: SKIN WISHLIST
Silent Night Sona is already Christmas-themed & she does play Deck the Halls when paired with Reindeer Kog'Maw. It used to look waaayyy better before KateyKhaos **downgraded** all of Sona's in-game models. More details in this thread: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/skin-champion-concepts/BENxLU8p-fix-sonas-robe-design
: Bring Us Your Bugs!! Celebrating 10 Years of LoL
1. Sona still hasn't been reverted to her original kit. This bug is over 5 years old, when will it be fixed? This millennium I hope. 2. Blitzcrank's ability in TFT ignores unit collision. I mean, this is obviously a bug. No half-competent dev would INTENTIONALLY allow something that stupid to exist. 3. Whenever I activate Quinn's ult, she doesn't turn into Valor. Instead, she mounts. Somebody accidentally replaced her code with a line from Heroes of the Storm. This bug has been a problem for 4 years already. 4. Sarah's "Impure Shots" passive is not applying its on-hit magic damage. 4-year old bug. 5. Poppy & Shyvana aren't increasing my count of Nobles in TFT, despite being **very notably** Demacian. Similar bug: I found that Leona is increasing my count, despite NOT being Demacian? I sincerely hope you can fix **ALL** of these _bugs_ very soon : )
: Patch 9.20 notes
"Sona can now track her Urf mode Status." Yay, that's great and all. It's a real shame that patch 4.13 made her into unplayable trash though. If Rito wanted her to viable, they'd just revert that dumpster fire & put her back the way she originally was.
Myrza (NA)
: What happened to champion "set" rotations?
I know I speak for many when I say I'd like to see Assassins rotate out. Permanently, if at all possible.
TrenixPL (NA)
: One of them needs to be moved to legendary status and critical damage passives need a reduction. Furthermore, assassins need to jump just before the round starts so players could actually build a defensive frontline.
Assassins shouldn't be allowed to jump at all. They're literally the only class in the entire game that's allowed to break the rules. They don't even need the assassin buff to jump, they're just allowed to do it for no logical reason at all. Furthermore, why are they even a crit class at all? The Summoner's Rift devs have repeatedly said, crit is meant to be a dps stat for killing tanks over time, hence why ADCs build it. When assassins are allowed to build crit, every class suffers, even tanks & bruisers. When assassins are allowed to be viable, in any game, every class suffers.
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AnZYUfQy,comment-id=00150000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T05:06:07.476+0000) > > That may be so, but Staccato's usage **INCREASED **after 4.13, again for the reasons I presented. Regardless of the fact it was the most popular Power Chord pre-4.13, the fact remains: Staccato was **NERFED **in 4.13 and its usage **INCREASED**. > Yeah... 'cause they put a rock on their Q key... But serious talk they nerfed it so that they would be able to use it more often. They wanted to give enemies more chances to punish for each X dmg Sona is allowed to do. > The only way something can increase in usage after a nerf, is because the alternatives become less accessible and less viable. Diminuendo and Tempo weren't touched in 4.13, yet their usage declined afterwards. This is because Aria and Celerity's cooldowns were gutted. > There is a second way something can increase in usage after a nerf, and that is if it requires using it _more_ to attain the same effect. As is the case here. > There is no rose-tint here, just genuine facts. Current kit: Sona offers nothing, except whilst pressing keys. URF-mode passive "rewards" her for pressing keys as fast as possible. Sona's current iteration has the **LEAST **skill expression and thought-process that she's ever had. > OK. Then as I implied before: post a satisfactory rework, get the support of the Sona mains, and try to dispel the hate --yes I'm calling it hate -- for Fearless. _MAYBE_ then Sona gets looked at. Right now she's in the 'playable' bin, so unless something shifts they won't look at her (I don't blame them). > Don't misinterpret her original kit having a higher skill ceiling for having a "high" skill ceiling. One is relative to her current state, the other is relative to other champions in comparison. I'm stating the former. > No, I get that. > "Pick" or "Picked?" I'm confused. I was discussing Sona in past tense in that comment, but you're using present-tense in your response. > I was referring to both technically. Pre-6.14 and post 6.14 iterations of Sona, but not pre 4.13 Sona. So, I guess Sona #2 and #3? She's only had 2 reworks correct? Unless we count adding a ratio to the passive in 3.14... > Yes, players are picking her now because her skill floor is at the lowest it has ever been in her history, a first-time Sona looks the same as Aphromoo on Sona. I think it was like that since season 4 tbh. The shift wasn't from Fearless' rework, it was from the one back in 4.13. > > No, if players that were last-pick back in season 3 grabbed Sona, you could tell at a glance they had no fucking clue how to play her. That's how wide the skill expression difference between her then and her now is. That's not to say Sona took skill back then, but at least the ceiling wasn't pressed directly against the floor like current-day Sona is. Focus on going back to that season 3 feeling then. Nerf or modify Q and step-up W and E (especially E). You'll need to sell it to Sona players who joined after that though. Hopefully the promised Karma work happens and goes well, to pave the way for others like Sona. > > ...and the idea of a "scaling" support is a conceptually-flawed design. Supports are early-game champions that require laning strength to be viable. By trapping 99% of a support's potential in reaching level 11, you're intentionally creating a design to fail. No, some players wanted a Mid. He tried to allow he to Mid but her kit inherently prevents it. Zyra has a similar problem, but they tried something on Pbe this past patch to allow her to mid (I think it'll be scary tbh; I might ban her). > > Sona literally has the lowest numbers across the board, but her R passive is preventing them from being buffed to usable values. Remove the passive from her R button and then we can look towards bringing up her bases and adding some form of hard-CC pre-6. I don't think her current QWE allows for any sort of hard cc pre 6 even if her R passive was gone. I don't think she has the power budget for it. Would need to do something strange like nerf Q dmg but allow it to apply maybe a silence or a mini-knockback if they are debuffed by W or E powercord respectively. W and E could _maybe_ stay as-is I'd need to look more into it.
> [{quoted}](name=LostFr0st,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AnZYUfQy,comment-id=001500000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T15:32:12.727+0000) > > Yeah... 'cause they put a rock on their Q key... But serious talk they nerfed it so that they would be able to use it more often. They wanted to give enemies more chances to punish for each X dmg Sona is allowed to do. You're mistaking the order of events here. Staccato was nerfed in patch 4.13; Sona got her URF patch in 6.14, 2 whole years later. Sona was able to use Staccato **LESS **frequently, due to her spells' cooldowns being nerfed by 1, 3 & 5 seconds respectively. > OK. Then as I implied before: post a satisfactory rework, get the support of the Sona mains, and try to dispel the hate --yes I'm calling it hate -- for Fearless. Already done long ago **AND **recently updated, just last week: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/VY6Fw3JY-sona-a-playable-kit > I was referring to both technically. Pre-6.14 and post 6.14 iterations of Sona, but not pre 4.13 Sona. So, I guess Sona #2 and #3? She's only had 2 reworks correct? Unless we count adding a ratio to the passive in 3.14... If you wanted to get technical, if there ever were a "third" rework to point to, it was when champion passives were created during the Beta or something. Sona didn't start with Power Chord, I believe Shurelia added it on later as her passive. Since champions didn't have passives before that. This is before my time, so I'm doing major guesswork here. > I think it was like that since season 4 tbh. > The shift wasn't from Fearless' rework, it was from the one back in 4.13. Patch 4.13 was in-fact Fearless' work. Patch 6.14 was done by RicklessAbandon. > No, some players wanted a Mid. He tried to allow he to Mid but her kit inherently prevents it. Zyra has a similar problem, but they tried something on Pbe this past patch to allow her to mid (I think it'll be scary tbh; I might ban her). From the observations I've heard, the Zyra changes make her feel worse overall and fail to do anything remotely encouraging being played in mid. Zyra has been a dedicated support and balanced around being a support for literally years. I can't even fathom why people still want to play her mid. Nobody is asking for Rito to buff Janna's Q so she can 1-shot waves in mid again. Nobody is asking for Lulu to be played in all 5 roles again. Nobody is asking for solo-lane Soraka. I don't understand why they want Zyra to mid. > I don't think her current QWE allows for any sort of hard cc pre 6 even if her R passive was gone. I don't think she has the power budget for it. Sona has the largest unspent power budget of any character in the game and the reason for this is that Rito is allocating 99.99% of it into her R passive. Once that gets scrapped, she can get super buffs across the board. Literally. As for hard CC, Sona is literally the only dedicated support in the game completely lacking it pre-6. They gave Zilean a stun. They gave Soraka a root. The least Rito can do for Sona is put a root on Tempo or something. **#BetterNerfSona**
: I wouldn't say no reason, she did have a really massive winrate
Win rate is not a reason, it's an indicator. https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/gameplay/data-and-champion-balance-part-1 https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/PAtL0xel-quick-gameplay-thoughts-november-10?comment=006a0000 In this case, it indicated Aery, Scorch and the new masteries in general. Sona herself was gutted for no reason. Meanwhile Soraka, Lulu & Janna still abuse the same masteries and go untouched.
: Looking for advice on laning against Singed.
Singed loses automatically to ranged characters. He literally can't do anything while they're free to shoot him from a distance. Ranged characters don't have to walk into his poison trail and Singed can't realistically engage on a ranged champ. Flipping them behind him just cuts off his own mistake. Pick Gnar, Teemo, Swain, Urgot, et cetera and Singed becomes useless. I literally cannot count the number of free lanes I've had because the enemy blind-picked a Singed. Soloing him so many times, he's 0-9 in as many minutes. The enemy jungler can't even gank, because he will be 1v1 vs. you, because Singed is a non-factor and has already hyper-fed you.
Dark Insp (EUW)
: See if you are quoting a guy from 1904, no matter how fancy it makes you sound, it doesnt mean the quote is still relevant nor that it ever even was. A few quick reasons why customer ISNT always right. 1: It Makes Employees Unhappy 2: It Gives Abrasive Customers an Unfair Advantage 3: Some Customers Are Bad for Business 4: It Results in Worse Customer Service 5: Some Customers Are Just Plain Wrong Even just putting "the customer is always right" in google will mostly throw you results how the customer is NOT always right. //// EDIT And one more thing, companies decide what they deem is best for them, what kind of business and customers they want. No company can always satisfy ALL of their customers, and if some decision will mean they will lose some of the customers, that doesnt mean the decision was bad or that they didnt think this trough and knew some people will stop using their product because of it. And guess what, they are OK with that.
“Customer service shouldn’t just be a department; it should be the entire company” – Tony Hsieh (CEO, Zappos) Making customers happy should in turn make your employees happy. If your employees are unhappy with satisfying customers, then there's a problem with the people you're choosing to employ. Turning a blind eye to a negative employee will just infect other employees as well as customers with that negativity. Employees are replaceable, with happier friendlier employees, but customers are not replaceable. It's more important to appease abrasive customers than complacent ones. An abrasive customer will tell his friends and followers how he was "mistreated" by a company and they will lose 6,000 customers because they chose to not cater to one customer. Furthermore, if you had served that voice more appropriately, you could've swayed their opinion into a positive light. Not doing so gives him reason to return louder and angrier, which could have been prevented. Customers make your business; employees do not make your business. Without customers, you merely have a bunch of random people throwing empty product at nobody. Customers are the people that patronage your services, employees aren't your patrons. Companies don't decide what their customers want to buy; customers decided what customers want to buy. Marketing can only do so little to convince people they should buy their product. https://blog.marketo.com/2015/08/the-customer-is-king-5-inspirational-quotes-from-customer-centric-leaders.html
Dark Insp (EUW)
: You do realize that Riot doesnt HAVE to do anything because you want it to? That they dont HAVE to listen and reply to customers complaints. They can balance the game the way THEY want to, they can employ people THEY want, they can give projects to people THEY want. They give you the option to express your opinion if you want, but they are NOT obliged to answer it. You do realize if YOU dont like the way Riot handles things, you can leave. Its your decision to play the game the way it is, if you dont like the game, go find the game you will like. Noone is ever forcing you to stay.
> [{quoted}](name=Dark Insp,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=T5sZj9Ho,comment-id=00090001000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T11:48:33.024+0000) > > You do realize that Riot doesnt HAVE to do anything because you want it to? That they dont HAVE to listen and reply to customers complaints. They can balance the game the way THEY want to, they can employ people THEY want, they can give projects to people THEY want. They give you the option to express your opinion if you want, but they are NOT obliged to answer it. > > You do realize if YOU dont like the way Riot handles things, you can leave. Its your decision to play the game the way it is, if you dont like the game, go find the game you will like. Noone is ever forcing you to stay. "The customer is always right." - Harry Gordon Selfridge Customers make a business, they're the ones buying goods/services. Without customers, a business cannot exist. Like you said, if I don't like what Rito is doing, I can leave. So can literally their entire customer-base. Each time Rito alienates a customer, that customer tells his friends and followers and Rito loses 6,000 customers. Furthermore, blatantly ignoring customer complaints and especially publicly announcing that you're blatantly ignoring complaints, the way Cactopus admitted to committing, directly violates the common sense of business ethics and customer service. Choosing to ignore complaints just breeds more complaints. Angering your customers just leads to strained customer relationship. http://winthecustomer.com/4-reasons-customer-always-right/
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qwVFuAxy,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T07:00:01.479+0000) > > Legal lolis are best lolis. Cougar lolis are even better. What is a "legal loli"? What is a "cougar loli"? {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}
> [{quoted}](name=xSymbolism,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qwVFuAxy,comment-id=00000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-12-01T11:35:04.542+0000) > > What is a "legal loli"? > What is a "cougar loli"? > {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} A loli is somebody who has a young appearance. A "legal" loli is somebody who is of age of consent or older and looks young. Thusly, a cougar loli would be an older woman who looks young. In my opinion, being as old as time itself qualifies somebody to be a cougar.
zecastar (NA)
: so true lol or what if Lucian/Karma/Ekko became White? what is the point of this thread though? We already know outrage in society isn't equal for equal things.
> [{quoted}](name=zecastar,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=jJcGRGvx,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-12-01T11:32:07.977+0000) > > so true lol > > or what if Lucian/Karma/Ekko became White? > > what is the point of this thread though? We already know outrage in society isn't equal for equal things. What if Nick Fury & Wally West became black? Changing a character's race isn't the same as changing a character's conscious choices.
: We literally oneshotted Sona at lvl 1 invade
You do realize Sona is arguably the squishiest character in League, especially at level 1? Especially after Rito just gutted her base armor for no reason? Also, you jumped her with 3 people at the same time. Sona is famous for being squishier than a minion. I'm not entirely certain what sort of message you're trying to send.
: It can only miss if you suck.Their ˝point and target abilities˝ have a fairly decent CD,unlike hers. You're pretty rash to say Nami's W doesn't have skill expression.Using the bounce 3 times requires thinking before had. How the hell do auto-target abilities have more skill expression than point and click? Look dude,I get you're passionate about Sona,but stop making things up.This is in no way a fact,but a fabrication of your bias mind.Fact is nobody likes to play against Sona when she's anywhere near to being good. I was referring to point and click abilities.You have to point and click,not just click.
> [{quoted}](name=CoffeeMug,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AnZYUfQy,comment-id=000400010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T08:59:31.784+0000) > > It can only miss if you suck. "People make mistakes. Even I can't hit every spell." - Gorilla > Their ˝point and target abilities˝ have a fairly decent CD,unlike hers. * Hymn of Valor: 8 seconds * Zephyr (Janna): 8 seconds * Help, Pix! (Lulu): 10 seconds * Ebb & Flow (Nami): 10 seconds http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/League_of_Legends_Wiki So according to you, having "a fairly decent CD, unlike Sona's" means having anymore from ZERO to 2-seconds longer on your CD. > You're pretty rash to say Nami's W doesn't have skill expression.Using the bounce 3 times requires thinking before had. Ah, Nami's Ebb & Flow. A single-target spell with TWO AUTO-TARGET BOUNCES. Since according to you, auto-target is "less skill expression than single-target," then that means Nami bouncing this spell twice "can only miss if you suck." **Your **words, not mine. Having said that, Ebb & Flow is literally all 3 of Sona's basic abilities wrapped up in a single spell. It does more damage than Hymn of Valor, at longer range mind you, then bounces to an ally to mitigate more damage than Aria, which triggers Nami's passive that is a carbon copy of Celerity. Nami is literally Sona 2.0. People have been saying this for nearly 4 years. People have literally been saying Nami is the better Sona, since long before patch 4.13 even occurred. > I was referring to point and click abilities.You have to point and click,not just click. Oh my goodness, you're so right. I have to point **AND **click! So skill, much wow. Certainly more skill than a spell that can **actually miss.** All those people saying there's no counterplay to an ADC pointing and clicking at you are so wrong. Clearly it's much more skillful than they want to lead us on. After all, you have to point **AND **click. I don't know why everyone doesn't just become ADC mains, the role is clearly skill-expressive. You have to point to somebody. Then you have to click them! {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}}
: Not to say that quote isnt true but it sure isnt gospel. They give you a free to play game that is well made and people arent satisfied and whine because they dont have what they want. The difference is that bill gates' customers actually bought his product so he does owe them something and should look into their complaints. However if people are just throwing a pity party because they think riot is at their beck and call there is nothing they are required to do for you.
“If you make customers unhappy in the physical world, they might each tell six friends. If you make customers unhappy on the internet, they can each tell 6,000” – Jeff Bezos (Founder and CEO, Amazon) https://blog.marketo.com/2015/08/the-customer-is-king-5-inspirational-quotes-from-customer-centric-leaders.html As a matter of fact, Rito is required to listen to customer complaints. Each angry complaint that goes unanswered is lost revenue from nth customers and potential customers. When those customers have negative interactions with Rito, that means nth more lost revenue once again. This is ESPECIALLY **MORE **true because LoL is a free game. Customers aren't paying a subscription to play, there are no "real" pay-2-win features for players to take advantage of. Most of the visible profit comes from optional cosmetics, keyword: optional. Customers are allowed to hate Rito, hate League, inform their 10k Twitter followers of that hatred and still log on when their 4 buddies need a 5th. There's no pressure to buy the game, like Overwatch. No pressure to subscribe like WoW. Just a game they're allowed to hate and publicly express their hatred for without in any way hindering friends' desire to play as a group.
MysterQ (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=AntiSkillshot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qwVFuAxy,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T06:06:41.950+0000) > > Jailbait. She told me she was a god as old as time itself, like 1,000,000 or something.
> [{quoted}](name=MysterQ,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qwVFuAxy,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T06:11:33.239+0000) > > She told me she was a god as old as time itself, like 1,000,000 or something. Legal lolis are best lolis. Cougar lolis are even better.
: How would one go about contacting a Moderator?
Personally, I would say don't trust the moderators here. Don't trust Keyru and don't trust BroPoro. For now, I would personally suggest sending your concerns to Rito's Twitter Support: https://twitter.com/RiotSupport They aren't particularly helpful, but at least they haven't given me any reason to outright distrust them completely, which Boards Moderation does on a daily basis. Furthermore, if Rito's Twitter Support does dismiss you or other some slight, they have a link on their page to a survey that specifically pertains to Rito Twitter Support specifically, if you need to leave some kind of negative review. From what I can tell, the Boards has no such feedback system in place. Nobody watches the watchmen here.
: For you people.
See, this isn't necessarily my mentality. If I'm up top lane and the enemy jungler comes up top to gank. I don't expect you to counter-gank. I expect you to go bot. I expect you to take the free dragon. I expect my jungler to be doing something somewhere, anywhere, on the map, with full knowledge that the enemy jungler can't interfere. There is a free fire dragon for the taking. The enemy team's smite is on the other side of the map. The enemy doesn't have teleport, I do have teleport, mostly for the exact reason that there is a free fire dragon for the taking. Please just take it. This is my biggest complaint about allied junglers.
Spârky (NA)
: Really does riot really owe us to answer EVERY single board? No they give us a free game to play and don't owe us that. Also, quite frankly I do see riot responding to customer complaints. As long as they aren't attacks on riot saying certain rioters should be fired, etc. I commend riot for responding to these boards. We take it for granted. Not every company does this customer interaction. It's not that riot ignores certain boards they read all of them. It's that they don't want to respond to the person essentially "yelling" at them because who would? Sure it would be nice of them to do it but odds are that person that is not ready to have a civil conversation over the boards obviously doesn't want to have a conversation but just wants to complain and yell at riot. Hence why they don't respond to them and I don't blame them. We as a community take so much for granted then are never satisfied with riot. Media is always so negative. Nobody ever talks about the good thing riot does and there are a lot of good things that they do. Why is that? Why is everyone so focused on the things that riot doesn't do correctly that we take away from the good things they do. It's just sad is all. Frustrates me that everyone only wants to target the negative. Riot has done a brilliant job with this game and no not everything is perfect but come on we need to stop targeting and attacking riot for the few things that they do wrong.
“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning” - Bill Gates It's the attacks and negative critique that are the most valuable for Rito to listen to. By blatantly ignoring complaints and making the same mistakes repeatedly, Rito is only creating more unhappy customers and more complaints. If Rito actually listened and acted on problems brought forth to them by customers, they would have fewer angry complaints in the future. Their customers would be less likely to instantly jump to blame if they actually had positive interactions with Rito. The blame falls 100% on Rito for their constant flood of angry customers. https://blog.marketo.com/2015/08/the-customer-is-king-5-inspirational-quotes-from-customer-centric-leaders.html
: > [{quoted}](name=Rockman,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ykGsbAE1,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-12-01T02:56:30.919+0000) > > he liked Jinx But jinx looks like a 10 year old boy >.> Oh that'll get the fanboys in a tizzy
> [{quoted}](name=T3H UB3RN07,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ykGsbAE1,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-12-01T02:58:56.611+0000) > > But jinx looks like a 10 year old boy >.> > > Oh that'll get the fanboys in a tizzy ...and when he realized Jinx is criminally insane, he decided he likes Janna more. Who ~~is a~~ looks like a busty hooker. Ekko has a thing for Zaunite women. He's more interested in women's nationality than their appearance.
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AnZYUfQy,comment-id=001500000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T00:54:15.860+0000) > > I vaguely remember that discussion. I also remember a suggestion of "super-charging" her Power Chord. After 3 charges, it could be further charged (to a cap as was agreed infinite-charging shouldn't exist.) Something along the lines of "after X additional charges, it combines multiple Power Chord effects or gains an increased effect." > Nah, it was that instead of the last charge being 100% of the determining factor, her last 2 charges = X powercord. > On the other hand, if you're suggesting she become Invoker, that idea has been decidedly shot down by both players and Rito on every occasion it came up. ROFL > > Power Chord weaving is an interesting concept, but right now the correct fix to the "Staccato-spamming" playstyle is to fix Sona's cooldowns. The reason players spam Staccato, the **main **reason, is that Hymn of Valor simply has the highest uptime. Staccato has the easiest accessibility for players. Fearless knew this would happen if he gutted Sona's cooldowns, but he did so anyways. It happened, players pointed out why it happened, he ignored us and nerfed Sona rather than fixing her. Players became angry. Nerfing Sona's cooldown, not allowing her 3 spells to have the same cooldown, directly negatively affected Sona's skill expression. They had data on Sona. Fearless tried to discuss it a bit but was met with a wall of rage. Sona players just didn't want their precious touched (inb4 Karma comparison) Not the best work environment^^" so he finished up and closed the can of worms. Sona's use Q more because it's less situational, and relies less on her AD following up. Even when Q had the same cd as the others, people still expected to end the chord with Q. > > --- > > Sona's original kit had more decision making than "cast every spell every time they're off cooldown" like her current kit is. Sona literally doesn't do anything without casting spells, all of her Power is trapped in activating spells, so her playstyle is cast everything always. Lets not view old old Sona with rose-tinted glasses. Positioning back then wan't punished as bad as it is now. >This mindless spell-spamming became more mindless when her R passive was changed from trapped power into trapped power a'la URF-style in patch 6.14. Pretty sure that was an attempt to enable her to play mid. She's too squishy and has her power in auras though, so I guess it wasn't a reasonable thing to even try to do? > > People **CLAIM **Sona was a "walking stat buff," but Sona was never **PLAYED **as a "walking stat buff" except literally in Bronze games. Which explains why Fearless fabricated that fallacy, since he was Bronze 1/Bronze 2 when he was busy reworking her. No Sona player Silver+ would be caught dead being a walking aura bot. That's BS and we both know it. I'm calling it out. People pick Sona in Gold and below if they are autofilled support just like Soraka/Janna. >This isn't how you utilized Power Chord, this isn't how you utilized the +20 AD and AP you gave yourself with Hymn. This was merely an excuse for Fearless to create a failed design, which isn't even my biggest problem with the kit, nor the real reason it failed. If Sona players were less angry about the past and more thoughtful about the future maybe they could look at her again. At this point it's probably safe to look at Karma again (some rage has subsided) but if I was Riot I wouldn't touch Sona with a 10ft pole right now. Maybe after a couple years (at least 1.5yrs), but not now. > > Patch 4.13 was a failed design, solely thanks to her trapped power in R-rank passive. She was gutted because power was trapped in R ranks. She's still unbalanceable because of trapped power in R ranks. Trapping power in R ranks inherently contradicts basic support-champion design. Once Rito dumps her passive on R, she can finally become a healthy character again, but not before that. Again with the past... R passive in 6.14 was an attempt at making her scale. In reality, Sona players probably need to decide on a thing to drop (dmg, heal, MS) and they can build her stronger from there. Jack of all trades champs ({{champion:268}} {{champion:77}} {{champion:429}} {{champion:43}} etc) always get nerfed from orbit due to how hard they are to deal with in the hands of an experienced player.
> [{quoted}](name=LostFr0st,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AnZYUfQy,comment-id=0015000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T01:22:01.931+0000) > > Sona's use Q more because it's less situational, and relies less on her AD following up. > Even when Q had the same cd as the others, people still expected to end the chord with Q. That may be so, but Staccato's usage **INCREASED **after 4.13, again for the reasons I presented. Regardless of the fact it was the most popular Power Chord pre-4.13, the fact remains: Staccato was **NERFED **in 4.13 and its usage **INCREASED**. The only way something can increase in usage after a nerf, is because the alternatives become less accessible and less viable. Diminuendo and Tempo weren't touched in 4.13, yet their usage declined afterwards. This is because Aria and Celerity's cooldowns were gutted. > Lets not view old old Sona with rose-tinted glasses. > Positioning back then wan't punished as bad as it is now. There is no rose-tint here, just genuine facts. Current kit: Sona offers nothing, except whilst pressing keys. URF-mode passive "rewards" her for pressing keys as fast as possible. Sona's current iteration has the **LEAST **skill expression and thought-process that she's ever had. Don't misinterpret her original kit having a higher skill ceiling for having a "high" skill ceiling. One is relative to her current state, the other is relative to other champions in comparison. I'm stating the former. > That's BS and we both know it. I'm calling it out. > People pick Sona in Gold and below if they are autofilled support just like Soraka/Janna. "Pick" or "Picked?" I'm confused. I was discussing Sona in past tense in that comment, but you're using present-tense in your response. Yes, players are picking her now because her skill floor is at the lowest it has ever been in her history, a first-time Sona looks the same as Aphromoo on Sona. No, if players that were last-pick back in season 3 grabbed Sona, you could tell at a glance they had no fucking clue how to play her. That's how wide the skill expression difference between her then and her now is. That's not to say Sona took skill back then, but at least the ceiling wasn't pressed directly against the floor like current-day Sona is. > Again with the past... R passive in 6.14 was an attempt at making her scale. ...and the idea of a "scaling" support is a conceptually-flawed design. Supports are early-game champions that require laning strength to be viable. By trapping 99% of a support's potential in reaching level 11, you're intentionally creating a design to fail. > In reality, Sona players probably need to decide on a thing to drop (dmg, heal, MS) and they can build her stronger from there. Jack of all trades champs ({{champion:268}} {{champion:77}} {{champion:429}} {{champion:43}} etc) always get nerfed from orbit due to how hard they are to deal with in the hands of an experienced player. Sona literally has the lowest numbers across the board, but her R passive is preventing them from being buffed to usable values. Remove the passive from her R button and then we can look towards bringing up her bases and adding some form of hard-CC pre-6.
: I once had a very long discussion with a high-elo Sona main about this exact thing. We went through a lot of iterations and stuff right down to small combos Sona could do with her skill orders. Long story short, you hit the nail on the head. The order of her casts should matter more then just the last one; re-writing the powerchord shouldn't be so easy and should have real disadvantages for prepping the wrong one. >With her current kit, she doesn't have to decide which spell to cast when. That was removed along with her auras in 4.13. I both agree and disagree here. She didn't really have to chose with the old kit either. She was a walking stat buff.
I vaguely remember that discussion. I also remember a suggestion of "super-charging" her Power Chord. After 3 charges, it could be further charged (to a cap as was agreed infinite-charging shouldn't exist.) Something along the lines of "after X additional charges, it combines multiple Power Chord effects or gains an increased effect." On the other hand, if you're suggesting she become Invoker, that idea has been decidedly shot down by both players and Rito on every occasion it came up. Power Chord weaving is an interesting concept, but right now the correct fix to the "Staccato-spamming" playstyle is to fix Sona's cooldowns. The reason players spam Staccato, the **main **reason, is that Hymn of Valor simply has the highest uptime. Staccato has the easiest accessibility for players. Fearless knew this would happen if he gutted Sona's cooldowns, but he did so anyways. It happened, players pointed out why it happened, he ignored us and nerfed Sona rather than fixing her. Players became angry. Nerfing Sona's cooldown, not allowing her 3 spells to have the same cooldown, directly negatively affected Sona's skill expression. --- Sona's original kit had more decision making than "cast every spell every time they're off cooldown" like her current kit is. Sona literally doesn't do anything without casting spells, all of her Power is trapped in activating spells, so her playstyle is cast everything always. This mindless spell-spamming became more mindless when her R passive was changed from trapped power into trapped power a'la URF-style in patch 6.14. People **CLAIM **Sona was a "walking stat buff," but Sona was never **PLAYED **as a "walking stat buff" except literally in Bronze games. Which explains why Fearless fabricated that fallacy, since he was Bronze 1/Bronze 2 when he was busy reworking her. No Sona player Silver+ would be caught dead being a walking aura bot. This isn't how you utilized Power Chord, this isn't how you utilized the +20 AD and AP you gave yourself with Hymn. This was merely an excuse for Fearless to create a failed design, which isn't even my biggest problem with the kit, nor the real reason it failed. Patch 4.13 was a failed design, solely thanks to her trapped power in R-rank passive. She was gutted because power was trapped in R ranks. She's still unbalanceable because of trapped power in R ranks. Trapping power in R ranks inherently contradicts basic support-champion design. Once Rito dumps her passive on R, she can finally become a healthy character again, but not before that.
: > [{quoted}](name=chipndip1,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AnZYUfQy,comment-id=00150000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:39:01.653+0000) > > There's no skill expression to do balance that around in her kit. That's exactly why they need to add some :P (other than positioning, which doesn't get punished nearly as hard in lower elos).
How, per-say, would you suggest they go about doing so? Make her Q a skillshot? Provide better decision-making in Power Chord? Give her E a reason to be ranked-up past 1 point? With her current kit, she doesn't have to decide which spell to cast when. That was removed along with her auras in 4.13. Mayhaps you've got something new to contribute?
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=0001000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T22:27:12.162+0000) > > Except I did try and it didn't matter. You were the one who told me to accept defeat. Gnar and Leona building squish items isn't "having an off-day." An off day is the 5-9 Viktor that I said I have no complaints about. He played properly, it didn't pan out. Happens. > > Gnar and Leona straight-up intentionally threw the game. They blew up in 0.2 seconds and failed to give me or Mid any time to output damage. Lee Sin can realistically peel one enemy and only by using his ult. When 5 enemies are running at your mid and ADC undeterred, there are no openings to look for, no ways to "change the outcome" of what is essentially a 3v5. At least 4 of them will reach you and CC you so you can't retaliate. I didn't say "accept defeat". Simply "accept that they aren't going to play how you want them to". > No, I can't pick my teammates and no, I can't pick how they play and this is why Rito's ranked system is broken. I can literally end a game with highest participation, highest damage by 50% more than any other player in the game, highest gold by 10k, 2nd-highest vision score (by a small margin), most farm, fewest deaths, most kills, most objective secures, score an S+ and still lose 21 LP. All because the Zed is literally getting solo'd by the enemy support, let alone literally anybody else on the enemy team. The Zed is getting solo'd by the least-threatening player on the enemy team. Then maybe you didn't do everything you could to actually carry that game. Maybe you didn't communicate for the rest of the team to group and let Zed serve as a massive distraction. Maybe you could have done a 1-3-1 split push with Zed as the distraction for the enemy team to chase like a shiny red ball. Maybe you could have convinced Zed to group up so that the enemy support can't just solo him. A lot of potential answers to your problems that game and I don't have enough context to say what you or your team could have done differently or better. I'm not going to ask for said context because I'm certain you'll say "but I'm sure there was nothing else I could do better!" At this point, you need to choose to look at the replay of the game yourself and evaluate it. Focus on your champion and watch it as an observer. Changing your perspective can do a lot towards helping you understand what you may have done wrong or could have done better on. > Some games are unwinnable no matter how you play it. This is true as well. But again, know which ones are truly unwinnable. I have had games where we had an inhibitor down before 20 minutes, an open nexus past 25 and at least inhibitor down the entire time after 20 minutes and still won because I could get my team to do what they needed to do to win. > Rito needs to take a page from Blizzard's book and determine rank by individual performance. Rito needs to stop punishing players for their own shitty matchmaking system that is designed to prevent climbing: This is an entirely different discussion and I'm not gonna comment.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=00010001000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T22:37:59.153+0000) > > Then maybe you didn't do everything you could to actually carry that game. Maybe you didn't communicate for the rest of the team to group and let Zed serve as a massive distraction. Maybe you could have done a 1-3-1 split push with Zed as the distraction for the enemy team to chase like a shiny red ball. Maybe you could have convinced Zed to group up so that the enemy support can't just solo him. This is why I watch IWillDominate. He doesn't tell his viewers bullshit like,"I could've done better." when he clearly couldn't have. Zed literally got solo'd by the support directly outside our base. He initiated on the support that he had full vision of, directly outside of our base, with his ult. Failed to kill a support, with his ult. Then walked around in a circle literally being AA-d to death. The support literally died 1 second later, Zed literally would have lived if he had Mercury Treads. He couldn't kill a support that ended the game with 14 deaths. My team can't do a split push when my Zed literally can't leave base without getting solo'd by literally any 1 person on the enemy team. He got solo'd by the 9-death Varus. He got solo'd by the 18-death Pantheon. He got solo'd by the 15-death Sion. Asking him to distract is still asking for too much. My team had no problem grouping, the whole enemy team ended with negative KDAs. Zed had no problem grouping with us either, for what little that was worth. Their was no communication issue, aside from the afk Teemo. Literally every teamfight was won 3v5 (since Zed essentially had zero presence.) > A lot of potential answers to your problems that game and I don't have enough context to say what you or your team could have done differently or better. I'm not going to ask for said context because I'm certain you'll say "but I'm sure there was nothing else I could do better!" At this point, you need to choose to look at the replay of the game yourself and evaluate it. Focus on your champion and watch it as an observer. Changing your perspective can do a lot towards helping you understand what you may have done wrong or could have done better on. The only thing I did wrong was not pick The Lost Vikings and be in 3 places at once. I kill 4 enemies mid, Zed respawns and ignores the Sion that TP'd on the inhib turret, cause he has duct tape over his mini-map. My team rotates to stop a split-push, Zed doesn't cut off the enemy's escape. Teemo is distracting the enemy, my team is farming the jungle while I'm trying to pressure another lane. Rewatching the game as an observer just tells the exact same story, the loss was inevitable. My Amumu was more confused how we lost than anybody. We had a team, we had a front line, we had damage. What we didn't have was a 5th or even 4th player. Literally the only reason for the loss. > This is true as well. But again, know which ones are truly unwinnable. I have had games where we had an inhibitor down before 20 minutes, an open nexus past 25 and at least inhibitor down the entire time after 20 minutes and still won because I could get my team to do what they needed to do to win. Every veteran player has multiple stories of having an open nexus, score an ace and win the game. This was not one of those times, this was not possible. My team wasn't even behind, we had the lead for the first 13 minutes and then again the last 15 minutes, but when the ADC is at 7 items and carrying 3k+ unspent gold while the Zed is still at 4.5 items and getting solo'd by the enemy support, the gold lead doesn't matter anymore. I can't donate that gold to my team.
: Wait, when has WotC ever done that?
Skullclamp. Umezawa's Jitte. Phyrexian mana. Felidar Guardian. Jace the Mind Sculptor. Stoneforge Mystic. Artifcat lands. It's probably better to ask when Wizards HASN'T done it. They will literally fire somebody for the slightest of mistake. They don't give 2nd chances, a 6th chance would be unheard-of. I see many employees/ex-employees speaking about how stressful working for Wizards can be, knowing that every action can cost them if it doesn't go precisely as-intended.
Sparkle (NA)
: Okay this is my semi-rambling answer/opinion for your question (although I feel like ALL of my answers are semi-rambling lol). One of the first things they taught me back when I was taking art classes was how to do art critiques. They're super important for improving your craft. We did weekly group critiques where 5-6 people would evaluate a drawing/painting/whatever (they made me take a lot of fine art stuff at the beginning lol) and talk about what you did well and what you could do better. Tbh it was often pretty brutal, but in a good way. There were 2 rules that were strictly enforced for good critique sessions: 1.) Those offering critiques never made personal comments ("I've noticed you suck at perspective, Jackie"), they only could only talk specifically about the work ("The perspective looks a little off here where the horizon line meets the statue"). 2.) Those receiving critique couldn't take comments on the work personally. You are not your work. You're not allowed to be butthurt when someone tells you honestly that they think the perspective is off in your painting. The fact that the perspective is off doesn't make you a bad person or a bad artist. Art's also fun because some things are wholly subjective ("The flowing shapes in your composition feel melancholy to me"), so you can also personally disagree with someone else's assessment. That was part of the agreement between critique-er and critique-ee. Critiquer will give feedback and opinion, critique-ee will actually listen and then decide if or what to do about it. So to answer your question with that anecdote in mind, I think you can talk about the work and definitely the body of work for sure (I don't feel like champion X has good counterplay because reason Y. Champion Z also has this problem for reason K). As soon as you're pointing the finger at a particular team or dev though, you're *making* it personal (add to that the fact that the person you're pointing at may actually not be the right one necessarily, cuz we all do a lot of work collaboratively). This means you're not following rule #1 any longer and the person receiving the critique can't reasonably be expected to do #2 (if you're pretty practiced with critiques you actually probably can, but not everyone is). **TL;DR** You can always critique the work and definitely the body of work. Themes you can see between champs or items etc. totally cool. Talking about a PERSON or PEOPLE is a different thing however, and moves away from the rules of reasonable critique IMO.
Except this isn't an art class, this is a business. If a business owner needed to commission an artist for a job, he's not going to sit around and discuss philosophy when the artist does a poor job that loses his company revenue and tarnishes customers' perspective of his company. He's certainly not going to continue using that artist if they continue producing the same art that loses him revenue and customers for each commission. He's going ax them and hire a more-skilled artist who won't damage the company's image and profits. * Patch 4.13 has cost Rito a substantial amount of revenue and players and damaged Rito's image. * Likewise, all 3 jungle reworks have also caused some form of damage and the Juggernaut rework as well. From strictly economical and public relations basic logic, it makes sense for a business to plug the leak in their wallets and try to repair company image. A workplace is not somewhere to coddle employees' fragile feelings and say "maybe you'll do better next time" every time they mess up. A business should value its customers over employees, especially if an employee is directly losing that business its customers. **"The Customer is King"** https://blog.marketo.com/2015/08/the-customer-is-king-5-inspirational-quotes-from-customer-centric-leaders.html
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=00010001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:43:04.883+0000) > > So I should become complacent. Accept that the game is lost and stop trying to affect the 1 change that would guarantee victory. Accept that I was just "unlucky" to get this trio-queue on my team consisting of a full-damage Gnar, a full-utility Leona and then a mid-laner (no complaints regarding this guy.) Accept that my only "front-liner" is my off-tank 12-5 Lee Sin duo partner that actually did buy a Randuin's, without my even needing to prompt him to do so. This is where you're lacking in the 3rd portion, knowing what you can and cannot change. You can still very much change your play around your teammates, which you cannot change. Also, you can "accept" the game was lost or you can choose to change the outcome by playing out the rest of the game and looking for openings to change the tide of battle. You can't pick your teammates. You can't pick what they do. You can't pick whether or not they're having an off day. You can choose to accept the previous problems and work around them. You may not be able to change the outcome of the game, but you can still choose to at least try winning it anyway.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=000100010000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T21:28:13.684+0000) > > This is where you're lacking in the 3rd portion, knowing what you can and cannot change. > > You can still very much change your play around your teammates, which you cannot change. Also, you can "accept" the game was lost or you can choose to change the outcome by playing out the rest of the game and looking for openings to change the tide of battle. > > You can't pick your teammates. You can't pick what they do. You can't pick whether or not they're having an off day. You can choose to accept the previous problems and work around them. You may not be able to change the outcome of the game, but you can still choose to at least try winning it anyway. Except I did try and it didn't matter. You were the one who told me to accept defeat. Gnar and Leona building squish items isn't "having an off-day." An off day is the 5-9 Viktor that I said I have no complaints about. He played properly, it didn't pan out. Happens. Gnar and Leona straight-up intentionally threw the game. They blew up in 0.2 seconds and failed to give me or Mid any time to output damage. Lee Sin can realistically peel one enemy and only by using his ult. When 5 enemies are running at your mid and ADC undeterred, there are no openings to look for, no ways to "change the outcome" of what is essentially a 3v5. At least 4 of them will reach you and CC you so you can't retaliate. --- No, I can't pick my teammates and no, I can't pick how they play and this is why Rito's ranked system is broken. I can literally end a game with highest participation, highest damage by 50% more than any other player in the game, highest gold by 10k, 2nd-highest vision score (by a small margin), most farm, fewest deaths, most kills, most objective secures, score an S+ and still lose 21 LP. All because the Zed is literally getting solo'd by the enemy support, let alone literally anybody else on the enemy team. The Zed is getting solo'd by the least-threatening player on the enemy team. Some games are unwinnable no matter how you play it. The ADC can simultaneously do his job of outputting the highest sustained damage, do the support's job of providing/denying vision, do the jungler's job of securing epic monsters, do the top's job of pushing turrets and do the mid's job of holding map pressure. Literally do all 5 jobs and still not be able to carry a team whose only purpose at that point is to exist. The Zed literally couldn't just exist. He just needed Merc Treads and Hexdrinker to not die solo to the support, let alone the Heimer he laned against, but even that was just too much. Rito needs to take a page from Blizzard's book and determine rank by individual performance. Rito needs to stop punishing players for their own shitty matchmaking system that is designed to prevent climbing: > * Win a game? Here's worse teammates for you to carry and stronger enemies to match your skill. > * Lose a game? You suck, here's worse teammates to "match" your skill.
Azadethe (NA)
: That's a pretty contrived Sona build which really isn't a Support build but rather a mid lane build. if you build that on a support, you're delusional. Sona's Prime itemization as a support is what I mentioned: Athene's (2100). Censer (2300). Eye of the Watchers (2200). Boots. Seraph's (3100). Possibly a Morellonomicon (2900). Your Build A) Heals no one significantly B) Has no sustainability C) has no way to mitigate getting caught. Mine has a 71% Win rate in Plat III. What do I Know :) Average ADC build is: {{item:3031}} {{item:3036}} {{item:3006}} {{item:3094}} {{item:3087}} {{item:3046}} Or {{item:3031}} {{item:3036}} {{item:3006}} {{item:3094}} {{item:3087}} {{item:3072}} or {{item:3031}} {{item:3036}} {{item:3006}} {{item:3094}} {{item:3087}} {{item:3508}} 1) 14,900 g 2) 16,000 g 3) 15,700 g My Sona build: 13,500g And it heals REGULARLY for 600-700, Barriers for more, Deals significant damage, and has larger scaling than a Q build does. Built right it also survives zerg dives aimed at killing you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUhafghUzGc World Championship > plat 3 Utility Sona doesn't work. Her heals are uncontrollable. Her shield is melee-range and has a 1.5-second duration. Her bases are trash, her scalings are trash, she has the weakest damage and sustain of any support character. Sona is literally useless outside of artificial numbers and has been since patch 4.13. Also, win rate is not a measurement of champion strength or viability: https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/gameplay/data-and-champion-balance-part-1 https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/PAtL0xel-quick-gameplay-thoughts-november-10?comment=006a0000
: WoW she has one ˝ability˝ she has to click,which isn't even an ability,but a way to proc her passive and a skillshoot. The reasons why Sona's Q is cancerous if it's even decent is cause the only way for it miss is if she messes up.There no dodge,outplay ,just if the Sona sucks or not. As long as her kit remains close to what it's now,she can never be allowed to be a strong pick. It's the same with Ryze,Nunu or any other champions without any skillshot and skill that requires skill exprsession,while the rest of their kit is braindead.
> [{quoted}](name=CoffeeMug,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AnZYUfQy,comment-id=0004000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T21:15:47.626+0000) > > the only way for it miss is if she messes up.There no dodge,outplay ,just if the Sona sucks or not. So you admit Sona's Q can miss. Even experienced players can make a judgment error when trying to Q at max range. Point being, her ability can miss. Meanwhile, Nami's W can't miss. Janna's W can't miss. Lulu's E can't miss. No dodge, no outplay, not even skill expression. They just straight up cannot miss, but Sona can. Yet all 3 of them do more damage, despite being on spells with **LESS **skill expression than Sona's Q. Auto-targeting spells have more skill expression than single-target spells, this is a fact. Skillshots have more skill expression than auto-targets. Single targets have the lowest, skillshots have the highest and auto-target is in-between, this is basic common sense. I can't even understand how people fabricate misnomers claiming anything else. > WoW she has one ˝ability˝ she has to click, 1. She has to click for Power Chord. 2. She has to click for Hymn of Valor. That's two "abilities," not one. Two. Twice as many. --- The only cancerous part in Sona's kit is the **R **passive. The reason her numbers are repeatedly nerfed is the **R **passive. The reason Sona can't be balanced in this state is her **R **passive. A passive that mind you, is in direct contradiction with basic support-champion design.
: That's exactly what I said. ADCs shouldn't be a parameter to balance other classes. Janna,Nami and (somehow annyoing ass ) Lulu can have more power in a single target ,because you still have to manage to click on someone in the right time to use ur abilities and their abilities are skillshots. Making her skills targeted would mean she at least would have to try to click ˝someone on time˝ and switch accordingly then just stand in a team fight face-rolling your face on your keyboard.
So while Sona is allowed to misfire her Q if she misjudges her range by even 1 unit, burning the cooldown and (what will soon be) 60 mana to literally do ZERO damage to the enemy. Janna is allowed to press W, Nami is allowed to press W, Lulu is allowed to press E and the spell will automatically walk them into range and guarantee to do damage, more damage than Sona. The spell won't misfire if they're out of range, they won't burn mana and cooldowns for ZERO gain like Sona's Q can do. "They have to click on that person"? Sona has to click on people too. She has to click on people to proc Power Chord. She has to click on people for the second half of her Q. Clicking on people is a moot point, Sona has to do it just as much, if not more than any one of those three. As for Sona's heal? I would **KILL **to have it be a damn single-target spell. Auto-targeted heals are actually more of a hindrance than a skillshot heal. I've played Ana in OW and HotS, so I've experienced this. Making a heal an auto-targeted ability is the worst possible drawback you can give it. The only reason Lili can get away with it is because she can literally blind up to 4 enemies and her heal is on something like a 2-second cooldown.
Ralanr (NA)
: You have not provided facts. You have provided word of mouth that also doesn’t support the lore department being filled of inexperienced writers who are paid less than the original. I think you’re just angry.
You have not provided facts proving otherwise. Do **YOU **have proof to back up **YOUR **claim? Seems to me that you're the one who's angry.
nm1010 (NA)
: I never looked into the writer section specifically, but riot is usually on the very high end for salary. I give them a lot of shit for being cheap in some areas, but they pay their employees a premium from what I've seen.
The quality and quantity of Rito's work does not support this claim and I'm not just referring to lore anymore. GhostCrawler himself admitted that Gameplay doesn't patch the game based on Balance. The Rift was changed to look more cartoony and less detailed. In-game models were changed to be more cartoony and lower quality. RITO SPAMMED US WITH CHROMAS. Skins in general are consistently lower and lower quality. The client is constantly broken, even after changing over from the old client, which was somehow still less broken than the new client was initially, despite being severely outdated. I've heard direct accounts from a dozen different Ritoers that an average workday doesn't even consist of more than an hour of doing actual work, before spamming ARAM/yolo-queue or watching LCS the rest of the workday. Hell, Rito can't even be bothered to pay people to manage these Boards. Keyru herself told me directly that she's the only Ritoer Boards Mod and she randomly recruits unpaid lackeys to run free in her stead. So please excuse my skepticism in regards to that claim.
Ralanr (NA)
: Yes it’s a new thing. Do you have proof to back up your claim?
Rito is the proof. They outsource everything, if it costs them less. They give unpaid interns full access to the game code and freedom to patch champions, I believe it was Jag who publicly announced this. THEY MAKE US PAY FOR CHROMAS. They sold out to China, the moment they realized the playerbase and their income began to decline. Rito cares more about money than they do about almost anything else. Customer satisfaction is one of the LAST things on their list of concerns.
Ralanr (NA)
: No. She’s Noxus but she just uses the shadow Isles for power. Her “loyalties” lie in the black rose/Noxus.
This a new thing? I stopped giving a fuck about lore after patch 4.13 ruined the game for me. That and Rito's new lore-writers are unskilled upstarts who were hired because they're willing to work for lower wages than Rito's original writers. In fact, they produce less **quantity **as well as quality. You get what you pay for.
Ralanr (NA)
: Katarina, Leblanc, Cassiopeia, Elise, Riven.
Elise is Shadow Isles.
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=000100010000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:30:05.409+0000) > > Yup. It was clear to me that communication has already broken down. So I decided to present my closing argument to the jury. Now I'm just waiting for them to finish deliberation. That is poor arguing. You have failed to present a valid argument. We are done here. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this.
> [{quoted}](name=HalcyonDweller,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=0001000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:39:09.065+0000) > > That is poor arguing. You have failed to present a valid argument. We are done here. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this. Yup, that's exactly what I meant regarding your TL;DR post! I'm glad you understand : )
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=000100010000000000010000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:26:06.988+0000) > > What about when the advice isn't generic at all? The enemy team has Tryndamere, Yasuo and (crit ADC X) and I tell my 0-9 Gnar to start working towards Randuin's Omen to offset the crit damage from 3 separate enemies. Rather than picking up a pair of Cloth Armors, he buys a Longsword and a Dagger. How am I supposed to react to this? Simple. You don't. You accept that you cannot change what they're going to do. You understand that your best option for victory is to simply shut up and let him learn the hard way while you and the rest of your team do what you can to play around it. **"Accept the things you cannot change. Have the courage to change the things you can. Have the wisdom to know the difference."** This ancient line of advice is something that most players would rather ignore when they see a poorly performing ally. They aren't the drill sergeant. They aren't the fearless leader of the team. They aren't a hero that commands the respect of anyone who they come across. They are simply another player in the game and nothing excuses treating an ally like shit.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=0001000100000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:32:12.585+0000) > > Simple. You don't. > > You accept that you cannot change what they're going to do. You understand that your best option for victory is to simply shut up and let him learn the hard way while you and the rest of your team do what you can to play around it. > > **"Accept the things you cannot change. Have the courage to change the things you can. Have the wisdom to know the difference."** > > This ancient line of advice is something that most players would rather ignore when they see a poorly performing ally. They aren't the drill sergeant. They aren't the fearless leader of the team. They aren't a hero that commands the respect of anyone who they come across. They are simply another player in the game and nothing excuses treating an ally like shit. So I should become complacent. Accept that the game is lost and stop trying to affect the 1 change that would guarantee victory. Accept that I was just "unlucky" to get this trio-queue on my team consisting of a full-damage Gnar, a full-utility Leona and then a mid-laner (no complaints regarding this guy.) Accept that my only "front-liner" is my off-tank 12-5 Lee Sin duo partner that actually did buy a Randuin's, without my even needing to prompt him to do so.
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=0001000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:04:57.877+0000) > > Yes, my point exactly! Every player is an individual and they have individual definitions of "harassment." In which, from 1st, 2nd & 3rd-hand experiences, more often includes any and every comment, fluff or no. Wow one sentence out of all of what I wrote. Way to cherry pick an argument. Let me make things clearer for you: > [{quoted}](name=HalcyonDweller,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=000100010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T17:55:50.511+0000) > > If you assume without knowing if they are of the type to overreact to your advice, **when they actually aren't that way**, it won't matter that they would have listened, because you crossed the line first and decided to give them advice in a low-effort manner that was bound to piss them off anyways. > > -snip- > > If you get upset, argue with them over it, or blame them for hurting the team's chances of winning, then you are not trying to help them or make them listen, you are simply shielding your own ego from responsibility over the 'lost' game. > > # If you choose to start an interaction with them over their mistakes, it is up to you to do so in a way that will be most effective to your goals. If you want them to listen to you then you had best make every effort, including using fluff words and putting your ego aside, in order to make them most likely to listen. # Assuming that they won't listen and just defaulting to giving them your response to that type of person is actually just lazy and a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you do it the more you will receive angry responses from them, because OBVIOUSLY if you are a dick to somebody while giving them advice then they will react poorly, even if they aren't the overreactive type.
> [{quoted}](name=HalcyonDweller,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=00010001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:12:04.559+0000) > > Wow one sentence out of all of what I wrote. Way to cherry pick an argument. Yup. It was clear to me that communication has already broken down. So I decided to present my closing argument to the jury. Now I'm just waiting for them to finish deliberation.
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=0001000100000000,timestamp=2017-11-29T19:28:42.754+0000) > > I didn't misunderstand anything. Your point is that harassing teammates theoretically makes them play worse. My point is that not doing so won't make them realistically play better. > > The difference is, telling your teammates they're playing badly has a chance to make them play better. They might not realize they're making mistakes, they might need somebody smarter than them to inform them of poor judgments. Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this half. A grey screen is a very solid indicator that you made a mistake. And most players are well aware when they make a mistake without you telling them "dude, you're fucking up". You wanna know what is GUARANTEED to make someone play WORSE? Insist that they need to heed your advice. Unless you are looking over their shoulder and watching their screen like a hawk, you have no business telling them something extremely generic like "play safe" or "hug tower". Generic advice like that is more than a little insulting, especially if they've been hugging tower and simply getting poked/dived just for trying to last hit under turret. By telling your teammates they're playing like shit and especially in a negative connotation, you GREATLY increase the odds of them playing worse. You wanna make a feeding teammate into an intentional feeder? Start calling him boosted monkey shit for going 0-4-0 in lane when he's been playing passively since 0-1-0. My issue is players who try to justify the insulting of allies. This comes REALLY close to it. There are a lot of ways to say someone is playing badly. Most of them are insults and will not improve their gameplay or your odds of winning.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=00010001000000000001,timestamp=2017-11-30T18:17:10.572+0000) > > you have no business telling them something extremely generic like "play safe" or "hug tower". Generic advice like that is more than a little insulting, especially if they've been hugging tower and simply getting poked/dived just for trying to last hit under turret. What about when the advice isn't generic at all? The enemy team has Tryndamere, Yasuo and (crit ADC X) and I, as 13-0 on ADC, tell my 0-9 Gnar to start working towards Randuin's Omen to offset the crit damage from 3 separate enemies. Rather than picking up a pair of Cloth Armors, he buys a Longsword and a Dagger. How am I supposed to react to this?
: They are nerfing her q? So she can't chunk a quarter of your health with q auto at level 1? Hell yes
Even tho she's losing a very significant TEN damage at level 1, this means her full combo is still 261 damage. That's still at most 36.21% of an ADC's beginning HP at level 1, after base magic resistance. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/IK2dgZ5I-what-exactly-did-sona-gain-from-runes?comment=00060000
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=00010001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T17:34:29.636+0000) > > There is no "assumption," this is an **observation**. The mass majority of players don't want advice, even if it's constructive, even if it's given in a positive tone. I know this from 1st, 2nd and 3rd-hand experiences, that's not a hypothetical. Every player is an individual. They aren't just part of some statistic. If you make a statistical assumption, such as assuming that they are part of the larger group of people who you have had problems with giving advice to in the past, and they actually aren't, it won't matter that they would have listened, because you crossed the line first and decided to give them advice in a low-effort manner that was bound to piss them off anyways. > Whether I'm "blaming" or "harassing" them is subjective to their own opinion. I can use fluff words like "Please," "Thank you," "My apologies," but it's up to that individual person to determine if I'm "harassing" them or not. Their definition of "harassment" doesn't necessarily have to fall in line with yours, mine or Little Timmy's definition of the word. Regardless, fluff words help to prevent them from jumping to such conclusions about whether the advice is 'harassment' or not. Note that I said 'helps' and not that it prevents it on its own. If you don't want your teammate to tilt and play like shit then it is up to you to help them untilt if they show no signs of doing it themselves. It helps to show compassion, or at least to not be passive aggressive with them. > However, defending their "freedom" to make their own choices, especially when those choices negatively affect the team as a whole, is the same as being guilty of doing so yourself. _Oh yes, tell me again how talking about freedom of choice makes me as bad as somebody who makes a stupid choice in-game and hurts their chances of winning. It's definitely just as ba- no it's even worse! /S_ Don't even start with me on this. You have no right to control how another player plays the game. They could be stupid and an idiot, but that does not matter. You have no right to harass them for it or argue with them over it. And why should you anyways? They're a stranger on the internet, what does their opinion of your 'help' matter to you? If they make it clear that they won't do what you ask then insulting them for it certainly won't magically make them see reason. > I don't understand how I would "take it personally" when (not if) players reject advice. That's their own problem, I'm just trying to help them. If you get upset, argue with them over it, or blame them for hurting the team's chances of winning, then you are not trying to help them, you are simply shielding your own ego from responsibility over the 'lost' game. # If you choose to start an interaction with them over their mistakes, it is up to you to do so responsibly and in a way that will be most effective to your goals. If you want them to listen to you then you had best make every effort, including using fluff words and putting your ego aside, in order to make them most likely to listen.
> [{quoted}](name=HalcyonDweller,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=000100010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T17:55:50.511+0000) > > Every player is an individual. Yes, my point exactly! Every player is an individual and they have individual definitions of "harassment." In which, from 1st, 2nd & 3rd-hand experiences, more often includes any and every comment, fluff or no.
: But you have no idea how much of the decision was up to fearless. Maybe he was told the overall strategy by other people, and only got to do the balance side of it. Maybe somone under him came up with the idea, implemented it and made it work while he did not have the time to look at everything every team does. Attacking a rioter is not a good thing on the boards and none of the rioters commenting here have the authority to do so, so it gets you nowhere except turning rioters away from what you might think is a useful discussion.
When an employee takes lead on a project, they stamp their name on it, whether the end result is success or failure. It is the Lead's responsibility to make certain everything goes as-planned. It is the Lead who has the final say on decisions thought-up by the workers under them. It is the Lead's job to make sure others are doing their job properly. The person that takes Lead are the one betting for success at the risk of failure. If a project goes well, the Lead gets the credit and reward for a job well done. If a project goes awry, it's the Lead's head at greatest risk to end up on the pike. Fearless himself is the one that self-claims credit for all of those projects: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/LLjzwGdd-intro-jo-fearless-graylock-lead-designer-gameplay-systems I know exactly how much decision was up to Fearless: he alone had the final say on everything, every idea, implementation and overall strategy.
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika310,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=000100010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T09:01:40.158+0000) > > "Harm," "method for communication" and the sort are subjective to the person you're talking to. I never said call them an idiot, for all you know I'm telling players,"Please buy Sightstone." and they're interpreting **THIS **as "harassment" and verbal abuse. I can tell my teammate on a tank champion, like Gnar for example, against 4 basic-attack-based champions,"Please buy Bramble Vest." and their response to me will likely be,"Stfu, I'm going full-damage build this game. Reported." > > I can be 13-0 on ADC, whereas they're 0-9 on top lane and it doesn't matter how politely I convey my advice to them, they're still going to claim I'm being abusive. At least 97% of the time, guaranteed. If you assume that any advice you give will be taken negatively and use that as an excuse to not put effort into making your advice palatable, then you will be completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. What you are claiming is hypothetical, 97% is a made up statistic. I have given advice such as "buy Bramble Vest" or "buy sightstone" to teammates and not received any "STFU" nor any claims that I was being abusive. It all comes down to how you say it and how you have acted so far that game. You can't take it personally if people reject your advice though, they are free to make their own choices, even if those choices are poor ones. Blaming them and harassing them afterwards will do nothing to help.
> [{quoted}](name=HalcyonDweller,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=1aUoVMLt,comment-id=0001000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T17:08:17.082+0000) > > If you assume that any advice you give will be taken negatively and use that as an excuse to not put effort into making your advice palatable, then you will be completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. > > What you are claiming is hypothetical, 97% is a made up statistic. I have given advice such as "buy Bramble Vest" or "buy sightstone" to teammates and not received any "STFU" nor any claims that I was being abusive. It all comes down to how you say it and how you have acted so far that game. You can't take it personally if people reject your advice though, they are free to make their own choices, even if those choices are poor ones. Blaming them and harassing them afterwards will do nothing to help. There is no "assumption," this is an **observation**. The mass majority of players don't want advice, even if it's constructive, even if it's given in a positive tone. I know this from 1st, 2nd and 3rd-hand experiences, that's not a hypothetical. I don't understand how I would "take it personally" when (not if) players reject advice. That's their own problem, I'm just trying to help them. However, defending their "freedom" to make their own choices, especially when those choices negatively affect the team as a whole, is the same as being guilty of doing so yourself. Whether I'm "blaming" or "harassing" them is subjective to their own opinion. I can use fluff words like "Please," "Thank you," "My apologies," but it's up to that individual person to determine if I'm "harassing" them or not. Their definition of "harassment" doesn't necessarily have to fall in line with yours, mine or Little Timmy's definition of the word.
: Just stop, dude. Personal attacks like this don’t belong here.
This isn't an attack and these aren't personal. Nearly every jungle main agrees, which I am an ADC main. I hate jungling, this is an unbiased observation. Wizards of the coast fired employees for creating Skullclamp. They fired employees for creating Umezawa's Jitte, Jace the Mind Sculptor and Felidar Guardian. Maybe they're the extreme, maybe not, but it is standard practice for companies to let employees go for making errors. It's **expected **for companies to let employees go for **repeatedly **making the same errors. I merely gave 1 singular example of what you **COULD **say, I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you're choosing to dismiss me without discussion solely for giving an **example**. You're just proving my point that Rito isn't open to conversing with customers.
Sparkle (NA)
: No, but we will probably extend the hiding option to champion select in the future. No ETA on that btw, we're working on a lot of bugs (like the ones listed) first. We are not letting you delete them because they're part of our technical fallback to make sure you never get into a game without any runes, especially since runes now have the power of BOTH old runes and masteries. Someday, we hope to expand this "emergency" functionality to help with cases where you partially finished a page (the hope is that we can fill in that last blank slot with a rune from the premade page instead of switching the whole damn thing).
> [{quoted}](name=Riot Sparkle,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=G3fUvBOG,comment-id=000c00040000,timestamp=2017-11-29T20:02:36.510+0000) > > especially since runes now have the power of BOTH old runes and masteries. As far as I see it, this doesn't feel true. It feels like the new masteries replaced old masteries, whereas the base stat increases replaced old runes. I don't feel anything in these new mastery pages that says "rune replacement." It just feels like runes were removed entirely and Spellblade champs got hyper-buffed, because their new stat boosts count as Base AD, rather than bonus AD like it used to be.
: Semantics. There's no organization that officially defines what an 'aura' is. 1. So if I can suppress my aura it's not an aura? 2. So an Aura from DnD in an anti-magic field isn't an aura? 3. So if I had an aura that only functions in daylight it's not an aura? 4. So I can't give an aura to someone else?
> [{quoted}](name=TeCoolMage,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=zaA8NlEb,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-30T16:40:49.054+0000) > > Semantics. There's no organization that officially defines what an 'aura' is. Blizzard Entertainment's **Official Definition** of an aura: http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Aura
Sparkle (NA)
: I actually am on the Gameplay Systems team (the team still working on Runes at the moment), but I can't speak to things like champion balance. That's a different team, but even if it wasn't I probably couldn't give the in depth discussion folks are generally looking for on the subject when they post here. There are actually a lot of people - programmers, artists, QA, etc - who work on these teams to help make cool stuff but couldn't necessarily have a super deep discussion about every related topic that comes up. I deal mostly with the visual side of things - for instance before Runes I worked on the Elemental Dragon glyphs that show up in scoreboard or on the pit (yeah I'm the one who made Cloud Drake's symbol blue instead of white originally lol). Often I can talk about basic principles on the game design side of things, but if you want to talk about something like say, the exact amount of MS that comes from Cloud Drake I'm gonna need to tap out. You wanna talk visual heirarchy, sprite sheets or alpha layers? You come to me. We can talk shop :) EDIT: Oh, yeah also what Cactopus said below for the *specific* topics listed. This reply is more on the philosophical side of the Q I suppose lol
So you're saying you're the perfect person I can come to about this unresolved issue: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/skin-champion-concepts/BENxLU8p-fix-sonas-robe-design
: >You could even just tell us that you're handing Fearless a pink slip and we would at least know Rito is finally listening. You’re actually asking for a coworker to be fired here. Screw that. I’m not taking the bait, sorry.
Why wouldn't I ask for this? His track record speaks for itself: he's never had a successful project that he worked on. * Sona rework? Massive failure, she disappeared from professional play as a result, even still to this day. * Season 5 jungle rework? It became nearly impossible for all, but less than a handful of champions to survive in the jungle. It took half the season to fix the jungle. * Season 6 jungle rework? Same as above, on a somewhat lesser scale. * Season 7 jungle rework? Jungle plants are still a heavily-debated topic. * Juggernaut rework? Even Meddler himself publicly admitted that this was an overall failure. I would've let an employee go for just the season 5 jungle fiasco alone. Wizards of the Coast frequently fires entire teams of employees for far less than that. I believe Blizzard does as well. The fact he's consistently allowed to lead so many large-scale projects that have all resulted in long-lasting game-altering negative ramifications speaks very clearly for Rito's employee management.
: Sona's tooltips still call it an aura, and honestly the current iteration is more fitting than the older ones - auras have historically been depicted as light, colour or smoke radiating from an object
The gaming definition of an aura lists 4 necessary characteristics: 1. A permanent effect, while within range 2. Cannot be dispelled and is unaffected by Silence 3. Does not have a cooldown 4. Originates from the user's position Sona's current **lingering actives** do not fulfill any, but the last 1 of these 4 mandatory characteristics. --- Sona's champion page also lists her Q range at 825, while the Wiki claims it's 850, but it's **ACTUAL **range is 700. They both also fail to note that it **only **prioritizes champions if they are within 600 units of her. Don't trust everything Rito says, they frequently give us false information or blatantly omit pertinent details.
: So, let’s be real with each other here. The first three threads you linked are just random complaint posts about balance. If I were on the balance team, (I’m not) I’d probably read those to see what people thought, but there’s no way I’d let myself be baited into an argument with every single complaint thread. That’d be pointless. The fourth thread is a discussion post aimed at other people in the community. I don’t know why you think it’s a scandal that no Rioter jumped in there. Nobody owes that thread a response, although it’s fine and well if somebody felt like going in there. Now let’s talk about that fifth and final thread. Boy do I have some thoughts about it. Now, I actually am working with the team that made the new leveling and rewards systems, so I thought about responding to that one. But once I read it I couldn’t figure out how it managed to get upvotes. Look at this line in particular: >if you want to disenchant 975 skins it will take 8 of them to just get it and that's assuming you have the luck to get 8 975s and you don't get 750s That’s straight up untrue. You get 20% of a skin’s value in orange essence when you disenchant skin shards. So it’s not true that it would take 8 975RP skin shards to get one skin. So, I’ll be honest, I thought about replying to that thread, but the prospect just felt exhausting. When you guys upvote threads full of super aggressive rants or just misinformation, you shouldn’t expect Rioters to give time to it. I think we owe it to you guys to listen to what you have to say, especially when you’re being critical, but we aren’t required to make an appearance in every thread. TL;DR: We read everything you guys post, and a lot of times we get really useful feedback from the boards, but I don’t think we owe a response to every single thread. Sometimes we don’t have an answer, and sometimes threads are just dumpster fires. Just sharing my honest perspective on it.
> [{quoted}](name=Riot Cactopus,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=T5sZj9Ho,comment-id=000900010002,timestamp=2017-11-30T15:48:56.821+0000) > > So, let’s be real with each other here. The first three threads you linked are just random complaint posts about balance. If I were on the balance team, (I’m not) I’d probably read those to see what people thought, but there’s no way I’d just let myself be baited into an argument with every single complaint thread. That’d be pointless. So let me get this right. You think that [THIS](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/AnZYUfQy-do-not-let-that-sona-nerf-through) is nothing more than a "random complaint post?" Rito has blatantly left Sona in an unbalanceable state for over 3 years now, with patch 4.13 as the OBVIOUS culprit. Players have been demanding a reasonable response to this for over 3 years now. I'd hardly call this complaint "random," if anything it's been a CONSISTENT complaint. The only way you'd create an argument in that thread is if you yourself **intentionally **instigated the argument. You could tell people,"CertainlyT is aware of Sona's unplayability and planning an eventual rework that he will personally oversee." and players would be ecstatic to hear this. You could say,"Rito is contemplating a full revert back to her original pre-4.13 kit as a temporary fix until her 3rd inevitable rework." and the main inquiry would be,"When can we look forward to the revert?" You could even just tell us that you're handing Fearless a pink slip and we would at least know Rito is finally listening. You have responses you could make that won't result in an argument, but instead you're choosing to outright dismiss a complaint 3+ years running as nothing more than "random?"
Show more

Pika310

Level 93 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion