: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=bEhaPVEM,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-08-12T21:47:48.197+0000) > > Alright it took me a small while but I salvaged what I could. Thanks again. Okay, read through it. And I don't think it'd work out well. It doesn't go far enough to change him. He's really in need of a full VGU, and even this sort of change, which definitely would change his style immensely, doesn't seem like it'd fit him. His big issue is that he's an AP champion with an AD-style skillset. It makes it so he doesn't synergize with the items he scales with, and these changes don't really fix that.
> [{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=bEhaPVEM,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-08-13T00:03:46.772+0000) > > Okay, read through it. And I don't think it'd work out well. It doesn't go far enough to change him. He's really in need of a full VGU, and even this sort of change, which definitely would change his style immensely, doesn't seem like it'd fit him. > > His big issue is that he's an AP champion with an AD-style skillset. It makes it so he doesn't synergize with the items he scales with, and these changes don't really fix that. Let me just ask, do you assume that steroids are "ineffective" toward solving that kind of issue? I think it's quite the opposite, but we can't just balance a champion that literally gets 70% AP *from a single auto attack* by giving him this, if I were to suggest it. The only reason he is kept in check is because early AP is impossible to truly stack effectively and since he is attack-speed based, he is better off taking the attack speed rune. There is also a Teemo on these very boards that made a post saying he climbed to diamond literally playing full AP no attack speed Teemo. His AD/Marksman style does not detract from the idea that he is an AP champion, otherwise we would have to say Neeko and Kennen need reworks too (which they don't) just because of their AD itemization versatility. If we're able to nerf his base numbers in a way where he *needs* more interaction to actually play through his matchups, while also enabling higher movement speed, then Teemo basically is able to run circles around melee champions but not be able to kill them within a short time either. This requires scaling to balance out, and since Teemo has always been a feast or famine champion (rather than the vague term "item reliant" people keep using), it's more effective to push him as a mid game or late game champion in terms of power spike. Since most games don't hit late game however, I think mid game has a lot of cases to argue for. Other than that, he still will likely play the same way until we involve his ultimate for the most part. The E's usage is obvious and situational at the same time, so I'm pretty sure anyone playing with a good head on their shoulders can figure something out. With both his revamped passive I'm suggesting and Haunting Guise, he's getting a 20% damage boost at full battle power when he chooses to buy the item. With Q's cooldown going down, he could honestly skip attack speed entirely and just go full AP and actually do better than his current self with those items. 8 second CD > 20% CDR (Teemo's normal due to Nashor's Tooth) = 6.4 second cooldown. 4 second CD > 20% CDR = 3.2 second cooldown. You are literally getting double the Q's which effectively means double the damage and a much higher overall mana cost. Almost 3 seconds is on the level of Jax tier power, but this is Teemo's only damage ability other than his passive which otherwise requires a ton of work to get going. I do not doubt an AP focused Teemo will rely heavily on mana items and/or Manaflow Band, but it is not something Teemo is a stranger to. I offset that with Move Quick cost changes and Q's base cost going down at all levels. Honestly speaking, they might still even have to nerf rank 5 Q for Teemo with this kind of rework. Anyway, if you've got input with realistic number comparisons or item comparisons, points in the game to compare this Teemo to live Teemo, etc. then please submit that instead of some broad generalizations. League has plenty of champions who don't fit some status quo people are used to seeing, and rarely will you find people be able to explain those until they do some research. Thanks for the response.
Zac x Me (NA)
: You don't even play Teemo. You have no idea how strong he is mid and late game. You just want random change for the worse.
> [{quoted}](name=Zac x Me,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=bEhaPVEM,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-08-12T21:22:30.223+0000) > > You don't even play Teemo. > You have no idea how strong he is mid and late game. > > You just want random change for the worse. Check my op.gg, I've played this champion for entire seasons prior. I also suggest you read the changes since it doesn't seem like you did that. This isn't really random change for the sake of change, and I've noticed quite the absence of Teemo in higher MMR (as I'm sure everyone else should have). He's always been a niche pick even in solo queue against competent opponents. Champion has barely even been competitively viable and that was entire seasons ago. If you've got evidence that his mid to late is actually "strong" rather than being directly countered by competent opponents with control wards and Oracle Lens, or that he somehow has a crazy winrate to offset his apparent early game weaknesses (part of which is his constantly nerfed bully power despite his lack of mobility), then please, be my guest. But I don't think you'll be convincing me any time soon if no pro player is actually spamming this champion from time to time for actual wins. This champion isn't that flexible compared to previous seasons where he had plenty of builds going for him, which all got subsequently nerfed because of champions using those builds better than Teemo as we received AD Kennen, Neeko, and Kai'Sa. Then we have indirect nerfs like Aery and other champions being able to grab Resolve much more easily than prior from rune reworks. It's not been an easy time for Teemo to cope with these changes. I'd argue Neeko and Kennen do Teemo's job better of actually bullying the opponent while keeping high build versatility and still being able to use AD items as AP champions. These champions are all more mobile and have self-peel on top of it, something Teemo dreams he could have.
: I'll try to read through it and actually comment, but FYI, the way to make one of those break lines is to type a bunch of asterisks in a row, and the way to make a bullet point is to go two lines below and type a single asterisk, then a space. Here's an in-depth guide. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/YHPBc6k3-board-formatting-101
> [{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=bEhaPVEM,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-08-12T21:14:07.004+0000) > > I'll try to read through it and actually comment, but FYI, the way to make one of those break lines is to type a bunch of asterisks in a row, and the way to make a bullet point is to go two lines below and type a single asterisk, then a space. > > Here's an in-depth guide. > > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/YHPBc6k3-board-formatting-101 Alright it took me a small while but I salvaged what I could. Thanks again.
: I'll try to read through it and actually comment, but FYI, the way to make one of those break lines is to type a bunch of asterisks in a row, and the way to make a bullet point is to go two lines below and type a single asterisk, then a space. Here's an in-depth guide. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/YHPBc6k3-board-formatting-101
> [{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=bEhaPVEM,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-08-12T21:14:07.004+0000) > > I'll try to read through it and actually comment, but FYI, the way to make one of those break lines is to type a bunch of asterisks in a row, and the way to make a bullet point is to go two lines below and type a single asterisk, then a space. > > Here's an in-depth guide. > > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/YHPBc6k3-board-formatting-101 Been needing this, I'll have to go and edit then. Thanks.
Rioter Comments
: As A Quinn main..
She previously was seen bot lane however. But her viability literally got slammed when it was already delicate. She has plenty of flaws currently like Harrier passive's strange down time and lack of selective damage (see Aatrox passive) that damage her lane phase. Q only affects first person hit even though it's a tiny skillshot and is able to express mastery when you can properly CC stacked people. On top of this, her E makes her extremely vulnerable because you are still targetable and not unstoppable. Her R is still her best feature and allows her to roam extremely well, but its limitations exist with its cast time and cooldown being horrendous for mid-fight ultimates. They honestly should really fix that. If they want Quinn to be versatile enough for bot lane without being really brought top lane, then I do suggest: 1 - Fixing her damage problems, particularly her overreliance on Harrier procs for speed bonuses AND raw damage which always scales better with lethality first item due its short trade and bursty nature. Stormrazor was also her best friend and is now a garbage item. Her ultimate doesn't even feel like an ultimate for engaging fights simply because you don't even get an enhanced Harrier proc of any sort. 2 - Fixing her E's vulnerabilities. This is her primary bullying component for top lane, so nerfing this to not force Quinn forward and making it equivalent to Vayne Condemn but Quinn retreating would make her safer to use, but most definitely a weaker bully. It'd effectively kill her lane phase's core strength in top lane while giving her a new one for an otherwise immobile ADC. 3 - Fixing R's downtime mid-fight. A successful Quinn should be using Valor more often in fights I would think, not **less**. If she's less abusive then there's no reason to believe she can't use more ultimates in a fight. Still though, as a champion like her with no in-built sustain and high crit reliance, I do think lowering her crit reliance and making her similar to Draven for raw AD scaling and in-kit attack speed boosts to sub for dps increases would make her round out as a strong 1-item champion that slowly falls off after other champions get their second or third items. Bloodthirster should be really good for her instead of relying on Blade of the Ruined King which has significantly less AD and is more for her attack speed bonus, something I've always found very confusing for the champ's role in the game.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: PLEASE REVERT GLP SO SOME CHAMPS AT LEAST CAN USE IT
Currently GLP is used by Glacial Augment rune users, and it is quite effective when considering Vel'Koz, Morgana, and such. It is most definitely still usable ever since people got used to that rune, the problem is that there are plenty champs that can't advantage of the lower cost build since it has less raw AP.
: If they commented on the well made threads, they _would_ get more attention.
Actually I'd argue that's not necessarily the case. I've had an Aatrox thread long ago get a red response (notably a complaint thread similar to what they respond to currently, unironically). That actually effectively killed the thread's discussion. Not that there was much to be had in the first place given how unpopular pre-rework Aatrox was. There's very few open lines of discussion Riot gives even when participating in threads, exception likely being rework threads we've seen before. This includes even the Teemo one which had a polarized response.
Rioter Comments
Syrile (NA)
: This Teemo rework is utter garbage. Literally took everything that made the champion what anyone thinks of as Teemo and dumpstered it. I wonder how many Teemo mains will quit League if this goes to the live patch.
Actually it's much stronger early, and it can even jungle. Problem is his late game pays a hefty price and his W is still garbage. Q is still unreliable. The E is only useful in the jungle or if the map is lit up like a fucking carnival. 40 second CD when Twitch has a superior ability.... Actually, what the hell are they even doing? Miss Fortune W > Teemo W. Twitch Q > Teemo E. Literally any mage Q > Teemo Q. His kit is always a dirt-covered mirror of already existing abilities. And the R is getting nerfed, which is the only thing he really had left. Don't get me wrong, the numbers are fucking busted on his passive (5 damage per level on-hit and situationally does 150% more overall). His lv7-8 is ridiculously strong. But the feel of the kit is bad and it falls off worse than Rek'Sai who already is horrendously good at falling off and losing despite 11-kill leads.
Riot Jag (NA)
: Teemo changes temporarily on PBE for early feedback
Teemo main here. Pretty sure nobody is gonna read this but I'm going to make an attempt at describing the changes from both positives and negatives rather than the skewed POVs I'm checking out. Well to start off, the good news. Teemo does not start with 1 ability at lv1 now. Historically his passive contributes...1 auto attack MAYBE at the start lane phase. Better hope the opponent doesn't punish you for poor spacing for that one auto or the minion wave doesn't hyper aggro. So this is actually pretty damn good. He can jungle now without feeling like aids. Pretty damn good. Even has a camo approach to ensure that he's not just simply running at the enemy and hoping to hit them. People underrate this but it's likely because Teemo is a top lane champion at the moment, and the changes to his stealth actually dumpster his potential for that lane. Reality is that it is much better everywhere else. Now for the bad news.™ This is not entirely bad, but it's pretty sizeable. Let me explain what Riot has essentially done: 1. Because Teemo has the raw power and scaling of his passive, and the on-hit portion of his passive caps out EXTREMELY EARLY (5 per level, so he only needs to be lv8), he basically is one the biggest stat sticks in the game right now for early to mid transition if this were to ship. 2. Early stats matter the most in which lane? That's right. Support. Pick/ban tier like Pyke support. You do not actually want to fight a champion like this that basically only needs Nashor's Tooth and can burst you for well over half your health as a support, from stealth. Teemo support was already somewhat viable, but this basically makes him an actual threat you don't want to face. I'd argue most of the changes buff Teemo support exclusively. Let's move onto interactions. I'd like Riot and the community to realize that Q Blind is still garbage after testing. Seriously, it cannot stop attacks in motion, but this is 9/10 times the case in which a Teemo will use it. It certainly removes the counterplay if it's instant, but Teemo is not gaining any late game power here, in fact it's getting directly nerfed *twice*. The duration has always been far too low. Change it so that the Blind timer doesn't start until the champion/monster has AA'd **upon Blind's hit.** This forces them to be CC'd by slamming that right click first before moving forward at the very least. A separate max duration would then have to be added if they chose not to aggro with AA, which should still be less than 3 seconds across all Q ranks. Even if this will make the CD sensible, I require that Riot change monsters so that they return to using normal attack motions when Blinded, since they bug out every time you Blind them (do not show attack motions anymore). Toxic Shot empowered attacks are kinda broken. I have no idea why it's there actually since it basically makes Teemo have +1 level to on-hit scaling compared to live. This is immensely powerful to have at any point in the game, and with enough attack speed + Guinsoo timing, Teemo will be doing essentially 3x the damage on that auto. And shrooms give 3 seconds of opportunity for this? **This sounds like hotfix nerf level of damage and garbage winrate.** For a simple champ no less. All without Q being an auto reset, which honestly feels balanced but in gameplay feels garbage since you miss timing if you auto Q auto too fast early. 4 second duration poison is still trash, still empowers Grasp to the enemy if they use it, and prevents interaction via tower. Shorten this useless garbage to 2 seconds. Aery interaction has needed nerfs for ages since it makes Teemo hurt like an Electrocute user early game. This was why Thunderlord's previously was nerfed when his single auto proc'd it, so why are we allowing it again? Mana regen + mana buff would be better to have on live to address that Q max is straight up weaker in lane simply because E doesn't scale and you run yourself dry of mana even with manaflow. It seems Riot noticed that in playtesting with the new Teemo, but this isn't that different from live Teemo in that regard. New E is basically sudden impact bait, and Electrocute Teemo is a lot stronger for it. This is good for the Teemo but feelsbad for everyone else. He's basically the early game Twitch. People are partially downplaying this because they lost the permastealth, but I'm with the opinion that this has always been trollbait for a passive. It has saved my life recently in a past game actually, but I'd rather Teemo have a more dominant lane, which this update partially does. However, the self-slow only makes sense thematically. In-game it feels like trash because you can't do much with it, like everyone else has said thus far. Lastly, shrooms are not changed. Adding their max count does not change them. I'm just going to be blunt. There are no explanations needed, but let me grace you with this: Why does shroom count held matter? The CD of these shrooms when Teemo is on the defensive matters WAY more. Nerfing their damage doesn't affect Liandry's synergy and all it does mean is that now he'll need 2 shrooms instead of one, which you're basically giving via auto's if he's actually able to attack the enemy. --- My closing argument here involves the fact that Teemo W was left untouched and his shrooms basically as well. Miss Fortune W: Attack speed, godlike MS, 10 less mana, 12 sec CD, completely refreshes godlike movement speed until hit again, meaning it can be saved until then unless DoT applied. Teemo W: Movement speed that goes away when any champion gets on you or even pokes you, which include mages. Enables passive again but slightly stronger for 3 seconds, does not cleanse slows (which many top laners have), 17 sec CD. Costs 40 mana. Why was this left as is? This doesn't even ensure trades necessarily because it's actually one of the smallest MS boosts in the game at rank 1. Ignoring any changes I could suggest (I want to suggest a lot of possibilities that involve higher MS but lower duration), this lack of change pretty much tells me that Riot has no idea how Teemo trades and has relegated it entirely to E+Q. This only exists because W is on such a long cooldown that we can't force trades using raw MS, not because Teemo doesn't want to go for those trades. The fact that Move Quick doesn't get rid of the self-slow on Teemo via stealth makes little sense to me as well. This ability arguably needed the strongest power budget adjustment and nothing happened. As for shrooms, they cost too much damn mana to be spamming anywhere. This is a problem late game with no blue buff if Teemo is on the defending team, but Teemo has already lost so much power at that point due to {{item:3364}} and champions with vastly superior scaling. This problem is made worse by the nerfs. He already has low waveclear without these shrooms, but sometimes this is how late game Teemo even saves the game. Lifesteal exists to prevent half HP targets sieging from being helpless, oh look {{item:3139}} an item that screws everything I'd like to do to an ADC. More importantly, THESE SHROOMS DO NOT HAVE A MULTI-MAN PRIORITY FOR DETONATION RADIUS. Minions are one thing, but 3 champs clustering and the shroom can't even explode in that teamfight because nobody stepped directly on it? Are you fucking serious? Boost the damn detection radius when multiple enemies are nearby. If you want to nerf "half health squishies" for reasons like "unfairness" then please nerf the maximum duration of the shrooms along with adding the max shroom count. It's the enemy's fault for standing in the wave if they get hit there. Cost also needs to go down. You have no hard CC on this champion. You contribute nothing but damage in most teamfights. Don't nerf the one thing he's good at late game. Overall it was a nice attempt but try harder at least to understand how Teemo wins games in isolation rather than running purely off of w/r. This Teemo rework is too hypercharged early and pays for it late game like Rek'Sai (another trash champ that has godlike early but loses in the end anyway). Core interactions were almost entirely ignored in favor of "power transfer."
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: January 18
I find the issue to be low differentiation with actual niches split across champion potential in a nonspecific pattern, creating a "scaling comp always wins" problem we used to have almost exclusively on the ADC line back in season 5. Every other lane NEEDED a good early game performance to even be half-relevant and otherwise was forced into farming scenarios. Compare Rek'Sai to Vi to Xin Zhao and you will see the same kit reiterated in different ways, the next one being stronger than the previous one with the "competitive niche" being almost entirely based on preference and not ACTUAL kit strength, meaning that the latter is always stronger when given the same situations. This is especially the case when in teamfights. The problem is...A LOT OF FIGHTERS have this issue. Whole class is flawed because we still don't know what an AD caster is if it's not an assassin. Doesn't help that a lot of them rely on auto-attacks rather randomly. And another problem I've seen is that items are far too focused on scaling as early as humanly imaginable. What did we do to address this? INCREASE COST. How did that affect things? Didn't affect anything but the timer. The snowball and its equivalents are the SAME because the items are the SAME. Power budget on champions across the board has been absurd, and we started to see this with Galio as the prime example of how this game was overemphasizing scaling. The rise of his tank build which was super HP heavy and had hyper damage reduction, the fall when it didn't do enough damage, and then the rise of AP Galio who does so much damage in a short and guaranteed way when he gets in range that it defeats his competition unless he just doesn't have the numbers. Jesus. I don't like the direction that's being planned for crit items similarly because, unlike bruisers, crit was almost exclusively designed for a class of characters(ADCs) to kick ass with multiple crit items in tow. Rushing crit items used to be viable as a first item. Why are crit items not the main emphasis of a DPS class? Their effects are practically underwhelming for the cost they pay and they rely on AD more than the crit itself because the champions have no crit modifiers. Kindred is literally the only exception, and it's a minor exception. Historically ADCs have rushed BF swords after farming extensively in a slow lane phase and went for the heavy AD IE purchase, with the scaling champions going for Runaan's/Shiv when that was a viable first item. Strong AD early, crit later. Alternatively, strong initial crit item, AD later. BF swords are SLIGHTLY cheaper and crit is more expensive now as a whole. It means ADCs won't scale properly even if they can have a strong initial spike via Stormrazor, which has effectively replaced Shiv's position but is an inferior version of both it and IE as a first item, with cost being its only main advantage. C'mon, you guys wasted the entire preseason and aren't spouting creative fixes or using history to motivate observations (which motivate solutions by proxy).
: Actually its more balanced in a way bait out the blind then there u go 12 secs on farming back to u (minus the blind time) nasus can q 2 times i think (havent played him much) hes meant to make hell on top laners if u increase his cd then winning is more realistic idk why u would want to try to fight a ranged lane bully head on so early meant to raise hard hell on 1v1 setting early. In other words u will farm better if u manage that higher cd.
If you weren't aware, the Pantheon matchup would be entirely skewed to the Pantheon's favor because Teemo wouldn't be able to walk up like...at all. Many people haven't played Teemo so I know they don't understand all the matchups, but things like Ornn and Pantheon completely destroy the Teemo player for misplaying even once or having a bad wave.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > Hilariously incorrect. You've yet to debunk how your juggernaut reference is irrelevant and actually proceed to dodge anything that makes it feel irrelevant, like say, the majority of the design complaints in the post that completely obscure any relevant posts over balancing Skarner (and other juggernauts for that matter). I'm sorry, but if my juggernaut reference is "irrelevant", wouldn't it be up to _you_ to prove that? It doesn't seem like you understand how burden of proof works. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > It is not a personal accusation at all, but you're receiving it that way because of blanketing. It is talking about the problem behind your declarations, not you as a person outside of the portions that actually do talk about you as a person. Except literally the entire paragraph you made had strictly no relevance to the topic at hand, and instead attacked my character. If you have a problem with the things I'm saying, then perhaps stick to that, instead of going on yet another tirade about how I'm this evil person or whatever. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > I will go over the process more in-depth so that you can stop with this banter of declaring yourself to be correct and me being incorrect, since your dynamic lacks an actual focus on the topic itself for the majority. You also don't know how to condense a topic and represent it repeatedly in different manners, making your posts redundant and ever longer for no gain. It becomes draining for both sides, which you evidently don't see or care about in a discussion. I will show you a structural example that you may use regardless of its contents of information. I am telling you with the intention that will stop your *actual* wordy posts that try too hard to address things on minute details without drawing back on the bigger picture (which is what even encourages those tangents subconsciously). Interesting that you would try to lecture me about conciseness and relevance to the main topic of discussion in a bloated paragraph that possesses neither quality. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > Sure, let's say that's my mistake. But that doesn't really change its irrelevance toward the matter simply because the truth of the statement is that they do not even represent a major *fraction* of even these boards. Yet you mention them as though they matter. Very nice of you, but not something worth mentioning. So you've implicitly admitted that you are wrong, and that these people exist, rendering your entire line of argumentation across this entire thread moot. QED. Trying to change the discussion on whether or not these people matter will not change this fact. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > I am extremely stubborn when it comes to talking with people, especially because I believe in the idea of conversing with anyone regardless of conflicting ideals. However, that's not relevant to the topic and you will proceed to bounce back and forth like a child whenever anything is mentioned about you, but somehow declare it to be bad when I talk about it. I say it to be brief and voice my discontent at your behavior, not to dedicate actual entire posts to it like you already have. You are way too thorough on something you cannot even be thorough about, since you don't know a damn thing about me. I don't need to know you personally, you give away much of yourself already. In this instance, for example, you have yourself admitted to extreme stubbornness, which would explain why you've attempted to argue a point you've lost many posts back. You have also admitted on numerous occasions to lying and falling back on dishonest tactics, while making a whole bunch of hypocritical accusations. For example, you claim that I'm not concise enough and don't spend enough time on the main topic (both of which are lies), while simultaneously writing paragraph upon paragraph of discussion revolving exclusively around attacking my character or defending yours. Similarly, you accuse me of lashing out at you (after I said the same of you, mind), yet of us two, I was not the one to have my comment removed just because of how spiteful its contents were. Your accusations are but hollow reflections of the legitimate criticisms I've levied at your posts, criticisms that are being validated with every post you make. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > "Timeline of Juggernaut update" > > This is basic logical pattern I am using. I'm going to simplify it as humanly hard as possible as I stated I would before on a comment that was removed: > > Skarner rework > frustration over rework > negativity remains over rework affecting balance feedback by reducing its effectiveness > shown by thread participants in archive. > > I AM WORKING UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THIS IS CORRECT INFORMATION. Then why use Stonewall's video as an example of how he felt _after_ being released on Live, or even just after his buffs? Again, not only do you offer strictly no justification for this narrative you're inventing, your attempts at doing so do nothing to disguise the fact that you have been proven categorically wrong on the matter. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > If frustration over the rework is blatant due to overlapping negativity of gameplay problems AND design issues, the focus of design issues will be pushed MORESO than gameplay issues. If gameplay issues are not fixed well enough, a champion will be overbuffed to cover these. Why? Why does frustration on a champion's design have to entail overtuning them? Once again, you're trying to invent a narrative here that makes strictly no sense here. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > IF CHAMPION IS OVERBUFFED, that does not mean that the wrong fixes were applied. Sometimes it's because a middle number wasn't reached, or a prior fix was not placed into consideration over whether it fixed a champion's problems enough so that numbers would not be necessary. If the "middle number" is the actual fix, then by definition overbuffing champions is not fixing them. Your point holds no water. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > WITH THIS IN MIND, a playerbase focused entirely on design complaints is rendered unable to think about all balance woes and proper implementation in the game in a dedicated, motivated and civil manner. The few who were capable were obscured and it resulted in limited feedback REGARDLESS due to it being a minority, not even having to include the fact that PBE is a minority playerbase as it is already. Once again, all of the verbiage you've just dumped can resume itself to just one sentence: by your rationale, players who focused on design criticism, rather than balance criticism, are at fault for the Juggernaut Update, because Riot didn't have many direct references to work with and overtuned champions as a result. As mentioned numerous times above, that reasoning simply does not work, as ultimately Riot made the final decision, and should not have conflated balance with design, unlike you. Repeating yourself will not make you any less wrong on the matter. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > IT IS NOT ABOUT WHO IS AT FAULT. It is about what the major complaints were. YOU ARE USING THE ENTIRETY OF THE UPDATE regardless of this chain of logic, even using it to your own ends to slander Riot over not listening to the playerbase over what was essentially a doomed update to begin with. This is NOT EXCLUSIVELY due to player opinions, but if you are asking for people to help you with something, SANDBAGS ARE NOT HELPFUL. BALANCE IS THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THIS THREAD. BALANCE WAS NOT THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THE JUGGERNAUT UPDATE. World's is where it was, and it had to go through this unfortunate chain of events that all happened in an EXTREMELY SHORT amount of time. Repeating yourself in screamy capital letters will, once again, not make you any less wrong. It is hypocritical to say that "it is not about who is at fault" after devoting a multi-paragraph explanation of why you think the PBE playerbase is responsible for overtuning juggernauts, and it is strange that you would conflate balance and design then, yet acknowledge the two as separate in a context where that difference is not relevant. The problem here may be not so much that you implicitly conflate balance and design, but that you choose to do so when it suits you, which is arguably worse.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-08-08T15:49:13.780+0000) > > Except I've provided evidence to support my claims. Our entire discussion on the Juggernaut Update and PBE player feedback is proof that you yourself are aware of it. It is not particularly mature to feign ignorance on a matter you yourself have implicitly acknowledged already. One who does not know how to clarify his own evidence is thinking inside his own head and assumes that others are thinking within this pattern, predicting and somehow being aware of one's own thoughts. This might be reflective of why you constantly assume everything to be right/wrong in a rather black/white fashion, but it shapes how you're being rather nonresponsive when it comes to presenting your own opinions and ideas in a much more structured and consistent fashion. You should not have to constantly refer yourself to other posts you have made without actually having to clarify what you are saying and why you are saying it. The presentation of your "ref to evidence" otherwise comes off as conjecture, unlike what I present which is an easy generalization that could be as easy to prove as it would be to debunk because of how broad I was being. I was and still am that confident about the information, which actually puts the burden of proof in your hands. With such a ridiculous claim, it can be proved or disproved just by reading and stating specific observations. That's the core reason why I have no need to defend myself and say you haven't really done much. > So the fact that many players have taken the time to give feedback on a champion is evidence that they are "unmotivated"? Yes, I'm sure that it speaks very well to your narrative of my "evil whims." Being motivated for one task does not mean you're motivated for another. This is fact. I don't know how you interact with people but "blaming people" and "claiming fault" are two different things. If we talk about preventative measures, it still falls under someone to do SOMETHING. If there was really an adequate drive to solve juggernauts instead of reject them, I don't think that update would have went as bad as it did. This undoubtedly is an opinion, but that much you should be aware of. It's an opinion constantly floating around. And you can't kill an idea. > Emotional what now? Working on your sociopathy I see. If you don't have something meaningful to give, why include it in your quote list? OCD? I submit what I think matters for discussion, not proceeding on a machine gun of negativity/put downs/whatever you will call it. It's not perfect but I certainly cut it off as much as possible after some point. > I'm not switching positions whatsoever, You are switching MY position with regard to what I am saying it and when I am saying it. There are even times where you are making the statement reflective of something I'm not even talking about. I'm pretty sure if I went into a tangent over a post but gave a quote for it, you would be genuinely baffled as to what I'd be getting at only because you are focused on reacting on singular topics and me quoting you. Where is the critical thinking happening? > I'm not sure if you're aware of this, SirLapse, but people don't normally lose all sense of reason for days at a time just because they're upset, and in fact most people don't get continuously upset for days at a time. Your argument here is based on a very warped mentality, and as such is critically flawed. Warped mentality? You must not be aware of what kind of posts people are capable of. I see my assessment of your blind trust was correct, as you pride others much too highly on their capacities. We're only human and "this is just a game." It is very easy to justify anger without logic/remorse continuously to this game. Visible even in your feedback link. And Riot reading that, how can you confidently say they did the best they could? Statistically people do WORSE with constant criticism. > If that is the case, then you are confusing what _is_ and what _ought_ to be. Just because Riot overtuned juggernauts in view of design feedback does not mean that is the course of action that should have been taken, much less the players' responsibility. But I never said that? In fact that post even tells you straight up that I'm not telling you what *should* have happened. Where do you get these notions from my context when it is directly there in front of you that I'm saying the opposite? If you have the potential person to make that one change, it is always going to be remembered as a missed opportunity if that person never speaks. The obscurity of well-thought posts created this impact. There is no way that the playerbase made things *easier*. It's not a fault that matters in the long run since we're already still playing this game in 2018. But it definitely matters with regard to Riot's capacity to receive good input and their willingness to consider it. Refer to Riot & playerbase in 2015 and what do we get as a comparison? A dilemma unlike the Akali rework in 2018 because mentalities have hugely shifted. Hotfixes were rarely common even after Skarner. It was the LACK of change that was the problem, now it is TOO MUCH change. > Where exactly did I say this? Please point to any part of my comments that claimed PBE players actively called for nerfs. >...In neither case am I actually talking about players giving feedback on balance or design, I'm talking about how part of the playerbase perceives other players, including PBE players, to be terrible at balancing, and so in part due to the Juggernaut Update. You really do only react based on quotes and make assumptions like these as though I am explicitly saying that "you are saying x." Unless I am explicitly saying that you are creating an idea, saying something or I am quoting you, **I am not actually speaking with any regard to what you purely said. I do not revolve around you.** You can easily read back (funny notion but I suggest it) and see that I do not even imply what you're saying. The post was about player competency, not "you said they said x." I have no idea how you even get these conclusions unless you only refer to me quote by quote in an isolating fashion. That for sure would amaze me. > Except neither have. Up until now, Riot has hot-fixed buff new champions on an almost routine basis, despite the negative results those created, and the playerbase blamed the Boards each time. Moreover, the myth that PBE players are responsible for overtuning the juggernauts still persists to this day. There you go again declaring that a small set of people = "the playerbase." It's a generally true statement because they play the game, but it's not a "real" truth in the sense that many people see it that way. It's a falsehood hidden behind a partial truth, and it does create a narrative whether you intended for it or not. And it was no myth that buffs were asked for, seen even within that PBE thread you linked. Mostly applies to Skarner, not Morde who broke the game. I already mentioned the dynamic so it's really up to you as how "core" negativity was with regard to said buffs vs. people coming right out and saying it. And crucial to note, the latter isn't the only way people receive feedback. > You seem to be confusing the word "hindsight" with the word "anachronism". We are certainly both using hindsight to evaluate the chronology of the Juggernaut Update, but you are trying to create a narrative that relies on these events being out of sequence, which makes strictly no sense. >You're skipping a few steps though, and deliberately so... It's out of sequence how exactly? I'm stuck responding to you so I'm not constantly restating it. Are you sure it's not you who is not keeping proper track of it? Skarner rework > negativity collecting > PBE feedback limited. Stonewall video reflective of discontent. Your own thread linked was used as the ending portion of that small timeline. Reddit thread used as a primary gauge for the uncertainty behind juggernauts. The only significantly visual opinion of them was that they were strong in general or in x situation. Otherwise I gauged live and how it boiled up to World's, an event that was pretty spaced out from the reworks and had plenty of time to get fixed (even in hindsight). I didn't adjust dates or even mention them, using the context with the assumption you'd correlate the reference to the specific date. Disappointingly you did not. If you were going to say I'm out of order in any regard, USE ACTUAL DATES. It should be common sense that you're not supposed to drone on about anything other than the facts if the problem is with the facts themselves. Anyway to conclude, the entire way that patch was handled was much worse vs. present day. The playerbase did not have *enough* potential to fix it at the time, nor did Riot really give that potential after Skarner. This is Akali. The situation is blatantly different. It would be superior to refer to threads about not hotfixing, not juggernaut patch which only promoted one specific hotfix and no major changes, the direct opposite of "frequent hotfixes." It even had the obvious premise of being before world's "so we can't drastically change the game." They shouldn't even be placed on the same level for how player feedback is/was received. God bless and have a nice day.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > Hilariously incorrect. You've yet to debunk how your juggernaut reference is irrelevant and actually proceed to dodge anything that makes it feel irrelevant, like say, the majority of the design complaints in the post that completely obscure any relevant posts over balancing Skarner (and other juggernauts for that matter). I'm sorry, but if my juggernaut reference is "irrelevant", wouldn't it be up to _you_ to prove that? It doesn't seem like you understand how burden of proof works. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > It is not a personal accusation at all, but you're receiving it that way because of blanketing. It is talking about the problem behind your declarations, not you as a person outside of the portions that actually do talk about you as a person. Except literally the entire paragraph you made had strictly no relevance to the topic at hand, and instead attacked my character. If you have a problem with the things I'm saying, then perhaps stick to that, instead of going on yet another tirade about how I'm this evil person or whatever. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > I will go over the process more in-depth so that you can stop with this banter of declaring yourself to be correct and me being incorrect, since your dynamic lacks an actual focus on the topic itself for the majority. You also don't know how to condense a topic and represent it repeatedly in different manners, making your posts redundant and ever longer for no gain. It becomes draining for both sides, which you evidently don't see or care about in a discussion. I will show you a structural example that you may use regardless of its contents of information. I am telling you with the intention that will stop your *actual* wordy posts that try too hard to address things on minute details without drawing back on the bigger picture (which is what even encourages those tangents subconsciously). Interesting that you would try to lecture me about conciseness and relevance to the main topic of discussion in a bloated paragraph that possesses neither quality. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > Sure, let's say that's my mistake. But that doesn't really change its irrelevance toward the matter simply because the truth of the statement is that they do not even represent a major *fraction* of even these boards. Yet you mention them as though they matter. Very nice of you, but not something worth mentioning. So you've implicitly admitted that you are wrong, and that these people exist, rendering your entire line of argumentation across this entire thread moot. QED. Trying to change the discussion on whether or not these people matter will not change this fact. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > I am extremely stubborn when it comes to talking with people, especially because I believe in the idea of conversing with anyone regardless of conflicting ideals. However, that's not relevant to the topic and you will proceed to bounce back and forth like a child whenever anything is mentioned about you, but somehow declare it to be bad when I talk about it. I say it to be brief and voice my discontent at your behavior, not to dedicate actual entire posts to it like you already have. You are way too thorough on something you cannot even be thorough about, since you don't know a damn thing about me. I don't need to know you personally, you give away much of yourself already. In this instance, for example, you have yourself admitted to extreme stubbornness, which would explain why you've attempted to argue a point you've lost many posts back. You have also admitted on numerous occasions to lying and falling back on dishonest tactics, while making a whole bunch of hypocritical accusations. For example, you claim that I'm not concise enough and don't spend enough time on the main topic (both of which are lies), while simultaneously writing paragraph upon paragraph of discussion revolving exclusively around attacking my character or defending yours. Similarly, you accuse me of lashing out at you (after I said the same of you, mind), yet of us two, I was not the one to have my comment removed just because of how spiteful its contents were. Your accusations are but hollow reflections of the legitimate criticisms I've levied at your posts, criticisms that are being validated with every post you make. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > "Timeline of Juggernaut update" > > This is basic logical pattern I am using. I'm going to simplify it as humanly hard as possible as I stated I would before on a comment that was removed: > > Skarner rework > frustration over rework > negativity remains over rework affecting balance feedback by reducing its effectiveness > shown by thread participants in archive. > > I AM WORKING UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THIS IS CORRECT INFORMATION. Then why use Stonewall's video as an example of how he felt _after_ being released on Live, or even just after his buffs? Again, not only do you offer strictly no justification for this narrative you're inventing, your attempts at doing so do nothing to disguise the fact that you have been proven categorically wrong on the matter. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > If frustration over the rework is blatant due to overlapping negativity of gameplay problems AND design issues, the focus of design issues will be pushed MORESO than gameplay issues. If gameplay issues are not fixed well enough, a champion will be overbuffed to cover these. Why? Why does frustration on a champion's design have to entail overtuning them? Once again, you're trying to invent a narrative here that makes strictly no sense here. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > IF CHAMPION IS OVERBUFFED, that does not mean that the wrong fixes were applied. Sometimes it's because a middle number wasn't reached, or a prior fix was not placed into consideration over whether it fixed a champion's problems enough so that numbers would not be necessary. If the "middle number" is the actual fix, then by definition overbuffing champions is not fixing them. Your point holds no water. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > WITH THIS IN MIND, a playerbase focused entirely on design complaints is rendered unable to think about all balance woes and proper implementation in the game in a dedicated, motivated and civil manner. The few who were capable were obscured and it resulted in limited feedback REGARDLESS due to it being a minority, not even having to include the fact that PBE is a minority playerbase as it is already. Once again, all of the verbiage you've just dumped can resume itself to just one sentence: by your rationale, players who focused on design criticism, rather than balance criticism, are at fault for the Juggernaut Update, because Riot didn't have many direct references to work with and overtuned champions as a result. As mentioned numerous times above, that reasoning simply does not work, as ultimately Riot made the final decision, and should not have conflated balance with design, unlike you. Repeating yourself will not make you any less wrong on the matter. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:08:01.783+0000) > > IT IS NOT ABOUT WHO IS AT FAULT. It is about what the major complaints were. YOU ARE USING THE ENTIRETY OF THE UPDATE regardless of this chain of logic, even using it to your own ends to slander Riot over not listening to the playerbase over what was essentially a doomed update to begin with. This is NOT EXCLUSIVELY due to player opinions, but if you are asking for people to help you with something, SANDBAGS ARE NOT HELPFUL. BALANCE IS THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THIS THREAD. BALANCE WAS NOT THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THE JUGGERNAUT UPDATE. World's is where it was, and it had to go through this unfortunate chain of events that all happened in an EXTREMELY SHORT amount of time. Repeating yourself in screamy capital letters will, once again, not make you any less wrong. It is hypocritical to say that "it is not about who is at fault" after devoting a multi-paragraph explanation of why you think the PBE playerbase is responsible for overtuning juggernauts, and it is strange that you would conflate balance and design then, yet acknowledge the two as separate in a context where that difference is not relevant. The problem here may be not so much that you implicitly conflate balance and design, but that you choose to do so when it suits you, which is arguably worse.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T11:31:52.671+0000) > > I'm sorry, but if my juggernaut reference is "irrelevant", wouldn't it be up to _you_ to prove that? It doesn't seem like you understand how burden of proof works. You presented the claim as though there was evidence to speak for it. My argument is that you have no evidence to prove it is relevant. And in this discussion, you have proven that you are incapable of being mature enough to even present the simplest of evidence toward your claims. There is not even a single reference to something that resembles the evidence you argue that you somehow have by linking the thread you gave. Oh, sorry. There is if you make a gigantic, oversimplified generalization of it by declaring them to be "complaints not listened to." I'm referring to the majority of those posts here Teridax. If you go read reddit, that very link you gave, the youtube video I gave, etc. you will find similar complaints of the same degree regardless of it being a feedback thread. By nature of the process I gave, naturally that means balance is inhibited by an unmotivated, unsatisfied community that has built up negativity and nothing really there to filter in the best possible information, especially on a public setting. > Interesting that you would try to lecture me about conciseness and relevance to the main topic of discussion in a bloated paragraph that possesses neither quality. Bloated? More like loaded. It is a compilation of the mess of posts that have accumulated thus far. That is about as concise as you can get without dipping the actual value. But I can see your apathy in the face of that and it puts to question if you feign concern over any topic if you cannot see the emotional value of a post. > So you've implicitly admitted that you are wrong, and that these people exist, rendering your entire line of argumentation across this entire thread moot. QED. Trying to change the discussion on whether or not these people matter will not change this fact. For the sake of your narrative yes. Situationally I would be wrong, except I wasn't wrong within the context you used. You always switch positions for what I'm referring to and assume it's a response to what *you* are referring to. It's like you're talking with yourself rather than me talking to you. I thought it'd be much easier to admit wrong somewhere to appease you, but it seems that you're only in this for the personal satisfaction and self-validation. And that's not in my jurisdiction to be fixing or addressing past this point. > Then why use Stonewall's video as an example of how he felt _after_ being released on Live, or even just after his buffs? So you're saying that you've immediately gotten over all forms of negativity in your life, and that everyone else you know has done so, and that board members even here have done so within 6 days? Within 6 months? The point in this is about the general idea of how the complaints existed before balancing ever started. It is what allows the response I am making to you; the fact that the design choice largely motivated those complaints. Yet here you are using it as a reference to a balancing thread...it is inappropriate to say the least of it. > Why? Why does frustration on a champion's design have to entail overtuning them? Once again, you're trying to invent a narrative here that makes strictly no sense here. Why does it? I'm not here to tell you that it *should* Teridax. But that's exactly how it happened. My entire point is that you're using a narrative that implies the community was actively trying to stop something like that, when their concerns were quite literally focused on everything BUT balance until World's hit. Generalizing the entire topic demeans the value of this occurrence, because both the community and Riot learned from it, though obviously we cannot say how much was learned on either side. It doesn't need to make logical sense, since it's all history now. Humans have made irrational decisions multiple times in history, and this is no different. > If the "middle number" is the actual fix, then by definition overbuffing champions is not fixing them. Your point holds no water. Do you remember the word hindsight? I was using it toward that end. Balance is sometimes not achieved from something as simple as that middle number, but sometimes it is. I am not declaring what the specific issue was, since there are nigh infinite opportunities to balance a champion based on these values. > Once again, all of the verbiage you've just dumped can resume itself to just one sentence: by your rationale, players who focused on design criticism, rather than balance criticism, are at fault for the Juggernaut Update, because Riot didn't have many direct references to work with and overtuned champions as a result. As mentioned numerous times above, that reasoning simply does not work, as ultimately Riot made the final decision, and should not have conflated balance with design, unlike you. Repeating yourself will not make you any less wrong on the matter. They are not at fault for the Juggernaut update, only the complaints that led to the overtuning itself. The update was plagued by numerous issues, but the key here is not just that the players were at fault for (what was at the time) an expected response. It's that they didn't have real usable feedback with regard to pre-release and even moreso didn't have suggestions to put these champions on a better level of balance. When Mordekaiser could no longer solo lane and he didn't work out as a champion, we saw complaints for this and attempts at fixes for this. But where were most of these complaints for Skarner, for Garen? For those that had functional kits but needed fine tuned numbers somewhere in their kit/character? These kinds of statements cannot be summarized into one sentence for your own convenience. That is a put down inherently to the other person's statements. As I stated already, the community is certainly trying here for Akali. That does not mean it was the case during the Juggernaut update for that time period even if it is reflected as a time period that players were not really listened to. > **and it is strange that you would conflate balance and design then, yet acknowledge the two as separate in a context where that difference is not relevant.** When the primary acting mechanism of my response is dependent on which word is being used and for what reason, that is a pretty huge declaration to be making. If you make a complaint about the amount of sugar in your tea, this is an ultra-specific complaint dedicated to making yourself have good tea. The problem is with how the tea was made. If you want to make adjustments, knowing how the tea was made and knowing what affects taste allows you to figure out what is best for you. You cannot have the same tea if everything is not consistent however. If you make a complaint because you received tea at all, then arguably no tea is good enough. A customer has the right to choose what they want to drink unless it is out of stock. But it is undeniable that these are two different arguments that only act under the same platform that "something must be served to the customer." If you make a balance complaint, you want a champion that fundamentally acts the same but is being applied in a different way. This can be an improvement for the benefit of the player, or just a movement of numbers to support a playstyle. You are not essentially asking for a different champion, but if you want to contribute significantly, you need to check the amount of information you currently possess and work under some assumptions if you change those very numbers. And like with the tea, you need consistency. If you make a design complaint, you want a different champion essentially. Everything above has basically been tossed out the door in favor of wanting that different champion. These ARE NOT the same kinds of complaints. Even you had to agree that design shifts were desirable for Garen, and Skarner's reception was one of the worst this game has ever seen. But what cannot be ignored is that these complaints are not like "fixing the tea." There was not much given with regard to balance for the juggernauts, and the playerbase was not actively there to figure out why or how to fix it. The Akali complaint is similar to the balancing complaints we've seen for other champions. Overbuffing before people figure out the champion in specific. This is not the same kind of complaint as the Juggernaut update, yet is the foothold of your narrative. I'm sure you haven't forgotten what you typed in the opening response to this thread. By deeming that the difference is not relevant, you've effectively misunderstood the grand majority of these posts. You've jumped to accusing me of lying when you don't even know what lying is (which is an intentionally false statement, which literally has set the tone between you and me for months), declared posts incoherent/incorrect when you don't even truly know or understand the angle of approach, and even went so far as to say that I'm typing to conflate to topics when the ENTIRE set of responses was set on SEPARATING the two and making it known that you are in fact the one conflating it to fit your narrative. People make mistakes all the time Teridax. But not only are you averse to thinking you've made mistakes (which tells me from experience that you might be self-conscious about it), you also are quick to judge others. I greatly suggest that you consider setting out some time to go to group talks and boost your experience of speaking with others. God bless you and have a nice day.
: But my proposal would be reverting just the base aspect, not the % scaling So it would be 100/150/200/250/300 (+ 9 / 11 / 13 / 15 / 17% maximum health) if my proposed change went through. Which would be a sizable buff early and an awesome level 9 from 65 / 70 / 75 / 80 / 85. That's over triple the current value you get at lvl 9 by maxing W. After one clear, you'd have 80 more shield than you do currently (level 4 or lvl 3 if you go for a macro clear [as you get 2 levels in W by lvl 3]). Short term, you would have a slightly weaker clear than the PBE change, however it would rapidly become redundant due to the sheer size of the base shield
Wouldn't that just be grossly overbuffing Nautilus unlike the other tanks who are getting rather...modest changes? Runes defensively are garbage so the overbuff makes sense in the short term, but I think that's pretty extreme to just give to a champion straight up. You're talking about a 150 health shield at lv1. You literally cannot trade against that, hell your minion wave won't even matter.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > Telling people that it's a net buff by showing some of the simplest examples and asking for actual input in today's Nautilus match-ups is a purely malicious intent of a post. I can see it now. Except, as pointed out above, and as indicated by your very own post, that's not what you set out to do. You cited only the vaguest and most tangential of examples as a veneer to dump on the thread's original poster, with the large part of your post's volume dedicated entirely to putting them down. You did not come here with good intentions, you just came here to fight. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > You really need to improve your public speaking and writing skills to college level. Get your stuff edited and ask for someone to at least double check how you're going about these posts. It really feels you're not trying to consult anyone over your approaches and therefore deem yourself correct AND free of malice in your posts. It's not the case. Interesting, because trying to dodge pertinent questions via personal attacks is a debating tactic that doesn't fly past middle school. You might want to catch up. Once again, again, what exactly have you done to substantiate your claims here? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > Go back to school. It shouldn't be hard to realize what I'm saying if you actually studied. You always try to make yourself look the most competent when speaking to me, the least you can do is actually study up to compete with me directly. Education is one of the most important parts of life. So effectively, your word salad translates to nothing coherent, and was an attempt at trying to obfuscate the one person you are talking to by trying (and failing) to sound smarter than your ability allows. Good to know! > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > Anyway to clarify the post in "simplistic" terms: A post that shows value is one that takes into account ALL or ANY effective usages of the current edition vs. the new edition of the skill. If it is bad in a matchup, where are the numbers to dictate that? There's no value in that compared to a post that actually submits this kind of thing. I already showcased the value in the jungle, and blocking over 2 auto's without accounting for minion response is already a shield that is sizeable but undoubtedly will not last 10 seconds ever still. So basically, if one has to make a general point, one also has to provide general evidence? Was that so hard to write down? Also, for that matter, have you tried applying this logic to your own post? Once again, your one example discussed Nautilus's jungling, so you're not exactly making a general statement either. Moreover, the OP wasn't either, as they specifically focused on his laning. Because of this, you have entirely missed the point of the thread. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > This is an established pattern of logical thinking where a person is at least **supposed** to run the numbers in their head and compare them to real situations. And you're showcasing very blatantly that you've never done that. Just like with Cassiopeia lmao. It is interesting that you presume that I have a stake in this debate. I don't, and anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension should have been able to see this in my comments. My opinion on Nautilus and his change is largely neutral. In fact, I'm in favor of the duration and cooldown reduction, because I don't personally believe shields should last that long. At no point have I contradicted you on your assessment of his jungling, so it is rather telling that you would automatically act so defensive on every front. As I recall, you did this in the Cassiopeia thread as well, which is why you ended up stretching yourself far too thin. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > I still do challenge you. You can be more than this one-dimensional person launching posts just to declare someone wrong because you didn't like how it was said. You don't have to like someone's method of saying something, but it shouldn't be influencing the correctness of the facts laid down. Interesting that you would think of a person as "one-dimensional" simply because they dared to correct you. As it stands, this isn't a matter of me liking how your post was said, it was pointed out that your post addressed in no way what the OP said, and was only a thinly-disguised attempt at throwing out vitriol. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > You continuously call my posts incoherent because I'm using the maximum of my logical capacities and vocabulary. If this is truly the maximum of your logical capacities and vocabulary, I am truly sorry. Thank you for explicitly letting me know that you are indeed trying to sound as smart as you possibly can for me. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > I thought you could handle it, but looks like I'll have to actually dumb it down so that you're capable of even understanding the most complex of concepts. Actually, the correct expression would be "even the simplest of concepts", as simpler concepts are _easier_ to understand, whereas more complex concepts are _harder_ to understand. Try not to use expressions you yourself do not grasp, it only embarrasses you further. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T15:59:27.090+0000) > > Calculating buffs and nerfs is some of the most basic shit as well. Go watch Phreak's patch notes as many times as you can so that we can better avoid this kind of back-and-forth bullshit that you seem set on producing. But of course, how could I not realize that buffs and nerfs are child's play. With that enthusiasm, you should apply for the balance team, as you clearly know something they don't! /s
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=00030002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-07T07:03:35.781+0000) > > Except, as pointed out above, and as indicated by your very own post, that's not what you set out to do. You cited only the vaguest and most tangential of examples as a veneer to dump on the thread's original poster, with the large part of your post's volume dedicated entirely to putting them down. You did not come here with good intentions, you just came here to fight. Hell no. If you want to complain about something, bring something to the table instead of just say it's a nerf. > Interesting, because trying to dodge pertinent questions via personal attacks is a debating tactic that doesn't fly past middle school. You might want to catch up. Once again, again, what exactly have you done to substantiate your claims here? Double check yourself is what the goal of the statement is. > So effectively, your word salad translates to nothing coherent, and was an attempt at trying to obfuscate the one person you are talking to by trying (and failing) to sound smarter than your ability allows. Good to know! It means I put you up on a level where you were deserving enough to actually withstand a certain level of logic. You cannot do this with people on the street in the ghetto. That's not a good thing to say, but sadly the truth isn't always kind. > So basically, if one has to make a general point, one also has to provide general evidence? Was that so hard to write down? Considering your reaction? Apparently. You've yet to really stay on topic and talk about Nautilus after all. > Also, for that matter, have you tried applying this logic to your own post? Once again, your one example discussed Nautilus's jungling, so you're not exactly making a general statement either. Moreover, the OP wasn't either, as they specifically focused on his laning. Because of this, you have entirely missed the point of the thread. The OP isn't concerned with Nautilus as a champion in general, and didn't submit any real evidence toward how this would damage Nautilus in specific. Just imagine random players who do not play Nautilus coming into this thread. How are they receiving this information and its potency toward observing Nautilus as a champion? They aren't being given anything significant, I'll say that much. > It is interesting that you presume that I have a stake in this debate. I don't, and anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension should have been able to see this in my comments. My opinion on Nautilus and his change is largely neutral. In fact, I'm in favor of the duration and cooldown reduction, because I don't personally believe shields should last that long. At no point have I contradicted you on your assessment of his jungling, so it is rather telling that you would automatically act so defensive on every front. As I recall, you did this in the Cassiopeia thread as well, which is why you ended up stretching yourself far too thin. You don't even start your comment chains like this and actually encourage misunderstandings by not doing so. It's not about the intention of your post, it's about the actual consequences it might create. You will intentionally derail if it means you get to criticize someone. Or so it seems. I can for sure say my last post regardless of delete was completely worth it since I had invested into this thread. > Interesting that you would think of a person as "one-dimensional" simply because they dared to correct you. As it stands, this isn't a matter of me liking how your post was said, it was pointed out that your post addressed in no way what the OP said, and was only a thinly-disguised attempt at throwing out vitriol. You need to actually see the plethora of nerf/buff and reaction threads that come around here and compare this to them. They are not actually different in the way they observe information. It only has one stance and no dynamic shift even with math presented. I've seen it far too often. Furthermore, the OP didn't even address my statement himself with numbers or real evidence to be going at it from. > If this is truly the maximum of your logical capacities and vocabulary, I am truly sorry. Thank you for explicitly letting me know that you are indeed trying to sound as smart as you possibly can for me. You're welcome. I didn't even say it with a sarcastic tone (not did I for this), but I'm completely sure you saw it that way. It feels good to know you misinterpreted something and will likely read this thinking that you may or may not need to revise what I write and how you're perceiving it. > Actually, the correct expression would be "even the simplest of concepts", as simpler concepts are _easier_ to understand, whereas more complex concepts are _harder_ to understand. Try not to use expressions you yourself do not grasp, it only embarrasses you further. Actually it was stated as is because complex language being boiled down to simpler terms *improves* discussion rather than demeans discussion. But again, you probably read that with a sarcastic tone. It's why I have no regrets over the delete itself, as it was a satisfactory post from my POV that got the expected results. > But of course, how could I not realize that buffs and nerfs are child's play. With that enthusiasm, you should apply for the balance team, as you clearly know something they don't! /s Suggesting balance changes is one thing. Calculating how it affects the champion is another thing entirely. But yes, let's assume it's the former instead of something with actual mathematical applications. Because I'm that kind of idiot, aren't I Teridax boyo? Why else would I mention Phreak who does these kinds of applications? Because TONS OF FORCE of course! I actually was correct about everything you'd attempt in response to my prior post and am almost entirely certain now that you have no idea how to view people in different perspectives. Unfortunate. But hey, I at least left you with a post in another thread that tries to address that issue. Let's see how it goes.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > You seem to completely ignore why I stated that entire paragraph and undoubtedly switched to this tangent because you were concerned over your personal appearance of your posts based on my opinion. There's a necessity to do some things for the sake of the topic, and then there are things that can be directly ignored in favor of actual discussion. You have no filter. And without that filter you will actually make blind assumptions because of smelling even the slightest of evidence that allows you to make any assumption at all, or go on these tangents. It's quite frustrating to see mostly because you seem to not notice it yourself that it doesn't really assist in discussion with ANYONE. It is interesting that you would accuse me of going on a tangent when this is what your entire paragraph does, by throwing baseless accusations at my character. Meanwhile, what you accuse of being a tangent is a direct response to what you've said, as quoted right above my own response. Do you know what a tangent is? It seems like you've only started using the word after I first mentioned it, which makes your accusations here all the more suspicious. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > See above. I see you've given up on formulating any sort of adequate response at all. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > I didn't. See first paragraph. Except you did, as per your paragraph where you try to make a general statement on all of my posts. Once more, you're not even making an effort to dodge a point where you know you've been proven wrong. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > It was directed at the new design, oh yes. But if you're trying to make a new flavor of ice cream taste good and only receive complaints about the flavor itself when people are still actively buying it while also suggesting a huge amount of their own flavor ideas, how are you going to fix the problem people have with the flavor itself? And as I said already, it is difficult to change people's minds when they're already set on something, especially within the time they had to balance Skarner and other juggernauts for that matter. Your ice cream analogy makes no sense, has no relevance to the argument, and makes no effort to deny that you are indeed shifting the goalposts here. Your insinuations on the intent of PBE players are not only impossible to verify, and therefore baseless, but themselves irrelevant. You are very clearly making excuses here to try to pretend that PBE players did not give the feedback that they did. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > I still don't see any primary reason to suspect how the playerbase is being blamed for anything when players can blame other players with or without reason. I still see no substance behind the argument that the community asked for "proper balance" when it wasn't done within the right timeframe, nor did anyone seemingly care after some point. It became easy to just push blame on Riot which is straight up lazy and wrong to do. This verbiage does nothing to counter the fact that general currents of thought exist, and so when several players blame other players for decisions they were not responsible for, that is a larger problem that goes beyond the individual. Moreover, it is asinine to try to exempt Riot from the responsibiliy of their own balance and design decisions. Trying to appropriate my arguments and turn them around simply does not work here. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > And before you go on and assume that this means design complaints are wrong to do (from my POV), ask yourself what kind of narrative you're trying to illustrate in a thread dedicated on balancing a rework by using evidence of a thread focusing on redesigning a rework. It's ridiculous. Except the Skarner thread was not dedicated to "redesigning a rework", that is simply the feedback players gave, which Riot decided to interpret as balance feedback. It is your attempts at distorting facts here that are ridiculous. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > See first paragraph. Once more, you throw out personal accusations, yet still feel the need to press them when they've been disproven, despite having no argument to make. Either you accuse me, in which case you'd have to actually substantiate your post, or you don't, in which case you don't resort to weaksauce callbacks to stuff you've said that has already been disproven. You can't have it both ways, and trying to do so makes you look like you're just trying to call me names. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > The entire point was that there was no evidence to say that people would clamor for nerfs on PBE to make a champion NOT get hotfixed. What happens to your narrative then when it's about "the community's complaints aren't being listened to?" See my response above about "judging logic." Except that's not what I said either, I said players on the Boards _in general_ have made threads asking Riot to avoid hotfix-buffing champions. Once more, you are trying to shift the goalposts here by trying to make me say things I have never said. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > I genuinely believe there is no "right way" to explain something to you if you're questioning the primary indicator of what differentiates the whole debacle compared to something of the likes of this thread. Once again, your sentence makes no sense, a phenomenon that seems to occur most frequently when you are directly proven wrong, and have no means of escaping from the point. If you truly believe there's no "right way" of explaining something to me, why still try? Would it not be hypocritical to declare it impossible to argue with someone, yet still continue arguing with them? At the end of the day, you have been caught messing up the timeline of the Juggernaut Update, and the fact that you do not even have a response to that shows you yourself know you've been caught red-handed. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:49:36.047+0000) > > If the concern is overtuning a champion, then design is not the major element to the equation. Sure if you posted this on an Ekko thread and spoke of overtuning at the time, I'd agree. But this is the Akali rework which has been shown to have low w/r, and was expected to. This is also why this thread was even made: to respond to a Riot response before they ever make it. It has next to no correlation with how the Juggernaut patch was handled other than timeliness and hotfix speed. It is impressive how wrong you are at every sentence. My initial comment here was not about design, nor did it try to pre-empt a Riot response. You appear to be completely confused as to what this argument even is about, which would explain the lack of coherency to your replies from the very beginning.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T09:16:08.891+0000) > > Once more, you throw out personal accusations, yet still feel the need to press them when they've been disproven, despite having no argument to make. Hilariously incorrect. You've yet to debunk how your juggernaut reference is irrelevant and actually proceed to dodge anything that makes it feel irrelevant, like say, the majority of the design complaints in the post that completely obscure any relevant posts over balancing Skarner (and other juggernauts for that matter). It is not a personal accusation at all, but you're receiving it that way because of blanketing. It is talking about the problem behind your declarations, not you as a person outside of the portions that actually do talk about you as a person. I will go over the process more in-depth so that you can stop with this banter of declaring yourself to be correct and me being incorrect, since your dynamic lacks an actual focus on the topic itself for the majority. You also don't know how to condense a topic and represent it repeatedly in different manners, making your posts redundant and ever longer for no gain. It becomes draining for both sides, which you evidently don't see or care about in a discussion. I will show you a structural example that you may use regardless of its contents of information. I am telling you with the intention that will stop your *actual* wordy posts that try too hard to address things on minute details without drawing back on the bigger picture (which is what even encourages those tangents subconsciously). > Except that's not what I said either, I said players on the Boards _in general_ have made threads asking Riot to avoid hotfix-buffing champions. Once more, you are trying to shift the goalposts here by trying to make me say things I have never said. Sure, let's say that's my mistake. But that doesn't really change its irrelevance toward the matter simply because the truth of the statement is that they do not even represent a major *fraction* of even these boards. Yet you mention them as though they matter. Very nice of you, but not something worth mentioning. Doesn't even relate to how the Juggernaut update went either with regard to its feedback, as I already mentioned that hotfixes only happened after live hit. > Once again, your sentence makes no sense, a phenomenon that seems to occur most frequently when you are directly proven wrong, and have no means of escaping from the point. If you truly believe there's no "right way" of explaining something to me, why still try? Would it not be hypocritical to declare it impossible to argue with someone, yet still continue arguing with them? At the end of the day, you have been caught messing up the timeline of the Juggernaut Update, and the fact that you do not even have a response to that shows you yourself know you've been caught red-handed. I am extremely stubborn when it comes to talking with people, especially because I believe in the idea of conversing with anyone regardless of conflicting ideals. However, that's not relevant to the topic and you will proceed to bounce back and forth like a child whenever anything is mentioned about you, but somehow declare it to be bad when I talk about it. I say it to be brief and voice my discontent at your behavior, not to dedicate actual entire posts to it like you already have. You are way too thorough on something you cannot even be thorough about, since you don't know a damn thing about me. "Timeline of Juggernaut update" This is basic logical pattern I am using. I'm going to simplify it as humanly hard as possible as I stated I would before on a comment that was removed: Skarner rework > frustration over rework > negativity remains over rework affecting balance feedback by reducing its effectiveness > shown by thread participants in archive. I AM WORKING UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THIS IS CORRECT INFORMATION. If frustration over the rework is blatant due to overlapping negativity of gameplay problems AND design issues, the focus of design issues will be pushed MORESO than gameplay issues. If gameplay issues are not fixed well enough, a champion will be overbuffed to cover these. IF CHAMPION IS OVERBUFFED, that does not mean that the wrong fixes were applied. Sometimes it's because a middle number wasn't reached, or a prior fix was not placed into consideration over whether it fixed a champion's problems enough so that numbers would not be necessary. WITH THIS IN MIND, a playerbase focused entirely on design complaints is rendered unable to think about all balance woes and proper implementation in the game in a dedicated, motivated and civil manner. The few who were capable were obscured and it resulted in limited feedback REGARDLESS due to it being a minority, not even having to include the fact that PBE is a minority playerbase as it is already. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHO IS AT FAULT. It is about what the major complaints were. YOU ARE USING THE ENTIRETY OF THE UPDATE regardless of this chain of logic, even using it to your own ends to slander Riot over not listening to the playerbase over what was essentially a doomed update to begin with. This is NOT EXCLUSIVELY due to player opinions, but if you are asking for people to help you with something, SANDBAGS ARE NOT HELPFUL. BALANCE IS THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THIS THREAD. BALANCE WAS NOT THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THE JUGGERNAUT UPDATE. World's is where it was, and it had to go through this unfortunate chain of events that all happened in an EXTREMELY SHORT amount of time. I repeat, YOU ARE NOT CORRECT IN USING THE JUGGERNAUT UPDATE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR A THREAD LIKE THIS. There are plenty of others threads like for Swain, Ornn, etc. where balance dilemmas existed with many ideas of approach and no voice heard. Furthermore, the generalization of the juggernaut update as a whole demeans the process I stated and allows you to speak for a narrative that wasn't even really there for you to use to begin with for a thread such as this, especially when it was ripe with issues that had more to do with lack of time than with "lack of player input being considered" which you mention as a "crucial issue." As I stated already, **nobody mentioned that any brakes should be placed on the updates.** It cannot get more simple than this. If you find any of this to be false, use the same structural pattern to actually paint the picture YOU and ONLY YOU are trying to declare over the entire issue and how it relates to an Akali balance thread that merely states "don't hotfix." DO NOT refer to how my crap is false. It obscures your own opinion in its totality because the full opinion/knowledge is not being stated and is why this comment chain even got this far. Most people DO NOT respond this far in, and I would hope you value your time more to be able to condense your opinion better rather than react to statements and follow another person's words. If after all that an agreement cannot be reached over the ideas over simple dynamics such as relevance, then it is only a matter of agreeing to disagree, which I will respectfully use instead of letting this drone on forever (which is how my last conversation with you ages ago would have went). > It is impressive how wrong you are at every sentence. My initial comment here was not about design, nor did it try to pre-empt a Riot response. It is impressive that my stubbornness is the only reason I have given you any ground to work with. People blatantly avoid arguing with you at length because it is a waste of time and you usually do fall back to accusing them of something or another. I am hoping to see something different because people like you only need a little guidance and *humbleness* to actually accomplish something for themselves. To see someone else as an equal when speaking to them, ignoring bygones and letting them be bygones, etc. It's about being a genuinely good person within discussion and being tolerant, or otherwise you push the individual to do worse. That also means forgiving past issues, which is one of the harder things about life. Everyone is only human. I do that every time I post to you. It is not about superiority, it is about actually trying to attempt for discussion. I pray that this will be the last post I have to dedicate toward your behavior in specific rather than the actual contents of your posts. Otherwise, godspeed. I do not see a reason to keep attempting toward something if I've already given it multiple chances, with a huge time gap in between at that.
: Curios as to if you could address the initial point about the 5.1 changes
The base shield even at the moment would still be stronger level 1 due to the max health scaling. The old shield scaled with bonus health, so you weren't rewarded for level ups as much as you were for items. It might look like more but inevitably it isn't. This applies especially well into late game due to a lot of health item nerfs we've received from the previous tank itemization rework.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > It's not hard for me to say when an entire method of explanation gets its context changed because you've thoroughly missed how the angle is being applied. It is not common sense we're arguing here or it would otherwise not require a heavy level of explanation. There is no angle here, you simply lied by changing the goalposts and accusing me of not responding to you, when I clearly did. It _is_ common sense, it's just something you've tried to deny. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > It isn't. The negativity of the entire debacle wasn't going to produce good results unless you have a counterbalance. There was never going to be any from my suspicion at the time and there actually really wasn't. It was an unfortunate time period for a reason. Once more, you are rambling with a word salad that has strictly nothing to do with the point you are quoting. How exactly does talking about negativity or a counterbalance address the fact that you got the chronology of your references mixed up? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > This is where I find issue with your posts in general. Do you really believe that no player input would have really mattered? Do you really have the 100% evidence to guide that point there when there wasn't really much to go on with in terms of productive feedback? You can even go back to multiple threads at the time period and still blatantly see the lack of someone really taking charge of what would make a champion more balanced and fair as they exist (something that Juggernauts were basically brute forcing). That was the point and it's mainly a point I'm making because once again, YOU made the entire narrative about Riot not listening to the playerbase when Juggernaut patch was entirely about design frustration that ended in even worse frustration over balance. There was no real foil to work with from the playerbase to actually even remotely fix that set of reworks, and we still had a huge community at the time. Don't you feel that makes it even more unfortunate? Yet again, your verbose paragraph makes strictly no point. Of course the feedback was workable, the fact that there was such overwhelming criticism of the gimmicky mechanics those champions had received should have been a clear sign for Riot to go back and reevaluate their reworks. Instead, they overbuffed those champions and subsequently blamed their testers. You asking for players to "take charge" or some similarly bullshit expectation does not change this, nor does it excuse your attempts to pin blame on those testers after even you've admitted that their feedback did not ask to overtune those champions. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > This is exactly what I mean by saying that you really need to stop and reread things. The point of the post is not to declare that players were in the wrong over their design frustrations. The entire point is to illustrate that there was no usable data to even work with to make whatever design choice Riot chose ACTUALLY work before people could really set the next move if they still didn't like the rework. It is ironic that you would accuse me of not reading your posts properly when the problem stems from you doing exactly that. You do not even appear to have read your own point properly, let alone mine, as what you say clearly does support my point. If there was "no usable data" on balance, that effectively means there was no push one direction or another to change the balancing of those champions, which proves that Riot made the decision on their own, and messed up on their own. There is literally no spin you can put on your arguments here that play in your favor. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > I'm not the one here literally dodging any attempt to read a topic. It's a simple request with simple benefits like having enough of a reference point to really understand where an opinion is coming from rather than assuming that the data immediately correlates one way or the other. This is exactly why I used example posts and not a copy/paste list of people. Once again, you are dodging the point, and once again, you are lashing out with a personal attack. You are demonstrating the exact behavior you are being called out on, practically on cue. It is also rather funny that you'd claim to use "example posts" when you have yet to provide such examples, and are in fact being asked to right now. You are flat-out attempting to deny reality here. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > And you feel like not linking this because...? You also feel like telling me to state supporting evidence using your own preference of approach in a hypocritical manner because...? I have pointed you towards a source you can easily verify, which is more than what you've ever done. Your very accusation of hypocrisy here is hypocritical. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > You're not really giving good effort to your own posts. Simply stating an idea or opinion isn't all there is when it comes to convincing someone. Almost all of your points in the posts you've submitted thus far actually *ignore* the lack of data there really was for Juggernauts as a whole. On the contrary, I've linked to examples which proved my point, and showed how even _your own arguments_ supported them. Unlike you, I am fully aware of what went on, whereas you do not even seem to know what it is you're arguing. Fact of the matter is, contrary to your initial point, players did not ask to overtune the juggernauts. You have been proven wrong several posts back, and no matter how far you shift the goalposts, that will never change. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > It's not about who screwed up at the end of the day when the narrative here (based on the topic you're posting it in) is that the community complained over "balance choices." You really condensed it to the point of generalizing and made it about "Riot not listening to the community" disregarding the circumstance and the reality behind what kind of submissions people were really giving toward the project itself, and by doing so completely abuse the Juggernaut patch for your own narrative. The complaints you'd expect from this thread are not the same you'd expect from the Juggernaut update, and yet they're being put on the same level when they had to do with completely different issues. Speaking of shifting the goalposts, this is a clear example right here. First you accused me of lying by saying that the PBE players were to blame for overtuning juggernauts during their update, then you tried to weasel your way out by saying they were still responsible because they didn't focus exclusively on balance feedback, now you're trying to save face yet again by telling me "it's not about who screwed up", and trying to create a separation between these perceptions of players which does not exist. Literally no part of what you just said is true or congruent to what you tried to say even in just your previous post. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:32:37.155+0000) > > And it's not surprising why PBE is tough to use for balance when MMR is garbage on there. That is a legitimate concern from that perspective. You do not need Riot to cite that for other players to notably see it on a YT video, especially when the argument of whether a silver player can win against a diamond is heavily skewed in favor of the latter for a reason. Sure, PBE has a mix of elos, but it nonetheless is much better than it gets credit for at getting a feel of how a champion will feel to play and play against. This is something PBE players have been asked to test for, yet it is feedback that is often completely disregarded, or in the case of the Juggernaut Update, sidestepped via inappropriate developer tuning. Once again, you are trying to shift the conversation away from the topic of how players and their opinions are perceived, while still trying to justify blaming players for League's current balance.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:57:00.358+0000) > > There is no angle here, you simply lied by changing the goalposts and accusing me of not responding to you, when I clearly did. It _is_ common sense, it's just something you've tried to deny. I didn't accuse you of anything. This isn't a court. I am stating directly that you change the angle I approach based on the evidence you're giving me. And it's obvious based on how you set the tone of your posts with the outset opinion that you are correct on all regards and have no personal faults in your explanations. You are but a man, not a god. > Once more, you are rambling with a word salad that has strictly nothing to do with the point you are quoting. How exactly does talking about negativity or a counterbalance address the fact that you got the chronology of your references mixed up? You ignored the placement of that info and why I used it, so obviously this is directed primarily as a personal attack and nothing more on me. Moving on. > Yet again, your verbose paragraph makes strictly no point. Of course the feedback was workable, Proof? I told you to read those threads for a reason. Barely any of it was strictly dedicated to using number shifts to balance Skarner (and every other juggernaut). I'm actually pretty amazed at how nobody thought to nerf Mordekaiser's dragon's health, among other possible changes. But regardless, you're acting on evidence that doesn't exist, either because you haven't noted where this supposed feedback was or simply are fabricating it for your own convenience due to blind trust in the playerbase. I explicitly told you to go look for the information, and what did you do? Attack me for somehow not doing the same. I read the posts. It's about validity over reading comprehension skills at this point and not about mentioning singular posts that commit to a narrative. Or are you blind and didn't see me repeat that a bunch of times? > It is ironic that you would accuse me of not reading your posts properly when the problem stems from you doing exactly that. You do not even appear to have read your own point properly, let alone mine, as what you say clearly does support my point. If there was "no usable data" on balance, that effectively means there was no push one direction or another to change the balancing of those champions, which proves that Riot made the decision on their own, and messed up on their own. There is literally no spin you can put on your arguments here that play in your favor. If the Riot company is to rely on the playerbase in any regard for the feedback and fine tuning of a champion, then it's quite wrong to say that they entirely held the fault. But even here you blatantly once again change perspectives by saying that you are "not assuming the playerbase has no fault" but directly state Riot screwed up on their own... Very nice consistency. I like it. ?XD > Once again, you are dodging the point, and once again, you are lashing out with a personal attack. You've made more personal attacks and defended against more nonexistent attacks than anyone else I've seen on these boards. Maybe that has more to do with the fact that I'm one of the only people who actively responds to your posts with disagreements, but I still find it rare to find people as jumpy as you are on the notion of "personal attacks." Once again. Unnecessary tangent focused on "defending yourself." I used your very same linked thread and didn't find the balance posts relevant enough toward saying that the community was set on balancing anything properly on the champion. You have yet to really direct me (or anyone else for that matter) to where that kind of feedback was submitted and don't respect at what quantity it was ever really received in. And no, design complaints don't count (can't believe I have to explicitly say that when it should be common sense). They do not try to prevent a creation from being an actual menace to the game in its application of current form. > On the contrary, I've linked to examples which proved my point, and showed how even _your own arguments_ supported them. Unlike you, I am fully aware of what went on, whereas you do not even seem to know what it is you're arguing. Fact of the matter is, contrary to your initial point, players did not ask to overtune the juggernauts. You have been proven wrong several posts back, and no matter how far you shift the goalposts, that will never change. As long as you keep making posts like this, there will never be a discussion. You have no idea what the difference is between the Juggernaut dilemma and the Akali dilemma is if you're this set on saying your narrative was the correct choice. > Speaking of shifting the goalposts, this is a clear example right here. First you accused me of lying by saying that the PBE players were to blame for overtuning juggernauts during their update Skarner was the example, not juggernauts. Do not pick out information to your own convenience. Furthermore, lying is a strong word. I stated the entire dynamic and how I thought about it, and the fault was not 100% player-oriented if you even ATTEMPT to read over my posts. You continuously show that you let your emotions get the best of you, decreasing the actual sensibility of your posts to the point of attacking people on arguments they didn't even make. >then you tried to weasel your way out by saying they were still responsible because they didn't focus exclusively on balance feedback, No, that was the main emphasis and still is my emphasis. it's what makes the entire issue irrelevant to Akali's balancing dilemma i.e. this thread. > now you're trying to save face yet again by telling me "it's not about who screwed up", Hell yeah. See above. Who screwed up doesn't matter as much as how the screw-up happened on either end. There was no stopping that pain train, but again, you're the one making the narrative about "but muh playerbase complaints" when they were entirely different kinds of complaints, from tone to the focus of said complaints. > Sure, PBE has a mix of elos, but it nonetheless is much better than it gets credit for at getting a feel of how a champion will feel to play and play against. This is something PBE players have been asked to test for, yet it is feedback that is often completely disregarded, or in the case of the Juggernaut Update, sidestepped via inappropriate developer tuning. Once again, you are trying to shift the conversation away from the topic of how players and their opinions are perceived, while still trying to justify blaming players for League's current balance. I really think you're oversimplifying this entire dynamic, especially with regard to the state of the game. If they're trying to release a balanced Akali, using PBE MMR means that the more skilled players at the game will automatically win more than unskilled players, regardless of champion usage. Feedback on PBE throughout threads of the last 3 years (which I wish I was joking about) have not been of high balancing value. I made an argument over Kindred that was relevant and didn't get listened to, woohoo. There are plenty of other examples for that but they're very widespread and usually on bigger, Riot-headed threads. People on the PBE are not going to get the most realistic game experience compared to live due to this MMR issue, so the idea of playing the champion is going to ALWAYS have the cloud of "did I do well, and did it feel good to do well" instead of "ok this design has flaws in x, y, and z matchup despite the fact that it should be strong in them." And lastly, I'm not blaming players for anything of the current balance. You can quote me on where you'd find that, and you won't find it unless it's neatly out of context and ripe for your abuse. You are waaaaay too invested in trying to assume I'm automatically wrong at all points, making you assume these false ideas because you don't like me. Am I to take that sitting down or something? This is exactly what happened in the Ryze/Cass dilemma before, and if you're just going to go the same pattern to the point of dedicating your posts to (once again) ad hominem and readjusting narratives to your own convenience, then you should really rethink your life decisions. A person is not in the right mind if 90% of their posts to the person has to do with calling posts "wordy and deceitful."
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-08T08:17:23.600+0000) > > You can't assume that the filter is stopped by Riot. That is exactly what your post assumes and pushes them onto the responsibility of posts that often times do not kick off in popularity. > > You do not need to point that Riot is specifically blaming the players to still have a very skewed assumption of who is meant to really "stop" any of those posts when freedom of speech still exists. Wait, so now I'm saying it's Riot's job to control player opinions? Where, exactly? Are you sure you're not responding to the wrong comment?
Who else is to stop the "wave of threads" you speak of? How many people do you really believe actually use these posts as indicators that it is the board's fault compared to the majority of people in the game? Even if you didn't blame Riot directly, the post/assumption overblows things to the point of making people suspect that it's Riot blaming the playerbase over such a thing. The opinions of the few are not of the many. That being said, I've seen ridiculous posts over things like "nerf Ahri" go through without any effort because of heavily focused circlejerk. It is not unjustified to say that the boards has at least partially motivated some changes, and not all of these changes were bad. But to blame an entire season and correlate that those posts are "gameplay getting frequently blamed" in any significant aspect? Get outta here. Those are nothing.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > It's not hard to gain fellowship or followers when you're reiterating ideas people already agree with. Except, as I have already mentioned, I express unpopular opinions at length, and still have productive exchanges with fellow users. I just don't expressly go out of my way to attack other posters, or bring them down for the sake of aggrandizing myself, which makes it pretty easy for me to get along with most people. By the way, this point you've tried to make has strictly no relevance to the part of my response that you quoted. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > Furthermore, you seem to only respond to things that make you defensive over something by default or self-conscious. Why else would you choose this as the introduction to your post? I don't know if you've noticed, but I answer points in the order they are written, and in the case of exceptionally large responses, I split my comment in two. If you were to try reading my other post, you would notice that they join neatly at the above exact point. As endearing as it is to have you read too much into this, there's a much simpler reason than the one you've been spinning in your head. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > You've dedicated **entire posts** to countering any kind of thing that could even REMOTELY be perceived as a personal attack. To the degree of taking it to another tangent. It was a waste time before and it's waste of time now. It's why I don't include it in your quotes. Again, this may perhaps not be apparent to someone who doesn't read adequately through my replies, but I respond systematically to what I am presented to, point by point. I try to be thorough, and seeing how you have accused me in the past of dodging my points even as I have answered them readily, I know for a fact that leaving any "point" you make unaddressed will simply have you accuse me of dodging the issue. As such, it is also hypocritical of you to accuse me of being _too_ thorough, when you have been expressly waiting for an opportunity where I did not address a portion of your bloated posts. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > It's a matter of maturity and being able to take any criticism at all. I don't need to check your post history to remember how you've spoken to me before or how you've posted in other threads I've seen, especially when it seems like you don't speak in any different pattern. Except, as you've literally just mentioned, you have gone through my post history, including through posts that did not involve you, in an attempt to try to form a general picture of how I post. You are also very much incapable of taking criticism, as noted by your responses to me and to other posters adjacent to me. Additionally, as noted above, you are ostensibly carrying a grudge from the previous argument we've had. None of these put you in a position to discuss about maturity, nor does it seems you understand the concept. Responding factually, logically and thoroughly are all what mature people do in a debate. Your attempts to attack my character unprompted throughout this exchange, however, are not, and speak to a much deeper insecurity you have been projecting at every turn. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > You fail to see the point which is that the balance was the problematic portion and nothing was really there to stop it. Those are the facts. Your narrative acts like the community was actively trying, which is pretty false. They are certainly trying now for Akali. Once again, you try to shift the goalposts to this argument. What are you implying by "nothing was really there to stop it"? Are you trying to say it's the players' fault by not expressly pointing out that the champion they were testing was overtuned, when the vast portion of the feedback was directed towards the new design? What are you trying to imply by "actively trying"? Again, you are not making any coherent point here, and are instead throwing up incomplete, ambiguously-written sentences throughout. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > Being wordy doesn't mean it's deceit. In fact it's a basic attack on politicians by commoners who don't understand the complex language/logic being used. Trying to understand people isn't about attacking them over shit you don't understand. I'm not going to bother looking up the fallacy/bias charts, referring to those already demeans the discussion and pushes the emphasis to ad hominem. I'm not going to play your game of trying to make the other person look bad and use that as the primary weapon for "proving myself right." It's childish. Judge the logic, not the method that the logic is being stated with. Except I am judging the logic, and the reason why your posts are deceitful is because, despite all their verbosity, they lack substance. You yourself have admitted to deliberately raising your level of vocabulary in your exchanges towards me, clearly to a level that has exceeded your ability. Your points have on numerous occasions been completely incoherent, and when pressed for relevant evidence, you have lashed out with ad hominem attacks. You may want to start looking up a chart of logical fallacies now, because they make up the core of your posts. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > I really question if you actually go back and reread your posts. Hell I question if you even reread mine for clarity. Considering how I directly reference your posts, and have been able to quote you even several lengthy replies. I'd say so. Considering how you seem incapable of doing the same, and have frequently tried to pretend you've said something other than what you actually did, I'd say you may want to direct that accusation towards yourself. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > You made the narrative blatantly about "Riot should listen to the community this time" with: Except, were you to actually read the quote you pulled, you would have noticed that at no point I claimed that PBE testers had expressly asked Riot to nerf the juggernauts prior to their release on PBE. As such, you are very deliberately attempting to put words in my mouth. If there is one thing that Riot _should_ have listened to, it was the player complaints regarding the design of Skarner, Garen and Mordekaiser, which Riot didn't do. You may question this claim at your peril. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > This disregards the timing of when these complaints happen and generalizes it to the point of making a shallow jab at Riot directly. Which timing, exactly? Are you saying players complaining about the design of juggernauts did not happen at the same time as their PBE patch cycle? Or are you trying to put words in my mouth again by pretending that Worlds 2015 did not happen after the Juggernaut Update? It seems you are the one getting your chronology mixed up here. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:18:26.827+0000) > > Skarner is the perfect example of a champion that quite literally didn't receive buffs that "fixed" his problems as a champion until the very last cycle, and in that point in time, there was barely any clamor for nerfs. The complaints for the Juggernaut patch notably happened **during live** when it came to BALANCE. Since people weren't set on making the rework actually function AS IS without being broken, barely any feedback was really dedicated toward that idea in the PBE and even after. Doesn't this literally just prove my point, though? If players complained mostly about design, rather than balance, why then would it be their fault if Riot overtuned their own champions in response?
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-07T08:14:12.898+0000) > > Except, as I have already mentioned, I express unpopular opinions at length, and still have productive exchanges with fellow users. I just don't expressly go out of my way to attack other posters, or bring them down for the sake of aggrandizing myself, which makes it pretty easy for me to get along with most people. By the way, this point you've tried to make has strictly no relevance to the part of my response that you quoted. You seem to completely ignore why I stated that entire paragraph and undoubtedly switched to this tangent because you were concerned over your personal appearance of your posts based on my opinion. There's a necessity to do some things for the sake of the topic, and then there are things that can be directly ignored in favor of actual discussion. You have no filter. And without that filter you will actually make blind assumptions because of smelling even the slightest of evidence that allows you to make any assumption at all, or go on these tangents. It's quite frustrating to see mostly because you seem to not notice it yourself that it doesn't really assist in discussion with ANYONE. > Again, this may perhaps not be apparent to someone who doesn't read adequately through my replies, but I respond systematically to what I am presented to, point by point. I try to be thorough See above. > Except, as you've literally just mentioned, you have gone through my post history, including through posts that did not involve you, in an attempt to try to form a general picture of how I post. I didn't. See first paragraph. > Once again, you try to shift the goalposts to this argument. What are you implying by "nothing was really there to stop it"? Are you trying to say it's the players' fault by not expressly pointing out that the champion they were testing was overtuned, when the vast portion of the feedback was directed towards the new design? It was directed at the new design, oh yes. But if you're trying to make a new flavor of ice cream taste good and only receive complaints about the flavor itself when people are still actively buying it while also suggesting a huge amount of their own flavor ideas, how are you going to fix the problem people have with the flavor itself? And as I said already, it is difficult to change people's minds when they're already set on something, especially within the time they had to balance Skarner and other juggernauts for that matter. > Except I am judging the logic, and the reason why your posts are deceitful is because, despite all their verbosity, they lack substance. I still don't see any primary reason to suspect how the playerbase is being blamed for anything when players can blame other players with or without reason. I still see no substance behind the argument that the community asked for "proper balance" when it wasn't done within the right timeframe, nor did anyone seemingly care after some point. It became easy to just push blame on Riot which is straight up lazy and wrong to do. And before you go on and assume that this means design complaints are wrong to do (from my POV), ask yourself what kind of narrative you're trying to illustrate in a thread dedicated on balancing a rework by using evidence of a thread focusing on redesigning a rework. It's ridiculous. > Considering how I directly reference your posts, and have been able to quote you even several lengthy replies. I'd say so. See first paragraph. > Except, were you to actually read the quote you pulled, you would have noticed that at no point I claimed that PBE testers had expressly asked Riot to nerf the juggernauts prior to their release on PBE. The entire point was that there was no evidence to say that people would clamor for nerfs on PBE to make a champion NOT get hotfixed. What happens to your narrative then when it's about "the community's complaints aren't being listened to?" See my response above about "judging logic." > Which timing, exactly? Are you saying players complaining about the design of juggernauts did not happen at the same time as their PBE patch cycle? Or are you trying to put words in my mouth again by pretending that Worlds 2015 did not happen after the Juggernaut Update? It seems you are the one getting your chronology mixed up here. > Doesn't this literally just prove my point, though? If players complained mostly about design, rather than balance, why then would it be their fault if Riot overtuned their own champions in response? I genuinely believe there is no "right way" to explain something to you if you're questioning the primary indicator of what differentiates the whole debacle compared to something of the likes of this thread. If the concern is overtuning a champion, then design is not the major element to the equation. Sure if you posted this on an Ekko thread and spoke of overtuning at the time, I'd agree. But this is the Akali rework which has been shown to have low w/r, and was expected to. This is also why this thread was even made: to respond to a Riot response before they ever make it. It has next to no correlation with how the Juggernaut patch was handled other than timeliness and hotfix speed.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T16:54:27.522+0000) > > Where did I illustrate that it reflected how he felt on release? You generally skim my posts so I'm pretty sure you got the wrong idea. If Skarner =/= feels good to play, then Skarner will inevitably get buffs or changes that are a net buff. If design =/= feels good to play, then it will still be perceived as Skarner needing buffs because they are trying to make him an accepted and functional champion as is despite the...unique design choice. It is difficult to accuse me of only skimming through your posts when I quote literally every part of your post as I respond to it. Here is the quote in question: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > I can read thank you very much. I see your reasoning through language has still not improved. I'm mentioning the timeline with regard to the champion and how absolutely horrid it felt on release. So, by your own admission, you _are_ trying to discuss his state on release, and have attempted to do so using a Stonewall video made _before any of the buffs occurred_. Your method is simply wrong. Moreover, feel and balance are two different things, yet you seem to be conflating them here for whichever reason. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > This was very much the same for Garen in the same vein where his gimmick was not appreciated, so buffs had to come to ease up the negativity and make people at least TRY the champion. And this is the players' fault... why? What you're telling me is that Riot tried to address a design issue (i.e. a champion not feeling fun to play) by overtuning them, which only tries to solve one problem by creating another. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > As I said, 6 days is not enough time to suddenly expect people to have a change of mind. This is also to answer the majority of the rest of your post since it seems you jumped to a conclusion based on an assumption you never were able to correlate based on what I said. If you treat this as an insult instead of a clarification, then we're probably done here. Again. No reasonable discussion will be gathered from someone who only sees the spear when someone only holds a pen. It is enough time for players to get at least some impression of how the buffs change a champion, but if the core issue is not resolved, of course that issue will still get complained about. Ultimately, everything you are saying here plays in defense of the playerbase, defeating your point. It is interesting that you would accuse me of taking insult from your comments, when you have been the first to act defensive towards my responses, despite being the first to start this argument with an expressly hostile initial post. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > You didn't read the thread's plethora of garbage and design complaints to sort through legitimate opinions over his balance. Thanks for letting me know. Let me know when you're ready to sit down and actually read something at full length when asked. It seems to be a recurring tactic of yours, when pressed to provide supporting evidence, to attempt to dodge the request entirely, and instead lash out with a personal attack. It is a method that is as pathetic as it is ineffective, particularly since your accusations inevitably end up applying better to you than to whoever you're accusing in this context. I provided the Skarner thread in support of my point, and it is you who are attempting to convince me of posts within expressly claiming that he is well-balanced, which I have not seen. As such, the onus is on you to link to the posts which gave you that idea. The fact that you seem unwilling to provide even a single link suggests your claim is dubious, at best. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > Blamed by who? Other users of the boards? Riot isn't to blame for that. You're scapegoating them, as I implied in other posts. Riot is not factually blaming the boards, and the primary motivation of those posts tends to be reflective of what the people perceived the boards to have been asking for and "coincidentally" got. Quotes because sometimes people adjust the narrative. Other Boards users certainly blame fellow players, but Riot themselves have repeatedly said that PBE is terrible for balance, and cite the Juggernaut patch as an example of purported player bias and incompetence. If you do not believe me, you are free to check back through their own dev blogs at your own convenience, or pay attention to the many times this is cited across the community.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-07T08:14:59.446+0000) > > It is difficult to accuse me of only skimming through your posts when I quote literally every part of your post as I respond to it. Here is the quote in question: It's not hard for me to say when an entire method of explanation gets its context changed because you've thoroughly missed how the angle is being applied. It is not common sense we're arguing here or it would otherwise not require a heavy level of explanation. > So, by your own admission, you _are_ trying to discuss his state on release, and have attempted to do so using a Stonewall video made _before any of the buffs occurred_. Your method is simply wrong. Moreover, feel and balance are two different things, yet you seem to be conflating them here for whichever reason. It isn't. The negativity of the entire debacle wasn't going to produce good results unless you have a counterbalance. There was never going to be any from my suspicion at the time and there actually really wasn't. It was an unfortunate time period for a reason. > And this is the players' fault... why? What you're telling me is that Riot tried to address a design issue (i.e. a champion not feeling fun to play) by overtuning them, which only tries to solve one problem by creating another. This is where I find issue with your posts in general. Do you really believe that no player input would have really mattered? Do you really have the 100% evidence to guide that point there when there wasn't really much to go on with in terms of productive feedback? You can even go back to multiple threads at the time period and still blatantly see the lack of someone really taking charge of what would make a champion more balanced and fair as they exist (something that Juggernauts were basically brute forcing). That was the point and it's mainly a point I'm making because once again, YOU made the entire narrative about Riot not listening to the playerbase when Juggernaut patch was entirely about design frustration that ended in even worse frustration over balance. There was no real foil to work with from the playerbase to actually even remotely fix that set of reworks, and we still had a huge community at the time. Don't you feel that makes it even more unfortunate? > It is enough time for players to get at least some impression of how the buffs change a champion, but if the core issue is not resolved, of course that issue will still get complained about. Ultimately, everything you are saying here plays in defense of the playerbase, _defeating your point._ This is exactly what I mean by saying that you really need to stop and reread things. The point of the post is not to declare that players were in the wrong over their design frustrations. The entire point is to illustrate that there was no usable data to even work with to make whatever design choice Riot chose ACTUALLY work before people could really set the next move if they still didn't like the rework. > It seems to be a recurring tactic of yours, when pressed to provide supporting evidence, to attempt to dodge the request entirely, and instead lash out with a personal attack. I'm not the one here literally dodging any attempt to read a topic. It's a simple request with simple benefits like having enough of a reference point to really understand where an opinion is coming from rather than assuming that the data immediately correlates one way or the other. This is exactly why I used example posts and not a copy/paste list of people. > Other Boards users certainly blame fellow players, but Riot themselves have repeatedly said that PBE is terrible for balance, and cite the Juggernaut patch as an example of purported player bias and incompetence. If you do not believe me, you are free to check back through their own dev blogs at your own convenience, or pay attention to the many times this is cited across the community. And you feel like not linking this because...? You also feel like telling me to state supporting evidence using your own preference of approach in a hypocritical manner because...? You're not really giving good effort to your own posts. Simply stating an idea or opinion isn't all there is when it comes to convincing someone. Almost all of your points in the posts you've submitted thus far actually *ignore* the lack of data there really was for Juggernauts as a whole. It's not about who screwed up at the end of the day when the narrative here (based on the topic you're posting it in) is that the community complained over "balance choices." You really condensed it to the point of generalizing and made it about "Riot not listening to the community" disregarding the circumstance and the reality behind what kind of submissions people were really giving toward the project itself, and by doing so completely abuse the Juggernaut patch for your own narrative. The complaints you'd expect from this thread are not the same you'd expect from the Juggernaut update, and yet they're being put on the same level when they had to do with completely different issues. And it's not surprising why PBE is tough to use for balance when MMR is garbage on there. That is a legitimate concern from that perspective. You do not need Riot to cite that for other players to notably see it on a YT video, especially when the argument of whether a silver player can win against a diamond is heavily skewed in favor of the latter for a reason.
: Please point to the part in my post where I mentioned Riot specifically blaming the playerbase for hotfix-buffs. Perhaps you may not have read my post properly, but I'm mainly pointing fingers at the playerbase here, as there is indeed a circlejerk that tries to pin responsibility for these changes upon other players. If there is any other part of my posts you have misunderstood, please let me know! {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}}
You can't assume that the filter is stopped by Riot. That is exactly what your post assumes and pushes them onto the responsibility of posts that often times do not kick off in popularity. You do not need to point that Riot is specifically blaming the players to still have a very skewed assumption of who is meant to really "stop" any of those posts when freedom of speech still exists.
: Could we not have achieved this, by reverting half of the patch 5.1 changes? Patch 5.1 100/150/200/250/300 ⇒ 65/70/75/80/85 base value. The clear is similar albeit sightly weaker (20 less shield early). I lose one AA reset compared to other changes, not a big deal. However I get better initial 1v1, better tower dives, and I can counter the cooldown:duration ratio by popping my W b4 I get to a cap early game. I do it all the time at blue and on the way to red . > Hell, if you E max then your W is not going to be going past rank 2 until you're past lv9 Who the hell maxes E on naut jg? E has diminishing damage while W eventually gives flawless and fast clears. Maxing E then gives weaker dives to top it off. > 10 second duration only matters if you're already in a position to heavily tank for the team or your matchup Which is exactly what happens late-game. You can get over 800 hp worth of shielding then chuck stoneplate and locket on top of that. Also, see above. You can circumvent the duration : cooldown ratio by simply popping it early. Got 5 seconds of walking to red? Pop shield. Blue spawining in 5 seconds? Pop shield ect
Games aren't stretching to late game and damage is so high currently that a 10 sec shield isn't lasting the full duration unless they stop focusing you entirely and/or are dead. Jungle camps are the easiest thing to refer to since their damage is significant but not murderous until involving Raptor camp, something that Naut barely struggles with. Also this doesn't really change up the actual problem with Nautilus by popping the shield early. There was a similar issue with Malz Q and his passive interaction to where longtime Malz mains knew how to play the champion by using the Q in base to actively get the spawn in lane. This was not intuitive and I don't think it'd be intuitive for Nautilus players in general either. Lastly, I never said Jungle Naut maxes E. Lane Naut has been known to do so as his main playstyle, and I'm going at it from the angle of observing as many things as possible about Naut as a champion. He's barely seeing play *anywhere.*
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > I can read thank you very much. I see your reasoning through language has still not improved. I'm mentioning the timeline with regard to the champion and how absolutely horrid it felt on release. As an initial side note, it is interesting that you would accuse me of having a "triggered attitude" and of going through your posts just to spite you, when you just demonstrated both right now, while also attacking my character based on prior arguments we've had. You are holding a grudge, and it shows. More to the point, though, it is interesting that you would link a thread about Skarner on the PBE, prior to his buffs, yet subsequently backtrack and claim that it illustrated how he felt on release. How exactly does that work? Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that he felt bad on Live release? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > I see no reason why people would ask for buffs if a champion has noticeable weaknesses from a rework, haHAA! Um, okay? Again, how does this, or a champion's design, relate to their balance? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > That's not even the main idea. The negativity and lack of proper feedback is blatant. The proportion of actual posts who were willing to make this Skarner work "as is" were practically drops in the ocean of negativity and passive re-rework suggestions. I'm sorry, why is it ever a player's responsibility to make their favorite champion "work" after a rework? For sure, learning a champion is key to reaching their proper power level, but here the discussion is relative to Skarner's passive, which was and still is largely disliked. Why do players have to just accept a mechanic that does not feel appropriate? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > I've already looked for posts and videos for the topic matter at hand, do I really need to find more visible data for you to somehow believe my words over a topic that has represented Garen for literal years? The one video and Reddit thread you posted do not relate in any way to the matter being discussed here. I am not challenging you on how Garen's win rate skews towards low elo, I am asking you why you think this relates to the champion's balance across the board. You have yet to answer this. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > This is an example of where the *balance didn't matter* and a *design shift* was actually desired if they were only going to nerf him. Fix your definitions of balance and design. They are different things in gaming even if they are co-linked by the fact a dev has to do both well in a PvP game. The DESIGN was not appreciated. The balancing was the aftermath that was also unappreciated. A few things here: a) At no point did I bring up Garen or Skarner's design, and in fact I agree that both needed a design shift, b) you are conflating multiple issues by bringing in design on a discussion on balance, which makes your attack on my knowledge of either fairly ironic, and c) _you are literally proving my point_. My entire point is that much of the criticism of these champions was about their design, not their balance, yet those who levied those criticisms are now being blamed for overtuning said champions. How exactly were you expecting to contradict me here, again? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > I feel like you need to reconsider your own evaluation of other people and go to actual social debates/politics or something. You need to realize that what I mentioned was in regard to the entirety of the thread in relation to the rework itself. The relevance of each post can then be filtered (as I told you that you would have to do) based on who has actually played Skarner to give an opinion, then sorted by posts in regards to how Skarner feels **numbers wise.** Very few people said he was overtuned. A Master tier Skarner player may be saying that the rework is now "fine" to absolutely abuse him for elo, which is why I mentioned that it might have been bias. If you want to give a good discussion at least put some effort to reading long ass threads instead of just long ass replies. Source? Again, you mentioned exactly one (1) player's opinion, without even linking to it, yet are now claiming that this somehow is a general statement on the entire thread, while making vague and unsupported claims. You've asked me to provide links to support my own claims, so it would only be natural for you to do the same. Anyone who has engaged in proper debate would know this. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > They didn't completely pull back the buffs because as you would see in the stonewall video I posted, his clears were not only janky based on what area you completed them in, but his clears were actually garbage in relation to the other meta champions at the time. So the champion was indeed in need of buffs, and the requests for buffs were justified. QED. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > That wasn't the argument here. The bias I'm talking about is that you're prone to agree with kneejerk opinions and reflect on the game with inaccurate information because we're looking at it from the present without necessarily involving the input from people at the time. This makes strictly no sense, as so far I have used a thread made _at the time of the rework_ as a source, whereas you have been the one to judge the playerbase in hindsight, by your own admission, but do go off. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > And it's reflected even moreso based on how you're replying to me and didn't go out of your way to mention posts that counteract the assumption that people "did want more Skarner buffs." "Feels terrible" was one of the main complaints seen in many posts which inevitably can be (and was) perceived as asking for buffs. Except that is not what I'm arguing, which makes yours a pointless expectation. I'm not here to say the playerbase is never wrong, or is somehow made up of qualified experts (quite the opposite), I'm just pointing out that they get blamed consistently for changes that are strictly Riot's own doing, and so by both developers and players like you, who look for easy targets to attack when frustrated. Moreover, if you conflate a champion feeling bad and them being statistically weak, that is entirely your own problem, and if Riot were to have used that as the basis for overbuffing champions, that is their own fault. Blaming players for expressing a legitimate opinion achieves nothing in this regard, and silencing them would only make matters worse.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-05T04:12:42.188+0000) > > More to the point, though, it is interesting that you would link a thread about Skarner on the PBE, prior to his buffs, yet subsequently backtrack and claim that it illustrated how he felt on release. How exactly does that work? Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that he felt bad on Live release? Where did I illustrate that it reflected how he felt on release? You generally skim my posts so I'm pretty sure you got the wrong idea. If Skarner =/= feels good to play, then Skarner will inevitably get buffs or changes that are a net buff. If design =/= feels good to play, then it will still be perceived as Skarner needing buffs because they are trying to make him an accepted and functional champion as is despite the...unique design choice. This was very much the same for Garen in the same vein where his gimmick was not appreciated, so buffs had to come to ease up the negativity and make people at least TRY the champion. As I said, 6 days is not enough time to suddenly expect people to have a change of mind. This is also to answer the majority of the rest of your post since it seems you jumped to a conclusion based on an assumption you never were able to correlate based on what I said. If you treat this as an insult instead of a clarification, then we're probably done here. Again. No reasonable discussion will be gathered from someone who only sees the spear when someone only holds a pen. > Source? You didn't read the thread's plethora of garbage and design complaints to sort through legitimate opinions over his balance. Thanks for letting me know. Let me know when you're ready to sit down and actually read something at full length when asked. > Except that is not what I'm arguing, which makes yours a pointless expectation. I'm not here to say the playerbase is never wrong, or is somehow made up of qualified experts (quite the opposite), I'm just pointing out that they get blamed consistently for changes that are strictly Riot's own doing, Blamed by who? Other users of the boards? Riot isn't to blame for that. You're scapegoating them, as I implied in other posts. Riot is not factually blaming the boards, and the primary motivation of those posts tends to be reflective of what the people perceived the boards to have been asking for and "coincidentally" got. Quotes because sometimes people adjust the narrative.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > Every post I've seen from you has literally just been other people's present-time opinions summed up like a blender. It's like you don't actively think unless someone else has spoken first. But that's face value, I'm not implying that is how you do everything or think about everything. ... yet that is still the personal attack you have chosen to make, after going through my post history, and so after attacking me under the presumption that I had done the same to you. This is giving an awful lot of insight into your attitude towards me and this exchange, none of it pleasant. I don't have to justify myself to you, but it's also worth mentioning that my opinions have largely remained unchanged, with me admitting to having been wrong in the past when they did (I used to support target-agnostic damage in the past, and no longer anymore). I have proposed to remove runes for years now, and have even suggested removing items, or at least stripping them of their stats. As you should know very well, I have also suggested making some champions, such as Cass or Ryze, manaless. The fact that my opinions seem to resonate with people, while yours consistently earn you the derision of your fellow players, does not make mine unoriginal. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > I was there. But yes, please go on with your ad hominem throughout your posts like you know where I've been. It's very useful to the topic at hand. I want to steer you away from me as the main focus of the thread itself and point you to the actual topic matter, which had more to do with BALANCE and not DESIGN. ... which is why this paragraph focuses firstly on your assessment of my character, is immediately preceded by an attack of my character, and even after claiming to "steer away" from personal matters, immediately brings up an argument we had (which, as I recall, you lost. Badly.). I don't know where you've been, but considering how you are assessing the Juggernaut Update purely in hindsight, and so with a poor grasp of the source material, as well as little awareness of how the cycle had progressed, it is safe to say you were either not present there at the time, or not sufficiently involved as to be able to act like you were. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > Whether people are satisfied with a design or not shouldn't be influencing balance, but that is EXACTLY how the juggernaut reworks played out. And this is whose fault, exactly? The players', for daring to express that a champion feels bad by design, or the developers, who think the solution to a champion's bad design is to overtune them? Again, what is the point you are trying to make here? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > Where's the deceit in that blatant evidence? Or do you just not want to look bad because I'm telling you that you need to rethink something? Don't be inflexible. The deceit here, again, is that you are trying to drown what is a simple, basic point in a wave of bullshit, mainly by bringing up a whole lot of irrelevant arguments, such as one of design when the topic is that of balance (a mistake I recall you've made in the past as well). What was once a four-line response to an equally short comment was subsequently hijacked by a five-paragraph reply, and has only expanded as you have brought in further tangents. This tactic is so common among people who prefer the illusion of debate, over having a proper argument, that it even has [its own name.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop) > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > Do you not see that I'm saying that this was in hindsight? Where do you see in that PBE feedback thread outside of a good minority of people that he felt a bit strong? Even then, they didn't say how strong, only that they won a lot. PBE MMR makes it difficult to judge really how powerful something is. Move onto reddit threads and it was his actual release that ended in wanting hotfixes. I want to also remind you that these buffs were done in a matter of **DAYS.** Do you understand the clear gap in testing that Riot does these days even now for changes in relation to that? It's not just that Riot overshot. The community was too focused on his passive and wanting to re-rework it **rather than** focus on numbers. This has been shown very blatantly THROUGHOUT the feedback thread, youtube videos, and even forum threads at the time. Wait, so how exactly does a champion being objectively too strong on release qualify as "hindsight"? Moreover, you're accusing players of not giving feedback on a champion being too strong, but then you defend Riot for having too little time to adjust in-between buffs? Where is the consistency in your argument? Also, why is it the players' fault if they took issue with the passive? What was wrong with criticizing the passive and wanting to rework it? It clearly didn't, and still doesn't feel good to use. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > In conclusion, to remind you once again. The community was at fault for asking for those Skarner buffs to the extent that they did with too few moments of feedback to really focus on **balancing Skarner.** Wait, so it was the community's fault for Skarner's balance... because they didn't focus on Skarner's balance? Even though their requests for buffs were justified, as noted by only the partial reverts to said buffs? Which part of your argument makes sense, exactly? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > Where are the "Skarner is too strong" threads from the 8/7 change? I don't see them. Why would there be? Again, as you yourself said, the community was focused in his passive, which felt terrible to use, and prior to that the focus was on his clears, which were legitimately poor. What exactly are you expecting here? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > You cannot just shield the community and say "they did no wrong" when they are at least partially responsible for that release's abomination and limited feedback. Please point to the exact part of my posts which says "they did no wrong", or whichever equivalent. Otherwise please refrain from putting words in my mouth, particularly when doing so involves lying outright. At no point did I ever say anything even remotely resembling the notion that the playerbase is somehow immune from fault, and in fact my point rests on the fact that the playerbase _isn't_ perfect, and is made up of many different players with different opinions, biases, and degrees of expertise (none of whom are experts, though). At the end of the day, the playerbase can only give feedback, not change the game directly, and in many cases, their consensus does happen to be correct, as was the case on the assessment of Dynamic Queue, or the state of damage in the game right now. If a champion turns out unbalanced, the fault lies squarely with the people who had full access to data, as well as feedback, and whose job and expertise is to balance the game, yet who still made the wrong decision. For sure, players individually make mistakes and evaluate things wrongly, as you have throughout this argument, but that does not damn the playerbase as a whole, nor does it justify blaming people for daring to give feedback. The problem with your attitude here is that you are ultimately trying to silence players for giving out their opinions on the game, which ultimately would only make matters worse. By contrast, my goal here is to establish a clear distinction, one where we acknowledge that players aren't perfect, but then also realize that we can't just blame each other for Riot's poor decisions. With this distinction in mind, it should be possible for players to give feedback, and for Riot to sort properly through it and make decisions with a proper level of accountability. The very idea that Riot is pandering to players with hotfix-buffs, when they have openly accused those same players of being wrong on balance, makes no internal sense to begin with, and perpetuating that kind of drivel is at the heart of the toxicity on Gameplay. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=000300020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T18:02:45.395+0000) > > You chose your narrative to be based upon Riot not listening to the posts about gimmicky reworks when the community did not even try to make it work. There was no tangent to go on. This is the topic matter. Balance, not design. Akali rework "avoid buffs." Balance-related changes, not design-related changes. Do not derail it any further by referring to "design complaints" on Juggernaut patch as your example, and instead refer to Swain, Ornn, etc. Except _you_ were the one to go on a tangent on design, not me. It was you who brought up players making comments on design and not balance, which makes your accusation that the community "did not even try to make [Skarner's rework] work" that much more of a head-scratcher. Are you sure you're fully aware of who said what in this exchange?
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001000000000001,timestamp=2018-08-05T04:13:15.100+0000) > > ... yet that is still the personal attack you have chosen to make, after going through my post history, and so after attacking me under the presumption that I had done the same to you. It's not hard to gain fellowship or followers when you're reiterating ideas people already agree with. Furthermore, you seem to only respond to things that make you defensive over something by default or self-conscious. Why else would you choose this as the introduction to your post? You've dedicated **entire posts** to countering any kind of thing that could even REMOTELY be perceived as a personal attack. To the degree of taking it to another tangent. It was a waste time before and it's waste of time now. It's why I don't include it in your quotes. It's a matter of maturity and being able to take any criticism at all. I don't need to check your post history to remember how you've spoken to me before or how you've posted in other threads I've seen, especially when it seems like you don't speak in any different pattern. > And this is whose fault, exactly? The players', for daring to express that a champion feels bad by design, or the developers, who think the solution to a champion's bad design is to overtune them? Again, what is the point you are trying to make here? You fail to see the point which is that the balance was the problematic portion and nothing was really there to stop it. Those are the facts. Your narrative acts like the community was actively trying, which is pretty false. They are certainly trying now for Akali. > The deceit here, again, is that you are trying to drown what is a simple, basic point in a wave of bullshit, Being wordy doesn't mean it's deceit. In fact it's a basic attack on politicians by commoners who don't understand the complex language/logic being used. Trying to understand people isn't about attacking them over shit you don't understand. I'm not going to bother looking up the fallacy/bias charts, referring to those already demeans the discussion and pushes the emphasis to ad hominem. I'm not going to play your game of trying to make the other person look bad and use that as the primary weapon for "proving myself right." It's childish. Judge the logic, not the method that the logic is being stated with. > Wait, so how exactly does a champion being objectively too strong on release qualify as "hindsight"? Moreover, you're accusing players of not giving feedback on a champion being too strong, but then you defend Riot for having too little time to adjust in-between buffs? Where is the consistency in your argument? Also, why is it the players' fault if they took issue with the passive? What was wrong with criticizing the passive and wanting to rework it? It clearly didn't, and still doesn't feel good to use. I really question if you actually go back and reread your posts. Hell I question if you even reread mine for clarity. You made the narrative blatantly about "Riot should listen to the community this time" with: >When players pointed out how these champions were ridiculously unbalanced, some to the point of severely affecting Worlds 2015, Riot chose to blame the PBE testers for misjudging balance, rather than themselves for a) implementing those balance changes in the first place, and b) for buffing those champions at a point where literally no-one had asked for more. Effectively, the entire meme of player feedback being useless on balance is founded upon a lie, one specifically designed to divert blame. This disregards the timing of when these complaints happen and generalizes it to the point of making a shallow jab at Riot directly. Skarner is the perfect example of a champion that quite literally didn't receive buffs that "fixed" his problems as a champion until the very last cycle, and in that point in time, there was barely any clamor for nerfs. The complaints for the Juggernaut patch notably happened **during live** when it came to BALANCE. Since people weren't set on making the rework actually function AS IS without being broken, barely any feedback was really dedicated toward that idea in the PBE and even after. This is not the first time Riot has disregarded design complaints, especially with Karma rework being in the past already. They're not going to dedicate resources to essentially re-redo a champion, especially not in a short timespan. But players still submitted their frustrations and ideas regardless of this development idea and did not give enough proper feedback toward what would make the champion "balanced." It's not about whether they should voice their concern or not. Many scorned the reworks before ever even trying them. There is a time and a place to argue over concepts and designs vs. balancing what is essentially a "finished product." The consistency in the argument is that fault is definitely existent for the playerbase in the problem that arose. You might switch it around to say that I'm implying Riot did no wrong, so I had to include the full story basically to prevent any kind of misunderstandings or possible jabs. And with any full story, that means actually reading the topics in question and mentioning some example posts, not literally copy/pasting the thread and assume that another person is going to read the whole thing and *pick out specifically what I'm telling them.* I used a generalization toward the information you'd find and through the action of mentally filtering those posts after sorting from Newest to Oldest, ANY person can go judge what I'm saying from the totality of the topic. Ctrl+F isn't hard for reddit either. You also submitted player-oriented posts over "Gameplay getting blamed." That already shifts the narrative against Riot when we are not a hive mind in here. People can correctly/falsely assume whatever about other people or the boards in general. Freedom of speech. Riot is not blaming the playerbase themselves, which is an idea people will get from your words (and one person other than myself already did react that way). Anyway, if you've got something to say that isn't your continuous chain of questioning the coherency of my words (when that in and of itself can be worded in a nicer way to ask for a different method of explanation instead of assaulting the explanation), then go ahead. Otherwise if I were you, it'd be better to refrain for your own mental and emotional health. This is literally just a comment on the league boards. Chill the fuck out.
: I'm glad you asked! Here are [a](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/HlbGw8gB-boards-kept-spitting-on-riot-to-gut-two-the-least-snowbally-classes-for-like-year-and-a-half) [few](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/Pj14Ll4f-doublelifts-video-and-the-duality-of-boards) [examples](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/HMuGKnYb-i-like-how-gameplays-least-favorite-season-is-the-one-riot-pandered-the-most-to-them). I trust you know how the search feature works, so even if you somehow avoided seeing these threads during your time here, you should easily be able to see them. :)
So not Riot explicitly doing it themselves and instead the players who already go back and forth and assume that the boards are some kind of hive mind who are responsible for all changes? Great example. Really. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}
: Have you not seen the waves of threads after every hotfix-buff where Gameplay gets blamed for calling a champion weak on release? Aatrox's release and subsequent buffs come to mind, for example.
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=000300020000,timestamp=2018-08-04T16:40:14.468+0000) > > Could you stop repeatedly looking through my posts with your triggered attitude? You criticize actual useful posts that talk about where Nautilus can be played. I didn't, I saw this thread and just happened to see you made a particularly crappy response here. Imputing me a "triggered attitude" does not make you any less wrong on this matter (it also sounds a lot like projection, btw, as noted by the visibly aggravated tone to your reply), and the only post I criticized here was yours. It is by no means "actual useful posts" (sic), and having to toot your own horn that way is kinda sad to watch. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=000300020000,timestamp=2018-08-04T16:40:14.468+0000) > > I've seen Nautilus in support and even there this is a net buff because that shield will never last the full duration, allowing for more windows of engage especially in the early game where this buff matters. > > His solo lane is not the only lane, and does not need exclusive attention with regard to the champion as a whole. Except that still does not detract from your own, wrong post, in which you tried to counter a statement on Nautilus's _top lane_ by saying his _jungle clear_ wouldn't be too harshly affected. I'm not saying the above change is a buff or a nerf to his duo lane, I'm just pointing out that your comment serves strictly no purpose but to put another player down, as you tried to argue a point the OP was not even making. Trying to bullshit with me with tangential statements on topics that are not being discussed in this exchanged simply does not work.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LJ0HqNYN,comment-id=0003000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-04T16:59:38.196+0000) > > I didn't, I saw this thread and just happened to see you made a particularly crappy response here. Imputing me a "triggered attitude" does not make you any less wrong on this matter (it also sounds a lot like projection, btw, as noted by the visibly aggravated tone to your reply), and the only post I criticized here was yours. It is by no means "actual useful posts" (sic), and having to toot your own horn that way is kinda sad to watch. You seem to get a kick from trying to put people down yourself. I'm looking for active opinions and openness, not this low-effort kneejerk that doesn't even try to put math together for the champion as a whole in all applicable roles he's been in. Or should I commend him for doing nothing noteworthy except complain in a one-dimensional manner? It's fine to have opinions but don't expect it to get very far without data or enthusiasm. > > Except that still does not detract from your own, wrong post, in which you tried to counter a statement on Nautilus's _top lane_ by saying his _jungle clear_ wouldn't be too harshly affected. I'm not saying the above change is a buff or a nerf to his duo lane, I'm just pointing out that your comment serves strictly no purpose but to put another player down, as you tried to argue a point the OP was not even making. Trying to bullshit with me with tangential statements on topics that are not being discussed in this exchanged simply does not work. The validity of an opinion especially when the dynamic isn't being mentioned with regard to matchup and effective usage of the skill itself will be lower than something that actually does present those things. It is extremely common to encounter that in these boards, and this situation is no different to the kneejerks we see on the daily. But no, it's somehow bullshit because...? Oh yeah, cause you don't like opinions that differ from your own lmao. Reduce your emotional sensitivity and maybe you and I can have a real discussion. Last I checked Sunfire was primarily a tank **laner's** item. ?XD
: > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001,timestamp=2018-08-04T06:33:08.964+0000) > > What "first wave of buffs" were asked for? You mean the rework itself throughout its entire process? Because that's how the entire process of buffs got committed to. The movement speed complaints were there along with the "sluggish clears" which had to do with the zones, which were transitioned **LITERALLY DAYS LATER.** I got to play Skarner around this time and he was indeed garbage with the MS speed nerf and weird placement of the zones. [Here is a video of that where you can see the blatant discontent in the comments.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCgk8dp9iyA) Read the dates properly. Notice how the video was made on the 4th of August, which coincides exactly with the champion's _first_ kit iteration on the PBE. This is before the first buffs were even made. If the champion felt weak then then (and they were), it stands to reason that it would translate itself to their performance in that video. What point were you trying to make with this exactly? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001,timestamp=2018-08-04T06:33:08.964+0000) > > The entire testing cycle was filled with complaints over the passive rework itself and since it was so long ago, we cannot actually view the exact date of these posts. The general consensus naturally wouldn't change within a matter of days so easily until it has notably fought off the negativity of the change itself, which did end in everything being quite overtuned. Skarner's passive, among many other effects across the rework, was complained about for being gimmicky and a poor fit for the champion. It was also pointed out to take power away from his ganking, which is objectively true given that the crystals do not extend their effects to lane. How exactly does this relate to a discussion on the champion being undertuned? > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001,timestamp=2018-08-04T06:33:08.964+0000) > > Garen in particular was stompish in lower elo queues rather than higher elo (where he had particularly good matchups), so that with regard to balance actually left people complaining over Garen (the more successful of the bunch in terms of numbers changes) being nerfed when he already was only performing at an average level. The context for that has been held onto in multiple threads for this community across the years that he's been balanced for lower tiers that do not know how to properly handle him. [Mixed opinions can be found over Garen's state even in a reddit post years ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/3hufbi/skarners_win_rate_in_the_past_day_is_63_with_over/) Garen has _always_ stomped at low elo compared to high elo. Again, how does this relate to a general appreciation of their balance? You're bringing up a lot of red herrings here, none of which disguise the fact that these champions were legitimately dissatisfactory when their kits were first released. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001,timestamp=2018-08-04T06:33:08.964+0000) > > Even within the topic you posted, you're blathering on about what people didn't ask for when the Skarner mains themselves were perfectly fine with the changes. There was barely any clamor for nerfs after 8/7 changes. One player named Temjen had that to say about it, but a Master Skarner player said Skarner was in a good spot...whether that was bias or not, it undoubtedly indicates that the people who thought that Skarner needed more numbers tuning (AND NOT PASSIVE REWORK TUNING) were in the minority. There were so many opinions being tossed around by players who barely played "real" games with him (harder to judge from MMR) that judging who really had usable information requires an actual filtering of these posts. Sort those posts by New instead of Best and read things one by one instead of assume the entire topic speaks your narrative, then actually give player names and examples instead of generalize. I've already done that much this time, so it's at your leisure for this topic at the very least until another relevant POV needs to be stated. Wait, so one (1) player expressing satisfaction at Skarner's kit, proves... what, exactly? If you were to actually follow your own advice, and read the comments in chronological order, you will find that many players there took issue with the rework's design until the very end. Moreover, the one major change is that these players _stopped_ mentioning the champion was overtuned in the latter stages of the comments, which corresponds perfectly to what one would expect if a) the champion had been buffed past the point of undertuning, and b) the playerbase there was capable of evaluating this. It is curious that you would produce reasoning that confirms exactly my point, yet still pretend that it differs in some way. What exactly are you trying to argue here? That players called Skarner undertuned even after his excessive buffs? Because from what you yourself have told me, the exact opposite has happened. > [{quoted}](name=SirLapse,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=0003000200000001,timestamp=2018-08-04T06:33:08.964+0000) > > Raid Boss is correct, they clamored for buffs and received them. He needed those nerfs after the fact since his spires boosted his clear speed way too much, with one Youtuber I recall saying he had the fastest in the entire game (which was true). The hotfix was decided as late in balancing **in hindsight,** which branches from the short testing time that all of these changes were put through with, NOT from feedback blatantly saying he needs no more buffs or actual nerfs "not being listened to." Your information is heavily skewed since you're generally reiterating information based on biases of the boards these days. You are making strictly no sense here, and amply demonstrate that you have exactly zero real experience with the PBE testing process, let alone the actual Juggernaut patch cycle. Yes, the playerbase indeed clamored for buffs and received them, _as I literally just said in my first comment here_. If you were to actually read Skarner's changes properly, you will see that the subsequent nerfs he received did not fully pull back on these buffs, indicating that they were indeed necessary to a degree, and that the problems stem from Riot way overshooting on them. You accuse me of bias, yet contradict yourself by stating that players demonstrated satisfaction with Skarner in the last stages of his testing cycle, but then afterwards claiming that no-one expressed any such opinion on his balance. It is clear you came here with a conclusion already made up, and decided to go on a long, weaksauce rant when your opinions were found challenged. Unlike you, I was actually present and one of the testers during the Juggernaut Update, and I can tell you that the major sources of complaints came from the gimmicks added to those champions, a fact you yourself brought up without seemingly realizing its importance. There was also a distinct period of time where those champions did feel weak, followed by a second phase where they felt much stronger after their buffs: again, your own reply mentions this, and it does not take real-time experience then to be able to see this fact, as the comments on those threads are visible for all to see, assuming one can read properly and is intellectually honest enough to not try to pretend the exact opposite. At the end of the day, it is clear those champions were in need of buffs, which Riot overshot, and then subsequently blamed upon their testers while simultaneously ignoring the meat of their criticisms (e.g. the gimmicks added onto the juggernauts). You yourself do not outright deny this, so while you still try to base your entire counter-argument on deceitfully irrelevant tangents, you at least get that much credit.
> [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-04T15:29:27.209+0000) > > Read the dates properly. Notice how the video was made on the 4th of August, which coincides exactly with the champion's _first_ kit iteration on the PBE. This is before the first buffs were even made. If the champion felt weak then then (and they were), it stands to reason that it would translate itself to their performance in that video. What point were you trying to make with this exactly? I can read thank you very much. I see your reasoning through language has still not improved. I'm mentioning the timeline with regard to the champion and how absolutely horrid it felt on release. It is very hard to imagine the playerbase doing anything but kneejerk to this, visible even with topics in the present. People always like to refer to hindsight, but you can see how the passive itself was taken. It was not positive. It was not going to be positive within 6 days. > Skarner's passive, among many other effects across the rework, was complained about for being gimmicky and a poor fit for the champion. It was also pointed out to take power away from his ganking, which is objectively true given that the crystals do not extend their effects to lane. How exactly does this relate to a discussion on the champion being undertuned? I don't know. Champion strengths and weaknesses seem to have no relation to if a champion is overtuned or undertuned. I see no reason why people would ask for buffs if a champion has noticeable weaknesses from a rework, haHAA! That's not even the main idea. The negativity and lack of proper feedback is blatant. The proportion of actual posts who were willing to make this Skarner work "as is" were practically drops in the ocean of negativity and passive re-rework suggestions. > "Garen has _always_ stomped at low elo compared to high elo." Again, how does this relate to a general appreciation of their balance? You're bringing up a lot of red herrings here, none of which disguise the fact that these champions were legitimately dissatisfactory when their kits were first released. I've already looked for posts and videos for the topic matter at hand, do I really need to find more visible data for you to somehow believe my words over a topic that has represented Garen for literal years? His rework was noted to be one of the worst because it did not solve his core issue of being kited and thereby being a negligible carry in his own games. He did not have in-combat healing or shielding, whereas literally every other Juggernaut did. These are popular complaints about the whole debacle, so I have to ask if you even played the game around this time and gave a damn. 'Cause I sure did. His **design** inherently proved to be stronger in lower elo. He suffered for it in higher elo due to balancing. This is an example of where the *balance didn't matter* and a *design shift* was actually desired if they were only going to nerf him. Fix your definitions of balance and design. They are different things in gaming even if they are co-linked by the fact a dev has to do both well in a PvP game. The DESIGN was not appreciated. The balancing was the aftermath that was also unappreciated. > Wait, so one (1) player expressing satisfaction at Skarner's kit, proves... what, exactly? I feel like you need to reconsider your own evaluation of other people and go to actual social debates/politics or something. You need to realize that what I mentioned was in regard to the entirety of the thread in relation to the rework itself. The relevance of each post can then be filtered (as I told you that you would have to do) based on who has actually played Skarner to give an opinion, then sorted by posts in regards to how Skarner feels **numbers wise.** Very few people said he was overtuned. A Master tier Skarner player may be saying that the rework is now "fine" to absolutely abuse him for elo, which is why I mentioned that it might have been bias. If you want to give a good discussion at least put some effort to reading long ass threads instead of just long ass replies. >If you were to actually read Skarner's changes properly, you will see that the subsequent nerfs he received did not fully pull back on these buffs, indicating that they were indeed necessary to a degree, and that the problems stem from Riot way overshooting on them. They didn't completely pull back the buffs because as you would see in the stonewall video I posted, his clears were not only janky based on what area you completed them in, but his clears were actually garbage in relation to the other meta champions at the time. That wasn't the argument here. The bias I'm talking about is that you're prone to agree with kneejerk opinions and reflect on the game with inaccurate information because we're looking at it from the present without necessarily involving the input from people at the time. And it's reflected even moreso based on how you're replying to me and didn't go out of your way to mention posts that counteract the assumption that people "did want more Skarner buffs." "Feels terrible" was one of the main complaints seen in many posts which inevitably can be (and was) perceived as asking for buffs. Since the "New" sorting function can be assumed to be based on the last change, which was to the Crystal position, we can thoroughly see that the specific change that made Skarner more functional was that change itself. This is the buff that fixed Skarner's clunkiness but left him with hugely overtuned numbers. However, everything that came before was done in an effort to compensate a more clunky Skarner that people clamored about. Hind. Sight. No nerf threads were seen until after he began to rampage in solo queue. Every post I've seen from you has literally just been other people's present-time opinions summed up like a blender. It's like you don't actively think unless someone else has spoken first. But that's face value, I'm not implying that is how you do everything or think about everything. > Unlike you, I was actually present and one of the testers during the Juggernaut Update, and I can tell you that the major sources of complaints came from the gimmicks added to those champions, a fact you yourself brought up without seemingly realizing its importance. I was there. But yes, please go on with your ad hominem throughout your posts like you know where I've been. It's very useful to the topic at hand. I want to steer you away from me as the main focus of the thread itself and point you to the actual topic matter, which had more to do with BALANCE and not DESIGN. It's like a deja vu with the last time I spoke to you ages ago, since you didn't know the difference last time. Whether people are satisfied with a design or not shouldn't be influencing balance, but that is EXACTLY how the juggernaut reworks played out. All complaints over champion feel regardless of positive changes, no complaints over champion strength that stood out notably on its latest change until release. Where's the deceit in that blatant evidence? Or do you just not want to look bad because I'm telling you that you need to rethink something? Don't be inflexible. >At the end of the day, it is clear those champions were in need of buffs, which Riot overshot, and then subsequently blamed upon their testers while simultaneously ignoring the meat of their criticisms (e.g. the gimmicks added onto the juggernauts). "which Riot overshot" Do you not see that I'm saying that this was in hindsight? Where do you see in that PBE feedback thread outside of a good minority of people that he felt a bit strong? Even then, they didn't say how strong, only that they won a lot. PBE MMR makes it difficult to judge really how powerful something is. Move onto reddit threads and it was his actual release that ended in wanting hotfixes. I want to also remind you that these buffs were done in a matter of **DAYS.** Do you understand the clear gap in testing that Riot does these days even now for changes in relation to that? It's not just that Riot overshot. The community was too focused on his passive and wanting to re-rework it **rather than** focus on numbers. This has been shown very blatantly THROUGHOUT the feedback thread, youtube videos, and even forum threads at the time. In conclusion, to remind you once again. The community was at fault for asking for those Skarner buffs to the extent that they did with too few moments of feedback to really focus on **balancing Skarner.** Where are the "Skarner is too strong" threads from the 8/7 change? I don't see them. Clear speed was his primary strength as his ganking was seen as lackluster pre-6 (until people got better with him). Balance is about both ways, buffs AND nerfs. Riot screwed up because they didn't continue testing properly. It's not entirely the fault of one or the other, but the feedback visibly from that fiasco can be seen even now in hindsight over how limited proper feedback was over the actual design choice Riot chose. Whether or not the design choice was correct or not, people on the PBE were NOT set on the idea of making it work. So many passive re-reworks, not enough "hey let's compare his clear speed to competitive junglers" and "how does he teamfight?" as feedback. You cannot just shield the community and say "they did no wrong" when they are at least partially responsible for that release's abomination and limited feedback. Nobody was deadset on wanting more time before the release either, not at Riot and not in our community. There was no winner for the Juggernaut patch in terms of correct balancing. You chose your narrative to be based upon Riot not listening to the posts about gimmicky reworks when the community did not even try to make it work. There was no tangent to go on. This is the topic matter. Balance, not design. Akali rework "avoid buffs." Balance-related changes, not design-related changes. Do not derail it any further by referring to "design complaints" on Juggernaut patch as your example, and instead refer to Swain, Ornn, etc.
: Duration of the shield fucks up his LANING. Minions won't pop it while you are pushing, and if you use it right enemy laner often won't be able to either. In the JUNGLE, yes, shield will get popped regardles, but it doesn't matter, right now Naut is such a shitty jungler that sites like champion.gg don't even list him as a jungle champion anymore. Moreover, scuttles are the most important camp now, and this change makes him worse in contesting scuttles. And that's what I wrote. You are mixing two entirely different scenarios. They should really have more school hours spend on reading comprehension in NA.
If you fight anyone and have the shield up, you're automatically in a position to take less damage. Minions won't pop the shield while you are pushing, most certainly. But your E is more important for waveclear regardless along with the Sunfire I mentioned. This also doesn't take into account that the minion wave will damage your shield if you choose to use any empowered AA's at all, meaning that it's not just exclusively champion damage that will eat at your shield. This is not even including shielding defensively and backing off where you get no damage off the cast itself. Nautilus used to be a tank jungler and tank junglers in general right now are suffering for multiple reasons. You may be right about the fact that this might not be enough, but that doesn't change that it is indeed a significant buff to his jungling. If you only get 3 empowered auto's within one clear, that means you effectively have gotten a **15 second downtime** in your clears. Why ignore this? It's exactly why I pointed it out. Lowering a 15 second downtime to 9 seconds is huge when we take into account the amount of clears you need to commit two W's to, and using W more than once means you actually come out with more health than live Nautilus. Scuttles are not the most important camps. Your first clear is the most important clear on tank junglers, and if they stop you from being able to do them (i.e. Nocturne, Lee Sin, etc.) then you effectively are useless until your team has enough damage to rely on just your CC alone. A huge issue with Nautilus for the longest time is that you use your primary dueling/defensive ability TO CLEAR CAMPS. And when you're invaded on, IT IS GONE, meaning you are extremely vulnerable. Your reaction feels extremely kneejerk. Take the damn buff and if it isn't enough then ask for something else instead of flame Riot for even attempting something with tank junglers.
: Did you actually read OP's post properly? They criticized how this would constitute a nerf to Nautilus's _laning_, first and foremost. Why exactly are you bringing up his jungling in response? It must certainly feel very gratifying to put other players collectively down, and raise oneself up by comparison in the process, but it becomes a little embarassing when one also happens to have been unable to read an argument properly, let alone respond to it adequately.
Could you stop repeatedly looking through my posts with your triggered attitude? You criticize actual useful posts that talk about where Nautilus can be played. I've seen Nautilus in support and even there this is a net buff because that shield will never last the full duration, allowing for more windows of engage especially in the early game where this buff matters. His solo lane is not the only lane, and does not need exclusive attention with regard to the champion as a whole.
: His jungle clear is already trash tier. Now his base shield health is going down weakening his first clear (THE MOST IMPORTANT CLEAR!) Especially on red buff side. Then it's weaker lategame punishing him for picking health over resists. (Why the fk would I buy Stoneplate now?) And what do I get in exchange? An irrelevant mana cost buff as I build mana first or have a blue buff in jg. A duration nerf with a cd buff as compensation. But in the end that doesn't mean crap as almost every naut hits 40-45% cdr resulting in a near constant w uptime late game assuming he isn't being hit. And even if I get fed and a big beefy shield. It along with my primary damage only lasts 6 dam seconds. So what exactly have I gained as a naut jg main who's been waiting years for him to be fixed? I see a grand sum of nerfs
His jungle speed is slow but generally more casts of his shield allows for superior overall clears, even if it is only slight in the end. We've seen jungle shifts change the viability of champions over time, so it's not like he can't come back. There's a lot of damage going around in the meta so it's arguable as to whether base stats currently are enough for him, and that has less to do with the shield and more to do with the state of the game. His sustain for clears will be superior however without a doubt. Blue buff covers the mana costs easily, but 20 less mana to pay in lane after all the E cost nerfs is quite useful. Hell, if you E max then your W is not going to be going past rank 2 until you're past lv9, which means for the majority of the early game **this is a buff.** 10 second duration only matters if you're already in a position to heavily tank for the team or your matchup, which doesn't apply to jungle ganks, tanking for early dragons, etc. Nautilius is just a CC bot late game and that hasn't really been touched here.
Baval (NA)
: if your main concern is "someone at Riot forgot that his shield is also a damage source, that he uses to waveclear and fight" and the cooldown and cost was reduced without reducing the damage, doesnt that then help his ability to waveclear and fight?
Not waveclear, but definitely his ability to clear the jungle and have superior trading windows in the early game where he already is arguably decent in some matchups.
: So tanks are getting buffed, but Nautilus is getting gutted further? noice.
Except this primarily hurts his E max ONLY, and not even at early game. Sunfire Cape is an option for waveclear and Cinderhulk does have a usable AoE. This is in no way a net nerf if we calculate how FAST your shield goes down while trying to do any camps at all. Once the shield is gone, you've lost your damage regardless. It was never going to last the full 10 seconds, NEVER. I still don't even think it'll last the full 6 here either considering that every single camp does at least 120 damage within 3 seconds regardless of champion, barring someone like Graves who forces the mobs to get kited. That means you've effectively gained 6 second cooldown reduction for free for clears where your shield is most definitely going to get popped. Posts like these get upvoted when absolutely no show of validity is shown by someone who plays Nautilus to test clear efficiency (or already have it memorized in general for what a change like this does) shows what kind of community really camps this place. Learn some math and practicality people...
: > [{quoted}](name=EROTIC RAID BOSS,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=piXb6JVU,comment-id=00030002,timestamp=2018-08-03T21:44:35.142+0000) > > That's a bit revisionist, I remember the juggernaut reworks, and players absolutely screamed for those buffs. Except, as just mentioned above, the buffs came in multiple waves. The first was asked for by the players, the subsequent ones were not. If you do not believe me, you can [see for yourself](https://boards.pbe.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-feedback/d2bmpMif-skarner-pbe-changelist-and-feedback-thread) that Skarner, for example, received large buffs to his mobility on the second wave of buffs, rather than the first. So much for revisionism.
What "first wave of buffs" were asked for? You mean the rework itself throughout its entire process? Because that's how the entire process of buffs got committed to. The movement speed complaints were there along with the "sluggish clears" which had to do with the zones, which were transitioned **LITERALLY DAYS LATER.** I got to play Skarner around this time and he was indeed garbage with the MS speed nerf and weird placement of the zones. [Here is a video of that where you can see the blatant discontent in the comments.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCgk8dp9iyA) The entire testing cycle was filled with complaints over the passive rework itself and since it was so long ago, we cannot actually view the exact date of these posts. The general consensus naturally wouldn't change within a matter of days so easily until it has notably fought off the negativity of the change itself, which did end in everything being quite overtuned. Garen in particular was stompish in lower elo queues rather than higher elo (where he had particularly good matchups), so that with regard to balance actually left people complaining over Garen (the more successful of the bunch in terms of numbers changes) being nerfed when he already was only performing at an average level. The context for that has been held onto in multiple threads for this community across the years that he's been balanced for lower tiers that do not know how to properly handle him. [Mixed opinions can be found over Garen's state even in a reddit post years ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/3hufbi/skarners_win_rate_in_the_past_day_is_63_with_over/) Even within the topic you posted, you're blathering on about what people didn't ask for when the Skarner mains themselves were perfectly fine with the changes. There was barely any clamor for nerfs after 8/7 changes. One player named Temjen had that to say about it, but a Master Skarner player said Skarner was in a good spot...whether that was bias or not, it undoubtedly indicates that the people who thought that Skarner needed more numbers tuning (AND NOT PASSIVE REWORK TUNING) were in the minority. There were so many opinions being tossed around by players who barely played "real" games with him (harder to judge from MMR) that judging who really had usable information requires an actual filtering of these posts. Sort those posts by New instead of Best and read things one by one instead of assume the entire topic speaks your narrative, then actually give player names and examples instead of generalize. I've already done that much this time, so it's at your leisure for this topic at the very least until another relevant POV needs to be stated. Raid Boss is correct, they clamored for buffs and received them. He needed those nerfs after the fact since his spires boosted his clear speed way too much, with one Youtuber I recall saying he had the fastest in the entire game (which was true). The hotfix was decided as late in balancing **in hindsight,** which branches from the short testing time that all of these changes were put through with, NOT from feedback blatantly saying he needs no more buffs or actual nerfs "not being listened to." Your information is heavily skewed since you're generally reiterating information based on biases of the boards these days.
: Combination of conqueror nerfs, scaling crit ADC nerfs, bad defensive options early, lack of tank meta, snowball-y games, etc. all benefit Quinn a ton.
Nautilus is still capable of 1v1'ing her. Lack of tank meta literally is the reason she gets to fly around picking people off. It's amazing what kind of things tanks negate and how the game is really like when you take off the lid that was blocking the jar of bs. Stuff was balanced to handle tanks being in the game, so naturally having a lot less of them in the meta equates to...well, rampant damage snowball.
: I just hit the absolute worst feeling in the world
Unfortunately in top lane you need to be more macro-oriented to actually win games like these. You made a huge mistake that is hardly noticed by players of around that skill range because the advantage in and of itself depends on winning lane to gain priority and has your jungler already being there, two factors that sadly are not common when put together since season 3. Not saying you didn't do well, but there's always a way to perform better. At 2:54 you needed to spam ping your jungler to help you push the wave. First blood tower was in your hands: Tryndamere's teleport was down and it's an AD jungler rather than tank jungler. There was no excuse for you to not take that tower when you still had the mana to do so along with a jungler. You then made the same mistake later on until your team inevitably took Rift Herald and used it for something you should've obtained *ages* ago. Obviously I'm not keeping track of how you're warding either, but games like these need the top lane to be won swiftly and quickly to make your bot lane swap lanes with your dumpstered Tryndamere or group mid. Since they had Katarina, I think it was an actual risk to not go down there and 3-man gangbang her and her tower while you had the chance, since even if you dumpster a Tryndamere, his main goal is always going to be splitting and not teamfighting. Which then also leads to the issue with your lead. Your team was never going to be in a position where they could jump Katarina unless you had Righteous Glory already to bumrush her and take her combo, preventing her from using the combo on squishier teammates. These first 15 minutes are crucial to note how you could've played better. Everything that comes after is just a result of what you could've done but didn't do, so it's really up in the air for what was the "best" plan after that (in most cases a top laner has tossed his advantage by doing what you did). You should consider learning mid lane or jungle quite honestly since top lane is very hard to carry from if you're not able to make the aforementioned decisions. Your composition had no answers to Katarina directly except for you facetanking for stun or Yasuo tornado (unless she literally just runs into Zyra E point blank), so it was either she bursts you or you burst her. Longer the game goes, the more she scales harder if not shut down. Doesn't help that the enemy had Rengar + Quinn. Your Zyra would have to singlehandedly be your disengage and burst to counter their comp, and that means the game was not in your control at that point for teamfights. Also, what was the point of camping Rengar at 5:21? What was there to gain if your team was fighting bot and Rengar was going to be at red, where you and Kha'Zix could've easily made it be a 5v4? You needed to ping your team back and then ulti your way down there with Kha'Zix to absolutely slam her, not camp useless targets like a Rengar who wasn't going to be able to participate in the fight. This is the perfect example of going for kills rather than objectives, because that freakin' Katarina and shutting her down BECAME an objective. If she wasn't stopped there was no world where'd you ever win. When you went to split top and the enemy was at your inhib's door, it only ended up working out because you were massively fed. If it were in any other situation, that was an automatic throw. The enemy's inhib means nothing compared to your own when you are the only person that can play aggressive on your team, meaning that YOU would be the only one pushing top. So in addition to you failing to aide your team in an important fight because you showed top, you also lost any ability to help them properly and gave Tryndamere free farm if you leave him alone. This situation can be changed by grouping after the fact, but your team was in no position to have that be advantageous because of everything that happened before. Your Yasuo made the right play by pushing the side lane at 10:41. You weren't going to 2v2 Kat+Blitz under tower with your build so might as well make yourself useful and pick up the tower, then leave for Elder Drake since it was FREE. ABSOLUTELY FREE. Your Yas could've died splitting bot but you'd still have Elder Drake like damn. That's also considered a throw. Their inhib was blatantly going to be up within less than a minute so your push would've been nullified eventually regardless. It's ok to vent that this was a hard game, but to say you played the best you could've done would be true only in the moment. Keep improving and you can do better than what you did in this game that you consider "very good gameplay."
: asking about renekton and hit power in lane
{{champion:133}} That Renekton player will flame you if he's aware you did this pick intentionally and smash him. {{champion:17}} Extremely common ban amongst Renekton mains. The ability to negate Renekton's stun is extremely powerful, even if it's not as strong as Quinn E+Q denying Renekton any ability to do anything at all. Renekton is strong against mana-based poke, not auto-based poke like Teemo because he simply cannot walk up to his wave to Q sustain easily. {{champion:122}} Skill-based matchup. Heavily determined by how many E's you can land and if you know how to guarantee Q's after W slow. {{champion:126}} Need to know how to play him, but his laning craps on everyone. {{champion:80}} Wins. vs bad Renektons, especially if the Renekton in question goes glass cannon. {{champion:2}}{{champion:48}} Renekton can't duel either of them post-6 unless ahead. Olaf specifically can just run Renekton down with successive Q's if played correctly. {{champion:85}} Ranged champs in general when played correctly crap all over Renekton, as long as they auto more than use abilities for lane pressure. {{champion:62}} Lv2 Ignite cheese and you'll stay ahead most of the game vs. mostly everyone, Renekton included. No sustain so if you fail, you will likely lose your team the game. {{champion:98}} {{champion:106}}{{champion:83}} Good in lane, might screw your composition over depending on what you do or build.
Rioter Comments
: Riot wants to make it easier to win stalled out games
The issue with rubberbanding as a concept is that as long as it exists, scaling teams basically have no weakness unless they majorly screw up. Just pick whatever wins late game. That's literally what would happen if we let ADCs scale to their late game despite the variety currently existing in bot lane. And that's we already had, unless your champion was so strong early that scaling didn't matter. But then we have the good ol' 3-5 man gank to prevent any fed player from getting away with anything. {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} I honestly think scaling as a term needs to be redefined. Items as a whole since Blade rework have been extremely early-game focused power spikes. Our base damages went up and resistances went down, so inevitably these first item power spikes are a lot stronger than they were in past years. AP champions are the primary people suffering unironically because of how much time they need to spend to make it to their first item, meaning if they get set behind they're basically irrelevant unless "insert x utility here" is super strong to have. https://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/2808408850/47544192?tab=overview GAMES LIKE THESE STILL EXIST. It reminds me of S5 where winning was painfully slow and it felt like having a noncohesive "let's split from team" issue meant you could never win the game. Solo carrying doesn't exist when fundamentally not every champ can 1v5 or split, but right now it is actually completely possible. We need adjustments so it's not useless to be behind in jungle and mid while also buffing up ADCs by hitting them in their scaling and buffing them up early. Matches will legitimately be more even from those kinds of changes rather than catch-up exp or other forms of rubberbanding. If opponents have similar levels of power longer, the game will naturally go on longer.
Tusutaki (NA)
: Who was Hail of Blades designed for?
The keystone feels bad on champions that don't have a reliable way of getting onto the enemy for the said AA's. I've tested it with Diana and it's quite good if the enemy literally stands still, but if they kite back then you simply do not have enough time after your first attack to really do anything with the rune. It doesn't really help that on champions with low base AS that this rune sees even less returns and actually is clunky in the game. Does it really need extreme buffs? I don't really think so. Needs higher duration because it's literally 3 auto's and nothing more, making it burst-centric for on-hits in the early game. The out of combat side of it makes it extremely hard to justify the short window of time you really get to use it with, since I usually have to skip out on CS to use it in lane compared to junglers who do not. I'd also like to say that if some champions find this to be a comfortable rune, AA animation speed for the initial hit should be improved so as to not cancel auto's. It damages the rune's effectiveness by denying an ability to get any bonus AA's to begin with.
: Nerf ALL damage done by champions with 10%
If Burst > DPS then Burst -10% > DPS-10% in any scenario where the duration of the fight does not allow the DPS user any real kind of interaction...saying that nerfing everything will create a slower game is the same as saying that nobody would be affected by the changes and the game would just proceed slower with the same picks. Which is far from true due to early game champs existing. I understand the complaint but this is literally the worst possible way to solve it since it's a one-dimensional viewpoint on damage. Let's just ignore all the CS'ing complaints that Riot has only recently resolved for AP champions via Doran's Ring changes and damage the ability to last hit on every non-jungle role. Yeah! Let's also ignore that base damage has next to nothing to do with how important items are to scale into the game where all these quick fights are happening! YEAH! {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}} Seriously why has nobody suggested nerfs to items across the board which enable these champions and instead point to base stats which affect early to mid game way more? We have 70-80 AD items in the store with Luden's and other high damage options rolling around everywhere to add onto burst so much that ACTUAL BURST CHAMPIONS like {{champion:134}} are garbage since there's only presence in the items, not the champions. Speaking solo queue of course.
: Yup next patch they are getting some pretty decent buffs, but I would really like Riot to explore another rework/minirework for Kindred. With the marksmen itemization nerfs and jungle changes I don't see their current kit working very well in the jungle since it is so intertwined with crit items now.
{{item:3071}} {{item:3153}} {{item:3026}} {{item:3036}} {{item:3085}} {{item:3094}} 2 of these are crit items but only 1 is ever really built per game. Runaan's is a waveclear option and combined with Mark scaling, RFC is to be feared if Kindred ever buys Stormrazor. But the grand majority of what you'll be using by mid game is Black Cleaver, Runaan's and BoTRK or LDR/Mortal, not IE or crit stacking purchases. Kindred wants the effects of the items, the crit is literally just a bonus.
: Maybe something to affect the visibility of marks. Right now, it's too easy to shut her out in the enemy jungle. Since they all know where the marked camp is. And with the current scuttle meta(Which almost no one at all likes) she has to try and compete with the current jungle picks, which are all mainly strong early jungle champs, for them. So she's more reliant on marking champs, but that puts you at the mercy of your team most of the time to set up ganking opportunities for you, which is only more likely at high elo. So right now, she's pretty much 1v9 when it comes to the matter of marks below I'd say plat at best. Though thankfully marks aren't completely necessary to be effective, they are helpful. and she doesn't scale nearly as fast as Nasus or Veigar for example. Especially since after a certain amount, wolf only marks Baron/dragon/Rift herald.
Forest Within has had games he had a disgustingly high lead in despite only carrying 2 marks by 20 min. or so. A random player will call this bad without regarding how the actual lead was obtained, which is through pathing correctly and going for realistic advantages instead of getting baited by the passive. You also have to remember that of course Kindred will not scale as hard as Nasus or Veigar. They're not supposed to. You literally do not have a damage-based ulti and the comparisons actually do go into their deathball state once R has been activated. Try not to compare Kindred to those champions.
: Honestly if losing a couple of marks was not a death sentence. She is also a hard stuck jungler since her passive requires her to get marks. I would love to see her played in top lane or even as a mini adc. {{champion:203}}
It's really not, especially after the mini-rework. Definitely stuck as a jungler, but good pathing easily breaks past the Mark scaling issue by using *actual gold.* It used to be that you'd dump your gold into on-hit items and wait to even properly scale with good Mark count, never really seeing a proper mid game spike despite leads. Low total % AD ratios were the reason for this, so the shift to bonus AD was huge for the champion.
Show more

SirLapse

Level 154 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion