R0XTAR (NA)
: Okay, about ARAM
Honestly just unlock all champs and iyll be okay. I can not find a justifiable reason to defend not letting all champs be unlocked in aram.
Astrelek (EUNE)
: Ultra Rapid Fire should be brought back - Ultra Rapid Fast
Make it all random, all champions, tone down hecacopter and a few of the other completely unfair things and it'll be fine.
Zagarna (NA)
: [Citation needed]
> [{quoted}](name=Zagarna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eY0qhYAE,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-09-07T17:38:24.305+0000) > > [Citation needed] https://kotaku.com/two-riot-employees-leave-under-complicated-circumstance-1828886072
Rioter Comments
: Revert Runes Reforged and bring back the old runes and masteries. Game was a whole lot better without this stupid system in place.
i totally agree with you there. I think the old system could still use some work and some changes, can't quite put my finger on what exactly but it's still better than these.
: > [{quoted}](name=Lowvyr,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E3Z7pBbM,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-05T21:36:22.964+0000) > > I think that's a pretty cool idea. Crit chance lowers the amount of autos you need until you get a crit. It's telegraphed, still gives similar power, and can be played around. No RNG. That's actually a really good idea imo. It would need some extra balancing out but overall it's solid. yeah take the rng out of it and make it a mechanic would give the player more to work wtih, i feel like a base number of 10 is rather high tho :O
: > [{quoted}](name=Lowvyr,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Gmpe1HUs,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-09-05T22:06:39.495+0000) > > I mean like I said, it wasn't the best way to go around it. I think there are much better ways to get to what they wanted. But holy shit it's not the end of the world. > And I don't think this really sets a precedent. Especially after seeing how upset a community of people can get over something small like this, I doubt any company will ever attempt to include women again, because obviously when women are given something the men freak out. This was done in a sloppy manner and the same thing could have been achieved in other ways, however, I will stand and say that this isn't the worst thing ever. People here and on reddit are acting like its the holocaust, when in reality its more like a quick jab to the nuts. I agree that it was wrong and they could have done it better, and in a much more telegraphed way. But life goes on. You say it doesn't and yes their was community outrage, but that would've simmered down a bit until they started defending the practice. Although it was over the weekend so I don't know if the higher ups have made it official, but the most recent statement (which came after the backlash) is that they're proud of their panel so why wouldn't they do it again? Especially with all the people defending it as "not sexist"
> [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Gmpe1HUs,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-09-05T22:10:05.237+0000) > > You say it doesn't and yes their was community outrage, but that would've simmered down a bit until they started defending the practice. Although it was over the weekend so I don't know if the higher ups have made it official, but the most recent statement (which came after the backlash) is that they're proud of their panel so why wouldn't they do it again? Especially with all the people defending it as "not sexist" Because if they do it again their community will go on a witch-hunt and sealion them to death with over-zealous reactions. I doubt they'll go about it in this way again. I'm sure that they'll learn that pure exclusion wasn't the best choice, but that there is also a time and place for certain groups to get treatment while separated from the other. It really isn't sexist, as sexism implies malicious intent to exclude a certain gender to prevent them from whatever. This wasn't done maliciously, it wasn't done to hurt men. It was done to empower women in an area they are typically underrepresented. I believe there are better ways, but I also think that this community overreacted. I also believe that DZK is highly responsible for the overreactions because his comments were quite rude and unwarranted. His main point was that the community is overreacting, which is true. He went overboard and used to many mean words and belittled too many people while doing it, and he deserves some form of punishment for his actions. I also deserve the hate I'm getting because of my overreaction to people overreacting. My original post could have been much nicer in the way I went about describing my thoughts.
: There's nothing wrong with trying to get more women into a field. The issue is the way they went around this. One, it absolutely is discrimination. There is no denying that. You are actively denying someone something based on their natural state of being. Two, the only thing really making this a for women is the fact it was run by women and they denied access to men. All the topics they talked about would've been pleasant for anyone. Three, The big issue is this sets a precedent. Everyone talks about how "It's just one panel, it's just a few hours". But think about it, yes, this time it was one Riot panel. What about next time when other companies go "Well, they had a female only panel so it's okay for us." So Activision does one, then Bethesda, then CD Projekt Red. Eventually it's all of PAX that's female only. Tell me, because not a single person for this has answered and chosen to ignore my one simple question. How many of these panels would it take to FINALLY be not allowed?
> [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Gmpe1HUs,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-09-05T21:47:11.737+0000) > > There's nothing wrong with trying to get more women into a field. The issue is the way they went around this. One, it absolutely is discrimination. There is no denying that. You are actively denying someone something based on their natural state of being. Two, the only thing really making this a for women is the fact it was run by women and they denied access to men. All the topics they talked about would've been pleasant for anyone. Three, The big issue is this sets a precedent. Everyone talks about how "It's just one panel, it's just a few hours". But think about it, yes, this time it was one Riot panel. What about next time when other companies go "Well, they had a female only panel so it's okay for us." So Activision does one, then Bethesda, then CD Projekt Red. Eventually it's all of PAX that's female only. Tell me, because not a single person for this has answered and chosen to ignore my one simple question. How many of these panels would it take to FINALLY be not allowed? I mean like I said, it wasn't the best way to go around it. I think there are much better ways to get to what they wanted. But holy shit it's not the end of the world. And I don't think this really sets a precedent. Especially after seeing how upset a community of people can get over something small like this, I doubt any company will ever attempt to include women again, because obviously when women are given something the men freak out. This was done in a sloppy manner and the same thing could have been achieved in other ways, however, I will stand and say that this isn't the worst thing ever. People here and on reddit are acting like its the holocaust, when in reality its more like a quick jab to the nuts. I agree that it was wrong and they could have done it better, and in a much more telegraphed way. But life goes on.
S0kaX (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Lowvyr,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Gmpe1HUs,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-09-05T21:43:05.521+0000) >but you paid knowing that something could happen that would prevent you from entering. Sorry. Literally nobody knew that was going to happen. Nobody.
> [{quoted}](name=S0kaX,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Gmpe1HUs,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-05T21:53:46.973+0000) > > Literally nobody knew that was going to happen. Nobody. And what if a giant fucking meteor came down a day before and destroyed the entire exhibition hall? Nobody knew that was going to happen. Nobody. EDIT: and yes I know it could have been telegraphed better, but the reaction it got was absurd. I understand that it was a dick move in the end, and they could have gone about it better with better communication and without excluding men. But it isn't the end of the world.
S0kaX (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Lowvyr,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Gmpe1HUs,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-09-05T21:34:08.168+0000) > > So sorry that you weren't allowed into a women only room for an event designed specifically for women. Too bad men didn't know this so they wasted money.
> [{quoted}](name=S0kaX,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Gmpe1HUs,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-05T21:39:23.185+0000) > > Too bad men didn't know this so they wasted money. "wasted money" There were other things to go to? It wasn't the main event? Portion of it was also live streamed. It was PAX. There was a SHIT ton of other stuff to do. I get it if you're just interested in that, but that's quite a bit of money to spend on just one little panel. If some company cancels their panel you won't get your money back. You then paid for something and didn't get it, but you paid knowing that something could happen that would prevent you from entering. Sorry.
: > [{quoted}](name=Lowvyr,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E3Z7pBbM,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-09-05T21:04:19.550+0000) > > I'd agree that would be a very nice change. I don't think it's the most pressing issue, though. I do have to admit though, getting oneshot literally out of pure luck is pretty fuckin annoying. > Obviously crit needs to stay in some form or fashion, but not as RNG. How do you think they could redo it? i feel crit is needed in its current form lets say they remove crit all together adcs late game would be subpar (cait, jinx, vayne). its literally as balanced as it gets unless they could make a special marksmen item only that supplements the adcs with absurdes amounts of ad later into a game they will NEVER have the dmg they need. i couldnt even imagine a no crit caitlyn or jinx it just sounds awful XD i think crit should be auto based imo riot should set a balanced number of autos until a crit happens even with a curtain amounts so lets say out of 100% crit there you have 25% crit 2.5/10 so you need 8 autos to crit if it was based of a 10 auto system rewarding people for building more crit as crits would come more often. this change would also allow people to make plays with crits lets say you walk up and trade on ur 8th auto and enemy is on 1st you will clearly win this trade no matter what and you know this as its a machanic instead of rng it also allows for outplay potential playing safe when they get close to auto thresh hold and more aggro when you get close. i think this change could 100% balance crit but it would still lose some power to it as you wil not crit as frequant as before. ALSO SORRY FOR BAD ENGLISH ITS MY 3RD LANGUAGE XD
I think that's a pretty cool idea. Crit chance lowers the amount of autos you need until you get a crit. It's telegraphed, still gives similar power, and can be played around. No RNG. That's actually a really good idea imo. It would need some extra balancing out but overall it's solid.
Rioter Comments
: Remove RNG, such as crit.
I'd agree that would be a very nice change. I don't think it's the most pressing issue, though. I do have to admit though, getting oneshot literally out of pure luck is pretty fuckin annoying. Obviously crit needs to stay in some form or fashion, but not as RNG. How do you think they could redo it?
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=Lowvyr,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TvLvglVB,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:25:37.254+0000) > > I mean I've never personally heard of men getting sexually abused by women in a hospital/nursing home/what have you, but I would assume that those types of places do have times where they are actively trying to balance out the imbalance within their workplace. > Maybe safe spot is the wrong word to use, but it's being used fairly lightly. but you weren't talking about sexual abuse, you were talking about an opportunity space. Theres no opportunity space in child care workers,nurses, dental hygenists, secretaries and hairdressers for men. All of which consist of 94%+ women according to the U.S. Department of Labor
> [{quoted}](name=yaboydanny,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TvLvglVB,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:29:11.361+0000) > > but you weren't talking about sexual abuse, you were talking about an opportunity space. > Theres no opportunity space in child care workers,nurses, dental hygenists, secretaries and hairdressers for men. All of which consist of 94%+ women Sexual harassment/sexual abuse whatever. In those female dominated fields, men are not going to be harassed very often. And truthfully more women are interested in those fields. BUT THOSE PLACES MAKE AN ACTIVE ATTEMPT TO GET MEN INTERESTED. That doesn't mean anything will change, but they're trying. That's what they have to do, that's what Riot has to do. Not only because they want to, but they are required to. I'll repeat that this wasn't the best way to do it, it wasn't the most right way, it was half assed and pushed out to try to cover their asses and it backfired. The idea of giving women a space to come in and get involved in their workplace that is mostly men is a good thing. And actually, if you do a little research the ratios in lots of the jobs you listed are balancing out BECAUSE men are being encouraged to come work there. It isn't just Riot doing this stuff. It's happening everywhere, in every field. It's not only morally correct, it is the law.
Riñey (NA)
: * The move is atrocious period. * Riot isn't legally required to hire women, don't know who told you that but they're lying. * Women aren't handicapped babies who need to be protected from men. Men are actually supposed to do so for women. * The reason the gaming industry is dominated by men is simply because a lot more men are interested in games than women. Naturally, this means women will be the minority. No issue here. There are industries dominated by women (make up artists etc.) nothing wrong with that either.
> [{quoted}](name=Riñey,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TvLvglVB,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:23:52.649+0000) > > * The move is atrocious period. > > * Riot isn't legally required to hire women, don't know who told you that but they're lying. > > * Women aren't handicapped babies who need to be protected from men. Men are actually supposed to do so for women. > > * The reason the gaming industry is dominated by men is simply because a lot more men are interested in games than women. Naturally, this means women will be the minority. No issue here. There are industries dominated by women (make up artists etc.) nothing wrong with that either. I didnt say they are legally required to HIRE women. They are legally required to give them an equal chance, and the fact that many more men work their women, they do need to try to balance it out to prevent sexism and attempt to satisfy laws that require places to ATTEMPT to balance the gender ratio. many places do things like that where they have women and men days to get reviewed so that everyone has a chance and to help make sure things get balanced. If simply no women apply or don't qualify, then that's a totally different story. But for this company lots of women are probably discouraged from working there because of their sexist work culture. This was a step to try to fix it. It was done half-baked and in the wrong way at the wrong time at the wrong place, but overall it was a step in the right direction. Now keeping men from the rest of the cool topics, that was actually retarded.
: > [{quoted}](name=Lowvyr,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TvLvglVB,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:09:23.390+0000) > Giving women a safe spot to come and get their application in and see what the job is actually about without the distraction that there will be, undeniably, men. Are there safe spaces for men in female dominated fields such as nursing, and social workers?
> [{quoted}](name=yaboydanny,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TvLvglVB,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:21:50.507+0000) > > Are there safe spaces for men in female dominated fields such as nursing, and social workers? I mean I've never personally heard of men getting sexually abused by women in a hospital/nursing home/what have you, but I would assume that those types of places do have times where they are actively trying to balance out the imbalance within their workplace. Maybe safe spot is the wrong word to use, but it's being used fairly lightly.
: I keep seeing you, and others use this word "Safe space" for women. What about men being in the same room makes it unsafe?
> [{quoted}](name=Aametherar,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TvLvglVB,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:17:20.511+0000) > > I keep seeing you, and others use this word "Safe space" for women. What about men being in the same room makes it unsafe? It's not unsafe in the sense of actual physical danger, but more of an opportunity space. With men there, and obviously more of them, the women will inevitably get overshadowed, and especially considering the recent sexism scandal there, I'd say it's warranted to try to prevent the possiblity of sexism occurring right there in the room at all costs. Granted keeping people from the non-job sections of the conference was dumb as fuck, but at least for the job section it was okay. Basically done to prevent sexism and make damn sure that women have an equal chance (Which they are legally required to do.)
: I agree. If it's some event specifically designed for women then it's cool that the event is women only. If the event is something anyone, regardless of race or gender would enjoy then it's dumb to exclude one group to promote equality.
> [{quoted}](name=AnAggravatedPimp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TvLvglVB,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:13:40.675+0000) > > I agree. If it's some event specifically designed for women then it's cool that the event is women only. > > If the event is something anyone, regardless of race or gender would enjoy then it's dumb to exclude one group to promote equality. Exactly. I think this whole idea was half-baked and shoved out because of their recent problems, and while it's good at heart, it was done wrong. There are better ways to go about it.
Rioter Comments
Crett (NA)
: i don't think so many men whose continued patronage depends solely on riot's PAX event comprise the playerbase as a whole that it would meaningfully compromise their profits, but i guess ive been wrong before. as for reverse sexism, as a guy i don't really think that's a thing. you can discriminate against men for sure, but that just isn't sexism; that's discrimination against men. and the cultural nuances of it differ entirely from sexism. most importantly, discrimination against men does not have the same history as sexism. men have never had the same problems as women as a result of discrimination. i strongly feel there's no case for this whole thing being a real issue, even if it isn't the most graceful way they could have gone about it.
> [{quoted}](name=Crett,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=xpLYYigA,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-02T08:18:35.361+0000) > > i don't think so many men whose continued patronage depends solely on riot's PAX event comprise the playerbase as a whole that it would meaningfully compromise their profits, but i guess ive been wrong before. > > as for reverse sexism, as a guy i don't really think that's a thing. > you can discriminate against men for sure, but that just isn't sexism; that's discrimination against men. and the cultural nuances of it differ entirely from sexism. > most importantly, discrimination against men does not have the same history as sexism. men have never had the same problems as women as a result of discrimination. > > i strongly feel there's no case for this whole thing being a real issue, even if it isn't the most graceful way they could have gone about it. Well sexism is defined as being discrimination based upon sex. So male discrimination, while much more uncommon, is sexism. Female discrimination is sexism. And to be fair men haven't had to deal with this type of stuff, but that doesn't make it okay for them to now. We should be moving away from anyone having to deal with siexism not jus tmoving it off one group yo the other.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: reeeeeeeeeeee
Quality post
: Which champs feel most overbearing when strong in each role.
Top: {{champion:126}} or {{champion:122}} Jungle: {{champion:64}} Mid: {{champion:105}} or {{champion:61}} ADC: {{champion:67}} Supp: {{champion:117}}
THE D1C (NA)
: Sorry but as a Network Administrator I have to disagree Uh@ve2buysomething1st would be acceptable and meets complexity requirements.
> [{quoted}](name=THE D1C,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YLq9M012,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-08-31T00:19:35.282+0000) > > Sorry but as a Network Administrator I have to disagree > > Uh@ve2buysomething1st would be acceptable and meets complexity requirements. lol
: ARAM's algorithm for getting champs needs to change.
Or just unlock all champions in ARAM. Why it isn't already like this? Who fucking knows
Rioter Comments
: If you could change one "minor" thing about a champ, who and why?
I would fix Cho's W cone. That thing is wonky AF
Rioter Comments
VanaQuish (EUNE)
: And why is this a good thing? Synergy between items is better because its easier to balance it around.
> [{quoted}](name=VanaQuish,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=tIJAFcEt,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-08-28T13:28:11.160+0000) > > And why is this a good thing? Synergy between items is better because its easier to balance it around. In my eyes it's much harder to balance around. If you have one item that synergizes with another, and that one item is problematic and NOT the other item, when you nerf one you also indirectly nerf the other which will then require you to buff the other item to bring it back in line, but then some other build will abuse that item because it's overtuned. When each item acts separately, you can (usually) safely nerf/buff one item without breaking another. > There will always be certain items that work well together. Like crit items will work together with AD items because they provide a multiplicative bonus to what those items already have. Deathcap will always synergize with other AP items because it further increases the effectiveness of all AP you build. That type of synergy is healthy (mostly - the healthiness of the existence of crit is up for debate.) However, direct item synergies such as IE actually being useless if you don't get other crit items is not healthy. You can get deathcap without any other AP items and you will still benefit from the passive. With IE, you won't. If you DONT build crit with IE it is a wasted item slot.
: Have u played dota2? Try to watch some of TI. it's not the number of champs.
I've played a little bit of dota2 and never found it all that fun tbh. What you'll notice though is that dota2 has fewer heroes and new heroes are added at a much slower rate than they are in league. In fact they tend to go close to 10 months between hero releases. The main point here though is that they need to slow down. They need to let everything settle before they make more changes.
Rioter Comments
: Stop fucking lying to us.
As a (retired) aatrox main I'll say he needed more of a rework than the light rework he got but ffs he didn't need an overhaul. He needed his power shifted and some of his abilities needed to be completely changed (looking at the E). New aatrox is interesting but it doesn't.. feel like aatrox? Like he doesn't auto attack much anymore (which was what really defined him) his new q is just awkward as fuck to use, honestly his new W makes no sense and feels really random and the E is meant to help you set up his abilities but it doesn't do that as well as it should. Abd his ult is just a stat boost. That's all it is. I honestly feel like new aatrox is more stat checky than old aattox but o don't think either is a true stat check. Old aatrox was a cool idea for a champion. He was a generalizer. He wasn't the best at anything, but he was good at a lot of things. He was a decent flex pick. Need a tank top? He can do that. Need a mobile jungler with decent ganks? He can do that. Need an extra ad carry to rocket propel into an unstoppable ball of swinging sword? He can do that. Need a splitpisher? He's one of the best at that. Need some extra sustain? He's got ya. Need an early dragon? He can do that. You could take him anywhere and find some success. Except maybe as adc. He could work as a support even, not amazingly but he could in the right matchup. Old aatrox was fun as hell once you got good at him. He wasn't that hard to play, but learning to manage your w right did take some time. Once you figured it out though he was pretty viable . I had over a 60% winrstr with him when he was considered completely unviable. He WAS viable. You just really had to know what you're doing. New aatrox appears to oppressive as fuck and only because he was pigeon holed into this so that he could be "viable" which isn't how it should work. I can respect tnew aatrox as a DIFFERENT champion. But not as aatrox. Like you can't just ignore him for 3 years and then completely change him and make him even harder to balance and even more likely to be more volatile in the meta. I guess the rework was a success from their point of view, but from a logical standpoint it's the wrong direction. After the rework I completely lost interest in the game. Not just because of that but because other games are coming out that aren't balancing nightmares and the developers actually fucking listen to their player base and don't hit a problem with a god damn sledge hammer and then wonder "hmmmm why did that break something else???" Riot just does not understand how to balance their game anymore.
Slythion (NA)
: I will never disagree with this Imo, Zoe is literally the worst designed champion in the game and has had a net *negative* impact for League of Legends. Whoever greenlighted her should be fired and CT (who designed her) should never have the final say on champion design ever again.
> [{quoted}](name=Slythion,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=bBPHdIuA,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-07-25T14:57:01.012+0000) > > I will never disagree with this > > Imo, Zoe is literally the worst designed champion in the game and has had a net *negative* impact for League of Legends. Whoever greenlighted her should be fired and CT (who designed her) should never have the final say on champion design ever again. Ehhh id say Vlad holds that title. Zoe is a very close second though.
Fasmodey (EUW)
: Aatrox feels like his power level in lore went up.
Idk man old aatrox seemed pretty damn powerful. Powerful enough to fill entire armies with enough rage to overcome their enemies at the brink of destruction? Powerful enough to appear in the midst of a battle and completely turn it around, completely changing the course of history? Powerful enough to literally survive every single great war in the history of runeterra and be hailed as both a hero and demon through stories of great battles for as long as written history exists in runeterra? Literally a god of war that is indestructible? Pretty damn powerful if you ask me.
Fasmodey (EUW)
: He does. That's not the problem. But it is annoying to see every power wielder trying to be funny. I can handle Aurelion Sol, because it is delivered better. It is less annoying, less forced and IMO Aurelion Sol is a more serious champion, even with this personality. He is also like one of the first of his kind, powerful champion with fun personality. Aatrox is the last offender. It boils your blood when something starts to be overused. So I like Aurelion Sol, compare to Memetrox.
> [{quoted}](name=Fasmodey,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=WUEZpgxW,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-06-12T22:24:59.890+0000) > > He does. That's not the problem. > > But it is annoying to see every power wielder trying to be funny. > > I can handle Aurelion Sol, because it is delivered better. It is less annoying, less forced and IMO Aurelion Sol is a more serious champion, even with this personality. He is also like one of the first of his kind, powerful champion with fun personality. Aatrox is the last offender. It boils your blood when something starts to be overused. > > So I like Aurelion Sol, compare to Memetrox. MEMETROX REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Rioter Comments
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: June 8
When can we expect some news about the aatrox ework?
: The assasin update has been nothing short of a complete failure
Well Fizz and Shaco have an unbalanceable kit that are both iconic and Riot will refuse to change them in any significant way. I think Talon's rework turned out great. I mean sure he kills people faster than they can react and is highly mobile, but that's who he is. That's Talon. He kills people really really fast but uses all of his resources to do so. If he doesn't kill you in 2 seconds he'll lose the fight. Maybe his numbers are a little overtuned, but kit wise I think he's fine. Rengar and LB are "balanceable" but balance in their case means extreme feast or famine. They'll either snowball and wreck everyone or they'll be completely useless. Kind of annoying to play against and can honestly make them unreliable picks. Their reworks were total failures, so they got reverted. Assassins are hard to balance in general, though. You're trying to make a class that instakills people fast enough to be useful but not so fast that they can't be counter played, but if they can be counter played they can't kill people fast enough and it just goes on and on. The really hard part is trying to make them all different. THey do the same thing: They one shot the carry. That's all they do. Some are capable of split pushing pretty well (Talon and Rengar come to mind), but by doing so they aren't one shotting the carry and therefore not doing what they're supposed to be doing. This just makes the whole assassin class a big mess. They can only do one thing, and if they can't do that one thing very well they're useless, but if they do that one thing very well they're really strong and annoying to play against. They're all pigeon holed into doing the same exact thing, at the same efficiency, at the same time, in slightly different ways. If you line them all up you can see why they're so hard to balance. {{champion:84}} {{champion:245}} {{champion:28}} {{champion:105}} {{champion:145}} {{champion:55}} {{champion:141}} {{champion:121}} {{champion:7}} {{champion:56}} {{champion:107}} {{champion:92}} {{champion:35}} {{champion:91}} {{champion:238}} Ekko, Riven, Nocturne and Kai'Sa maybe aren't TRUE assassins, but they're very capable of doing the same things that all the other real assassins are. I don't consider Teemo or Vayne assassins even though Riot labels them as such. I've seen all of these champions be balancing nightmares for ages and just look at their kits. They all have some really crazy bs in their kit that makes them annoying as hell to play against, but if they can't do that one gimmick really well they're useless. {{champion:84}} Farms out till 6 then makes you her bitch {{champion:245}} Hard to catch, huge shield, mistake eraser ultimate {{champion:28}} Crazy burst, passive invisibility {{champion:105}} E {{champion:145}} Very very very long engage {{champion:55}} AoE team melter {{champion:141}} Can get inside of you and pop out of a wall to kill you faster than you can even react. {{champion:121}} Isolation boost {{champion:7}} Can one shot you at level 3 (Maybe not anymore, I haven't seen her in so long idek what she's capable of) {{champion:56}} Blinded from allies, spell shield, point and click engage {{champion:107}} Leaps from bushes, possibly highest burst in game (might need some number checking, but it sure feels like it) {{champion:92}} CC, 4 dashes, shield that scales with AD, can seem very overbearing in the right hands {{champion:35}} Clones, boxes, and Q {{champion:91}} Very good at roaming, scary high burst {{champion:238}} Shadows and ult idek what I'm talking about in this post tbh assassins are personally my favorite class in the game, but I understand the problems they have.
pistoria (NA)
: if you were to remove any ability from any champion what would it be?
Rioter Comments
: Fix the goddam death recap.
Yesterday I died from 146 true damage from Alpha Strike. Alpha doesn't do true damage. There was not a yi in that game.
: im convinced people treat you poorly based on the character you play
oh believe me, they do if you pick {{champion:266}} your team will ignore you if you're doing good and judge you EXTRA hard when you make a mistake When you do good you get nothing When you make a simple mistake "Aatrox such a useless champion" "wow troll pick" Literally I get "are you trolling?" in pre game if I pick aatrox.....
Rioter Comments
: Neither of these are accurate, just dumb hyperbolic statements? Zed's ult isn't going to be buffed to 60 seconds and fiddles ult isn't getting reduced by a minute either.
> [{quoted}](name=Guy Fox Teemo,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=G4vY3AXE,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2018-02-19T01:03:39.467+0000) > > Neither of these are accurate, just dumb hyperbolic statements? Zed's ult isn't going to be buffed to 60 seconds and fiddles ult isn't getting reduced by a minute either. Already done and coming in next patch I believe lol
: If people were to ask you how "brain-dead" is your champion, how'd you describe it?
{{champion:266}} all u have to do is afk bc youre useless anyways :DDDD
Leonerdo (NA)
: When I mention Top-lane Challengers, it's to prove the point that it is still possible to have a big impact on the game from Top lane. You _can_ carry from Top lane. That doesn't mean much for the overall popularity of Top lane. But if people are going to say shit like "It's impossible to carry as Top-laner. Junglers decide my lane, and ADCs decide the game. All I can do is play a tank and hope by team isn't garbage," with all the absolute language included, then I'm gonna throw down the easy disproof by giving one counterexample: "So how did the #5 Challenger player get there by playing top-lane fighters?"
> [{quoted}](name=Leonerdo,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=hIEAcLQ2,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-02-06T20:49:24.216+0000) > > When I mention Top-lane Challengers, it's to prove the point that it is still possible to have a big impact on the game from Top lane. You _can_ carry from Top lane. > > That doesn't mean much for the overall popularity of Top lane. But if people are going to say shit like "It's impossible to carry as Top-laner. Junglers decide my lane, and ADCs decide the game. All I can do is play a tank and hope by team isn't garbage," with all the absolute language included, then I'm gonna throw down the easy disproof by giving one counterexample: "So how did the #5 Challenger player get there by playing top-lane fighters?" I mean yeah you can carry with absolutely anything. You could get to challenger just playing AP Support Aatrox every game, but that doesn't mean it's viable or popular.
: What Does Tahm Kench Do Exactly?
So basically he's the devil He'll give you anything you want, but with dire consequences.
: Is there any champion you have fun playing against?
I like playing against my mains. It feels fun because I know how to play against them really well and I know what they're gonna do. I also really like playing against vel'koz because he's pretty well balanced.
Show more

Lowvyr

Level 75 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion