Infernape (EUW)
: Honestly if the tank items were designed like Gargoyle Stoneplate and were designed EXCLUSIVELY for tanks, it could work. The problem is that juggernaut/tank itemisation overlaps in a hell of a lot of places.
The trick for this is to abolish the very idea of juggernaut/tank itemization. There shouldn't be items designed for specific classes - they can just make the items designed to independantly serve a specific purpose agnostic of the rest of the items or champion using them.
Ulanopo (NA)
: Riot Cactopus makes an official statement about HKA and announcers
Makes sense. People are out for blood over the Hearthstone thing, so they're probably lashing out at people who they perceive to be "on the wrong side".
: > [{quoted}](name=Wilk Rycerz,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HEAKjxbA,comment-id=0002000100000000,timestamp=2019-10-08T22:43:34.677+0000) > > So the upcoming fighting game that is confirmed, or the other game Tellstones that has been teased recently (and possibly will be revealed during the 10th Anniversary stream) don’t exist? > > Additionally, this new Launcher will support things like Two-Steo verification, as well as being on a new system since they don’t need to have support for Legacy OSes like Windows XP. > > Just because something doesn’t have a use immediately after it’s release doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a purpose. > > Your comment, bad ”joke” or not, is the correct answer. But if I point out the absurdity about mods protecting Riot's image for no pay then I'm being toxic?
> [{quoted}](name=Düff McWhalen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HEAKjxbA,comment-id=00020001000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-08T23:02:20.875+0000) > > But if I point out the absurdity about mods protecting Riot's image for no pay then I'm being toxic? Duff McWhalen??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6cFAzLdScY
: Lol, Riot's reason for gutting all the tanks champions is because they are "low lethality" for LCS
rujitra (NA)
: Because muting does not solve the problem, it merely hides it. It's the same reason that time-delay safes existing does not make it okay to attempt to rob people. It's the same reason that assault is assault regardless if it's against a frail person or against a buff person who could fight back. The same reason that bulletproof vests don't make shooting at people okay. The same reason that it's not permissible to harass people when they "could just walk away". Western society, be it the US, EU, or any other developed society, subscribes to this idea of "the innocent is never at fault". Simply put, this means that someone who is doing nothing wrong has an inherent right to do what they want free from people wronging them. In other words, "no victim blaming". Sure, you can mute. **But you shouldn't have to**.
Muting absolutely solves the problem. If every game a person plays, they get muted by their team, they will eventually either get bored and stop being a jerk, or they'll give up and quit. Being a jerk is not robbing, it's not assault, it's not shooting at people. It's a completely harmless activity - there is no comparison to actual crimes. Sure, you can choose to not lock your car and leave 10k on the passenger seat, cry foul and say that your car never should have robbed and that you shouldn't **have** to lock your car, but you're just deliberately being a moron at that point. The world is cruel and unfair, take responsibility for yourself.
: > He wants to have "playful banter" with strangers. The thing is, the people who get banned and come here crying about their ban weren't having playful trashtalk with the enemy team. They were flaming and berating their OWN teammates. Then they make the false analogy of comparing it to real sports where there's trash talk - Hello, you still don't shit talk your own damn team. lol
Why are you presupposing that the only reason that someone would want people to be able to speak freely was due to some nefarious motive? I've never been banned from playing lol for offensive speech, but I have had annoying teammates before and I muted them. Why is this not an acceptable solution?
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dI1MAjiM,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-09-30T19:40:31.426+0000) > > What kind of game do you want to play? > > One where one misstep or one joke creates one report that gets you banned? > > Or one where people can joke and mess around and say whatever they want, and just have fun? https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma Enjoy.
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dI1MAjiM,comment-id=00030001,timestamp=2019-09-30T20:39:09.126+0000) > > https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma > > Enjoy. Is there some minimum threshold of offensive words that has to be reached before one gets banned? Because if not, then it's not a false dilemma.
: nah people are just lazy, you can diversify your rune pages but people just don't lol, in the old rune system it was like this too, people would one 1 or 2 rune pages and almost never switch because it was what they thought was best. you can customize for different playstyles, and even for the same ones, it doesn't matter people in this game are just lazy. also you CAN do all the playstyles you mentioned with the current rune system lol, its just most people choose not to because they are to focused on what is the best rune set up
> [{quoted}](name=Master2139,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WUENAYH8,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-09-30T05:16:23.968+0000) > > nah people are just lazy, you can diversify your rune pages but people just don't lol, in the old rune system it was like this too, people would one 1 or 2 rune pages and almost never switch because it was what they thought was best. you can customize for different playstyles, and even for the same ones, it doesn't matter people in this game are just lazy. > > also you CAN do all the playstyles you mentioned with the current rune system lol, its just most people choose not to because they are to focused on what is the best rune set up Where's crit in the new rune page thingy? I can't find it.
Lost R (NA)
: First Amendment rights don't protect you from privately owned companies.
What kind of game do you want to play? One where one misstep or one joke creates one report that gets you banned? Or one where people can joke and mess around and say whatever they want, and just have fun?
: > [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=cYEiZa9g,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-09-19T21:51:57.380+0000) > > It's not appropriate to call Jax a mary sue in a lore without an overarching narrative. He's an unknown character of no particular background who was able to stand up to and defeat the greatest champions of entire nations. It's more like he's the the anomalous outlier or the bigger fish - that idea that no matter how strong you are, there someone, somewhere out there that is still stronger. > > Jax is a force of nature character... trying to flesh him out and give him some deep backstory would be a betrayal of his character concept. the old lore he was a mary sue. he could beat anyone literally no matter what. his character concept is not a force of nature. he was basically just chuck Norris the meme. his concept is a master at arms, hence being able to wield even a damn lamppost as a weapon
> [{quoted}](name=TheMan292,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=cYEiZa9g,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-19T22:10:59.546+0000) > > the old lore he was a mary sue. he could beat anyone literally no matter what. > > his character concept is not a force of nature. he was basically just chuck Norris the meme. his concept is a master at arms, hence being able to wield even a damn lamppost as a weapon You don't know what a mary sue is, or what a force of nature character is. The Joker is not a hurricane, a demon, or a god. He's a man - but his actual identity is subverted to facilitate the role as an agent of chaos. He is a force of nature **character**, not a literal force of nature. This is what Jax is - he has no background, no one has heard of him before he joined the league, he's all covered up but from his hands he's not even human. He's able to beat not just men but ancient eldritch monstrosities, with anything, even a lamppost. Jax is not a character, Jax is an idea.
: > [{quoted}](name=RyzeTheSmurfMage,realm=EUNE,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=cYEiZa9g,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-09-19T21:00:29.125+0000) > > Why is he supposed to be the most badass tho..? I think he is referencing back to the old lore when Jax was an unbeatable mary sue. or he is just referring to the fact he had lived for centuries and faught the ascended along with surviving the disaster that was Icathia relatively unscathed
> [{quoted}](name=TheMan292,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=cYEiZa9g,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-09-19T21:05:26.953+0000) > > I think he is referencing back to the old lore when Jax was an unbeatable mary sue. or he is just referring to the fact he had lived for centuries and faught the ascended along with surviving the disaster that was Icathia relatively unscathed It's not appropriate to call Jax a mary sue in a lore without an overarching narrative. He's an unknown character of no particular background who was able to stand up to and defeat the greatest champions of entire nations. It's more like he's the the anomalous outlier or the bigger fish - that idea that no matter how strong you are, there someone, somewhere out there that is still stronger. Jax is a force of nature character... trying to flesh him out and give him some deep backstory would be a betrayal of his character concept.
: I am at a point where I do not care about the absurd damage, the absurd mobility, lack of defense...
I haven't played in years but my understanding is, if junglers are constantly ganking all the time, either the jungle mobs aren't rewarding enough (not enough gold/xp, not spawning enough) or junglers are getting too much early game power from something. Maybe riot needs to nerf the jungle items?
Jamaree (NA)
: To be fair, most balance complaints on here all boil down to this: "This thing beat me, it's OP and needs nerfs. No, I have never played the champion before why should I have to understand their kit? Yeah, their kit naturally counters my champion's kit. I also didn't itemize against them at all, but it doesn't matter, I'm the best player in the world so if anything beats me it couldn't be for any other reason besides it meaning that thing is OP."
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1bZnLfVB,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-14T20:39:12.974+0000) > > To be fair, most balance complaints on here all boil down to this: "This thing beat me, it's OP and needs nerfs. No, I have never played the champion before why should I have to understand their kit? Yeah, their kit naturally counters my champion's kit. I also didn't itemize against them at all, but it doesn't matter, I'm the best player in the world so if anything beats me it couldn't be for any other reason besides it meaning that thing is OP." This man speaks truth.
: That's a wild exaggeration, since every champion has a devoted fanbase/playerbase. Even the "ugly" ones.
> [{quoted}](name=4 Step Cadence,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=PKdxnTHZ,comment-id=000300010000,timestamp=2019-09-14T01:00:57.496+0000) > > That's a wild exaggeration, since every champion has a devoted fanbase/playerbase. Even the "ugly" ones. Remember old Trundle? Remember Urgot? Swain? Riot doesn't care about the 100 dudes who want to play some ugly character, they cull that crap from the game.
Arakadia (NA)
: Riot is allergic to women over 30 and has a very narrow view of what it means to be feminine. Almost every female character fits within sexy seductress, powerful sorceress, kind helper character, young prodigy figuring out the world, or femme fatale. Its unfortunate because as you pointed out there are so many other facets of femininity that branch out further. You can have a young protective mother, or a fierce mama bear mother, or an old grandmotherly figure. You can have physically capable female characters that aren't muscle hunks like Illaoi too. Like imagine Urgot's fantasy: cruel, imposing, ugly cyborg dictator with 6 legs. You would **never** get a female equivalent of that. Not even Rek'sai fits this bill because they totally dropped any trace of her being female in her appearance. I'm talking about a women who is clearly a women, but whose beauty and humanity has been perverted or messed with to the extent Urgot's appearance has. Kai'sa was an opportunity for this but they went the safe, generic way.
> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=PKdxnTHZ,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-09-13T04:11:35.322+0000) > > Riot is allergic to women over 30 and has a very narrow view of what it means to be feminine. Almost every female character fits within sexy seductress, powerful sorceress, kind helper character, young prodigy figuring out the world, or femme fatale. Its unfortunate because as you pointed out there are so many other facets of femininity that branch out further. You can have a young protective mother, or a fierce mama bear mother, or an old grandmotherly figure. You can have physically capable female characters that aren't muscle hunks like Illaoi too. > > Like imagine Urgot's fantasy: cruel, imposing, ugly cyborg dictator with 6 legs. You would **never** get a female equivalent of that. Not even Rek'sai fits this bill because they totally dropped any trace of her being female in her appearance. I'm talking about a women who is clearly a women, but whose beauty and humanity has been perverted or messed with to the extent Urgot's appearance has. Kai'sa was an opportunity for this but they went the safe, generic way. That's cause no one wants to play an ugly chick.
: Lets talk about Tryndamere
> [{quoted}](name=Silent Zephyros,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=B25rtFEg,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-13T08:56:06.958+0000) > > Okay so I know Tryn can be under whelming when he is behind. However I am convinced that he is broken and has only remained unerfed because he isn't played often. When people found out how effective midlane Soraka was she was spammed for weeks until riot gutted her, then reworked her in what she is today. When Fizz was wrecked as an assassin and people started playing him AD, he exploded all over toplane - even after Riot un-neutered his AP build people still spammed that until his ult was changed to only work with magic damage. Same think with Tank Ekko, same think with AP Yi, ect. Simple powerful OP champs have always been spammed by everyone until Riot panic nerfed them. Yet somehow, Tryndamere is OP but just no one plays him? There's an OP character just sitting around, waiting to be used, yet for some reason he isn't spammed all across the game by everyone? Did you think at all before you posted this? Trynd is a noob killer, strong in solo queue, and borderline useless in pro play.
Mártir (EUW)
: Actually you are wrong, OP (Original poster). Bounties were made to make games less "Snowbally", and to give chance for "Comeback", as you said. Everyone was complaining League "Was" (And "Is", I admit) WAY too Snowbally. So they made Bounties. ...Now ppl complain also? I dont understand.
> [{quoted}](name=Mártir,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=THxE1LuN,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-08-04T23:55:38.656+0000) > > Actually you are wrong, OP (Original poster). > > Bounties were made to make games less "Snowbally", and to give chance for "Comeback", as you said. > > Everyone was complaining League "Was" (And "Is", I admit) WAY too Snowbally. > So they made Bounties. > ...Now ppl complain also? I dont understand. "Yeah so we saw you had a flat tire, so we got you a new one." "This tire is made of wood... and it's square." "Hey, we fixed the problem, why are you complaining?" Just because a solution was implemented, doesn't meant the solution was actually good.
Rioter Comments
: 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.
Show more

JedenVojak

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion