Get2 (NA)
: Yep. I mean there's a whole slew of info that drives an ARAM that you need to know before you ever even hit a load screen. And you shouldn't have to MOBAfire your way though the game to play it, but ARAM will force you to or risk being totally useless. The only thing you need to know about TFT before you get started is where you plan to start clicking to get the best item/champ on the table. Haven't played in a couple weeks in case something has changed. But TFT is making the best decision given your options. ARAM is making the best of. .. well I have no idea where I am going with this. Give me Kat in an ARAM and I will be a concession stand with free hotdogs and pizzas made out of my cartoon body. Give me Zyra, and I will run the other team into the ground. I don't think anyone wants to deal with that any more than they have to.
>But TFT is making the best decision given your options. ARAM is making the best of. .. ".. what you're given." TFT throws a bunch of randomness at you throughout the match while ARAM front-loads its randomness. There's upsides to each approach (e.g. only having to deal with small amounts of RNG at a time vs. being able to have a game plan in mind). Personally, ARAM's front-loaded randomness feels less frustrating. Champ select is the primary source of randomness, so I can go into a game already knowing what I'm responding to. It's much easier to manage expectations. On the other hand, TFT's distributed randomness can result in constant losing gambles. It feels absolutely terrible to repeatedly find only pairs of champs or to get a 6th Negatron against auto-attack comps. Also, I disagree about the burden of knowledge bit. There's a significant amount of knowledge needed before you start TFT (e.g. what *is* the best item/champ on the table and why?). If you're going into TFT blind, you could do the same in ARAM. There's even recommended items in ARAM that, while questionable at times, at least provide a starting point, unlike in TFT. I will acknowledge that team-based vs. free-for-all does influence things. Failing in ARAM affects your entire team, whereas failing in TFT only affects yourself. However, I feel like that's not an ARAM-specific problem, and it's also handled by MMR. If someone has a bad game in Ranked SR (or TT), it affects their entire team, but everyone just moves on afterwards, more or less. If someone consistently has bad games, their MMR goes down until they start getting more appropriate matches.
: 1) It wasn't instantly released with ranked? 2) The sheer popularity of it even on the PBE, causing queue times of over **20 hours** at times, are probably more than enough indication that it's popular
The [original announcement for TFT](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/gameplay/teamfight-tactics) already mentioned ranked along with an estimated timeline for it. Yes, TFT didn't technically launch with a ranked queue, but ranked was being planned before TFT even hit PBE.
: If TT is getting removed, bring back Dominon
When Dominion was around, some people complained that it was too different from the rest of League. Now some people want Dominion back *because* it's different from the rest of League. That's kinda amusing.
: > [{quoted}](name=Minarde,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EKqN0Z3U,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-09-07T04:28:21.559+0000) > > *Kind of*. [Around the time they tested out bans](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2018/05/dev-aram-changes-incoming/), ARAM switched to using its own metrics rather than just modified SR ones. The required performance is supposedly consistent across maps. > > Additionally, "demonstrating full mastery of the champion" is questionable even in SR, since tokens are position-independent. It's not unheard of for people to spam off-meta positions (e.g. Soraka Funnel Jungle) to get easier S-ranks. I'd probably agree with your reasoning if the current Mastery system actually reflected "skill and dedication," but it doesn't. That's more or less what I said. The values that are checked are the same (metrics), it's just a different series of thresholds (values) that you need to "beat" to get the S rank. I can understand why you thought differently. Also, while it is easier to get S ranks on off meta due to lower thresholds, those off meta picks usually need to be done in specific circumstances to work well. It still becomes as a show of mastery because you're making the champion work where they normally wouldn't.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EKqN0Z3U,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-09-07T15:49:21.712+0000) > > That's more or less what I said. The values that are checked are the same (metrics), it's just a different series of thresholds (values) that you need to "beat" to get the S rank. I can understand why you thought differently. > > Also, while it is easier to get S ranks on off meta due to lower thresholds, those off meta picks usually need to be done in specific circumstances to work well. It still becomes as a show of mastery because you're making the champion work where they normally wouldn't. My nitpick was that, while some of the thresholds are lower due to the nature of ARAM, others are higher. It's not just "easier" across the board. And I'm still unconvinced. With the lack of any consistency, upkeep, or other more stringent requirements, Mastery tokens feel more analogous to "banging your head against the wall until you get lucky" rather than an actual "show of mastery." Made easier with off-meta, different queue MMR, premade shenanigans, and so on. If "making a champion work where they normally wouldn't" is an acceptable option to show overall skill with said champ, ARAM should be acceptable as well, as it doesn't seem appreciably different.
: > [{quoted}](name=Minarde,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5PoNfKfk,comment-id=000200000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-09-07T04:03:24.380+0000) > > I didn't misread his premise, and OP isn't the one confusing cause and effect. You are. From release (October 2009) up until the rework (October 2012), there's four total patches addressing Treeline that aren't just maintaining parity with SR (e.g. particle updates, dragon callouts): [1.0.0.52](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=24433), [1.0.0.61](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=30496), [1.0.0.87](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=130837), and [1.0.0.106](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=369958). That's two patches in the first year, two in the second, and absolutely nothing for the third year. > > *"Oh, but Riot did a lot of work supporting Treeline starting from the rework!"* That didn't happen either. There were only two patches in the first six months following the rework: [1.0.0.152](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2860671) and [1.0.0.154](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=3005056). They are notable for being the first instances of item balancing though. > > With that said, I will readily acknowledge that Nome and later ManWolfAxeBoss did some amazing work for non-SR maps starting from [3.8](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/patch-38-notes-0) (June 2013) and especially [3.9](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-39-notes) (July 2013) with the introduction of map-specific champion balance changes. There was at least one balance update in most patches up to [4.15](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-415-notes/) (August 2014). > > So at what point do you consider that the "investment of resources petered out"? Post 4.15? Sure, you could make a convincing argument there, but how do you explain the 7 total patches over Treeline's first 4 years? Most of those patches didn't address the meta either. Meanwhile, League, and SR in particular, was consistently getting 1-2 patches per month. Moreover, a case could certainly be made that the "year of plentiful updates" was intended more to reduce the deterioration of Treeline rather than popularize it. Not to mention the map rework itself was and still is controversial/questionable. > > At most, you could argue that the OP is omitting part of the cause-and-effect chain. After all, Treeline suffered from the same vicious cycle as Dominion. "Riot didn't support Treeline because it wasn't popular, and Treeline wasn't popular because Riot didn't support it." Even Riot admitted that was an issue during Dominion's removal. However, I cannot see how anyone can reasonably argue that Riot made a good faith effort to support Treeline. That the map was unpopular *despite* Riot's best attempts. As stated many times, the list OP used is extremely incomplete. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of TT knows that there were many more changes not included in that list. I even looked up the first TT-specific item I could think of, Lord Van Damm's Pillager, and most of its changes were _after_its return in Season 4, when you and OP believe Riot was totally ignoring the mode. Unfortunately, you and OP are far from the only people who want to bemoan the loss of a mode they never play and pretend to be experts on its demise just so you can portray yourselves as the cool kids who know so much about a map most other players probably haven't heard of. All you want to do is lie and scream and waste everyone's time and insult people and the beautiful part is that _Riot won't budge because money talks, it tells the truth, and it's louder than you_. So let's all just move on with our lives and continue not playing TT.
Are you even reading any of my responses? I haven't argued for or against Treeline's removal anywhere in this topic. I'm just trying to correct misinformation. Riot implied in [Treeline's removal announcement](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2019/07/dev-state-of-modes/) and, clearly, numerous people in this topic appear to believe that "Riot tried to nurture Twisted Treeline, but players just never liked the map." That's blatantly false, as I've shown. Riot played a major role in TT's failure. It's insulting that Riot's seemingly attempting to absolve themselves of any blame in Treeline's decline. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with TT knows Riot neglected the mode. Riot knows they neglected the mode. Simply accepting the/some blame and owning up to the failure [like they did in Dominion's case](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/features/retiring-dominion) would be so much more respectful to players. Both Treeline fans and the overall League playerbase. However, considering that there's actually players not just accepting, but outright defending Riot's absence of fault, maybe the League playerbase doesn't deserve that respect after all.
: I think the biggest reasoning is that you aren't really demonstrating full mastery of the champion because you're basically skipping the lane phase entirely and have accelerated everything. While the same metrics are used between SR and ARAM, some of those metrics have much lower thresholds because of the nature of ARAM.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EKqN0Z3U,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-06T15:44:57.983+0000) > > I think the biggest reasoning is that you aren't really demonstrating full mastery of the champion because you're basically skipping the lane phase entirely and have accelerated everything. > > While the same metrics are used between SR and ARAM, some of those metrics have much lower thresholds because of the nature of ARAM. *Kind of*. [Around the time they tested out bans](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2018/05/dev-aram-changes-incoming/), ARAM switched to using its own metrics rather than just modified SR ones. The required performance is supposedly consistent across maps. Additionally, "demonstrating full mastery of the champion" is questionable even in SR, since tokens are position-independent. It's not unheard of for people to spam off-meta positions (e.g. Soraka Funnel Jungle) to get easier S-ranks. I'd probably agree with your reasoning if the current Mastery system actually reflected "skill and dedication," but it doesn't.
: https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Twisted_Treeline Scroll down to patch history. If you want to prove me wrong then you can go through every patch in the game YOURSELF and find every instance of a slight change to TT. I've done enough extra work for one day. If you find any instances of champions and items being BALANCED (not just added or removed / disabled or enabled) specifically for TT, you let me know and I'll add it to the list. I'm not going to do that myself, because I really don't have that kind of time. I have a feeling though, that what I would find if I did, would not be enough to justify saying "Riot did the best job they could to make TT work." That is my point. Prove my point wrong. Prove to me that Riot pulled out all the stops, and did everything in their power to make TT work before they decided they were going to pull the plug. Go on. Prove that to me. Prove it to us. We're waiting.
>If you find any instances of champions and items being BALANCED (not just added or removed / disabled or enabled) specifically for TT, you let me know and I'll add it to the list. [Done. Up to the end of Season 4, more or less](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/5PoNfKfk-the-real-reason-twisted-treeline-failed?comment=000200000000000100000000). Main thing I didn't explicitly mention was the map rework. From what I recall, changes get too sporadic past that point, so I stopped there.
: > [{quoted}](name=Minarde,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5PoNfKfk,comment-id=0002000000000001,timestamp=2019-09-06T08:46:33.008+0000) > > Although it's certainly true that OP significantly understated Riot's efforts with respect to Treeline, the full information still supports, rather than invalidates, his basic premise though. Riot's support of the map is/was incredibly lacking. You misread his basic premise. It was that "the real reason Twisted Treeline failed" was a lack of support from Riot. This is, in fact, backwards, confusing cause and effect: the real reason that Riot stopped supporting TT was that it failed to bring in players. The investment of resources petered out once it became clear that those resources were being wasted on a mode no one played. Now that it's being removed, people just want to be hipsters pretending that they liked or might have liked it, when they clearly never had any interest in it. In a couple years, when more recent players ask about TT, these whiners will wax poetic about how TT was just SO MUCH FUN and they played it all the time with all their friends and everyone loved it and Rito James removed it for no good reason.
I didn't misread his premise, and OP isn't the one confusing cause and effect. You are. From release (October 2009) up until the rework (October 2012), there's four total patches addressing Treeline that aren't just maintaining parity with SR (e.g. particle updates, dragon callouts): [1.0.0.52](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=24433), [1.0.0.61](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=30496), [1.0.0.87](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=130837), and [1.0.0.106](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=369958). That's two patches in the first year, two in the second, and absolutely nothing for the third year. *"Oh, but Riot did a lot of work supporting Treeline starting from the rework!"* That didn't happen either. There were only two patches in the first six months following the rework: [1.0.0.152](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2860671) and [1.0.0.154](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=3005056). They are notable for being the first instances of item balancing though. With that said, I will readily acknowledge that Nome and later ManWolfAxeBoss did some amazing work for non-SR maps starting from [3.8](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/patch-38-notes-0) (June 2013) and especially [3.9](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-39-notes) (July 2013) with the introduction of map-specific champion balance changes. There was at least one balance update in most patches up to [4.15](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-415-notes/) (August 2014). So at what point do you consider that the "investment of resources petered out"? Post 4.15? Sure, you could make a convincing argument there, but how do you explain the 7 total patches over Treeline's first 4 years? Most of those patches didn't address the meta either. Meanwhile, League, and SR in particular, was consistently getting 1-2 patches per month. Moreover, a case could certainly be made that the "year of plentiful updates" was intended more to reduce the deterioration of Treeline rather than popularize it. Not to mention the map rework itself was and still is controversial/questionable. At most, you could argue that the OP is omitting part of the cause-and-effect chain. After all, Treeline suffered from the same vicious cycle as Dominion. "Riot didn't support Treeline because it wasn't popular, and Treeline wasn't popular because Riot didn't support it." Even Riot admitted that was an issue during Dominion's removal. However, I cannot see how anyone can reasonably argue that Riot made a good faith effort to support Treeline. That the map was unpopular *despite* Riot's best attempts.
: Well, good thing is I can do it for you. 6.12 is the first change documented on the wiki. A buff to Nasus to double his stackrate there, to 6 and 12. 6.24 is a change to give Shyvana a passive there, since she literally didn't have one before. The next actual change is 7.8, where they tweak health packs and minion gold a bit. 7.10 also has some more changes (removing gold items and more tweaks to minions), then there's a dry spell until 7.24, where...they nerfed dark harvest by making champions drop 1 less soul. 8.11 was the event, and that's most likely the easiest point to say that the systematic changes were beginning. The mode was released in 2012. That means it was around 4 years before it got a single change, and almost 5 before it got any change that could remotely be considered significant. That's more time before it got a single change than between **any** of the changes for TT. Yet ARAM was arguably more popular at all times. TT had had changes before ARAM ever did, yet...It still ended up with a fraction of the playerbase ARAM did. **That's** why it's considered dead, and that's why it's being killed. It's never managed to be more popular than anything at all (except maybe Dominion, which was axed years ago). Even a queue that started as a fucking custom gamemode did several times better than it did. With as long as it took for ARAM to get changes, but ARAM still managing to be successful, TT really has no excuse for how poorly it did. EDIT: Whoops. Mixed up the actually popular crystal scar map with the one that was a bot haven.
People really need to stop trying to bring up ARAM balance and popularity compared to Treeline. ARAM is not a good comparison at all because the mode has specific quirks that separate it from other League modes. For one thing, ARAM has been solely confined to a casual queue. Combined with the extremely low barrier to entry (e.g. no positions, no knowledge of meta required, not even a need to pick a champ), the stakes and the playerbase's expectations are much lower than in competitive queues. Furthermore, the randomness mitigates stagnation by (semi-)forcing champ variety. Remember the frustration from constantly seeing Hecarim, Zed, or whoever else was broken pre-nerfs in URF? It was made worse by the knowledge that all those players had intentionally picked those annoying champs. That doesn't happen in ARAM. Sure, some champs are/were more favored (e.g. Sona, Ziggs), but things are up to RNG in the end. (Or you just blame ARAM accounts.) If anything, Treeline's balance frequency should be compared to the Rift's. Despite SR's regular 1-2 patches per month, players still complain about the game feeling stale at times. Small wonder that Treeline's regarded poorly when it had, at best, 1-2 patches per year. >That's why it's considered dead, and that's why it's being killed. It's never managed to be more popular than anything at all (except maybe Ascension, which was axed years ago). Wasn't Ascension one of the most popular RGM modes, at least based on number of appearances? Or did you mean Dominion there? That's a better analogue than ARAM, yet it's not a particularly useful comparison. Riot treated Dom even worse than TT, considering Dom was a competitive game mode confined to a casual queue and effectively abandoned at launch. TT at least had ranked rewards as an incentive.
: > [{quoted}](name=caffeine abuser,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5PoNfKfk,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-09-06T02:06:48.869+0000) > > It's the full list of patches under the "Twisted Treeline" heading on the wiki. Well, it obviously paints a woefully incomplete picture. The full information totally invalidates the point you were making.
Although it's certainly true that OP significantly understated Riot's efforts with respect to Treeline, the full information still supports, rather than invalidates, his basic premise though. Riot's support of the map is/was incredibly lacking.
: The problem with trying to save Twisted Treeline..
>Riot cannot set a precedent that they will revert big decisions like this, or else the community thinks that Riot will just revert anything with enough backlash. Wasn't "Position Ranks" a big decision that got reverted after it went badly? >Also they reverted making Nexus Blitz a permanent gamemode which had a ton of promise, but we all know where that went... :( Riot repeatedly said that Nexus Blitz was *potentially* permanent, not that it was going to be permanent. As a side note, I personally still don't understand the appeal of NB. It just felt like the most frustrating elements of the other game modes thrown together. >The only reason I'm making this post is because I think there's essentially a 0% chance that this decision gets reverted, and I don't want a lot of people making posts about it because it's almost like spam. It hasn't happened, this is more of a preventative measure than anything. No offense, but you weren't paying attention when Riot announced Treeline's removal, were you? There was already a bunch of outrage then. Part of the outcry came from TT fans upset at losing their home; another part came from players concerned that "regular" League was deteriorating down to just SR and ARAM. Yet another segment was just angry that Riot chose to justify the removal in an, at best, exceedingly misleading way (i.e. "Oh, we tried *everything*, but TT just wasn't popular"). There should absolutely be "lots of people making posts about it" because it's a massive development in League's history. Treeline's been around since before League's official launch, yet its removal announcement gets buried in an article discussing all non-SR game modes? Even the fact that Riot hasn't attempted to address any part of the outrage should be a humongous red flag. At this point, it wouldn't be surprising at all if Riot starts retiring unpopular champions to "keep [their] focus" on more popular champs.
: RNG in Teamfight Tactics affects everyone equally. There is no particular micro skill to the different comp types, meaning no is is on the backfoot for having to build a comp they don't usually play. In ARAM, an individual champion is very different from another. For instance: I main mages and ADCs. For the most part, I can pick up any one of those and play them at least moderately effectively. However, stick me on a bruiser, someone like a Jax or Olaf, and I will be completely useless. The RNG in ARAM totally affects *how* you can play. It affects everyone differently. While someone gets a champ or class they main, someone on the other team gets a class they never even touch. In TFT, the randomness affects everyone equally. That's why ARAM won't have a ranked mode.
For one thing, following that argument, Summoner's Rift shouldn't have ranked either. The RNG in ARAM affects how you can play, but so does RNG in SR. The old position-calling and even the current autofill system are both effectively random elements that affect everyone differently. For instance, it's far from being unheard of for an autofilled to get matched up against a main. If that's acceptable for SR, there's no reason for it to be unacceptable for a hypothetical Ranked ARAM. Secondly, and more importantly, "ability to play the champ you're given" is a skill that ARAM specifically tests. SR doesn't require players to know objective control, warding, etc. before queuing for ranked because that's reflected in a player's actual rank. Likewise, TFT doesn't require players to know economy, adapting, and so on because, again, a player's grasp of those skills is reflected by their rank. The (large) possibility of a player getting a champ or role they're unfamiliar with isn't a strike against ARAM; it just means that that particular player's gap in skill would likely be reflected in their hypothetical rank.
xelaker (NA)
: wouldn't it just be custom aram only accounts doing the best? Maybe if ranked opens up the whole roster for everyone, but that might cut into profits and such
There's a number of potential ways to address the advantages of ARAM accounts. You mentioned enabling all champs, but a seasonal roster like TFT or Snowdown ARURF could also work. The shared champ pool that One for All used is another possibility. A whitelist/blacklist is yet another option. Point being, I'm sure Riot could figure out some way to keep things fair if they wanted to.
Nmagoun (NA)
: I dont get why everyone is angry over TTs removal
I'll try to briefly summarize the three main areas of frustration. People are outraged because one or more of these topics resonates with them. 1. Riot's (mis)handling of Treeline leading up to this point Riot has done an absolutely terrible job in terms of supporting TT. Twisted Treeline's original version came out in 2009. Item balancing didn't come about until the map rework in 2012, and the first champ balance changes were in 2013. The last balance changes of any kind were circa 2016. Out of ten years of existence, roughly three years at the beginning and three years at the end had virtually zero balance updates. Keep in mind that, as shown by the existence of ranked, Twisted Treeline is/was intended as a competitive environment. Moreover, Treeline frequently missed out on other features as well. RGM modes got Champ Mastery before TT did, including Mastery tokens which TT and ARAM still don't have yet. Missions frequently exclude Treeline from eligibility (e.g. Ranked Season 2019 had "5v5 Matchmade" as a requirement). Paid event Passes reward event tokens after every game except for 3v3 matches. 2. How Riot broke the news Twisted Treeline's been around since before League's official launch in 2009. Announcing its retirement should be a big deal, but it's only mentioned in the middle of an article that covers all non-SR game modes. Furthermore, the article brings up Riot's efforts to support the map, yet there's no mention of Riot's lack of effort in supporting the map. It's misleading and comes across as Riot attempting to absolve themselves of any fault in TT's fate. As messy as Dominion's retirement was, Riot at least respected the playerbase enough to explicitly accept some of the blame. 3. How's Riot's proceeding in the future Especially with Dominion before it, retiring a permanent game mode sets a questionable precedent. It reminds players that "permanent" doesn't actually mean "permanent." Back during Dominion's retirement, Riot said that Treeline's health was fine. Now with Treeline's retirement, Riot's saying that the remaining game modes are fine. There's a certain sense of credibility that's increasingly lacking. Furthermore, at the time of Dominion's removal, there were four game modes. Three years later at the current time, there's still four game modes. Riot claims that removing the unpopular mode frees up resources to improve existing game modes, but there's distinct lack of results. Particularly considering that Treeline has effectively been in maintenance mode for years, which calls into question what resources it's taking up.
: > [{quoted}](name=Freedom Dividend,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZAkQjAGV,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-08-01T14:31:23.536+0000) > > E-sports is the death of variation. In more ways than one. > > If the enjoyment of League of Legends and average player were the focus; everything released would exist in custom games and custom games would have extensive customization features to allow for fun and/or interesting games. Fam, it wasn't Esports that killed TT. It was the fact that TT didn't have enough to offer over any other mode. 3v3 instead of 5v5 just isn't enough of a draw.
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZAkQjAGV,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-08-01T14:56:46.202+0000) > > Fam, it wasn't Esports that killed TT. It was the fact that TT didn't have enough to offer over any other mode. 3v3 instead of 5v5 just isn't enough of a draw. On the contrary, someone could probably make a compelling argument that esports did kill Treeline. By Riot's own admission, part of the reason they deprioritized Dominion at launch was due to an internal shift towards supporting the burgeoning LCS and esports scene. The Treeline redesign came out around that time period, so it's possible that Riot siphoned needed resources (e.g. balancing, advertising) from TT in favor of esports.
Manxxom (NA)
: I am the only one here who notices that vilemaw is slightly larger than baron too
Based on [the old bug where you could pull it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yelIbmgVYDw&t=79s), Vilemaw's roughly twice the size of Baron.
: That's not how any of this works....replacing code and removing code are not comparable. Most games that utilize game-mode features use modularization design principles in their code. It's how many games today are popularizing rotating game modes. Since the code is self-contained in it's own module, all you have to do is enable and disable the required modules.
> [{quoted}](name=I Play This Game,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=LoljPctW,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-08-01T17:23:54.930+0000) > > That's not how any of this works....replacing code and removing code are not comparable. Most games that utilize game-mode features use modularization design principles in their code. It's how many games today are popularizing rotating game modes. Since the code is self-contained in it's own module, all you have to do is enable and disable the required modules. To be fair, back when Dominion was still alive, we were told that the personal score system couldn't be removed without potentially breaking something. Given Treeline's age, it's not inconceivable that there's some odd dependencies. Maybe Skarner spires will break from losing TT altars or something.
: I will point out reworking those champions is doing exactly that. Yes you get a replacement but the old kit/champion is effectively removed.
Kinda. Riot generally tries to keep the same theme or feel as the old champ, though that obviously varies (e.g. Poppy vs. Warwick, Aatrox vs. Darius). More importantly, as you mentioned, there's a replacement when champs get reworked. There's no replacement announced for Treeline at this point in time.
: And people wonder why Riot doesn't take the boards seriously. The title is overblown and frankly foolish. You would need to have literally zero understanding of the game industry to think riot is the worst of the worst in game companies. They go well above and beyond the call of duty in a lot of ways. They have no obligation to share ANY information with you, believe it or not. They could always ghost the community like bethesda has for Anthem. Would probably make their lives easier. OP doesn't have a single match on their match history. They aren't even playing the game right now on this account. I suspect, STRONGLY, that if we were to see their main account (if this isn't it) we would be hard-pressed to find matches on TT which they so zealously defend. You want variety? Perhaps actually playing the game would be a good start. Based on what I'm seeing, they aren't losing a player. They've already lost you so your opinion here doesn't matter anyways. This seems to me like a classic upvote bait thread intended to latch on to the outrage about the loss of a mode the vast majority of people here didn't play more than 10 times in the past 3 years. ------------ But for the sake of conversation, let's break down the post despite that. > You shoved TFT down our throats and hyped it like there is no tomorrow, then act like keeping it permanent was an unexpected event. Even if it would have utterly failed, you would've kept it anyways, you never introduced it just to test the waters like you did with NB, you put it live for good from the very beginning. You never gave NB that kind of chance or treatment, even though from what I've personally seen, the feedback for it was overall better than for TFT even if apparently the popularity didn't follow, the ratio was there. TFT is massively popular. Massively. Don't act like it was just 100% going to stay. We have plenty of evidence that they have no problem pulling gamemodes when they fail. TFT did not fail. It's got a healthy streaming community and a consistent playerbase in a way that Twisted Treeline NEVER EVER had. They gave Nexus Blitz the exact same kind of treatment. They hyped it, the did balance changes for it and bugfixes for it during its run. It didn't pull the numbers they wanted as a company which needs to make a profit so they didn't make it a permanent facet of the game. Don't mistake the boards or your friend group liking Nexus Blitz as some evidence for its popularity. For most people it was a fun distraction at best, not something they were interested in doing for a long time. --- > The only reason TT has been deserted is because you didn't care for it. For one, I've always wanted to play TT, but I just didn't because I know they is absolutely 0 balance. You never gave it a chance, either. And neither did you toward Dominion. You gave TFT more love in a week than you have TT in years. You have no casual friendly mode where you can actually pick your champion. TT didn't attract players even when Riot updated it in 2012. They stated that the playerbase didn't go up for that mode. They sunk loads of resources into it with zero payoff. Of course they aren't going to suddenly start bending over backwards for it. It was deserted even when they did care for it. I actually play TT from time to time, and I can tell you that unless you play the hell out of it and get decent MMR you aren't going to be encountering much in terms of funnel strats. in maybe 40 matches of it over the last 2ish years I've faced that one time. So save your excuses for not playing the mode. Secondly, based on your OWN admission, TT already wasn't a "casual friendly mode" if you went in and were so concerned people would be tryharding and using funnel strats in it all the time. --------- They care about ARAM because it has a playerbase. In terms of not keeping ARAM bans? Idk on that one. I liked them and hope they get put in permanently and I'm not sure why they haven't. But that hardly necessitates the level of self-righteous rage in your post. Also, you don't need to like TFT. But it IS popular. Your opinion is irrelevant, especially since you're so determined to quit anyway. Why should Riot care at all about what you have to say? Because 100 salty people upvoted this thread without looking at the contents because they are angry a mode they seldom played is vanishing? People are allowed to be upset that Twisted Treeline is going away. It's a bummer. There's a lot of cool art and resources sunk into it that I'll miss being able to see. But threads that try and manufacture some evil corporate conspiracy about it are ridiculous.
> [{quoted}](name=Void Kaiju,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qYcmzkom,comment-id=0021,timestamp=2019-08-01T14:55:58.018+0000) > > I actually play TT from time to time, and I can tell you that unless you play the hell out of it and get decent MMR you aren't going to be encountering much in terms of funnel strats. in maybe 40 matches of it over the last 2ish years I've faced that one time. So save your excuses for not playing the mode. I didn't play/grind TT specifically to avoid getting into the Hyper meta MMR bracket. Even down in Gold though, I was running into it 10-20% of the time.
Jamaree (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Midg3t,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qYcmzkom,comment-id=000000000001000000000001,timestamp=2019-08-01T12:26:24.894+0000) > > If riot at least tried to make some changes to make it better, more people would've played it probably. > For example, i dont want to play ARAM because I hate how I can end up with immobile melee champ while some aram-only acc can buy only the best aram champs and end up playing them majority of the time. If riot unlocke all champs in aram then i would definitelly play it. > > Just as more people would play TT if riot made some updates to make it feel better to play. I mean, how can you expect people to play the gamemode that had it's last update back in season 5? > > Not to mention that you cant finish your missions on TT, you cant earn event pass tokens, nor champ mastery tokens. (this is what I've heard by reading some of the comments, so if I was incorrect somewhere in here lemme know) > > And even if people didnt play TT in years they're mad for a reason. This is just another sign that riot doesnt give a shit about what their players want. Even if it had REALLY SMALL playerbase, you shouldnt ditch them like this. ESPECIALLY because riot didnt update that gamemode for several years now. > > What message does riot give us by doing this? i would say it's "We'll only focus on stuff that brings in money, and if youre consuming a content that doesnt bring profit, compared to other content that does, well fuck you, you cant have that." People weren't even playing TT back when it was being updated though.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qYcmzkom,comment-id=0000000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2019-08-01T16:05:00.977+0000) > > People weren't even playing TT back when it was being updated though. To be fair, the updates were sporadic and only came after years of Riot neglect. The damage to the overall playerbase's perception of non-SR modes was already done. As a result, that level of updates seemed more suitable for placating existing fans rather than attracting new ones.
Jamaree (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Technorch,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qYcmzkom,comment-id=000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-31T23:43:17.233+0000) > > Why are you pitting all the misdeeds of many companies as if they were one against Riot's? If you look at each of these companies in a case by case basis, then at Riot, then at actually good companies, it's gonna be obvious on which side of the fence Riot is. To me, it's all the same, except Riot's single game is not fun anymore. Are you kidding me? What has Riot done that is even slightly comparable to trying to make a profit off of the death of one of their employees? What has Riot done that is comparable to remastering a game then making you pay for the same content again? What has Riot done that is comparable to baiting their pros and then pulling that shit out from under them with not a single notion, just boop, instantly out of a job. What has Riot done that is comparable to putting pay to win mechanics in their game? What has Riot done that is comparable to making people pay for additional save files mind you all of these things are in games YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR, and aren’t free like this one. > The removal itself is bad, but it's the way Riot act as if it's our fault for not playing it when they're the ones who have completely neglected the mode, as with what happened with Dominion, that personally angers me the most and I think it's a sentiment that's shared by other people as well. And that’s fine, but they aren’t wrong either, it is how businesses run, there comes a point where you stop investing money into a thing because it doesn’t bring profit in. “Well that’s just them being greedy, they should do it out of the kindness of their hearts.” Sorry, this is the real world, doing things out of the goodness of your heart doesn’t put food on the table, doesn’t turn the lights on, and doesn’t pay employees. I hate that entitled mindset gamers have so fucking much without even the slightest understanding of the other side, it is maddening because I know in their personal lives they don’t do that shit. Do you comp food for free on the daily as a restaurant worker/owner? Do you comp clothes or products at your store? Do you do free labor out of the goodness of your heart on every project? Of course fucking not. Do you guys keep throwing money at projects hoping to eventually have it stick or do you do the smart thing and let it go when it clearly isn’t work because I can almost guarantee it is the latter. I’m not saying don’t be upset about the removal but be fucking realistic at the very least, and if you don’t have a single TT game in your match history in the last six months, please shut the fuck up about liking this game mode, because if you actually liked this game mode, you would be playing it, problems or not.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qYcmzkom,comment-id=0000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-31T23:57:01.135+0000) > > And that’s fine, but they aren’t wrong either, it is how businesses run, there comes a point where you stop investing money into a thing because it doesn’t bring profit in. As the previous person said, I'd be less frustrated with TT's removal if Riot had simply been humble and truthful. It's not like players weren't acutely aware of the possibility of this happening. My main gripes are that a) Riot's shifting all the blame away from itself and b) burying the news of TT's retirement. [Dominion's retirement](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/features/retiring-dominion) had some spin as well, but Riot at least directly acknowledged the abysmal support along with posting a news article specifically announcing the removal. In Treeline's case? The news is only mentioned in the middle of an article that covers all non-SR modes. Moreover, Riot notes the items, balance changes, and redesign, yet there's absolutely zero mention of the years of neglect. Basically, the playerbase knows Riot ignored Treeline. Riot knows they ignored Treeline. Simply admitting their failure and facing it head-on would've been significantly more palatable than what Riot decided on doing. Wait, hold up. >Or Blizzard who will tell you you don’t want that map, that you want to play this thing instead that you clearly don’t want. (Refusal of releasing classic servers until massive backlash and telling people they want mobile Diablo.) Isn't Riot doing something similar here? Riot's telling players that the players didn't want Treeline, but wanted Summoner's Rift instead. However, TT players clearly didn't want SR or else they would be playing SR. Riot even follows up with saying there's no TT-specific chroma this year because they didn't want non-TT players to spam TT games? If someone's spamming TT games, aren't they by definition a TT player?
: > Rito needs to think about what they are doing before they lose another playerbase like Dominion before it. Course said playerbase apparently barely registers on charts next to ARAM and the like sooooo apparently that's not a big loss. There's more people upset TT is being removed than actually PLAY the thing.
>There's more people upset TT is being removed than actually PLAY the thing. Well, of course. Imagine if, rather than attempt to rework them, Riot simply removed old/unpopular champions from the game. There'd be outcry from more than just fans of those retired champs. Some of the outcry would be from fans of other champs, worried that their own favorites might eventually end up on the chopping block. "But this won't happen with any other game modes. They all have healthy playerbases!" Yeah, and so did Treeline back when Dominion died.
: Yes, people will always complain when something they no longer have. Remember how the boards were flooded with posts from Yorick mains prior to his rework despite being the least used champion in the game? This is going to be a bitter truth to you and to everyone on the boards complaining about it now, but TT is not popular and never will be no matter how much work they put on it. When they tried, the mode remained as unpopular as ever. The only way they would really get people to play it is to offer incentives, which they did (Golden Chroma for Victorious skin). And even with that, if it's pulling in the numbers Riot is saying, it doesn't pay to even utilize it any more. It still works on their server.
>The only way they would really get people to play it is to offer incentives, which they did (Golden Chroma for Victorious skin). I find it important to point out that Riot also *disincentivized* playing TT. It took over a year for TT and ARAM to get Champion Mastery. Not only did RGM modes get the Mastery system earlier, they also had Mastery tokens for a while as well. In contrast, TT players have never had access to Mastery token drops. Furthermore, Event Passes have been awarding event tokens for all games (including TFT) *except for Treeline matches*. Plus a (frequent) lack of Mission eligibility for Treeline. For instance, the Missions commemorating the start of Ranked Season 2019 explicitly required "5v5 games." In other words, Riot deemed that playing ARAM to celebrate the start of this ranked Season was more fitting than playing Ranked Treeline.
Eedat (NA)
: No, actually. Riot did quite a few sweeps of TT [with the last one being the middle of season 5](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-511-notes#patch-tt). TT got several big updates, but still nobody played it. Like ever. The reason URF got a big patch is because people actually play it. Even ARAM got way less attention yet it it vastly more popular. Why is that? Because people enjoy playing ARAM. ARAM survived with multiple champions at 70%+ winrate for YEARS. There were 3 years where Riot outright said that they would not make champion balance changes specific for ARAM period yet its still here. If you're one of the ones who actually enjoys TT, then sorry for losing it. But it's a dead game mode. It's ALWAYS been a dead game mode. Any effort put into it has yielded no results and at this point Riot is just paying for server space for bots with TT
My point still holds. Doing a (relatively) large patch does little because it doesn't address TT's underlying perception issue. A significant part of the reason TT was unpopular was due to the *persistent* lack of Riot attention. Big patches are great, but what about the rest of the time? Why does Riot bother patching SR every two weeks rather than just once per year? TFT's even getting patches every week right now. Variety, meta shakeups, or even just a sense that the developers care is extremely important for maintaining a playerbase. Furthermore, ARAM is not at all comparable to Treeline's situation. For one thing, ARAM is positioned as a casual experience (Whether or not it's limited to a casual experience is a separate discussion). In contrast, TT provides a competitive experience. The incentive to "abuse" the meta is therefore exceedingly higher, and stagnation is that much more noticeable as a result. Additionally, ARAM's randomness mitigates staleness and champion imbalance. Even with 70%+ winrates and ARAM accounts, there's still champ variety. Certain champs are/were favored, but there's no way to guarantee them, unlike in a Draft mode like TT. I did like TT, though, unlike with Dominion, I never really mained the mode. It's just extremely frustrating that Riot's once again blaming a game mode for failing despite never truly attempting to help it succeed.
: > [{quoted}](name=Reaversal,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=gThAEfkZ,comment-id=000a,timestamp=2019-07-31T17:35:17.383+0000) > > OH LOOK, RIOT FUCKING PISSING EVERYONE OFF AGAIN. > > IT'S ALL THEY'RE FUCKING GOOD AT. > > I LOOK FORWARD TO THE MOUNTAIN OF FUCKING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE ALL RIOT CAN FUCKING DO IS MAKE PEOPLE COMPLAIN. CAN'T FUCKING MAKE PLAYERS HAPPY, OH NO, THAT'D TAKE EFFORT! > > FUCK YOU RIOT. I JUST WANT TO SEE YOUR FUCKING PLAYERS BE HAPPY FOR ONCE, BUT YOU CAN'T EVEN MANAGE THAT, YOU MORALLY-BANKRUPT PIECES OF SHIT. Slow down there, friendo. You are a part of a very very small minority. Check out Hawt's linked image, the playrate chart. Prior to TFT, TT had maybe 1% of games, which, given game duration differences between modes, is maybe 0.5% of all minutes logged in League. It was already a drain on resources, and Riot was aware of that - people don't play it, so they don't make balancing it a priority. Judicious use of resources and all that. Now TFT comes out, and it's sapping players from every mode. Now, a huge chunk of that is standard SR games, but that's because that's where most players were to start with. Problem is, it drives down TT's play percent even more. If you discount the bots XP grinding in TT, you get what? 0.5% of games, worth 0.25 or so % of all game time logged? That's just not worth maintaining the backend for. Also, "everyone"? Try less than 1% of the playerbase logging more than a handful of TT games this year. It's mostly just you.
> [{quoted}](name=Aulzeren0r,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=gThAEfkZ,comment-id=000a0001,timestamp=2019-07-31T21:40:35.544+0000) > > It was already a drain on resources, and Riot was aware of that - people don't play it, so they don't make balancing it a priority. Judicious use of resources and all that. Slight nitpick/correction. TT hasn't gotten any balancing in years. (I think the last change was in 2016?) That goes far beyond "not a priority."
Eedat (NA)
: Way to completely twist what they said to suit your needs. They are saying that even when they did make an effort to make TT changes that nobody ever played it. Same with dominion. Not that the redesign were the only changes they made. Not that those specific changes should have held up 7 years. That ALL attempts in the past have yielded zero results
In this case, the spin was on Riot's end. The attempts that Riot cited were preceded by years of neglect, a fact that Riot conveniently left out. Twisted Treeline was around when League officially launched in 2009. The new items coincided with the rework in 2012, and the first instance of map-specific champ balancing was in 2013. Prior to that, there were virtually no changes for either TT or Dominion. Even afterwards, there were [only minimal changes](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/summoners-rift/LT4F2XdE-compendium-of-map-specific-champion-balance). Combined with the handful of later updates (e.g. GP, Garen, Bard, Cass?), that's still barely on par with the average SR patch. Even URF [had more champ balance changes in one patch](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/urf-rising) than TT had gotten in its entire lifespan. I don't understand how anyone could reasonably expect those attempt to yield non-zero results. SR players are up in arms if the meta stagnates for half a season. Naturally, patching Treeline once every three years or so wouldn't do much to save the mode.
div3rse (NA)
: It literally seems like the 100 people who play TT are in these comments and the hundreds of thousands who dont cant be bothered to even comment. The other guy in these comments said it absolutely perfectly, the playerbase isnt there and with the addition of TFT why split your playerbase even more with multiple options and risk the chance of increased queue times when theres unpopular modes that can be cut.
> [{quoted}](name=div3rse,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=gThAEfkZ,comment-id=001b,timestamp=2019-07-31T19:03:03.372+0000) > > It literally seems like the 100 people who play TT are in these comments and the hundreds of thousands who dont cant be bothered to even comment. > > The other guy in these comments said it absolutely perfectly, the playerbase isnt there and with the addition of TFT why split your playerbase even more with multiple options and risk the chance of increased queue times when theres unpopular modes that can be cut. I mean, imagine if Riot cut a quarter of the champ roster to save on balancing effort and dev time. That'd be a significant event. "But TT doesn't have that much playerbase game time!" Alright, only remove the least popular champion then. Still a significant event and makes fans of other unpopular champs uneasy.
Hawt (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=rhfdVaUJ,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2019-07-31T18:44:44.085+0000) > > Those are stats at one given point of time, most likely a recent one. It's been over 5 years that Riot actually did anything remotely encouraging TT. You would need stats of the years prior if the reason for low interest is 3v3 itself or Riot's neglect making it an unbalanced fiesta. I don't see the point in looking at stats from years ago. The point is that TT in it's current state isn't worth keeping as a permanent game mode with that low play rate. There is nothing riot can do to change the past. What is done is done. If you were given a chance to convince Riot and the people who have the authority to keep or remove TT, what would be your arguments? Your arguments would have to take into consideration other potential investments. For example, why invest resources into TT vs TFT or even completely different project. How much revenue would investing into TT produce vs TFT or other projects? What are the profit margins for investing into TT vs TFT or other projects? How much money, time, and resources into TT vs TFT or other projects? It's not that simple like comparing past history. You need to look forward and show projections. If those projections fall short of other existing projects such as TFT, then the people who decided what gets invested into will not approve your project. TT is redundant game mode and doesn't offer Riot any monetary gain compare to a new event game mode with skins to sell or a completely new game mode like TFT. That's why Riot didn't invest any resources into TT.
> [{quoted}](name=Hawt,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=rhfdVaUJ,comment-id=000000020000,timestamp=2019-07-31T19:01:54.999+0000) > > I don't see the point in looking at stats from years ago. The point is that TT in it's current state isn't worth keeping as a permanent game mode with that low play rate. There is nothing riot can do to change the past. What is done is done. We can't change the past, but we can learn from it. TT suffers from the same vicious cycle as Dominion: "No support because no playerbase, and no playerbase because no support." Riot explicitly acknowledged that issue during Dominion's removal while also mentioning that TT's playerbase size was fine at that point in time. Despite that, there's been barely anything from Riot about TT since then. At its most active, balancing was effectively being done by one guy during his lunch break. You may be right that retiring TT makes sense in the current situation. However, Riot should absolutely be lambasted for letting the situation deteriorate to this state. Again.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Logical responses on the boards? Thank you! {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}} The one I put together seems like it would be fairly easy to implement and have good reliability. The core is I want something that players would feel is Fair. Each team has equal opportunity to showcase skill. Hence why I have champions RNG but also drafted by each team. Player perception needs to be accounted for if your looking to have it be a popular que. A pregame lobby I feel is inherently abusable for a ranked ARAM que so there are some extra steps needed to smooth that out. How Fair the game is viewed impacts participation so that's one of the cores of my though process. Regular Aram def has plenty of opportunities for improvement as well. If some thing others suggest is more viable I am 100% down to give credit and edit my opening post to reflect it. End of the day, what I hope to do is show that its possible to make a viable Que here. What do you think the best implementation for Ranked Aram would look like?
Personally, I think enabling a seasonal roster, along with requiring a minimum number of owned champs from that roster, would be the best idea so far. Basically, Riot would announce the available champs for each season of Ranked ARAM, and every player would have access to that roster and only that roster. In addition to the other ranked queue requirements (e.g. level 30), players would also have to own a certain percentage of that season's roster. Similar to the common "all champs enabled" suggestion, this implementation standardizes the roster to address imbalances in personal champ pools (e.g. ARAM accounts). However, it avoids negatively impacting Riot's champ revenue as much by a) only making some, rather than all, champs free and b) periodically rotating the roster to encourage/require players to continue buying champs. Furthermore, limiting the roster lowers the barrier to entry while rotating the roster provides needed champ variety. As a side-benefit, there's potential monetization opportunities for Riot by offering themed seasons and bundles (e.g. "Look stylish in Ranked ARAM next season by buying this bundle of champ skins!" or "Next Ranked ARAM is ! Show your support with these summoner icons and poros!") I'm split on champ select though. Shared bench drafting better mitigates randomness, but it heavily favors players with earlier picks. Players lower in pick order could find it unpleasant to comb through the leftovers. Additionally, that form of drafting encourages meta knowledge (i.e. which champs are ~~currently~~ good in ARAM) at the expense of personal expression (e.g. who am I good at?), which could be good or bad. On the other hand, random Arena-style drafting smooths out pick order, yet there's potential frustration when players "roll low." The drafting skill test here is more universal (i.e. how to build a teamcomp), which, again, could be good or bad.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Ranked Aram. How to favor skill over luck?
Ranked ARAM's divisive. Some people want the competitive opportunity. Others want ARAM to remain limited to a casual environment. Still others think randomness is incompatible with ranked (yet ranked TFT exists now). Anyway, I don't think "bad rolls" *have* to be addressed, considering ARAM balance changes are already attempting to address individual champion imbalances. Bad teamcomp rolls are a thing, but TFT has ranked despite bad rolls having significant impact there. Nevertheless, there's a number of potential options that have been suggested over the years for addressing ARAM accounts and/or making RNG feel better. Off the top of my head, In terms of champ roster, 1. Minimum number of required champs. 2. All champs enabled. 3. Shared roster. (Used in One for All. A champ is in the pool and available if anyone owns it.) 4. Seasonal roster. (Similar to what TFT's aiming for.) 5. Personal blacklist/whitelist. As for champ select, 1. Shared bench draft. (i.e. OP's RNG pool drafting.) 2. Current style, with bench and guaranteed rerolls. 3. Random Arena-style draft. (Same as regular Draft, but each player only has access to three random champs of similar power.) 4. Role-based draft. (Players draft or get assigned a role and only roll champs within that role.) 5. Straight-up regular Draft. Mix and match roster and champ select ideas as appropriate. There's pros and cons for every option, so it comes down to whatever's most agreeable to the most people.
Jinxalot (NA)
: Ranked ARAM
I think part of the reason is popular perception. ARAM's spent years with both Riot and streamers either directly or indirectly perpetuating the idea that ARAM's *just* a casual, for-fun game mode. Meanwhile, TFT was explicitly introduced as a competitive mode. TFT even got an official tournament via Twitch Rivals. As such, there's a prevailing sense of "ARAM is bad RNG; coin flip. TFT is good RNG; skill test" that needs to be overcome. Another part of the reason is probably that TFT is easier for Riot to monetize.
: Ranked ARAM
Even at the risk of increased dodges and whatnot, I feel like being able to see and react to the enemy team's composition is an important feature. To that end, I don't think rerolls are productive. Either the Bench exists and both teams just keep swapping around until the timer runs out, or the Bench doesn't exist and rerolls go back to being frustrating gambles. A better alternative would be to use the standard Draft format (i.e. sequential picks, visible teamcomps). However, rather than the full champion roster, each player is only offered a choice of three random champs of similar power to choose from. No Bench, no rerolls. Picking from three champs is effectively the same as having two rerolls, without enabling Musical Chairs. Furthermore, the sequential picks add another skilltest via drafting while simultaneously providing players an earlier opportunity to respond/adapt to ARAM's randomness.
: It's not a contract, or promise. Beside reworking the rune system also negatively impacted their revenue, and they did it anyway. I think it might the opposite. I mean most players play the usual 5v5. However if on ARAM they could try, and like champions they usually don't play, then bigger chance for them to buy it. And that means RP, or blue essence. Not to mention, that if they change main thanks to this, then might even buy a few skins.
Sure, there's possible benefits to Riot for enabling all champs in Ranked ARAM. As you said, some people might discover a new champ they like and spend money on it. However, my point was that "enabling all champs" shouldn't be inextricably linked to "Ranked ARAM." I'd personally prefer if all champs were available, but, in the event that Riot is adamant about not enabling all champs, the concept of Ranked ARAM shouldn't be immediately thrown out as well. There's other ways of equalizing champ pools and RNG.
: Kinda true, but let's be honest, it would be a toxic shitfest with people trolling because they someone didn't trade the champion they wanted, people complaining about the enemies having lucky champions more than ever and generally speaking it would just take away all the enjoyment of care free ARAM games like they are supposed to be.
You could say the same about every ranked queue though. You could also reverse it and argue that "Ranked would enhance the enjoyment of competitive (ARAM) games like they are supposed to be." It just depends on personal preference and perspective.
: Ranked ARAM
Riot's previously said that [enabling all champs in ARAM would negatively impact their revenue](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/general-discussion/FA8HwyQe-on-the-recent-issue-of-upvate-if-you-want-bans-in-aram-returned-threads?comment=0003). Of course, opening up the roster in Ranked ARAM has significant differences from doing so in vanilla ARAM. For instance, Ranked ARAM would presumably require being at least level 30, as opposed to regular ARAM being available almost immediately after the tutorial. With that said, I don't think enabling all champs is strictly necessary, since there's other options that could be considered. Doing a seasonal roster like TFT is one possibility. Alternately, some modes (e.g. One for All) have previously used a combined roster, where a champ is in the pool if anyone owns it. Yet another possible route would be adding a whitelist or blacklist feature.
Moonłight (EUNE)
: More Mastery Levels
There absolutely should not be any additional Champ Mastery rewards or levels until the Mastery system is fully enabled for every regular League game mode (i.e. everything except TFT). Mastery 6 and 7 have been out for over three years now, yet TT and ARAM players still can't earn Mastery tokens. It made no sense to bar TT/ARAM players from high Mastery before; it makes no sense to exclude them now; it'd make even less sense to extend the Mastery system while continuing to restrict it to SR-only.
: Can we get a mini season of ARAM ranked? Just to try it ?
Ranked ARAM would be great, but I'm not so sure about doing a month-long test for it. Partly because, with only a month, there might not be enough time for players to play enough games for even semi-accurate ranks. Partly because there's a number of potential ways to implement "Ranked ARAM," and judging the entire concept off the performance of one version might be questionable.
: NERF. FUNNEL. COMP. IN. 3V3.
Removing support items would be a terrible way to try to nerf Hyper meta. I'm just going to quote a [recent-ish discussion on the TT subreddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/c2ems7/gold_funneling_should_be_removed_from_twisted/ermzoxi/?context=3). >Support items don't make hypers become juggernauts. They only give the support a small income, which is much less impactful than hyper income. If you take that away it won't make hypers weaker, but rather just make supports even more boring to play. It's a really random, spiteful change. The support's income is not where the oppression comes from, but that nerf would seem to be targetting supports to try to make their experience less enjoyable. > >Support items do not add significant strength to hypers, but a layer of gameplay for the support.
Swarovsko (EUW)
: Genuine question: what's a funnel comp?
Do you remember the SR strategy where a solo laner picks a support, and the carry jungler basically camps that lane in-between jungle clears? The idea was to funnel gold and xp onto that jungler (via having access to two resource streams) so that they hit their powerspikes much earlier than intended. It showed up on the Rift for a few patches before Riot [nerfed it in 8.14](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-814-notes#patch-items), claiming it's a "passive and unengaging strategy" that "subverts a lot of normal laning patterns." Note that this strategy is different from duo-bot in SR, where two players share one resource stream. The situation's more complicated in TT though. Instead of "funneling," it's referred to as "Hypercarry meta" or "Support meta," and it's been around for years. The previous designer(s) in charge of TT even went as far as to say that it's good to have a different playstyle be viable alongside the standard "Jungle meta." Naturally, Hyper meta is a controversial topic for 3v3 players. Advocates point to the map's layout encouraging funneling and that the strategy makes for a nice change of pace. Detractors point to Riot trying to remove funneling in SR as well as Hyper's persistent dominance (for years) in 3s. tl;dr: TT has three revenue streams: top-lane, bot-lane, and the jungle. Jungle meta distributes revenue equally so that each player has a source of income. "Funnel comp" or Hyper meta has the jungler take both jungle income and top-lane income.
Kuponya (NA)
: You say "to be fair" but you haven't played an actual version of aram. You've played a fun version where they only use your champions available rather than the full roster. You don't want Ranked ARAM, you want ranked aram - kiddy edition. Don't lie to yourselves and claim you want something without wanting the real thing.
> [{quoted}](name=Kuponya,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ETaj6LKK,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-07-11T19:23:09.492+0000) > > You say "to be fair" but you haven't played an actual version of aram. You've played a fun version where they only use your champions available rather than the full roster. You don't want Ranked ARAM, you want ranked aram - kiddy edition. > Don't lie to yourselves and claim you want something without wanting the real thing. I own every champ, and I'm fine with playing every champ. That doesn't mean that I enjoy every champ equally, but it's an understood risk when queuing for "a mode that gives you a random champ."
rujitra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Minarde,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ETaj6LKK,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-11T03:52:52.882+0000) > > That's nice for TFT, but it does bring up another question. If TFT's randomness can be (more) standardized, why can't ARAM's? Going back to the champ tier thing, what if a hypothetical ranked ARAM followed TFT's example and only used a seasonal subset of champs? That could cut down on outliers excessively affecting matches. Alternately, having a regular Draft champ select, but each player can only choose from a handful of random offerings of similar power. Another option would be to just throw a bunch of champs onto a shared bench, and each team drafts from there. That's not ARAM. That is a completely different mode. The point of ARAM is you are given a random champion you own and you have to play it. It came about from a virtual "mod" in that the community played custom games titled ARAM and you had to follow those rules.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ETaj6LKK,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-11T04:12:44.278+0000) > > That's not ARAM. That is a completely different mode. The point of ARAM is you are given a random champion you own and you have to play it. It came about from a virtual "mod" in that the community played custom games titled ARAM and you had to follow those rules. It depends on how much (and what kind) of a purist you are. After all, all three of my proposed suggestions simply build off of existing features. "Seasonal roster" is an alternate take on the current free+owned champ restriction; "random draft" is roughly equivalent to how rerolls currently work; "shared bench" is just an extension of the reroll Bench. Plus, it's far from a novel concept for ranked to have a different champ select experience. None of the existing ranked queues use Blind Pick, despite it being the default for unranked. As an aside, I'd argue that "champ you own" is a(n unfortunate) tech limitation rather than a core principle of ARAM.
rujitra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Minarde,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ETaj6LKK,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-11T03:25:32.364+0000) > > What about item randomness in TFT? If your opponents get amazing items while you get trash, you also have no chance. Or perhaps your opponents simply roll their desired champs before you roll yours. Likewise, occasionally you pull the short straw in SR, and randomness's impact is overwhelming (e.g. champ banned, lane counter, enemy snowball). Given that it's statistically improbable for luck to be against you every match, randomness is unimportant *in the long run*. That's no different for ARAM. They already have two fixes for items coming out next patch from what I've seen on various sites. The number and rolls of items that drop are to be standardized more than they are now.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ETaj6LKK,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-11T03:33:13.619+0000) > > They already have two fixes for items coming out next patch from what I've seen on various sites. The number and rolls of items that drop are to be standardized more than they are now. That's nice for TFT, but it does bring up another question. If TFT's randomness can be (more) standardized, why can't ARAM's? Going back to the champ tier thing, what if a hypothetical ranked ARAM followed TFT's example and only used a seasonal subset of champs? That could cut down on outliers excessively affecting matches. Alternately, having a regular Draft champ select, but each player can only choose from a handful of random offerings of similar power. Another option would be to just throw a bunch of champs onto a shared bench, and each team drafts from there.
: i agree a ranked aram would cut down on trolls but at same time not everyone is gonna be good with their champs and may rr into champs they still dont know like for example ive gotten draven im not great adc but i def dont know draven and no1 had somethin i could trade ... so used my only rr karthus never played before but how hard could he be .....ik im prob just bad at his kit but i think i went 4 and 12 only 3 full items i had by end not counting boots was {{item:3048}} {{item:3089}} {{item:3135}} and for boots {{item:3020}} idk what i could done differently except uk buy karthus and git good but my team didnt blame me at least cause they seen my champ score was 0 for karthus .... sometimes the free rotation can screw u over like that lol
"Ability to play all/most champs" is a skill that ARAM specifically tests. It's not a flaw with SR if someone can't draft, ward, roam, smite, rotate, etc; that's a personal issue. So someone unable to play their champ is an issue with that player, not ARAM itself.
rujitra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=katsumi1,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ETaj6LKK,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-10T21:51:06.589+0000) > > Yes, mate I know how it works.. but let me give you this example. I was playing with my friend and we both had warwick and vayne from beginning. He got them to level 3 while I didn't. So, given by your logic, he shouldnt have been able to get them to level 3 if i had them as well, but he did. So how is that not random or lucky? In some games i got 3 ashes in the shop, while my friends were struggling to get one. Or if someone rerolled dozens of times, in order to get Leona, but i just got her in shop. Literally, how is it not random? 1. Did you both use the same number of rerolls? If not, who used more? If he used more, that’s why he got level 3 and you didn’t - he had more “rolls” in which to get the champions (which is a design of the game). If you used more, but he still got level 3, then what likely happened is you did not correctly determine the amount of champions on the board and plan your composition accordingly. As an example, let’s say there’s a tier 1 champ you want (we’ll say Warwick), so there’s 39 in the game. One player gets a 3 star - that means there’s 30 left. Let’s say you need one more - you have 2 two stars and 2 one stars - this leaves only 22 left in the game. If the other 6 players all have a level 2 (which is a decent average for about level 4-5 and a tier 1 champ as everyone’s figuring out their builds), there’s only 10 left. Out of all tier 1 champions, you’re more likely to roll one that has been *less* picked than you are one that’s been *more* picked. So given that many of them had been picked (by at least your friend, and likely others given Warwick and vayne being contested champions), the statistics show that you were much less likely to get that champion. You made the choice to forego a change in strategy and continue trying for two of the most contested champions even when you should’ve known that you were better off changing. This is not the fault of randomness - it’s your fault for not using the statistics to your advantage and playing around statistics. 2. I have not denied that it is random. I have said that the randomness present does not affect your chances of winning **if you play properly**. If you’re like you and look for two specific champions from the very beginning, that’s your problem because that’s not how the game is designed to be played. If you are never selling 2/3 star champions to change up your build simply because you spent time/gold to get them, even when it’s obvious you need to change to another strategy, again that’s your fault. If you can’t get 2/3 stars of certain champions yet you’re rerolling 5 times per round, but you’re seeing a different champion pop up every single reroll, it’s time to change your strategy instead of continuing to reroll for the 1% chance or less you get what you’re looking for. 3. Summoner’s Rift is random as well - it’s virtually random what champions the enemy will ban, it’s virtually random what pick order you will be and what information you will have to pick, and it’s virtually random who will get first blood (either you or enemy). The issue is that this randomness does not greatly affect your ability to win, because it is designed to be played around. In ARAM, the randomness is such that it literally cannot be played around. If the enemy team gets the top 5 tier champions in the game right now, and your team gets the lowest 5 tier, there’s simply no chance. If the enemy team gets two champions with good synergy and you don’t, there’s simply no playing around it. The randomness in ARAM is such that it’s simply not possible for it to *not* have an impact - whereas the randomness in SR and TFT are such that if you play properly the randomness is unimportant and has virtually no impact on your chances of winning.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ETaj6LKK,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-10T22:00:00.314+0000) > > In ARAM, the randomness is such that it literally cannot be played around. If the enemy team gets the top 5 tier champions in the game right now, and your team gets the lowest 5 tier, there’s simply no chance. If the enemy team gets two champions with good synergy and you don’t, there’s simply no playing around it. The randomness in ARAM is such that it’s simply not possible for it to *not* have an impact - whereas the randomness in SR and TFT are such that if you play properly the randomness is unimportant and has virtually no impact on your chances of winning. What about item randomness in TFT? If your opponents get amazing items while you get trash, you also have no chance. Or perhaps your opponents simply roll their desired champs before you roll yours. Likewise, occasionally you pull the short straw in SR, and randomness's impact is overwhelming (e.g. champ banned, lane counter, enemy snowball). Given that it's statistically improbable for luck to be against you every match, randomness is unimportant *in the long run*. That's no different for ARAM.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Minarde,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=wLi7zA61,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-07-10T00:35:40.210+0000) > > That distinction's highly dependent on individual differences (e.g. experience, skill, temperament). You're right that ARAM's randomness is front-loaded whereas TFT's randomness is spread throughout the match. However, there's opportunities to "make decisions that affect how the randomness affects you" both in TFT and in ARAM. Sure, there's times when you outright lose in champ select in ARAM, but there's also times in TFT when you get absolute trash and your opponents get perfect rolls. > > I think part of the reason some people feel more agency in TFT is because you're solo. There's always the option to blame someone else in ARAM, but in TFT, the consequences of your personal decisions are more noticeable. Moreover, "victory" and "defeat" are less rigid with the 1-8 ranking. Lastly, even if things go terribly wrong, you can simply leave the match without any consequences. > > Meanwhile, ARAM is handicapped by years of Riot neglect and a casual connotation. As such, players are that much more likely to give up and blame randomness instead of actually trying to win. > > Basically, rather than "TFT is poker and ARAM is a coin flip," it'd be a bit more accurate to say "TFT is Hold 'em and ARAM is Five-Card Draw." TFT involves small gambles over the course of a match, while ARAM involves adapting to your initial situation. If one is fitting for ranked, the other should be as well. First of all, the aggregate of a person's "individual differences" is MMR, the assumption being that the 10 players brought together are of similar levels of ability. Aside from situations where a person's ability has been estimated incorrectly by the system (a smurf on a new account, for example), It is extremely unlikely that you play your way out of a "bad draw" in ARAM. That said, the more pressing issue is that you have no way to interact with the randomness in ARAM. The coin has been flipped before you even see what the opponent has, and afterwards it's just slugging it out. In TFT, even if you don't get what you want, you have choices, and decisions you make can change your position. The randomness is a randomness that you can interact with. You can slow your opponents by grabbing up champions they need even if you don't need them. If your plan is shared by 4 other people, you can make the call to change gears. You can choose to play weak to take advantage of losing streaks, build up your economy, grab the best choices from the carousel, and spring back into the game. And by the way, poker isn't about the hands, it's about the betting. Whether your hands are strong or weak in poker, you can win, because the game is about psyching your opponents out. The same is not true with ARAM. Note: The only form of randomness in TFT that I think should be tweaked is in items. Against an equally skilled opponent, having a massive item disadvantage is crushing. Once that's tweaked, I think TFT is good to go for ranked.
Just like you have choices and decisions in TFT, you also have them in ARAM. During champ select, you can figure out damage distribution, teamfight role assignments, and maybe even win condition. Afterwards, rather than "just slugging it out," you adjust builds and roles and actually try to execute your plans. As such, I fully admit the poker analogy falls short, but I'm not the one who originally brought up poker. You can't win without some luck in TFT either. By the same argument that it's "unlikely to play your way out of a 'bad draw' in ARAM," it's equally unlikely to do so in TFT. With that said, the point that stands out most to me is the idea that "TFT would be ready for ranked *after some tweaks.*" If Ranked TFT gets the benefit of hypothetical changes, then Ranked ARAM should be considered under the same lens. Maybe it's adjustments to champ roster to address outliers or barrier to entry. Maybe it's adjustments to champ distribution to cut down on teamcomp imbalances. Maybe it's adjustments to champ select to give players more opportunities to respond to the randomness. Regardless of the specific change(s), it's contradictory to disqualify Ranked ARAM based on its current state while approving Ranked TFT based on a possible future state. Even more so when considering that all of the existing ranked queues have different features from their unranked versions.
Subdue (NA)
: TFT is random like poker is random. There are strategies you can employ to deal with and take advantage of the randomness. You're able to make decisions that affect how the randomness affects you. ARAM is like flipping a coin. You have very little control over the random aspect (champ select) and limited ability to play around the randomness.
That distinction's highly dependent on individual differences (e.g. experience, skill, temperament). You're right that ARAM's randomness is front-loaded whereas TFT's randomness is spread throughout the match. However, there's opportunities to "make decisions that affect how the randomness affects you" both in TFT and in ARAM. Sure, there's times when you outright lose in champ select in ARAM, but there's also times in TFT when you get absolute trash and your opponents get perfect rolls. I think part of the reason some people feel more agency in TFT is because you're solo. There's always the option to blame someone else in ARAM, but in TFT, the consequences of your personal decisions are more noticeable. Moreover, "victory" and "defeat" are less rigid with the 1-8 ranking. Lastly, even if things go terribly wrong, you can simply leave the match without any consequences. Meanwhile, ARAM is handicapped by years of Riot neglect and a casual connotation. As such, players are that much more likely to give up and blame randomness instead of actually trying to win. Basically, rather than "TFT is poker and ARAM is a coin flip," it'd be a bit more accurate to say "TFT is Hold 'em and ARAM is Five-Card Draw." TFT involves small gambles over the course of a match, while ARAM involves adapting to your initial situation. If one is fitting for ranked, the other should be as well.
: > [{quoted}](name=Minarde,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=in2pogJc,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-07-02T00:55:05.808+0000) > > But "ability to play most champions" is a skill that ARAM specifically tests. It's not too different from wave management, teamfighting, or warding for Ranked SR or adapting to items/comps in TFT. Not everyone is good at those skills, but the players who are will (tend to) have a higher ranking/MMR. That's fair, but then you have to consider compositions. With completely randomized compositions for each team, it could be a situation where one team gets 5 supports and the other has a fleshed out composition (Solid frontline, solid damage dealers, and a support), in which case the full composition has a massive advantage over the 5 support team. Like I said in my other reply, Riot could implement a system like this: A) All players have all champions unlocked for the mode B) Each player is assigned a role once they enter champion select and only gets champions for that role (Person 1 gets tanks, Person 2 gets assassins, etc) C) Players can trade with their teammates (Trading gives you both the champion and the role) I think this would be a good system for a Ranked ARAM, as it guarantees that both teams have real compositions while also allowing players to trade for their desired role.
> [{quoted}](name=KatMainWannabe,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=in2pogJc,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-07-03T10:24:19.124+0000) > > That's fair, but then you have to consider compositions. With completely randomized compositions for each team, it could be a situation where one team gets 5 supports and the other has a fleshed out composition (Solid frontline, solid damage dealers, and a support), in which case the full composition has a massive advantage over the 5 support team. Like I said in my other reply, Riot could implement a system like this: > A) All players have all champions unlocked for the mode > B) Each player is assigned a role once they enter champion select and only gets champions for that role (Person 1 gets tanks, Person 2 gets assassins, etc) > C) Players can trade with their teammates (Trading gives you both the champion and the role) > > I think this would be a good system for a Ranked ARAM, as it guarantees that both teams have real compositions while also allowing players to trade for their desired role. I'd be okay with assigning or even drafting roles, as it would help avoid lopsided teamcomps. On the other hand, a lot of ARAM's appeal is in guiding/piloting lopsided teamcomps to victory. Personally, I'd prefer drafting specific champions (i.e. same as existing Draft, but players each choose from 3 random champs of similar power rather than from the full roster) to maintain an amount of control over teamcomps without explicitly standardizing teamcomps. Regardless, the main point is that the basic concept of "Ranked ARAM" is possible. Specific implementation details (e.g. Are there bans? Do promos exist? Are all champions unlocked? What account requirements for the queue?) can come later. With [ranked TFT set to launch in the next patch](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/riot-games/announcements/teamfight-tactics-showdown) and TFT having similar random elements as ARAM, Riot's old reasoning of "randomness and ranked is a questionable combination" clearly no longer applies. As such, if TFT is worthy of ranked, why not ARAM as well?
Dokkaebi (EUNE)
: Throwback to Rito refusing ranked ARAM because of the RNG factor
Why can't everyone just get along? Clearly, most people here enjoy at least one of the two modes. Both TFT and ARAM fans seem to accept that "my preferred mode has a lot of randomness and RNG, yet it's not purely luck-based because there's opportunities for skill to shine through and make up for bad luck." Is it that hard to imagine that that concept applies to your unfavored mode as well?
: ARAM Ranked but you choose your champion
All Draft All Mid would be boring, since it'd immediately stagnate into the same 20-30 champs being pick/ban every game. However, "Random Draft" would be great. Basically, "just make a ranked ARAM where you ban champions and then choose champions the same as in ranked normally," but each player has to choose from three random champs (of similar power) rather than from the entire roster. No rerolls, no bench. It's basically the spirit of ARAM combined with the experience of Draft.
: Poll: do you play Twisted Treeline?
I kinda like Treeline (more than SR at least), but I don't play it much. The main reason is that the more you grind and the higher up the ladder you get, the more likely you are to run into Support meta. I don't dislike its existence, but I just personally don't enjoy playing it.
Show more

Minarde

Level 165 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion