: It's like they expected ADC mains to magically *stop* playing ADCs. It's Boards, we get people here thinking that just because certain posters don't like playing ADCs, "no one" enjoys it and expected all those ADC mains to switch entire champion pools overnight. But better keep making dozens of threads demanding more nerfs because they're not completely gone from the game.
Botlane=/=ADC. The sooner the playerbase realizes this, the better.
saltran (EUW)
: Marksman are not mandatory
Anyone exclusively playing ADCs on current patch is playing it wrong. There is more to the game than having fun to many players. Meta needs to be considered, for ranked play at least. A lot of ADCs are straight up troll picks right now compared to the likes of Vlad, Brand, Irelia, Yasuo, etc, but are still being played, and nobody is saying a word about it, while a lot of the actual meta botlaners, or even counterpicks, can be lynched in champ select due to lack of information and player stupidity. The community is bad at the game. Botlane is not ADC. ADC can be played in all roles in current meta. Anyone who insists bot is ADC is wrong.
: His jungle clear is a little annoying at how fast it is. it seems like he already has his jungle cleared and is ganking a lane before im even 80% through with my jungle (I know he cleared his because he had more CS then me). Granted I play champs with a little slower cleartime than the more meta junglers but its kinda crazy how fast he can get things done.
I can second this. His clear is insane. His passive and Q both do nutty damage. His ganks are either fucking amazing or totally DoA. I run predator to compensate and secure the first Q.
: 150 armor, Zed takes 85% of my HP with w q e combo. Ok?
News at 11: Fed Zed obliterates squishy champion!!!
Altiverse (EUNE)
: Reading through Zed's change history in the last two seasons absolutely disgusts me
Zed hasnt been an overbearing meta pick in literally ages. Stop the circle jerk and play the game. Zed is fine.
: Juggernaut is a good description of the new Aatrox. Sure, he has a dash, but that's because his Q is a self root otherwise.
It may self root, but it's insane damage if you land it.
: try building this {{item:3147}} + {{item:3095}} + {{item:1001}} + {{item:3748}} + {{item:3022}} + {{item:3812}} or {{item:3078}} or {{item:3087}} + Aatrox new passive trust me when i say this does a shit ton of damage
That build gives me cancer. Aatrox doesnt give a fuck about AS or crits, he wants CDR, AD, and bulk. 0 bulk until third item, no cdr until fourth.
: Most people aren’t complaining that he isn’t an AA champion. We’re complaining that he’s the clunkiest champion rework in several years and that he feels like a thug in a street fight rather than any sort of soldier that has ever been in any sort of battle.
If you've ever actually watched fighting, you'd realize Aatrox's kit is very fitting. Its all about zone control and punishment. Power strikes and footwork to make them land. He feels more methodical than just about any other fighter in the game to me. He's all mind games to play. Reminds me of a cross between Illaoi, Sion, and red Kayn. He offers fantastic zone control, and by god if he catches someone, he'll fucking murder them. He's not an aggressive fighter. He's more of a juggernaut with a small dash.
Violett (NA)
: ***
Up to 280% ad scaling on third Q, 55 bonus ad on his E, and 20% ad for 12 seconds on ult. If you hit your shit you can blow up anyone. He does plenty of damage. Aatrox wins the GP lane matchup. He has better dueling and sustain. Comet+scorch does fuck tons of damage early and you can run him oom fairly easily.
: Yasuo shits on Aatrox. He can dash every q aatrox fires. Sorry, but that yas must've been very new.
Its not that simple. Aatrox is a better ball of stats, and you dont have to fight Yasuo in minions like a retard. If yasuo attempts to go for a fight with yas passive down, Aatrox shits on him with nothing more than passive, AA's, and E resets. Second and third Q hitbox is massive enough that you can time it to hit him even if he's dashing. Match up isnt cut and dry. Better player wins.
: I've been playing a bit of Darkin Boi {{champion:266}} myself, and I think he's not nearly as bad as I first thought he was. The only problem I really have with him is that using his E during Q feels a bit unresponsive at times, and chasing someone down when they're running away can be a real pain at times if you don't have both E charges up. (Though that may just be me. I'd appreciate some tips because I'm really struggling with this.) _Also, here... Have this picture of a smiling Aatrox._ https://imgur.com/a/skj3rQR _I was bored._
Yeah, he's bad at chasing with his basic abilities. I've been running him Predator jungle to help with gapclose. Predator proc also stacks with your passive and forces them to burn mobility or eat your first Q. Glacial Augment+sudden impact might not be a bad choice for jungle Trox as well. If you can confirm your first Q, boi do you do damage.
: I like the Aatrox rework.
I agree. I played some 2 hours of practice tool and >6 games on him yesterday. He feels strong. Q scaling is so good, and if you dont waste Q charges on nothing and actually hit your spells, he does absolutely absurd damage. If you miss your Qs, the champ sucks. But I want every person who says he sucks to look at the numbers on his Q, E, and R. He seems like an intermediate level champ that will take some practice to really get down, but if he's buffed, i think he'll be OP. 280% ad scaling on third Q btw.
Vhan8765 (NA)
: I personally am unhappy with the Ultimate Hat changes. Aery is basically a must-have on any Heal/Shield supports, almost always followed by dipping into the Resolve Tree for Revitalize; these two runes are so strong on supports that it doesn't allow much a difference in rune paths. Then with the changes to Ultimate Hat now and the recent buff to Ingenious Hunter, the Domination tree is starting to sound a lot nicer for supports to want to take, although this comes at the extreme cost of losing either Aery or Revitalize and making yourself super handicapped. This ends up feeling more like a nerf then anything else.
Good. Support has been overpowered this season.
Bjözo (NA)
: yeah jeez he'll be so bad now by dealing 35% true damage through conq and IE. completely unplayable {{sticker:sg-ahri-1}}
I logged in to downvote you. You actually dont know what you're talking about. He cant cleanly hit 100% crit, lost 50% crit damage, and had all crit items gold cost increased. He's hot trash right now, went from like a 49% wr to 43 last i checked. He's fucking garbage right now.
: > [{quoted}](name=JESUSSAYSNO,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UQYwdLqj,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2018-05-18T17:07:51.691+0000) > > Crab change is good. Forces laners to be aware of the map. No it causes more Snowballing in the jungle and even now a lot of mid laners and supports are taking smite just to go for scuttle early since it gives such high amounts of XP / Gold. The way scuttle was before was fine but this change is just awful for the game and needs to be reverted asap.
I think the impact is generally fine, outside of forcing mids into smite. The design is good. Frequently spawning objectives that obviously force team rotations and makes macro play matter more. The intent behind the change is to shake up viable picks. The meta has been pretty much solved for a while until now and there's not a lot of non-sweeping changes that can be made to change it. This change shakes up both jungle and lane viability, and we should, in theory, see different champions and strategies revolve around this. In addition, with the changes to shut down gold, we'll be seeing more fights in any given game, starting earlier. In super low elo, probably below silver 3, it's absolutely a jungle snowball mechanism currently. Over time players will adapt and learn how to play with it as an element. I think it's absolutely foolish to assume it's a poor change at this point when it just dropped. It seems like a 'change is bad' reaction, rather than a critical one. I want to see the meta around it be solved, and see how dramaticaly it impacts the general play patterns of the game.
: So if we don't have a cell phone....we can't play clash? :(
I hate to say it, but if you don't have a phone in 2018 in NA, you're part of a small minority that I doubt Riot cares about. Phones are dirt cheap (you can even buy a good smartphone for less than 100), and at this point they're coming close to a necessity in the workplace for communication. Data plans are optional. Having SMS confirmations for ranked gaming isnt even uncommon now days as as well. Dota 2 requires you confirm your account via sms before you can enter ranked play. I believe this is the case with CSGO as well. In Korea, you have to tie your official ID to your league of legends account. We're just moving on technologically, and nailing down players to 1 account is part of that. Having a phone was common 5 years ago, and it's a very safe idea to base account design around it.
: Riot was it really so hard?
Crab change is good. Forces laners to be aware of the map.
: You're just ignoring context entirely. Maybe the death was close? Maybe they were ganked? Maybe they were tower dove? All that is beside the point: Idc about someone coming in to organize and fix up a wave. I DO care if that's the only time I see my jungler.
Jungler's job isnt to babysit you, jungler's job is to win the game. Jungle cleanup is necessary and a required skill for climbing, and if you're just feeding in a lane where you lose the jungle 2v2, you're never getting a gank. There's multiple reasons that you can never see the jungler that both have and do not have to do with your personal gameplay.
: OR: You do your job as a jungler and gank *on time.* This idea of "cleaning up" rather than actually ganking doesn't even help the lane you show up in, anyway. I get that shit happens, but some people just go into the jg and expect everything to go absolutely peachy without them.
'on time' is vague and a pretty dogmatic and responsibility freeing assessment of jungle ganks. A laner should never die in a 1v1 if they're playing well, period. I'm saying that if your laner dies like a bitch, and they do to obvious ganks and 1v1s, cleaning up a remaining kill and fixing their minion wave is the best case scenario. Not only do your directly assist your laner by denying the enemy laner exp and farm gold, you can put them off the map while your dead ass is respawning, you generate gold and exp for yourself, and can set up your laner's minions to favor your team. If top gives a kill at 9 minutes 1v1, the enemy laner is pushing, and they're low, there is not a chance in hell I don't come top, clean up the kill, and bounce the wave against enemy tower. I get massively ahead, enemy laner falls slightly behind, and our top ends up neutral with a favorable minion wave. 'Just gank on time' means absolutely nothing other than 'hurrr jungler's fault', because it's so goddamn vague and gives no situational information. If you die in a 1v1 and blame your jungler, you're a piece of shit. If you die to an obvious gank that was pinged out ahead of time, you're a piece of shit. Being a shit player is not your jungler's fault.
Kythers (NA)
: Ranked is actually so fucking bad right now
That's D5 for you. D5 is about as bad as plat 4. You have boosted accounts, decayed players, and lucky plats who got on a winstreak. In addition it's an x5 division, so it's about 5 times as toxic as the others.
: Junglers have this weird fetish of showing up to lanes AFTER that person dies. That *in general* is shitty jungling.
No, it's called cleaning up. If you can secure the kill solo and fix the minion wave, you should do so 100%. The real problem is laners dying in 1v1s. That should really never happen.
Seen (NA)
: Dear junglers, for the love of Talos
Consider that pushing a wave into the enemy tower sets your laner up for a freeze in 2-3 waves if you aren't fucking retarded and break it. There's no correct catch all answer OP, there's so many situations where pushing waves in specific ways can be beneficial for a laner. If you can deny the enemy laner a whole wave by hard shoving the lane, you should do so. By leaving the 6v6 minion fight on the enemy side, if your laner has a brain, the wave will start slow pushing towards them by default. You also give them lane initiative, allowing them to roam or collapse on invades until the wave is back under your side's tower. With the enemy wave hard pushing after another 2-3 waves, your laner can roam without missing more than 3-6 CS out of 3 waves. There's pros and cons to pushing a neutral wave, and to call it bad in every situation is objectively wrong.
: So you want longer games? Close games can still go up to 40 minutes... and you want LONGER games?
having 45 minutes as a baseline game length is better than 25. Laning and midgame don't last long enough currently, and snowballing is too real.
Dâizumi (NA)
: After some research, I found a disturbing statistic about bot lane.
As a JG/mid main, this doesn't surprise me at all. I can hard carry almost every game my botlane goes even in. Putting botlane ahead through ganks and roams is the best way to win games. I typically attempt to give top/mid lane first blood after a buff buff camp first clear, and then camp bot. You get a sololane snowballing and then focus on shutting down the enemy jungler and botlane. Now, thing is, if your botlane is autofilled or just feeds before I can get there, well the game's over. Botlane feeding is worse than a standard lane, specifically because a fed adc can get 2 kills off of a good engage as opposed to one. Typically one double kill bot and the lane is over unless you clown it the fuck up in bot. This is partially due to ADC's incredibly low gold costs for items, 900g from 3 kills matters so much more on an adc than it does a midlaner or jungler. Another aspect is that multiple people are being put behind and ahead by kills. If your bot feeds, they have 2-3 members benefiting from 2 kills in exp and gold. It's fundamentally so much more impact than 2 solo kills in terms of EXP, lane control, and item pressure. With every successful double, the winning lane gets 2 kills on a champion that hyperscales very very fast, gets to set up their lane's position (faster because you can push for a reset very very hard with 2 champs), and generates an insane exp lead on two champions. Getting bot FB tower and allowing them to roam wins the game outright. Bot inherently snowballs so much harder than any other roles that it's not even funny.
Vectros (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=TheRiddum,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=md8GFz67,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-03-04T20:53:29.742+0000) > > I hate sion Why? He's one of the most telegraphed, if not THE most telegraphed champ in the game, and has plenty of counters. Granted he has a lot of strengths, but his weaknesses are obvious too.
> [{quoted}](name=Vectros,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=md8GFz67,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2018-03-04T22:28:35.160+0000) > > Why? He's one of the most telegraphed, if not THE most telegraphed champ in the game, and has plenty of counters. Granted he has a lot of strengths, but his weaknesses are obvious too. He currently has no weaknesses. This is coming from a player who one tricked him last season. Arcane Commet and Scorch mitigate his poor early damage fully, and he scales into a full tank lateagame beast. He statistically only enters an unfavorable matchup in less than 5% of games.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=JESUSSAYSNO,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=261kjo7R,comment-id=00010002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-04T09:18:21.406+0000) > > Acceptance is a tool, as an ideology it's flawed and leads to major problems. The germans prior to WWII were tolerant of bigotry and look where it got them. Tolerance of Bigotry had nothing to do with the rise of Hitler, acceptance as an ideology had nothing to do with it either. Please, open up a history book. You also seem to generally confusing the words kindness and acceptance. They are not the same thing and do not even require each other. You can absolutely be kind without accepting. Take a look at norwegian prisons and their low recidivism rate for a good example of when being kind (without being accepting) yields phenomenal results.
Accepting him as a leader lead to the rise of Nazi Germany. Him and his ideals seduced the downtrodden population, and they ate it up because they were desperate after the crippling economic effect of WWI. I've taken dedicated WWII history courses through a very well educated professor. I'm well aware of the situation. The German population accepted the idea that the Jewish population needed to be exterminated. Kindness and acceptance are not the same, and I'm not using them as synonyms, but both are relevant to the conversation. I'm suggesting that there is a time and place when kindness and acceptance towards various beliefs and people is intolerable. IE you don't accept or show kindness to Isis. Most people don't accept or show kindness to the KKK. Most people don't accept or show kindness to bigots. I'm saying that there is a line that is crossed where the two concepts become corrupt, and by being corruptible, they are not purely good, and can be used for evil purposes, intentional or not. They're concepts that are fundimentally unaligned with good and evil, and can be represented within both sides, making following them as ideals to be flawed, as they can be twisted to suit a megalomaniac's will under the right conditions. I'm a little baffled that there's any argument against this at all.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=JESUSSAYSNO,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=261kjo7R,comment-id=000100020000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-04T08:14:56.523+0000) > > I had a long, close to 1500 word response typed out, browser crashed. I'm winding down for the night, so I'll write a TLDR. > > Western culture in its modern definition isn't exclusively Eurocentric. Western culture takes and optimizes what exists in the world, at the potential cost of casualties elsewhere. Technological and social improvement has overall trumped regression, and that hasn't changed. The act of mindless acceptance of beliefs without considering the truth of action is what made witch hunting and the KKK viable socially. Racism and bigotry typically disregard truth in favor of a fantasy of falsehoods. Over time these falsehoods have been eliminated and society has benefited. Racism and bigotry was commonplace because they were thought to be scientifically and rationally justified. The fact people could be prosecuted for being "heretics" came about at the time when a faith was considered absolute and therefore could not be disobeyed, the fact mistreatment of other races was okay'ed was due to a series of studies that arbitrary attributed certain features with underdevelopedness unscientifically but was still published as a scientific study hence enabling people to be racist towards them, and KKK came about because it was founded very shortly after the legislation that finally recognised black people as people which one can very easily see that it was a kneejerk response to it. "Progress" and "truth" do not exist in a vacuum, it exists when others are objectively proven wrong in what they do or think, it is impossible for those at the time of tension to really tell what's really right or not because they have not been into the future where a debate has already been properly resolved. Therefore using the results to work backwards is utterly invalid and void. Just like as, elementary schoolers we were all told rocks fall faster than feathers before the concept of vacuum was introduced, or that it was thought plants do not feel pain until we find traces that they probably do, or how we all accredited the famous triangle theorem to Pythagoras until we found that some random nameless Babylonian beat him by almost 10 centuries, current knowledge should all be treated with a bit of uncertainty because it can all be false one day. And that is the essence of progress and truth to much extent. If we do not improve upon from what we had, through re-assessment and taking in more ideas, technological and social improvement wouldn't have been possible. Which is why, you're here telling me that being considerate of others and judging their ideas without prejudice is wrong is both the very notion of "regression" you personally abhor (hence a contradiction) because it completely ignores how current progress even came about to begin with, and it is also completely false because it's never a step back to be open to others. What, are you gonna tell me the ultimate society is when I stab any stranger, and reject any other people's ideas on the spot because it's different to mine? > Never did I say kindness wasn't practical. Kindness as an ideology leads to a very corrupt culture. See the Soviet Union and the principles of communism that allowed the Soviet Union its corrupt power. There must always be an arbiter of good and evil, and that arbiter needs to be within ourselves, guided by scientific truths and the desire to make the world a genuinely better place. Without the ability to determine good or evil, we allow external forces to determine what is right and wrong, and can be complacent in abhorrent behaviors. Do you think all Nazis were psychopaths? Many of them were just average people who got FUCKED by WWI and wanted to do something about it, and the cultural hate of the jews was manipulated into them. That acceptance of hate was the problem. We need to strive to be good, not to be accepting or tolerant. The Nazi ideology was, and continues to be in the blackest circles, abhorrent and disgusting, but it rose in favor due to negativity and hate on a societal level. > > There's this huge mixup between being a bigot and being intolerant. If somebody is committing abhorrent behavior, it's your obligation as a good human being to do something about it and be absolutely intolerant at the face of evil. > > Being tolerant and accepting isn't being Good. Being good can include tolerance and acceptance, but only based on truths. Soviet Union collapsed because it died a painful slow death after Stalin took power and ran it down to become a totalitarian regime. For what it was worth, the only fault of the Soviet Union before Stalin was pretty much that it was poor as its ideological model was unsuited for competitive economy. A failed experiment based on a noble idea such as communism which was based on social well-ness and kindness, does not outright say there's anything wrong with them; if that's the case then we can all say democracy is such a bad idea because Ancient Greeks first seriously practiced the idea and went under. Ofc not. If you think the central idea of kindness and various aspect of communism is corrupt, then you can say disability support and infrastructure are corrupt and those without legs should never climb a god damn stair, pension support are absolutely corrupt because old people should just die from this world who gives a shit, public schooling should be damned because if you ain't born rich enough for schools well too bad sucks to be you, public health fund and insurance of any sort should go to hell because once again if you ain't got rich papa to pay off your broken leg that was not even your fault well good luck sucking it up with a broken leg because fuck you. But I guess having some sort of actual decency is a problem? Also, how in the actual fuck was Nazi regime born because of kindness? What? It came about seeking revenge for defeats in WW1, and then spiraled out of control into some ultra nationalist and racist shit, which part of it even had anything to do with "acceptance" being anywhere near the root of the problem? Aren't you grasping the straws a little too hard? No. You're also keep repeating the question notion that kindness come at the expense of the improvement, willingness to seek truth, or action against the wrong doers. No, that's not the case, at all. The only difference of a kind person and a normal person is that the kind person can see anybody including criminals eye to eye as a person (doesn't mean they will ignore their actions and whatnot), which while simple, it's also the hardest step for anyone to take. That's it.
I don't have the time to write out another full long hand response, but you are fundamentally failing to understand my points, or I'm failing to bring them across. In multiple points you're directly agreeing with my stance. Over time the truth is distilled from testing and determining fact from fiction, and goodness can only come from truths. As time progresses, we as a culture and as a race become better. This has been fairly consistent across history, with minor setbacks along the way. The rise and fall of major cultures in the last 3000 years doesnt mean the world is regressing, human progression is a constant. The truth becomes clearer through scientific enlightenment and discovery. I'm not preaching dogmatism, I'm saying that there is objective rights and wrongs that can be distilled based on a collection of factors, including objective impact on reality, cultural acceptance, and scientific evidence. Your determination of what is right and wrong makes you who you are as a human being. From my point of view, I'm seeing you deny the idea that there is an objective right and wrong, which by proxy condones the social acceptance of destructive and bigoted behavior. Please tell me I'm wrong, because I don't believe you think this, but your words speak otherwise. There's a difference between communism and democratic socialism. Socialism works, communism doesn't. There is a STRONG difference between the two ideologies. Many first world countries employ socialism and public benefits to great success. I'm all for various forms of systemic personal assistance, within reason. You're not comprehending what I'm saying, and you're putting words in my mouth because of it. School shooters are a problem, but to understand why they're a problem you need to actually delve into the psychology of sociopathy and how it's formed, and uproot the beliefs that cause it before they become as awful as it can become. Acceptance and kindness towards evil beliefs, like the Nazis had, were what lead the Nazi party to their power. Accepting and being kind toward a racist doesn't fix their behavior. It allows them to continue being racist with no punishment. I think kindness and acceptance are not by nature good, but they can exist within good. Acceptance of the abhorrent makes you evil. Acceptance as a word has been highjacked recently to mean inclusion of diversity. It means 'to not reject'. Acceptance of evil beliefs, like Nazi idology, is inherently evil. I'm pro diversity so long as it benefits the culture. I'm not pro acceptance, because acceptance without merit or critical thought is ignorant and leads to destruction. Acceptance is a tool, as an ideology it's flawed and leads to major problems. The germans prior to WWII were tolerant of bigotry and look where it got them.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=JESUSSAYSNO,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=261kjo7R,comment-id=0001000200000000,timestamp=2018-03-04T07:04:13.424+0000) > > Western culture has been massively successful, and its shortcomings do not match its successes by a longshot. Kindness cannot and will never trump truths. To say that lack of kindness is an issue is ignorent. We didn't reach the level of civilization we're at now through kindness, we reached it through truth. And truth isn't cruelty by nature, truth is objective and can be applied by great individuals to create greatness of the highest caliber. Again, a kind truth is better than kindness. The two are not the same. Kindness is naive, idealistic, and unrealistic. I want my kindness not to come from my personality, but from my reaction to reality. > > If some dumbass is acting like a twat, calling people slurs or something, you don't let them say it uncontested. They are incorrect, wrong, and awful as a human being, that is a truth. Abhorrent behavior needs to be punished, else culture falls to ruin. > > Post modern ideology is cancer. Subjectivity is limited in scope, and you are not the extent of the world. To assume that everyone lives on their own plane of existence with their own version of truth is absolutely ignorant. We all live on Earth, we're all humans, and by being human, we're subjected to the rules of society and human engagement. What society we live in impacts this, of course, but truth is not internal, it's external. > > OP is 100% justified in attempting to remove a cancer from the community, because in this case, the Nidalee is lying to themselves, and spreading anarchic chaos and pain. Are you accepting, tolerant, and complacent in these toxic beliefs? Western culture has only been successful and leading the rest (for now) for about 500 years, and really only hit the jackpot out of almost sheer luck, and you're already acting as if the west owns the god damn place. I am always deeply troubled by the kind of eurocentric 1 dimensional horseshit the school in the west always teaches these days, that comes at the complete ignorance and downplaying of all the other civilisations and their development/contributions. Speaking of truths, western culture was also separated from any notion of truth-seeking and whatever as early as the ending of the Classical Greese, until they reunited with it through trading of knowledge with the Middle Eastern world more than 10 centuries later. So I am always extremely puzzled by how we always claim that west is "so much truthz", no, it's not the case, not when witchhunts and prosecution of "heretics" and whatever continued to be a somewhat frequent occurrence until after the start of early modern history in the 1800s. In fact, 1800s was a pretty big century because that was around time when women and people having different skin pigmentation were finally recognised as actual people, at least in law, because many people today are still campaigning against that. "We reached it through truth"? Funny. You also made the assumption that kindness can not be practical, which is completely false, which I'd talked about already. Nor does kindness by definition enables and turning a blind eye to falsehoods and wrong doings, which is another false assumption, which I'd also talked about. There is this thing in the west which I'd noticed, that we like to brand anything civil, understanding, tolerating as being weak in some way. No, civility and kindness is NOT whatever nonsense special snowflake out of touch weakling you want to make it to be. The west is never in the stages of being ruined by the notion of kindness, it is only ruined by the rejection to it.
I had a long, close to 1500 word response typed out, browser crashed. I'm winding down for the night, so I'll write a TLDR. Western culture in its modern definition isn't exclusively Eurocentric. Western culture takes and optimizes what exists in the world, at the potential cost of casualties elsewhere. Technological and social improvement has overall trumped regression, and that hasn't changed. The act of mindless acceptance of beliefs without considering the truth of action is what made witch hunting and the KKK viable socially. Racism and bigotry typically disregard truth in favor of a fantasy of falsehoods. Over time these falsehoods are being eliminated and society has benefited. Never did I say kindness wasn't practical. Kindness as an ideology leads to a very corrupt culture. See the Soviet Union and the principles of communism that allowed the Soviet Union its corrupt power. There must always be an arbiter of good and evil, and that arbiter needs to be within ourselves, guided by scientific truths and the desire to make the world a genuinely better place. Without the ability to determine good or evil, we allow external forces to determine what is right and wrong, and can be complacent in abhorrent behaviors. Do you think all Nazis were psychopaths? Many of them were just average people who got FUCKED by WWI and wanted to do something about it, and the cultural hate of the jews was manipulated into them. That acceptance of hate was the problem. We need to strive to be good, not to be accepting or tolerant. The Nazi ideology was, and continues to be in the blackest circles, abhorrent and disgusting, but it rose in favor due to negativity and hate on a societal level. There's this huge mixup between being a bigot and being intolerant. If somebody is committing abhorrent behavior, it's your obligation as a good human being to do something about it and be absolutely intolerant at the face of evil. Being tolerant and accepting isn't being Good. Being good can include tolerance and acceptance, but only based on truths. Being intolerant and hateful towards evil doesn't make you evil. Being kind and accepting to evil makes you evil.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=JESUSSAYSNO,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=261kjo7R,comment-id=00010002,timestamp=2018-03-04T06:41:52.026+0000) > > I don't think that Necessary and Kind always go together. Criticism is necessary for improvement, if it comes from inside or not, doesn't matter. If I hear a player tell me exactly what I did wrong, I will typically agree with it, if not in the moment, then upon reflection. Kindness has nothing to do with Necessity when considering LoL a competitive game. Now in normal games, sure, kindness is more applicable, but kindness is far from necessary in productive environments, so long as there is sufficient motivation to continue. > > Kindness is really a blight on the current western culture in general, and it would be so much better off if we were all just honest instead of kind. Because being honestly kind to somebody is the most rewarding thing you can possibly do, and its also the most rewarding thing you can receive. I'd rather show tough love to see a result I want, white lies and omission of truth for the sake of kindness is a form of social cancer in my opinion. Cultivate a culture of honesty and truth, not one of kindness, because a positive truth is leagues better than a white lie. The real issue is that Western culture never practiced kindness. Or rather, the practice for it barely even took off and you're already talking as if being kind is the problem, rather than the civilisation being practically fundamentally hard grounded in cruelty and and self-centrism for the very most part of its history that's in the way of the development of active kindness. Also you know know what a white lie is, a white lie is a lie that typically both party (the teller and the listener) both know it to be a lie where the listener already knows the answer to the question. It's told not for deception purposes, but for psychological relief purposes. Very different.
Western culture has been massively successful, and its shortcomings do not match its successes by a longshot. Kindness cannot and will never trump truths. To say that lack of kindness is an issue is ignorent. We didn't reach the level of civilization we're at now through kindness, we reached it through truth. And truth isn't cruelty by nature, truth is objective and can be applied by great individuals to create greatness of the highest caliber. Again, a kind truth is better than kindness. The two are not the same. Kindness is naive, idealistic, and unrealistic. I want my kindness not to come from my personality, but from my reaction to reality. If some dumbass is acting like a twat, calling people slurs or something, you don't let them say it uncontested. They are incorrect, wrong, and awful as a human being, that is a truth. Abhorrent behavior needs to be punished, else culture falls to ruin. Post modern ideology is cancer. Subjectivity is limited in scope, and you are not the extent of the world. To assume that everyone lives on their own plane of existence with their own version of truth is absolutely ignorant. We all live on Earth, we're all humans, and by being human, we're subjected to the rules of society and human engagement. What society we live in impacts this, of course, but truth is not internal, it's external. Hell, even our thoughts are biological, they have an existence that is within reality. OP is 100% justified in attempting to remove a cancer from the community, because in this case, the Nidalee is lying to themselves, and spreading anarchic chaos and pain. Are you accepting, tolerant, and complacent in these toxic beliefs?
Ulanopo (NA)
: >The thing is that people REALLY hate to be called out on their BS even when it's 100% justified. I gave a feeling you weren't following the "Three Gates of Speech" theory. In general, you should perform three checks before you speak: * Is it true? * Is it necessary? * Is it kind? I find - _often_ - that people who offer "criticism" in League really only consider whether or not they consider it to be true. I would like to suggest that offering the "truth" is unlikely to get you what you want. >Truth is more frustrating but it's also freeing and hopefully someone can later recognize that what they did isn't OK. Questionable.I feel the Backfire Effect and Confirmation Bias make this generally untrue.
I don't think that Necessary and Kind always go together. Criticism is necessary for improvement, if it comes from inside or not, doesn't matter. If I hear a player tell me exactly what I did wrong with my gameplay, I will typically agree with it, if not in the moment, then upon reflection. Kindness has nothing to do with Necessity when considering LoL a competitive game. Now in normal games, sure, kindness is more applicable, but kindness is far from necessary in productive environments, so long as there is sufficient motivation to continue. Kindness is really a blight on the current western culture in general, and it would be so much better off if we were all just honest instead of kind. Because being honestly kind to somebody is the most rewarding thing you can possibly do, and its also the most rewarding thing you can receive. I'd rather show tough love to see a result I want, white lies and omission of truth for the sake of kindness is a form of social cancer in my opinion. Cultivate a culture of honesty and truth, not one of kindness, because a positive truth is leagues better than a white lie.
: Yep. I'm not asking anyone to pretend to not be frustrated. If you're frustrated, please keep telling us! It's important for us to know these things. ADCs need adjustments, I agree. We're discussing the extent to which we may change things. We've talked changing their power curves, their base stats and stat growth, their item paths, their top end dps, individual problematic items, etc. We haven't settled on any particular direction, and so all I can talk is hopeful timeline at the moment. And again, if that doesn't cut it, please continue to voice that in a way that is demonstrative of how you think the game ought to be change. There are tons of opinions out there as to the direction we ought to take the game on basically any topic we could choose, so keep those opinions coming. It's appreciated.
ADC itemization is too cheap, allowing ADCs to snowball harder than any role in the current metagame. With low gold costs, so long as your opponent ADC isnt the one being fed, you can die any number of times to JG or mid roams and never be locked out of the game, so long as you farm sufficiently. Its not uncommon that it seems that the opposing ADC is up a full item over me, as a jungle main, even if I am doing moderately well. Burst damage is getting out of hand, getting nuked from 3k health in less than 5 seconds by an ADC, as a full tank building armor should never be possible, but I'm seeing it happen somewhat frequently. Not uncommon that when 20 minutes rolls around, the adc can 1v1 all other positions, which seems very odd to me. ADCs should not be a check all, like they are now, they need to have more defined matchups, because as they are, the adc is typically a generalist dps, that focuses almost exclusively on their own gameplay and play patterns, to the point of neglecting the other champions in the game when it comes to moment to moment gameplay choices. ADCs can outplay themselves out of too many situations, based on kit alone. ADCs currently are either offering engage tools, unmatched self peel, or levels of damage that are frankly ludicrous compared to the other champion classes, save specific burst mages. With how strong ADCs are, you can dedicate entire positions on your team comp around them. Tank toplaners, Galio mid, tank junglers, and all supports only exist because ADCs dominate the metagame on a fundimental level, and instead of giving other lanes any priority in the game, their purpose on a team is to make the ADC's life easier.
: I honestly never understood this mentality. I wouldn't consider gold "high" ELO, but it for sure isn't "low" ELO. Statistically, gold is well above the average. With the 50% mark I believe being around Silver III-ish. Is there an actual reason as to why D3 is sort of the marker for low/high elo? I hear this a lot and would really appreciate an actual explanation, as I am curious as to what the thought process behind that is.
> [{quoted}](name=TheUrbanKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=85E7TImN,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-02-25T22:27:53.531+0000) > > I honestly never understood this mentality. > I wouldn't consider gold "high" ELO, but it for sure isn't "low" ELO. > Statistically, gold is well above the average. With the 50% mark I believe being around Silver III-ish. > > Is there an actual reason as to why D3 is sort of the marker for low/high elo? I hear this a lot and would really appreciate an actual explanation, as I am curious as to what the thought process behind that is. d2 is typically the cutoff for pro levels of gameplay. Not all pros ladder all the time, but most maintain accounts with at least d2 mmr.
Mellori (NA)
: I personally don't believe the starting MMR is Silver 3, even if that's what people have been told. This goes based on watching my boyfriend play his games, getting into ranked for literally the very first time this season. He placed Bronze 3, and he deserves to be that rank. However his very first placements, solo might I add, nearly every person on his team had a gold or high silver border. OP.GG-ing his games, they were sitting around Silver 2 - Gold 4. To me that looks more like Gold 5 MMR.
Did you check their MMR or just rank? Did your boyfriend win his first promo game? I can assure you with 100% certainty that during my climb I stopped seeing unranked players in my games as soon as I hit silver 1 MMR. Not the rank s1, the MMR. Rank means absolutely nothing compared to MMR. You can also obtain G5 and you won't get demoted until you hit s5 MMR. Borders mean nothing and I can assure you he absolutely started with a S3 MMR in his first game. During the promos process, you typically drop or rise a full rank for each win or loss. Your MMR is incredibly volatile during this process. You really need to dig into OP.GG's guts to find accurate data on your games. Going off of rank alone is quite inaccurate.
GigglesO (NA)
: Maybe he shouldn't be picked as often as he is in as many situations as he is. For the current meta he should be a niche pick...
Again, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that he has dramatically more losing matchups than favorable ones, even taking player skill into account. Very few champions have multiple meta picks with a 60%~ winrate up on them. 'maybe he shouldn't be picked as often', yeah, in a purely objective winning point of view, but when a champ is out of meta and weak on their own merits, Riot buffs them. Which is what they're doing for Yasuo. Most of his counters are very viable right now, and he's weak on an ingame stats level as well. This warrants buffs, like it or not.
Bobovich (EUW)
: "My argument is that mid/higher silver is not appropriate, because average new players are not average players." Read more.
Mid silver is an awful rank though. Its not high elo, the games are a shitshow with or without unranked players. In addition, you have a 20% less chance to run into an unranked than your enemy team does.
Bobovich (EUW)
: The first part of your reply is great, you actually hear the basic point I was making. Guess it must of hurt, because the rest of your post is borderline toxic drivel.
so what you agree with is great, and what you disagree with is toxic? At no point in my post did I attack you, I was stating observations after a brief glance at your OP.GG. If you want me to put in bullet points to prove it, here, I' -You are not gold, its unlikely that your games are gold level. -Unranked players play at a silver 3 MMR in their first game, and have rapidly fluctuating MMRs during placments. -Low elo games are low quality -To get out of low elo, you have to win more games than you lose -23% solo ranked winrate over 20 games is bad and you need to drop more ranks to find where you actually belong on the ladder, because s3 is likely not low enough based on your match history -Thinking a 23% winrate in silver 3 deserves high quality games is delusional -Yorick is a strong champion right now, especially in low elo -Based on win %, you are given ample room to succeed in games, and are not because of your own skill level -Narcissism is counterproductive to improvment -You are targeting unwinnable games as justification for your rank, instead of looking towards targeting your flaws in the games that you can win I'm g5. I hit g5 and stopped playing ranked. I'm not likely to rank much higher without dramatic personal improvment. During my climb, if I were to be placed into gold 5, i'd struggle and get stomped. I'm dicking off in normals to figure out a s8 champ pool, and my winrate is abysmal. Why? because I'm bad at the champs I play, because I don't know how to play them on a micro and macro level. If I want my winrate to rise, I need to improve my own play. There's an infinite amount of things you can improve on, I say this because its the same for me, and in the grand scheme of things, while I rank higher, it's not high enough to matter. I'm g5, I'm low elo. I'm bad at the game. And I know that in every loss I make, I could have done something more. I could have had a better CS, I could have made less mistakes on my micro, I could have had better macro, my roams could be better, my combos, trading, purchase order, the list goes on. Unless you're masters or above, there's so many things you can improve on that its really not even funny. If my play is so dramatically flawed with a better ranked winrate and MMR, what does your rank and winrate tell you? You have to learn how to play to climb, rank isnt what matters, skill is. Rank reflects skill, skill growth, and skill decline. There's always a % of unwinable games, but the ELO system provides a system where your true skill level is eventually reached. You actually have less chance of losing a game because of an unranked player than the enemy team, think about that. You have 4 teammates, and your opponents have 5 players. If you're playing at or above your ranked level, you will get fucked 20% less by unranked players than your opponent. MMR is reached through a collection of games. I'm absolutely sure you have ample opportunity to shine in your games, but aren't. having a 23% winrate at silver 3 MMR means you likely belong in Silver 5 or Bronze 1. No bullshit, no toxicity, just truth.
Bobovich (EUW)
: In theory you can start at any place in the ladder, the ELO algorithm will eventually put you where your belong. My argument is that mid/higher silver is not appropriate, because average new players are not average players.
You're not playing in high silver games. You're playing silver 3 games, which is the default unranked mmr. If you were playing in high silver, you wouldnt see unranked players. Win more.
Bobovich (EUW)
: Just played a Gold ranked game with a new to ranked, unranked player on my team.....
New players start at a MMR of Silver 3, not G5. I stopped running into unranked players when I hit s2 because my MMR was bloated to g5 (-16 loss +25 wins) from streaking hard. I agree that the default unranked MMR should be lower, somewhere in the B2-S4 range, but there's no way you're running into unranked players in genuine G5 games. Sounds to me like your MMR is tanked, but its not low enough for a demotion. Edit: http://euw.op.gg/summoner/userName=bobovich You're not even gold anymore (if you were) and you have a 23% winrate in the last 20 games. Your predicted solo MMR is S3, which is exactly on the money. Its to be expected that you see unranked players. I suggest winning more games if you want the quality of your games to go up. Low elo is a mess, but you dont get out unless you're able to prove you're not a garbage player. 23% winrate over 20 games is pretty fucking abysmal. You belong where you're at. Drop the narcisism, improve your play, and stop bitching about games you can't carry, when you clearly can't carry the games where you're given the opportunity. Yorick is one of the stronger champions right now, between the Q changes and the new masteries heavily favoring his kit, you're able to win games, but you aren't doing so.
GigglesO (NA)
: >Games played=/popularity So having a large player base, being the 4th most picked top, and the 13th most picked mid. http://na.op.gg/champion/yasuo/statistics/mid/skill Doesn't mean that he is popular? Umm what? Are you legitimately trying to tell me all of his players are one trick ponies.
Irrelevant information. It's not why he's receiving buffs. He's seeing buffs because even after 100+ games, yasuo players are struggling to even reach a 50% winrate. The higher up the ladder you go, the less played he is, and the lower his winrate is. In Masters tier, he's rank 103 in picked with a 48% winrate. In Challenger he's 86 with a 38% winrate. Players picking Yasuo in these divisions aren't first timing them. They probably arent even 20th timing him. These players know what they're doing, and even within these conditions, they fail to make yasuo a relevant champion. 38% winrate in challenger is insanely low. The buffs are targeted at making him a more relevant pick for those who invest the time to master his kit. He's one of, if not, the hardest character in the game. According to riot, committing to absolute mastery should result in a higher winrate than where he's sitting right now. He cant use Press the Attack as effectively as he could Fervor. Many of the new runes aren't favorable for him. He's squishy with low base stats, only his 20 second windwall CD protects him against mage poke and his flow passive is a joke in a damage creep meta. In midlane, he has 8 matchups above 50% (only one of which is above a 55%), 9 below a 45%, and 25 matchups between 45% and 50%. He doesn't work in the current metagame, especially when you look at the champions that he's strong and weak against. More of his counters see play than champions he counters as well, if you look at their play rates. Toplane is similar. He can fight some tanks, but rolls over against most fighters, and you will never be able to viably first pick yasuo against a competent toplaner. In addition, look at his winrate graphs on trends. Toplane Yasuo saw a 6% winrate dip and Mid Yasuo saw a 4% winrate dip when 7.22 came along and he's been dropping every patch since.
: The problem I have with this is--why does popularity decide things? Balance should decide things, and _only balance._ If Yasuo is the weakest champion in the game? Fine, fix him. If he's only underperforming, but still doing better than a number of other champions, _why are you not working on those champions first?_ Because their problems are harder to solve? Because I gotta say, if I _ever_ tried the "it's too hard" line on MY boss, "tough" is all I would get back. I have a job, and I have to do it right, no matter how difficult it is.
He never commented on popularity, learn to read. He said that his playerbase has the most games on the champion. As in, the playerbase size is average, but the playerbase plays more yasuo than say a garen main plays garen. He's a high risk high reward champion and even his masters are struggling extrememly hard to make him work. Games played=/popularity
: I feel as if the power across the boards is to high. I played {{champion:111}} in my game, Dying in 1.5 seconds with 4000k hp against an Ap {{champion:35}} {{champion:74}} and {{champion:42}} when I had {{item:3001}} {{item:3083}} {{item:3068}} {{item:3065}} Like I walked into a box intentionally with my Shield up to proc it so that my carries wouldn't. And before I got out of the fear I died from full Hp.
Your masteries must be fucked up. I've had incredible success with tanks in the new system. I'm also regularly at 4k health at 2 items. Seriously, what's your build look like? Also consider that maybe your champ isnt as good as alternatives? Health stacking in masteries is incredibly strong right now.
: It is the exact same issue introduced with old keystone mastery system : defensive options are complete garbage and % damage everywhere. They took a year to notice that something was off and halve the damage from masteries, but it looks like they made the very same mistake again
Are you fucking kidding me? Grasp is the best keystone in the game and you have incredible tank options. With Resolve and an offspec Inspiration, you can start off with 230 bonus health at level 1. My sion STARTS the game with 850 health with dring's passive+potion. Defensive options exist and are incredibly strong. What this patch did is made tanks tanky, and dps do more damage. The issue is that community perception is fucked because most players don't play full tanks. I genuinely don't think full tanks have been stronger. In addition, tanky Triforce>tank users are very strong as well. The new runes system allows players to opt in and out of various aspects of strength. If you want to do damage, you pick damage at the cost of tankyness and health. If you want to have a fuck ton of health, you need to rely on your base damages to carry you in terms of damage.
: tristana has been the same since 7.2 lul but no one complained then
That's factually not true. She was straight outclassed by lethality ADs until the crit item buffs, and then she was outclassed by Cait prior to her nerfs. Champs like Cait countered her, while also being less overbearing on the overall state of the game, so as soon as her counters were nerfed, she exploded. Her relevance is a compounded problem of too many minor buffs over time, synergy with the ardent support meta, and all of her counters being nerfed out of relevancy. The champ itself hasn't changed much, but that doesnt mean her ability to influence the game hasn't. In a game with as many factors as LoL has, you can't look at a champion's changes alone to determine their value.
: just because you didn't have fun doesn't mean others didn't have fun either :I not to mention, one bad game shouldn't dampen your perspective of future games! stay positive!
Nobody but the Teemo player is having fun in that scenario. Feeding unintentionally has the same effect as inting.
Rootlo (NA)
: Norms is to have fun. As long as they arent actively trying to lose the game for you, they can play any champ in any role.
There's no effective difference between intentionally and unintentionally losing the game. Troll picks and shitty comps lead to unfun and cancerous games, regardless of intent. If our toplaner last pick locks yasuo or any other dps oriented champ when we have an assassin jungler and an apc mid, with an ardent support, his fun comes at the cost of our entire lategame and overall chances of winning by not playing a tank. Intentionally drafting a losing comp should be reportable, even if they 'try to win' in game. Intent means nothing compared to the resulting actions. inb4 if nobody else plays tanks you should I main tanks. I only play carries in normals, and only in bot/mid. It's not my obligation in mid or bot to play tanks, however it is for the jungle and top.
Aenaeus (NA)
: Every plat player I get on my team is terrible
If you're playing with plat players in g5, its because they're so bad they're at your MMR without getting demoted yet. Once you hit X5, you need to drop to the previous division's 5 MMR to actually lose rank.
: Ultimately its always been about the ADC. They are the late game insurance and most consistent damage dealers. They may not always have the best KDA but they are there to finish games. Been that way every season.
Of course, you wouldn't bring an entire class of champs that's squishy and has weak early with little ability damage if they didn't have lategame relevancy and siege power. But the current metagame puts too much power in the hands of the ADC. 7.18 was and is a bad patch for the world's stage.
tieger05 (OCE)
: Worlds is getting boring because the same champs are picked.
This year's meta feels worse than previous years. I was fine with s6 and s5, but the 'live and die by botlane' metagame is super toxic to watch. Hell, the most interesting thing about this year was RNG's explosive games against SKT, and then they lost almost exclusively because Tristana exists in her current state.
Raoul (EUW)
: As a Support main by heart, I am sick of being the ADC slave!
Hadfield (EUW)
: The in-game model for Victorious Graves is utterly disapointing
I was expecting more a bronzy color and less flat gold. Face looks fine, but the armor and gun colors look like trash. They needed to be generally darker. Went from looking like a victorian era badass dudebro to an Elvis Prestly impersonator. Well, so much for using this one.
Show more

JESUSSAYSNO

Level 57 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion