climb" (when with slanted LP gains they are favored to rise to that match average even if you just go 50% WR) 2. It helps evade Demotion protection for ranks. A Bronze Player comes out of placements with Bronze rank because they did poorly. If it was just bad luck skewing some early games then patching their WR up over the # of games expected to be of statistical significance will see that player promote to Silver or possibly gold. [I ran some tests on it in S9 where I tried to make a wide MMR to Rank gap](https://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=notnotkaiguy) That's just opinion, by all means if you Or any other reader have better logic or more compelling reasons please feel free to share. So at a glance, that bronze player does not look like he belongs in S2-g4 MMR. I say this not due to his Rank being Bronze but cuz of his results in those games being consistently awfully. Its easy to make comments like that when you grade the history of the account. Takes a longer when its an automated system because it cant adjust for context on the fly. What are people like this fellow who might be a proper newbie to the game doing inside G4 who are just out of placements? It looks like Riot wants more players in Gold, so they moved the MMR ranges, this is something they have done before and you can see it between Season 1 and Season 2 if you check the Wiki. Ranks function mostly to distract players and they do a very good job on that. I used to see Silver 2 be consistently the MMR range for peoples first placement game on a fresh account. Now it looks more like G4. So something has changed. Its less impact to change Ranks then MMR values so my $ is on Gold representing different MMR values... example if 1200-1249 used to be Silver 2 that range is now Gold 4. The math side you asked me to not go off on... so TLDR 1. the Rate of stay and change is related to statistics concepts. K variable for how much MMR is gained/lost by a "high uncertainty" account is Built around the concept of [Standard Deveation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) TLDR2. The Odds from a Baddie who decided a game are related to you being on your team and occupying that slot. 4/9 vs 5/9 or 44% to 56% That's basically the logic behind "Oh if you're good enough you'll climb" its LLN and house advantage if your under valued.
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.
: 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.
> [{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?_"
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=00000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T01:44:41.935+0000) > > _"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. Lol... You posted that Dota 2 doesn't ban players for toxicity. I give you a source that specifically shows they are banning people for toxicity as well as other breaches of the terms of use, and your argument is that it's not JUST toxic players being banned? Riot does ban for account sharing (buying and selling being an extension of this), and there's evidence of it all over these very boards. Riot also bans for use of 3rd party applications, of which there is also evidence all over the boards. From the official Dota 2 Blog: http://blog.dota2.com/2019/09/matchmaking-update-for-the-next-ranked-season/ > This update includes a few different ban waves for bad actors. The first ban wave is to players with exceptionally low behavior scores. We will continue to do regular ban waves for users who fall into this small percentage of the community. Users that reach this low level of behavior in the game are too big of a tax on the rest of the community and are not wanted.
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.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T01:32:55.674+0000) > > 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. https://dotesports.com/dota-2/news/dota-2s-20-year-ban-wave-explained
_"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.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=0000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:39:17.794+0000) > > 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. > > That's ignoring the fact Riot themselves are the ones under suspicion here. And the fact you're ignoring any point presented in my post to deflect blame off'a Riot in a way that's somewhat transparent and suspicious in and of itself. Oh I see, this is a tinfoil hat scenario. Got it. There is no reason for Riot to downplay the number of players being permanently banned. None. If anything, they would benefit more from saying "Look we're cleaning up the community. We have permanently banned the 1,00,000 MOST TOXIC ACCOUNTS. Those of you who on the same path, you're on notice." The reality is that the system is too lenient as it is. You need to be very severely toxic, or very consistently toxic to get permabanned. In fact, I bet you can't find a single example of someone permabanned due to toxicity that the community agrees was unfairly permabanned. > Tell me, oh Wise One, why games like DotA2 -- legend for their toxicity -- are now widely-accepted to be less toxic than League? Even if you want to hide behind the idea that there's no quantifiable evidence, there's still a quantifiable bracket of evidence. I don't know what you mean by "widely accepted to be less toxic". A quick glance at the Dota 2 forums shows they complain about toxicity just as much there. That being said, I do think that Dota 2 is doing some things right that League should copy. For one, Dota 2 requires more than an email to play ranked. You need to have a phone number tied to your account. This means when you're penalized, it's harder to turn around and come back, which means permaban is a bigger deterrent.
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.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=0000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:39:17.794+0000) > > 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. Oh you stealth edited your post... I don't think you really understood my post, or you're being intentionally garrulous. The point is that while it may be natural to get upset, frustrated, or simply defensive, the ability to NOT say or act out every thought or impulse is part of being a well-adjusted member of society. Besides, everyone does poorly sometimes. That doesn't mean they're doing it intentionally. More than likely that 2/8 Olaf wasn't griefing any more than you were griefing when you went 3/9 on Swain or 3/9 on Senna.
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.
Kai Guy (NA)
: The short hand version would be They did poorly in placements but they still have a Low # of games played. I am interested on the topic but its not for everybody. Leave it up to you, do you need a more detailed response?
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.
: > [{quoted}](name=Clockwork Mouse,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EYOyjnAZ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-03T20:08:18.911+0000) > > GG is hate speech. Stop being toxic > > Also being a frog is racist. Don't tell me you didn't know that? 2016, Pepe is a neo-nazi hate symbol. Frogs are whistle blows to other racist that you are on their side > {{sticker:zombie-nunu-bummed}} The whole point of the frog thing isn't that it itself is racist, its that many people who advocate for a "white ethnostate" often use imagery similar (like the whole fren world thing) to propose historical revisionism (like holocaust denial) and promote similar un-contextualized ideas as jokes in order to slip some really bad stuff into public discourse. Obviously using the frog as a wholesome meme isn't racist and no one would argue otherwise. Its the same thing with the OK hand sign. It wasn't until people on 4-chan started talking about how they wanted to "troll" the media by trying to turn it into a nazi thing that it became controversial. I don't remember which synagogue shooting it was, but the shooter was making an OK hand signal in his mug shot. Its not a "troll" anymore when white nationalist terrorists start doing it non-ironically. The reason these "panics" start is because when the media brings attention to these things, and makes them mainstream, malicious actors cannot use these things to dog whistle to each other anymore. It makes it harder for them to organize, and it makes them unable to do public events out of fear of backlash. This reduces their recruitment capacity, thereby reducing the amount of extremists. don't fall for the reactionary appropriation of free speech propaganda my dude
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 ;)
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=00000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-04T21:53:43.003+0000) > > I'd go out of the way to be less toxic if I could choose to get a hand-picked Legendary skin after 500 honors or something. The current iteration of "chances are you'll get a useless recolor" random chance is not likely to persuade anyone to act differently, because the reason they're even acting as they are is that they feel powerless in this random chance meta. That just makes toxicity and disappointment more common. > > I can't tell you just how disappointing it is to open a chest for being a Very Good Boy™ and get Chrome Rammus for my troubles when I don't even play Rammus. The satisfaction of flaming my 2/8 Olaf, even if I get a chat ban following it, is greater than the satisfaction of being polite to someone who just wasted 30 minutes of my time intentionally ruining the match for me and my team. I do not doubt that there are some people who lack the capacity to behave like decent human beings and are complete slaves to their impulses. However, the majority of players don't share this issue and are never penalized, or if they are penalized, change their ways after the first penalty. And of course, there's the tiny fraction of players who refuse to change, and who are eventually permabanned. If the carrot doesn't get you, the stick eventually will.
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.
Kai Guy (NA)
: That's a High uncertainty account. They are sinking and have dropped almost a full Rank in Match MMR averages, the downward trend on their account is visible.
The Bronze? Why T.F are they in my game, though?
Ayzev (EUW)
: Shitposting is more fun, but I guess I can try that as well > [{quoted}](name=TotalSilencey,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-03T23:43:47.815+0000) > > Teams that work together out on the rift, win more often. Proven. I don't think this has anything to do with Riot encouraging or discouraging something, that's just something inherent to most, if not all team games > Teams that flame less, win more. Proven. Probably because people that flame are less likely to work with their team, so this point is the same as the first > Toxic behaviour and attitudes are punished to prevent bad behaviour. I even had my first account banned (reformed player here as living proof the system works). So here we've got one player that reformed to prove it works. And an entire playerbase that has retained notoriety for its toxicity for years on end to prove that it doesn't. > skins I would be surprised to see anyone who would go out of their way to change their behavior just because they'll occasionally get a random skin. > As for game content or updates. We are getting new champs all the time. Changes to the gameplay and the rift are coming down every season. I love the new Dragon changes that affect the physical map itself. Not an inherently good thing. Many people don't enjoy having to keep relearning the game. And a lot of the time these updates don't address or even exacerbate existing issues or add new ones. As for the new champions, a lot of the time they are either balance nightmares, or cancer to play against - but fun to play as, which you could see as something supporting OP's point.
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.
: Isn't it about the same anyway? Bronze 1 VS Gold 4 would be the equivalent of old Silver V - Silver 1.
https://imgur.com/a/UUxH62o Justify that. That's a **RANKED** match. I lost LP for that. I fucking lost LP for that shitshow.
: Bronze, Silver & Gold all in same ranked game? Why???
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.
Rioter Comments
: I'm close to 1 mill points on Soraka and have been playing her since season 5, and I agree with most of what you said. I'd be fine with Senna if she didn't do as much damage. I love the utility Senna brings to the table. I don't want that touched. I want her damage nerfed. Senna's heals aren't as good as Soraka's, but that's a stupid defense because _nobody's_ heals are better than Soraka's. Her whole champion identity is healing, so I would HOPE that nobody's heals are better than Soraka's. For the love of God, don't give the design team any more bad ideas you guys. The issue is that Senna's heals aren't far off from Soraka's, while she's doing an insane amount of damage. It's the same problem as with Yuumi. You can't completely erase a champion classes' weaknesses. It just doesn't work out. Enchanters are vulnerable and don't do a lot of damage. That's their trade off for having high levels of utility. When you give them no interaction like with Yuumi, they're broken. When you give them damage like with Senna, they're broken. It's not a difficult concept to understand but one Riot seems to always be pushing against lately. They don't know how to create enchanters anymore. In my opinion Senna can be saved. She doesn't need to be permanerfed like Yuumi or permabanned like Pyke. If they just tone down her damage, she could do fine, but then that takes us into the bigger issue that we're all kneecapped as supports now thanks to the items changes that were created because of mage supremacy developing bot lane.
Senna actually outheals Soraka until the mid/endgame where Soraka can use W every 3s.
: She's one of the most broken release champs since Xin Jao. Sure, some champs have been broken upon release in the past. Some did too much damage. Some healed too much. Some were too hard to kill. Senna has all of that, just like Xin did (just to a lesser extent).
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.
: > [{quoted}](name=Mavëríck,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7qKQt4P4,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-01T00:16:49.571+0000) > > Maybe it's just a coin flip game with a forced 50% win rate to keep everyone playing through addiction...did you ever think of that? Where did you buy your tin foil hat and where can I get one?
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_.
Rioter Comments
Manxxom (NA)
: ***
... 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.
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=TvyQWAIE,comment-id=00040003,timestamp=2019-11-30T07:38:56.708+0000) > > 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. Akali is one of the most oppressive champions to take into top lane. That 100 unit restriction you talk about means nothing when your champion is melee and doesn't have mobility built in. Moreover, a fed Akali is miles more useful than a Fiora for the simple fact she will live through teamfights whereas Fiora will not if even a single person in your team built Grievous Wounds. Fiora has parry and that's as far as it goes for incoming focus fire. Akali has shroud, 2 ult dashes, and her E on top of her core item, gunblade giving her another way to control opponents and avoid focus fire in a teamfight. There's a reason only Akali and Qiyana have seen pro play in these recent seasons; one has incomparable safety and the other the ultimate teamfight pickmaker and objective contest ult. The rest of the midlane roster in the competitive scene has been nothing but artillery mages and Tristana/Lucian, that should tell you something about assassins compared to Akali and Qiyana. A fed MF is more useful than either of those for the simple fact ADC's rule teamfighting and siege when supported properly. It just so happens that other ADC's do what MF does better and have all these self peels no ADC should have (being ranged and the best scaling champion with absurd right click damage should mean that when someone gets on you, you die; not like the currently obscene Kai'sa/Xayah/Caitlyn who can now even 1v1 many champions despite the ADC role being designed as a 2-man package).
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.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Yea? What moba has better balance?
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.
: It's the slow in her Q that makes her so abusive. She can virtually poke you down with little chance for retaliation since her spammable poke is a conal slow that helps her get away from ganks on top of her shroud, E dashback, and gunblade slow on top of 2 dashes from her ult. She has way too many outs of mispositioning or getting caught out. A way worse version of Zed since at least Zed has a 22 sec cd on his escape outside his ult, and his slow is not spammable nor does it have the range of Akali's slow. It's too easy for her to dictate the terms of engagement, and once she gets gunblade she gains way too much healing.
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.
: That and zed also makes it very clear who he’s focusing and doesn’t have a bullshit instant energy recovery mechanic
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.
: > [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=TvyQWAIE,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-11-29T04:32:49.871+0000) > > 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. The problem (as an illaoi player) is that that sustain has to be there and has to be at least as good as it is because ranged melee matchups are already completely fked top lane where picking a melee before your opponent locks in means they auto lock in kayle, kennen, vlad, or ryze and harass you to death and don't let you play the game while also scaling 2-3x better. More healing reduction will make this problem much worse. Kled has already been top tier for multiple patches because literally no sustain based fighter can all in him on even terms because of his random 60% heal reduce
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.
: I sadly don't have an exact timeline. But the burst meta began far earlier. Sustain buffs came creeping all throughout the latter half of S9 in response. Instead of buffing defense, they slowly buffed more and more sustain effects in the game.
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.
GankLord (NA)
: I agree with you but her get out options are also a huge problem she doesn't have to commit to anything and she's virtually impossible to punish for positioning badly.
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.
: The sustain meta that lurks behind the burst meta should stay until the burst meta is resolved. Is sustain an issue right now? Yeah. Is burst an even bigger issue right now? Yeah. Does sustain help burst be less of an issue? Yep. And that’s why.
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.
: There NEEDS to be some kind of counter to Akali's smokescreen
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.
: The reason why plating gives gold is actually to reduce the effect of team-wide snowball(the "deathball" meta) If a botlane gets a gank and win 3v2, sure, they will get 1-2 plates(2 plates give 320 gold total, which is less than a kill gold+2 assists) but the armor on tower will prevent them from destroying that tower fast. Also, by taking plates, they are wasting time they could use to take drake(that, in my opinion, is worth much more than 320 gold), roam mid or just recall. If they win lane, they can't really go roam because their enemies will just take their plates instead. The idea is that winning a lane is just winning a lane, the winner cant just go win all other lanes. This makes lanephase a bit longer, with more chances to comeback, either by outplaying or with a jungler's help. Remove it, and there will be no point in staying on your lane, and slightly winning team will just group as 5 to run over objectives without anything losing team can do
Hey look a logical reply that isn't the Souls fandom's "git gud" meme but without the self-aware irony. Have an upvote.
: How people get pleasure from Playing with/against Akali ? Where is the interaction with her?
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.
: Right. Sure. And you're kept behind by your team. Just like it was the better botlane last season, or the better jungler the season before, or lag previously, or their OP champion, or whatever goddamned excuse you decided to come up with for your loss. Can we stop reciting the same conspiracy theory over and over? Thanks.
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.
Kai Guy (NA)
: My intent was to provide an exaggerated but very Clear example of what a higher skill player looks like and I opted to use one who is considered to be one of the very best. If you want to see examples of very very bad MM simply make a new account and slog thru the new player experience like I am doing currently and you see a dramatic difference between Ranked Vs being a level 4 account. New player experience btw is awfull and Entirely worth investing more Resources into to help. Mentor style programs with incentives I think have potential as a viable fix but that's my opinion for a solution. Skill discrepancy is expected at high uncertainty. That's just the nature of the beast. The feeders don't filter out if their good games balance out the shitty ones. It takes consistently failing to match expectations to see some one move up or down to a new class interval. Riots systems could use improvement. The common complaints are off target and many posters don't adhere to the basic principles that would be relevant. So if Riot is dishonest AF and uses a non MMR system? Well … The way to check for that would be to understand what a MMR system is. You train people how to find counter fit money by having them study the real thing. If Riot does exactly what they say and use a MMR system? The argument its "forced" or "rigged" Is going to be ignored completely because the devs who run that know very well that No... its not forced or rigged some ones talking out their ass. So I step up and defend MMR and correct people who say things that do not conform to realistic expectations to have. I don't intend to project onto others, My goal here is to help folks understand the concepts behind the system enough that they can also see things that generate negative experience. I do have some personal stake in doing this cuz i play the dam game and I see to many Losses because some NA player gives up and rolls over like a fucking idiot when 1 lane is down 2 kills. Again you study the real thing to prove something is fake. Posts like this one. FORCED 50% and Champion WR. Like.. There is no body to this post but look at how many upvotes the guy gets. No account for skill floors, or ceelings. If your playing this game i dont understand how some one feels that not all champions are on the same scale, and that's normal in games with individual kits. Complaints about MM? Back to season 1. You find them. Every single year, you find them. RIGGED MM... Take a look. [Smite](http://forums.smitegame.com/showthread.php?183805-HiRez-Smite-really-needs-to-fix-their-shit)? > Match making is trash. They put you in with shitters who play the same damn characters and f6 because they’re garbage. Then after having to deal with these garbage ass players, they put you in another match with the fuckers who ended the last game you were in, playing the same character they were trashhhhhh with. I chose not to make a selection because of the trash player they paired me with for the second time, and I get deserter “240 minutes”. Quit putting me in matches with the same trash, and I wouldn’t have to decide it’s not worth playing. I’ve spent 1000’s of dollars on this game! And I’d like to have fun. Not get stuck with noob ass shit. That's poped up when i checked their boards. Lets try another game. [Dota 2?](https://steamcommunity.com/app/570/discussions/0/3185654583880244642/) > WTF is this match making? I am Archon II, and I just had a game where enemy team had ANCIENT III & LEGEND II and all archons while my team had Archon III and Crusader V. It was entire one sided game ofcouse we lost badly 44-10 This is totally unfair I mean why not match making give only archons level player in both my team and enemy team. This happens after I won 2 games they put me and my team against ancient and legend. And none of them had higher mmr than 2k which was total bs That's from about 3 hours ago. HOTS? [Take ](https://us.battle.net/forums/en/heroes/topic/20769427278) [Your ](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/t/crappy-mmr-system/23798) [Pick](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/t/what-is-wrong-with-ur-mmr-system/3125/3). [Battlerite](https://steamcommunity.com/app/504370/discussions/0/1640912849399064209/)? This one was a bit harder to find. had to scroll thru 7 pages with a bunch of OMG DEAD GAME! posts. So... Players Bitching about MM in PVP team games? This is nothing new. Yet... in any given game the Players who can and will sit down, use the mathematical equations, and explain what the devs are doing that does not adhere to the principles? Good luck finding those posts. I try to do it for league. You ever seen anybody else who can talk people thru class interval generation? But look at how unpopular my posts are in this thread. Fucking reminds me of Galatians 4:16 man. So Why? Because I tell people that personal impact matters and you cant write of your impact in a large # system? meh. Option A. the systems used by almost every Dev are inherently non functional. Going from posters and frequency of complaints then no MM Is functional if you blindly trust folks on a boards making that claim. Option B. People with no education on a topic almost never know what the fuck they are talking about. You decide what reflects reality. Till some one whos making the claim Riot is lying provides the burden of proof I see no reason to change my mind. I do change my mind btw, I try to be self correcting. That's how you grow. #scientificmethodyall Riot can do better but Claims for forced or Rigged with out providing any fucking proof or evidence should be ignored when you can observe a very fucking clear gap in skill between bottom and top of the ladder. You can do that for league. You can not use MMR for rigged MM because the very act of doing that removes ANY fucking relation of SKILL TO MMR. How the hell can I pound this simple point home to people?
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!
Teh Song (NA)
: 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.
> [{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?
Kai Guy (NA)
: Right, In other words Even the standard or lower MMR players can clearly see and understand there are higher skill players and that if a clear and large Gap in skill exists it generates Impact on winning games. That's a Fair statement on my part yes? On the flip side, having a Bot on your team run it down mid all game? That's a clear lack of skill and a Negative impact for the teammates right? Fair statement?
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.
Kai Guy (NA)
: So... If you MM by win %? A bad player would Have to be put on a good players team to make each team have a Fair WR yes? Why the fuck do you feel that some one who has say 80% WR being kneecapped with a 20% teammate to get the team average to balance out would be better MM. That's literally rigging MM and rewards weak players and harms good ones. As it stands RNG distribution is fair when MM range is tight enough that it does not exceed a class interval. That's why exceeding the Standard deviation results in Rating changes to new class intervals. How come your not account for Skill gaps? Like WR is expected to change when some one is outclassed... Its not magicaly gonna sink them prior to playing games. They lose or win vs the range MM uses off their MMR value so they shift to reflect the probability expectations. So.. a 1200 Rated player only keeps that if they stay in with in the standard Deviation expectations (σ) for the probability modle used. Ea. 1200 constantly loses to 1200 they drop in points until their Score = Their win % with the context of who they play. Lose 3/4 games to a 1200 players? In Elo's OG that would end up set you to a raiting of 1000. Also there is a finite population in a game so there will be a Mode you can use to build your mean averages. Gonna be represented in the starting MMR value on all accounts. You cant say above average or below average if theres no average to use for that comparison. (sorry silver players, I know that can be rough for yall.) Where do you discuss in your rank the impact low # of games makes? some one with only 1 match has either a 100% or a 0% WR. Any reason you think streaks matter? Or set 3 as a value of any meaning? Like... lets use 50% odds. here is a [visualization ](https://www.random.org/coins/?num=100&cur=60-usd.0025c-ga)of that for you. Behold how often something is in a streak of 3 or more. Any coin that's not 1 or 2 with out change is part of a "streak" Now set 10 as a streak and see how it almost never happens. Then set 20. Crazy how much change in # of streaks and % of results that are part of a streak change when your Value for a streak increases. Also MMR is a balance WTF does a streak have to do with anything? The order the come in is irrelevant. WWWL = WlWW = LWWW =WWLW. W and L are win and loss but they represent a numeric variable of change. That change would be the same any time the K and WE variables are identical so the order is irrelevant. Lets say W=5 and L= -7 5+5+5-7= 5-7+5+5= -7+5+5+5 = 5+5-7+5. how shocking! apparently if you solve the for the equation you find that 8=8=8=8. And why would you expect to win with a weak team. Like your on a streak... ok. Regardless of how long it is, when you get folks who do badly... you should expect to lose yea? Everybody on my team was by far the better player this game and that's why we lost. In what world would that be logical? Please educate yourself on the topic befor you go around telling folks this is how it is. The excuse of Elo hell or Rigged matchmaker gives stuck players an excuse to just give up and roll over in games and that's a net negative for gameplay. Don't encourage halfass players. Also I did like you asked and checked your op.gg and I cant say i am really impressed by you being rated as 10th that jhin loss with a score of 0-6-0.
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.
Show more

Inari Fox Orrion

Level 193 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion