Tolinar (NA)
: let me correct this. Why are YOU people talking about this?
> [{quoted}](name=Tolinar,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=2Wecf8MZ,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-12-07T22:37:41.756+0000) > > let me correct this. > Why are YOU people talking about this? ? I'm not? Idk what group ur lumping me in with but I don't appreciate it.I just wanted an answer
waypist (NA)
: i hate how useful dodging is
yesterday i had a taric top, a blitz top, and a rammus top all within about 4 games of eachother. Idk, I run out of dodges every day trying to play actual games. I won't accept any explanations other than that games are rigged at this point, there is no way I should be bouncing between d2 promos and p1 in straight win/loss streaks so often. Its completely artificial.
Bevdog101 (OCE)
: "Flat"
Why are people talking about this?
: 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.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EYOyjnAZ,comment-id=000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T17:58:52.885+0000) > > 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. Every developed country in the world has a universal healthcare system except for the US. If you cant afford insurance and you end up in a US hospital you are gonna be 150,000 in debt in a lot of cases. Insurance premiums end up being $1,000 a month for my family, and deductibles are in the $2000-$10,000 bounds. If you think that further allowing for profit insurance companies to control healthcare (like republicans are trying to do by gutting federal funding for heathcare and removing the mandate to cover people with preexisting conditions) in order to increase a CEO's bottom line has any moral equivalence to a Universal healthcare system like Medicare for all then you are actually delusional and should refrain from democratic participation. Sure, you can find maybe 1 or 2 republicans (like mccain) who voted to keep ACA in tact but the overwhelming majority of republicans vote against government healthcare. Republicans are in the pockets of insurance companies, there is absolutely no fucking way any human being can think that privatization of a market where consumers are held hostage is a good thing. The US is the ONLY developed country where you have to pay this much for insurance. There is absolutely no comparison between US healthcare costs and other countries healthcare costs. Its either you don't have any understanding of policy difference between different countries or you are being intentionally dense. The fact that you are calling me a science denier, when you unironically think that there is no difference between a party that is trying to stop climate change, and a party that does everything its its power to deny and obfuscate the conversation to protect their oil donors is a fucking joke. I know its hard for an enlightened centrist to understand, but there are many examples and studies that show that certain political policies will result in certain outcomes, and that there are parties that tend to take these into account when making policies. For example, Democrats want to do something about climate change, Republicans are funded by oil barons and will run down the clock as much as possible in order to secure as much profits for their donors at the expense of cremating the earth with us along with it. Politics isn't as frivolous as you try to make it out to be Einstein and Elon huh? Elon hasn't done jack shit but its pretty telling that you go straight to the bootstrap argument without understanding that there are millions of people who never got a fair shot at life simply because they were born into a country with inadequate welfare systems. Think about all the people who were born that were prevented from being einstieins because their schools couldn't get clean water, extensive college prep classes or proper technology like computers. People born rich don't have to worry about that, they get to go to the private schools and get into harvard cuz their parents have the money. Trust me, it isn't through giga-centrism "both sides are basically the same" bs that the world will get better. If you think republicans are so worried about healthcare implementation, then how come every developed country in the world has implemented some form of universal healthcare? Seems like there is a lot of different examples to use. Dishonest argument on your part. It really shows that people like you exist only to preserve the satus quo. Now if ur parents are millionaires that would make sense, you wouldn't want to alter a system that benefits you now would you? Or maybe you bought into some other kind of propoganda aimed at keeping you skeptical of politics as a whole in order to keep you from being engaged and advocating for actual positive change. It happens, I was there once before I started learning about different countries. Ur a giga-centrist. It seems ur kind of confused about my political leaning though. I believe in social democracy, I think that capitalist society can continue as long as there are extensive re distributive policies aimed at making sure there is a level playing field regardless of income level. You want to know why western politics is more divisive? Its because we allow citizens to participate in government. You don't see this is Russia or china because their citizens are completely disenfranchised from their governments. Those aren't great places to live btw. When you get older, maybe meet some more people, perhaps even have your life affected by a certain policy one day, you will understand how important participating in the political process is. Maybe read the hill every once in a while, listen to a political podcast, you will start to understand just how diametrically opposed the two parties are. Everything is political. Everything is subject to some sort of regulation or top down decision making. Understanding this, and realizing that you live in a country where you can vote, and affect some of it is a really cool thing, and you should take some time to do some more research on it. goodbye
: 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=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.
: I really hate doing this to people, but what if the nationalists only care for their own agenda in the same way the media does, then? It has a human side, one way or the other. Why do we agree on the whole "groups based on censorship shouldn't exist"? I'm saying that's not what's happening: instead, the act of censoring their power in terms of _culture_ just give them more power to call themselves a culture of their own and call the other side out for being hypocritical; This is where the whole 'people' aspect of culture comes up. The people who think someone else is not entitled to their own beliefs have something else going on: it is not the natural state of existence, and often that sort of problem comes up with, say, people who have dealt with abuse or neglect or who otherwise have a neurology defect. You win that war with people, not ideology. Ideology is just a concept that divides because somehow you're trained to see that everything is _different,_ and thanks to the background of the human race anything _different_ is inherently discriminated against. You've fallen into that same trap, but it's innate to human nature so who can blame you? The talking point is more fun than the solution. The people who're responsible have managed somehow to cajole both sides of the debate into fighting each-other instead of dealing with the core facts of the matter, and if we're using political examples then I'm going to say that's _exactly_ what's going on with the White House.
> [{quoted}](name=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.
: 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 ;)
> [{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.
: 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}}
> [{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
: Unluckiest Person Ever
i have shit mmr, i recently had a fire alarm go off in my dorm. I ended that day 2-0 but with less lp than when I started playing that day.
: Can we make Zyra more into a mid laner please
Overloaded AD leathality cheeser assassins would have to be nerfed to shit, which they should be.
: How long will Riot pretend that everything is okay lol?
I'm still waiting for the 75% damage nerf to save this game from the internet cafe instagib minigame that its become
Rioter Comments
: What skill did botrk zed require? All you did was ult someone, botrk them, land an easy w-e-q and aa them 1 or 2 times for a kill
> [{quoted}](name=Spicy Rice,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9dG4kEji,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2019-11-13T14:10:56.458+0000) > > What skill did botrk zed require? All you did was ult someone, botrk them, land an easy w-e-q and aa them 1 or 2 times for a kill I mean, at least he had to ult back then xd
: Svenskeren and Zeyzal to Evil Geniuses.
at the end of the day, NA is just a region of recycled celebrities that are traded around to raise money for orgs. None of this really matters. This is just a wildcard region with an unplayable soloq
: (Unpopular Opinion) Giants song, has no direction.
Pretty sure KDA didn't have direction either. IDK I really liked both songs regardless. I don't like most rap songs or most hiphop but I really liked kda and giants. It might just be because I like league content but these songs hit different than most other hip hop songs I have listened to. The chorus with Senna was absolutely fantastic, and I really like songs with a strong chorus so that might be a big reason.
: Anybody else feel like top lane is going to turn into the Sanguine Blade rush lane?
Look on the bright side, lane {{champion:104}} will come back into the meta :)
: Smurfs ruining games
The overwhelming majority of my last 50 games have been vs smurfs, its a joke really. The occasional times i get them on my team they flame and afk or argue with teammates or some other dumb shit. I'm convinced at this point that riot rigs games
Rioter Comments
: Heal amount doesn't crit.
> [{quoted}](name=Variks the Loyal,realm=NA,application-id=PKbQ4unq,discussion-id=Vm1GKvem,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-11-09T06:27:05.099+0000) > > Heal amount doesn't crit. its not even scaling with ap though, that's the other part of the problem
Rioter Comments
: what reworks/changes that riot has done in the past that affected you the most?
They started giving me garbage teammates for 100 games straight instead of the standard fixed 20 loss streak
pwc2016 (NA)
: I can't win
Ive gone from d2 promos to d4 red demotion shield 32 times this season. Honestly, its better for your mental to just troll untill you get your riot assigned winstreak. Just gonna hurt ur mental if you actually try in rigged games
: I just...I just don't know how to win at league anymore...
: Is Thresh A Tank?
Labels aren't really important when discussing champions in league. The phrase TANK is kind of a misnomer a lot of the time, especially given that many champions have very similar base stats. Champions with a lot of cc, and some form of damage mitigation TEND to be tanks, yet champions that fulfill these requirements are not always tanks, IE, {{champion:1}} {{champion:266}} {{champion:497}}, Yet there are tanks who do not fullfill the CC definition for a Tank either, IE {{champion:86}} {{champion:36}} {{champion:48}}. If the definition of a tank just becomes damage mitigation, then anyone with a heal, shield or any form of self heal become tanks, which isn't really helpful either. There is a lot of overlap between many tanks and bruisers given the amount of self heal in the game too. So to answer your question. IDK, maybe? He builds defensive items, he has cc, damage mitigation on his w(shield). He doesn't have as many damage mitigation tools as a leona or something similar. He has a LOT of cc though. He isn't necessarily melee, like most "tanks" are. You could say he is a tank in the same sense that {{champion:92}} is a tank. Both have some cc, both have damage mitigation in the sense of a shield, yet they are not picked with the intention of tanking an entire team. The main separation is that damage doesn't scale well on {{champion:412}} , while it does on {{champion:92}}. You could make the argument that not having good damage scaling makes a champion a tank, but many enchanter supports don't have good damage either, which further specifies the definition of tank into a nebulous term that not all tanks fulfill. TL;DR Thresh is a thresh and labels don't help define him in any meaningful way.
: Noxian Burnout
Yup, this is kind of the philosophical argument of meritocracy. Since true meritocracies do not exist, but people constantly strive to create them, weird half-meritocracies are the real world implication, where many things are kept outside of ones control, yet they are expected to bear the brunt of responsibility for these circumstances. Like how poverty is seen as some sort of moral failing, despite how people who are born into poverty are extremely unlikely to leave it regardless of how hard they work. Or how rich people are celebrated, and their advice taken as gospel when really, it was a set of circumstances that allowed them to accumulate wealth, not necessarily years of hard work (IE, do rich people just work that much harder than a janitor for instance). I'd like to use the United states as an example because its easier to illustrate my point, but that would be breaking boards rules. I like that Riot is adding philosophical theories to different factions, like how Demacia is isolationist and zaun is an oligarchy, adds a lot of flavor to the league universe.
: Honestly True Damage Ekko just nailed it
The skin is sick, probably one of the best ones riot has made. I dont like the jumping tho, im gonna miss so many skillshots, its hard enough to hit floating champions imo
: > [{quoted}](name=Jeanne fan club,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ctTQYfVa,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-10-30T00:27:37.652+0000) > > I feel like riot is stuck in a positive feedback loop where all their cool new skins are for champions that are "popular", but really they sell skins because they receive all the new skins that are cool and have more effects. I feel like if they were to crank out skins for unpopular champions at the rate they do for popular champions they would make unpopular champions into popular champions. You're in a catch 22. Are popular champions because they get so many skins, or do they get so many skins because they're popular. I think there are so many champions that COULD be popular if given more skins.
> [{quoted}](name=Hard 4 Bard,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ctTQYfVa,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2019-10-30T03:08:47.500+0000) > > You're in a catch 22. Are popular champions because they get so many skins, or do they get so many skins because they're popular. I think there are so many champions that COULD be popular if given more skins. yeah, simultaneity bias, thats kind of what i was trying to get at
: Huge skin potential for certain champions wasted, just because [yasuo] gotta be in every skin line
I feel like riot is stuck in a positive feedback loop where all their cool new skins are for champions that are "popular", but really they sell skins because they receive all the new skins that are cool and have more effects. I feel like if they were to crank out skins for unpopular champions at the rate they do for popular champions they would make unpopular champions into popular champions.
: Using pings to "tilt" your teammates only brings your win rate down
If you just got better teammates your winrate wouldnt have to lower at all, thats what I'm waiting for
: Making the map darker reduces the amount of team fights, especially around objectives
new leathality items too, guess riot is committing to the perma assassin meta
: Last time I remember this kind of meta was S5, during the tank meta, when games be like 40 to 50 min long, and whoever got {{champion:113}} {{champion:79}} {{champion:14}}{{champion:57}} {{champion:154}} won the game.
> [{quoted}](name=nachocheeseeeee,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=655oYE3q,comment-id=0011,timestamp=2019-10-27T04:23:49.231+0000) > > Last time I remember this kind of meta was S5, during the tank meta, when games be like 40 to 50 min long, and whoever got {{champion:113}} {{champion:79}} {{champion:14}}{{champion:57}} {{champion:154}} won the game. Yeah but we know what went wrong in those games, those champions had the damage to 1 cycle entire teams at once. They needed their damage nerfed, not their tankyness
: What do you guys miss most from league?
Zed genius (EUNE)
: I am having trouble winning games this season.
Your rank isnt anything important, its completely determined by a combination of how bad your teammates are every game and riots predetermined win/loss schedule. I've been demoted from d3 31 times this season and I can promise that every single one was a forced loss streak. Absolutely no agency whatsoever in whether you win matches in this game, its all determined by your teammates.
: I think you're missing the point, so ill make it more clear. You dont get demoted from losing a single game and promotion isnt taken away for losing to a better player. When you stop looking at smurfs as players you cant touch and players who are just better than you, you'll realize theyre no different than every other player in your elo, some are better than you, some are worse. That being said holding smurfs as the reason you cant rank up or are getting demoted is false, because five percent of your games will have a smurf which is way above your current rank. So if you arent ranking up or you're getting demoted its not because that 1 game out of the 20 but because of the other 19. Go 19 wins and 1 loss every 20 games. I promise you you'll rank up really fast. To answer your question, no you shouldnt and you dont have to, to currently rank up. Are you implying everyone else who's ranked up has beaten or is a smurf?
> [{quoted}](name=Chainman3,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mFQcnAA3,comment-id=000b00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-21T11:35:34.790+0000) > > I think you're missing the point, so ill make it more clear. You dont get demoted from losing a single game and promotion isnt taken away for losing to a better player. When you stop looking at smurfs as players you cant touch and players who are just better than you, you'll realize theyre no different than every other player in your elo, some are better than you, some are worse. That being said holding smurfs as the reason you cant rank up or are getting demoted is false, because five percent of your games will have a smurf which is way above your current rank. So if you arent ranking up or you're getting demoted its not because that 1 game out of the 20 but because of the other 19. Go 19 wins and 1 loss every 20 games. I promise you you'll rank up really fast. > > To answer your question, no you shouldnt and you dont have to, to currently rank up. Are you implying everyone else who's ranked up has beaten or is a smurf? If I want to prove that I am better than the people I am in the same elo with, I should have to beat people I am in the same elo with. I shouldn't have to beat the ubiquitous high diamond+ smufs every other game ( a lot of them duo) in order to prove I am better than the people in my elo. And idk what else to say other than you are wrong when you go hunting through my match history, this happens much more often than 1 out of the 20 games you looked at
: Do you think that, if the situation was the other way around, NA wouldn't be spamming non-stop? That's... part of the rivalry I guess. Not that I condone the behavior, but don't act like NA hasn't done the same in the past, whenever they won something.
> [{quoted}](name=GelsominoKiller,realm=EUW,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Q9e57EoZ,comment-id=000a0000,timestamp=2019-10-21T06:12:40.930+0000) > > Do you think that, if the situation was the other way around, NA wouldn't be spamming non-stop? > > That's... part of the rivalry I guess. Not that I condone the behavior, but don't act like NA hasn't done the same in the past, whenever they won something. Yeah NA would def be doing the same shit if the situation was reversed. I won't deny that. In fact, considering NA has been so horrible on the world stage for so long it would probably be days of non-stop spamming. I don't keep up with a lot of ESports but I do remember seeing a lot of pro NA trashtalking during MSI and such.
MakJuice (NA)
: NA - Lets send our energy to EU
Well the feeling definitely isn't mutual. did you not see all the handicap region jokes after NA got rolled? Like Jesus, that's not the crowd I want to be supporting
: NA fans are pathetic at this point
I don't even know what you are talking about. most of the posts on the boards right now are calling NA handicapped and poking fun at the fact that they didn't make any quarterfinals spots. TBH I don't really care cuz NA is a bad region but there is literally no one on the boards who is on NA's side.
: I went to op.gg and looked at those games. Idk what games you want me to look at it because you didnt feel the need to post any proof with your accusation.
> [{quoted}](name=Chainman3,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mFQcnAA3,comment-id=000b000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-20T01:53:36.655+0000) > > I went to op.gg and looked at those games. Idk what games you want me to look at it because you didnt feel the need to post any proof with your accusation. doesnt matter, you are still missing the point. Should I have to beat smurfs in order to avoid demotion or rank up?
: Idk who was crazy enough to upvote this but like 5-10% of your games are with a smurf in them if even that much. If you're not climbing its defintely not because of smurfs.
> [{quoted}](name=Chainman3,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mFQcnAA3,comment-id=000b0000,timestamp=2019-10-14T08:44:03.934+0000) > > Idk who was crazy enough to upvote this but like 5-10% of your games are with a smurf in them if even that much. If you're not climbing its defintely not because of smurfs. yeah i wish dude. Idk what games ur looking at but I win most of the games im not vs a smurf and lose most of the ones I am.
: For Season 10 - Riot needs to be honest with themselves about the state of matchmaking.
I shouldn't have to win games vs smurfs to rank up. Nor should I lose lp if i lose. It doesn't make any sense. Even flex will give you reduced lp losses if the enemy team is severely overranked compared to your team.
: What exactly is Jax's weakness?
If the top laner doesn't show up to lane, jax cant get free kills off of him. Or just ban him. Meaningful counterplay doesn't exist here, its pretty much just bring 3 people to deal with him or just pray that he makes too many dumb mistakes before he hits late game (about 19 minutes)
: > [{quoted}](name=Jeanne fan club,realm=NA,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=mV1FW5AE,comment-id=000e,timestamp=2019-10-09T02:45:33.488+0000) > > look into municipal broadband, its always better than those private corporation isps a lot of apartments only provide you with a single ISP option.
> [{quoted}](name=DIAFCancerino,realm=NA,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=mV1FW5AE,comment-id=000e0001,timestamp=2019-10-09T03:39:25.420+0000) > > a lot of apartments only provide you with a single ISP option. ah, I didn't know that. What a bad deal
Regress (NA)
: AT&T ISP - High Ping [About 2-3 Hours Ago]
look into municipal broadband, its always better than those private corporation isps
: Riot needs to fix shit system
riot assigned forced demotion streaks. nothing you can do to avoid them, it just happens. Ive been demoted from d3 about 13 times this season and every time its just 15+ games in a row with trolls. No point in trying. Just spam games without caring and then eventually the streak will end and u will win 15+ in a row back to ur real rank. Just a thing we have to deal with in this bad game
: TFT Attack move
you can hold shift like usual, but thats kind of annoying cuz you aren't playing tft to use both hands so :P might have to unclick the thingy in the options
Mad Manu (EUW)
: How to counter Talon mid
Nocturne mid. Spellshield his q when he jumps in and he wont get his passive proc on you, you can kill him very easily since he cant outrun ur q e. free lane until lvl 6 pretty much.
DrDubb (NA)
: Ranked Matches Feel Predetermined
My games are either a close win or my team combined is like 2-25 by 15 minutes
iSennª (NA)
: A good mage or magic damage champ to pick up?
{{champion:61}} <- I picked her up really easily, she has extremely reliable damage, good poke and wave control. Excelent teamfight, pretty much the only reason I got onto my uni's league team. {{champion:103}} <- my first champion, obligatory recommend. {{champion:34}} <- sleeper op rn, difficult at first but you will do giga damage, her early is pretty good too, lots of pressure with q {{champion:245}} <- extremely strong, not TOO difficult {{champion:3}} <- S L E E P E R O P (ap version of course {{champion:38}} <- if you feel like afking untill lvl 16 every game. {{champion:56}} Not AP, but he has a lot of the things you were talking about. Really strong midlaner, highly recommend. {{champion:134}} sleeper op {{champion:45}} sleeper op {{champion:161}} really strong rn, can kill people very easily in lane if they don't contest ur ultimate.
Razorex (EUW)
: I want Riot to see this.
same dude, Ive been in my d2 promos at least 7 times this season, and I go on a loss streak all the way to d4 every time I hit those promos. I know im just a low diamond shitter but solidarity my dude, this game is insane when it comes to trolls and afks
: Is Nunu and Willump truly a braindead champion?
Honestly, I find champions like nocturne and sejuanni easier to play than nunu, but thats partially because I've only played nunu like 2 times so I find him really hard. I think he is a lot more difficult than many tanks in the game tbh.
Show more

Jeanne fan club

Level 380 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion