Spotty (NA)
: Imagine going to detroit for the LCS
Ouch peeps. The good ole D has it's problems, but man that's harsh.
: everyone was spamming to report me way before i said that
: can someone tell me what is abusive about what i said
No, because it's clear since you're asking, you already made up your mind and only want to whine and argue. If you think you've been wronged then take it up with Riot.
: Why again does an AFK offer NO ingame-compensations in LoL only?
For ranked the best way ,imo , to fix is invalidate the ranked loss. No lp gained or lost. I don't care about how it might be abused, let Riot figure out the details. Furthermore stiffen afk peanaltly, if in one week you have 3 afks (in any game), then you're not allowed to play ranked for 48 hours. If the next week your afk's stay the same or increase then 1 week ban for all game modes. If you have the same number of AFKs in the week following Month ban. Obviously, this is just a wish since I loath AFKers. The peanaltly for repeatedly afking should be swift and sharp.
Porglit (NA)
: Mathematically evaluating the assassin rework
I love these type of posts! Thank you!
Hadriel (NA)
: Hi, Meddler. Recently you guys posted a preview of what you were working on in preseason including some possible item deletions. I'm worried because one of the items mentioned was Mikael's Crucible, which I completely disagree should be targeted in a "shop clean-up" pass. Mikael's Crucible has been built [more than 350 times in competitive play between patches 9.16 and 9.12](https://lol.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RunQuery/MatchHistoryPlayer&pfRunQueryFormName=MatchHistoryPlayer&MHP%5Bpreload%5D=Item&MHP%5Btournament%5D=&MHP%5Blink%5D=&MHP%5Bchampion%5D=&MHP%5Brole%5D=&MHP%5Bteam%5D=&MHP%5Bpatch%5D=&MHP%5Byear%5D=&MHP%5Bregion%5D=&MHP%5Btournamentlevel%5D=&MHP%5Brecord%5D=&MHP%5Brecordorder%5D%5Bis_checkbox%5D=true&MHP%5Bitem%5D=Mikael%27s+Crucible&MHP%5Bjungleitem%5D=&MHP%5Bjungleenchant%5D=&MHP%5Blimit%5D=400&MHP%5Bwhere%5D=&MHP%5Bincludelink%5D%5Bis_checkbox%5D=true&MHP%5Btextonly%5D%5Bis_checkbox%5D=true&wpRunQuery=Run+query&pf_free_text=). I find it one of the most satisfying items in the game to use, as well as one of the most skill expressive on a class that typically feels somewhat linear in their decision-making. Is Mikael's really being considered for removal?
I build it often when I okay as Sona, or any healing type Mage. I'd be bummed (but not bitter) if they removed it.
Naalith (NA)
: Riot, just make a new Collection tab for Eternals. The new champions tab looks terrible
Mythrandill (EUNE)
: If the 10'th year anniversary of LOL is mobile league you will get the Bizzard treatment
Forgive my ignorance, but will mobile version players play on the same servers as PC players or be separate? Because if they'll play on the same servers (hence mobile and PC players in the same game) I'd be quite disappointed. I already think Soloq has matchmaking problems let alone all the players who q up knowing they have sketchy connection and therefore dc or have high ping. I just don't know. Maybe it will be okay? Like I said I'd feel much better if it was separate. LoL mobile players and PC players play the same game but different platforms and different servers etc.
: As a marksman player having 25% of my hp disappear after a level 1 Q is not fun.
I suppose that's a matter of perspective! 😊
: > [{quoted}](name=La Belle Sauvage,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=Ab3z3wLr,comment-id=0012,timestamp=2019-06-20T15:17:47.973+0000)1. Spell Theif's edge (into Frostfang) > 2. Mikael's Crucible > 3. Athene's Unholy Grail > 4. (Pending matchup - though a lot of times IBG) > 5. (Pending Matchup) Given that this build gets you only 50 AP from those alone, even a 20% cut to AP ratios would only lose you 10 damage on your Q and only about 1% movement speed. This is the sort of Sona build that is affected least by the proposed direction.
Fair point. Her Q as it is stands is strong, so if it lowers by some amount it may affect the poke. Meaning I need every bit of AP/Scaling I can get even if it's just 50 AP. Hopefully I am just wrong and it won't be an issue.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: June 20
HI Meddler, Low Elo player here and Sona main. While I suppose "targeting her AP scaling on Q and E,..." Is needed when she is in the ADC role, you'd be potentially affecting her utility build a lot. It will be interesting to see by how much. With the exception of this year I had a lot of success building Sona mostly Utility. And I'm worried the build path may be less viable after this change. 1. Spell Theif's edge (into Frostfang) 2. Mikael's Crucible 3. Athene's Unholy Grail 4. (Pending matchup - though a lot of times IBG) 5. (Pending Matchup) A large part I can build this way is her Q. And by reducing (and her E) it it makes me wonder the potential viability of all utilities sort of builds. And I'm curious why you wouldn't give her Auto a slight increase (to help with wave clear & in top of the one you already gave) since your removing the scaling on Q & E. I'm mostly concerned with Support Sona in the end. Her Q poke is a large part of her viability support wise. And to be clear I'm not opposed to a change nor will I be upset, I'm willing to experiment with new build paths if need be, just concerned in general, since She's being nerfed due to an off role situation. She's has been a solid support pick for a long time now and you haven't touched her until now, which is mildly concerning. There was a good post by chip (forgot his summoner's name) recently about this very topic. If you haven't read it I'd encourage you to, I'd love to know your thoughts.
: So I guess that makes your pose 8 points? `` 9. No data is currently available for the number of games that were dodged after Zed picks. `` Well yeah, there's literally no point into storing that kind of information on a database anywhere. As the reason for dodging a match could be anything and NOT just someone picking Zed. It would end up being wasted space.
I think you're wrong, it's exactly the data I'd want if I were analyzing and situation involving any champ. I'm not sure if they do, but as an analysts, I know I'd welcome that sort of information.
Lovelle (NA)
: No problem. If not making the items melee-only, then Riot should adjust the champions abusing the item instead of nerfing the item itself, indirectly nerfing every champion that could use it. For example, if {{champion:67}} is spiking too hard once she completes {{item:3149}}. Why not nerf her ability to hit critical mass off of one item instead of making it more expensive for the rest of the champions that use it? Out of all the botrk users, Vayne is the only one that gets out of control once she completes it. {{champion:81}} has gotten quite a few items and builds nerfed over the years, yet Riot will always hit the items before him. I don't understand why they always take this approach, it never solves anything in the long run.
Yes, I like your idea! My best guess is Riot must see that it's easier to adjust items instead of Champs, which brings us back to your original point, which was prevent x champs from buying IBG. I just hate to see it go, if it were to happen. On a side note, and I'm sure I'm in the minority here, I wish Riot would stop or pull back on releasing new champs, as good as the new ones are (except one, looking at you Yummi). That might allow them to divert more resources to balancing items and champs. Thanks for your insight!
: Opinion: "fun to play against" is the most bullshit term to ever exist
Yeah I hate that whole line of thinking. I think in terms of counterplay. As in, if a majority of players across all divisions are unable to counter x champ or x build Orr x strat then it needs to be looked into. Which means most of what people complain about isn't legitimate. They have a champ/strat/build that works in most cases, but when it doesn't they complain it's OP and want Riot to change it instead of adjusting based on the new information they just encountered, I feel like it boils down to laziness.
Lûnà (EUW)
: Yuumi is disappionting.
I don't play ADC much, but when I do I'm always aggravated when I draw a Yummi support. I'd say 1 out of 3 maybe 4 are just decent while the rest are terrible. Perhaps it's just my Elo. I hate the idea of a somewhat passive support champ.
: ... Different development teams.
> [{quoted}](name=ChickenWrap,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=jMG8BLAE,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-06-18T23:43:59.468+0000) > > ... Different development teams. Yikes that's exactly the thought I had as well.
Lovelle (NA)
: I can adjust either way. What annoys me is when items that are perfectly fine for pretty much an entire class of champions get nerfed because of a select few (particularly ranged champions). IBG used to be one of my favorite items in the game to build, but nowadays it's just lackluster, particularly because ranged champions have consistently abused it and gotten it nerfed. Ranged champions use it better than melees now, just like with Frozen Mallet.
I think you're making fair points, but I'd hate to see more of the "Melee's or Mage" only type restrictions. I wish instead they could strike a better balance like for IBG, maybe for ranged champs the slow is significantly reduced (if that's the issue you have) or the slow passive changes to something that is more geared towards ranged champs. But I boo the straight up restriction. Good discussion so far! Thanks for being cordial!
Lovelle (NA)
: Yeah, but playing against mage supports with IBG is complete aids as a melee champion, especially since most of them have ways to lock down targets alreadly in their kits. Mages and marksmen don't need IBG, it's more of an icing-on-the-cake purchase for them, and whenever it gets nerfed it's always because of ranged champions abusing it.
I disagree, well at least in my Elo I build it for a multitude of reasons. And sometimes as a second item. However, I suspect I can get away with it because my Elo isn't able to punish my poor second item. I also disagree with the statement " A & B don't need X item...". Who are you to say either way? All I mean by that is why make the game more vanilla? Essentially I hear you saying you'd like everyone to build exactly meta so you don't have to change your play style. Which will take some of the fun parts of LoL away.
: duoq's fuck up the mmr calcs for balanced games. all the time, every time.
Interesting take, that never occurred to me as a potential contributor to matchmaking.
verxion (NA)
: MATCH MAKING IS SO ABSURD!
It's been bad for a long time now, but I'm not sure they'll ever address it.
: Make frozen gauntlet melee only please?
I think this is a terrible idea. I like the item for my mage supports, the slow is great sure, but it's not the main reason I take it.
: As someone who does not simply have the time to do that this idea terrifies me. I've been playing this game for like 6 years+ now, well before champion mastery levels, and while there was a time I could put in 3-5games a day to do that, I have a kid and I'm lucky to get 3 ARAM games in a week now. Why should I be penalized for not having 20 hours free a week to level up some arbitrary number? My skill level on a champion is not determined by how many games I've solo carried or some bullshit, nor should I be prevented from playing champs that I don't get a lot of time on.
I agree, for Norms though. In ranked you absolutely should not be allowed to playe zero XP champs.
JetRam (OCE)
: Regardless of what you think of Nubrac, can we agree NB3's toxic behavior shouldn't go unpunished?
: And that's literally the reason why this sort of a system does nothing and won't improve match quality. Doesn't matter how many games you put in to what champ. You aren't impervious to losing/losing hard/getting stomped in lane so putting a mastery limit won't change a single thing.
I disagree. In fact Phylol had a couple YouTube episodes that mention the win rates of players after x number of games. It's been a while since I've watched it but I think one the number of games played on a single champ was past 50 the win rates began to go up. And the more games played then the more consistent the player's win rate became. He pointed out that with some champs win rates were very high, like around 54-55%. To your point though, it's true I'm certain, of those 45% of games such a player would lose, say 10-15% would be stomps. By forcing a Champ Lvl / Mastery Point requirements they'd be helping players achieve (or at least contribute to) the results I mentioned earlier.
Saezio (EUNE)
: How about we permaban people from ranked if their winrate in their first 100 ranked games is sub 49%. then they need to play 100 normals and if they don't get over 51% winrate they need another 100 games. Wouldn't that increase ranked player population skills much more than your proposal? (this isn't viable I know, it's a bad idea, but you just want stuff that suits YOU PERSONALLY because you play a lot.) It doesn't even matter cause bad players will be in bad elo and good players in good elo in the end no matter the system. Everyone gets where they deserve.
"It doesn't even matter cause bad players will be in bad elo and good players in good elo in the end no matter the system. Everyone gets where they deserve." That's seriously a lazy argument and a poor one at that.
: Hey A fellow Support player! 1. "leveled up with Janna at a 56% win rate. My win rate with Janna in ranked is 12%. Every trick I learned in normal and reinforced over dozens of games don't work in ranked." First let me say I didn't check which division you are. I'm a terrible player and I'm stuck in Silver because of my bad habits, something I'm trying to fix - so remember my experience is based on that Division. I think there isn't enough data to conclude that you low win rate in Ranked is anything to do with the difference in the queues. however, I grant that yes, those Queues are different, people take Normal less seriously (but not by much imo), so I can see why you draw that conclusion. And certainly the difference in the queues are only part of the reason. I suspect (and have zero proof) that the matching making plays a part too. I've noticed that last year most of my Silver games, and B1 games too only included mostly other B1 and S5 players. However, this year the range is much wider including players in Iron! Furthermore, I've been paired players who have little experience with ADC or take a ADC champ with Zero XP points / Mastery points. When in the last prior 3 seasons I've achieved Mid Silver and have just over 500k points on Sona (my main). That shouldn't happen. I suspect (again unsupported opinion) that if Riot fixed that part that win rates across all divisions particularly in the bot lane would increase. In fact some of my biggest intuitions came from me playing normal in other roles in addition to support that helped me get out of Bronze after my first season. And I hope you achieve your goal, and even if you miss it, it doesn't have to "mean nothing". At the very least it's an indication that something in your play is not working. For example - when I play norms (especially when I'm support) I'm looking to play well despite my team. When I feel like we may lose or see that my team is picking way off meta champs I concentrate on other parts of the game besides winning lane. I make sure I'm warding as much and in the best spots I can. I'm looking for Pics in the river with my Jungler / mid laner, I look to roam when appropriate, I look for off-meta but still effective builds that could contribute to a turn around or that I wouldn't try in ranked. And about those builds, if I find something that works surprisingly well, then I build that over and over again to test the build out, if I get good results, I place it in my item build. I look to play and learn other Support champs in norms as well. And I even will play, Mid, ADC, and Jungle so I can get a feel for those roles as well. And over the years i'ts helped. Part of Normals (practice) is having he proper attitude (not to say that yours is wrong or poor).
I'd like to add that I shouldn't be forced to be paired with players who are trying new champs out in ranked.
Unker139 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=La Belle Sauvage,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=2rIiOHME,comment-id=00090000000000020000,timestamp=2019-06-14T17:19:27.899+0000) > > No, I happen to disagree. I've considered the numbers and I'm fine with it. I love how gamers pretend like they don't spend a ton of time playing. But let me accept that is actually the case. > > I still say so what. If Riot implemented my idea (They won't) and reset us all (again never) I'd be excited. > > Because I knew one I was able to play ranked it would be with people who weren't practicing and wasting my time and effort by playing champs they have zero XP playing. I play ranked for two reasons. I like knowing how I compare to other people and I don't enjoy the normal game experience. Normal game, to me, are just as toxic as ranked, are far more unpredictable, and do very little to prepare you for ranked. The best way to learn ranked is to play ranked. I leveled up with Janna at a 56% win rate. My win rate with Janna in ranked is 12%. Every trick I learned in normals and reinforced over dozens of games don't work in ranked. I don't add champions very often but when I do, why should I be forced to play in a game mode I don't like to learn habits that probably won't translate well into ranked? There are 1.1 million ranked players better than me. I hope to break the top million this season. Other than that my rank means nothing. There are 800k ranked players better than you and you are trying to improve. Other than that your rank means nothing. Why is your game experience more important than mine that putting more than mine is justfied? If everyone worse than you were excluded from ranked play so that you didn't get them on your team to ruin your games do you think that you suddenly move up? The rankings are relative to the player base so you would drop.
Hey A fellow Support player! 1. "leveled up with Janna at a 56% win rate. My win rate with Janna in ranked is 12%. Every trick I learned in normal and reinforced over dozens of games don't work in ranked." First let me say I didn't check which division you are. I'm a terrible player and I'm stuck in Silver because of my bad habits, something I'm trying to fix - so remember my experience is based on that Division. I think there isn't enough data to conclude that you low win rate in Ranked is anything to do with the difference in the queues. however, I grant that yes, those Queues are different, people take Normal less seriously (but not by much imo), so I can see why you draw that conclusion. And certainly the difference in the queues are only part of the reason. I suspect (and have zero proof) that the matching making plays a part too. I've noticed that last year most of my Silver games, and B1 games too only included mostly other B1 and S5 players. However, this year the range is much wider including players in Iron! Furthermore, I've been paired players who have little experience with ADC or take a ADC champ with Zero XP points / Mastery points. When in the last prior 3 seasons I've achieved Mid Silver and have just over 500k points on Sona (my main). That shouldn't happen. I suspect (again unsupported opinion) that if Riot fixed that part that win rates across all divisions particularly in the bot lane would increase. In fact some of my biggest intuitions came from me playing normal in other roles in addition to support that helped me get out of Bronze after my first season. And I hope you achieve your goal, and even if you miss it, it doesn't have to "mean nothing". At the very least it's an indication that something in your play is not working. For example - when I play norms (especially when I'm support) I'm looking to play well despite my team. When I feel like we may lose or see that my team is picking way off meta champs I concentrate on other parts of the game besides winning lane. I make sure I'm warding as much and in the best spots I can. I'm looking for Pics in the river with my Jungler / mid laner, I look to roam when appropriate, I look for off-meta but still effective builds that could contribute to a turn around or that I wouldn't try in ranked. And about those builds, if I find something that works surprisingly well, then I build that over and over again to test the build out, if I get good results, I place it in my item build. I look to play and learn other Support champs in norms as well. And I even will play, Mid, ADC, and Jungle so I can get a feel for those roles as well. And over the years i'ts helped. Part of Normals (practice) is having he proper attitude (not to say that yours is wrong or poor).
Saezio (EUNE)
: Too bad for you riot has sense then. I need to play 10 games minimum on a champ to bring them in ranked? Even if I have played it tons on other accounts? And I need to spam games on 20 champs to get in ranked? xD that's just delusional, and it gimps people that don't want to waste all their time "enabling" champs for ranked.
Delusional? Hardly. However, you bring up some good points despite the tone of your post. 10 games minimum to get into ranked, should be criminal. Joking aside, as I've noted in my prior responses, I would welcome very high requirements before players are allowed to Play Ranked. Furthermore, I'd also embrace your suggestion from a former post, that anytime any player falls below a certain win percentage that riot would require some number x of Norms etc to get back into the Ranked Solo Queue. Keep in mind my suggestion is for the Solo Ranked queue, so everyone would have access to the normal queue. And despite popular belief you can get good practice in Norms, if you commit. And that's what it boils down to, players are unwilling to commit. And I'd be wiling to wager that if Riot implemented my suggestion and yours, that a majority of players would meet those requirements in a reasonable amount of time. And that casual players wouldn't be far behind. It seems like players love to claim "I don't have time" (by the way I call B.S.) so they claim to be allowed to play ranked and potentially ruin other's experience because they can't be bothered to commit. And hey for all you players who don't have the time, I understand how harsh this sounds and I emphasize with you. When I didn't have the time to commit to ranked queues in this game and others, I stay out. Heck this year, despite playing ton I still have a terrible win rate. And I've played a lot less ranked games this year than I have in prior, because I care that my inability to help my team win will affect other's experience. So I've been playing a lot more Norms. When I feel like I'm in a better position I'll try again.
Saezio (EUNE)
: How about we permaban people from ranked if their winrate in their first 100 ranked games is sub 49%. then they need to play 100 normals and if they don't get over 51% winrate they need another 100 games. Wouldn't that increase ranked player population skills much more than your proposal? (this isn't viable I know, it's a bad idea, but you just want stuff that suits YOU PERSONALLY because you play a lot.) It doesn't even matter cause bad players will be in bad elo and good players in good elo in the end no matter the system. Everyone gets where they deserve.
Yes, I think that's a fantastic idea. No doubt you saw my current win rate (even if you didn't) and thought you'd suggest that rule. And I have played very poorly this year, so if Riot thought your idea was a good one, I'd welcome it with Open arms, like the Cheesy Journey Song "So now I come to you with open arms, nothing to hide, believe what I say so here I am, with open arms hoping you'll see what your queue means to me, Open arms..." I'm willing to embrace any rule Riot would put in place that would ensure a better ranked environment. Especially if it ensured that players who Queue up for Solo Ranked are serious. Not a bunch of goof offs trying to practice in Ranked. In addition to my suggestion. Note, if you're not a Goof off, and I'm speaking to the hordes of people who will claim "not me", then obviously I wasn't referring to you. Good suggestion!
: With the new uncapped level I think the obvious answer is to raise the level cap 5-10 levels for ranked. It takes no time at all to hit 30 now and I thought that was a problem when they implemented that, but there's much easier ways to fix this than limiting the available options to new ranked players. They would start with an even bigger disadvantage than they already do now compared to people who have been playing the game longer. It would also make absolutely 0 new people see that pre-req and go "yeah that's worth it just to play the competitive mode".
If we only considered level? I'd say something like level 80 or 90. But I think level (alone) doesn't mean much. LvL + Champ Mastery + Mastery points is slightly better.
Saezio (EUNE)
: My comment was sarcastic mate. Wanted to point out that needing 50k mastery to play a champ in ranked is just delusional. Let people play what they want where they want. As it is now :) cheers and happy fighting mate!
I disagree, if it was a 1v1 sure, but it's a team game. And since it is I feel like people shouldn't be allowed to practice in a ranked game.
Leetri (EUW)
: You need at the very least 20 champions that are playable in order to even queue up for ranked. 10 bans, 10 picks. That's 20. Only way to have anything lower than that is to remove bans and change how many players there are in a game. Any mastery restriction thus has to apply to every single champion, which at the very minimum is 20. Otherwise I can just get mastery 5 on 5 champions and still pick champions I've never played before. At 50% win rate it takes about 33 games to reach mastery 5. That's 660 games in order to just play ranked at all. An average game is about 30 minutes long, which means it's 330 HOURS of gameplay, or 2 hours every single day for over half a year. That means it could take 7-8 months before people can play ranked again. Most people don't play that much, so it's gonna take basically a year before the ranked population is back. And that's just the average, it could take way longer or somewhat shorter depending on how good you are. Once you start to look at the numbers you'll realize how ridiculous of a suggestion that is. It can only work if it was there from the start, but it's not so it can't work.
No, I happen to disagree. I've considered the numbers and I'm fine with it. I love how gamers pretend like they don't spend a ton of time playing. But let me accept that is actually the case. I still say so what. If Riot implemented my idea (They won't) and reset us all (again never) I'd be excited. Because I knew when I was able to play ranked it would be with people who weren't practicing and wasting my time and effort by playing champs they have zero XP playing.
: I don't have time for that. And what happens when you get an off-role auto fill game??? This is so fucking dumb I can't believe how many times it needs to be explained. If I only have enough time to play 3-5 games in any given week why is my playstyle limited? Jesus H. Christ not everyone who plays this game has 10+ hours every week to get high mastery level. When I play ranked I do it because I desire a competitive environment, not a bunch of snowflake 13 year olds who think I need to have 100+ games on every champion I use to be competent at my role. I have a life and responsibility and my games should not punish me for that.
Then play norms if you don't have the time. But that (I know isn't a good response) so here is one, so what? At some point playing 1 or 2 games per day you'd reach that mark. And when you did you'd be in a good position to play ranked games without wasting time playing zero XP champs. And finally get over yourself, it's just a suggestion.
: > [{quoted}](name=La Belle Sauvage,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=2rIiOHME,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2019-06-13T16:23:45.574+0000) > > I think this can be enfoced by by requiring a mix of minmum mastery level (say 5) and mastery points like (hard to pick a good number) but at least 50k. > > This not only prevents new champs but people taking existing champs into ranked with little or no mp points. There is a huge problem with that suggestion though. If that were to be implemented then new players would not only have to grind to level 30 and grind BE ( assuming they dont just buy champs with RP) in order to get enough champs to be able to play every role in ranked in case they get filled, they would have to grind to mastery 3 with each of those champs in order to even start ranking. This would of course lead to more cases of players choosing the one champ that they have at mastery three despite what role they might be and lead to more ruined games. Honestly there really is no way to implement a system of that sort withtout ruining some aspect of the game for players. Also this problem doesn’t exclusively affect your team but the other team as well, so chance is on your side ( assuming youre not the player first timing the champ) because at the most you have a possibility of getting four of those players on your team while the enemy has a chance if getting five of those players on their team. ( I just copypasted this response because you had the same idea)
Yeah, I realize it's not perfect, but that's right. I am tired of players practicing in ranked. In my humble opinion that shouldn't be allowed.
Leetri (EUW)
: Also prevents like 95% of the player base from playing ranked at all since you need at least 20 champions at mastery 5.
Yeah no. Look, the idea is to prevent Yahoo's from taking zero experience champs into ranked. I never said how many champs should be level 5 / 50 k points (so maybe something less like 30k). Maybe they could change the # (if it's actually 20) to say 5 or 10 champs. Getting lvl 5 and 30 - 50k mo points isn't that hard or time consuming. But there should be a high bar to play ranked.
afmghost (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ornndyr2k19,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=vrmBjMNv,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-06-13T13:37:53.847+0000) > > "Riot is paying women less than men" > this is the most bullcrap base for investigation one can hope to investigate > > pay should be based on your contribution to the company and your assertiveness for the raise > most women don't seek out to get a raise > most men that do get raises seek it actively > > im sure a 10y male employee will be thrilled to find out that the 1y female cowerker is getting paid the same because of reasons > that would be a hard incentive for senior employees to leave the company if it becomes so While I agree that pay should be based off of the employee's contributions to the company, as well as things like merit and experience, this is Riot games we're talking about. I checked the article, and it mentions that it's also about things like sexual harassment and assault, not just pay. The article also says that Riot is refusing to provide the information requested. The only reason they would be doing that is if they are trying to hide something. I mean people refuse to take drug tests or take tests at sobriety checkpoints because they're under the influence, and refusal to comply makes it worse for them. Why shouldn't it make it worse for riot?
> [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=vrmBjMNv,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-06-13T13:47:58.807+0000) > > While I agree that pay should be based off of the employee's contributions to the company, as well as things like merit and experience, this is Riot games we're talking about. I checked the article, and it mentions that it's also about things like sexual harassment and assault, not just pay. > The article also says that Riot is refusing to provide the information requested. The only reason they would be doing that is if they are trying to hide something. I mean people refuse to take drug tests or take tests at sobriety checkpoints because they're under the influence, and refusal to comply makes it worse for them. Why shouldn't it make it worse for riot? Funny how far reading will take you! Good post.
: Please, I beg, stop allowing new champions in ranked.
I think this can be enfoced by by requiring a mix of minmum mastery level (say 5) and mastery points like (hard to pick a good number) but at least 50k. This not only prevents new champs but people taking existing champs into ranked with little or no mp points.
: > [{quoted}](name=La Belle Sauvage,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=JAEW1pGm,comment-id=000e,timestamp=2019-06-05T19:02:22.634+0000) > > This line: > > "I am truly sorry and ask if there is any way for you to offer me **a second chance to prove that _you are all deserving_ of better treatment from me,** and help me to become a better person through being positive together." > > Undoes everything you were trying to accomplish. > > Not sure if you are intentionally arrogant or not but regardless it's clear you're not sincere. It's unfortunate you feel that way, as I have already started to take these steps without your permission. And while yes literally they did give me a few chances over the many years, I meant it moreso from a new account perspective, because that's what it took to actually make me realize that the fuck I had been doing. Thanks for taking the time to respond none the less :)
Perhaps it was a mistake in your writing.
: An Open Apology to the Community and Riot Games
This line: "I am truly sorry and ask if there is any way for you to offer me **a second chance to prove that _you are all deserving_ of better treatment from me,** and help me to become a better person through being positive together." Undoes everything you were trying to accomplish. Not sure if you are intentionally arrogant or not but regardless it's clear you're not sincere.
: Out. RIP. (I loved the line for nostalgia, but it... really doesn't fit. T_T)
Thilmer (EUW)
: The obvious reason why Riot doesn't want to show the famous MMR and explain how it works is just because people will literally laugh at their faces about how absurd their system is. Just take into account things like "promos" or restarting everyone's Rank every year… that's absolutly stupid and obviously a proper ranking system would never have those things.
I loathe placements every year. First thing that should be Improved regarding solo ranked q
Lan Fan (EUW)
: Any "No meta" thing is troll until a pro plays it, and it's annoying
Agree, part of the fun are finding builds that work with my play style.
: Smurfing ruins peoples attempts at climbing
I wish there was a way to prevent smurfing, but from a YouTube point of view, Smurfs who make those sort of videos are (shivers) beneficial to Riot aka free advertising. That being said I hate Smurfs just in general. But I suspect that I have faced very few based on how bad both teams play in my ranked games, this year in particular.
: Give us an option to remove the chat completely
If you can't mute all you have serious issues ;) joking aside though, (and while I mute all nearly every game) I agree make it a check box in the settings.
: Because regardless of how well you did in the prior season, the game will be changed a ton before the start of the next one. A player who did well abusing Irelia bot when marksmen were so terrible they couldn't be played doesn't say much for their overall skill. Not saying you did that, but this system is in place to account for the fact there are things from season to season that get changed. That's why people don't just get a reward every season for being gold in season 1.
Btw I didn't downvote you, but I disagree with your point, because your example is moot. If you play regularly then changes from a patch to patch and season to season won't have much impact. This type of player reads patch notes maybe watches a streamer or two and tries out what the learned. And if you don't play the game for a long time? Chances are most players will take a little time to read up on the patch notes, maybe watch some videos Lastly, let us consider a brute Force type of player. This player is just going to play game after game until they figure out what does and doesn't work for their skill level. Regardless, all types of players are accounted for by the ladder system itself, without annual promotional games. In fact promotional games should be optional and an ego check. Think you're good enough for gold? Opt in for gold promos. Maybe Riot could design something around that. Say if you are silver and will winning at a certain rate you can opt for a promotional game to skip by silver 1 or 2. Anyhow aside crazy, not well thought through ideas? Anuual promo games aren't viable and should be removed.
Rioter Comments
: I really would love a deeper dive on the postional ranking, matchmaking, and how the current placements make little if any sense. Is Riot willing to change or even roll back any parts of the above mentioned? I'm sure I'm not the only player that has a big issue with this new system.
: The Good, The Bad, and the League: 2/21 - 2/27
I really would love a deeper dive on the postional ranking, matchmaking, and how the current placements make little if any sense. Is Riot willing to change or even roll back any parts of the above mentioned? I'm sure I'm not the only player that has a big issue with this new system.
TheCarrrys (EUNE)
: rank players
I somewhat agree, but consider this, by the way I'm just taking a guess at what it might be. Right now I'm ranked B1, though I finished Silver 3 last year. So as I went through placements and began climbing through B1 My MMR kept placing me with Mid Silver players. Until I started facing Silver 2's and occasional 1's. Both teams had a mix bronzies between B4 and B1. As I started to lose some of those games I'm seeing a more fair mix in my matches, say between Bronze 2 to Silver 4, I mean I don't like it, but I think it will even out soon. On one hand it feels good that my MMR is possibly high, but bad because both team are saddled with players that shouldn't be in the match. Like I get maybe a Bronze 2 and 1 in a Silver 5 or 4 match, but a bronze 3 and below? I'd imagine there is the same frustration all the way up the ladder. I'm curious if it will continue to smooth out as I play more, like all players are b1 etc. Have you already played a lot of games so far? I'm about 55 games in and the first time in all seasons (except the first) I'm sitting below a 50% win rate. Typically my win rate is around the 54-56%. I'm hoping it's just because it's early in the season, otherwise they have changed ranked for the worse. I suppose time will tell. I think the biggest offense that Riot makes with these matches is placing brand new players with veteran players. What I mean by that is, in my first round of promos to get back into Silver, one of the matches I had a player who was rank 32, took Ash mid vs a vlad and went 0-8. A player like this should never be in a game like that. I have a problem with how brand new accounts are given enough MMR to be matched in B1? That player should be down in the dregs of B5 or I5. Not in my Silver promos.
: I feel like everyone who thinks this didn't play back in season 3. Gold for supports was practically none existent back then and it is so much better now. I think what I see supports average in gold is fine currently.
Meh, you may have a point, but before the change regardless of how well I perform I seem to be in the bottom 3 of gold earners. If this change makes it worse than I think it's a potential problem. Looking over my games though it's hard to gauge if I'm making any less. I haven't taken the time to really look.
Show more

La Belle Sauvage

Level 193 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion