: Haven't you ever procrastinated your homework? College classes be like "Due by 11:55 pm" Turning it in at 11:54 like {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} Riot is just full of college students obviously.{{sticker:sg-lulu}}
> [{quoted}](name=Animewolflady,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=sJPAykzP,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-09-12T19:14:35.430+0000) > > Haven't you ever procrastinated your homework? > College classes be like "Due by 11:55 pm" > Turning it in at 11:54 like {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} > Riot is just full of college students obviously.{{sticker:sg-lulu}} Considering what we know about riot culture, this probably isn't far from the truth
: Why do people play “bad” champs
Games exist to have fun. People play "weak" champs because they find those champs fun. This isn't a hard concept. They'd rather lose a few more games on a champ they enjoy, than be meta slaves to champs they can't stand playing.
: It happened. I finally did it. I achieved the goal I set out for myself for this year.
: *ATTENTION ALL ADCS* JINX IS BROKEN
While it's true that she may be broken, your build sucks. IE+Runaans is her core. Rapidfire third. Then LW and a defensive item.
: What happens if you get feared and charmed at the same time?
That's an interesting question. Some possibilities: 1) One or the other always takes priority. 2) Most recently applied takes priority. 3) First applied takes priority. 4) Neither take priority and the character moves according to the vector sum of both. This sounds like something worth testing.
Veuillez (NA)
: How do i disable skins???
Short of hacking the game, you're stuck with it
: 967 skins with 4 more on the way what should the 1000 be?
Clearly it'll be an Ultimate skin for Ahri that you can only buy in a massive $60 bundle.
Leufaya (OCE)
: Star Guardian Xayah and Rakan Splash Art [Purified Version Photoshop]
That looks gorgeous. Way better than what riot gave us.
: With what sources. I didn't know OTPing was the best way to climb. Explain yourself!
> [{quoted}](name=l Ryden l,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=82YGqyUF,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2019-08-28T01:27:49.473+0000) > > With what sources. I didn't know OTPing was the best way to climb. Explain yourself! Sticking to one champion means learning lots of little details with them that help you climb. If you're a one-trick, you've got a lot more experience on that champion than any other, which will tend to result in you becoming more skilled with them more quickly. It also ensures you're never rusty on your champion, since you don't have other champions to occupy your time. Every additional champ you try to get and keep at a high level requires a significant additional time investment. If you play a large number of champs, you're probably missing details on *all* of them simply due to not being exposed to as many situations on each champion, and might forget or mix up details of them. This is why it's recommended to stick to 2-3 champs at most for ranked. A main, a backup, and maybe a second backup. Of course, you could always omit the backups and just dodge whenever you don't get your OTP.
Teh Song (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=0001000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-21T05:00:49.398+0000) > > So, suppose a champion is completely overtuned and has an incredibly simple kit that anyone can use effectively. In fact, if you're breathing and know how to press buttons, you're basically guaranteed to win on this champion. There's no decision-making and no mechanics involved. Just an incredibly straightforward "you win" button. Are you going to tell me they have a high skill ceiling, even though it takes no actual skill to utilize their power? *Skill ceiling* refers to a measurement of the skill expression it takes to bring out a champion's full potential. It's not the same thing as raw power. > > High skill ceiling champions are *usually* very powerful when played to their full potential, since it's so hard to bring that potential out in them, but there can be low skill ceiling champs that are powerful, and high skill ceiling champs that are weak. It's a fundamentally different mechanism than what you're talking about. What you just described is caused by low skill floor. The reason most anyone can be good at that champion is because of it's low skill floor. *How good* they can be is it's skill ceiling, yes. That said, you can talk about a champion being over or under powered from straight up design error without even talking about skill floor and ceiling, at that level. You don't get to take a term everyone has been using one way forever, and decide it means something else because you personally like that alternative definition better.
> [{quoted}](name=Teh Song,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=00010000000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-21T07:08:00.549+0000) > > You don't get to take a term everyone has been using one way forever, and decide it means something else because you personally like that alternative definition better. I should say the same to you. This clearly isn't going anywhere.
Teh Song (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=00010000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-20T20:49:58.846+0000) > > Sorry, you're wrong. Skill ceiling/floor have nothing to do with a champion's power, only how hard it is to utilize that power. Elise has always had a high skill ceiling, but has often been considered a troll pick even in high elo, because even when pushed to her limit, she still isn't that "good." Azir, on the other hand, has a high skill ceiling *and* a high amount of power, to the point he was frequently pick/ban in competitive. Maybe still is? I don't know what the current meta looks like. Either way, both of these champions suck in low elo and only perform well in high elo, but elise merely performs "average" in high elo, on par with other much easier champions, while azir performs amazingly. > > As for skill floor, that term is so muddied it's not even worth using anymore. Depending on who you talk to, it can either mean "the minimum skill needed to perform effectively on a champ" or "the minimum starting skill a player *will have* on a champ." The former places annie as a low skill floor champion; the latter places her as a high skill floor champion. I've long since given up on trying to argue that one is "correct" and just avoid using it to avoid confusion. Skill ceiling is much more straightforward; no matter how you define skill floor, skill ceiling is always the maximum extent to which skill expression will make a difference in the champion's performance. No matter how you define skill floor, skill ceiling is always the maximum possible effectiveness a given thing can be brought to. Skill floor and ceiling are measures of potential effectiveness. End of discussion. In all my life you are the only person I have ever encountered that tried to use the term differently.
> [{quoted}](name=Teh Song,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=000100000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-21T01:16:41.784+0000) > > No matter how you define skill floor, skill ceiling is always the maximum possible effectiveness a given thing can be brought to. > Skill floor and ceiling are measures of potential effectiveness. > End of discussion. > In all my life you are the only person I have ever encountered that tried to use the term differently. So, suppose a champion is completely overtuned and has an incredibly simple kit that anyone can use effectively. In fact, if you're breathing and know how to press buttons, you're basically guaranteed to win on this champion. There's no decision-making and no mechanics involved. Just an incredibly straightforward "you win" button. Are you going to tell me they have a high skill ceiling, even though it takes no actual skill to utilize their power? *Skill ceiling* refers to a measurement of the skill expression it takes to bring out a champion's full potential. It's not the same thing as raw power. High skill ceiling champions are *usually* very powerful when played to their full potential, since it's so hard to bring that potential out in them, but there can be low skill ceiling champs that are powerful, and high skill ceiling champs that are weak. It's a fundamentally different mechanism than what you're talking about.
Teh Song (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-19T20:35:39.967+0000) > > Skill ceiling refers to where player skill expression caps out, *not* where the champion's effectiveness ends. A low skill ceiling implies the champion is easy to be good on, but doesn't say anything about what happens to their effectiveness as you climb the ladder with them. A worse player with a low skill ceiling champion could consistently beat a better player with a high skill ceiling champion, if they're using a counterpick. It doesn't matter that the champ has less room for skill expression; they have the tools they need to shut down the high skill expression champion regardless. > > You don't need to understand the game as well to achieve results on a simple champion. This can lead to a simple champion thriving in both high and low elo, if that champion is strong. While more complex champions may be merely "balanced" in high elo, but trash in low elo because players there can't draw out what the champion is capable of. .....no. A given things skill ceiling is its maximum possible effectiveness. The point at which further increase in skill will not net further increase in performance. That's what that term means. That's what that term has always meant. If a given champion in LoL has a low skill ceiling, that means it has limited effectiveness, and ceases to be playable in matches where the player skill level is above the champion's skill ceiling. The description you tried to give is closer to skill floor than skill ceiling. A skill floor is of course the minimum skill level a player needs to have to effectively use the thing in question.
> [{quoted}](name=Teh Song,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=0001000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-20T10:36:54.961+0000) > > .....no. > > A given things skill ceiling is its maximum possible effectiveness. > The point at which further increase in skill will not net further increase in performance. > That's what that term means. > That's what that term has always meant. > > If a given champion in LoL has a low skill ceiling, that means it has limited effectiveness, and ceases to be playable in matches where the player skill level is above the champion's skill ceiling. > > The description you tried to give is closer to skill floor than skill ceiling. > > A skill floor is of course the minimum skill level a player needs to have to effectively use the thing in question. Sorry, you're wrong. Skill ceiling/floor have nothing to do with a champion's power, only how hard it is to utilize that power. Elise has always had a high skill ceiling, but has often been considered a troll pick even in high elo, because even when pushed to her limit, she still isn't that "good." Azir, on the other hand, has a high skill ceiling *and* a high amount of power, to the point he was frequently pick/ban in competitive. Maybe still is? I don't know what the current meta looks like. Either way, both of these champions suck in low elo and only perform well in high elo, but elise merely performs "average" in high elo, on par with other much easier champions, while azir performs amazingly. As for skill floor, that term is so muddied it's not even worth using anymore. Depending on who you talk to, it can either mean "the minimum skill needed to perform effectively on a champ" or "the minimum starting skill a player *will have* on a champ." The former places annie as a low skill floor champion; the latter places her as a high skill floor champion. I've long since given up on trying to argue that one is "correct" and just avoid using it to avoid confusion. Skill ceiling is much more straightforward; no matter how you define skill floor, skill ceiling is always the maximum extent to which skill expression will make a difference in the champion's performance.
Nithke (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=000100000002,timestamp=2019-08-19T04:34:34.461+0000) > > Isn't Yi generally considered pretty complex? Like once you get past the dumb bit of "hurr durr all he does is auto", that is. Champions with simple kits are more complex because the strength of your kit can't compensate for your mistakes, it's more about game knowledge than mechanics
> [{quoted}](name=Nithke,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=0001000000020001,timestamp=2019-08-19T19:24:51.553+0000) > > Champions with simple kits are more complex because the strength of your kit can't compensate for your mistakes, it's more about game knowledge than mechanics That game knowledge requirement is true for any champion, though. You can't say yi is complex because he requires high game knowledge to thrive in high elo, when *any* champion requires high game knowledge to thrive in high elo.
Teh Song (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=0001000000010000,timestamp=2019-08-19T04:26:12.185+0000) > > No, that's not even remotely fair. > > Then again, I'm used to uninformed opinions from you. that is the definition of fair. You can't call a game balanced if one player can beat another equally skilled player just because they happen to be using a character with a higher skill ceiling. Especially if you want balance to be based on the best players, which Riot does. it also makes those lower ceiling characters unplayable, in the end. Every champion needs to be equally viable, therefore they can't have different ceilings. End of story.
> [{quoted}](name=Teh Song,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cjHebjgb,comment-id=00010000000100000000,timestamp=2019-08-19T04:38:48.227+0000) > > that is the definition of fair. > You can't call a game balanced if one player can beat another equally skilled player just because they happen to be using a character with a higher skill ceiling. > Especially if you want balance to be based on the best players, which Riot does. > it also makes those lower ceiling characters unplayable, in the end. > Every champion needs to be equally viable, therefore they can't have different ceilings. End of story. Skill ceiling refers to where player skill expression caps out, *not* where the champion's effectiveness ends. A low skill ceiling implies the champion is easy to be good on, but doesn't say anything about what happens to their effectiveness as you climb the ladder with them. A worse player with a low skill ceiling champion could consistently beat a better player with a high skill ceiling champion, if they're using a counterpick. It doesn't matter that the champ has less room for skill expression; they have the tools they need to shut down the high skill expression champion regardless. You don't need to understand the game as well to achieve results on a simple champion. This can lead to a simple champion thriving in both high and low elo, if that champion is strong. While more complex champions may be merely "balanced" in high elo, but trash in low elo because players there can't draw out what the champion is capable of.
: Me and my wife spent $2,000 on this game in the last year - Here is my opinion on Eternals.
It's depressing seeing how many people come into this thread to bash whales for spending money on content they enjoy, when those same whales are the only reason this "free to play" game exists at all. Reality check, guys: Whaling in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It's when whales spend money blindly without considering what they're getting for that money that it becomes a problem. This guy clearly is putting thought into what he's buying, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=vegwF0Et,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-08-17T11:11:45.213+0000) > > $2k is absolutely a whale. > > Minnow: $5 per month or less (<$60 per year) > Dolphin: High-end threshold depends on the game, but generally speaking, is under $50 per month (<$600 per year) > Whale: Anything more than the dolphin (>$600 per year, and often >$1000 per year) > > There are different tiers of whales, sure, but anything over a grand is definitely some form of whale. lmao never heard of those other ones before. Did you make this shit up on th spot?
> [{quoted}](name=Furious Delisha,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=vegwF0Et,comment-id=000600000000,timestamp=2019-08-17T15:52:48.534+0000) > > lmao never heard of those other ones before. Did you make this shit up on th spot? https://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/11/whales-dolphins-and-minnows-the-beating-heart-of-a-free-to-play-game/ https://gameanalytics.com/blog/how-to-identify-whales-in-your-game.html Just because you're uninformed doesn't mean everyone else is. The Minnow-Dolphin-Whale model has been used to describe paying users in f2p games for a *long* time now. One of those articles even calls ">$20/mo" a whale, which is barely a couple hundred a year, though that was also from 8 years ago. That's why I said it depends on the game and its monetization model. In a gacha game that you need to spend $20 just to buy a multi-roll, you could easily spend $200 on a single *banner* before getting what you want. With league's monetization model, I'd say buying an average of one skin per month would make you a dolphin, and buying multiple per month would make you a whale.
: Is $2,000 a year a whale? I thought whale was considered at least 10K. Then again, League doesn't have as many micro transactions as other games
> [{quoted}](name=General Esdeath ,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=vegwF0Et,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-08-17T08:33:59.223+0000) > > Is $2,000 a year a whale? I thought whale was considered at least 10K. Then again, League doesn't have as many micro transactions as other games $2k is absolutely a whale. Minnow: $5 per month or less (<$60 per year) Dolphin: High-end threshold depends on the game, but generally speaking, is under $50 per month (<$600 per year) Whale: Anything more than the dolphin (>$600 per year, and often >$1000 per year) There are different tiers of whales, sure, but anything over a grand is definitely some form of whale.
Lapis (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=OYjeh6Rl,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-08-17T08:12:27.393+0000) > > Honestly, if people get flamed for it, good. The only way to tell riot we don't like what they're doing is by voting with our wallets, and getting other people to do the same. If the very environment of the game itself dissuades people from buying eternals, riot will feel the impact on their bottom line. I get your point, and agree with you in theory. But the reality is that this attitude is probably mostly going to affect kids who thought they were buying something cool. And i don't think sending a message to Riot is worth bullying children? Or anyone, really. But mostly children.
> [{quoted}](name=Lapis,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=OYjeh6Rl,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-08-17T08:17:21.191+0000) > > I get your point, and agree with you in theory. But the reality is that this attitude is probably mostly going to affect kids who thought they were buying something cool. And i don't think sending a message to Riot is worth bullying children? Or anyone, really. But mostly children. Children don't have credit cards. An incredibly small percentage of spenders are children, who have to ask their parents to buy the new shiny thing for them. Eternals will be primarily bought by full-grown adults that make poor life decisions.
Lapis (OCE)
: Eternals is only going to create toxicity, and not in the way Riot might think
Honestly, if people get flamed for it, good. The only way to tell riot we don't like what they're doing is by voting with our wallets, and getting other people to do the same. If the very environment of the game itself dissuades people from buying eternals, riot will feel the impact on their bottom line.
: > [{quoted}](name=Kitsune Kawaii,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=957tL1cc,comment-id=000200010000000000010000,timestamp=2019-08-16T17:39:05.075+0000) > > If you really believe that quoting video games characters is cringy and your name isn't then there is no point of arguing ok. point out what part of my name is cringey so i can understand what you mean
> [{quoted}](name=PrettyGirlsFeet,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=957tL1cc,comment-id=0002000100000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-08-16T18:35:03.376+0000) > > ok. point out what part of my name is cringey so i can understand what you mean your name is literally a fetish
: > [{quoted}](name=TheUrbanKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=sBGlZjr4,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-09T23:41:52.602+0000) > > They're not going to though. The promise of a 'fresh and better meta' is a thinly veiled excuse for not having enough time and resources to fit everything in by their release deadline. > I wasn't a huge fan of Z-moves, but mega evolutions were actually pretty cool, and they're replacing it with this garbage dynamaxing mechanic. > Congrats, you made their models... bigger. > Now only if they could do that for the rest of the Pokemon instead we'd have a full dex. :D > And if by reinforcements you mean SOS battles, that is one mechanic I'm going to be devastated to see leave. > SOS chaining is one of THE BEST methods of shiny hunting I've ever used, it's a lot more tolerable than the god forsaken poke'radar garbage. So, Doing a bit more research, Dynamaxing is... Basically Z moves on crack... Well so long for that being gone. As for Mega Evolutions.. While i wont say they are exactly problematic... They did kinda have this problem of "Some were useless in comparison to others", And quite honestly while they were... Fairly randomly made. Infact, I'll list some that i didn't even know HAD mega-evolutions because no one really talked about them, let alone used them. Salamence Slowbro (Not slowking.. Slowbro...) Camerupt Sharp3do Steelix Pidgeot Medicham Manectric Audino Abomasnow Heracross And Pinsir. 11 out of the 48 are basically about as acknowledged as the crumbs in Gamefreak's keyboards And, While they were definitely things that had a sort of charm to them... The fact was that in order to get to every pokemon, They'd half to cut the roster several times and then basically give all pokemon an evolution that can only be used in battle.
> [{quoted}](name=ZenithEevee,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=sBGlZjr4,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-10T01:18:45.550+0000) > > Infact, I'll list some that i didn't even know HAD mega-evolutions because no one really talked about them, let alone used them. > > Salamence > Slowbro (Not slowking.. Slowbro...) > Camerupt > Sharp3do > Steelix > Pidgeot > Medicham > Manectric > Audino > Abomasnow > Heracross > And Pinsir. > > 11 out of the 48 are basically about as acknowledged as the crumbs in Gamefreak's keyboards Some of the pokemon you listed have ridiculously strong megas, so I don't know what rock you've been living under that you've never heard of them.
Gabresol (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=z5EG4Hok,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2019-07-29T03:00:57.956+0000) > > That's not how statistics work. You can omit those datapoints if you feel they're outliers, but fabricating them into new datapoints is just lying. Him adding it does not change the other stats given, so it does not even matter. What does matter, of course, is that you need to somehow factor in these special cases if you wanna check how reliable the strategy is. Obviously that would be quite complicted. Midlaner-Runners and ragequitters are to a winrate statistic, what native speakers are to surveys that test how well a school's language education is. You cannot claim that your education is good because of the 9/21 100% scorse if, while 8 of these are native to the language the test was about. And the same goes for this win ratio. You cannot claim that the strategy works poorly, if a significan amount of losses come from sabotaged games, what is excactly what games are where someone runs it down or quits. But since these things CAN happen, you need to factor them in somehow. Now this is where the fun part begins. 203 games is not a large sample-size, but in theory you would do the following: Wins: 128 + Losses: 85 = 213 games Losses due to someone rage quitting: 18 + Losses due to someone running it down: 13 = 31 LdRR (looses due Running_Down and Ragequit) 31/213 = 0.15 (who care about what's 3 after dot?) so a chance of 15% LdRR We have an over all Lose rate of 40% The chances of loosing and that loss being due to LdRR are 31 LdRR / 85 Losses = 0.36 or 36% If we were now to use apply these stats onto 1000 games we would end up with 150 LdRR Because LdRR are 36% of all losses, we have a total of (150/0.36) 417 losses. 417 Losses / 1000 games = 0.417 or 41.7% Lose-Rate or a 58.3% winrate. For the variacne we have s^2 = 1000 * 0.583 * 0.417 = 243.11 So teh standart deviation s = 15.59 That means that any 1000 games played with the same level of skill and in the same elo range (from where he started to where he ended up) are gonna be around 15.59 games off the calcualted winratio. Now, as I said: 203 games is a small sample-size for that kinda stuff. BUT you wanted to talk about statistics so here you have statistics. Edit: Actually, here is a list with Baises that explain why these stats are actually useless: - Nubrac is smurfing (does not portrait the actually skill level of the elo) - People might run it down or quit because of Nubrac and not because of the strat. - All games were played on NA (results may heavily vary on other servers) - The elo is unconsistent (the stats only count if someone makes teh exact same journey mmr-wise) So... How could we potentially get stats that could help us determine the worth of this strat? First of all: All stats collected only apply on the region they were collected. I would say we gather a certain amount of players (number should not influence Teemo's playrat e too much) with around the same game knowledge and skill level (especially on Teemo) and let them play 500 games each with the strat. Because the strat relies on map awareness and positioning a lot, as well as semi-decent botlaners, I would say the players need to be at least like diamond 3 (not sure, never played that elo). Of course the accounts names have to something neutral like "Thor33" or "StarPlatinum_TheCup" because names that implied a strategy or a champion could have influence on player behavoir. For similar reasons, communication is to be kept to a minimum (explanations and NO flame or encouragement) and should look very similar from all subjects. To sum up: Around **10 Regional Players** in around **Dia 3** play **500 Games** using the strat with **very similar communication pattern** and **unmarked accounts**. With the stats of **Win-Rate**, **LdRR** and **Resulting Elo** we should be able to gather data that allows us to determing how potentially effective that strat is. Potentially becaus people in lower elo would obviously execute it in a lower level.
> [{quoted}](name=Gabresol,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=z5EG4Hok,comment-id=000c0001,timestamp=2019-07-30T09:26:44.290+0000) > > (snip) You put way too much effort into this for a throwaway post on a league of legends forum.
Nubrac (NA)
: Famous Nubrac Just Hit Diamond Only Playing Roaming Teemo Support
> 75% winrate if you take out the rage quitters and inters and turn them into wins. That's not how statistics work. You can omit those datapoints if you feel they're outliers, but fabricating them into new datapoints is just lying.
: Could we get a client feature to be able to set reminders after the game??
Would also be useful to be able to set reminders during game, to remind yourself to report toxicity after game instead of just mashing the "play again" button
Rockman (NA)
: would you eat any of these
Yes, as a matter of fact, I would
: If you were a champion, what would your champion selection quote be?
Select quote: "Ugh, do I have to?" Ban quote: "Thanks, I didn't want to play anyway."
: nunu only needs to hit one snowball
Rewarding him for hitting more snowballs is fine and dandy, but not like this. Something simple, like "snowbound enemies take X% more damage from additional snowballs" would be much more appropriate. Would of course be accompanied with a slight reduction to base damage, so it doesn't overbuff him.
: If vote manipulation is occuring (and it was, don't even argue that, a popular EU streamer asked his viewers to upvote the thread on stream, which is textbook vote manipulation) the mods are well within their rights to disable voting, as the voting no longer represents community opinion and is instead just a means to force the thread to the top of the hot pages.
> [{quoted}](name=VoidStaresBack,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZAJdyaQR,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-07-06T12:10:17.968+0000) > > If vote manipulation is occuring (and it was, don't even argue that, a popular EU streamer asked his viewers to upvote the thread on stream, which is textbook vote manipulation) the mods are well within their rights to disable voting, as the voting no longer represents community opinion and is instead just a means to force the thread to the top of the hot pages. Each person gets one vote. What's so wrong with that? Claiming that it's "vote manipulation" is just a shitty way to say "I don't like that you have people that agree with you." The only *real* vote manipulation is when a bunch of alt accounts vote on a thread to give one person more weight than they deserve, which does happen quite a bit, but this is rarely the fault of the person who made the thread.
: Let a double 4/1 surrender vote pre 20 count as a surrender.
The only thing that needs to change is a failed pre-20 surrender should not prevent trying to surrender post-20. If someone throws a surrender vote up at 19:20 and it goes 4-1, the surrender option will be locked out for several minutes, forcing the game to go longer.
Subdue (NA)
: Mathematically speaking, you're about as well off with BE as you were with IP
The biggest problem with the system is there's no mass disenchant. It makes actually cashing out your BE extremely unappealing when you're sitting on a ton of champ shards.
: > [{quoted}](name=Relax I am noob,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=s9T22hPE,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-06-21T23:22:24.037+0000) > > Bro stop taking votes from yourself it bothers me. I have to up vote you every time I see you I just don't feel comfortable upvoting myself lol
> [{quoted}](name=CrazyMonkeyCZ,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=s9T22hPE,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-21T23:30:05.330+0000) > > I just don't feel comfortable upvoting myself lol That's why it does it for you by default. The whole point is that if it's possible to upvote yourself, some people will, thus distorting the votes, so they automatically do it to put everyone on an equal playing field. All you're doing is making your posts look worse by comparison.
: Will Qiyana(gosh that name) be played as assassin or bruiser?
She'll be played as an assassin bruiser Because that sounds balanced, doesn't it?
: Nightblue gets a player Falsely banned.
Meanwhile, the league subreddit continues to be utterly corrupt > Hi /u/Elkkuxd. Thank you for participating in /r/leagueoflegends! However, > Your post has been removed because claims about or against distinct entities must have sources or proof supporting them and present them in an unbiased manner. Yes, because video clips of both streams isn't "sources or proof." Apparently actual video footage isn't good enough for them.
: I'm a new player and I don't understand how this game is so popular
I highly suggest you just uninstall if you're not having fun. Most people have only kept playing as long as they have due to addiction, and because it's just "the thing they've always done." Don't fall for sunk cost fallacy; no matter how much time you may have invested in this already, it's not worth investing more if you aren't enjoying yourself.
ellekene (EUNE)
: chill music to help you relax while gaming? HELP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcPzABuJUNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEexdhX17vw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE_n4gynVvs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdbmm4AgpVA
CLG ear (NA)
: wow i dont remember posting in this thread wtf
> [{quoted}](name=CLG ear,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=U54Pb8yP,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-05-27T15:15:11.427+0000) > > wow i dont remember posting in this thread wtf Knowing you, I'm pretty sure you don't remember what you were doing 15 minutes ago
iiGazeii (NA)
: Do you play with Kai'Sa's helmet mode on?
I don't like having to toggle something every single game, so even if I did prefer her helmet mode, I'm not sure if I'd actually use it
Destaice (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=L Psy Kongroo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=G8zrd1Nr,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-05-25T23:02:31.337+0000) > > TL;DR, why not just list it under addictions along with drug addiction, sex addiction, etc.? Why does gaming need its own special category? Drug addictions come from the drug. I'm not even sure sex addiction is a real thing. Gaming addiction is more of isolation and escapism taken to the extreme.
> [{quoted}](name=Destaice,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=G8zrd1Nr,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2019-05-27T10:46:09.551+0000) > > Drug addictions come from the drug. I'm not even sure sex addiction is a real thing. Gaming addiction is more of isolation and escapism taken to the extreme. Sex addiction is totally a real thing. People normally think of libido driving sex, but it also works the other way around; having more sex makes your libido stronger. You could go a month without any action and feel fine, then if all of a sudden you had sex for days on end and abruptly stopped, you'd experience withdrawal symptoms. Sex releases endorphins in the brain, which work on the same reward pathway that opiate drugs hijack; it's just naturally occurring. If you can become addicted to opiates, you can become addicted to endorphins, too. In fact, this is how all non-substance-based addictions work. Gambling, shopping, bodybuilding, gaming - you name it. The specified task lights up the reward pathways in the brain and makes us feel good. We then seek to feel good again, so we do that task again. And again. And again.
: worst possible adc for yumi is
Considering yuumi's leap range and that the ult bounces her back to her max attack range, this doesn't seem even slightly risky tbh. If anything, she's the best enchanter support to pair with kalista for this very reason, though sona might still be better with the stun ult.
: > [{quoted}](name=ChickenWrap,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=njk32rpo,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-19T04:31:09.393+0000) > > One game????? > > Dude these are excerpts. This is a _collage_. Each of these messages is from a _different person._ You didn't even read it. It's kind of obvious to see. I was referring to what you said, that you had one Yi troll in one game. As for the collage, most of them aren't even from in-game. That's just you trying to say, "look at all these people who know Yuumi is a detriment to a team, banning her when I want to play her." Hell, even you, being the "best Yuumi" someone's ever seen and playing pretty much exclusively her since her release, have only a 44% win rate on her... She is bad. And people banning her is _because_ they take the game seriously enough not to want a handicap.
> [{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=njk32rpo,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-19T04:44:25.438+0000) > > Hell, even you, being the "best Yuumi" someone's ever seen and playing pretty much exclusively her since her release, have only a 44% win rate on her... Kinda hard to have a positive win rate when your team gives up in champ select most of the time
Ilovemobas (EUNE)
: It is not uncommon for a team of 4 players (1 leaver) to defeat a team of 5 players in ranked
If the team with the 4 was winning before and know how to close, they can win before the enemy team picks up steam. Rarely, the 4 will win from behind, but it can happen if the leading team plays like morons because "there's no way we can lose a 5v4." Then one catch turns it into a 4v4, one catch becomes two catches, and all of a sudden the team of 4 is forcing a fight that they can win and pushing for game.
: It just so happens that each one of them have a knock-up. {{champion:157}} >:)
> [{quoted}](name=robotmaster,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=q8AxpY7V,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-05-11T05:09:50.704+0000) > > It just so happens that each one of them have a knock-up. > {{champion:157}} >:) I don't think that's a coincidence. All displacements are knockups for the purpose of yasuo ult.
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=0prFckQM,comment-id=00030001,timestamp=2019-05-09T03:49:53.447+0000) > > The analysis starts with patch 4.8. You *do* remember what happened in patch **4.20**, right? 420 heheheheheeheheh
> [{quoted}](name=Clone with Crocs,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=0prFckQM,comment-id=000300010001,timestamp=2019-05-10T11:12:49.506+0000) > > 420 heheheheheeheheh Yes, that's why it was called the weedwick patch
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=0prFckQM,comment-id=00030001,timestamp=2019-05-09T03:49:53.447+0000) > > The analysis starts with patch 4.8. You *do* remember what happened in patch 4.20, right? In all seriousness...No. I joined in S5, so I wouldn't have known anything about s4 besides memes.
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=0prFckQM,comment-id=000300010000,timestamp=2019-05-09T12:32:09.893+0000) > > In all seriousness...No. I joined in S5, so I wouldn't have known anything about s4 besides memes. Patch 4.20, aka. the "weedwick patch." As a result of feral flare being replaced by first generation devourer, warwick became hilariously overpowered. He was actually preemptively nerfed that patch because they knew just how much the item changes would help him, and they had to deliver even more targeted nerfs at him the very next patch. WW later received a VGU in season 7, so it's not surprising that he's shown up in the patch notes more than diana, who has basically flown under the radar all this time. For reference, this is how devourer originally released: > V4.20 Added > > Replaces Wriggle's Lantern and Feral Flare. > Recipe: Tier 2 jungle item + Dagger + Dagger + Gold 700 = Gold 2250 > Tier 2 jungle item can either be Poacher's Knife, Ranger's Trailblazer, Skirmisher's Sabre, or Stalker's Blade. > > +50% attack speed. > Unique Passive – Devouring: Basic attacks deal 40 (+ Devourer stacks) bonus magic damage. Scoring a champion kill or assist will grant 2 Devourer stacks and killing a large monster will grant 1. It was immediately knocked down to 25 base magic damage the next patch, in addition to the targeted WW nerfs.
: So...Analysis of the tl;dr:: Skins bring champions into the spotlight more by reminding people that they exist, thereby increasing the chances the balance team gives them attention. Would you say this sounds like an accurate conclusion? Also, your post does bring up interesting things. I didn't realize that Diana got the *least* patch notes over that period - I'd have thought it'd have been Warwick or someone like that, not Diana.
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=0prFckQM,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-05-08T12:22:45.131+0000) > > Also, your post does bring up interesting things. I didn't realize that Diana got the *least* patch notes over that period - I'd have thought it'd have been **Warwick** or someone like that, not Diana. The analysis starts with patch 4.8. You *do* remember what happened in patch 4.20, right?
rujitra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E4s6BGIM,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-05-09T00:33:39.351+0000) > > The minimum is often indistinguishable from "losing," however. If you pay for a lootbox and get an annie shard, you most certainly did not get your money's worth. > > Lootboxes are abstracted quite a bit from the dollar, so let's follow the conversion process: > > * Spend real money -> get RP > * Spend RP -> get lootbox and/or key > * Open lootbox -> get an item of random value, which you could have spent RP on directly > > Alternative process, without lootboxes: > > * Spend real money -> get RP > * Spend RP -> get an item you choose of an equal value to what you spent > > The non-lootbox process still makes sense even when reversed: > > * Selected item -> RP of equal value > * RP -> real money of equal value > > But the reversed lootbox process looks very peculiar: > > * Selected item -> RP of equal value > * RP -> more or less RP than the value of the item > * more or less RP than the value of the item -> more or less money than the value of the item > > RP and money are effectively equivalent. While normally you cannot convert RP into real money, the other direction has an explicit exchange rate, and if RP were a real currency, it would convert back to real money at the same but inverse rate. This means that if you could reverse your purchases, you would always get back the same amount of money that you spent from a non-lootbox process, but the amount of money you get back from a lootbox process is random. > > You could put $15 worth of RP into buying lootboxes but only get back $5 worth in skins. Or you could put in $15 worth of RP and get back $60 worth in skins. Or anywhere else on the spectrum. Now, what do you call a system where you can give up some amount of money, and *randomly* get back either more or less than that amount of money? Oh, right. Gambling. All loot boxes that are purchased from Riot do not drop champions worth less than 4800 BE. The minimum for chests purchased is the same as for chests earned from leveling up (somewhere around 1000 BE if I’m remembering right). You will get a minimum benefit from lootboxes, whatever you deem BE to be in terms of money. You do not get **zero**. You never **lose**. You may get less benefit than you **desired**, but that is your prerogative to purchase loot boxes. That is not gambling. Gambling means you are putting up **money** for the chance of **more or none**.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E4s6BGIM,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-05-09T00:37:23.539+0000) > > All loot boxes that are purchased from Riot do not drop champions worth less than 4800 BE. The minimum for chests purchased is the same as for chests earned from leveling up (somewhere around 1000 BE if I’m remembering right). > > You will get a minimum benefit from lootboxes, whatever you deem BE to be in terms of money. You do not get **zero**. You never **lose**. You may get less benefit than you **desired**, but that is your prerogative to purchase loot boxes. That is not gambling. Gambling means you are putting up **money** for the chance of **more or none**. Your definition is wrong. Gambling does not need to have a "none" result to be considered gambling. It merely needs for the output to be randomly greater than or less than the input. If you get back less than you put in, you "lost." If you get back more than you put in, you "won." If you take $100 to the casino and you leave with $76, it doesn't mean that "you didn't gamble." It means that you gambled and lost, but not severely. Adding a floor to gambling doesn't suddenly make it not gambling.
rujitra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E4s6BGIM,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-08T23:19:09.822+0000) > > Uh, literally no. Not sure where you're getting that from. There does not have to be a chance at nothing. There simply needs to be different chances for the objects in question. There’s a chance that any time you drive, you may be in an accident. Is driving a “gamble”? Should we make the minimum driving age 21 to not let minors gamble with driving? There’s a chance that any time you go to a restaurant you may get food poisoning. Is eating out a “gamble”? Should we make the minimum age to serve at restaurants 21 to not let minors gamble with food poisoning? No, the minimum requirement is not to have “different changes” for something to be gambling. Gambling means that there is a chance that you **lose**. There is no chance to lose with loot boxes. You are guaranteed a minimum. You **MAY** get more than that minimum, but you will never get less. There is no losing. There is no gamble.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E4s6BGIM,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-08T23:31:28.406+0000) > > There’s a chance that any time you drive, you may be in an accident. Is driving a “gamble”? Should we make the minimum driving age 21 to not let minors gamble with driving? > > There’s a chance that any time you go to a restaurant you may get food poisoning. Is eating out a “gamble”? Should we make the minimum age to serve at restaurants 21 to not let minors gamble with food poisoning? > > No, the minimum requirement is not to have “different changes” for something to be gambling. Gambling means that there is a chance that you **lose**. There is no chance to lose with loot boxes. You are guaranteed a minimum. You **MAY** get more than that minimum, but you will never get less. There is no losing. There is no gamble. The minimum is often indistinguishable from "losing," however. If you pay for a lootbox and get an annie shard, you most certainly did not get your money's worth. Lootboxes are abstracted quite a bit from the dollar, so let's follow the conversion process: * Spend real money -> get RP * Spend RP -> get lootbox and/or key * Open lootbox -> get an item of random value, which you could have spent RP on directly Alternative process, without lootboxes: * Spend real money -> get RP * Spend RP -> get an item you choose of an equal value to what you spent The non-lootbox process still makes sense even when reversed: * Selected item -> RP of equal value * RP -> real money of equal value But the reversed lootbox process looks very peculiar: * Selected item -> RP of equal value * RP -> more or less RP than the value of the item * more or less RP than the value of the item -> more or less money than the value of the item RP and money are effectively equivalent. While normally you cannot convert RP into real money, the other direction has an explicit exchange rate, and if RP were a real currency, it would convert back to real money at the same but inverse rate. This means that if you could reverse your purchases, you would always get back the same amount of money that you spent from a non-lootbox process, but the amount of money you get back from a lootbox process is random. You could put $15 worth of RP into buying lootboxes but only get back $5 worth in skins. Or you could put in $15 worth of RP and get back $60 worth in skins. Or anywhere else on the spectrum. Now, what do you call a system where you can give up some amount of money, and *randomly* get back either more or less than that amount of money? Oh, right. Gambling.
JuiceBoxP (EUNE)
: You can't dodge because normally, dodging would make you lose LP. Since you are in your promos, you don't lose LP, you just get a loss. So when dodging, instead of losing LP and dropping below 100 LP, you simply get a loss. Don't think it can be changed simply due to the fact you lose LP when you dodge games You can't give people in promos immunity from losing LP via dodging
> [{quoted}](name=JuiceBoxP,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=g6rrruRN,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-05-07T14:00:57.735+0000) > > You can't dodge because normally, dodging would make you lose LP. > > Since you are in your promos, you don't lose LP, you just get a loss. > > So when dodging, instead of losing LP and dropping below 100 LP, you simply get a loss. > > Don't think it can be changed simply due to the fact you lose LP when you dodge games > > You can't give people in promos immunity from losing LP via dodging You don't, though. It keeps track of your LP for each game behind the scenes, capped at 100. That's actually another problem the system has: In promos, if you win one game then lose two, it's different than if you lose a game, win a game, then lose a game. One win followed by two losses is the same as just losing twice straight-up, but L-W-L will mitigate your LP loss. This is especially noticeable (and crushing) when you go W-W-L-L-L in a major series.
: loved this show as a kid. didnt watch them in ages. i have no idea who that girl is lol
> [{quoted}](name=Jennifer420,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=u6BI6s6F,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-05-06T13:52:04.337+0000) > > loved this show as a kid. didnt watch them in ages. i have no idea who that girl is lol I think she was just a one-off character. Seeing her next to the PPG really makes the alien qualities of the PPG stand out.
: The effect Yuumi could have on juggernauts:
> I think we might see a meta change, at least at the pro level, revolving around Yuumi... **or she'll be permabanned**. That's basically league in a nutshell. Anytime a champion is meta-defining, they just get banned out.
Show more

Leaf of the lake

Level 102 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion