: "...and then made fun of him in all chat when he died." Yep, clearly I can't read.
Yes, you are very clearly incapable of reading, as the context of this quote is that _Shaco's own team_ made fun of him after revealing his location to us: > ...a duo told us Shaco was at dragon, backed off our base (we were losing handily), and then made fun of him in all chat when he died. If you're going to attempt dialogue in English, please understand it prior to clicking that little "Reply" button. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
STEG0 (NA)
: It's everything about it. A single novice could rebuild it all to look the same and function better using something mundane like javascript in a week or two. The biggest time sink on it would be the art assets, like the banners or crafting animations but those are already done.
> [{quoted}](name=STEG0,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=LMycUtbt,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-11-13T21:22:10.591+0000) > > It's everything about it. A single novice could rebuild it all to look the same and function better using something mundane like javascript in a week or two. The biggest time sink on it would be the art assets, like the banners or crafting animations but those are already done. Lol, "mundane like javascript" -- what? JS is more "mundane" than any other scripting language? Also, the launcher is very likely just a wrapper for HTML, CSS, and JS. Just a heads up ;) Based on that, I'm pretty confident I can throw your time estimate completely out, and chalk it up to not knowing what you're talking about. To point out OP's point, you've just listed things only relating to the launcher, while saying "it's everything about it". He mentioned the game client and the launcher, and your response is "everything about _it_"? Okay, so you dislike the launcher based on your response, that really doesn't address anything here at all. Launcher != game client, that's the point of this post. From the loading screen on, you're dealing with the game client. Everything pre-loading-screen is the launcher.
: The downside to what you are proposing is that players have to remember to use their actives and use them properly. Not everyone wants another set of timers to worry about. Not every can remember to use them. Not everyone wants them. Then you've got to consider that people are playing and investing time in league because there are things in DotA they don't want or like. Riot needs to be very careful about copying a different game because it could drive players away. Don't get me wrong, this might be the one thing riot needs to copy, but it might not be as well. Finally, if you want to compare league to another game, why not compare it to Overwatch? Overwatch got rid of things like items and levels and focused purely on gameplay. As a result matches are a lot quicker and more fun. Last night I had a ranked game that lasted 42 minutes, in part because the other team took 2 inhib turrets and decided to throw as slowly as possible. I remember thinking at around 35 minutes that the other team was throwing. Getting rid of levels and items would certainly speed up league a lot and it would get rid of all the problems associated with items like keeping them balanced, making sure every class has good items, actives, etc. So why not go the overwatch route? If you need item actives to "fix" a character, the character is still broken, you're just sweeping it under a rug. Every match.
Why would League taking anything from HOTS? It's a dying game that never made much of a splash. Without items and levels, the game becomes infinitely less complex, and thus matches are extremely boring. Furthermore, there's no reward for playing well individually; you're only rewarded for consistent team play in HOTS. Roflstomp your lane? Cool, it literally means nothing unless your team can actually continually make smart plays together. Got roflstomped? No sweat, they got nothing at all for roflstomping you and you still stand just as high of a chance at winning. There's a reason people didn't flock to HOTS in droves. There's a reason the esports scene never really took off (and is now shutdown). The game, as a whole, is flawed. There's virtually no reason at all for it to be a MOBA with the direction they went -- lane phases are meant for getting early advantages and capitalizing on them. Without any form of reward in place for outplaying your lane opponent(s), it's pointless and just adds a tremendous amount of overhead to each match.
: Hes already pulled out of the original topic because he was schooled theres no reason to even try at this point. he just wants to troll in urf and your a big meanie for pointing out that hes intentionally disrupting the game for others. Oh and you need a support group because he says so
I'm on Reddit right now looking. I have a few phone numbers written down for "people who don't play games just to screw others over" support groups as well.
: Right and your part of the problem because you want to play and hes a good upstanding player for wanting to troll
: This is urf to a t. If you don't like that someone is an obvious troll they just rage out and start trying to personally attack. Actually it's probably lol in general.
No no, see, he didn't actually emotionally respond or personally attack / insult. See below. It wasn't a passive aggressive jab we saw in his resignation to the original topic -- that was him sincerely being concerned.
: 1. I have had zero emotion in my responses, so your reference to "emotional" may be just you projecting how strongly you feel about it. 2. No insults thrown except the ones you imagine yourself receiving.
> Well I'm sorry (not rly) you feel so badly about it. > They may have a subreddit for emotional support with bad experiences in URF games. If I have to spell it out for you, it's most certainly wasted effort.
: Well I'm sorry you feel so badly about it. They may have a subreddit for emotional support with bad experiences in URF games.
Your apathy toward others coupled with your emotional response when called out on it have summed up my points perfectly. "I'll ruin a game if I want to" transitioned perfectly to "OMFG I'M GONNA FLING INSULTS NOW BECAUSE I HAVE NO RESPONSE". 10/10
: Just because it's URF. If you think I'm not going to ignore a crucial team fight to win in URF so I can finish spelling "YEET" in Teemo shrooms, you wouldn't only be the most incorrect person in the game, you'd certainly be the sorest.
Just because it's URF? It's all a game, it all matters exactly the same amount to those of us who do not earn an income from it: Zero. Be it URF, ranked, or anything else. Again, pseudo-morals driven solely by fear of punishment and a total lack of empathy. How you justify it to yourself is completely inconsequential to the point.
: I have read up on it. And I usually disregard it for URF and receive no consequences. I doubt I ever will. {{sticker:sg-lulu}}
And you're totally fine with the fact that you're ruining gameplay for a potential of 9 others, just "because"? The only thing that would dissuade you from doing something which affects someone else negatively is the prospect of punishment? Therein lies the problem. Pseudo-morals driven solely by the fear of punishment, rather than the ability to recognize the negative impacts your actions can have on others.
: > [{quoted}](name=Phreaktastic,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AlXcXbWo,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-10-30T21:22:42.754+0000) > > > TLDR: Just because it's a fun mode, does not mean that trolling your team is fine. No one likes it, not even the enemy team. I've done some pretty Caligula-level shit to my team with Tahm Kench in URF. Honor 5, btw, not a single punishment on the account I've had since S2. You are free to have your opinion, just don't force it on everyone else.
It's not an opinion. It's stated right in the League of Legends terms. Perhaps read up on it since you're convinced that trolling is fine in URF.
: > [{quoted}](name=FireDrizzle,realm=EUNE,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=qyugX23d,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-31T17:43:26.482+0000) > > I'm a warrior because I NEVER SURRENDER and hold players hostage in lol > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1jbxoPX0AEZnRY.jpg The reality is I end up winning a non negligeable number of the games in which my team wanted to surrender at 2, 4,10, 15 minuts, so since I do not like to waste my time in Lobby, champ select or looking for a game, I keep playing. On the plus side, it teaches me how to play from behind and how to pull up some nice comeback, so, it's a win win situation, either I win Lps and learn, or I just learn.
> [{quoted}](name=Starcraft243ver,realm=EUW,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=qyugX23d,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-31T18:06:39.397+0000) > > The reality is I end up winning a non negligeable number of the games in which my team wanted to surrender at 2, 4,10, 15 minuts, so since I do not like to waste my time in Lobby, champ select or looking for a game, I keep playing. > > On the plus side, it teaches me how to play from behind and how to pull up some nice comeback, so, it's a win win situation, either I win Lps and learn, or I just learn. ^ This. So many "surrender the second I die" kiddos will never know how to turn a game around because they simply give up instead of pushing through. At least 20% of the games I win had someone attempt to surrender because of their "woe is me" attitude. I've even had people who were so incredibly blind to the game they were playing that they tried to surrender when the enemy team had an AFK. Once they realized the game was (unfortunately) handed to us, and saw the AFK, they magically started playing better. A shining example of how much your state of mind impacts your gameplay. The funniest part is his response is that people are "holding him hostage". To re-emphasize: Don't start a game if you can't finish it. People who are capable of playing while behind don't share your "omfg I just died so the game is over" mentality, and thus, continuing is not holding anyone hostage. Playing the game that everyone in the match agreed to play is, well, exactly that. Lighten up. Play some of the harder matches. People who surrender at the first sign of trouble are typically the ones hard stuck, and are also coincidentally the ones who feed the enemy team to begin with. Embracing the fact that you will inevitably be outplayed, and learning to recover from it, will benefit you and your team far more than begging to surrender because you're 0/4.
: URF isn't just for fun, it is a joke mode. Lighten up to the max. And if not, then ya'll shouldn't have made fun of the Shaco. Period. As for the higher rage instances in URF, it literally does not matter. Team play in URF is a joke. Feeding is almost irrelevant because almost every game has at least 4 feeders because it's not ranked. If a player is doing really badly, them turning on the Lord IDGAF switch isn't likely to change anything in URF. And it really isn't fun to play incredibly passive and back up the strongest player on the team, especially if they were hoping to carry. Wake up to the songs, many, if not most, League players are here to try to carry, ESPECIALLY in URF.
I feel like you don't really understand English that well, or you simply didn't read. Either way, your point is virtually moot. You've basically echoed everything I've said, and no one on my team made fun of Shaco at all. Perhaps lay off the mind altering substances for a bit?
rujitra (NA)
: If people are intentionally losing or not trying, send a ticket to Riot with information, screenshots, clips, etc. Riot seems to have had an epiphany and either figured out how to improve their feeding bots or has had humans reviewing many more based on the number of people complaining here.
I agree with you. I just don't want to have to spend 10-15 minutes after 30% of my games just because I chose to play something outside of ranked SR. There shouldn't be an inherent "clerical tax" for playing URF. Again though, I do agree, it's just frustrating seeing such high frequencies of ruined games simply because URF is available now.
Rioter Comments
: Could be wrong, but the Phone Verification they were talking about is connected to your account. So everyone can verify their account which then puts them into Trust mode. If they AFK/Troll in 2-3 games, they get taken out of Trust mode for a couple months. That way you are guaranteed to only play with people who haven't AFK'd or Trolled in the last couple months. Personally I think its a great idea, but there isn't a reason for phone verification. It should just be part of Matchmaking, if someone AFK'd in the last 5 games, I don't want that person on my team specially in a ranked game. Matchmaking should separate people like this from the rest of the community, it would help in toxicity and it would help people climb.
> [{quoted}](name=Stephenizgod,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=rqP8E4VM,comment-id=00020002,timestamp=2019-09-22T17:59:27.933+0000) > > Personally I think its a great idea, but there isn't a reason for phone verification. Phone verification prevents people from dodging punishment by playing smurfs. Phone verification is near-necessary in a free game, hence most free games using it. Tencent is vehemently opposed to phone verification, and virtually anything that prevents people from creating as many accounts as they choose, however. It's very, very unlikely to ever happen due to this fact. Their strong opposition to it has led to some pretty wild speculation, including that they are also responsible for making hacks for a lot of games they have ownership in (like PUBG) and monetizing them. Or, in League's case, account selling. I personally wouldn't be shocked, as it does bolster the Chinese economy, and Tencent is essentially an extension of the Chinese gov. One thing is definite, though. Honor + verification granting a more enjoyable queue experience would be phenomenal. Which is precisely why it'll never happen in League.
Infernape (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=ITZ ICY,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AYQN7Kip,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-09-21T21:55:18.010+0000) > > Since when did league track and show things like, how many people I killed with lux ultimate? Or anything similar? It always has tracked it. Riot just never showed you that information. Remember Death Recap tells the killed party how they died. If Death Recap knows how you killed someone, the game itself does as well. All Eternals do is enable the parts of the tracking system Riot doesn't keep public. Not to mention the end of year review also tells you how many times you used certain abilities over the year so it wouldn't be implausible to think that the game can track how many times X ability killed someone.
> [{quoted}](name=Infernape,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AYQN7Kip,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-09-21T22:04:04.554+0000) > > It always has tracked it. Riot just never showed you that information. Remember Death Recap tells the killed party how they died. If Death Recap knows how you killed someone, the game itself does as well. All Eternals do is enable the parts of the tracking system Riot doesn't keep public. > > Not to mention the end of year review also tells you how many times you used certain abilities over the year so it wouldn't be implausible to think that the game can track how many times X ability killed someone. You are conflating temporary data (stored in-memory on a server) with permanent data (stored in a DB). Two totally, entirely separate things. Temporary data which lives in the memory of the server has virtually zero additional overhead. To show the damage that was dealt to you via death recap, for example, is simply taking data which the server was already recording and allowing the end-user to consume it. Permanent data which has been stored in a DB costs additional money. This data store grows as time goes on and requires additional scaling as data is added to it. Just because you were able to see a death recap, for example, does not mean that every metric has been permanently stored. In fact, there are loads of games which provide on-the-fly reporting of volatile data -- data which is only available in a fleeting manner and is never stored for future reference. This does not mean, however, that said data is magically available 6 months down the road. Bottom line: you're conflating two entirely separate things. Simply because something was tracked and made available in-game does NOT mean it was permanently stored for reference a year down the road. Most of the time, this kind of data is not permanently stored for users to freely report on because of the incredible amount of overhead involved. Generic, aggregate data IS frequently stored for balance analysis (36% of x champion's Q ability casts hit an enemy champion dealing an average of y damage, etc.) but that wouldn't really provide an individual user with a tremendous amount of value, would it? No matter what has existed in the past ("You landed your R on Lux 673 times!"), it is absolutely not the same as this data. Incrementing an integer is _slightly_ different than storing each occurance and reporting intricate stats, like hit rate, total damage dealt, amount of champs hit per cast, the range at which the ability hit in comparison to its max range at that moment in time (which, let me remind you, they adjust the range so this sort of reporting requires also storing the abilities PRESENT stats as a sort of "snapshot" on a per-game basis to prevent incorrect data reporting), etc.
: Because they have this insane belief that most players don't have mobile phones. It's 2019. Most people with computers have mobile phones.
> [{quoted}](name=Karunamon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=k1fETiew,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-09-19T14:50:24.052+0000) > > Because they have this insane belief that most players don't have mobile phones. > > It's 2019. Most people with computers have mobile phones. Compare that to Blizzard's, "Do you not have phones?". I guess any extreme belief in either direction is pretty terrible xD
: 3 days is absolutely no time at all, though. Even if he got reported for the **very** first of those, it's incredibly likely he hasn't been actually gotten to yet. I believe the estimate I had last heard was 4 days for a review to take place, because it just takes that long to get to them.
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=f4jA20aA,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-09-19T13:15:42.652+0000) > > 3 days is absolutely no time at all, though. Even if he got reported for the **very** first of those, it's incredibly likely he hasn't been actually gotten to yet. I believe the estimate I had last heard was 4 days for a review to take place, because it just takes that long to get to them. Yes, you're literally just **reiterating the problem**. The problem is that this match history is blatantly obvious trolling. So obvious, in fact, that any broken/half-baked solution could detect it. Look at the score and items. If it's that blatantly obvious, it should not be dependent upon time in any way. Three matches with those items should be an insta-ban. It doesn't take human intervention, it doesn't take complex algorithms, and it doesn't take allowing it to continue for any period of time. THAT is the problem. Whether it's 3 days or 3 hours, with that match history there is no case to be made for anything outside of trolling. Why rush to the defense of this horrendous system? Exactly what you stated, is exactly the problem. There is literally ZERO human intervention needed in this case. Most cases aren't this clear cut, but the least we could expect is for cases like this to be an insta-ban after 3 games.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Hillary Chillton,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cG7AnpnU,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-09-18T17:06:44.642+0000) > > Google just launched their own gaming platform. Amazon owns twitch. Not sure they let u know that beyond the wall. Your right it woudlnt be the same. it would be much more fulfilling its potential . So? One is just 1 foot in the door, and the other is a streaming service which at best is tangentially related; and when did you supposed they should've have stepped in to buy up Riot since the company and the game have existed for about a decade, way before Google and Amazon had anything to do with gaming. Can't you at least do the speculation with an actual game publisher or something? You may as well say you want Riot to be owned by Apple, which as we all know, is ofc gonna fulfill all of is untold potential. But then again, given the other assumptions that you implied with your other remarks, this conversation is probably futile.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cG7AnpnU,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-18T17:12:32.207+0000) > > So? One is just 1 foot in the door, and the other is a streaming service which at best is tangentially related; and when did you supposed they should've have stepped in to buy up Riot since the company and the game have existed for about a decade, way before Google and Amazon had anything to do with gaming. Can't you at least do the speculation with an actual game publisher or something? You may as well say you want Riot to be owned by Apple, which as we all know, is ofc gonna fulfill all of is untold potential. > > But then again, given the other assumptions that you implied with your other remarks, this conversation is probably futile. Surely you realize Amazon is incredibly invested in the gaming industry? No? Well let me enlighten you. Amazon purchased the rights to fork the CryEngine and shape it into their own engine (years ago). They've also got their own game studio (https://amazongames.com/) -- founded years ago. They also have several game-specific facets in AWS, strictly built for supporting gaming (both development and infrastructure). Amazon is heavily invested in the gaming industry, well outside of the streaming scene. They are very present in pretty much all facets of gaming, and in fact, a good portion of games you play stand a high chance of using at least some of Amazon's offerings. In regards to Google, they are actively purchasing games/studios to help bolster their Stadia launch's success. They, too, are heavily invested in the gaming industry. So, no, your points are 100% invalid. Who would you rather OP mentioned, EA? Ubisoft? Lol, that'd be soooo much better than Tencent right?
: Raise your voices pls
I'm less focused on the logo, and more focused on the current state of the game. Of all things to make a huge deal over, a logo is at the bottom of my priorities.
PzyXo (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=mack9112,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HaxkP5yl,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-07-28T16:49:26.642+0000) > > If you think think this season is the worst and the most toxic then you have not been playing this game long my friend. > > The game is still the number one viewed for per hours monthly on twitch and the first thing my friend said after switch from Dota to league ( on my recommendation ) was how short the que times are becuse in his Dota games it is a solid 10 to 15mins. > > Nobody in balance should ever listen to this board like ever this board is pure hate. Does the Queue time matters when you're plat and you go autofilled support with a silver in your role ?
> [{quoted}](name=PzyXo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HaxkP5yl,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-07-28T20:51:44.775+0000) > > Does the Queue time matters when you're plat and you go autofilled support with a silver in your role ? I'd take 10-15 minute queue times over getting autofilled or getting a terrible match up. Seriously, if Dota's queue times are that high but the matches are higher quality, maybe it's time to switch. > [{quoted}](name=Dukues,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HaxkP5yl,comment-id=002b,timestamp=2019-07-29T17:23:57.472+0000) > > Your first point is complete crap. The game is no more toxic than it ever was. The game used to be way worse before new punishment systems. Yea... toxicity is still a large part of the game but it's nothing compared to what it used to be. > > I get toxicity is really bad especially for new players but that also has been the same for 6+ years. So I do agree toxicity is bad especially for new players but saying it has gotten worse is complete BS. It has gotten better, a lot better honestly since when I started back in season 1. When you could honor opponents toxicity was at a low, imo. There were decent strides made in detoxing the community, and then those efforts were abandoned. No idea why, as I personally (anecdotally) noticed a positive difference.
Jikker (NA)
: Threads like that, even if the intention is to say that the system is not working as they believe it should, are still in violation of the [**Universal Rules**](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE) regarding the posting of content that advocates rule breaking. > Do not post content advocating or soliciting violations of the Terms of Use, Summoner’s Code, or Board Rules. Players encouraging this sort of behavior will be punished as if they had engaged in it themselves. Basically what that thread is saying to some people is "Hey, I've been feeding and haven't been banned so you can feed too because the system doesn't detect it." That kind of message does not belong on the Boards,** whether it was intentional by the poster or not**. If the creator of the thread, or you, have concerns about whether or not the system is correctly banning intentional feeders, that is best discussed directly with Riot Support via a [ticket](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new). {{sticker:poppy-wink}}
> [{quoted}](name=Jikker,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HA7REldU,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-07-29T15:08:13.131+0000) > > Threads like that, even if the intention is to say that the system is not working as they believe it should, are still in violation of the [**Universal Rules**](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE) regarding the posting of content that advocates rule breaking. > > Basically what that thread is saying to some people is "Hey, I've been feeding and haven't been banned so you can feed too because the system doesn't detect it." That kind of message does not belong on the Boards,** whether it was intentional by the poster or not**. If the creator of the thread, or you, have concerns about whether or not the system is correctly banning intentional feeders, that is best discussed directly with Riot Support via a [ticket](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new). > > {{sticker:poppy-wink}} That's convenient. If someone publicly declares, "There's a fire!" when there truly is a fire, they are not soliciting lighting fires. Not intentionally, and not unintentionally. Rito's _lack of response and attention_ on the issue is the only thing, in your example, which could **possibly** be seen as soliciting this behavior. By your example, the lack of action on uncle Rito's part is the driving factor of anyone else thinking, "He hasn't been banned yet, maybe I should do this too!" A little accountability on Rito's part would go a long way. Each post like this, shirking every little bit of responsibility onto players and as far away from Rito as possible, is further damaging Rito's already tarnished reputation. Removing posts does nothing as, well, this is the internet. It's already made its way through other channels, and the removal from the forums only shows that Rito would like this to be swept under the rug as much as possible. There are already loads of streamers who have gone on for hundreds/thousands of games exhibiting this exact behavior and posting everywhere possible to showcase the lack of action in regards to toxic behavior without toxic chat. It exists already, has been circulated countless times, and will continue to exist, whether mods here want to curate it out of the forums or not. Frankly, if more people did it, maybe it would be fixed. Creating threads about it obviously gets us nowhere at all. I've seen threads like this for years -- nothing has been done _at all_ to rectify this sort of behavior. We were **far** better off with the Tribunal as it actually allowed a human to review the case, read the comments, and see for themselves that the player was indeed inting. The system we have now is flawed, easily abused, and seldom improved.
: > [{quoted}](name=Phreaktastic,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iHVUklyF,comment-id=000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-07-27T19:59:46.512+0000) > > What's worse? One loss and thus one game's worth of LP loss, or a constant mindset/paradigm which is dishing out consistent losses? I'd take the one loss and move on, knowing full-well that the real victims are you and your friend. You sure showed me. what? one loss? most of the time people play meta and don't troll. what the hell you talking about.
> [{quoted}](name=Krispy Cack,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iHVUklyF,comment-id=0000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-27T20:32:42.507+0000) > > what? one loss? most of the time people play meta and don't troll. what the hell you talking about. Yep. That was the whole point. Your troll crusade of "mE aNd My FrIeNd QuEuE bAd We ShOw YoOoUuU!~!~!~!" was hilarious because that would be one loss you give to others, and many losses you give to yourselves. /whooooooosh > [{quoted}](name=General Esdeath ,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iHVUklyF,comment-id=0001000100010000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-28T20:56:00.855+0000) > > And he's a pro player, so if you're in gold, I don't think you're gonna make the cut. Sorry, that's just how it is. I hear all pro players start ranked at Challenger, even before they become pros. I also hear that high rank players never have smurf accounts.
: > [{quoted}](name=Algido,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iHVUklyF,comment-id=0000000000000001,timestamp=2019-07-27T10:08:21.131+0000) > > You can't be serious? So you want Riot, in all their glorious brilliance they have demonstrated in the last 4 seasons to only allow certain champs to be played in certain roles? Why have ~140 champs if only ~25 can be played (let's say 5 per role)? FUN! Should we all be required to have some kind of social worker to hold our hands irl while waiting to respawn? uh yes? hey guys, i'm going soraka jg and my friend going ashe mid. haha we cannot get in trouble for it sucks for you azzholes, enjoy the lp loss.
> [{quoted}](name=Krispy Cack,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iHVUklyF,comment-id=00000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-07-27T19:53:51.197+0000) > > uh yes? > > hey guys, i'm going soraka jg and my friend going ashe mid. haha we cannot get in trouble for it sucks for you azzholes, enjoy the lp loss. What's worse? One loss and thus one game's worth of LP loss, or a constant mindset/paradigm which is dishing out consistent losses? I'd take the one loss and move on, knowing full-well that the real victims are you and your friend. You sure showed me.
: Just another day in ranked
The amount of snowflakes in this thread wanting uncle Rito to regulate which champs you can play and where you can play them... Holy shit. It's like they don't even understand that literally everything in the game today is a product of someone trying something new in the past. Seriously, just take a second to look at how M5 defined the meta as we know it now. If you had your way, and Rito banned everyone who tried something new, M5 would have been banned and today's meta would likely be the same boring meta that M5 demolished. Here's a video for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuQV0pYUkJQ Just no. Whether I get the experimenters in my ranked matches or not, I'm 100% against uncle Rito banning players who try something new.
: Teemo shrooms should counter Pyke, not the other way around.
If he still heals while taking damage, that means he still heals while a Teemo shroom could have the Morello debuff on him... Isn't that _better_ than just prolonging the heal? You're effectively reducing the healing while simultaneously putting him at higher risk clearing the jungle/ganking.
Smevz (NA)
: The same thing just happened to me and it lost me the game. This is counter-intuitive and really needs to be fixed. (Patch 1.4)
> [{quoted}](name=Smevz,realm=NA,application-id=PKbQ4unq,discussion-id=K5RnEafU,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-07-21T01:12:00.063+0000) > > The same thing just happened to me and it lost me the game. This is counter-intuitive and really needs to be fixed. (Patch 1.4) After reading the discussions, I realized that I should at least _try_ Dota Underlords. Now, I'm just thankful that TFT introduced me to the real mode. No clunky silliness of controlling this weird little legend that's literally only around so people purchase skins, no carousel, no getting 0 items while someone else gets 2-3 upgraded items, no weird AFKing AI, no creep blocking on the boards, no Poppy/Blitz knocking your champ into god knows where, more champs/classes/items/diversity, actual tutorial/bot games to help friends get acquainted... The list goes on. Thanks for the introduction Rito!
: Riot there's a reason we keep talking shit to you on boards instead of just leaving your game.
Yes, and thankfully it's no longer the top competitive game. Competition breeds change / evolution. Cross your fingers that the evolution process doesn't begin far too late to recover, like was witnessed with PUBG. When money is flowing in, they have virtually zero reason to change. When money starts funneling to other games, shit hits the fan and suddenly listening to fans' pleas becomes a good idea.
: TFT I find to be the most balanced thing Riot's had to date. The trick is even if you get gold there is a sort of "bad luck insurance" counter that stacks in to later creep rounds. Once you know that it's basically a matter of are you good at the game or not. So getting gold from creep rounds for earlier units and levels and having a big flow of items from something like wolves or raptors is something I prefer. It's not as heavily influenced by RNG as you so believe it's more of a now or later setup for items. Past that even if someone picks up some nice items to start they are less likely to get them later still allowing people who get lose streaks early on to contest and best the rest as it is with most Auto Chess battlers.
> [{quoted}](name=Better Persoj,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=dgAvrpVf,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-07-20T05:40:13.282+0000) > > TFT I find to be the most balanced thing Riot's had to date. The trick is even if you get gold there is a sort of "bad luck insurance" counter that stacks in to later creep rounds. Once you know that it's basically a matter of are you good at the game or not. So getting gold from creep rounds for earlier units and levels and having a big flow of items from something like wolves or raptors is something I prefer. It's not as heavily influenced by RNG as you so believe it's more of a now or later setup for items. Past that even if someone picks up some nice items to start they are less likely to get them later still allowing people who get lose streaks early on to contest and best the rest as it is with most Auto Chess battlers. This is false. I've gone entire games without getting items on numerous occasions. You are absolutely not guaranteed items later on if you get screwed in the first 3 camps. All you are witnessing/referencing is statistical probability, which is the product of RNG. If items have a 15% chance to drop per Stage 1 creep (which I don't know is the case, just a rough guess), statistical probability tells you that getting nothing in Stage 1 will likely yield items in the next creep camp (if their chance is 15% or higher, which later creeps appear to be higher). Getting no items in later camps 100% disproves any theory of compensation, however, and only proves statistical probability.
: > [{quoted}](name=Phreaktastic,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xEMnV5YE,comment-id=001200000000,timestamp=2019-07-19T21:40:36.943+0000) > > This scenario is more a product of autofill, imo. Look at the player in question; They never roll ADC. If Rito is going to force someone who never plays ADC to play ADC, this is going to happen. It's still Rito's fault in this scenario. Hell, it's even promoted with their role specific changes to the ranked system. > > The matchmaking is fundamentally flawed in regards to autofill. I agree with others that it's not flawed in regards to looking at MMR and understanding _how_ and _why_ a "Silver 1" player matches against "Platinum" players. Those ranks aren't dictating any form of matchmaking, the MMR is. > > I do, however, think it is an incredibly troll move to force a player who queues for Top/Jungle to play as support, for example. That player, in virtually every scenario, would've preferred waiting a bit longer for a match over being tossed a role they absolutely cannot play. Even if they _can_ play it, they've willingly selected the roles they _do_ want, clearly they're not interested in the autofill role. **Why does autofill exist?** > > I'm pretty sure we can deduce by this point that it is not about queue times. If it truly is, and there is some underlying issue (like everyone wanting a certain role), why not give the option? When filling in details, show an estimated queue timer and a prospective warning if the queue will be lengthy ("Slow queues for the desired roles"). Throw in a checkbox that says "Allow autofill". Those who want to wait it out as their experience will be negatively impacted in another role, great, they now have the opportunity to just wait. Those who would rather play quickly have the opportunity to autofill and get into the action more quickly. > > One thing uncle Rito is incredibly bad at is foresite. They think that a longer queue will inherently destroy the experience for players. However, a long queue timer for one role opens up the doors for another. Many, many players would see the longer queue times for one role and adapt by picking up a new role with nonexistant queue times. This already exists in many other games, but I'll use WoW for this example (despite hating WoW). When queueing for dungeons in WoW, DPS is always a dreadfully long wait. This encourages anyone who would like to avoid the queues to roll Tank or Heals. It incentivizes it. A natural balance occurs simply due to the circumstances. Where some may see a high queue time for a particular role as a negative, others would see it as a positive, avoiding that role and taking advantage of small queues. > > If there truly were a massive imbalance in role desire, what better way to incentivize learning new roles? Oh, I agree completely on autofilling. Had one game where someone got autofilled support and they were so mad about it that they decided to go support Evelynn and troll. On another case, had a game where I queued as Jungle/Bot and I get Bot while someone on our Bot lane got autofilled Jungle. But I disagree on that Rito has bad foresight. They are over a decade old and should know better by now than to do that. Even more now after the Dynamic Queue and Positional Ranks failure. In contrast to WoW, FF14's newest expansion drastically increased queue time for Tank from the release of a new tank job. What Rito needs to do is to make the more undesired roles(in this case, Jungle, Support, and if this kind of behavior in balance keeps up, soon to be Top) more desirable. What FF14 and WoW did for this is giving more benefits and rewards for players who play other roles.
> [{quoted}](name=KnKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xEMnV5YE,comment-id=0012000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-19T23:29:35.301+0000) > > Oh, I agree completely on autofilling. Had one game where someone got autofilled support and they were so mad about it that they decided to go support Evelynn and troll. On another case, had a game where I queued as Jungle/Bot and I get Bot while someone on our Bot lane got autofilled Jungle. But I disagree on that Rito has bad foresight. They are over a decade old and should know better by now than to do that. Even more now after the Dynamic Queue and Positional Ranks failure. > > In contrast to WoW, FF14's newest expansion drastically increased queue time for Tank from the release of a new tank job. What Rito needs to do is to make the more undesired roles(in this case, Jungle, Support, and if this kind of behavior in balance keeps up, soon to be Top) more desirable. What FF14 and WoW did for this is giving more benefits and rewards for players who play other roles. Yeah I can see that. However, wouldn't you agree that the lack of desire to play Jungle and Support is due to their own patches? Top is a shitshow because they refuse to apply any sort of legitimate fixes for monsters like Riven (while ridiculing ranged top heavily), and Support is getting watered down more and more each patch. Jungle was in a fairly good spot until semi-recent to recent patches. At the end of the day, a person's desire to play those roles (or lack thereof) is a direct reflection of uncle Rito's "balance". A lot of Jungle mains have jumped ship in recent times due to their absolutely bizarre patches which essentially made Jungle a "100% pick or ban" role; a trend which is extremely common for Rito as of late. I didn't consider the fact that rewards are given for other roles in WoW/FF. It's been a while since I legitimately played WoW, despite trying BFA out. I wouldn't be opposed to rewards for queueing in a certain role. Even skin shards might be enough incentive. Sadly, your examples are certainly not uncommon. I've had people get autofilled ADC when they picked top, meanwhile the person who was autofilled top was queued for ADC -- right in the same game. There are enough posts showcasing this kind of odd autofill behavior that it truly seems like autofill is only in place as a roadblock. It truly seems unneeded with the extremely large number of people queueing at any given time. If there are actually role issues though, I do think balance is more to blame than the players. Of course, that's not to say that trolling is ever excusable. I just think Rito encourages/promotes trolling. Their ban system will not ban anyone who trolls without insulting other players, which makes matters even worse. A person can make (and YouTubers have made) their entire goal to troll without getting banned and be entirely successful, going hundreds/thousands of games without any form of punishment. So long as their chat is not toxic, no ban is issued.
Sedos (NA)
: That's nothing, yesterday I had a game where I went nobles and saw no Garen at all until stage 4-3 or so, then I ran into somebody with a 3 star Garen... at the end of the game I had two 1 star Garens. Balanced, lol.
> [{quoted}](name=Sedos,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=Ul7OuW0K,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-07-19T17:05:27.875+0000) > > That's nothing, yesterday I had a game where I went nobles and saw no Garen at all until stage 4-3 or so, then I ran into somebody with a 3 star Garen... at the end of the game I had two 1 star Garens. Balanced, lol. I mean, this is simple logic. It's a shared pool. The only RNG playing a factor here was in the early game, when he was likely presented with Garens in stage 1 and you were not. Beyond that, you should've been looking to see who was building Garen. Since you didn't, and you are shocked that someone else had a T3 Garen while you saw none of them, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't quite understand the shared champion pool. You _have_ to play around it. In fact, it is 100% feasible that said player saw your Noble comp and picked up every single Garen they could, just so you couldn't get a T2/T3 Garen on the board. This level of awareness is exactly what you were lacking in your game. Save stage 1, none of this is RNG at all.
: > [{quoted}](name=Mortismo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xEMnV5YE,comment-id=0012,timestamp=2019-07-19T20:48:30.206+0000) > > It was a new account smurf, who randomly just chose to afk in your game > > https://eune.op.gg/summoner/userName=CZEnSi+ITK+5 Players like those Riot loves to leave around and when they do need to get punished, they take their sweet time. Had a literal troll player with 200+ Ranked games and 85% of those games they were trolling as a Zed/Shen Support with 6 Doran shields. Took them over a month to ban the guy.
> [{quoted}](name=KnKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xEMnV5YE,comment-id=00120000,timestamp=2019-07-19T21:01:43.718+0000) > > Players like those Riot loves to leave around and when they do need to get punished, they take their sweet time. Had a literal troll player with 200+ Ranked games and 85% of those games they were trolling as a Zed/Shen Support with 6 Doran shields. Took them over a month to ban the guy. This scenario is more a product of autofill, imo. Look at the player in question; They never roll ADC. If Rito is going to force someone who never plays ADC to play ADC, this is going to happen. It's still Rito's fault in this scenario. Hell, it's even promoted with their role specific changes to the ranked system. The matchmaking is fundamentally flawed in regards to autofill. I agree with others that it's not flawed in regards to looking at MMR and understanding _how_ and _why_ a "Silver 1" player matches against "Platinum" players. Those ranks aren't dictating any form of matchmaking, the MMR is. I do, however, think it is an incredibly troll move to force a player who queues for Top/Jungle to play as support, for example. That player, in virtually every scenario, would've preferred waiting a bit longer for a match over being tossed a role they absolutely cannot play. Even if they _can_ play it, they've willingly selected the roles they _do_ want, clearly they're not interested in the autofill role. **Why does autofill exist?** I'm pretty sure we can deduce by this point that it is not about queue times. If it truly is, and there is some underlying issue (like everyone wanting a certain role), why not give the option? When filling in details, show an estimated queue timer and a prospective warning if the queue will be lengthy ("Slow queues for the desired roles"). Throw in a checkbox that says "Allow autofill". Those who want to wait it out as their experience will be negatively impacted in another role, great, they now have the opportunity to just wait. Those who would rather play quickly have the opportunity to autofill and get into the action more quickly. One thing uncle Rito is incredibly bad at is foresite. They think that a longer queue will inherently destroy the experience for players. However, a long queue timer for one role opens up the doors for another. Many, many players would see the longer queue times for one role and adapt by picking up a new role with nonexistant queue times. This already exists in many other games, but I'll use WoW for this example (despite hating WoW). When queueing for dungeons in WoW, DPS is always a dreadfully long wait. This encourages anyone who would like to avoid the queues to roll Tank or Heals. It incentivizes it. A natural balance occurs simply due to the circumstances. Where some may see a high queue time for a particular role as a negative, others would see it as a positive, avoiding that role and taking advantage of small queues. If there truly were a massive imbalance in role desire, what better way to incentivize learning new roles?
: > [{quoted}](name=babyriots,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=ZtPX4lXc,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2019-07-19T00:03:26.629+0000) > > No, this is them fishing for more money. If you always lose cause your actually just bad, you less likely to buy skins/content. If they hand you some wins every now and then even if you arn't good at the game and solely rely on RNG, your more likely to spend money. They have no intention to make this an actually serious (esports) mode, its a cash grab. It makes business sense, but sucks for people who actually take the time to figure out the game and its mechanics. ????????? there is not skins for tft....only legends n i think icons which idc about n if they did put skins in TFT i wouldnt buy them anyway lol Why buy a 10$skin for say blitz if #1 u wont go blitz comp or #2 u never can get a blitz cuz it never rolls lol.....I mean u can probly say the same thing about SR but i dunno SR feels different to me as far as skins go for some reason
> [{quoted}](name=We Are Venom336,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=ZtPX4lXc,comment-id=0000000000010000,timestamp=2019-07-19T17:04:41.059+0000) > > ????????? there is not skins for tft....only legends n i think icons which idc about n if they did put skins in TFT i wouldnt buy them anyway lol > > Why buy a 10$skin for say blitz if #1 u wont go blitz comp or #2 u never can get a blitz cuz it never rolls lol.....I mean u can probly say the same thing about SR but i dunno SR feels different to me as far as skins go for some reason They've publicly stated their intent on bringing champion skins to TFT, FWIW.
DeusVult (NA)
: the worst is when you go through minion rounds and you get 1 item (for a total of 2) and some gold, but you are stuck with all 1 star champs, meanwhile here comes mr 2 completed items on his 2 star...
> [{quoted}](name=DeusVult,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=6QTZGord,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-07-19T18:10:34.849+0000) > > the worst is when you go through minion rounds and you get 1 item (for a total of 2) and some gold, but you are stuck with all 1 star champs, meanwhile here comes mr 2 completed items on his 2 star... Yeah, or the extremely lucky one with 2x 2 stars. I've even seen a 3 star Vayne in Stage 2 with RFC and RB. Wonder how that'd be? The thing that's frustrating in that scenario, is the win streak bonus 100% guarantees an even greater lead. Compound that with the fact that the extremely lucky person can shoot for eco _far_ earlier than everyone else, and they've essentially just been given a **huge** pile of gold in addition to the champs/items. Players with extremely minimal knowledge on how it all works will say it balances out in carousel, but that's 100% false. That'd only be the case if 1-2 of a single item were in carousel, and said item was leaps and bounds better than the rest. Not only that, but I've seen players pass on completed items in carousel a multitude of times, especially in late game when people are trying to finish 3 stars and niche items.
Zac x Me (NA)
: Some of your server side saved settings must have gotten f'd up. Ask the support to do a full reset on those settings. I still don't understand why it saves certain configs on the server instead of leaving everything only locally saved. Like the screen resolution and graphics settings. Imagine playing at 4K then suddenly playing at a PC with only FullHD resolution, causing the game to not start because the resolution is incompatible with that PC's graphics card.
> [{quoted}](name=Zac x Me,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=oViZ4Aed,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-07-19T06:57:07.968+0000) > > Some of your server side saved settings must have gotten f'd up. > Ask the support to do a full reset on those settings. > > I still don't understand why it saves certain configs on the server instead of leaving everything only locally saved. > Like the screen resolution and graphics settings. > > Imagine playing at 4K then suddenly playing at a PC with only FullHD resolution, causing the game to not start because the resolution is incompatible with that PC's graphics card. That doesn't happen. I bounce between my laptop and desktop all the time, and thus, between 4K and 1080P all the time. Configs are saved to your account so you don't have to adjust every time you switch computers, reinstall, etc. I'm glad they do it. It's horrendous playing a game that doesn't do this, especially if you remap controls.
Prozzak (NA)
: The comment I responded to was in regards to removing champ RNG (portion of it) on top of item RNG. It certainly was brought up by someone outside of me. Learn to follow forum chains. As for the other items, I will give you that I did not know all of it. I understood there was a champ pool, didn't realise it was as strict as you are stating it is (or maybe small). Again, I wasn't responding to op, I was responding to the guy who stated champs on top of items.
> [{quoted}](name=Prozzak,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=kcE6UyGj,comment-id=000500010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-05T21:33:08.700+0000) > > The comment I responded to was in regards to removing champ RNG (portion of it) on top of item RNG. It certainly was brought up by someone outside of me. Learn to follow forum chains. As for the other items, I will give you that I did not know all of it. I understood there was a champ pool, didn't realise it was as strict as you are stating it is (or maybe small). > > Again, I wasn't responding to op, I was responding to the guy who stated champs on top of items. Right, you were responding to this guy: > [{quoted}](name=Nea104,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=kcE6UyGj,comment-id=000500010001,timestamp=2019-07-05T13:10:03.178+0000) > > Never said "all". > But you need to tune it untill the point it's fair enough, and not a sh random fiesta like now. > > EG., there's no way a competent coder can allow a huge gap from 0 to X items, being the items so powerful here. To reiterate, he never said _**all**_ RNG needs to be stripped. He quoted my post about the item quantity RNG, which you replied to. The above quote is his response to you. So, yeah, one of us needs to learn to follow forum chains. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
Mr Meat (OCE)
: "Except there is no issue. You're really going to cry about accounts who have a small number of champs to play ARAM? There's not a single champion who is going to result in an ARAM win every single time. The highest winrate champ in ARAM is Illaoi at 61.5%" Literally didn't have to read anymore of your comment to understand that you physically don't know what you're saying or talking about. "Except there is no issue." There is. "You're really going to cry about accounts who have a small number of champs to play ARAM? " Are you talking to me? Because I could have sworn this has no relevance to what I said at all. "There's not a single champion who is going to result in an ARAM win every single time." ... That's not the point anyones trying to make. I don't even know how or why you brought that random ass fact into the comments here. Of course there isn't. Like, did you know water is wet? And that brown is a colour? "The highest winrate champ in ARAM is Illaoi at 61.5%" And right there, you point out the very thing your trying to disprove, but instead of disproving it, you prove it. A Champion, who benefits from the map layout of howling abyss, performs better on average, and thus wins more games. So don't let the system be abusable, like it is currently, and you avoid 100% of people abusing the broken system to win more games. How do you do this? Make it random. Congratulations, you played yourself [https://giphy.com/gifs/LJemLPJs6dBhm]
> [{quoted}](name=Mr Meat,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sHjbwHgA,comment-id=0002000100000000,timestamp=2019-07-06T16:11:37.713+0000) > > "Except there is no issue. You're really going to cry about accounts who have a small number of champs to play ARAM? There's not a single champion who is going to result in an ARAM win every single time. The highest winrate champ in ARAM is Illaoi at 61.5%" > > Literally didn't have to read anymore of your comment to understand that you physically don't know what you're saying or talking about. > > "Except there is no issue." > There is. > > "You're really going to cry about accounts who have a small number of champs to play ARAM? " > Are you talking to me? Because I could have sworn this has no relevance to what I said at all. > > "There's not a single champion who is going to result in an ARAM win every single time." > ... That's not the point anyones trying to make. I don't even know how or why you brought that random ass fact into the comments here. Of course there isn't. Like, did you know water is wet? And that brown is a colour? > > "The highest winrate champ in ARAM is Illaoi at 61.5%" > And right there, you point out the very thing your trying to disprove, but instead of disproving it, you prove it. > A Champion, who benefits from the map layout of howling abyss, performs better on average, and thus wins more games. > So don't let the system be abusable, like it is currently, and you avoid 100% of people abusing the broken system to win more games. > How do you do this? > Make it random. > > Congratulations, you played yourself > > > [https://giphy.com/gifs/LJemLPJs6dBhm] Are you aware of the free champ rotation? Are you aware that this applies to "ARAM only" accounts? Are you also aware of the pick rate you conveniently left out on the 61.5% winrate champ? I'll break it down for you. In SR you pick your champ. There are champs who have a high winrate in some elos, and low winrate in others. Your argument is like saying that you shouldn't be allowed to play a champ in a certain division because it has a high winrate. ARAM is almost exclusively low elo. I hardly ever see high elo players in ARAM. Thus, the pickrate vs winrate on Illaoi. The fact is, you're here complaining because you lose ARAMs and think that "ARAM accounts" are somehow to blame. They're not. If bans are ever permanently introduced, you will be back, complaining about the next enigmatic external force bringing you down. That's just how bad players are. They blame losses on external forces, and never look introspectively at anything. Bans will absolutely not solve ANYTHING. The proof is in the pudding -- all the "bring bans back to ARAM" bandwagoners bringing up champs with average/sub-par winrates in their arguments. I provided Illaoi as an example because no one brings her up in these threads. It's solid proof that people have ZERO clue who wins ARAMs, never bother to look up stats, and base their opinions on emotion. I can totally see how, with a massive lack of understanding, my post could've looked contradictory. However, with just a _bit_ more understanding on the game itself and the topic at hand, I can assure you, it's not. ;)
Rioter Comments
Mr Meat (OCE)
: "This issue personally doesn't affect me, so that means that your issue is obviously meaningless, and I have to let you know how little your issue means"
> [{quoted}](name=Mr Meat,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sHjbwHgA,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2019-07-05T08:31:18.921+0000) > > "This issue personally doesn't affect me, so that means that your issue is obviously meaningless, and I have to let you know how little your issue means" Except there is no issue. You're really going to cry about accounts who have a small number of champs to play ARAM? There's not a single champion who is going to result in an ARAM win every single time. The highest winrate champ in ARAM is Illaoi at 61.5% (4.6% pick rate because people who have no clue just reroll her, the very same types of people who want bans in ARAM) -- guess who I always see people complaining about in regards to ARAM and wanting a ban feature? Veigar, who has a 52% winrate in ARAM. Blitz is 51%, yet is very commonly mentioned. You claim that there is an issue. Your claims would also mean this issue is universal, due to the scope of said "issue". How in the hell could you argue that someone doesn't hold value in your claims simply due to them not affecting that person? Either the issue exists or it doesn't. If someone plays a single game of ARAM, with the "issue" you're claiming, they'd inherently have been affected. That, or, the issue is a construct straight from the minds of those who can't stand a loss even in a mode where champions are 100% random. Claiming that there's an issue which is breaking ARAM, then conveniently claiming that a person is opposed only because it doesn't affect them, is hypocrisy and selective logic. You're going to lose ARAMs. Get over it. You can't win them all, and losing isn't always about some external faceless force bringing you down. Everyone who plays ARAM faces the exact same "issue" you're alleging exists. If you were _truly_ concerned by the "issue" you're creating, you'd also have considered the fact that you're just as likely to get an "ARAM account" on your team as your opponents are. You're simply finding absolutely anything which you can attribute your loss to, and making a big deal out of it. If they permanently reintroduced bans in ARAM, there would be another thread about some other "flaw"/"issue" responsible for your losses. Bans won't rid you of the possibility of getting a highly counterable team like 100% AP, won't prevent you from getting all melee while the enemy has incredible mobility/range/cc, won't prevent you from getting the average ARAM player who has no clue how to play 99% of champs, and certainly won't account for your lack of knowledge on every champ in your pool. It's ARAM. FFS.
Prozzak (NA)
: What are you talking about with "surrendering"? I legit have no idea. I will ignore that part with the response and just answer the first. No, that is not what people are doing. the randomness causes different selections to be made, different groups of champs to be put together. You take out all the randomness and you will be left with the same 8 champs build by every player every game because that is the strongest.
> [{quoted}](name=Prozzak,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=kcE6UyGj,comment-id=0005000100000000,timestamp=2019-07-05T03:29:56.412+0000) > > What are you talking about with "surrendering"? I legit have no idea. > > I will ignore that part with the response and just answer the first. No, that is not what people are doing. the randomness causes different selections to be made, different groups of champs to be put together. You take out all the randomness and you will be left with the same 8 champs build by every player every game because that is the strongest. I feel like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this mode. You can't have 8 people building the exact same comp. You can't viably even have 2-3 people building the same comp. One will inevitably get the higher tiers, and crush the others. The champion pool is shared, and thus, whoever gets Kayle first in a Noble comp essentially wins the race. Those who didn't upgrade their Vayne/Garen/etc. early on, didn't make it to late game for the 6 Noble bonus to even be applicable. Not only that, but certain comps absolutely demolish others. There is a tremendous amount of paper-rock-scissors with the 6 champ breakpoints. For example, Yordles are highly effective at squashing Noble comps unless the Nobles build RFC. Building RFC as opposed to PD means an Assassin comp can destroy the Noble comp. Building RB is far more DPS against other comps like Sorc/Ele. A proper Glacial comp can also deal with Noble/Imperial very well. Of course, Yordles also counter Glacial with dodge. Sorc/Ele combo absolutely melts Yordles and most Glacial comps, but is far less effective on the continued sustainability of Noble. Imperial demolishes Sorc/Ele through shear DPS, killing squishies before they're able to get any abilities off. Etc. If the only thing deterring you from trying the exact same build every game is RNG, you're playing wrong. Countering opponents wins games. Building what others are not taking ensures you get T2s/T3s quickly. Picking appropriate items for who is countering you is required for the late game. The meta exists; just because you're not aware of it does not mean anything. Also, not a single comment I've read thus far has suggested removing all RNG. They're simply expressing that the gap between getting nothing and getting everything is far too wide. In fact, OP clearly stated the random champions mechanic was totally fine but the quantity of items is a problem (a sentiment echoed throughout the boards presently). Your response is a strawman -- you're creating an argument by building a defense for something that wasn't even brought up.
CytheGuy (NA)
: You only need to have T3 and a deathcap + needlessly to one shot most squishies, your strat is definitely overkill lol
> [{quoted}](name=CytheGuy,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=N4B1vuyc,comment-id=00020000000000010000,timestamp=2019-07-05T03:50:42.104+0000) > > You only need to have T3 and a deathcap + needlessly to one shot most squishies, your strat is definitely overkill lol Indeed. And if you're fine with squishies, you don't need the Yuumi in order to hit that 3 or 6 Sorc breakpoint. Though, I find it hard to keep Sorcerers alive, so Yuumi is pretty nice to also maintain a healthy Brawler breakpoint. Definitely agree though, massive overkill, but I had to try it >:)
CytheGuy (NA)
: Definitely a bug. I played a game where I got a level 3 blitz with deathcap and a rod, his grab was doing 1200 damage (up from 800 base)
> [{quoted}](name=CytheGuy,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=N4B1vuyc,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-07-04T20:54:13.673+0000) > > Definitely a bug. I played a game where I got a level 3 blitz with deathcap and a rod, his grab was doing 1200 damage (up from 800 base) Yep, can confirm. T3 Blitz with AP was one-shotting squishies. Double deathcap + Yuumi + 6 Sorcerer bonus results in you legitimately killing one squishy -- not picking them -- at the beginning of the fight but is probably massive overkill. I've had great luck with just a 3 sorcerer bonus as well, which was before I tried the 6 bonus.
Nea104 (EUW)
: The items are the biggest flaw there, for sure. It's absurd how bad people can work on a (new) game, after having destroyed an old one. Still, champions are too random as well: who gets the most busted first, gets an incredible advantage.
> [{quoted}](name=Nea104,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=kcE6UyGj,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-07-04T20:54:49.128+0000) > > The items are the biggest flaw there, for sure. It's absurd how bad people can work on a (new) game, after having destroyed an old one. > > Still, champions are too random as well: who gets the most busted first, gets an incredible advantage. Yep. And the counter-argument to this is to build based on what you get. The flaw there is very obvious: In the beginning of the game, you're not building around what people are passing on. You're building what the RNG gods handed you. Some people get a full 3-4 synergy champ comp (triple Noble + double Knight for example, or 4 Wild, or 2 Wild 3 Yordle, etc) by Stage 2, all Tier 2, and have multiple finished items. Sure, the beginning is more forgiving with losses and thus deals less damage. However, you're literally just left to play catch-up, and if the person who gets lucky knows what they're doing, you stand zero chance at regaining some ground. Even in their recent update, they've stated that the item RNG is going nowhere. They're just throwing in minimums, which means you'll get one item instead of zero, meanwhile someone else gets the beefy fully decked-out T2 comp by Stage 2 with multiple finished items. That's not fun. Even when I'm the person who gets ultra lucky, gets a massive win streak right in the early game, and gets a good deal of items, it simply is not fun. How many people want to win based on rolling dice instead of their own choices? I'd imagine not many League players, as you can just go play dice with friends if that's truly the game you're after. The logic that Tencent won't tell you is simple. Dice rolls appeal to more casual audiences by making the curve less steep. If 100% of the game relied upon efficiency (and thus making the right decisions), casuals would stand very little chance at winning. Therefor, RNG (and some could argue pseudo-RNG, which favors those on a loss streak across multiple games) is implemented to ensure that even playing at 100% efficiency does not inevitably win every game. That's it, they want broader appeal to allow those without the time/interest to be given a win every now and then in order to keep the interest flowing. Interest = money in the form of cosmetic purchases. A great counter to that paradigm is simply having legitimate matchmaking. However, League has taught them some valuable lessons. According to League's community, no one loses due to their own decisions. Therefor, due to this incredibly positive/introspective (/s) community's habitual complaints about everything under the sun being a reason for their loss(es), it simply doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense to develop a brand new system for matchmaking to ensure that you truly played against similarly skilled players. A loss would still be Rito's fault in the players' eyes. We've essentially created this RNG monster. > [{quoted}](name=Leetri,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=kcE6UyGj,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-07-04T23:22:52.585+0000) > > Good thing Riot already announced some changes like 4 days ago. It's planned for next patch. They're not rectifying it entirely. They're simply introducing a minimum, meaning a player will now get ONE item instead of ZERO. Meanwhile, someone else will still inevitably get 2-3 finished items by Stage 2. Same goes for every other PvE encounter -- some will get one item, one lucky player will receive loads of them. They've publicly stated that they _like_ the fact that sometimes you get loads of items and others you don't, and refuse to change that aspect.
: Instead of banning people cause baaw mean words, why not start banning for actual trolling, running it down mid, etc? {{sticker:sg-syndra}}
> [{quoted}](name=Milky Thighs,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Kt12rR7A,comment-id=000f,timestamp=2019-07-02T11:07:16.596+0000) > > Instead of banning people cause baaw mean words, why not start banning for actual trolling, running it down mid, etc? > > {{sticker:sg-syndra}} I have wondered this myself. The current ban system seems to be more concerned with chat than gameplay, probably largely due to the fact that poor gameplay doesn't necessarily mean trolling. However, I think with a bit more time and investigation, they could find enough patterns in trolling to actually come up with a legitimate system for banning. Trolling is far more impactful than chat, as you can simply mute someone. At the end of the day, chat only affects a person if they let it. Trolling, however, nearly guarantees a loss, which of course is often the catalyst to a verbal onslaught from the team. Win trading is a great example of this. Their system knows nothing of it. Yet, players can easily spot it when they see 2-3 matches. I mean, if a streamer can get unlucky enough to see win trading in multiple games, and have enough proof to have the community rally behind them, can't Riot (who has far greater access and could see these patterns without any "luck") implement something that could analyze that sort of behavior? They've got all the tools at their disposal, and yet the people exhibiting this sort of behavior are free to do so with impunity because behavior simply is not scrutinized. Only chat is. There are streamers who have gotten fairly popular from proving this point. They purposely feed every single game (hundreds), admit to doing so on their stream, and all they have to do to have 100% impunity for their actions is refrain from chatting. If they do chat, it's something like, "oops sorry" or "I'm trying my best". Despite getting what would appear to be multiple reports each game, they are never banned. A system like this clearly promotes some pretty shady practices, as if someone wants to troll _and_ get others banned, they simply troll without any form of toxic chat and report the players who got frustrated at their antics. The troll never gets banned, the people who call them out on trolling do, and the cycle continues.
Spekkıo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KatMainWannabe,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=in2pogJc,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-07-01T20:20:48.793+0000) > > Because not every player can play every champion. It’s that simple. Say you’re a tank main but get an assassin - two different play styles with nothing to do with each other, and you’re likely to know nothing about what to do with your champ, so your team is essentially fighting a 4v5. In TFT, the only RNG you’re worrying about is with times. You adapt your comp constantly, and the only real skill you can put out is through unit positioning and item placement. You can consistently play TFT at the same level of skill, but not every champion in ARAM at the same level of skill. Well, that's not true. You can be good at virtually every champion in the game. It just requires you to not one-trick 24/7 and judging by your name, that seems to be what you do. But I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. I have a decent handle on all champions. I'm not a master of them all but I haven't been playing a lot of League in years until recently, either. So if I can stay away from the game for that long and still be able to play everything with reasonable success, then so can people who play it seriously enough to want to get some ranked action in. If you're not one of those people, the solution is simple : Don't play ARAM ranked. You already have SR to cater to you if you wanna' one trick. It doesn't hurt you for the ARAM players to have their cup of tea. But I didn't know TFT was getting ranked. Why? Wouldn't you wanna' flesh the game mode out some before throwing in a ranked queue? There are so many QoL changes the mode needs and couldn't take much effort to implement.
> [{quoted}](name=Spekkıo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=in2pogJc,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-07-01T20:25:26.035+0000) > > Well, that's not true. You can be good at virtually every champion in the game. It just requires you to not one-trick 24/7 and judging by your name, that seems to be what you do. But I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. > > I have a decent handle on all champions. I'm not a master of them all but I haven't been playing a lot of League in years until recently, either. So if I can stay away from the game for that long and still be able to play everything with reasonable success, then so can people who play it seriously enough to want to get some ranked action in. > > If you're not one of those people, the solution is simple : Don't play ARAM ranked. > > You already have SR to cater to you if you wanna' one trick. It doesn't hurt you for the ARAM players to have their cup of tea. > > But I didn't know TFT was getting ranked. Why? Wouldn't you wanna' flesh the game mode out some before throwing in a ranked queue? > > There are so many QoL changes the mode needs and couldn't take much effort to implement. Well said. I love the argument from naysayers which comes from the perspective of players being forced to play a mode. **No one is forcing you to play it**. If you are a one trick, don't play ranked aram. Problem solved! Just like the naysayers of URF going permanent -- "but I get bored of URF"/"but I don't like URF!". Okay. Then don't play it? Pretty sure adding options in no way equates to Tencent showing up with a gun to your head, forcing you to play that mode.
: It's also a new game mode so Riot is obligated to eventually cancel it to disappoint fans
If it detracts from their cash cow, absolutely. Everything that pulls players from the core mode (and thus, $) will be stripped the second Tencent's "analysts" see a downward trend in core and an upward trend in something else. The only way this has been justified to the Tencent overlords is through the introduction of new transactions. Though, I'm pretty sure some URF-only cosmetics would be fine with a certain portion of the playerbase if URF was permanent, for example.
Gubaguy (NA)
: Mill isnt discard, so im not even going to bother trying to argue with someone who doesnt know the diffrence.
You do realize that mill decks come in the form of overdraw and library-to-graveyard, right? So if you're forcing a player to draw tremendous amounts of cards, thus forcing them to discard during their discard phase, that's... _discarding_... Tell me you understand at **LEAST** that much...? Often mill decks incorporate both, or large amounts of control + library-to-graveyard, or a combination. You can watch basic MTG tutorials on YouTube before responding. That may actually help you to at least _appear_ to know what you're talking about. _Inb4 noob player tries to define the parameters of "mill" to fit his own criteria, despite "mill" being informal with virtually no official definition/documentation, but having wide acceptance in pro play with what I've mentioned above._ Speaking of pro play, still waiting for the links showcasing your awesome pro play in tournies.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gubaguy,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=5hE65ZhG,comment-id=000600000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-06-30T18:04:02.471+0000) > > As stated below, you cant claim 'meta' argument. > > Claiming that 'durr meta, durr' doesnt account for anything, theres this thing, its called rogue decks, its when a deck that no one knew about comes out of NOWHERE and wins, and geuss what? Thats how EVERY deck starts, hogaak was literally a joke, everyone hated that card, then suddenly bridgevine dredge came right the fuck out of NOWHERE and is currently THE modern deck. Tell me, its the day after horizons release, you know the meta, i sit down and turn 1 pitch a hogaak to a neonate, do you know my deck? No, you dont, becuase the deck didnt exist yesterday. Yes you can claim meta, since starting that deck doesn't mean shit unless you won anything consistently with it.
At which point, that "off meta" deck has just become meta as it will be mimicked by players around the world. I don't think Gubaguy has a clue what "meta" even means. @Gubaguy: Meta is a term for what is presently most efficient, often represented in pro play, as determined by the players. Something that is "meta" is simply what is being played because it has been proven to be efficient. If your cute little "rogue deck" is worth its salt at all, guess what? It becomes meta. Whether you personally want to acknowledge that it has become meta or not is totally irrelevant. If has demonstrated value to the point that players utilize it, it has become meta. The moment a pro player uses an "off meta" deck to win consistently, the current meta shifts with that deck. If this was not the case, meta would literally never shift outside of introductions of new cards. Also, congrats on building an argument based on a day one play that people haven't learned yet. That will literally never happen at a tournament (they don't release new decks just before a tourney), and accounts for all of ONE single round of MTG. After that, the players have seen the play, and can account for it. Whether it's meta or not, they know the strategy and will be on the lookout for it. To build an entire argument around someone literally having never seen a play is absolutely hilarious, and further proves your lack of knowledge on gameplay in general (be it MTG or LoL).
Gubaguy (NA)
: Ive won MTG events, i literally run them locally, I also play EDH, a format in which there are 100 single cards in a deck, so please, tell me what deck im playing based on a single discard effect. Im playing white, you know my commander, but whats in my hand? What am i drawwing? What combos, creatures, and spells are in my deck? You dont know, pretending that ONE card tells you all that proves how little you know about MTG. Also, claiming to capitalize on one single discarded card? If im discarding of my own will i wat the card in my graveyard OR my hand is full, meaning im obviously already in a far better position then you, and you arent capatlizing on anything, you are losing at that point.
_You_ set the parameters you're trying to get others to defend. No one else. Just because my response, which was perfectly in line with Dominion's statement, didn't fall within the confines of your incredibly silly strawman, doesn't mean anything. Link me to resources showing you won actual MTG tournies. I'll be waiting. P.S. Discarding isn't only done at your own free will via holding cards each turn. Google "mtg mill decks". Your statements have solidified the fact that you have zero clue about MTG. I feel sorry for any new players looking to get into MTG who attend your... "events"... Yikes!
Show more

Phreaktastic

Level 165 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion