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.
KOG IRL (NA)
: 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!
: It's not hardware more than it is decision making. If someone takes what you were going for, you don't always have time to choose a substitute, and if you make your choice, but have to go chasing it down, you don't always reach it. If they just added an extra like 5s, I think it'd be enough for everyone to make a choice and actually reach it. If not, they're definitely taking too long. In recompense, they can shorten the time between unlocking players in the future carousels.
I've thought this exact thing. The first carousel can be extended a bit for the exact reasons you've stated. The rest of the carousels seem to take far too long, especially when everyone has already picked. If both players pick, it should immediately unlock the next two. If the last two pick, it should immediately end that carousel.
: This part is fair, and this part has been acknowledged by Riot, who's already saying they're changing it. I've also said multiple times, it simply feels bad to clear a camp and get nothing. Getting nothing at all for completing the camp is like a slap in the face, regardless of RNGesus rolling 3 or 4 items. I think a lot of people are forgetting this is still in beta, and are losing their collective shit. I'm glad there's at least ONE person on these boards capable of having a sound argument with actual valid points.
I totally agree, beta is always _really_ dicey territory because some people can't keep their emotions out of it. I mean, I get frustrated when I have a really good synergy going and lose due to what I _feel_ is RNG. A lot of the time, I don't play at 100% efficiency. It's hard to be subjective with one's own gameplay, but that's the difference between pros and plebs. Pros are hyper introspective with their gameplay and choices, and it absolutely shows. I just read Riot's statement on the item randomization this morning, and I think they're headed in the right direction. I don't expect this coming patch to fully fix it, as based on their comments they don't want the even out the items entirely. However, creating minimums is a fantastic start. I do wish they'd go a little further, but again the steps they've announced they're taking are in the right direction. Iteration is to be expected over massive, sweeping changes. I really wish that the people who aren't able to simply hash things out in an objective, emotionless manner would refrain from posting. I've seen a lot of good, well-thought posts turn into comment section flamewars because one side says "this game is shit!" while the other says "git gud". Neither side is accurate, and constructive criticism is what will absolutely shape this game into a winner. The game isn't shit, and everyone who gets something other than first place is not a scrub. Feelsbadman.
: If that paragraph is your last ditch effort, you started way too late. >.> Though I agree with what you mean by "proper game modes" - I really don't see why this should be ranked. It's not really LoL as we know it. I would still concede they should rank-up Nexus Blitz - it still has RNG elements, and it sort of feels like full-interactive Mario Party, but at least it's something with a skill-cap better known and embraced by this community, unlike TFT, where everyone seems to presume that luck is the absolute factor instead of efficiency.
With items in the state that they are, it absolutely _is_ random. When you can receive 0 items, and another player can get 3 upgraded items, all within the confines of Phase 1, it is random. There's literally ZERO way to counter that, and making good decisions only works if the player who received the extreme item advantage does not make good decisions. The champs/champ pool is all fine. I get it, capitalize on what you get, not on what you want. I fully understand and embrace that sentiment, and actually really enjoy that aspect. The items are the only thing that deters from that, however, as there is literally no way to actually "player smarter" in respect to the items. If you get screwed on items, the only thing you can do is hope the person who got all the items is playing like a noob. Outside of capitalizing on the champs you receive to the highest level of gameplay possible, there's nothing that can be done in terms of a massive item advantage vs deficit. You can hope the items aren't utilized in the most effective way possible, but that's it. If you go against someone who receives favor from the item RNG gods, _and_ they are capable of making good decisions with their champs, you are 100% at a disadvantage that you cannot recover from. The only exception is if you get incredibly lucky, and the champs you're able to capitalize on happen to be a great synergy which directly counters their board. Even then, a smart player will purchase the higher tier champs necessary for that strategy to prevent you from getting them, thus reducing your chances of hitting the last breakpoint(s).
: > [{quoted}](name=Meddler,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=EbZiPqnj,comment-id=00200000,timestamp=2019-06-28T17:53:45.009+0000)We're talking about possible tweaks to TFT item distribution. We do believe though that significant randomness, including variation in early power, is pretty valuable for the longeivity of the game. Examples of that in other genres are things like starting hand in Magic/Hearthstone, what you draw in poker, early loot in a Battle Royale etc. Playing from positions of strength or weakness result in a wider variety of experiences. On this note -- a solid argument could be made that in Battle Royale games every weapon leads into my playsytle of "use gun, kill opponent" and in Magic/Hearthstone my cards -- even if they're bad -- are still from the deck I've built and thus applicable to the strategy I'm aiming for. While you can get a better/worse hand, I know my deck and my cards, so I can make reasonable predictions about the strategy to take. In TFT my items acquisition is random, yes -- but so are the items I get (which may or may not synergize well with my team) *and* the champions I have available. Perhaps I haven't played the mode enough, but I feel the card game or poker parallels don't fit especially well, as in every one of those games mentioned there is a single random factor that is leading into other predictable and non-random systems. If items only dropped early (so you have to adapt to the items you have) or similar I think there'd be a good argument to make, but the fact that both champions AND items can randomly pop up things that so dynamically alter your strategy even into the mid/late game is...perhaps a little more subject to randomness? Maybe I haven't played it enough, but as someone who likes the RNG of card games, poker, etc, this feels a little heavy even then. It feels kind of like having my deck change in *addition* to a random starting hand when playing magic, which would make it difficult to play the game proactively.
100% this. Comparing to MTG/HS is absolutely not a realistic comparison. You build your decks in MTG/HS. The ONLY random factor is draw order at that point. You can compare the champ pool to MTG/HS, but you cannot compare random item quantities and random item rolls to this. Items are another layer of RNG entirely. Comparing to poker is also unrealistic. Poker isn't even about the cards you get. This is why pro players will often make remarks about being able to tell a rookie from a pro because they're so concerned with statistical probabilities and such. At the end of the day, poker is about plays, not the cards in your hand. Even if we strip that element entirely, once again, champions can be compared to poker due to the element of being dealt random "cards", and drawing from the same pool as other players. Items simply cannot be compared to poker. There are multiple facets of RNG in TFT. If we're going to model TFT after poker/MTG/HS then one layer of RNG would be ideal (champion pools), and stripping the amount of items from RNG would be necessary. For example, always getting one item from clearing a camp (could even leave the item roll random as that could still be attributed to capitalizing on what you get). That's the only way a comparison to said card games could possibly be even remotely close to accurate. That, or stop using poker/MTG/HS as a reference as it is completely invalid with the layers of RNG we witness in TFT. A more accurate comparison would be a new version of poker. In this new version of poker, there is a whole new set of attributes which are dealt to some players at random. Attributes can be applied to any card, and raise a card's "value" or numerical representation for trumping purposes. Your Ace only trumps a King and lower if said card doesn't have an attribute applied to it which increases its value to be above an Ace's value. A flush/straight/pair/etc is worth its inherent value, plus the value of any attributes on the cards. Of course, there are still more layers in TFT due to upgrades, champ tiers, etc. However, this is still more accurate as a comparison to the core of both games.
Kei143 (NA)
: It wasn't a Twitter post. It was a boards red post. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/EbZiPqnj-quick-gameplay-thoughts-june-28?comment=00200000
Gubaguy (NA)
: I play MTG, and the sentence doesnt make sense. I jsut discarded path of exile, what am i playing? Death and taxes? BW Eldrazi? white weenie? UW control? esper? what format am i in? EDH, modern, legacy, vintage, limited? It doesnt make sense.
If you have to ask that question, you'd literally not even make it _into_ an MTG tourney. If you're running a meta deck and just discarded a pivotal card to your deck, a good player will recognize that **instantly** and capitalize. If you discarded a good card which was not inherently pivotal, they'd also know that whatever you were holding was better, thus having a high probability of the card they were fishing for. It's not rocket science. Watch some YouTube videos if you legitimately want to learn. Otherwise, I'm not going to teach you how to play like you've got half a brain.
mack9112 (NA)
: What stats? I would love to see some numbers
I take it English isn't your first language. "Rarely" means something that does not occur a large majority of the time. Majority means greater than 50%, large majority is somewhere within the range of 65%+ (making it nearly double the next largest possible number). There you go, something Google could've easily provided, but hey I'm a nice guy. Now for sources, watch the exact same streamer you told me to watch. Take his total number of wins over a pool of about 20 games (do more if you're bored). Now take the number of wins when zero items were acquired in P1. Divide the second number by the first number. There's your statistic for starting deficit wins. You're welcome. Now if you want to broaden the pool, do this same routine for multiple high tier streamers. Get the sum of all the percentages (add them), then divide the sum by the number of streamers you watched. There's an even more accurate representation which would not be localized to a single streamer. It's actually fairly easy and straightforward -- give it a shot! To take this to the next level, look at the games which he wins with a starting deficit. Answer the simple question, "Is the 2nd place player using a meta comp?". Record the answer. Calculate a percentage of deficit wins vs meta comps. That will give you insight into my above comment in regards to winning with a deficit against players who don't know how to build/play. Oh, and btw, "meta comp" includes item choices ;) just in case you'd answer "yes" to a 2nd place with triple Warmogs on Vayne. I believe in you. I believe you can actually do the math and actually acquire something on your own, without being spoonfed. You just need to believe in yourself, and realize that information is only a few keystrokes and clicks away.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gubaguy,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=5hE65ZhG,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-30T02:21:15.311+0000) > > That sentence doesnt make sense. If im playing MTG and they discard an island i dont know what cards they have. They could have any one of a thousand diffrent cards. If im playing poker and one persona discards an ace i dont know the other 4 cards in their hand. If im playing any card game at all i dont know whats in their hand based on a discard, thats stupid. Then you might be casual and don't focus on running meta decks. When people battle in a meta game, you're going to have a very good idea what's in the deck and how it'll function when certain actions happen. So yes, the sentence does make sense.
: yo dont give riot the wrong ideas. "if something is op, just buff something else" this is why this meta is so broken
I prefer buffs to hard nerfs. Remember their track record; Release Olaf/Xin/Irelia/etc. at an incredibly OP state, then nerf them into non-viability, then take months (sometimes years) to revisit them. Even if nerfs would be ideal in a certain scenario, remember it's still Rito. They don't just tone something down, they nerf things into the dirt and then take ages to revisit them. Especially when something appears broken in pro-play. They've even deployed hard nerfs during LCS finals to counter their own horrendous "balance" choices resulting in teams with certain champs getting a free win.
: honestly this game mode is just stressful as it is. You try to come up with a strategy but it's like your only choice is to play around the luck of the draw.
Yes, exactly. Capitalize on what you do get, and pay attention to what your enemies are taking. If 2 other people are rushing Noble and you're trying to upgrade Vayne, RIP.
mack9112 (NA)
: That’s not true at all. The game is incredibly an in the moment kind of thing with every micro decision you making having long lasting effect. The game plays a lot like a draft of mtg.
You're stating your opinion, I'm stating statistics. =]
: Are you agreeing or just trying to be sarcastic.
I'm agreeing with you agreeing with me. You reiterated exactly what I said.
: > [{quoted}](name=Phreaktastic,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=OxtEwEVh,comment-id=000b00000000,timestamp=2019-06-28T14:50:17.892+0000) > > Yeah I totally agree. Going Yordle comp is very rewarding in the long run, but the road to that 6th Yordle is filled with loss after loss. It's also not the player's fault -- it's impossible to get certain champs at certain points in the game, and it's also impossible to continually be on the hunt for Yordles while leveling up. Benching the Yordles until you can drop 6 is also not entirely possible as the bench is small and to have any legitimate setup in the meantime would mean you absolutely did not have the space for your Yordle comp AND your current comp. Why not look at the % of the chances of you getting the unit you are looking for. Find other ways to use Yordle other then just themselves. Why not try mixing the other classes they have with them?
Yes, that's exactly what you have to do in order to last into late-game.
mack9112 (NA)
: Go watch scarras stream of tft he has come back from some very large deficits and will even talk to the audience how he made his decision making. Invest time in the game and learn it.
I've been watching streams. I see the exact same thing. They don't consistently win. They consistently make it to the top 5 or so, but when they get no items they rarely win (they only win with a massive deficit when someone plays suboptimally). So, still waiting for you to educate everyone on how to get the game to give you more items. If anything, your statement further proves my point. Highly skilled players only win with a massive deficit when the other players don't know what they're doing.
Jbels (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Febos,realm=EUW,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=aO80o5lX,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-06-28T08:46:20.118+0000) > > I just going to say this: the pool of champions is shared. > Have a good day. Okay but why? Doing that fucks over anyone who doesn't realize this, and it is never obvious that that's the case. I hope that going forward they do away with the shared pool system in favor of a system that gives you options to support your build without outright fixing the odds in your favor
I don't have a problem with the champ pool now that I understand it. However, I hope with beta they do realize that they need to convey that. If someone else is rushing a Noble comp, your odds of getting your final Noble are MUCH lower. As they progress through beta and make changes/improvements, it'd be great to educate new players on this mechanic. If they get rid of the shared pool, they'll just lower the chances of getting certain champs. That, imo, is not an ideal scenario. Right now you can adapt to someone else building the same comp (and hold onto the champs you've got to lower their chances). If they remove the shared pool entirely, I guarantee they lower the odds for certain champs, and that equates to RNG.
mack9112 (NA)
: Game mode out for two days people have no interest in trying to learn its depth and just want an excuse to Bitch.
Teach me how to deal with a T2/3 Vayne with RFC + RB in P2 when I didn't get a single drop in P1. I'll be waiting.
: The sooner you realize that this isn't ranked LoL and RNG isn't inherently bad, the sooner you will enjoy the game mode.
True. I personally enjoy getting zero items and facing off against a RB + RFC tier 2 Vayne for my first PvP match. Makes it way more fun than if I had items.
: She looks like another one of those big damage, high mobility champions that everyone tends to complain about. Better to let that be quiet for now. lol
: The RNG is there so shit players can have a taste of victory as well. But that begs the question how do they plan to have ranked for this mode if an Iron Tier player can beat a Challenger any day, just because of pure luck.
I could see that for sure. It's why Hearthstone uses RNG so heavily, but it's also why legitimate/pro players left in droves. Random gets old.The RNG here is also a hell of a lot more heavy than in HS. Ranked will be a major flop in this mode if they keep the massive amount of RNG. At a bare minimum, fixing the items so you at least get the same amount as other players is necessary.
: > [{quoted}](name=TwitchInMyPants,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=OxtEwEVh,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2019-06-28T12:04:53.226+0000)Just saying, things like Pirates, Phantom, Dragons, Elementalists or Blademasters wouldn't be able to work like this given their unique effects. Hence why I specified 3/6, rather than *everything*. I think breakpoints are good for the game, but I also think given the champion RNG it's very frustrating when your long-term plans are shattered not due to any fault of your own. If we picked Yordles as an example, it might start at 20% at 3 (again, some breakpoints are good), and then go 20/25/30/50. What that does is still STRONGLY encourage that breakpoint, but give you some mitigating tools if you're going for it and can't quite hit the breakpoint due to RNG.
Yeah I totally agree. Going Yordle comp is very rewarding in the long run, but the road to that 6th Yordle is filled with loss after loss. It's also not the player's fault -- it's impossible to get certain champs at certain points in the game, and it's also impossible to continually be on the hunt for Yordles while leveling up. Benching the Yordles until you can drop 6 is also not entirely possible as the bench is small and to have any legitimate setup in the meantime would mean you absolutely did not have the space for your Yordle comp AND your current comp.
: ive had several games where ive often no items from mobs, enemies get a ton. I go from 1st to last and get curb stomped cause they get 2 full items and i get nothing ontop of the pool giving me nothing edit: currently 10 games in a row no items from mobs also i swear the rng has been fucking me hard, every time, i get any combination, the game stops giving me them after the first, its been 10 damn games of this shit.... even for auto chess this rng is the worst of every other ive played
Yep. This is the most deterring factor in the game right now. If you clear the first waves of minions and get nothing, just leave. It's not even worth playing at that point.
Show more

Phreaktastic

Level 149 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion