: You Can Defend Yourself Without Retaliating.
I consider the inability to flame more toxic than anything said by any flamer. The fact that you would even make a post like this is deeply illustrative of the problem with how Riot handles player conduct. Also your exchange with the Leona was in no way derogatory enough to be _banter._
: I don't understand why we don't have more melee only or ranged only items.
> [{quoted}](name=Spicy Rice,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GOAWlkZd,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-04-04T12:44:36.044+0000) > > Specifically melee only tank items, seeing as a large reason why (or at least a large reason to me) tank items can't be made more powerful, stat wise or effect wise, is due to how ranged champs start to abuse them. > > The power of range is so overbearing, that to me, it'd make sense to restrict items for them. > > And that isn't to say I want to change current items to ranged only or melee only, but rather we should look into make more items in such a fashion. Because Riot doesn't like to make items that can't be bought by champions. They just change the champions to be completely non-functional with the items, see Regen Soraka, AD Fizz, AP Yi, etc.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010000000100000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-03-29T21:21:26.806+0000) > > Your vocabulary is seriously flawed. > > To accept someone's behavior is to deem it as normal and in no need of correction. > To forgive someone's behavior is to not judge their character on it. > > There is a serious difference because these concepts are inherently mutually exclusive. I've once heard it said that the majority of arguments boil down the the meaning of words. **acceptance** _noun_ 1. the act of taking or receiving something offered. 2. favorable reception; approval; favor. 3. the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory. 4. the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable. You're talking about definition #2, I'm talking about #3. When I say "accept" I mean to recognize that it exists, whether something is good or bad has nothing to do with accepting it. You can accept that diseases kill people, but that doesn't mean that you think that diseases are good or that nothing should be done about it. Words have more than one meaning, you know. > You can reject someone's behavior and still forgive them for such behavior. If their behavior is not in need of correction, then there is nothing to forgive. If someone refuses to correct their behavior, then there is no longer room for forgiveness as the understanding is that they do not care how out of line their behavior is and do not value your forgiveness. Seems like you're trying to rationalize your vengeful attitude. Forgiveness has nothing to do with whether one deserves forgiveness - if that were the case none of us should be forgiven. > You do not get to redefine terms to your liking in an attempt to make toxic behavior seem normal and that it should not be punished. Well then it's a good thing that the terms that I use predate me. Also, what do you mean by "toxic behavior"? If you mean rudeness or being offensive, it _is_ normal in the sense that everyone, including you, does it from time to time, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes deliberately. Why does this general rudeness need to be punished? What should the punishment for such a thing be? If I think your attitude is pretty toxic, what punishment should you face?
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000000010000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-30T02:05:56.751+0000) > > Except I'm also taking into account the 4th, which is part of the entire argument and, fundamentally, why your point is paradoxical and flawed. I suppose if you deliberately choose to not understand what I'm saying, pretend I'm saying something else, and then react to that as though it was what I said, my position _would_ come off as nonsensical. But at that point you're just arguing with yourself.
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000000010000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-03-29T21:07:16.246+0000) > > Yes it is. > > Sometimes people miscommunicate. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes people are just having a bad day. > > Understanding means accepting that we're all flawed imperfect people who are bad sometimes. > > Let go of your anger, Demoness. Your vocabulary is seriously flawed. To accept someone's behavior is to deem it as normal and in no need of correction. To forgive someone's behavior is to not judge their character on it. There is a serious difference because these concepts are inherently mutually exclusive. You can reject someone's behavior and still forgive them for such behavior. If their behavior is not in need of correction, then there is nothing to forgive. If someone refuses to correct their behavior, then there is no longer room for forgiveness as the understanding is that they do not care how out of line their behavior is and do not value your forgiveness. You do not get to redefine terms to your liking in an attempt to make toxic behavior seem normal and that it should not be punished.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010000000100000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-03-29T21:21:26.806+0000) > > Your vocabulary is seriously flawed. > > To accept someone's behavior is to deem it as normal and in no need of correction. > To forgive someone's behavior is to not judge their character on it. > > There is a serious difference because these concepts are inherently mutually exclusive. I've once heard it said that the majority of arguments boil down the the meaning of words. **acceptance** _noun_ 1. the act of taking or receiving something offered. 2. favorable reception; approval; favor. 3. the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory. 4. the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable. You're talking about definition #2, I'm talking about #3. When I say "accept" I mean to recognize that it exists, whether something is good or bad has nothing to do with accepting it. You can accept that diseases kill people, but that doesn't mean that you think that diseases are good or that nothing should be done about it. Words have more than one meaning, you know. > You can reject someone's behavior and still forgive them for such behavior. If their behavior is not in need of correction, then there is nothing to forgive. If someone refuses to correct their behavior, then there is no longer room for forgiveness as the understanding is that they do not care how out of line their behavior is and do not value your forgiveness. Seems like you're trying to rationalize your vengeful attitude. Forgiveness has nothing to do with whether one deserves forgiveness - if that were the case none of us should be forgiven. > You do not get to redefine terms to your liking in an attempt to make toxic behavior seem normal and that it should not be punished. Well then it's a good thing that the terms that I use predate me. Also, what do you mean by "toxic behavior"? If you mean rudeness or being offensive, it _is_ normal in the sense that everyone, including you, does it from time to time, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes deliberately. Why does this general rudeness need to be punished? What should the punishment for such a thing be? If I think your attitude is pretty toxic, what punishment should you face?
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T20:17:51.630+0000) > > That's just it though, this "sensitivity" is the exact opposite of understanding. > > It is an unwillingness to accept the misconduct of others. The refusal to accept it. > > It is the dismissal of the potential of people, the denial of strength, of growth, of competence. > > It is nothing short of a contempt for all of humanity. > > Frankly, I find it disgusting. Accepting misconduct isn't the same as forgiving it.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=0001000100000001000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-03-29T19:52:24.756+0000) > > Accepting misconduct isn't the same as forgiving it. Yes it is. Sometimes people miscommunicate. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes people are just having a bad day. Understanding means accepting that we're all flawed imperfect people who are bad sometimes. Let go of your anger, Demoness.
: The thing is that, it's a tank that can carry -- so why not? {{summoner:14}}
Nice try, but I saw your build, where's my 1000 damage Q's at? EDIT: Also, I can't read Italian.
: > [{quoted}](name=grumpy pancham,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010000000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T21:20:36.263+0000) > > You had brought up being understanding but you're also defending OP which I think has me confused. If people are understanding, then they would understand not to use negative language purposefully to anger or hurt someone's feelings? That's toxic to me. Someone says something that makes you feel bad, therefore they _must_ be trying to make you feel bad. The fact that you attribute this behavior solely toward malicious intent is exactly what I'm talking about - **you** are the one who is unwilling to understand. > I _**personally**_ define toxicity as anything purposefully negative. Feeding, AFK, calling people names, spamming chat, spamming pings, anything that doesn't provide help to your teammates. Then your definition is too extensive - purposeful negativity is situationally necessary. Suppose there was a class where one of the students (who I will refer to as Blue for ease of discussion) went to people's lunch bags and stole their food. The teacher is simpathetic to Blue as he is from a poor household, and presumably gets hungry, so this behavior is allowed to continue as the teacher requests the student's understanding and forgiveness. After repeated instances of this behavior, the students identify Blue as the culprit and socially ostracize him from all their social activities. Blue subsequently cries to the teacher that no one will play with him, and as he is technically correct, the teacher forces the class to play with him. Was the class's treatment of blue negative? Yes. Was it justified? Also yes. What other recourse do they have? Negativity can be used in an abusive manner, but is also a corrective measure used to keep people in line. Do you believe that no one should ever be allowed to say or do things that would hurt your feelings? > For a real world example, being a toxic friend might be someone who constantly is negative or puts you down. In this case, you're agreeing with OP in the fact that it's acceptable your friend is constantly negative and is bad to you and that you're just being sensitive. Taking your example into account, it would depend entirely on the friend in question: if he was this way with everyone, I would presume that being an asshole is simply how he is, and would deal with it. If it was directed at me, specifically, I would call him out on his behavior, and depending on his response I would re-evaluate the nature of our relationship. The point isn't that one should simply tolerate constant abuse, but that one has the means to settle matters one's self.
> [{quoted}](name=grumpy pancham,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T22:01:00.125+0000) > > Yeah, exactly. Read your sentence again. If someone says something to make you feel bad then they are trying to make you feel bad. Exactly that. Not necessarily; unless you have the magical ability to read minds, **you do not know what people's true intentions are.** > If someone is angry and calls a black person the n word, then they're trying to hurt them. You're saying this is okay to do and that it's "too sensitive" for the if the black person tells the other that they don't like being called that. No, I don't think people are being too sensitive for not liking being called something. I just think they should learn to deal with it. I don't think calling people mean names is "okay", I just don't think it is something punishable. Smoking is also "not okay", but I still think people should be able to do it. >(a more irrelevant example,) If someone comes up to you and purposefully breaks your computer, you're saying it's wrong to be upset. You are conflating something harmless (insulting speech) with something directly harmful (destruction of property). They are not the same thing, and it is disingenuous to treat them as such. >It's not that I'm _unwilling_ to understand, it's that I'm having difficulties understanding why it's okay to be rude or hateful to someone. This is not about what is or isn't okay. This is about what is necessary, what needs to be allowed to continue to exist. You don't need to like people who are jerks, but you need to be able to live in a world that has them in it, because the alternative is considerably worse. > People DO have the means to settle with people though. Many people try to talk about it instead of resorting to violence. Indeed. People have the ability to deal with mean, insulting people through mature and rational means. Thus the existence of such behavior is not something that necessitates authoritative solutions. >Saying, "What you said to me bothers me for xx reason" and responding with, "I can't talk to you anymore, you're too sensitive" solves what? Should they beat you to a pulp and say, "By the way, what you said bothers me. Have fun in the hospital while I get charged with battery"? What gets solved there? I don't understand what you're saying with this. I'm not suggesting that violence is the appropriate solution to deal with rude people.
: WHO THE HECK STILL PLAYS POPPY??? [HINT: He has multiple challenger accounts in KR server]
Poppy has been dead since they reworked her into a tank. This thing may be effective, but I don't wanna win that way.
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T21:05:02.554+0000) > > I'm in agreement with the OP, in regards to his stance against sensitivity. > > I don't know what you mean when you say "toxic behavior". That seems to be a very broad and nebulous term. You had brought up being understanding but you're also defending OP which I think has me confused. If people are understanding, then they would understand not to use negative language purposefully to anger or hurt someone's feelings? That's toxic to me. I _**personally**_ define toxicity as anything purposefully negative. Feeding, AFK, calling people names, spamming chat, spamming pings, anything that doesn't provide help to your teammates. For a real world example, being a toxic friend might be someone who constantly is negative or puts you down. In this case, you're agreeing with OP in the fact that it's acceptable your friend is constantly negative and is bad to you and that you're just being sensitive.
> [{quoted}](name=grumpy pancham,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010000000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T21:20:36.263+0000) > > You had brought up being understanding but you're also defending OP which I think has me confused. If people are understanding, then they would understand not to use negative language purposefully to anger or hurt someone's feelings? That's toxic to me. Someone says something that makes you feel bad, therefore they _must_ be trying to make you feel bad. The fact that you attribute this behavior solely toward malicious intent is exactly what I'm talking about - **you** are the one who is unwilling to understand. > I _**personally**_ define toxicity as anything purposefully negative. Feeding, AFK, calling people names, spamming chat, spamming pings, anything that doesn't provide help to your teammates. Then your definition is too extensive - purposeful negativity is situationally necessary. Suppose there was a class where one of the students (who I will refer to as Blue for ease of discussion) went to people's lunch bags and stole their food. The teacher is simpathetic to Blue as he is from a poor household, and presumably gets hungry, so this behavior is allowed to continue as the teacher requests the student's understanding and forgiveness. After repeated instances of this behavior, the students identify Blue as the culprit and socially ostracize him from all their social activities. Blue subsequently cries to the teacher that no one will play with him, and as he is technically correct, the teacher forces the class to play with him. Was the class's treatment of blue negative? Yes. Was it justified? Also yes. What other recourse do they have? Negativity can be used in an abusive manner, but is also a corrective measure used to keep people in line. Do you believe that no one should ever be allowed to say or do things that would hurt your feelings? > For a real world example, being a toxic friend might be someone who constantly is negative or puts you down. In this case, you're agreeing with OP in the fact that it's acceptable your friend is constantly negative and is bad to you and that you're just being sensitive. Taking your example into account, it would depend entirely on the friend in question: if he was this way with everyone, I would presume that being an asshole is simply how he is, and would deal with it. If it was directed at me, specifically, I would call him out on his behavior, and depending on his response I would re-evaluate the nature of our relationship. The point isn't that one should simply tolerate constant abuse, but that one has the means to settle matters one's self.
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T20:17:51.630+0000) > > That's just it though, this "sensitivity" is the exact opposite of understanding. > > It is an unwillingness to accept the misconduct of others. The refusal to accept it. > > It is the dismissal of the potential of people, the denial of strength, of growth, of competence. > > It is nothing short of a contempt for all of humanity. > > Frankly, I find it disgusting. I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you agreeing with OP in that people are too sensitive or are you saying that people who are upset at toxic behavior is the opposite of understanding?
> [{quoted}](name=grumpy pancham,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=0001000100000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T20:22:11.823+0000) > > I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you agreeing with OP in that people are too sensitive or are you saying that people who are upset at toxic behavior is the opposite of understanding? I'm in agreement with the OP, in regards to his stance against sensitivity. I don't know what you mean when you say "toxic behavior". That seems to be a very broad and nebulous term.
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=0001000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T18:27:22.650+0000) > > Sensitivity did not move anyone anywhere. > > Understanding is what allowed our society to advance. Acceptance of the mistakes and misbehavior of others made us resilient. (that was the intention for the " around sensitive lol I couldn't think of a better term) So then would the meaning of this threat change at all if we substituted the "sensitive" for "understanding" in OP's post or anyone's comment? "People are so understanding nowadays. You can't say anything"? It brings in an entirely different demeanor to OP's behavior.
> [{quoted}](name=grumpy pancham,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T18:35:14.901+0000) > > (that was the intention for the " around sensitive lol I couldn't think of a better term) > So then would the meaning of this threat change at all if we substituted the "sensitive" for "understanding" in OP's post or anyone's comment? "People are so understanding nowadays. You can't say anything"? It brings in an entirely different demeanor to OP's behavior. That's just it though, this "sensitivity" is the exact opposite of understanding. It is an unwillingness to accept the misconduct of others. The refusal to accept it. It is the dismissal of the potential of people, the denial of strength, of growth, of competence. It is nothing short of a contempt for all of humanity. Frankly, I find it disgusting.
: > [{quoted}](name=The Bad Touch,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000000010000,timestamp=2019-03-27T22:37:51.334+0000) > > THe majority of the older generation DOES act better. > > You are just generalizing everyone over a 55 tear old biker. Guess what if that BS protocol didn't exist then there would have never been an issue to begin with. Again we have too many damn rules. Everyone is too damn concerned about what everyone else is doing. It was a drug screen lol many places have that protocol because people actually do buy people's urine smh Anyway, I'm not generalizing everyone based off one person, I'm not stupid. I was giving an example of older people acting rude. Regardless, how people act is an individual basis. Some people have tough skin, some don't. Some don't appreciate being called racial slurs and others embrace it. Sensitivity is what has helped us move forward as a society. Women being "sensitive" about voting issues is what helped them earn the right to vote. Black people being "sensitive" to segregation is what lead to a racial revolution. I choose to treat everyone with respect and if someone says that something I say bothers them, then I don't say it in front of them. It's pretty simple to just treat people with respect instead of thinking they're too sensitive.
> [{quoted}](name=grumpy pancham,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010000000100000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T15:21:24.733+0000) > > It was a drug screen lol many places have that protocol because people actually do buy people's urine smh > Anyway, I'm not generalizing everyone based off one person, I'm not stupid. I was giving an example of older people acting rude. > > Regardless, how people act is an individual basis. Some people have tough skin, some don't. Some don't appreciate being called racial slurs and others embrace it. Sensitivity is what has helped us move forward as a society. Women being "sensitive" about voting issues is what helped them earn the right to vote. Black people being "sensitive" to segregation is what lead to a racial revolution. I choose to treat everyone with respect and if someone says that something I say bothers them, then I don't say it in front of them. It's pretty simple to just treat people with respect instead of thinking they're too sensitive. Sensitivity did not move anyone anywhere. Understanding is what allowed our society to advance. Acceptance of the mistakes and misbehavior of others made us resilient.
: Being able to faceroll your keyboard and watch as your opponent burns in a hellfire of 0 counterplay is always fun.
Nice. You should use it all the time then. Nothing get's riot to nerf something faster than 90% usage across champions.
: why kindred moves me.
> [{quoted}](name=speedameen,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=2hY9elOg,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-03-27T15:17:38.825+0000) > > what characters move you? Pre-rework Gangplank, Taric, and Poppy.
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T03:03:47.358+0000) > > Because courtesy is about behaving in a polite and socially acceptable manner toward people, even people you don't know. > > There are people, who speak to one another in a rude and insulting fashion, who have utmost respect for one another. Respect is the willingness to accept that people will make mistakes, to give the benefit of the doubt, to take the good with the bad. > > I would say that you have a marked lack of respect for people in general, given the things you've said thus far. First point, respecting the rules of society and your environment in addition to acknowledging you don't know the person and how you should talk around him/her. You don't need to make things awkward nor do you need to be abrasive just because you want to be. I shouldn't need to elaborate further. Second point, those are two people who know each other on a deeply personal level at which point the respect has long since been earned. You can believe that I generally lack respect. I sure as hell won't give you the time of day, let alone respect, if your first words to me are "what's up bitch?" > So even you agree that you will never get everyone to conform to a generally socially accepted standard of behavior, almost like a force of nature. And measures for those outliers include prison, jail and house arrest. They broke the rules and were rightfully punished for it. > Well, then I'm an advocate of the downtrodden and the scorned, and you're not qualified to determine who is or isn't a problem for _everyone._ > > Rude people are not a problem for _me_ - I can ignore them, tell them off, block them, or walk away. You can too. If you think "the downtrodden and the scorned" are typical internet users, you need a reality check and there's nothing else to say. And you're in no position to say whether or not I'm qualified to determine who is or isn't a problem. So there's that. Lastly, given that you think rudeness should be the standard behavior for people online, I'm certain you just want civilization to regress into something akin to the caveman era. > This is actually two separate points so I will address them individually: > > **I want to be left alone** > > If you wanted to be left alone, you would not be playing online games nor posting in forums. To be out in the world (or online) is to subject yourself to whatever speech people see fit to send your way. You choose to be where people speak. You choose to get offended. > > If you want to be left alone, then be alone. No one is stopping you. > > **It is inherently on me to tolerate his behavior.** > > Yes, in the sense that you cannot use force to infringe on his rights. You don't get to shoot someone for being rude to you, for instance. But you are free to use your liberty to tell him off or leave. > > Yes, responding to rudeness with rudeness is something you are free to do. > > What right of yours is being overridden? > > Someone's rudeness directed toward you is not preventing you from doing anything. > > Yet you are using your feelings of offense at one's rude behavior as a justification to infringe on the rights of others. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your own argument? No, it was not two separate points as it was a hypothetical situation that could be applied to a variety of environments. So not only are you deliberately trying to obfuscate my argument in an attempt to discredit me, you're still pushing the blame off of Mr. "I can do what I want when I want and never be arrested/removed/punished" onto whomever he's disturbing. Besides, I have a right to peacefully enjoy something as long as it's not at the expense of someone else. Someone else screaming into my ear for whatever reason when I'm trying to do something, alone or not, is my rights being infringed upon by someone who clearly has zero respect for anyone around him. > Freedom from consequence is what freedom means. If ones freedom can be taken away not as a result of infringing on the rights of others but by the arbitrary sensibilities of "society" than one is not free at all. > > I don't rebuke that one can be neutral because one _can_ be neutral. I don't rebuke that one _should_ be neutral when one meets another because I generally agree with that as well. > > However, I also don't believe that people should be forced to conform to my sense of politeness - that's the mentality of a dictator. That is infringing on the rights of others. Considering I'm only asking for "don't be a dick until you know me", I'd say my standards are pretty fucking low and in no way trampling on anyone's rights. > But you are free to _say_ whatever you want with zero consequences. Scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. See if that goes without you being escorted out of the building with no refund and tell me that's "zero consequences". > Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me, after all. Sadly, that line is false and based on ignorance. There will be a breaking point where words will mess with your psyche and cause you to react. Doesn't matter how much you try to ignore the words you heard, it will get to you eventually. > You keep saying this, but I don't know what paradox you are finding in my line of reasoning. I will summarize my position thusly: > > People have the right to speak freely and be as rude or kind as they want. Even if that makes some people feel bad, they are still free to do it. > > What is the contradiction in this position? The contradiction is that you insist on those being rude should not be punished when they cross the line. That's why I mentioned those who refuse to conform to the standards suffer from RIGHTFULLY ISSUED PUNISHMENTS. They have chosen to break the rules and do not deserve to retain their freedoms. They have decided that their rights are more valuable than someone else and that's not how it works. You mentioned that the world is cruel and unfair. Cruelty is putting you in your place because you broke the laws. The lack of fairness "by imposing punishment" is because you chose to be unfair to others.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=0001000100030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T04:30:40.464+0000) > > First point, respecting the rules of society and your environment in addition to acknowledging you don't know the person and how you should talk around him/her. You don't need to make things awkward nor do you need to be abrasive just because you want to be. I shouldn't need to elaborate further. No one needs to do anything. I don't see what your point is with this. > Second point, those are two people who know each other on a deeply personal level at which point the respect has long since been earned. > > You can believe that I generally lack respect. I sure as hell won't give you the time of day, let alone respect, if your first words to me are "what's up bitch?" That's fine, that just means you're not a polite, respectful person. > And measures for those outliers include prison, jail and house arrest. They broke the rules and were rightfully punished for it. Typically, people who act in a rude or disrespectful manner don't get jailed unless they live in a totalitarian society. I don't see anything right about fascism. > If you think "the downtrodden and the scorned" are typical internet users, you need a reality check and there's nothing else to say. The downtrodden are those who have their rights infringed, the scorned are those who are vilified by society - if that is assholes on the internet, so be it. >And you're in no position to say whether or not I'm qualified to determine who is or isn't a problem. So there's that. Actually I **am** in that position. I'll say it again: You don't speak for everyone, and you're not qualified to determine who is or isn't a problem for everyone. >Lastly, given that you think rudeness should be the standard behavior for people online, I'm certain you just want civilization to regress into something akin to the caveman era. I don't know what you've been reading, but not once have I ever suggested that rudeness should be the standard behavior for people online. I do think that it would be caveman-like conduct to punish people for saying things you don't like. > No, it was not two separate points as it was a hypothetical situation that could be applied to a variety of environments. > > So not only are you deliberately trying to obfuscate my argument in an attempt to discredit me, you're still pushing the blame off of Mr. "I can do what I want when I want and never be arrested/removed/punished" onto whomever he's disturbing. Discredit you? From whom? We're two random people on the internet, no one cares what we think. Also, I'm not blaming anyone for anything. If I were walking down the street, and someone came up to me and said "Well look at the (n-word) walking by", I would not be offended by that, I would just keep walking. You _choose_ to be offended. You _choose_ to be disturbed. > Besides, I have a right to peacefully enjoy something as long as it's not at the expense of someone else. I agree with this. > Someone else screaming into my ear for whatever reason when I'm trying to do something, alone or not, is my rights being infringed upon by someone who clearly has zero respect for anyone around him. Shouting in your ear? I thought we were talking about rudeness. Shouting in your ear would would not be a rights infringement, unless they followed you out of whatever place you were at at the time and would not let you get away from them - that would constitute harassment. Possibly also stalking. Someone saying mean things to you or being rude, however, is not infringing on your rights. This goes double for mean things said on the internet, since they can't follow you around. > Considering I'm only asking for "don't be a dick until you know me", I'd say my standards are pretty fucking low and in no way trampling on anyone's rights. You're not asking for anything, you're _demanding_ that people not be a dick to you or be punished. That **is** trampling on people's rights. > Scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. See if that goes without you being escorted out of the building with no refund and tell me that's "zero consequences". Mmm, this is a consequence, yes. The theater will likely want to not have people shouting while people are trying to watch movies, so they can kick the offending person out. I will concede the point that, there will be some types of ramifications for some types of speech depending on the environment, especially in regards private businesses. The point of contention is what types of speech should merit punishment, and what punishment? > Sadly, that line is false and based on ignorance. That's quite the declarative statement there. >There will be a breaking point where words will mess with your psyche and cause you to react. Doesn't matter how much you try to ignore the words you heard, it will get to you eventually. Do you have some kind of evidence for this, or is this more "common sense"? > The contradiction is that you insist on those being rude should not be punished when they cross the line. Unless someone is physically violent, they haven't crossed the line as far as I'm concerned, so it's less a matter of thinking people shouldn't be punished for crossing the line, but rather where the line is. I don't draw the line at _rudeness._ >That's why I mentioned those who refuse to conform to the standards suffer from RIGHTFULLY ISSUED PUNISHMENTS. They have chosen to break the rules and do not deserve to retain their freedoms. They have decided that their rights are more valuable than someone else and that's not how it works. You mentioned that the world is cruel and unfair. Cruelty is putting you in your place because you broke the laws. The lack of fairness "by imposing punishment" is because you chose to be unfair to others. I've been thinking about this discussion. I believe the central point of contention between us relates to a notion you have that someone being rude to you is, in some way, infringing upon your rights. I believe this can be settled thusly: What specific right(s) of yours is infringed by someone being rude to you?
: AFIK the reason they're changing it is because there are so few champs that rely on auto attacks and do magic dps. This is to open up the item to more champs, namely on hit bruisers or something.
> [{quoted}](name=Tausif2002,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AJuxgAgL,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-03-28T02:44:36.662+0000) > > AFIK the reason they're changing it is because there are so few champs that rely on auto attacks and do magic dps. This is to open up the item to more champs, namely on hit bruisers or something. But but... {{champion:42}} {{champion:10}} {{champion:19}}
: There is a LOT of contradiction in your post. > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=0001000100030000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T01:30:41.438+0000) > > This has been bothering me for a bit but what you're talking about is not respect - it's courtesy. > > If your ability to be courteous, or respectful as you put it, is conditional on the basis of the courtesy of the one you interact with, then you are not a "respectful" person. You have allowed people who you clearly despise to control your behavior. And what makes you think courtesy is not born out of the idea that there should be a common respect? Showing a little common courtesy is what I mean by basic respect. It's not a special respect, as you're not really going out of your way. > Why are some people born crippled? Why do some people get struck by lightning? Why does one house get destroyed by a tornado while one right next to it is unscathed? > > The world is a cruel and unfair place; you can recognize that or you can fight an unwinnable battle. It's one thing if you're trying to change cycles of nature like the seasons or natural disasters. Those are ultimately unwinnable battles. Getting society to agree on a standard of behavior is not such a battle. There will be those who disagree but accept the standard. And there will be those who disagree and insist on acting below that standard. The latter are outliers and their insistence on being problems for everyone else are what you're defending. > Yes. That is exactly what I'm telling you. > > People are free to be kind or assholes - you don't get to dictate how others have to behave. > > There was a time when being openly gay was met with scorn, an inability to get hired, and even violence. It is only out of recognition of liberty, of the ability to act outside of the common sense of decency, that this behavior was stopped. > > The ability to behave in a way which people, even the majority of people, don't like is exactly what freedom means. Freedom means tolerating that people are assholes. So if I want to be left alone and someone else insists on doing the opposite, it is inherently on me to tolerate his behavior. Yet I am also free to straight up retaliate by sinking to his level? This is where your hypocrisy lies and the inherent paradox of your reasoning. Your rights do not override mine and mine don't stop when your feelings start. The same goes in reverse as well. But keep in mind, these rights do not include "freedom from consequence". If you choose to use your freedom towards breaking the established rules or otherwise interfering with others freedoms, you will inherently lose yours. You can't ever lose all of them, but there are some societal rights you will lose should you continue to act like you are immune to consequences. > "Common Sense" is the mantra of people who hold something to be self-evident without any logical or empirical basis to back it up. It is an appeal to authority, to whatever arbitrary sense of morality you have, nothing more. > > You might as well have said: "Be nice or you'll go straight to hell." I've already busted your logic by explaining the paradox and your misused evidence. You have also failed to rebuke the concept that one can be neutral and, from a common moral standpoint, is where you should start when you don't know someone. You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your feelings. You are not entitled to acting however you want with zero consequences. You don't get to walk over a cliff and continue on air as if the laws of gravity do not apply. The same goes in society as well.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T01:57:56.864+0000) > And what makes you think courtesy is not born out of the idea that there should be a common respect? Showing a little common courtesy is what I mean by basic respect. It's not a special respect, as you're not really going out of your way. Because courtesy is about behaving in a polite and socially acceptable manner toward people, even people you don't know. There are people, who speak to one another in a rude and insulting fashion, who have utmost respect for one another. Respect is the willingness to accept that people will make mistakes, to give the benefit of the doubt, to take the good with the bad. I would say that you have a marked lack of respect for people in general, given the things you've said thus far. > It's one thing if you're trying to change cycles of nature like the seasons or natural disasters. Those are ultimately unwinnable battles. Getting society to agree on a standard of behavior is not such a battle. There will be those who disagree but accept the standard. **And there will be those who disagree and insist on acting below that standard.** So even you agree that you will never get everyone to conform to a generally socially accepted standard of behavior, almost like a force of nature. >The latter are outliers and their insistence on being problems for everyone else are what you're defending. Well, then I'm an advocate of the downtrodden and the scorned, and you're not qualified to determine who is or isn't a problem for _everyone._ Rude people are not a problem for _me_ - I can ignore them, tell them off, block them, or walk away. You can too. > So if I want to be left alone and someone else insists on doing the opposite, it is inherently on me to tolerate his behavior. This is actually two separate points so I will address them individually: **I want to be left alone** If you wanted to be left alone, you would not be playing online games nor posting in forums. To be out in the world (or online) is to subject yourself to whatever speech people see fit to send your way. You choose to be where people speak. You choose to get offended. If you want to be left alone, then be alone. No one is stopping you. **It is inherently on me to tolerate his behavior.** Yes, in the sense that you cannot use force to infringe on his rights. You don't get to shoot someone for being rude to you, for instance. But you are free to use your liberty to tell him off or leave. >Yet I am also free to straight up retaliate by sinking to his level? Yes, responding to rudeness with rudeness is something you are free to do. >Your rights do not override mine and mine don't stop when your feelings start.The same goes in reverse as well. What right of yours is being overridden? Someone's rudeness directed toward you is not preventing you from doing anything. Yet you are using your feelings of offense at one's rude behavior as a justification to infringe on the rights of others. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your own argument? >But keep in mind, these rights do not include "freedom from consequence". If you choose to use your freedom towards breaking the established rules or otherwise interfering with others freedoms, you will inherently lose yours. You can't ever lose all of them, but there are some societal rights you will lose should you continue to act like you are immune to consequences. Freedom from consequence is what freedom means. If ones freedom can be taken away not as a result of infringing on the rights of others but by the arbitrary sensibilities of "society" than one is not free at all. >You have also failed to rebuke the concept that one can be neutral and, from a common moral standpoint, is where you should start when you don't know someone. I don't rebuke that one can be neutral because one _can_ be neutral. I don't rebuke that one _should_ be neutral when one meets another because I generally agree with that as well. However, I also don't believe that people should be forced to conform to my sense of politeness - that's the mentality of a dictator. That is infringing on the rights of others. >You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your feelings. You are not entitled to acting however you want with zero consequences. But you are free to _say_ whatever you want with zero consequences. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me, after all. > There is a LOT of contradiction in your post. > > This is where your hypocrisy lies and the inherent paradox of your reasoning. > > I've already busted your logic by explaining the paradox and your misused evidence. You keep saying this, but I don't know what paradox you are finding in my line of reasoning. I will summarize my position thusly: People have the right to speak freely and be as rude or kind as they want. Even if that makes some people feel bad, they are still free to do it. What is the contradiction in this position?
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=00010001000300000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T00:41:21.889+0000) > > Respect and courtesy are meaningless if they are compelled - only through the ability and freedom to be an asshole is the true value of courtesy and honor demonstrated. To suggest that a person is unable to get respect from a boorish or rude person unless they are in a position of power over them is to suggest that all people are just helpless sheep, incapable of solving their own problems. It is not only the abdication of any personal responsibility, but also the greatest insult to any person subjected to said abuse capable of handling their own problems. I only said a modicum, a portion, is compelled on a basis of "you don't have anything else to properly judge someone's character on". And if they choose to be rude outright, there is no reason to respect them and such first impressions can make continued interactions more difficult. > No one is obliged to be courteous or nice to you: If you can't deal with it, learn to deal with it. If you still can't deal with it, walk away. Going to authorities because one is rude to you is nothing short of an admission of personal failure, the failure to solve your own problems. And what obligation is there to be dick from the start? Why can't you simply be neutral? There is nothing wrong with neutrality yet you're here telling me that, because you have no obligation to be nice, you are entitled to being a dick from the get go. That's not "expressing your freedoms". That's being a problem and hoping nobody will call you out on it. > You don't have my respect. I'm not here for respect. I'm here to defend common sense. Something that has become exceptionally rare with a value lower than a scoop of dirt. And I could point fingers as to why that is but there's too many factors for me to have enough fingers to go around.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010003000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-28T01:03:26.089+0000) > > I only said a modicum, a portion, is compelled on a basis of "you don't have anything else to properly judge someone's character on". And if they choose to be rude outright, there is no reason to respect them and such first impressions can make continued interactions more difficult. This has been bothering me for a bit but what you're talking about is not respect - it's courtesy. If your ability to be courteous, or respectful as you put it, is conditional on the basis of the courtesy of the one you interact with, then you are not a "respectful" person. You have allowed people who you clearly despise to control your behavior. > And what obligation is there to be dick from the start? Why can't you simply be neutral? Why are some people born crippled? Why do some people get struck by lightning? Why does one house get destroyed by a tornado while one right next to it is unscathed? The world is a cruel and unfair place; you can recognize that or you can fight an unwinnable battle. >There is nothing wrong with neutrality yet you're here telling me that, because you have no obligation to be nice, you are entitled to being a dick from the get go. Yes. That is exactly what I'm telling you. People are free to be kind or assholes - you don't get to dictate how others have to behave. >That's not "expressing your freedoms". That's being a problem and hoping nobody will call you out on it. There was a time when being openly gay was met with scorn, an inability to get hired, and even violence. It is only out of recognition of liberty, of the ability to act outside of the common sense of decency, that this behavior was stopped. The ability to behave in a way which people, even the majority of people, don't like is exactly what freedom means. Freedom means tolerating that people are assholes. > I'm not here for respect. I'm here to defend common sense. Something that has become exceptionally rare with a value lower than a scoop of dirt. And I could point fingers as to why that is but there's too many factors for me to have enough fingers to go around. "Common Sense" is the mantra of people who hold something to be self-evident without any logical or empirical basis to back it up. It is an appeal to authority, to whatever arbitrary sense of morality you have, nothing more. You might as well have said: "Be nice or you'll go straight to hell."
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=000100010003,timestamp=2019-03-27T23:50:21.894+0000) > > The kind of sensitivity you describe isn't someone standing up for themselves - it's holding themselves supreme by suggesting that you owe them some kind of respect. They're crybullies deliberately trying to make themselves out to be victims in order to use authoritative power to punish the people they view as their "oppressors", rather than taking any personal responsibility for their situation. > > No one deserves respect; respect is earned. And yet, there should be at least a modicum of respect given to someone that you don't personally know and have had no interactions with. To that end, outright being a dick means you have not only resorted to disrespect first without provocation, but you are also showing that you do not deserve any respect yourself. And this is even worse when you've got two people of the same authoritative level, such as two students or two coworkers. When you don't have the authority (or capacity) to get someone to stop, you go to the next person up the ladder. Guess what happens when said authority consistently does nothing? It becomes learned helplessness. You are told to just deal with it when you already know you can't. That's not a good state to be in and that's not "tough love", it's enabling the bullies because they won't be stopped and if they find out you "ratted them out", they'll just go even harder. To that end, it's the same principle in League. You report them to Riot because they're the ones with the capacity to stop said players. You shouting in chat to berate them, remind them of what they're already aware of, or simply getting triggered because of one bad play isn't solving anything.
Respect and courtesy are meaningless if they are compelled - only through the ability and freedom to be an asshole is the true value of courtesy and honor demonstrated. To suggest that a person is unable to get respect from a boorish or rude person unless they are in a position of power over them is to suggest that all people are just helpless sheep, incapable of solving their own problems. It is not only the abdication of any personal responsibility, but also the greatest insult to any person subjected to said abuse capable of handling their own problems. No one is obliged to be courteous or nice to you: If you can't deal with it, learn to deal with it. If you still can't deal with it, walk away. Going to authorities because one is rude to you is nothing short of an admission of personal failure, the failure to solve your own problems. You don't have my respect.
: PBE Wit's End is an epic fail
They're changing Wit's End to not 42? >checks SurrenderAt20 What the hell? It scales now? Also where's the MR shred at? Riot really feels the need to ruin all of their stuff don't they.
: > [{quoted}](name=The Bad Touch,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GY2xi3QK,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-03-27T14:17:48.280+0000) > > This is what happens when we teach our children to not make dickheads eat their own teeth. You get an entire generation of wimps. > _ > "Waaaah Waahhhh he said a bad thing to me. Would the PC police please make him stop talking?"_ > _**"No Tommy, just punch him in the face til he stops. "**_ > _"But that's like hard and stuff."_ > _**"Do it next time our you ain't getting fed kiddo."**_ > > Better times. > > Better times. You _are_ aware that this "sensitivity" IS people standing up for themselves, right? Whereas before bigotry and other similar behavior was something people were taught to ignore or push under the rug to prevent confrontation, people are now standing up to it and are calling people out for being dickheads and bigots, as they should. It's terrifying the people who do use bigoted language and are being general assholes, absolutely, which is why they have caused this backlash to the "SJWs" and the "sensitive" people. They don't like having the mirror thrown in their faces when they're being called out for disrespecting others or dehumanizing other people, because it makes them insecure and challenges their preconceived notions of societal power. As I mentioned in another post on this thread though, society has been tolerating that kind of behavior for far too long, which is why this "sensitivity" has happened at such an extreme. People are fed up with being disrespected, and they're answering the bigotry and disrespect with the complete opposite type of extremism. It will level out eventually, but it first has to really hit a breaking point, and then recoil back to a middle ground where people can respect one another without mud slinging or petty aggression.
The kind of sensitivity you describe isn't someone standing up for themselves - it's holding themselves supreme by suggesting that you owe them some kind of respect. They're crybullies deliberately trying to make themselves out to be victims in order to use authoritative power to punish the people they view as their "oppressors", rather than taking any personal responsibility for their situation. No one deserves respect; respect is earned.
: Too much work nah. Also I think the same person repeatedly posting the same topic is detrimental to the subject as it makes it seem like that one person is the only one that has an issue with it. I'm just adding to the pot of "remove spear".
94372148 (NA)
: %HP true damage shouldn't exist, change my mind.
> [{quoted}](name=94372148,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=FA4TR7xv,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-03-27T14:57:43.063+0000) > > There straight up should not be a type of damage in this game that is 100% uncounterable no matter what you do. That's stupid, anti-fun and has absolutely no place in a game branding itself as needing strategy to win. If something has no counter strategy than it should not exist. Fortunately for you there is, in fact, a counter strategy to this: Kill the other guy. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}}
: 49 days later, Spear of Shojin still exists
Are you going to update the thread title every day this item exists or just post a new one?
: My thoughts on 9.6 removing double tear build & Riot lessening item diversity overall
Riot hate's build diversity. They killed AD fizz, AP yi, regen Soraka etc. Riot wants people to build the same kinds of items on the same champions every game, and if you build in a way they didn't intend AND it's viable, they will destroy whatever they have to kill it - build diversity is only allowed when it's bad.
0Hawke (NA)
: Armor, Magic Resist waaaay too useless.
: Actually a German did such machine because a lot of Czechoslovaks claimed they're gay to avoid mandatory military recruitment. Or at least that's what I've heard.
> [{quoted}](name=Velzard of Koz,realm=EUNE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-03-16T17:45:55.478+0000) > > Actually a German did such machine because a lot of Czechoslovaks claimed they're gay to avoid mandatory military recruitment. > > Or at least that's what I've heard. Ah, good old German engineering to the rescue! Welp I'm off to buy a new gaydar. Godspeed, friend.
: you misread what I stated. The thresh had all of the "advantages" between easier crowd control, self-peel, poke damage... and the chogath shut this down the entire time, bringing it to a standstill. If the thresh had not been so experienced, his laning would have been garbage because ranged champions' only defining trait is their "range" if he had played any other champion without Thresh's self-peel, his laning phase would have been ruined and the chogath would outscale him. Even with his "advantage" still in tact, the chogath STILL outscaled him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZzkNotMVcY here's another example, this time featuring yasuo. Yasuo against lissandra...lissandra is the most DEFENSIVE mage in the game and yet yasuo easily snowballed the lane and crushed most conditions where the only times he died, he got overconfident because he could duel two people under their tower and win despite most matchups in that game being against yasuo's favor? Zhonya's hourglass does not allow you to maintain your offense unless you are a VERY rare type of mage or AP user: mundo, swain, fiddlesticks, etc, whose damage over time effects persist during their stasis. This is not true for wind-wall. he presses a button and stops your offense unless you somehow meet perfect conditions or the yasuo messes up why do you bring spirit visage up? almost nothing about it stands out except for its magic resist and increased healing/regen, which is only useful for champions that scale with their healing/regen. I point out frequently that magic resist is all that people need to cut down magic damage and even the higher level players state that when people don't build magic resist against magic damage, it's going to be an easy matchup for them I am emotional but I am also experienced. I have played ranged matchups against melee champions and melee champions against ranged champions. It's a minor inconvenience at best because ranged champions have the WORST early game other than tanks, who do not focus on offense anyway I used to think that ranged matchups were totally oppressive against melee until someone who actually knew how to play a ranged matchup showed me exactly how little they can do against a melee champion Why do you think ranged champions never CONSISTENTLY stay top? there are VERY FEW ranged champions to maintain a place in top, why is that? These champions migrate top when either, A, they have been pushed out of their own lane and find a minimal amount of success in top lane, or B, they recently got buffed and figured out a way to have a short-lived oppressive matchup because no one is experienced fighting against that champion in top lane most ranged matchups EVAPORATE from the top lane when people realize how to play against them or when their buff that pushed them over the top also begins to influence the lane that Riot intended for them to be strong in... Viktor top barely had any changes at all, suddenly his win rate dropped drastically Vladimir replaced viktor, yet with few changes or even none at all, his win-rate is now below 50% these matchups were niche because no one knew how to play against them. When it caught on that they were popular, people made a plan and their niche strategy evaporated... #YASUO HAS BEEN EXTREMELY POPULAR FOR 6 YEARS and he still maintains that consistent advantage. Even when he was first released, he was so strong that they had to reduce his base hp into the 400s which is practically a death-sentence and since then was changed back I played yasuo when he was released and he shared a similar trait to Vayne, I got a triple kill in my first match using both of them and both of them struck me as highly annoying champions that IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY DOING WITH THEM, THEY HAVE A TOOL FOR EVERY SITUATION AND EXCEL EASILY
> [{quoted}](name=3TWarrior,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=9kyh7hqo,comment-id=00050000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-16T14:48:19.751+0000) > > you misread what I stated. The thresh had all of the "advantages" between easier crowd control, self-peel, poke damage... and the chogath shut this down the entire time, bringing it to a standstill. If the thresh had not been so experienced, his laning would have been garbage because ranged champions' only defining trait is their "range" > > if he had played any other champion without Thresh's self-peel, his laning phase would have been ruined and the chogath would outscale him. Even with his "advantage" still in tact, the chogath STILL outscaled him > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZzkNotMVcY Thresh is not a ranged champion, he's a melee support champion, with uncharacteristically low base stats to compensate for his strong utility, and an unusually long auto range. His auto ranged is shorter than every ranged champion (I think), and he doesn't have any poke tools to compensate. > Zhonya's hourglass does not allow you to maintain your offense unless you are a VERY rare type of mage or AP user: mundo, swain, fiddlesticks, etc, whose damage over time effects persist during their stasis. This is not true for wind-wall. he presses a button and stops your offense unless you somehow meet perfect conditions or the yasuo messes up So that's 3 champions who are able to do damage from inside of the zhonyas, vs one Yasuo - and this item will also negate offense, and give time to recharge cooldowns. Also You are overstating the power of his wall. It is easily circumvented, you just shoot around it, if you're Diana literally so. > why do you bring spirit visage up? almost nothing about it stands out except for its magic resist and increased healing/regen, which is only useful for champions that scale with their healing/regen. I point out frequently that magic resist is all that people need to cut down magic damage and even the higher level players state that when people don't build magic resist against magic damage, it's going to be an easy matchup for them Isn't spirit visage the thing that gives you the cooldown based spellshield? Or is that a different item? It's been a while for me. > I am emotional but I am also experienced. I have played ranged matchups against melee champions and melee champions against ranged champions. It's a minor inconvenience at best because ranged champions have the WORST early game other than tanks, who do not focus on offense anyway > > I used to think that ranged matchups were totally oppressive against melee until someone who actually knew how to play a ranged matchup showed me exactly how little they can do against a melee champion > > Why do you think ranged champions never CONSISTENTLY stay top? there are VERY FEW ranged champions to maintain a place in top, why is that? Because top is a lane where people are left largely alone for long swaths of the game, and the lane is long. This means that the types of champions who do well in top need to have certain characteristics: They need to be strong duelists or at least able to defend themselves at a bare minimum, they need to have some kind of sustained damage potential (or be manaless) because it's a long lane without support, finally they need some kind of survivability or escape potential, because they can get caught out with jungle ganks and need to be able to escape. Ranged champions have the ability to inflict damage from a position of relative safety, but tend to be slow and lack either defensive tools or escapes which makes things difficult if they get ganked. The main popular top lane ranged champs (Vayne, Quinn, Teemo, Gnar) all have CC and escapes, which lets them survive jungle ganks. Of course, proper positioning and wave management with regular use of wards can minimize the need for these requirements to some extent. > These champions migrate top when either, A, they have been pushed out of their own lane and find a minimal amount of success in top lane, or B, they recently got buffed and figured out a way to have a short-lived oppressive matchup because no one is experienced fighting against that champion in top lane > > most ranged matchups EVAPORATE from the top lane when people realize how to play against them or when their buff that pushed them over the top also begins to influence the lane that Riot intended for them to be strong in... Probably because they don't have those things you need to be a good top laner. > Viktor top barely had any changes at all, suddenly his win rate dropped drastically > Vladimir replaced viktor, yet with few changes or even none at all, his win-rate is now below 50% People played Viktor top? That sounds awesome. > these matchups were niche because no one knew how to play against them. When it caught on that they were popular, people made a plan and their niche strategy evaporated... Sure, people playing weird stuff in a weird way only works until it's popular enough to get solved, then it comes to player skill. Top lane has traditionally been about matchup knowledge more than just raw power. > #YASUO HAS BEEN EXTREMELY POPULAR FOR 6 YEARS and he still maintains that consistent advantage. Even when he was first released, he was so strong that they had to reduce his base hp into the 400s which is practically a death-sentence and since then was changed back I don't know what you're trying to say here - he's popular? Sure, he's a cool samurai guy who jumps around and shoots wind. They overnerfed him, then reverted the nerf? Sounds like business as usual to me. > I played yasuo when he was released and he shared a similar trait to Vayne, I got a triple kill in my first match using both of them and both of them struck me as highly annoying champions that IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY DOING WITH THEM, THEY HAVE A TOOL FOR EVERY SITUATION AND EXCEL EASILY What was that? > **highly annoying champions** Ah. There it is. Yasuo is no good because you find him annoying. Well, I can't argue against your feelings, and your caps lock is too stronk for me. Good day, sir.
: the only melee champions at a complete disadvantage during a ranged matchup are juggernauts and tanks, neither of which should really be focusing on attacking ranged champions and instead on farming, crowd control, and in juggernaut's case, smushing anything that dares get within their attack range... here's an example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnLzZZ2XrpM thresh has quite a few advantages but is consistently pressured, despite this, the player's experience lets them keep even in the matchup most melee have a reliable engage and defense tool, juggernauts do not and tanks do not want to be overly aggressive You can not "move over and shoot around the wall" as yasuo consistently attacks within the wall, making your attacks useless because he's right on top of you, going towards him is a bad idea because then he has more time to damage you and running away, you don't gain any benefit but potentially taking less damage "don't stand in you rminion wave while shooting him" seriously, his E range is 475, if you're within that range of any minion (which is likely when no mage's auto range exceeds 600), he will dash to the minion and then dash to you, or if you attempt to attack him while too close to your minions, he will simply dash to the minion, save his E for your mobility/flash, E to you and deal more damage Everything is in his favor seriously, you're comparing yasuo's CONSTANT power against a mage's POTENTIAL power? the stars have to align for a mage to get multiple crowd control from the same ability, funny thing, yasuo can do that too when the stars align and he can do his TARGETED OR POINT BLANK by engaging... He has no mana costs, is gated only by cooldowns, scales very quickly and very well, starts with the bare minimum of melee stats(so he stat-checks squishy champions), can disable at minimum the opponent's marksman and that number only goes up depending upon team composition, he is incredibly mobile in lane and during team fights, and he can INCREASE CROWD CONTROL WITH A SUPPRESSION WHICH IS THE STRONGEST FORM OF CROWD CONTROL... You say he was designed to "counter" ranged champs, well, instead of countering them, he NEGATES their gameplay. Jax is frequently complained about because he can stop auto attacks, but that's okay because it is only FOR HIM, for a short time and with auto attacks, the champions he counters still possess abilities to use consistently see, you mention teemo, I've never had a problem against teemo because you do not have to alter your gameplay patterns against him, which is not true against darius or yasuo. You might make a case for teemo's mushrooms, but pretty much any champion can attack from the fog of war, which is where he primarily uses them... and darius is really loose with this because his weaknesses cover his strengths #If you compare yasuo to darius, Yasuo's low base stats are covered by his shield (which refreshes at max 20 seconds), his melee range, he has the longest melee range in the game and can even attack at over 900 range, item dependent? He has the earliest late game power spike in the game. Melee only, he has windwall to negate the opponent's ranged advantage while keeping his own team's and a dash to get to his target quickly...
> [{quoted}](name=3TWarrior,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=9kyh7hqo,comment-id=000500000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-16T00:02:48.598+0000) > > the only melee champions at a complete disadvantage during a ranged matchup are juggernauts and tanks, neither of which should really be focusing on attacking ranged champions and instead on farming, crowd control, and in juggernaut's case, smushing anything that dares get within their attack range... Complete disadvantage, sure, but all are at a disadvantage which is the point I was making. > here's an example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnLzZZ2XrpM > > thresh has quite a few advantages but is consistently pressured, despite this, the player's experience lets them keep even in the matchup Thus demonstrating that good play can make up for a hard matchup. > most melee have a reliable engage and defense tool, juggernauts do not and tanks do not want to be overly aggressive It's not that most melee have an engage and defense tool, it's that every melee _has to have these tools to even function_, or some massive other power to compensate, because ranged champs are overtuned. This wouldn't be an issue at all if turn speed was a thing, but I digress. > You can not "move over and shoot around the wall" as yasuo consistently attacks within the wall, making your attacks useless because he's right on top of you, going towards him is a bad idea because then he has more time to damage you and running away, you don't gain any benefit but potentially taking less damage > > "don't stand in you rminion wave while shooting him" seriously, his E range is 475, if you're within that range of any minion (which is likely when no mage's auto range exceeds 600), he will dash to the minion and then dash to you, or if you attempt to attack him while too close to your minions, he will simply dash to the minion, save his E for your mobility/flash, E to you and deal more damage > > Everything is in his favor If he's in the wall, don't fight move to the side opposite the direction of the minions, and shoot at him from there. If he stands in the shield, just hang tight, as he can't jump to you. 475 range is shorter than most ranged auto attack ranges, and mages can easily outrange that with their spells. The idea that he has an extra long auto is irrelevant because your base auto attacks should be outranging him. > seriously, you're comparing yasuo's CONSTANT power against a mage's POTENTIAL power? the stars have to align for a mage to get multiple crowd control from the same ability, funny thing, yasuo can do that too when the stars align and he can do his TARGETED OR POINT BLANK by engaging... He has no mana costs, is gated only by cooldowns, scales very quickly and very well, starts with the bare minimum of melee stats(so he stat-checks squishy champions), can disable at minimum the opponent's marksman and that number only goes up depending upon team composition, he is incredibly mobile in lane and during team fights, and he can INCREASE CROWD CONTROL WITH A SUPPRESSION WHICH IS THE STRONGEST FORM OF CROWD CONTROL... Yasuo is a melee champion who: has a shield that scales based on his level, can make a 475 ranged auto attack every second or so, has a chainable fixed-range enemy targeted dash that has a per target cooldown, can make a wall that blocks projectiles every half a minute, and has an ult which lets him damage, gapclose, and suspend a target for one second, if they get knocked up by some effect. With these moves, notable things Yasuo can do include: can poke for at a long melee range from opponents, quickly bounce around a group of minions & enemy champions as long as they're sufficiently close together and he jumps only to different targets, engage off of an allies knockup, block enemy ultimate spells for himself or his allies. Pretty good. Let's just grab some random mage then: Lux is a ranged champion who: has a passive that tags an opponent whenever they are hit by one of her spells, if she hits them with another spell or auto attack they take bonus damage, a ranged skillshot snare + damage move, a skillshot shield skill which can shield herself and another ally, an aoe instant slow timed damage aoe spell, and a linear aoe skillshot nuke. With these moves, notable things Lux can do include: slowing down multiple enemies and punishing them for remaining in her slow field, fire long ranged snares to try and catch out individual members of a team or catch people in fog of war, damage entire enemy teams in a cast, kill multiple weakened enemies in a cast, shut down an assassins dive by shielding herself and an ally. Every champion looks strong when you point out all of their strengths in a hyperbolic manner without bringing up or outright ignoring their weaknesses. > You say he was designed to "counter" ranged champs, well, instead of countering them, he NEGATES their gameplay. Jax is frequently complained about because he can stop auto attacks, but that's okay because it is only FOR HIM, for a short time and with auto attacks, the champions he counters still possess abilities to use consistently Yasuo doesn't negate their gameplay - he blocks their projectile attacks for about 3-4 seconds every 30 seconds or so. You speak about Yasuo as though his flow shield were infinate duration and he could just throw out windwalls every second - _that_ would be negating their gameplay. If this is the standard you want to hold for negating gameplay, do you also want a nerf of Zhonya's hourglass? What about Spirit Visage? How about Lissandra ult? All of these things negate gameplay, and it's not just ranged or melee champs, it's all champs. I think you're too emotional about this to really think about it rationally - Yasuo is completely immobile if there are no minions around. If he has no allies (or allies with knockups) his only long distance engage is tied to his 3rd Q (which if you're kiting him, he can't even stack) which is highly telegraphed and can be dodged easily. Targeted ranged auto's pop his shield easily, and if you bait out his windwall, he's basically as vulnerable as any other melee champ for 12-20 seconds to your projectile spells. Also, yasuo is melee - he has to put himself at risk just to be able to damage you, bully him at every opportunity and you'll run him out of lane.
Keyru (NA)
: Boards Moderation Discord Verification
: it's maxed last because there is literally no benefit to maxing it at all. It gets a few units wider and loses maybe 4 seconds of cooldown? whereas even at level 1, it can completely negate over half of all ranged attacks for 4 seconds again, if you are in range to auto attack him, he is in range to get to you unless you somehow engage him with no minions nearby... he then proceeds to stat-check you because marksmen early game have some of the lowest damage potential in the game unless they're built around it for a cost if it's laziness, why does he maintain a ban rate of over 50% in all divisions? it's easy to adjust to him but feels like shit to do so and even when you do adjust, he has all sorts of defensive tools at his disposal to mess you up while scaling into a hyper-carry for the earliest late game in the game... 6000 gold...6000 and he has reached late game and even before then he is a significant threat... the only champions that have no trouble beating him ARE INDIRECTLY DESIGNED TO BEAT HIM! all of the mages I listed have a method to get around his wind-wall, they win or cut it really close all melee champions crush him because he's forced to have abysmal stats because of how quickly he scales and the multitude of tools he has at his disposal( He has the longest "MELEE" range in the game by the way at over 400 with his Q every 4 - 1.333 seconds) If you play anyone else, your experience is AWFUL EVEN WHEN YOU PLAY THE WAY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO AGAINST HIM... how often do you play against yasuo?
> [{quoted}](name=3TWarrior,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=9kyh7hqo,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:58:27.614+0000) > > it's maxed last because there is literally no benefit to maxing it at all. It gets a few units wider and loses maybe 4 seconds of cooldown? whereas even at level 1, it can completely negate over half of all ranged attacks for 4 seconds Ok. Every ranged champion in the game negates every melee champions attacks in the game by shooting them from range. Melee's need to expend multiple cooldowns to be able to even get a limited window of opportunity to inflict damage on the ranged guys, unless they're just overextended. Also, you can just move over and shoot around the wall. > again, if you are in range to auto attack him, he is in range to get to you unless you somehow engage him with no minions nearby... he then proceeds to stat-check you because marksmen early game have some of the lowest damage potential in the game unless they're built around it for a cost So don't stand in your minion wave while shooting him. Without minions he's completely immobile unless he ults you. > if it's laziness, why does he maintain a ban rate of over 50% in all divisions? Probably because he can be pretty annoying, and he has that thing where he's just a cool fun champion so everyone wants to play him, and so people just start banning him because they're sick of playing against him. It happens any time a champ is popular. Like Zed has been complained about since forever. > it's easy to adjust to him but feels like shit to do so and even when you do adjust, he has all sorts of defensive tools at his disposal to mess you up while scaling into a hyper-carry for the earliest late game in the game... 6000 gold...6000 and he has reached late game and even before then he is a significant threat... Right, so he can be fought against it's just annoying. Also, he's less powerful than most of the mages who get played in the midlane; by this I mean, he can go in and kill like one dude at a time, but mages can blow up entire teams, stun teams, shield themselves, heal themselves, etc. His scope is just much more limited than other As far as gold efficiency, well he's an adc. Most adc's have some kind of steroids to boost their attack power, and being melee he needs bigger boosts than the ranged guys. > the only champions that have no trouble beating him ARE INDIRECTLY DESIGNED TO BEAT HIM! Yeah, champions have counters. That's just the game. > all of the mages I listed have a method to get around his wind-wall, they win or cut it really close Champs that beat yasuo beat yasuo, yes. > all melee champions crush him because he's forced to have abysmal stats because of how quickly he scales and the multitude of tools he has at his disposal( He has the longest "MELEE" range in the game by the way at over 400 with his Q every 4 - 1.333 seconds) He does have a nice poke tool. It makes sense, he's designed to be a melee champion that counters ranged champs. > If you play anyone else, your experience is AWFUL EVEN WHEN YOU PLAY THE WAY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO AGAINST HIM... I could say the same thing about Darius vs Teemo, or Garen vs Vayne. Some champs just suck to play against depending on who you're playing. > how often do you play against yasuo? Well, I haven't played the game since the Poppy rework, but when I would play mid, it was pretty tense to go against him, especially since I was usually playing Kassadin who he kind of hard counters. You just kind of have to play safe and not feed, though his q spam does a number for charging Kass's force pulse.
: I love their new lore, but that's just me.
That's totally fair. What do you like about it? I only ask because it seems like the hardest thing to get people who like a thing I don't like to explain in detail what they like about it, outside of "eh, I like it"
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=00070000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:54:04.057+0000) > > Those are just Hollywood special effects. > > I mean think about it... have you ever SEEN a gay person in real life? I have, though. I mean, if you have never seen one and desperate to have a gander or something, I guess you can head towards your local gay bar which even in the unluckiest of days you'd still at least see 1 gay person in it. And yes, they don't look like some monsters or anything, they just look like you and me.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=000700000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:58:28.125+0000) > > I have, though. I mean, if you have never seen one and desperate to have a gander or something, I guess you can head towards your local gay bar which even in the unluckiest of days you'd still at least see 1 gay person in it. And yes, they don't look like some monsters or anything, they just look like you and me. But if they look just like you and me then how do you KNOW they're gay? Do you have some kind of gay detection machine, a GayDar if you will? If so, can I buy it from you?
Madjack01 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=000700000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:58:28.125+0000) > > I have, though. I mean, if you have never seen one and desperate to have a gander or something, I guess you can head towards your local gay bar which even in the unluckiest of days you'd still at least see 1 gay person in it. And yes, they don't look like some monsters or anything, they just look like you and me. I heard those are just method actors paid by hollywood.
> [{quoted}](name=Madjack01,realm=EUW,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T22:03:34.973+0000) > > I heard those are just method actors paid by hollywood. This man gets it.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=000700000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:33:59.010+0000) > > Nah man, that's just what Hollywood wants you to think. Trace back those nature documentaries where does it lead? Hollywood. I'm sure as hell someone like the Ancient Greeks and various other groups and culture of the ancient past didn't have anything to do with Hollywood, where many of which either actively promoted homosexuality or was indifferent about it like a mere aspect of daily life as evident by many historical artifacts.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=0007000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:48:15.955+0000) > > I'm sure as hell someone like the Ancient Greeks and various other groups and culture of the ancient past didn't have anything to do with Hollywood, where many of which either actively promoted homosexuality or was indifferent about it like a mere aspect of daily life as evident by many historical artifacts. Those are just Hollywood special effects. I mean think about it... have you ever SEEN a gay person in real life?
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:22:38.429+0000) > > No one is gay. Homosexuality is just an invention of hollywood to create drama. Homosexuality has existed long before Hollywood and more than just in humans, though.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=0AvTYIEi,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2019-03-15T21:25:19.195+0000) > > Homosexuality has existed long before Hollywood and more than just in humans, though. Nah man, that's just what Hollywood wants you to think. Trace back those nature documentaries where does it lead? Hollywood.
: Forget Yasuo, Riven and Vayne threads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQuHwqMcN8w
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=8AYsGEu2,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T05:13:25.776+0000) > > Trash talk or insults are not toxic, nor is being rude, that's just part of competitive games. > > Being toxic is doing things like blaming other members of your team for your mistakes (like a top that goes 0/4 in the first 10 minutes and starts flaming his jungler for no ganks), or intentionally feeding. Trash talk IS being toxic according to the feelings squad people on here. Downvotes for your rational response incoming.
: Smurfing is a real issue man
Everything I've seen about high level competitive play looks super boring - low ranks are the only people who are able to have fun. That's probably why people smurf.
: because caitlynn and tristana are ill-suited for it when a jungler can run by and insta-kill them unless tristana gets lucky and both uses her ultimate and W to escape, maybe even flash... in addition to that, marksmen have the worst possible lane against yasuo. He stat-checks them, out-wave-clears them and his shield can negate their only methods of poke and/or burst, which is exactly why he does so well against the majority of mages also, I was not entirely clear with my point. Those 14 are the number of mages that can deal with his wind-wall in some manner, let alone be able to handle an all-in from him {{champion:34}} (ultimate, which he will probably start roaming at that point anyway) {{champion:1}} (ultimate and maybe her W, I forget) {{champion:31}} (who is more specifically a juggernaut and basically wins by stat-checking him...) {{champion:136}} (who dislikes all-ins anyway but is a mid-range mage) {{champion:9}} (fairly rare and most circumstances are in yasuo's favor {{champion:30}} {{champion:127}} {{champion:90}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:134}} {{champion:161}} {{champion:8}} {{champion:101}} {{champion:26}} (and he's pushing it because I couldn't find the 14th) none of them play at all similar to one another and counter-picking itself is not what the game is based around but instead a strategy developed to give an edge if the person knows how to properly play that champion, which gives no benefit if you are the first pick and only 6 of them are "stable" enough to go into a fight with first pick in mind instead of their strengths
Negate poke? I'm not sure about Tristana now, but Caitlyn could easily poke Yasuo all day just by auto attacking him. Attack him once, wait one second, then attack him again. Those are anti-windwall mages? The windwall doesn't matter, complaints about it are just laziness - it's an ability he maxes last, and it has like a 30 second cooldown. Don't spam everything until he uses the wall, and auto him BEFORE using your big abilities on him. Yasuo is very much a champion that forces his opponents to play differently from how they would against other kinds of opponents, but this doesn't mean he's uncounterable, it just means he's different. You just have to play intelligently and not feed.
GreenLore (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=BlAt1eps,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-15T02:12:51.211+0000) > > What teachings? There is not one single lesson from him in either lore entry. He was sad his wife left, and he was sad when his daughters got powers. He's not a character, he's a plot device; the mom is even worse, as she just gets powers and runs off. > Its obvious that Kilams dislike for Mihiras god-like powers had a great impact on Morgana. It even said that this is why Morgana grew more and more bitter at her mother. > The character bio should explain the character, but this lore raises more questions than answers. I mean... > > 1.Why did the parents think climbing mount Targon with solve anything? 2.Why was the mom given God Powers? 3.Was it always intended that Kayle and Morgana would get god powers too? Did the mother or father know? 4.We know that the mom's personality was changed by her powers, did the same thing happen to Kayle or Morgana? Is this why Kayle "grew more extreme"? Kayle seemed to be okay with her sister's actions, why did her followers and this Ronan (who lived for all of 2 sentences) oppose her? Did Morgana plan to kill Ronan when she stopped him? Why didn't she let him go sooner? 7.Why did Kayle refuse to find out what was happening from her sister and decide to nuke the whole town? Did she just forget her father lived there? When her sister rose up to stop her, why did she fight her instead of listening? 1.It already says that they went to Mt.Targon to save their tribe and since there are tales of the aspects and their great power of Mt.Targon it makes sense that someone who wants the power to protect others would go there. 2.For the same reason that Pantheon,Diana, Taric and Leona were. Their aspects saw them as fitting vessels. 3.It says in their lore that the couple only realized that Mihira was pregnant while they were ascending the mountain, so no this was definitely unintentional and nothing implies that they had special powers before they got their wings. 4. This is might be the only question with no real answer. However given that Kayle and Morgana have their own fascinations with justice its very likely that this is the case, though given how different the 2 turned out its likely that this dictated their whole personalities. 5.Obviously because Kayles followers disagreed with Kayles judgement on her sister. Its made clear that Kayle made an exception for Morgana, just because they are family, so its natural that some would disagree with that. 6.I agree with that we don't have enough information on this point in the lores themselves. 7.Its a big plot point that Kayle was filled with anger over the death of Ronas, hence why she was about to purge the town from evil in an act of anger and hence why she decided that she had to erase her emotions. > > The old lore was utilitarian, in that it only provided details necessary to convey the information about the characters. This new lore doesn't explain jack squat. The old lore really failed at detailing the conflict between the 2 even though it is central to their characters. We don't know if anyone of them was in the right due to the fact that we had no idea how this "angel society" worked. Granted I do agree that the new lore could do a better job at detailing the personalities of Kayle and Morgana, but the old lore wasn't much better in that regard. > According to the fallen angel. > > Again, this is from Morganna's perspective. That same lore said that Morgana wanted to enjoy killing Kayle over and over until she could kill her for real and go back home. > Thanks for confirming my point. Like I said, you disregard Morganas point of view simply because Morgana is the evil one in your opinion. The idea that Morgana could be a vengeful and bitter person, while also fighting for a good cause appearantly never crossed your mind. > Sure, if they were beyond redemption. Kayle's society is all about destroying evil, remember? > The point is that Kayle is the one that decides who is beyond redemption and who isn't. And we don't know where Kayle draws the line. For all we know Kayle might see 99,9% of all criminals as "beyond redemption". She might see the guy who steals for the wellbeing of his family as "beyond redemption", she might see the woman who murders someone that attempts to rape her as "beyond redemption",etc. > Morgana joined the league for power, Kayle swore her service to the league to protect her homeworld from league interference. > Morgana joined for power in order to end Kayles tyranny. So from Morganas point of view she joined the cause to protect her homeland as well. Also just because someone does something to protect someone or something doesn't mean they can't be bad people. Anakin Skywalker killed children to protect the life of his loved one, does that justify his actions? > Actions speak far louder than words, you know. Funny that you say that when Morgana never does anthing evil in her old lore, we are merely told that Morgana isn't innocent, even though the lore never shows why this would be the case, while Kayle cuts her ties with Morgana just because Morgana didn't join her, which was pretty cruel of her. So yeah if we go by actions, then Kayle has actually done more bad things in the old lore than Morgana. > Her frustration was over constantly following orders in a war that has not changed for who knows how long. If a war has been going on for ages, that's a reasonable question to ask. Most people would likely think about how to make peace first and if that fails they might consider to strike the enemy harder. It clearly shows that Kayles mindset is set on destroying the enemy first instead of trying to understand them.
> [{quoted}](name=GreenLore,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=BlAt1eps,comment-id=00020000000000000001,timestamp=2019-03-15T11:11:24.854+0000) > > Its obvious that Kilams dislike for Mihiras god-like powers had a great impact on Morgana. > It even said that this is why Morgana grew more and more bitter at her mother. What if Kilam was Mihira's brother instead, would it have changed the story at all? How about her father? cousin? Next door neighbor? Kilam has no impact on anything other than just being there, stealing their children like a gigantic bitch, and being sad. The daughters development is done by them and them alone, he didn't raise them. You could have replaced him with anyone and the result would have been the same. > 2.For the same reason that Pantheon,Diana, Taric and Leona were. Their aspects saw them as fitting vessels. Why was the mother fit and not the father? What made the mother worthy? > 3.It says in their lore that the couple only realized that Mihira was pregnant while they were ascending the mountain, so no this was definitely unintentional and nothing implies that they had special powers before they got their wings. Sure, but were the daughters always supposed to get powers? We know nothing about the mother's viewpoint on things, just that she was leaving to fight dudes. > 4. This is might be the only question with no real answer. However given that Kayle and Morgana have their own fascinations with justice its very likely that this is the case, though given how different the 2 turned out its likely that this dictated their whole personalities. Right. This is the problem - the characters do stuff without any real reason as to why other than just "god powers lolz". > 5.Obviously because Kayles followers disagreed with Kayles judgement on her sister. Its made clear that Kayle made an exception for Morgana, just because they are family, so its natural that some would disagree with that. Sure, but to go so far as to go against her wishes? Especially since Morgana is also blessed with god-aspect-powers? Even if you didn't like how Morgana does things, she's god chosen! Maybe if Ronan had been actually fleshed out instead of being a one dimensional villain, we could understand why this happened. > 6.I agree with that we don't have enough information on this point in the lores themselves. That's pretty important though - Morgana's lore said she couldn't even rip off her own wings so she's pretty sturdy. She could have just let Ronan arrest her and wait for Kayle to arrive. > 7.Its a big plot point that Kayle was filled with anger over the death of Ronas, hence why she was about to purge the town from evil in an act of anger and hence why she decided that she had to erase her emotions. Why was Ronan so important to her? How does an aspect of justice not even do the bare minimum of investigation before meeting out sentence? The lore says the Kayle gets more zealous and wed to her ideology, what even is her ideology outside of "justice"? For Kayle to get so mad to nuke the town her father lives, the story needs to provide some kind of reason, but it doesn't, she just saw her dead follower and got mad. That's it then? She's just a person who murders everyone cause one of her followers dies? There's no set up for this at all. > The old lore really failed at detailing the conflict between the 2 even though it is central to their characters. > We don't know if anyone of them was in the right due to the fact that we had no idea how this "angel society" worked. > Granted I do agree that the new lore could do a better job at detailing the personalities of Kayle and Morgana, but the old lore wasn't much better in that regard. The old lore defined the conflict pretty succinctly I thought: * For eons Kayle fights as a general for her people in their crusade against evil * Kayle disowns Morgana for not joining her in the fight against evil, and act which Morgana still resents Kayle for * Morgana decides her people are tyrannical, makes pacts with dark forces, and does nebulous bad stuff to accrue power * At the final point of Kayle winning the war, Morgana strikes, screwing up everything * The two get summoned to Valoran * Morgana makes a deal with the League to get more power * Realizing the threat the league poses to her people, Kayle makes a deal with the League to offer service in exchange for their non-interference in their realm. Kayle didn't care about Morgana at all, her lore doesn't even bring her up until she betrays them. Morgana is the one who viewed Kayle as the enemy she must oppose. > Thanks for confirming my point. > Like I said, you disregard Morganas point of view simply because Morgana is the evil one in your opinion. > The idea that Morgana could be a vengeful and bitter person, while also fighting for a good cause appearantly never crossed your mind. I didn't disregard it at all. I understand where she's coming from. However, you cannot be resentful and fight for a good cause: if you are a vengeful and bitter person, your "good cause" is just a convenient excuse to do whatever it is you're going to do. Justifying bad actions under the auspice of good intentions is what a villain does. > The point is that Kayle is the one that decides who is beyond redemption and who isn't. > And we don't know where Kayle draws the line. > For all we know Kayle might see 99,9% of all criminals as "beyond redemption". She might see the guy who steals for the wellbeing of his family as "beyond redemption", she might see the woman who murders someone that attempts to rape her as "beyond redemption",etc. Or the people she smites could really be super evil. Since there are no cases with which to evaluate the criteria by which Kayle determines whether someone can be redeemed, I have no reason to assume that there is something malevolent there. > Morgana joined for power in order to end Kayles tyranny. > So from Morganas point of view she joined the cause to protect her homeland as well. You don't protect your homeland by betraying your homeland. Also remember, Morgana joined the league for power, Kayle joined the league to prevent league interference on her people. Kayle is the one who made the personal sacrifice, _not_ Morgana. > Also just because someone does something to protect someone or something doesn't mean they can't be bad people. > Anakin Skywalker killed children to protect the life of his loved one, does that justify his actions? Are you seriously bringing up the nonsense writing of that film to hold up as a justification for this? > Funny that you say that when Morgana never does anthing evil in her old lore, we are merely told that Morgana isn't innocent, even though the lore never shows why this would be the case, while Kayle cuts her ties with Morgana just because Morgana didn't join her, which was pretty cruel of her. Since we don't have Kayle's side of the story, I can't make presumptions as to why she might have done that. Someone who fights for their people 10,000 years is probably pretty dedicated, though - maybe she felt disappointed that her family member would not also take up the sword. > So yeah if we go by actions, then Kayle has actually done more bad things in the old lore than Morgana. Kayle defended her homeland, and slighted Morgana. Morgana made dark pacts and did _nebulous bad stuff_ all to accrue enough power to fight her sister and betray her people. > Most people would likely think about how to make peace first and if that fails they might consider to strike the enemy harder. > It clearly shows that Kayles mindset is set on destroying the enemy first instead of trying to understand them. You know nothing about their enemy, why would you even assume peace was an option? If they have been fighting for centuries, peace probably wasn't on the table to begin with.
: > Ok, but how is this better? It cements the sisters into League canon, gives them identifiable character traits and relatable failings, and also gives a decent explanation as to their divine appearance and powers beyond them being from a "world of angels"? > Why is a moral graying of the characters (by having them be different aspects of "justice") preferable to having them be archetypal good and fallen angels? Who's to say that fitting into an archetype and being morally grey are mutually exclusive? They still fit into the archetypes - an archangel unflinchingly serving a divine purpose and a design greater than the comprehension of man, and a fallen angel who rebelled from their station and chose the squalor of humankind and fallibility over cold, logical, and unyielding justice. That'd be like panning _Paradise Lost_ because it portrays Lucifer - in any respect - as a protagonist, despite him being evil. Archetypes are there to give us a baseline to work from, a simple understanding of the character. Not expanding on those archetypes and defining the character to be their own unique thing from them would lead to stagnation and same-old-same-old stories. > Why do they need to be aspects of justice at all? How does that improve the characters? By juxtaposing two different versions of justice to maintain the conflict between the sisters, as well as using the thematic (Targon, Aspect of Justice) to tie that conflict together neatly. Remember, Kayle and Morgana's old lore was pretty much "there was peace, but then there was dissent and betrayal, and now they hate each other!". There's no real substance to it. Whereas, again; having them be Aspects of Justice both cements their position in the League canon (tying them to Targon and the strange universal functions therein), while giving them something reasonable and understandable to create the conflict that's pretty much _necessary_ for their lore. > The old lore was functional, not bad, because Kayle and Morganna were not characters, per se, but archetypes, like Ryu as "Karate-man" or Mitsurugi as "Samurai-Ronin-Guy". Functional - as in "bare-bones". Functional doesn't really cut it, and since Riot intends to do more unique things with their IP, they're bound to develop things further than just functional. Look at Ionia, for example; at one point, it was just a generic Asia-land. You had ninjas (which were obligatory), master swordsmen, imperial rule, etc., and over the years it's been shaped into something uniquely different from any other Asia-inspired location I know. The land itself seethes with magic, the provinces seem to have a degree of self-government rather than leadership by an emperor or empress, the visual design has been made sleeker and more harmonious with the land, and while the character design still largely maintains Asian visual cues (Look at Akali and Ahri for the best examples), it's taken a pretty large step away from what pretty much amounted to "Pseudo-Asia, with goggles." So, sure, going with just a base-level archetype is functional...But it doesn't last, and stuff needs to evolve from those archetypes if it's going to last.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=BlAt1eps,comment-id=000000010001000000000001,timestamp=2019-03-15T07:17:41.005+0000) > > It cements the sisters into League canon, gives them identifiable character traits and relatable failings, and also gives a decent explanation as to their divine appearance and powers beyond them being from a "world of angels"? It does accomplish the goal of integrating the two into the world lore, though I think it's a rather clumsy add - it's too similar to Leona and Diana, and they didn't earn their powers, they were just born with them. Also why don't any of the other aspects have wings? As far as identifiable character traits... only really Morgana got that - Morgana's lore was much more of a POV tale, where Kayle's is largely referential, it talks about the things she does, but not about how she thinks or sees the world, it just has her doing stuff. The old story had the benefit of being archetypal, thus the personalities are largely baked in: Kayle is a selfless, dogmatic, warrior against evil. Morgana is a bitter, self-serving, vengeful betrayer. Kinda like how Gankplank was "Pirate-man" Also, while this may be simply a difference in perspective, but I found the previous depictions more relatable (even the Morgana side) to the current set. "Someone fighting out of a sense of duty", and "someone vengeful do to perceived slight" is more believable than "is just so dedicated to law for reasons they killed own father" and "just wants to protect penitent and hates own powers". > Who's to say that fitting into an archetype and being morally grey are mutually exclusive? They still fit into the archetypes - an archangel unflinchingly serving a divine purpose and a design greater than the comprehension of man, and a fallen angel who rebelled from their station and chose the squalor of humankind and fallibility over cold, logical, and unyielding justice. Because angels are not morally grey, angels are good. That's what makes them angels. The angels that aren't good fall - you can't have morally grey angels, just good and bad ones. > That'd be like panning _Paradise Lost_ because it portrays Lucifer - in any respect - as a protagonist, despite him being evil. Archetypes are there to give us a baseline to work from, a simple understanding of the character. Not expanding on those archetypes and defining the character to be their own unique thing from them would lead to stagnation and same-old-same-old stories. I've never seen Paradise Lost, but you can have an evil protagonist. He can have whatever kind of character you want for your story, just, if your protagonist is The Devil, he had better be evil. Creating original characters with original narratives is fine, but when you're taking a narrative that _already exists,_ complaining about stagnation is is illegitimate, since the whole point is to use what already existed. > By juxtaposing two different versions of justice to maintain the conflict between the sisters, as well as using the thematic (Targon, Aspect of Justice) to tie that conflict together neatly. Remember, Kayle and Morgana's old lore was pretty much "there was peace, but then there was dissent and betrayal, and now they hate each other!". There's no real substance to it. > Whereas, again; having them be Aspects of Justice both cements their position in the League canon (tying them to Targon and the strange universal functions therein), while giving them something reasonable and understandable to create the conflict that's pretty much _necessary_ for their lore. I don't really see why it's better to have the conflict change from: Morgana resented Kayle and betrayed her people, while Kayle, largely disinterested in Morgana but a general of her nation, fights Morgana out of necessity. to: Kayle is a zealot and got mad that her follower died, decided to nuke their hometown, and murdered her father, but Morgana fought back. It's like a complete inversion of the morality of the characters, and strikes me more like a change out of Morgana bias than any desire to flesh out a believable motivation for the characters. Both had human motivations in the earlier lore, but only Morgana is human in the latter lore. I mean... just look at Kayle's follower, Ronan. We know nothing about this guy other than he's Kayle's follower and didn't like Morgana. They made him a character, with a name, just to be a one dimensional asshole to artificially spur the conflict between the two. If Morgana had just let herself get arrested, would the town even have gotten nuked? Or would she have gotten off with nothing and Ronan fired? But he just had to be an asshole, because otherwise we can't force this conflict? It's literally Kayle's temper tantrum which cause all of this. > Functional - as in "bare-bones". Functional doesn't really cut it, and since Riot intends to do more unique things with their IP, they're bound to develop things further than just functional. Sure, but if they're gonna replace what's already there and flesh out the characters, then they need to actually flesh them out, and not just shuffle the pieces around. > Look at Ionia, for example; at one point, it was just a generic Asia-land. You had ninjas (which were obligatory), master swordsmen, imperial rule, etc., and over the years it's been shaped into something uniquely different from any other Asia-inspired location I know. > > The land itself seethes with magic, the provinces seem to have a degree of self-government rather than leadership by an emperor or empress, the visual design has been made sleeker and more harmonious with the land, and while the character design still largely maintains Asian visual cues (Look at Akali and Ahri for the best examples), it's taken a pretty large step away from what pretty much amounted to "Pseudo-Asia, with goggles." Really? It just looks mostly like Pre-Unification China to me, with a little Japan baked in to have ninjas and stuff. > So, sure, going with just a base-level archetype is functional...But it doesn't last, and stuff needs to evolve from those archetypes if it's going to last. To the extent that Riot wants to do something lorewise like write a book or something I can understand why they felt the characters needed to be grounded in the lore, but if you're going to completely rewrite the essence of the characters, you're losing more than you gain in the change. Just ask the people who liked Trundle's lore.
: Lmfao, and you can't do that without going AROUND THE MINION WAVE where you are in close range to him, his tower, his minions, and bushes, and he can easily run up to dash on you! Haha terrible bs. Harassing him with mage auto attacks doesn't even work do to his free fricken Shields. Nice try though
> [{quoted}](name=kingDeDeDarius,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=9kyh7hqo,comment-id=000500000001,timestamp=2019-03-15T16:43:21.015+0000) > > Lmfao, and you can't do that without going AROUND THE MINION WAVE where you are in close range to him, his tower, his minions, and bushes, and he can easily run up to dash on you! Sure, It's called positioning. It's a good thing to practice in a game like league where getting caught out can get you killed easily. >Haha terrible bs. Harassing him with mage auto attacks doesn't even work do to his free fricken Shields. His shield lasts for one second. Hit him once, then wait... then hit him again. >Nice try though Try? What? What are you talking about? Do you think I'm trying to trick you or something?
: which only around 14 mages are actually able to do and some of those only to a limited extent or in top lane, there are only about 3 marksmen that can do it and they're in top lane consistently anyway and then 5 ranged attackers and that's assuming the yasuo makes enough mistakes to get caught. any champion that comes into auto attack range is within range of him
14 is not a small number, though. There may be characters who have more difficulty with yasuo than others, but there are also characters that just trounce him. Like, why not play Caitlyn or Tristana mid? And if the champion is playing safe enough that you can't really hit them, you've already shut down their aggression for the most part anyway?
: His normal shield IS a huge shield.
Yeah but it lasts for like 1 second. Just wait.
: Don't forget the 1 second suspend, or the fact it gives him a huge ass shield. The armor pen is also for 15 seconds, not 5.
It is a one second cc, ok so it's kinda like Warwicks ult, but it doesn't give him a huge shield, it gives him his normal shield. If it gets depleted he's just down his flow shield again. 15 second armor pen buff? That sounds pretty awesome. I wish more buffs lasted that long.
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EE7NHLuc,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-13T11:15:32.422+0000) > > No, you're literally proving his point. > It's not that Rioters "fear" adversity and disagreement, it's that people like you can just be very negative about when you proclaim your opinion as the right one and seek recompense. > > What people like you usually want is not a discussion but a target to aim for when they're pointing fingers. If that's how you feel, there really isn't a point in sharing that opinion. Oh god please. Go to ANY other game. Singleplayer, MMORPG, shooter whatever how hard devs get shiton for failures. Then come back to league and realize that rioters get a pat on the back for 9/12 months from their homemade propaganda machine reddit and only a small vocal part of the community actually criticizes riot at all anymore. Riot has reached a point of god complex where the devs know better what the players want. Happens to any big game which leads to the games failure eventually. And the key difference now which upsets a lot of people is that riot doesn't talk WITH the community but comes down to speak TO the community. Like the king that comes down from his castle telling the peasants that they may be unhappy with the taxes opressing them but he has some numbers that show everything is alright, peasants can't read anyways so they wouldn't understand. It might feel like shit to be poor because he rips you off but in the end you could have just become a king (riven player). I mean what "discussion" does riot have had with us? Yeah u might think dynamicq is shit but we the people who don't play this dogshit game know that dynq is great so shutup. Ardent isn't overpowered you guys are just bad. *ardent dominates the entire worlds stage* Galio Q buffs aren't broken, you guys are just bad. *Galio Q buffs were actually hilariously broken oneshotting entire teams* Riven isn't overpowered here look she is only a problem in all servers except korea and low elo. So we don't nerf her. Should i go on? Usually a discussion requires two people ARGUING over stuff. Riot doesn't do that. So riot has to take full responsibility and yes will get fingers pointed at them for making a fool of themselves because of this god complex they have.
I think you're correct, and I think people would probably respect riot more if they just said something along the likes of "Look guys, we are Riot Games and we don't care one bit about your crap opinions!"
: Most other champs with ults like his need to land some sort of skillshot in order have that kind of effect, or have an ult with a real cooldown and not 30 seconds.
The effect of his ult is to deal a chunk of damage, gap close him to a target, and give him armor pen for like 5 seconds, that's hardly overpowered. Things like Annie Bear, or Galeo aoe taunt, or lissandra stun/immunity are much more powerful, and require no skillshots.
: Just general rudeness, e. g. trash-talking, condescending, insulting, etc.
> [{quoted}](name=Kairoptra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=8AYsGEu2,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-03-15T04:18:03.385+0000) > > Just general rudeness, e. g. trash-talking, condescending, insulting, etc. Trash talk or insults are not toxic, nor is being rude, that's just part of competitive games. Being toxic is doing things like blaming other members of your team for your mistakes (like a top that goes 0/4 in the first 10 minutes and starts flaming his jungler for no ganks), or intentionally feeding.
Show more

JedenVojak

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion