: TF Blade and the Problem with Riot
If TFBlade wasn't a jerk in general, and if he didn't get upset and get banned because of it, then the inters wouldn't really have much of a reason to int him in the first place. Inting games (losing LP and MMR and maybe getting banned) isn't worth it if Blade just rolled with it and got top 10 anyways. But it's entirely worth it if you cause him to freak out and get himself banned. So yeah, it's not just about TF Blade being toxic when he's frustrated. It's about not feeding the trolls and perpetuating idea that retaliation is normal. And IMO, streamers should set a better example anyways. The community deserves better role models than TFBlade.
: > [{quoted}](name=Horse Grenades ,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=kp1FytKV,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-05-25T16:54:21.134+0000) > > The resentment and anger towards matchmaking, in my opinion, comes from the how silly it is to have two different "ranks". Your MMR and your rank. It feels really bad to be in bronze 2 and have to play against gold 4 to get into bronze 1. It also comes from the team based meta where the weakest link often "breaks the chain" you have to be SIGNIFICANTLY better to consistently climb you'll also rise at a far faster rate playing in those higher matches if you're B2 in gold4 mmr you actually won't promote to B1 you'll promote to silver 4 and if you're mmr continues to climb your rank will continue to skip steps until it catches up. Also losses will count as almost nothing against you. It's built that way. League originally used a pure ELO system where your mmr was the same as your shown rank. This system punished people heavily at the top of the ladder for playing games and so people would basically stop playing upon reaching a certain rank. Purely queuing up once a month to avoid decay. The division system is actually there as a fail safe against a string of tilting hard losses. You don't demote immediately and it ACTUALLY GIVES YOU A SECOND CHANCE TO SAVE YOUR RANK if you go on a loss streak before it hard drops you. Everybody keeps asking for a pure ELO system when the one we currently have is actually more forgiving. Nobody remembers what it was actually like and how this is actually an improvement for the vast majority of the player base.
> [{quoted}](name=Très Pauvre,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=kp1FytKV,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2019-05-25T19:16:16.701+0000) > Everybody keeps asking for a pure ELO system when the one we currently have is actually more forgiving. Nobody remembers what it was actually like and how this is actually an improvement for the vast majority of the player base. This is true. But I gotta throw out the "why not both?" I think a lot of confusion and frustration would be avoided in the current system if people could _optionally_ look at their real MMR. I also agree that it's very helpful to have demotion protection (balanced out by promos), but I don't think it matters enough for intra-tier divisions. It's a subjective opinion, but I don't think the pain of getting stuck on promos is worth the occasional demotion protection you get after promoting. So I'd rather get rid of the smaller promos and demotion protection, and only have them for the big milestones, the tiers. Also, I just think the combination of seasonal resets and promos make the system too grindy overall, but that's really a minor point, which can be solved in many ways.
: Replace "none" ban with "pass" to another teammate
I agree for the most part, but let's be real here, development of the client happens at a snail's pace. It would take 3 months for Riot to make this change to champion select. And for what? So that you can get 1 more ban in the 5% of games where someone hits none/pass? A lot of players waste their bans anyways (see: all the people who banned Akali when she had 45% winrate at every elo). So if y'all're gonna whine about the few people who don't want to or are too lazy to ban at all, then I'd better see equal or more whining about the garbage bans people flock to because "new champions = scary" or a dozen other inane reasons. Look, all I'm tryna say is, bans in Solo queue aren't as valuable as you think. And the only reason Riot increased the bans from 3 to 5 is because it let everyone ban at the same time. They aren't going to make champ select more complicated just for the occasional chance at 1 extra ban. It just ain't happening.
: You can try to prove it by gathering a large amount of games, rank people with an in house elo system (since ELO system has been borrowed from chess, the base algorithm is public) as some site do and compare promos games vs non promos games.
**TL;DR:** Sorry, I ranted more than I meant to. In short, this matchmaking conspiracy theory is impossible to prove, it makes no sense from RIot's perspective, and players would be better off without these excuses to distract them. Taking a break from Ranked to do something less frustrating is also a decent idea. __________________ There is no feasible way to prove/disprove this, assuming you don't trust what Riot has told us (matchmaking is the same in promos, aside from the autofill protection). Even with a massive reliable data set collected from players, and an accurate reverse engineering of Riot's ELO system, you still wouldn't get reliable proof. You would also need to control for player bias/emotions/tilt/fatigue, so you would essentially need a blind trial, where people play promos without realizing they're in promos. So uh, good luck collecting that data. I think it's easier just to trust Riot for once, on something that they have no reason to lie about. Do people honestly think that Riot has anything to gain from rigging promo matches just to frustrate players? I assume that anyone who actually subscribes to this conspiracy has it in their head that Riot thinks frustration is a good tactic for milking your playerbase (either for their time or money). Let me tell you, that idea is hot garbage for anything except shovelware games trying to get idiots to buy into their pay-to-win lootboxes or whatever. League is clearly not that kind of game though. Nobody is going to run to the store to buy some skins because they're struggling to get through promos. And while they might be inspired to grind a few more games to make _just one more run_ at promos, they certainly aren't going keep that motivation for very long. Frustration causes people to quit or look for a way around it, not to keep trying forever. So it makes no sense for Riot to secretly rig promos to be extra frustrating. (Challenge, on the other hand, is a decent long-term motivator, assuming it's fair and it's meant to be overcome. Riot wouldn't need to lie about that though.) So can we please drop the matchmaking conspiracy theories already? If anyone is struggling with promos, there's really only two productive options: keep trying (and maybe look for ways to play better) or go do something else that isn't as frustrating for them. These conspiracy theories about matchmaking are not productive; they just get people riled up over something that is unprovable, and they serve as a scapegoat. People need to face the facts that promos aren't supposed to be free, and you actually have to play better in order to climb in Ranked.
: Here is why the core game of League of Legends is currently broken
Trying to keep it simple. I don't think any of the things you mention are actually problematic. Runes are slightly more interactive and slightly more powerful, but they offer slightly less number-tuning options, yes, but how does that make the game worse? I think they still offer just as much build variation, but in chunkier portions and with gameplay conditions attached (like Absolute Focus requiring you to be at, or close to, full HP). Maybe you could make the argument that some of the conditional or scaling runes create more snowballing (or exacerbate existing snowballs), but well, you only came close to arguing that point once. CS is still important as ever. I just wholly disagree that shifting gold from casters to cannons did anything except make people play around cannons in lane a little more. And tbh, casters should be worth close to nothing, since they are generally the easiest to last-hit or wave-clear (unless you're melee and getting bullied, in which case you should be glad that you're not missing out on much gold). And all the stat shifting that Riot did during Runes Reforged and afterwards is largely irrelevant. It probably had some adverse affects on the game (especially in the short-term, during pre-season 7), but the amount is minuscule. The meta-game shake up just wasn't as big as people make it out to be. What we got was a couple builds falling out of favor because (for example) you lost the ability to take a full lethality page, or some champions being out of balance **temporarily**, before their stats got tweaked individually. We're not talking about entire playstyles being lost or game pacing being ruined. (Although game pacing has changed a lot, it was an intentional effort that is entire separate from Runes Reforged. I am totally open to opinions that the games end too fast now, or that it's too easy to give up a lot of advantage because of one auto-filled lane that is feeding. I personally prefer the shorter, more explosive end-games, but I can accept other opinions on that matter. But that's not what this post was about, so... ya'know.)
Leonerdo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Riot MoreChrono,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Eak7Kd7P,comment-id=0050000000010000,timestamp=2019-05-09T01:58:41.289+0000) > > I personally think this is the problem; players assume that rank and MMR are tied very closely together. And while they do work together, MMR tends to change quickly and wildly, while we purposely try to keep rank and LP much less volatile. This leads to some unfortunately side effects where two players who have similar MMRs will be have different ranks. It's not perfect, but we believe the player experience is better in the long run. This has been the issue since the very first day that the "League System" (ranking system) was introduced back in Season 2 (Edit: It was Season 3.) LP was invented to be a facade. And Rank was made to be based on LP (instead of MMR), so it's also a facade. They are arbitrary fabrications. They only matter in terms of player goals on the ranked ladder and cosmetic rewards. But for the purpose of matchmaking, LP and Rank are now entirely irrelevant. MMR is the only thing that controls matchmaking. A big part of the confusion is because MMR changes much more quickly than LP or Rank. Your Rank always lags behind your MMR since LP changes are more limited than MMR changes. That is the intended purpose of the system though. MMR is erratic; it's up and down all over the place. So the League system (and LP) was invented to smooth out the process of climbing (or falling) in Rank. What we end up with though, is a system that hints at MMR, but ultimately lies. People think they interpret their skill and the skill of thier allies/opponents by looking at rank, and they sort of can. But it's a crude estimation. It's a rounded number. And then when it becomes clear that the system isn't accurate (e.g. Plat player, Silver teammates, all secretly in Gold MMR), people are naturally confused and upset. So there's really only 3 ways we can move forward. 1. We do nothing, and people continue to be bamboozled by the League system, get angry, and make conspiracy theories. 2. Riot allows players to see their actually MMR, optionally of course. (We could completely revert the system and go back to MMR-based ranking alone, but I don't see that happening.) 3. Someone educates the playerbase, preferably in video format, because some nice animated graphs would make this SO much easier to explain. Of course such education campaigns never reach that many players. But if it's easily accessible to those who are looking for it, that might be enough. (Perhaps, link it in pinned thread on the Gameplay boards, so people can find it while looking for a place to rant? \*wink\*) Personally, I prefer option 2 over option 3. "Why not both?" is also a good option :))
> [{quoted}](name=Leonerdo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Eak7Kd7P,comment-id=00500000000100000000,timestamp=2019-05-09T03:47:59.267+0000) > [rambling] Bonus ramble: The LP system has edge cases where winning is actually disincentivized. Because LP is slower to gain than MMR, if you want to climb the fastest, you're better off losing a couple games at 0 LP, tanking your MMR a bit without losing LP, and then continuing to climb with (slightly) easier games. Just don't lose so much that you get demoted. Also, landing at 99 LP is cancer. I have MANY thoughts about this, but I already rambled enough for today.
: > [{quoted}](name=Cdore,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Eak7Kd7P,comment-id=005000000001,timestamp=2019-05-09T00:53:12.364+0000) > > I respect your response, but I feel like there's a lot of information that needs to be addressed in order to understand the context of why MMR difference matters specifically just in Gold 2. > > [](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/59af2189c534a58c97bd63b3/1555348895999-MV37603ZAHK81Z2SZHJ1/league+of+legends+rank+distribution+April+2019.jpg?content-type=image%2Fjpeg) > > Using our topic creator as an example, he was wondering why there is a Plat in his matchmaking. The general answer is that the plat is there to even out elo averages between both teams, but to understand where that flaw comes from, we have to understand why he is there to begin with. > > You've already pinpointed that you guys strive for short wait times. And you gave your response to show that the difference between matchmade teams tend to be small. But you leave out, not a fault of your own, the problem of tier distribution, duos, and the way the endpoints of each rank tend to work out in solo queue. If you will stay with me for a moment, and if OP is reading, let me explain where the problem comes from. I'll just put on my data science glasses before I do. > > {{champion:74}} > > The highest amount of League's playerbase in ranked sits in Silver. The second highest is in Gold. The third highest is in bronze. Fourth is plat. What we can already conclude based on just raw numbers is that silver, gold, and bronze will always have the most lucrative queue times and possible team permutations due to what roles people choose. It's why currently from Diamond 1 to Challenger, they have the most autofills. It's just basic population. In this respect, we can already see that the ranks where you'll have the biggest discrepancies of matchmaking is Plat and onward based on sheer population. In order to balance out wait times, naturally, Bronze, Iron, and Plat+ have to draw closer to the median pool of the ranked queue. You will have plats or silvers in Gold games. And the closer you get to Plat 4, your matchmaking starts to have Gold 2s, Gold 1s, Plats 4, and Plats 3, and sometimes Plat 2s. This is very important because suddenly, you have a major jump in variance. > > This variance can be explained by two things: the willingness to have short queue times and the nature of the two two tiers of every rank. Silver 1, Gold 1, and every 1 tier after has the lowest amount of people in it. Why? Cause the variance is so strong here between both ranks that Tier 1 is just a transitional period. You will either rise to the next rank or fall back to Tier 2 simply due to being stuck between two major skill variances. All of this information comes together to explain why OP feels the way he does, and I feel like you know already why this is the case. > > **The mmr system does not line up with the noise that is Tier 1-Tier 4 of next rank relationship, the presence of duos, the forcing of quick matchmaking times, and the natural median of the playerbase.** > > LP gains care about one thing: whether your team won or loss. For each person, it seems to take into account amount of games you played and that's about it. This kind of system would be fine in a game where your individual performance was ranked or the above issues in bold were not present. But since Riot has chosen to use a 1v1 mmr system for a team based game, ShirleyG's complaints are very real. In an ideal world, you will have no more than two tiers of difference, and that should be an exception, of the players on your team. Everyone should always be at the same tier as you to make matchmaking truly fair. I don't think it's **true fairness**, but in the context of this system, it makes the most sense. But that also assumes, what you already know, that we always have people only and that all ranks have a large enough playerbase who each all play various roles to never have to autofill. But as we know, autofill exists BECAUSE the roles of this game are disproportionately represented. Supports are the least played role while mid/ adc are the most played. These vary based on rank, but overall, this has been the general case of where most of Riot's design decisions came from sense before Season 1. I was there around the boards when Rioters specifically made cases about this proportion representation of the playerbase, and why certain classes are more popular. That's fine, that's the nature of a video game. Some people play different roles. Unfortunately, I feel like Riot screwed up things when they attempted to upset the natural order of this to force quicker matchmaking. And thus, you have irons in Silver games, you have silvers in gold games, you have golds in plat games, and you plats in diamond games, and you have diamonds in master, GM, and Challenger. I actually thought dynamic queue was better in the sense that if you had a long wait time on your role, you would change to another simply to have quicker matchmaking on your own decision. This is a much better way to do it than forcing people into matchmaking simply to keep people from getting bored. > Very well thought out response. Some of it is right on, but some of it is not quite reality (and this isn't your fault, you don't have all the information). I want to focus specifically queue times, distribution and skill variance. Queue times is not our only goal, as I said before, we want short queue times with fair games. If we were truly forcing the fastest queue times we wouldn't bother matchmaking at all, we would just put people into games as they showed up. Those games would probably suck. What we are doing is allowing for some acceptable variance within teams and between teams. You are totally right that at higher tiers, with less population, this acceptable variance gets larger, but it's still not an enormous amount despite what a players ranking might tell you. I personally think this is the problem; players assume that rank and MMR are tied very closely together. And while they do work together, MMR tends to change quickly and wildly, while we purposely try to keep rank and LP much less volatile. This leads to some unfortunately side effects where two players who have similar MMRs will be have different ranks. It's not perfect, but we believe the player experience is better in the long run. Also, anecdotally, the skill variance at the top of a tier and the bottom of the tier are not all that different. The main reason you see lots of people at the bottom of a tier and less at the top is purely a player motivation one. Lots of players get into new tiers and stop playing (or they end up at 0 LP and stop playing), meanwhile players who are in division 1 of a tier tend to play a lot because they are so close to getting to the next goal. There is no massive jump in variance between tiers.
> [{quoted}](name=Riot MoreChrono,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Eak7Kd7P,comment-id=0050000000010000,timestamp=2019-05-09T01:58:41.289+0000) > > I personally think this is the problem; players assume that rank and MMR are tied very closely together. And while they do work together, MMR tends to change quickly and wildly, while we purposely try to keep rank and LP much less volatile. This leads to some unfortunately side effects where two players who have similar MMRs will be have different ranks. It's not perfect, but we believe the player experience is better in the long run. This has been the issue since the very first day that the "League System" (ranking system) was introduced back in Season 2 (Edit: It was Season 3.) LP was invented to be a facade. And Rank was made to be based on LP (instead of MMR), so it's also a facade. They are arbitrary fabrications. They only matter in terms of player goals on the ranked ladder and cosmetic rewards. But for the purpose of matchmaking, LP and Rank are now entirely irrelevant. MMR is the only thing that controls matchmaking. A big part of the confusion is because MMR changes much more quickly than LP or Rank. Your Rank always lags behind your MMR since LP changes are more limited than MMR changes. That is the intended purpose of the system though. MMR is erratic; it's up and down all over the place. So the League system (and LP) was invented to smooth out the process of climbing (or falling) in Rank. What we end up with though, is a system that hints at MMR, but ultimately lies. People think they interpret their skill and the skill of thier allies/opponents by looking at rank, and they sort of can. But it's a crude estimation. It's a rounded number. And then when it becomes clear that the system isn't accurate (e.g. Plat player, Silver teammates, all secretly in Gold MMR), people are naturally confused and upset. So there's really only 3 ways we can move forward. 1. We do nothing, and people continue to be bamboozled by the League system, get angry, and make conspiracy theories. 2. Riot allows players to see their actually MMR, optionally of course. (We could completely revert the system and go back to MMR-based ranking alone, but I don't see that happening.) 3. Someone educates the playerbase, preferably in video format, because some nice animated graphs would make this SO much easier to explain. Of course such education campaigns never reach that many players. But if it's easily accessible to those who are looking for it, that might be enough. (Perhaps, link it in pinned thread on the Gameplay boards, so people can find it while looking for a place to rant? \*wink\*) Personally, I prefer option 2 over option 3. "Why not both?" is also a good option :))
: Maokai’s q buff is a perfect example of Riot’s horrible approach to balancing tanks
This is an incredibly basic and uneducated take. If you did some research you would find that this is just a revert of a nerf that came in 7.24, right after runes reforged. The reasoning behind it was that MR runes were just removed and Mao'kai (who didn't suffer the loss of Magic Pen runes) was doing more damage than before Runes Reforged. Back to today, top-laners can (and should) take the MR stat shard against Mao'kai. SO, since the original reason for the nerf is gone, and the nerf was reverted. Look, I get that we don't want damage to be the go-to buff for every situation. But you have to actually consider the situation before you say that damage is the wrong choice. ~~Besides, it's not like +25 damage is going to let Mao'kai "melt" any fighters running Conqueror.~~
: I'm not saying Morgana isn't good. I think she's always been a niche champion who is strong and I pointed out some factors why she's part of the meta right now. I think she should be nerfed. I mean I'm a one trick and I cant even play her because she's banned almost every single game. Something has to be done about that or I just can't play league. However, my point was that it seems that Riot is just constantly "surprised" by the things that happen even if they're easily a direct consequence of their actions and then they scramble to find a way to fix it. In the case of Morgana it seems pretty clear that simply reverting the unnecessary buffs would be satisfactory. However, what we generally see done is as you said some numbers adjustments until things reach a level they like. The problem with this is that the meta is constantly changing. So while Morgana may be hot stuff right now a year from now she may be a dumpster fire. At which point we go through this whole process again of nerfing and buffing. It seems more logical to always return to the "simplest" state. If buffing ability X leads to an undesired effect then nerf ability X or revert ability X. Don't adjust ability Y. If you buff X and then nerf Y there is no "control" in this situation for your data. In her case, they buffed W and R. Now they're nerfing E.
That seems mostly reasonable. And I do think Riot should try to be more proactive about identifying outliers _before_ they get out of hand. But I think it can be really tough to do that for 150 champions, and it's it hard to predict exactly how the meta will change every patch. Still, they could probably manage to cut down their turn-around time a little bit. Like the small reworks they do (Morgana's included) should probably be followed by close monitoring and tweaks in every patch until the champion is in the right spot. I don't know why it takes two patches for them to touch-up a champion who should be on their radar already. Most of the original problems come from making changes that are not simple buffs or nerfs, but rather changes that are supposed to change the gameplay to be more fun, satisfying, or fair. Morgana's update is like that; it was supposed to make her R and W more fun and/or usable. (The W shift was to make it better for last-hitting/all-ins and worse for poke, I think?) Those are good changes to make of course, but they aren't very predictable in terms of overall balance. So they always have to wait and see. For what it's worth, I think the Morgana update looked satisfying on paper at least (again I don't play her, so idk), but I'm also questioning their nerf choice. Why are they deciding to nerf a separate ability (one which is also core to her unique identity) rather than going for a simpler nerf like lowering on her W/R or reverting the base MS buff she got (probably the most out-of-place part of the update)? Regarding the meta though, I think a little bit of ebb and flow is good to have. It's interesting to see how the meta develops and how the game looks different when certain things are strong or weak. And for the players who chase the FotM meta stuff, it can be a source of excitement. But of course, that shouldn't be at the cost of unplayable champions. It's really fucking sucks when a one-trick just can't play because their champion got dumpstered or got buffed into permaban status.
: I'm not sure what kind of people they have working at Riot games, but this concerns me. I was working on my PhD in applied mathematics for awhile. Although, my concentration was more in line with numerical methods to differential equations, I did take quite a few statistics courses. I would be very interested in understanding their methodology here. But it appears to me that they have a data-inundation and use completely arbitrary means to interpret it. Let's be quite frank here about Morgana. She received some buffs she didn't need, but NONE of the buffs were particularly good. In fact, the buffs didn't do anything to change her play style or strengths. So claiming that Morgana is "op" now is actually absurd. Either she was always OP or she is not OP now. You simply cannot say that a minor movement speed buff to her ult and some HP thresh hold scaling on her W suddenly broke the champion. I've one tricked her for 10 years. Every season I have a 60% win rate as Morgana in any role I play. Well, its always a bit higher mid than support, but it averages out to 60%. Anyway, this year, after her buffs, I still have a 60% win rate. If these buffs were truly that powerful shouldn't my win rate have gone up substantially? Do you think after 10 years I just can't figure out how to press W correctly? Anyway, I realize this is just anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt. But I suppose you could argue that these buffs pushed her over the edge. Well then cause and effect ought to dictate that you simply revert the buffs you gave her in 9.5. This isn't complicated. What I suspect has happened with Morgana is the following: * Morgana's ban rate went up because her pick rate and suspected pick rate went up. Meaning players expected to see her more because of the rework. * Her pick rate went up due to the visual update * Her play rate mid went up because of the visual update. * Her win rate marginally increased in support, but skyrocketed mid because of a meta shift. * A meta shift was caused by the crit item buff which reasserted ADC dominance. * Morgana's E is very good late game, and because adcs can now carry the game again a utility mid like her is viable. None of this really has anything to do with Morgana. You would see Morgana's win rate drop if: 1. You prevented ADCs from being the end all be all of late game carries. Especially Vayne and Jinx who dominate games really hard with the protection that black shield gives. 2. You reverted the unnecessary buffs that you gave her in 9.5. Finally, I'll even address the issue of Hecarim. I played hecarim quite a lot in season 8. He isn't any stronger than he was in season 8. In season 8 he could still 1 shot people with predator, ghost, E. The champion is the same god damn champion he's always been. But he's in the spotlight now so people are bitching about it. Oh, and conqueror is busted on Hecarim, but you guys seem to be unable to balance that rune. Maybe that's a sign it should be given a dark harvest treatment. So there we go. I figured out the balance issues for you. It's a combination of group psychology caused by seeing a champion repeatedly buffed in patch notes or receiving an update, and a very big meta shift. You're looking at this from one dimension. You're seeing all these champions on your little spreadsheet and you're thinking they're independent of one another. That's not the case. Consider taric sona. Twitch lulu. Vayne Morgana. And so forth.
That's kinda a long comment and I'm not quite sure if I missed your point in it. (Spoiler warning: my comment will also be long and rambling.) So I'll just talk about a couple things that stuck out to me. I think (tell me if I'm wrong) you're trying to you're trying to assert that Riot doesn't acknowledge all these different balance factor, and instead they are just balancing based on the simple "OP line". And I think you're upset about their current direction for Morgana nerfs? (Reverting old buffs would be better, but why?) ____________ Regarding the OP Line, I think it's important to note that it's just one of the factors that they probably look at to determine OP. I don't doubt that they'll continue nerfing champions who are safely under the line for other reasons. And I bet they'll even ignore champions above the line occasionally if, for example, a currently OP champion will be indirectly nerfed by upcoming meta shifts or item nerfs. These graphs aren't their only source/interpretation of data. I'm sure you realize all that, but it's a good place to start my arguments. Anyways, I want to pick at this point of yours in particular: > But it appears to me that they have a data-inundation and use completely arbitrary means to interpret it. Of course their interpretation of the data is more-or-less arbitrary. But it's arbitrary in the same way as the gold standard of statistics (p < 0.05). That standard, like Riot's OP line, was picked just because it seems reasonable enough to the people who work with it. So yeah, Riot almost certainly picks the placement of that line "arbitrarily" based on the current landscape of the game and their current design goals. And the placement of the line will probably change over time. They're aren't using it so they can set a definitive (and naive) standard for all balance work going forward, that is based solely on two data metrics. No their using it to help them visualize the champion roster based on those metrics and compare it to other factors. This is probably said too much, but it's just one tool in their toolbelt. I think they're showing this tool off now because they want to try focusing a little bit more on numerical outliers than they have in the past, at least for simple buffs/nerf. With nearly 150 champions now they don't have time to pick through nuanced data and player surveys, make strategic shifts in kit power, and comprehensively test the changes, every single time they want to nerf a champion. Instead, they'll just throw some small & basic stat nerfs at a champion if they get over the line, whenever they don't have time to take a longer look. ______________ In the case of Morgana, I don't know enough about her, so I can't speak with much authority. However, I think she does need a nerf of some kind, because her stats are quite high and people seem to agree that she's too strong (she's especially worrisome in pro-play), regardless of *why* she is strong. As you say, her current synergy with hypercarries is notable, and I think that's why Riot is testing a nerf to her black shield. Maybe it would be better just to nerf the hypercarries. But like I said, I'm not confident in talking too much about Morgana specifically. It's possible that Riot's current direction for Morgana is flawed and naive and I don't have the perspective to see it, but to me at least it seems reasonable. And I'll leave it at that, cause I don't want this to get **too** long.
: Something seriously needs done about the artificial elo wall known as promos
Basically, promos exist solely as a counterpoint to Demotion Protection. Demotion protection lets a player lose three games at 0 LP, right after promoting, without getting demoted, so that they don't lose bounce between divisions too quickly. The idea behind promos is that players need to have earned that protection by winning at least one extra game in promos. That's it. That's the whole reason. It's not a terribly good reason. I mean, I used to give lip service to the idea that promos are like a big final test or final boss that players are supposed to be excited about, but that really only makes sense for the promos between Tiers. Divisions don't matter nearly enough to warrant that kind of pomp and circumstance. So yeah, remove the bo3 promos between divisions, lower demotion protection to 2 games, and everything would probably be better. (You would still need to win 1 game after hitting 100 LP to promote, just like you need to lose a game after hitting 0 LP to demote.)
Jikker (NA)
: Interesting URF stats according to OP.GG
Yeah it's a bit disappointing. But at least the difference between most and least popular pickrates is only 10-to-1 instead of 30-1 like it is in ranked. It's not totally diverse, but it's still a marked improvement. Also, there's something to be said for the fact that the majority of those Zed picks are probably not from Zed mains spamming Zed every game, but rather they are from people who are interested in Zed but aren't normally willing to pick him (either because they would rather play their one-trick for the 1000th time, or because they don't feel confident picking him in more competitive modes). In other words, most of the value in "AR" is the variety that individual players are encouraged to take on (in regards to their champion picks), rather than a variety in the meta.
: Why are dodging penalties and autofill bad for matchmaking?!
This is really well written. I agree with most of the concepts (but not the call-to-arms). I mean at first, I just saw your obvious bias and was like, "Oh okay, you like to dodge a lot, to get supposedly better match-ups. So of course you want lighter penalties." But after that your arguments were pretty solid, and they considered multiple perspectives, so I have to give you some credit. Obviously there has to be a balance, because as you said, having NO penalties at all would just lead to a never-ending series of dodges to try and get a slight advantage from champion select. Sure, people would eventually get tired of it and just go with "good enough" so they can actually start a game, but it would probably still take way longer than is acceptable. And on the other hand, a strict no-dodge policy would result in more awful, lost-in-champ-select games. So we need penalties, but they should be light enough that they are worth taking when faced with an unusually bad champion select. And here's where I disagree with you: I think the current system actually strikes a good balance. At least, the first penalty is properly tuned (-3LP and 6 minutes). I don't think I have to explain that -3LP is a quite acceptable compared to a -15LP loss. It's even worth taking in not-so-bad situations where you think you still have a 30-40% chance to win. So I don't think it's too heavy of a penalty. (Btw, to those who think we should get 1 or 2 free dodges per day, I think that would just lead to a "use it or lose it" mentality where people just dodge because they can, and because they _might_ get a better match-up. And potentially there would be more #3 type people who bully others to use their free dodge.) The only thing I think could be changed is the higher penalty after the first. It's probably a good to leave some kind of escalating penalty, just as a hint to players that "dodging once every now and then is fine, but 3+ times a day is maybe a bit excessive." But I do think -10LP and 30 minutes is a little excessive. And there's a side-effect in the current system such that people who play more games in a row are more heavily restricted by the current "per-day" system. A per-game allowance would surely be more fair. So my suggestion is: Dodging once per 5-6 games played should be acceptable, and incur only a small penalty of -3LP and 6 minutes. (Still worth it to dodge bad teams, occasionally.) Dodging more often than that should cost -8LP and 30 minutes. (Worth it to dodge VERY bad teams, but .) The details of implementation can be tweaked, but I think you get the idea. Edit: Maybe allowing players to bank their discounted dodges (up to 3, built up over 21 games), would help them deal with unlucky streaks. _________________________________ Bonus math section: If there's a 50% chance for a dodge in any champion select, then it would take (on average) 2 attempts to get through champ select and play a game. If it's just a 20% chance for a dodge, then the average is 1.25 attempts per game played. And at 70% dodge rate, it starts to get ridiculous, requiring 3.33 champion selects per game. This allows us to make a pretty good metric to aim for: IMO, as long as champion select is failing less than 50% of the time, we're doing okay. But, keep in mind that that chance is split across all 10 players in a game, so each player can't dodge more than 5% of the time. Of course there is some variance between players (some people never dodge), so let's say a 10% dodge rate for dodge-friendly players should be the limit. Hence my suggestion above, to allow one semi-free dodge per 5 games played: 5 games x 2 champ selects per game (assuming our worst-case 50% overall dodge rate) = 10 champion selects per dodge = 10% individual dodge rate allowed, before the penalty gets higher. If players are more trigger-happy with dodging than I assume, then the penalty has to get harder, faster. The hardest penalties that are necessary to ensure a maximum champion select failure rate of 50 is: one cheap dodge per 10 games played, and then extreme penalties (-15 LP) after.
rujitra (NA)
: Some fun maths.
Well, I came for the math and the math was wrong, so I'm a little disappointed. Chance of getting one or more trolls on your team is just the opposite of NOT getting any trolls on your team: (1 - 0.9^4) or 34.39%. And for your opponent it's: (1 - 0.9^5) or 40.95%. Not that any of this is even relevant. The specific numbers are not important unless you're going to do a full statistical evaluation and tell people how likely it is to actually lose a significant amount of MMR unfairly because of trolls.
: I finally quit. ggs league of legends
Just to expand on one point you made: Wanting to go pro. I think it's really shitty when people say shit like "Not all pros are just naturally gifted. Some just put in more work than others. It's about practice, and a focus on improvement." Fuck no. All pros are gifted. And all pros put in a ton of time to get where there at. It takes both of those things to be at the very top. Telling people otherwise is just tricking them into wasting hours/weeks/years of their life chasing an impossible goal. If you have the potential to be good enough to make money in any competitive scene, it will be obvious. The climb will be easy to start. You'll naturally be better than 90% of players. And then when you actually start taking the competition seriously, you'll reach the top 1% in no time. THEN the real work starts when you try to get to the top 0.01%. If it's hard just to get to the top 10% of any competitive sport, I'm sorry but you're not going to ever reach "pro" status. So yeah, it's nice to be inspired by the pros and all these charismatic/skilled streamers. And it's fine if you want to chase that dream for a while. But it is a huge risk, and super unlikely that you will reach the level where you can make money off it. People should not be encouraged to waste years of their life on that. (The same cannot be said for regular jobs/careers, where you can be a fine professional while still being mediocre.) Just... for your own health, try to realize when you've hit your peak, and accept it. For 99% of players, the only thing this game can give them is "fun" (and occasionally a life lesson). Try not to expect more than that.
: Aftershock should have a lower lv 1 value
Unless you're building a lot of armor and MR, it's basically just 35-45% damage reduction. Because its mitigation potential is a percentage of damage (up to a maximum of your HP), it automatically gets more valuable as the game goes on, people start doing more damage, and you get more health. So the scaling is just fine. For comparison, most damage runes add a flat amount of damage. In order for that rune damage to stay relevant, it needs to scale just as well as the other sources of damage. But Aftershock blocks a percentage of damage instead, so it's always relevant, whether it's 300 damage or 3,000. The only caveat is tanks who stack armor and MR. They get a little less value from the additional stats of Aftershock, since 120 armor isn't that great when you already have 200. But at least they get more damage because it scales off max HP.
Syrile (NA)
: 0/1/1 vs 1/0/1 and a 19 CS difference equals 650 Gold Bounty
I think this should be a bug report instead. It's clearly not working as intended. It looks like the bounty is supposed to go up and down regularly as CS fluctuates, but the down part might be bugged. At one point during the game his bounty is 800g, and it drops back to 650 when Viktor gets a bit of CS. That's the original 150g bounty (since the lowest bounty is 450g, the first increase is always +150g) that we see dissappear, but there were probably other +50g increases were not removed due a bug?
Cheini (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leonerdo,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Y2Ga30W9,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-01-16T04:27:48.462+0000) > > Gotta admit, I really hate that way of thinking about Ranked. I would prefer for Ranked to be more accurate and competitive, than grindy. > > But to each their own, I guess. Maybe separate position ranks will help out folks like you, if you don't mind changing roles to get more space to climb. hey leonerdo did you see his name?.. :d
Retribution Paladin? The WoW spec that was OP at one point? Was it like the best leveling spec in Classic or something?
: I just want a hard reset so I can climb a lot. With the current system I usually start my new season between Plat 3 and Plat 1 after having ended around Plat 1 - Dia 5, so only a few divisions below where I ended last season. It's actually really pointless and boring and I wish I would start lower so I can enjoy a longer climb.
Gotta admit, I really hate that way of thinking about Ranked. I would prefer for Ranked to be more accurate and competitive, than grindy. But to each their own, I guess. Maybe separate position ranks will help out folks like you, if you don't mind changing roles to get more space to climb.
PhRoXz0n (NA)
: Crit Item Explorations Part 2
I mean, I guess those change are all decent. The best thing is that they provide more options (although I notice that is not one of your goals). But they're far from "exciting" or "satisfying". And yeah, PD hits the goal of providing a defensive option, but I always thought of it as the "extra fast" zeal upgrade, not the defensive one. This is clearly a safer, more conservative, change-list than the last. Which was not what I was hoping for when I read "Crit users have an item path they are excited about." This just looks like "Crit users get to build more crit items." Maybe someone's excited about that, IDK.
: Vayne's winratio skyrocketed to 54% in the span of one day.
Just a note, if you use lolalytics.com as obsessively as I do, you'll notice that the most recent day of stats is always fucked up by as much as 5%. Tomorrow (after all the data is collected and processed), it will probably say that today's winrate ended up being 51-52%. I always have to wait 2 or 3 days after the patch to get any kind of confident read on the stats. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the data collection, or if there are actually differences to be found in early-bird players vs. rest-of-the-day players causing the most recent (non-complete) day to have different stats. But it is a pretty consistent problem with lolalytics.
PhRoXz0n (NA)
: Crit Item Explorations
I'm in favor of: * Making Stormrazor multi-proc. * OR making Stormrazor better for kiting, worse for burst: More ms and/or lower cooldown, but less AD. * Broadening Essence Reaver: Just make it an activate-able item so people can use it when they want. (Maybe allow it to be prepped, i.e. when you use it, it doesn't activate until you auto-attack while a spell is off-cd.) * Moving 100 gold off Zeal and onto IE, so that ADCs get to be fast sooner in the game. (Only if crit-ADCs need mid-game buffs.) * Making Black Cleaver a viable defensive item on ADCs. * Making ADC abilities scale better in the mid- and late-game (rather than how they currently cap out at level 9 in many cases). * Buffing Last Whisper. Not that LW is a satisfying/fun item that I want to use more. But currently it's undertuned and a trap (unless you can jump straight to the upgrade). The other listed changes seem a little silly: * Hexdrinker is fine as-is, and we don't want stopwatches in every pocket again. I think stopwatch is fun, but I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. * I prefer Phantom Dancer as the "fast" Zeal upgrade, not the "defensive" one. * I don't understand the IE reversion, unless y'all really wanna do a 180 on last midseason's goals (which I think are still valid). * The 5000G IE is just a huge stat stick. It's the least interesting of all the early-game Crit builds that have ever existed. * As for the Energized Stormrazor, I don't think we should be adding any more RFC+Stormrazor synergy.
warlordekko (EUNE)
: Not trying to be mean or anything but WHY IS GRAVES SO DAMN STRONG?
800 damage at 20 minutes is like half of your hp. Doing half your HP is not a one-shot. But yeah, when he's in melee range he does more damage than actual melee fighters :\\\\
: I literally have just a SINGLE wish from all League players
9 times out of 10, this is the reason why people get banned when they "didn't say anything toxic at all". Arguing constantly is still toxic even if your word choice/phrasing is relatively polite. No one wants their chatbox to become useless/distracting because some twit is trying his damnedest to win an argument on the internet. The chatbox is not for proving a point; it's for informing teammates about the game state, or organizing a strategy. If someone disagrees, let them. Move on.
: After playing 50+ games of Nexus Blitz, 3 Things Need to Be Removed
I agree for the most part, but I think snowball fight is fun. It does suck that it favors mages who are already favored in the Nexus Blitz overall. I'm not sure what can be done about that. Maybe teams with bad waveclear can combat that advantage by flanking and starting a fight, since the waveclearing team will supposedly be pushed up without any Flashes.
: Draven Q doesn't crit though
In case someone doesn't believe you: https://imgur.com/VVWbwL6.png[/img]
: Season 8 has undeniably been the worst season in League.
> League of Legends will surely fall and die in the same was that World of Warcraft died. So it'll lose half of it's playerbase but still have millions of players left?
Kronikus (NA)
: But that's not the point. The game is an esport, it isn't supposed to be casual. Maybe some kind of arena shooter, or some type of game that relies more on muscle memory and instinct could be considered casual and balanced as such, but League is strategy based. There is knowledge you can learn about this game to the point that even the people we're learning from are still learning. And that's why they're better than us, because of all the shit they learned that influences their decision making and planning. They rotate modes for you to play casually on. They give you ARAM, where you can literally do whatever you want. You can't take SR with a casual mindset and expect to do well against the people who are actually putting in effort and learning the game. They will just be better than you. Even the people in the same elo as you are doing better if they chose to take it more seriously and learn. *Learning* is the key here, because if you don't care to figure out what will kill you and what you need to do to make it harder for the enemies to do so, you will die consistently and question why it's so easy to die. Is that your idea of casual fun? It shouldn't be anybody's.
No doubt. That is the primary mindset of Ranked players. That is not the entire game though. You don't have to aspire to be Challenger one day in order to play League of Legends. Some people don't even aspire to be Gold. The learning and competitive parts of the game are more or less optional. Almost every player will be at least a little competitive (since it's a PvP game), but some will care more about having fun, casual games with friends, than they will about their competitive tendencies.
Kronikus (NA)
: I think the point he's trying to make here is, this game *cannot* be played casually. You will not have fun on SR if you aren't making an effort to keep the enemies from smashing you. The enemies are trying to smash you and win, and if you allow them to do that, you will lose. And so you're faced with a couple options. Either A) gain more knowledge on how they're doing it so you can do it back, and better than them, or B) play something else. In other words, accept reality instead of trying to change it. This game is very good at bringing out a person's ego and showing it to them. If you can't handle that, don't play the game. Expecting the devs to sympathize with you would just kill the game. *Changes made for someone who doesn't know what they're doing are changes made for no reason other than to pacify.*
Nope. I tried, but I can't see your point. League gets played casually all the time. For example (but not as 100% proof), some of the best League videos from years past have been entirely goofy memetages, or just casual games-with-friends videos. Those things wouldn't exist (or wouldn't be so popular) if everyone thought League was a serious, competitive, strategy game only. To be fair though, it's pretty hard to get that casual picture based on the conversations you find on the boards.
: > [{quoted}](name=Leonerdo,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Jz9y6lBX,comment-id=00130000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-18T19:09:36.774+0000) > > I know that League has distorted a lot of people viewpoints, but some people just like to play games for the short-term experience. Fortnite THEN GO PLAY FORTNITE XD bro. like what are you talking about? im really laughing at this point. this is a competitive strategy game, and not a battle royale. this is a different genre. if you want to play entirely casual to the point where you literally dont turn on your brain that youre improving after like a 100 games, either just accept the fact that you wont climb the ranked ladder and keep losing to the same champions or switch to a different game. like what is wrong with you? if i want to play casual, i start up fucking minecraft or i hop into an aram and dont give a shit about winning or losing. i dont come here onto these boards and ask riot to nerf the shit out of fuckin anivia or janna, because they hard counter my champion.
I don't like Fortnite though. I can just see things from other people's point of view if I want to. Apparently that's unusual? Is it also weird to think people can only like a game for more than one reason? Dunno why you're getting upset about this either. Like JFC, chill out. There's nothing wrong with me, except that I have an opinion. I'm gonna leave now, btw. I have things to do, and I don't feel like getting yelled at (insomuch as text can "yell").
: I mean this is true but at the same time it still doesn't account for the 140+ roster with a large portion being 6300 or higher. If Riot really wants to attract new players, loosening this grind will do wonders. Plus it means that you'll be on a faster path to unlocking all the champs, which in turn puts you on a faster path to the BE cosmetic store, which = free cosmetics for players and overall a happier playerbase.
That's fair enough. But I'm not convinced that unlocking every champion is all that much harder to than it was 2 or 3 years ago. You get a discount if you have a corresponding champion shard, and there's events and missions that give bonuses. All in all, because of the new champion releases (as slow as they are) it does get a bit harder every year to unlock EVERY champion. But it's easier to get ENOUGH champions to play with, and to be able to pick up a new champion every week or two. And if people have complaints about needing all the champions in order to be able to trade, well I think that's better tackled with a change to champion select. ... That being said, one of my points stemmed from the problem of running out of things to buy. And I just admitted that unlocking the full roster has probably gotten harder. So while I don't think it's necessary to reduce any more champion costs, I have to admit that there is less of a reason to avoid it. I'm still not sure it makes sense to do discounts during champion reworks though. It already seems like we get a lot of value out of them. (Nunu is going to be a "new" champion that only costs 450!)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leonerdo,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Jz9y6lBX,comment-id=001300000000,timestamp=2018-08-18T18:20:06.556+0000) > > Of course the idea is to get better and climb, but NOT EVERYONE will do that. then they have to accept that theyre going to keep losing. like why do you expect the game to change around players that are unwilling to improve? how does this even remotely make sense? i feel trolled at this point. does this work with other things in life for you aswell? like if you fail a test at school because you didnt want to learn, can you just kick and scream at the teacher until he literally changes the content of the textbooks for everyone so your answers match the questions? or is he just going to let fail until you get it right?
I know that League has distorted a lot of people viewpoints, but some people just like to play games for the short-term experience. Fortnite, for example, is built entirely on the fun you can have in a single match. Some people have pushed for a ranked ladder, but most people are just there to run around, find cool weapons/gear, and brawl with each other (often with friends). That is the same for a lot of League players, even some who play Ranked regularly. They want to know where they stand in terms of skill, and maybe they want to work on improving every now and then, but really their main motivation is just to have a fun brawl for 20-40 minutes. And they're not going to have as much fun in those matches if they're constantly facing OP pubstomping champions. And if they aren't the ones laning against the Garen or whoever, then "learn to play against it, git gud" isn't even helpful advice. By the time they face the Garen, he's already fed and dominating the whole game. The only way to escape that is to get VASTLY better at the game, and climb to Gold/Plat where Garen no longer has a 55% winrate. (And in case it wasn't obvious, I'm just using Garen and 55% as easy examples. Not that Garen is the only problem, or that 55% is the correct number.)
: > [{quoted}](name=Leonerdo,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Jz9y6lBX,comment-id=0013,timestamp=2018-08-18T17:33:04.144+0000) > > "Get better" is not a solution to low-MMR problems. No matter what you do to enable players' learning, there will always be new players who haven't had a chance to grow yet, plus a ton of hard-stuck Bronze/Silver players who just don't have the time, motivation, and/or skill to get better. do you understand the concept of a ranked ladder? getting better at the game to climb is exactly the idea behind it. its like people are trying to argue basic concepts here, that should be obvious and reasonable to everyone.
Of course the idea is to get better and climb, but NOT EVERYONE will do that. And some may only get as far as Silver or Gold. And most will not get there for years. So ignoring low-MMR balance will still negatively affect hundreds of thousands of players for hundreds of hours each, regardless of how much you push them to improve. It's like people are trying to argue basic reality here, that should be obvious and reasonable to everyone. (Btw, this is a rude statement. Sorry about that. But your first question is far more disrespectful, so I don't feel so bad.)
Wuks (NA)
: Gameplay+, the newest way to discuss the game on the Boards
I just hope that the criteria for "thoughtful" has nothing to do with "length". I don't think long, meandering ramblings are any better than short, accusatory rants. And taking the time to write 3000 words should not be valued more than taking the time to edit that down to 1000 words.
: instead of nerfing champions when they become strong in low mmr
"Get better" is not a solution to low-MMR problems. No matter what you do to enable players' learning, there will always be new players who haven't had a chance to grow yet, plus a ton of hard-stuck Bronze/Silver players who just don't have the time, motivation, and/or skill to get better. We're not doing them a favor by making them fight 55%+ winrate champions and telling them, "Stop being a scrub. Here's some guides. Good luck... And if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As if that would actually get people to climb 2 tiers in skill. And as if people would wait that long to get to a balanced and fun MMR.
: I knew this would happen once damage was nerfed...
I mean, if you actually watch the video, he's got some good points. I just wish he didn't pick that title. It's more like "League of Legends is going TOO FAR in the right direction." I think Riot has been on-point in correcting a lot of the problems with the recent meta. But when you stack all of the changes up, it does begin to worry me that we're just going to end up at the other extreme. Where hyper-carries, tanks, and teamfights are the focus (the only focus), and early-game doesn't matter except for farming. I don't think we're quite at that point yet in SoloQ, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Worlds look the same as last year (minus the Ardent Censer rush).
: This may seem childish and a little pathetic, but boycotting LoL *REALLY* hursts Riot and is probably the thing to do against their dumb acts. In just a month they forced refering-missions in hope of getting new players and revoked the vast majority of perma-bans in NA to get back some more players that they already lost. Since Riot NEVER acted this way before and is pretty much still denying the downhill progression of the game, this proves that the number of players (along with Riot's revenue) is indeed decreasing greatly. Joining the movement and punishing Riot for their bullsh!t actually seems to work. If the game really feels like wasted time to you, then you can consider going to another game, waiting until Riot will wake up, IF they do wake up
They didn't "revoke" any permabans. And they didn't even touch "the vast majority" of them. They're doing an experiment with a small chunk of permabanned players to see if some of them can actually reform after being perma'd. Ya'know, out of good will, to give people a second (or fifth) chance. Not because they need 1000 toxic players (a drop in the bucket really) to boost their profits.
: Make Champion price reductions on reworks as well as new releases.
??? They reduce prices when new champions are released because the new champion adds an extra 6300 BE cost to the roster. But reworks don't cost the players anything. If they already own the old champion, then they basically get a new champion for free. Even if they don't own it already, reworked champions are usually cheaper than 6300, and they still don't impact the cost of the full roster. I feel like this post only got so many upvotes because it means free discounts, and how can people disagree with free stuff. I hate to tell you, but the limited BE economy is important. People feel just as bad when they have 99999 extra BE and nothing to spend it on, as they do when they are at 0 BE and can't afford the new champion (yet).
Trauja (EUW)
: People complain about Ahri but can we nerf Jax?
Eh, you've got a point. I don't think he's entirely out of line (especially in higher ELOs), but I recently had similar thoughts about MF being too strong for regular players. So yeah, if we're doing a sweep of those kinds of champions (those with stats that are just too high, below Diamond), I think I would hit Ahri, Jax, MF, Nami, and Garen at the same time.
: STOP PUTTING UNRANKED PLAYERS IN HIGH SILVER
A Rioter said they are already planning on changing that for the next Season. Dunno if they'll stick with that plan, though. > [{quoted}](name=Riot SapMagic,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=QTXRJ9fj,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-05-24T15:51:09.463+0000) > > One thing we are planning to do differently next season is to have all new players seed into Ranked at a lower MMR than they do today and begin their climb at the lowest tier. They'll climb out very fast during placements if they're actually good. These two changes should at least help your situation a bit.
NemesisCx (EUNE)
: Arclight Morgana - League of Legends
This is great. I love the colors (how did you make that grey accent look so good?). And the way you made consistent use of those golden arcs (no pun intended) throughout, not just on the wings. I'm a little worried that some of the details wouldn't be visible in the actual game, where it would be much smaller. For instance, the crest on the bottom-front of her dress (especially the inside part) feels like it could be more impactful.
: Riot, you cant say damage is to high and then buff Yasuo's damage right after.
Is... is this sarcasm? The last line seems a little like a performance... If we're taking this seriously though, it's pretty awful logic to assume that Riot will never buff a champion's damage just because **overall** damage is too high. They're gonna nerf a couple runes to knock down some overall damage. And champion-specific changes will be (as always) determined based on the champion in question. Yasuo and general damage are not related problems. Quit looking for any possible excuse to complain about them (or Zoe/Zed).
: i am convinced riots balance team is trolling at this point.
**TL;DR:** The balance team is struggling (mainly because of low-skill vs. high-skill differences, and Play-offs/Worlds is coming soon), not trolling. _____________________________ Several of the changes are aimed at pro-play. And most of them make some sense. The buff to Yasuo's ult is decent because ult-related changes tend to be more impactful in pro play (because people don't fight as much without their ults). Although, of course, Yasuo is already busted below Plat, so they can't go through with any straight buffs. And would you look at that, it was reverted on the PBE. Edit: I just noticed Yasuo also lost a bunch of power from the 8.15 changes. He's actually a tiny bit weak overall. Those buffs will probably come back at some point... The orianna nerf is because Riot doesn't want Orianna to be the #1 "safe" mid-laner for the millionth time in Worlds. And the buff to Lee Sin was definitely overkill. I'm fine with complaining about that one. They reverted it already, though. The Hecarim buff is just a compensation for the Celerity nerf (not related to Worlds this time). I am 100% certain about that. And it's focused on his sustain damage, rather than his burst, which I think is appropriate. Zoe nerfs are necessary of course. They can't go any further than they did, because they don't want to make drastic (mechanics-level) changes before Worlds. And they probably don't want to change her mechanics anyways, because they're unique and interesting ("fun" is up for debate). Whatever, she'll be in the same spot as Azir pretty soon. It's a tough situation. There is no winning situation anymore. Maybe if she wasn't released with so much bullshit, it would be easier to cut some of it down without "destroying her playstyle/identity". ___________________ So yeah, there's some bad decisions in there that are already reverted, and Zoe is a problem without a "good" decision available. But most of the changes make sense in some way, if you think about it. So I wouldn't say the balance team is trolling, just that they're struggling. Maybe one of these days they'll get over their "same game, same rule" policy, and make a pro-specific version of the game.
: I really hope that riot games will be one day a monolith of the game industry however...
This was a pretty good post for the first third. And I want to agree with some of the other stuff, but you're making it really hard with bullshit like this: > 2018 : changes on the old chest keys system which was way more friendly to the players Chest and keys basically haven't changed at all. The only difference that I know of is the addition of honor check points, which are an improvement to clarity and transparency if anything. Oh, and [these small changes](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/zKItWb9m-champ-mastery-costs-masterwork-chests-and-some-loot-buffs), which all seem like buffs to me. > 2018 : still a lot of old champions to visually or to gameplay update Yeah, because Riot actually has decent standards now. The old one-new-champion-per-patch cadence is the entire reason that we have so many shitty, old champions in the first place. Good work takes time, no matter how big your company is. Do you want quality, or do you want more Karma reworks? (Sorry Scarizard, it wasn't your best work) > 2017-18 : popular champions favorised by gameplay improvement and skin comception Why wouldn't Riot focus more on the champions that people enjoy? They make more people happy that way. And it's not like they are leaving other champions in the dust forever. Not even counting the complete reworks, I've seen plenty of new skins, lore, and small balance changes given to old champions recently. Yorick, MF, and Volibear (respectively) are just a few good examples. > 2018 : destruction of a processus of balance that took around 9 years to be optimized Every champion was meant to be balanced around runes and masteries. Arguing in favor of the new runes is a pretty in-depth task that I'm not going to attempt here. But I can say that they haven't affected "processes of balance" at all. Champions are still balanced around their best rune setups, and if a rune is too strong, it's obvious (too many champions use it/it made those champions generally dominant) and it gets fixed. This isn't new. The same shit has been happening forever with masteries and items. > 2018 : crazy metas, crazy champion designs, unfinished and non polished ideas that were brought live. I'll agree on the first two. (Although I personally don't have a problem with the "crazy" designs, I understand Riot is pushing too hard on that front, for most players.) However, it's not fair to call any of it unpolished. There's always been a huge amount of "live testing" when it comes to League (and a lot of other online games). It's not realistic to expect new features/champions to be perfectly tuned (especially the crazy ones). It's an iterative design process, that involves player feedback, which they get a ton of **after** release. PBE can only get them so far, given the small playerbase and terrible match quality. Could Riot spend 3 more months on every champion/feature/issue, to make sure it's perfect? Probably, but that would slow down the overall rate of improvements and new content by a lot. It's not a workflow I would advocate for. I'd rather have slightly unfinished designs, that are perfected quickly thanks to feedback from live players. > 2018 : extremely low communication with players, non consideration of players feedback, riot had to wait the rage streamers and of the pro players to began to act... There is no way this can be objectively argued for or against. It's entirely up to perception and expectations, compared loosely with other games/companies that don't even work the same way. All I can say is that I continually see Riot fix 80% of the hot-button complaints in the game. (The other 20% being infeasible to fix, or just stupid.) It's just takes them a while. Maybe too long... In any case, "extremely low communication" and "non consideration of feedback" are waaaay off target. > 2018 : the massive amount of players lost have brought them to unbann permantly banned accounts. Do you honestly think Riot is experimenting with unbanning players because they need more players? I've tried to be respectful with the rest of my comment, but that is actually ridiculous. Less than 1% of player get permabanned in the first place, so unbanning them would be a drop in the bucket. Seriously, unbanning players is such an incredibly bad business decision for so many reasons... Anyone who thinks Riot is unbanning people for any reason besides pure good-faith or generosity is sorely mistaken. I guess you could argue it's a good PR move, but any kind of AD campaign would be 10x better for their bottom-line if that's what they really cared about. > You are trying to be like blizzard but you are getting closer to ea games. EA isn't even a game developer. They are a publisher. Regardless, I get your meaning, and I reject that as well. League of Legends is still a free-to-play game. With free loot. And the recent addition of free runes. And skins may be a bit more expensive now-a-days, but it's largely because they are higher quality. Speaking of which, even when champions get VGUs, their old shitty skins get updated/improved too without increasing those skin prices. Riot is nothing like EA. Bring on the "Riot fanboy" comments. Riot is fine company to be a fan of, IMO. _______ Aight, I can't read any more of this. It's taken me too long to write all this anyways, ~~just to get downvoted and ignored~~. Peace.
: And this is why this game fuckin sucks and so many people quit the game. Noone wants to play the same game every game with nothing inbetween: Win lane--->roam--->get objective--->pray your team isnt retarded. Laning phase of 5 minutes---->group--->aram and 5v5 deathball all the time. It's boring and it sucks as hell.
If you think the game is the same every time, then you are not paying enough attention. Even if it was, my point stands. Like you said, it's "Win lane--->roam--->get objective--->[work with your team]", not win lane-->win game. Whether you think that's boring or not, is a tangential point at best.
: I feel like league becomes more and more of a coin flip game
You don't win the game by winning lane. You win by getting objectives. And for that you need to play well in the mid-game, and use your advantages without overstepping. You need to be able to pressure the map constantly or win teamfights consistently, without getting caught or forcing bad plays. And yes, you need to work with your team. Don't tell them what to do constantly, but use your pings, call for help, and be aware of the plays they are trying to make as well. And even when you're doing all that correctly, you should still lose 45% of your games. That doesn't matter, though. Focus on your contributions and your rank. That's all that matters in the long-run if you're playing solo. Your team will be different every game, and there's very little you can do to control them aside from pings, so try to work with them/around them, but never ever think that you can change them or entertain thoughts about what you could do with better teammates. It's not realistic and it's not helpful to think that you're teammates will meet every expectation. Expect mistakes, and learn to make the best of a bad situation.
: Do promos actually give you worse players on purpose?
There's no intentionally different matchmaking in promos that makes it harder to win. However there are two side-effects that could impact the matchmaking very slightly. 1) You have to win some matches to get to promos in the first place. And of course winning raised your MMR, like it always does. 2) You are granted autofill protection during promos (because you should be at your best when you're being tested by promos). However that means if someone needs to be autofilled to make a match, it will be someone else on your team. Which means there is a very tiny increase in autofilled teammates in your promos. (But seriously, Autofill is already rather rare, and situations where your autofill protection actually changes anything are even rarer.)
: It's different promos gives you sometimes higher level mmr opponents than yours because it considers that you have to be able to beat stronger opponents if you want to climb to a higher level. Sometimes there is a huge gap which doesnt feel fair. As your opponents are stronger you feel as your mates are bad. Level gap is too high.
This is false. The only "higher MMR" involved is the fact that you had to win matches to get to promos in the first place, and of course winning improves your MMR as always. But there is no sudden, arbitrary MMR increase when you hit promos.
: Riot is a Toxic Company
First of all, I've never heard of a game that is capable of "damaging" your computer, unless it's intentionally made to be malware. Any other OS crashes are due to drivers, hardware, or overheating, all of which you ARE responsible for. And BSoDs are just signs of a problem, not actually damaging. Second, like you said, Riot can't make the game work perfectly for every single hardware/software configuration around the world. But there is a reasonable expectation, that if you are using relatively new hardware, and supported software (not Linux, for example), that crashes should be extremely rare or non-existent. There's a lot of conditions to that statement though. And if your story is just that you've been crashing recently on a $1800 rig, that's not enough to prove it's Riot's fault. Is your computer 10 years old? Are you sure there isn't some exotic background program, anti-virus software, or actual virus that is causing the problems? Do you have crashes in any other games? Have you checked your computer's temperatures? Have you done literally any troubleshooting? Have you even sent in a Support ticket, or did you just give up after reading one support article? I can't tell the answer to any of those questions, despite the length of your rant, so I'm really not inclined to believe that your computer is safe from blame. The only important thing you've told us is that you haven't changed anything recently. But the problem could easily lie in older software or worn-out hardware. Lastly, if problem just started this patch, maybe you should give Riot, I don't know, more than 5 days to nail down a fix for a potentially random and hard-to-identify crash? Edit: Just saying, but I've literally never had a problem with League, aside from random once-in-a-year crashes or the current FPS-drop issue (which they are working on and will probably be fixed next patch). Okay well, not "literally never"; I think there used to be more critical gameplay bugs/crashes like 6 years ago, but nothing in the last half-a-decade.
Ahpe (NA)
: Hey Meddler what do you think of Akali right now after he release? https://imgur.com/azPdU9b You think it's just because her kit is so unique, stats or something else?
Not Meddler, but maybe it's what you're looking for: [Riot Blaustoise on Twitter](https://twitter.com/RiotBlaustoise/status/1025277332511055873) Basically, she's just a hard champion to master, but she's probably not weak in the long-run.
Show more

Leonerdo

Level 73 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion