: Before the big jungle Nerf I was a {{champion:24}} and {{champion:56}} main but I can hardly play those power farmers anymore because they have to be fed to work well Dont get me wrong those champs still work but they arent even fun for me anymore so I had to actually change my mains because of a whole nerf to the role I main Now I main more tanky champs like {{champion:19}} {{champion:33}} {{champion:5}} because if I am ever behind all I need to do is become the tank for the team so I am always in a useful position What do I really think about the jungle nerfs??? Well I would literally carry every single game as {{champion:24}} so it is an understandable nerf but the result is that jungle is more of a support role now than to be compared to an adc. The nerf was very unacceptable to me when it first came out but I refound what works for me in the jungle and I am proud to be a jungle main!!!
> [{quoted}](name=JungleChopper,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AEsrPVhr,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-04-06T00:23:58.341+0000) > > Before the big jungle Nerf I was a {{champion:24}} and {{champion:56}} main but I can hardly play those power farmers anymore because they have to be fed to work well > > Dont get me wrong those champs still work but they arent even fun for me anymore so I had to actually change my mains because of a whole nerf to the role I main > > Now I main more tanky champs like {{champion:19}} {{champion:33}} {{champion:5}} because if I am ever behind all I need to do is become the tank for the team so I am always in a useful position > > What do I really think about the jungle nerfs??? Well I would literally carry every single game as {{champion:24}} so it is an understandable nerf but the result is that jungle is more of a support role now than to be compared to an adc. The nerf was very unacceptable to me when it first came out but I refound what works for me in the jungle and I am proud to be a jungle main!!! I smell a season 6 jungler. We can smell our own. Oh the good old days...
: As long as I see all games with 2 junglers I will think that Jng isn fine.
> [{quoted}](name=Sir Saltarin,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=qG5INVdA,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-04-07T15:59:03.969+0000) > > As long as I see all games with 2 junglers I will think that Jng isn fine. Junglers will never not jungle because the skills that make for a good jungler don't necessarily make for a strong laner. We know how to play the map, not the lanes the way laners do. So if you're waiting for jungle to consistently be autofilled as a mark the role is weak, you're going to end up waaay off the mark.
: > But my main topic is that the report system is usless, since it won't make the game "better"... I dunno, I've seen the community gradually improve since I started playing a few years back. Obviously it's doing _something_ beneficial, else I wouldn't have stuck around - and trust me, I can easily ditch a game if the community is toxic enough. I've ditched SMITE due to toxicity twice, so the fact that I've stuck around with League should be telling. Besides, in your OP, you make a lot of incorrect statements/assumptions about _a lot_ of things. The biggest one being; > ...(league has a bad community) and everyone should get used to it like in all competitive games You'd be surprised at how many competitive games have rules that regulate the behavior of everyone playing to foster an actual, legitimate competitive atmosphere. I know Prandine(?) has a link to a section of Ulanopo's Knowledge Base showing a litany of fines in real-world competitive sports for misconduct, so clearly, League's not the only competitive game out there that knows what competition actually is. Competition and vitriol, contrary to your assertion, do _not_ go hand-in-hand. Competition can exist perfectly fine without toxicity and flame and misbehavior; it's the expectation of respect that _creates_ toxicity, not the nature of competition itself. If you want a game that will let you be toxic, you're not going to find it in League.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Bodybegf,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-07T03:38:03.399+0000) > > I dunno, I've seen the community gradually improve since I started playing a few years back. Obviously it's doing _something_ beneficial, else I wouldn't have stuck around - and trust me, I can easily ditch a game if the community is toxic enough. I've ditched SMITE due to toxicity twice, so the fact that I've stuck around with League should be telling. > > Besides, in your OP, you make a lot of incorrect statements/assumptions about _a lot_ of things. The biggest one being; > > You'd be surprised at how many competitive games have rules that regulate the behavior of everyone playing to foster an actual, legitimate competitive atmosphere. I know Prandine(?) has a link to a section of Ulanopo's Knowledge Base showing a litany of fines in real-world competitive sports for misconduct, so clearly, League's not the only competitive game out there that knows what competition actually is. > > Competition and vitriol, contrary to your assertion, do _not_ go hand-in-hand. Competition can exist perfectly fine without toxicity and flame and misbehavior; it's the expectation of respect that _creates_ toxicity, not the nature of competition itself. > > If you want a game that will let you be toxic, you're not going to find it in League. OP must not be familiar with how blizzard handles these things. It's zero tolerance with them.
: Bann system too strict
Also this is why we need voice comms as default. It's hard to take flame seriously when it comes from a prepubescent squeaker.
: Bann system too strict
I've lost my cool on people a few times and haven't even gotten a temporary ban. You need to be fucking up consistently and in a pretty bad way to land a ban from what I've experienced. Even then a lot of the people I've seen get banned can eventually get another chance by simply showing humility and remorse over violating riots terms of service and acknowledging that they did, in fact, break the rules regardless of the circumstances that led them to do it.
: "Am I really a bad Jungle? I've been told that every single game, maybe it's true?" "I trusted a team mate to have my back and now I'm dead and they're flaming me. Can I trust them? Should I play this like a solo game?" --- "Do people really hate me, or is it just a big meme?" "Do people often mistake my passion for abrasiveness?" "I should honestly give up streaming because people only come to talk shit or troll me and it's not going anywhere."
> [{quoted}](name=ChickenWrap,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EsQhlZEI,comment-id=001f,timestamp=2019-04-06T04:04:21.594+0000) > > "Am I really a bad Jungle? I've been told that every single game, maybe it's true?" > "I trusted a team mate to have my back and now I'm dead and they're flaming me. Can I trust them? Should I play this like a solo game?" > --- > "Do people really hate me, or is it just a big meme?" > "Do people often mistake my passion for abrasiveness?" > "I should honestly give up streaming because people only come to talk shit or troll me and it's not going anywhere." Lol no you aren't a bad jungler. People just get pissy when the only role that is effected by macro decisions down to the second won't accommodate their whining for a gank within their idea of an acceptable time frame in their opinion regardless of how much they managed to feed their lane or the lane placement or the waves or general state of vision and enemy positioning on the map. There's a reason most of the lcs analysts are junglers, my friend.
Bazerka (NA)
: What inner dialogues do you have / actively try to defeat?
"why aren't I playing DotA?" {Downloads and plays a few games of dota} "Dotas too fucking hard, why'd I leave league" {Cyclically repeats above process every 3 months}
Barcid (NA)
: An honest question: how close to or far from are you guys from stepping out on this season?
Waiting for jatt to fix the game. Pretty obvious the balance team needed a jungler.
: I can't be the only person thinking this obvious truth, right?
If you want to learn counterplay, hop on normal games and spam the champion you are having trouble with. I assure you the weaknesses will present themselves. From there it's on you to make sure you exploit them when you find yourself against those champions in the future. Counterplay to yi is for the laners to constantly be invading the enemy jungle with their jungler. If you get master yi behind, he's useless for the rest of the game unless it manages to go 40 minutes in which case you played into the late game to win condition. Biggest issue I currently have is that you can get champions behind but If they get lucky and last hit someone with a big bounty, they can leapfrog their relative power from last to the head of the pack. Bounty gold should be split across the team.
: Sunfire Cape / Cinderhulk Scale with AP?
: Wouldn't really make any sense... With HP.. or size... Yeah.. but AP? 9 out of 10 Bami useres dont even build that stat. ^^'
Deleted....not meant as a reply
: Good Job Riot, So You Want to Finally do Item Changes? Awesome......Lets Talk.
I think that instead of reworking the items we have, we should focus on more items. Make build paths from champion to champion in the same class more differentiated so the game doesn't feel stale mid way through major patch releases while still providing enough uniformity for pro play.
Koun (NA)
: Personally i think a lot of the times are fine. It's just that a lot of the mage items have way to much health in my opinion. Such as Rylias which has 300 health, 90 ap, and an effect that slows the enemy after being hit by a spell. Thats sustain, damage and a utility passive that's pretty good. I'm not asking for rito to completely destroy the health on ap item's, the mages do need that, however, a sharp nerf is needed. Like for the 300 health ap items nerf them to 200 or at least 250.
> [{quoted}](name=Percuis,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EdIbIJAs,comment-id=000e,timestamp=2019-04-07T17:06:37.941+0000) > > Personally i think a lot of the times are fine. It's just that a lot of the mage items have way to much health in my opinion. Such as Rylias which has 300 health, 90 ap, and an effect that slows the enemy after being hit by a spell. Thats sustain, damage and a utility passive that's pretty good. I'm not asking for rito to completely destroy the health on ap item's, the mages do need that, however, a sharp nerf is needed. Like for the 300 health ap items nerf them to 200 or at least 250. The big trade off with that item is generally the lack of Mana and cdr. I definitely see that item used less since the Mana reworks.
: There's better items for AP and armor. I think op makes it sound like it's a totally optimal purchase for both stats when in reality, it's just a decent purchase for both. It's not "lots" so much as it is "decent".
> [{quoted}](name=DOOD KOOK,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EdIbIJAs,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-04-07T08:37:25.997+0000) > > There's better items for AP and armor. I think op makes it sound like it's a totally optimal purchase for both stats when in reality, it's just a decent purchase for both. It's not "lots" so much as it is "decent". It's a lot when you consider it's armor negates 3 items worth of lethality.
Modi (NA)
: > Actually it very much does make the word gender neutral. Grammatical gender in English exists as a way to dictate whether masculine or feminine pronouns can be used to refer to that word. In the absence of an alternative, words with only one gender form are by definition gender neutral as they must be applied to both genders. The following sentences will show the difference: Again, gender neutrality in regards to **subject** does not change the gender association of the word itself. Yes, the word can be used for all genders, but it does not make the word itself lose its associated gender. > That marksman's frost arrow is so OP that SHE is rising in priority. Or [markswoman](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/markswoman) > That marksman's early game is so strong that HE is rising in priority. > > That waitress is so good at HIS job that HE is often requested by customers. > > Note the dissonance in the third sentence when compared to the first and second. That is because the word waitress is a word you only pair to a female. In other words, you can presume any waitress is female because there exists a male form of the word that was specifically not used. Due to the lack of a female form of the word Marksman, you can assume no such gender differentiation thus making it a gender neutral word. I see no dissonance, only incorrect usage. Then again, working with people from around the world has largely made me desensitized to these kinds of misuse, as it is quite common with non-native English speakers. > This is a English language problem as many other languages allow for gender specific endings on their nouns doubled with the fact that the word man has both a gender specific meaning and a gender neutral meaning and therefore people often see it as part of another word and erroneously assume an implicit gender bias. As in above, gender neutrality in use does not eliminate the gender of the word itself.
> [{quoted}](name=Modi,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=2eH5sYmu,comment-id=00020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-10-29T01:47:06.941+0000) > > Again, gender neutrality in regards to **subject** does not change the gender association of the word itself. Yes, the word can be used for all genders, but it does not make the word itself lose its associated gender. > > Or [markswoman](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/markswoman) > > I see no dissonance, only incorrect usage. Then again, working with people from around the world has largely made me desensitized to these kinds of misuse, as it is quite common with non-native English speakers. > > As in above, gender neutrality in use does not eliminate the gender of the word itself. You can't change the reality of the language and it's usage to suit your purposes in this argument. It's concrete. I'm not saying there is any fault in marksperson. In fact, as a large company it's smart to minimize blowback from public announcements anyway possible. I'm just saying, and again this is supported by proper understanding of the English language and it's usage, that saying "marksperson" is incorrect usage. To be clear, the idea of nouns having a gender is not an implicit statement of real word gender association but rather is an artifact which exists based on the mechanistic necessities of how language evolved. The gender designations of words literally existed so that people would know what endings to use on descriptive words associated with with that noun so people would have a better idea what noun was being referred to, particularly languages that are influenced by Latin. Saying that a noun is "male" means absolutely nothing in terms of real world gender designations, particularly in the modern English language where these designations were often imported with the word from the language where the word originated. That being said I just double checked to see that markswoman is in fact a word that is recognized and therefore, the most correct usage would have been to say markswoman. I would have been much more satisfied with that as I think most would. Riot is treating navigating a world where sex and gender exist as an unsolvable quagmire of unspoken rules. Using gender neutral language where it is completely unnecessary is a PR move to project and outward appearance of change in their culture while they figure out their shit. I'd much rather them just figure out their shit which would be partly solved by explaining to them that I'd you wouldn't say something in front of your mother, you shouldn't say it at work. Generally speaking everything else just boils down to not being an asshole. Transgender people are fairly understanding about people transitioning to proper pronoun use so long as you are making a good faith effort to get it right and treat them respectfully. So essentially the people pissed about marksperson as well as the people angrily defending it are representing the extremes and, like most extremes in life, the extremes do not represent the most reasonable approach to this problem.
Modi (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=LightningShado,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=2eH5sYmu,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-10-25T00:53:37.983+0000) > > Here's the thing. Marksmen IS gender neutral. Marksperson is just a made up word that SEEMS more gender neutral. Marksmen is actually a masculine word. While there exists no gender neutral, nor other gendered similar word in the dictionary, that does not make the word that **does** exist gender neutral. Interesting, though, that in a fictional universe *littered* with made up words, the one you take offense to is the one that is being used as a gender neutral noun in the patch notes.
> [{quoted}](name=Modi,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=2eH5sYmu,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-10-25T04:13:01.083+0000) > > Marksmen is actually a masculine word. While there exists no gender neutral, nor other gendered similar word in the dictionary, that does not make the word that **does** exist gender neutral. > > Interesting, though, that in a fictional universe *littered* with made up words, the one you take offense to is the one that is being used as a gender neutral noun in the patch notes. Actually it very much does make the word gender neutral. Grammatical gender in English exists as a way to dictate whether masculine or feminine pronouns can be used to refer to that word. In the absence of an alternative, words with only one gender form are by definition gender neutral as they must be applied to both genders. The following sentences will show the difference: That marksman's frost arrow is so OP that SHE is rising in priority. That marksman's early game is so strong that HE is rising in priority. That waitress is so good at HIS job that HE is often requested by customers. Note the dissonance in the third sentence when compared to the first and second. That is because the word waitress is a word you only pair to a female. In other words, you can presume any waitress is female because there exists a male form of the word that was specifically not used. Due to the lack of a female form of the word Marksman, you can assume no such gender differentiation thus making it a gender neutral word. This is a English language problem as many other languages allow for gender specific endings on their nouns doubled with the fact that the word man has both a gender specific meaning and a gender neutral meaning and therefore people often see it as part of another word and erroneously assume an implicit gender bias.
: Reminder that reverts are always bigger failures than reworks.
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=bQwodeqW,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-10-22T21:27:38.519+0000) > > Reminder that reverts are always bigger failures than reworks. Most reverts fail because the reason for the rework was that the champ was broken. Zac had around a 51% win rate when they reworked him and had all the same counter play he currently has. He literally was only reworked because they decided to have a tank update and a formless blob was creatively easy to change. Said another way, he was only reworked because he was easy to rework.
SonicAF (EUW)
: There are known cases where incompetent support was overriden by a huge outrage on the boards, motivating Riot employees to take another look and address it. So while > Ensure you a response from a Rioter. > Override a Player Support decision. is technically right(not a blatant lie), it is unforgivably misleading. Edit: fixed the wording
> [{quoted}](name=SonicAF,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=mMRjXBiE,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-10-28T09:07:56.547+0000) > > There are known cases where incompetent support was overriden by a huge outrage on the boards, motivating Riot employees to take another look and address it. So while > > is technically right(not a blatant lie), it is unforgivably misleading. > > Edit: fixed the wording vox populi vox dei
Rioter Comments
: If you had the power to change ONE thing about LoL, what would it be?
EkyonKun (NA)
: Riot, is this really who you want representing you?
Riot trying to blame the customers after they got caught treating women like ahit in the work place. Good luck continuing trying to pass the buck on this one rito
: Zac
Zac needs a revert
Jamaree (NA)
: Garen ISNT A TANK!!!!
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=oMy5uATx,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-08-15T11:13:15.882+0000) > > Garen > > ISNT > > A > > TANK!!!! People build garen without triforce and lethality items?
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=needHymn,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=n6yAAVAl,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-06-01T18:13:14.947+0000) > > When I gank top, it's not because I care about how you are doing in your lane, it's just because I wanted an excuse to come soak your minion XP because my jungle camps suck and don't give XP anymore. Truth, brother. Lol. Been explaining this to people since the end of season 6.
: Weak Link League is a Problem of Philosophy, Not Math
The problem at low elo is that the distribution of player skill over the ranks wasn't made to be a normal distribution. Silver 4 is roughly the rank of an average player. But someone in silver 4 can be matched with B4 which is the bottom 10%. That means the difference in their skill level spans 40% of the player base and is roughly equivalent to sticking that same silver 4 player in a low diamond game. If you don't play a carry role (bot or mid) then you have a significantly higher chance of getting at least one trash-can level player in roles you need to win as opposed to when you play one of those roles yourself and are only gambling on the other carry role. This is why everyone I played with back when I was playing consistently has since switched to bot/mid as their primary and secondary roles and climbed.
: > [{quoted}](name=Kilanost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=000100010000000100000000,timestamp=2018-05-18T07:35:00.671+0000) > > Porn has positive effects on people. Ask anyone that's ever looked at porn lol. Oh man, nice trolling. > > Oh btdubs, people aren't having less kids because of porn. They're having less kids because it's too expensive to raise kids and real wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years. Oh and people are getting married later because they have to get an education. And if you get that education and ur in the US then you definitely can't afford kids because of student loans. > > Seriously, what puritanical religious quack is feeding you your info? Whoever it is, you need to stop listening to them and learn to think for yourself. All i'm saying is there is more evidence that supports porn being bad for you than lootboxes being bad for children. If you want to deny the evidence you're free to. It's not about being puritanical or not. It's about listening to the evidence and making decisions based on it.
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=0001000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-18T08:24:34.880+0000) > > All i'm saying is there is more evidence that supports porn being bad for you than lootboxes being bad for children. > > If you want to deny the evidence you're free to. It's not about being puritanical or not. It's about listening to the evidence and making decisions based on it. No there is not more evidence. In fact, there's not even good evidence to make a generalization that porn is remotely bad. Studies supporting your claim are typically poorly powered or have obvious confounding variables and typically are funded through religiously affiliated sources if not done by them. In contrast, the plethora of research showing porn is good is done by reputable researchers at first class universities. If you want to talk about research, you first have to learn how to read research. You can pay to publish anything in less than reputable journals these days.
: How do you get a silver adc to build the one item that will in you the game?
You tell them either they build it or you take enough lane farm to build one yourself.
: most toxic abilities in league?
: What the hell what is going on? XD every Game both midlaners have smite?
Oh just riot pushing changes regardless of feedback again. Nbd.
Sqryson (EUNE)
: "Special" server for people notoriously beeing reported,afk and etc
Make it 150 ping and make the sound of the nunu bot laugh play constantly throughout the games and I think we have a viable punishment here lol
: > [{quoted}](name=Kilanost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=0001000100000001,timestamp=2018-05-18T07:20:21.813+0000) > > The way this pans out is they're going to start with Netflix and pornhub. Netflix will pay the cable companies not to throttle their content and pass the cost on to you. Netflix will cost $40 a month which allows cable companies to make up post revenue from cord cutters. And porn hub will no longer be free. That's right you kids are going to have to start paying for your porn. Porn has proven negative effects on people. There's a good reason the UK is looking into blocking access to it. I also believe it is a reason people aren't having as many children as they used. Why look for a real partner when I can just go on pormhub. It's all very unhealthy.
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=00010001000000010000,timestamp=2018-05-18T07:26:47.339+0000) > > Porn has proven negative effects on people. There's a good reason the UK is looking into blocking access to it. I also believe it is a reason people aren't having as many children as they used. Why look for a real partner when I can just go on pormhub. It's all very unhealthy. Porn has positive effects on people. Ask anyone that's ever looked at porn lol. Oh man, nice trolling. Oh btdubs, people aren't having less kids because of porn. They're having less kids because it's too expensive to raise kids and real wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years. Oh and people are getting married later because they have to get an education. And if you get that education and ur in the US then you definitely can't afford kids because of student loans. Seriously, what puritanical religious quack is feeding you your info? Whoever it is, you need to stop listening to them and learn to think for yourself.
: TOTAL MISTAKE - Automated Tribunal Exposed
: > [{quoted}](name=Shatter the Sun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:50:26.303+0000) > > So why are you here then. Go do whatever it is that makes you NOT BORED and let us do ours. Who the fuck are you to tell someone how to live their life? Fun is subjective and if you cant realize that then I think you need to read a book. Some recreational activities are better than others. Reading books is definitely one of them. I think most people here, yourself included, could benefit from reading more of them. Achievements in videogames have replaced achievements in real life for many young men. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/it-s-less-work-more-playing-video-games-today-s-n782956 http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/07/why_young_men_might_be_playing_video_games_instead_of_working.html http://fortune.com/2017/07/16/video-games-users-men/
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2018-05-18T04:03:14.383+0000) > > Some recreational activities are better than others. Reading books is definitely one of them. I think most people here, yourself included, could benefit from reading more of them. > > Achievements in videogames have replaced achievements in real life for many young men. > https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/it-s-less-work-more-playing-video-games-today-s-n782956 > http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/07/why_young_men_might_be_playing_video_games_instead_of_working.html > http://fortune.com/2017/07/16/video-games-users-men/ The way this pans out is they're going to start with Netflix and pornhub. Netflix will pay the cable companies not to throttle their content and pass the cost on to you. Netflix will cost $40 a month which allows cable companies to make up post revenue from cord cutters. And porn hub will no longer be free. That's right you kids are going to have to start paying for your porn.
: > [{quoted}](name=Vacus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2018-05-18T04:30:43.709+0000) > > Telecom companies and ISPs are the same thing. If that becomes a solution, your cell provider will charge you more to make up for it. that doesnt encourage more customers. There are a finite amount of customers in the world and companies have to fight for them. If everyone raises the prices nobody is going to buy the product. because someone can just lower them and steal all of the customers. Thats how the market works. If everyone is being greedy someone is gonna drop the premiums by 5 bucks to get all the customers and everyone else will have to follow suit.
> [{quoted}](name=Automated Riven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2018-05-18T05:04:17.420+0000) > > that doesnt encourage more customers. There are a finite amount of customers in the world and companies have to fight for them. If everyone raises the prices nobody is going to buy the product. because someone can just lower them and steal all of the customers. Thats how the market works. If everyone is being greedy someone is gonna drop the premiums by 5 bucks to get all the customers and everyone else will have to follow suit. False. They just have to get in a room together and agree on how much they charge people in an area with limited options in order to both make shit tons of money by ripping people off. It's why the cost of cable TV has gone up 90% in the past 10 years. Net neutrality is basically a set of laws that limit the number of ways cable companies can fuck you.
: > [{quoted}](name=Cloud273,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:05:24.544+0000) > > Comcast and AT&T are some of the most corrupt companies in this country. We cannot let them abolish net neutrality. \>"Comcast and AT&T are some of the most corrupt companies in this country." \>Comcast and AT&T both support net neutrality {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:23:05.619+0000) > > \>"Comcast and AT&T are some of the most corrupt companies in this country." > \>Comcast and AT&T both support net neutrality > > {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} Of you think Comcast supports net neutrality, you obviously have no grasp of this whatsoever. What a company says and what they actually want do not necessarily have to be the same thing. They say they like neutrality because they don't want to take the PR hit from going against it which would flat out confirm everyone's suspicions.
: > [{quoted}](name=CLG ear,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-05-18T02:56:21.813+0000) > > the more more realistic outcome is that nothing will happen for a few weeks/months; then you'll start seeing ISPs roll out "streaming plans" and "online gaming" plans that you'll need to purchase in addition to already paying them monthly just for internet access. This is what they want. They want the internet to be a luxury that you have to pay out the ass to get what you want; not a utility necessary in modern society. > > These companies do not want to innovate. If they did, they would have already; and you wouldn't have to pay 150 dollars a month for 75 mbps down; where other countries get gigabit internet for half of what we pay. They want to maximize profits and minimize the effort to maintain their subscriber base. If you really think Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, etc. want to have competition then you've got another thing comin'. No, they don't want to have competition. However it exists. There are 4 internet companies in my town and they want to grow too. And in order for them too they have to compete with one another. The means that if one of them starts putting up 'streaming packages' everyone leaves and then goes elsewhere. If your town starts doing it, what happens when one of my companies expands to your town and doesn't have streaming packages? Then Comcast loses all it's buisiness in that town unless they cut them. That's how a market works. Also they already are innovating. Google recently put brand new wires down allowing for ten times the speed. Midco (in my town) just dropped millions of dollars to offer 10 times faster service by using a new type of cable. This is how they make money. Cause if they don't innovate someone else will and they will lose customers.
> [{quoted}](name=Automated Riven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:07:56.868+0000) > > No, they don't want to have competition. However it exists. There are 4 internet companies in my town and they want to grow too. And in order for them too they have to compete with one another. The means that if one of them starts putting up 'streaming packages' everyone leaves and then goes elsewhere. > > If your town starts doing it, what happens when one of my companies expands to your town and doesn't have streaming packages? Then Comcast loses all it's buisiness in that town unless they cut them. That's how a market works. > > Also they already are innovating. Google recently put brand new wires down allowing for ten times the speed. Midco (in my town) just dropped millions of dollars to offer 10 times faster service by using a new type of cable. This is how they make money. Cause if they don't innovate someone else will and they will lose customers. Net neutrality is not a question of competitive vs non competitive markets. It takes the know fact that you cannot have a truly competitive land scape for internet in most areas, and, knowing the market is not competitive, putting rules in place to protect consumers.
: > [{quoted}](name=CLG ear,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=0002000000010000,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:13:38.751+0000) > > not everyone in America has that availability Correct, However with the way markets work everyone will, Especially if big companies start trying to jack prices like that. If comcast wants to charge $50 for basic internet and the $20 for every add on its super benifitial for midco to expand, because they charge $55 for the mid level internet $39 for basic level and like $100 for the ultra fast stuff. so its really cost effective for them to lay the wires and steal all of comcasts customers because they offer cheaper internet. So then comcast either is forced to match prices or lose any holding they have in the area.
> [{quoted}](name=Automated Riven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=00020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:26:30.629+0000) > > Correct, However with the way markets work everyone will, Especially if big companies start trying to jack prices like that. If comcast wants to charge > $50 for basic internet and the $20 for every add on > its super benifitial for midco to expand, because they charge $55 for the mid level internet $39 for basic level and like $100 for the ultra fast stuff. > so its really cost effective for them to lay the wires and steal all of comcasts customers because they offer cheaper internet. So then comcast either is forced to match prices or lose any holding they have in the area. Nope wrong. They will create and oligopoly with mutually agreed upon pricing that is unbelievably high so that they can both get rich. You are assuming we are talking about pure competition here. We are not. This is exactly why these consumer protection we're put in place to begin with.
: > [{quoted}](name=CLG ear,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-05-18T02:56:21.813+0000) > > the more more realistic outcome is that nothing will happen for a few weeks/months; then you'll start seeing ISPs roll out "streaming plans" and "online gaming" plans that you'll need to purchase in addition to already paying them monthly just for internet access. This is what they want. They want the internet to be a luxury that you have to pay out the ass to get what you want; not a utility necessary in modern society. > > These companies do not want to innovate. If they did, they would have already; and you wouldn't have to pay 150 dollars a month for 75 mbps down; where other countries get gigabit internet for half of what we pay. They want to maximize profits and minimize the effort to maintain their subscriber base. If you really think Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, etc. want to have competition then you've got another thing comin'. No, they don't want to have competition. However it exists. There are 4 internet companies in my town and they want to grow too. And in order for them too they have to compete with one another. The means that if one of them starts putting up 'streaming packages' everyone leaves and then goes elsewhere. If your town starts doing it, what happens when one of my companies expands to your town and doesn't have streaming packages? Then Comcast loses all it's buisiness in that town unless they cut them. That's how a market works. Also they already are innovating. Google recently put brand new wires down allowing for ten times the speed. Midco (in my town) just dropped millions of dollars to offer 10 times faster service by using a new type of cable. This is how they make money. Cause if they don't innovate someone else will and they will lose customers.
> [{quoted}](name=Automated Riven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:07:56.868+0000) > > No, they don't want to have competition. However it exists. There are 4 internet companies in my town and they want to grow too. And in order for them too they have to compete with one another. The means that if one of them starts putting up 'streaming packages' everyone leaves and then goes elsewhere. > > If your town starts doing it, what happens when one of my companies expands to your town and doesn't have streaming packages? Then Comcast loses all it's buisiness in that town unless they cut them. That's how a market works. > > Also they already are innovating. Google recently put brand new wires down allowing for ten times the speed. Midco (in my town) just dropped millions of dollars to offer 10 times faster service by using a new type of cable. This is how they make money. Cause if they don't innovate someone else will and they will lose customers. And net neutrality doesn't stop any of that from happening.
: And taxes are going to increase to $500 a month on internet if it stays.
> [{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=omPlYPQl,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-05-18T02:40:40.858+0000) > > And taxes are going to increase to $500 a month on internet if it stays. Dude what are you talking about. This makes no sense. Net neutrality exists to protect consumers. If you think this is how things play out with net neutrality, you need to educate yourself.
: > [{quoted}](name=LetMeCarry1983,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3K6Aiktu,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-05-18T03:40:36.113+0000) > > https://imgur.com/Euw2SaY > > The jungle is fine. What the hell are you even talking about? > > Also, each of these games I had feeding team mates. MMR 1074. Bro i generally don't do this stuff but bronze don't count nobody even know what the Scuttle crab changes are down there. I just played a mid smite yi game in bronze and was level 4 at like 3 mins because they just let me take both crabs.
> [{quoted}](name=BestPudgeNA,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3K6Aiktu,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-05-18T04:16:45.619+0000) > > MMR 1074. Bro i generally don't do this stuff but bronze don't count nobody even know what the Scuttle crab changes are down there. I just played a mid smite yi game in bronze and was level 4 at like 3 mins because they just let me take both crabs. Not to mention shyvanna is one of the best duelists you can play from the jungle especially early. Of course he was able to run away with with the game.
: The whole point was to make it so junglers can't autowin a lane for their team after 3 camps. You only have to do an extra 1 or 2 camps to get to level 3 now. I'm sorry you can't out level your solo laners anymore while not even having to farm half the time.
> [{quoted}](name=Akali is SO HOT,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xEEh0v7G,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-05-18T05:39:17.913+0000) > > The whole point was to make it so junglers can't autowin a lane for their team after 3 camps. You only have to do an extra 1 or 2 camps to get to level 3 now. I'm sorry you can't out level your solo laners anymore while not even having to farm half the time. Haven't been able to out level solo Lanes since s6 which was much healthier bc farming the jg was worth so much that ganks came later so ppl could full clear. Also realize jungle camps didn't kick your ass the way they do now too. Fights actually revolved around the junglers clashing and the laners getting involved instead of the laners clashing and the jungler throwing the balance in favor of his team by showing up. Every time they nerf the jungle camps, they literally incentivize us spending that much more time camping our lanes. My personal take on this whole thing is that the best junglers are going to be the ones that say fuck scuttle and play champs that can have a decent lvl 2 gank off red buff or go directly to counter jungling. Especially if we've basically been given a 50/50 shot of being over or under leveled, it makes sense to focus on impact and use catch up xp to make up for not getting the scuttle as much as the enemy jungler
: popular only on tanks and bruisers. And the event just gonna end up being a poke fest...
> [{quoted}](name=Xcion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=U0OzE0Vp,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-05-18T00:54:38.910+0000) > > popular only on tanks and bruisers. > > And the event just gonna end up being a poke fest... Don't forget aram veigars. Warmogs is a must on him
: can't launch game at all, without getting spammed by "crash report"?
https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/224826367 Try using that. It's a repair tool that works from outside the client. Might do the trick.
: can't launch game at all, without getting spammed by "crash report"?
Then do a full install from scratch. You can remove the game through the windows uninstaller
: can't launch game at all, without getting spammed by "crash report"?
You can repair your installation through the client. Just click around looking for settings/options. It might be from the login page. Unsure/can't remember. But it's there I assure you
: I'll help you secure scuttle when you stop taxing my lane on short ganks (Especially if i'm behind and all you did is flash auto the ignited near dead enemy that i just did the work on)
> [{quoted}](name=T3H UB3RN07,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5effmRXr,comment-id=0011,timestamp=2018-05-18T01:26:21.137+0000) > > I'll help you secure scuttle when you stop taxing my lane on short ganks > > (Especially if i'm behind and all you did is flash auto the ignited near dead enemy that i just did the work on) And got assist gold. And got a farm and xp advantage and possibly even a better back timing and a wave that is hard shoving back to you that you can freeze. All from a kill that you wouldn't have been able to secure for yourself anyway? Meanwhile ur jungler just lost all his camps in his opposite side jungle and literally just wants to see some of the benefit of his successful gank while setting your lane up for further success? Hmm. Yes by all means get mad at ur jungler for taxing. That makes total sense .
: Roseanne should have been set generations later
: He got more exp and cs out of my jungler doing that...
> [{quoted}](name=Brain Errör 404,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5effmRXr,comment-id=00050001000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-18T01:01:18.640+0000) > > He got more exp and cs out of my jungler doing that... Go into sandbox mode and hard shove a wave after killing the enemy laner. Then don't do anything else and just watch what happens. Understanding this will help you so much in lane. Not understanding wave management is likely what got you behind in lane to begin with to be honest. That's not meant as flame. I'm 100% saying this because I think it will help you.
: As a toplane main I get sick whenever I see people complain about the winrate of tanks
Your analysis leaves out the general benefit of actually having a tank on a team against an enemy team full of squishy champs. That prob has a lot to do with tank win rates but has nothing to do with tanks themselves. It's a function of having a good team composition. Being angry about tank strength in the meta with the good team comp factor being a major part of their success would be like being in a meta where 90% of mid laners are picking AD champs and saying "OMG mages are busted, their win rates are so high" when in reality they're not necessarily strong, they just provide a better damage composition than a full ad team.
: I had septoplasty surgery earlier this morning
Are u telling us this bc ur high AF on pain killers?
Show more

Kilanost

Level 55 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion