: Riot please dont nerf Black Cleaver
Who even said they'd nerf Black Cleaver? Just jumping to conclusions?
: Wont we reach a point with Ekko's state of balance...
Yes we will. And even then, people will _still_ not stop complaining about him.
: Sorry, i'm not toxic, i'm the guy who rather not read toxic messages in the chat so a simply mute all is the best tool available for me. Its sad when thread like this get to the main page because people are too soft, too fragile to mute the toxic player
> [{quoted}](name=kaltenashes,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UtUzffEv,comment-id=002f0000000000010000,timestamp=2016-05-14T17:45:22.759+0000) > > Sorry, i'm not toxic You just contemptuously accused someone of "crying" for wanting toxic people to be banned (and also equated instigating suicide with giving unwanted gameplay advice, wtf?). Maybe you say nothing in game, but hello? This is toxic. Stop it.
Amelie (NA)
: Zyra feels strong but less skillful to play now
More skill doesn't always mean more fun. Sometimes, a champ's skill requirement is due to clunkiness, and ends up being more about avoiding poor performance rather than achieving good performance. I feel like choosing when and where to place Zyra's seeds was one of those cases, because they were so limited. I enjoy that they made her able to use her plants from level 1, even though putting so much power into her innate passive made it harder to control where they end up. She still has interesting choices to make. Getting more plants without having to max W just feels better, IMO.
Quepha (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=0005000000010000000100000000,timestamp=2016-05-11T23:27:45.669+0000) > > Because that is objectively not true. Lower damage means you have a smaller window to actually get the last hit before focused minion attacks kill the target. You can hit multiple minions in succession without using poison, but again, the window for doing so is _much_ smaller, so if you need to hit multiple minions quickly, you want to use poison anyway to make sure you don't miss any, which you would have already done with the old E. The small window for pulling off a cs is rarely considered a relevant factor. Many champions have to cs with normal auto attacks and don't even have the opportunity to fit AD items into their build. "window to successfully cs" is something that's generally assumed you're capable of dealing with after some practice. Frequency of being able to cs, sustain on cs, ability to cs under turret, and pushing power when you want to push are considered more important, and Cass's new E has helped her out in pretty much all of those aspects.
Doesn't change the fact that you will have problems if minions go from "too much health to kill" to dead in less time than your attack animation (or E animation, in this case). Most players will miss some CS in that situation, especially if they don't have low ping. I don't care how good/quick you are. You want to avoid that, if possible.
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=00050000000100000001,timestamp=2016-05-11T19:53:22.282+0000) > > Sorry, what? I meant the 30% bonus AP she got from maxing out her old innate, Aspect of the Serpent. Getting a 30% bonus on 5 AP items was worth more AP than being able to build a 6th AP item. Therefore, her full build now offers less AP than it did before. lol, my bad... misread. When it comes to the 30% bonus AP from passive, you have to remember that ratios and base dmg's were changed, so the "AP gap" is not that large. With full build you can still go over 1k AP if you want. > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=00050000000100000001,timestamp=2016-05-11T19:53:22.282+0000) > > As for CDR runes, her inability to build Sorcerer's Shoes makes magic penetration runes pretty attractive, doesn't it? Well everybody has used Mpen Marks for Mages as long as I remember... that hasn't changed. But sure, Void Staff / Liandry are even more part of her core now. > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=00050000000100000001,timestamp=2016-05-11T19:53:22.282+0000) > > Especially if she wants to last-hit minions with E. I really don't understand why every pleb brings this up all of the sudden... it's way easier to last hit minions now than it has ever been. -.-
> [{quoted}](name=Snake on bush,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=000500000001000000010000,timestamp=2016-05-11T19:59:37.997+0000) > > lol, my bad... misread. When it comes to the 30% bonus AP from passive, you have to remember that ratios and base dmg's were changed, so the "AP gap" is not that large. With full build you can still go over 1k AP if you want. Yeah, there's additional base damage on the E against poisoned targets that I didn't account for. It still doesn't make up for the lower AP, but it does make up for the lower scaling, so it's not as bad as I was thinking. Sure, you can get 1k AP with new blue buff and/or red drakes, but everyone else gets those, too. Her AP relative to every other champion is lower than it used to be (context: she used to reach higher AP totals than anyone except Veigar, and she still does, but less so). I _have,_ however, heard from others who play her more than I do that the hotfix made her feel a lot better. I just did an AI game to try it out, and it feels pretty decent, but I was still getting kited too easily. The next patch is supposed to increase her Q range and let her cast W over walls in a wider possible band of ranges, which should help with that a lot. > I really don't understand why every pleb brings this up all of the sudden... it's way easier to last hit minions now than it has ever been. -.- Because that is objectively not true. Lower damage means you have a smaller window to actually get the last hit before focused minion attacks kill the target. You can hit multiple minions in succession without using poison, but again, the window for doing so is _much_ smaller, so if you need to hit multiple minions quickly, you want to use poison anyway to make sure you don't miss any, which you would have already done with the old E. If a wave of minions out-damages your E, yes, CSing is harder, especially if the window for getting the last hit is shorter than your ping time. In order to stop that from happening, you need to poison minions, even individual ones, and if you do that too much, you go OoM. There's no reason to call people "plebs" for recognizing that.
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=000500000001,timestamp=2016-05-11T04:18:06.735+0000) > > Yes, because 30% of 5 items is always more AP than your sixth best item. Why do you assume that you have to get all the CDR from items? You can get 10% from Runes + Masteries, and then the remaining 20% from Morello. > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=000500000001,timestamp=2016-05-11T04:18:06.735+0000) > > Are you saying CDR (which she got for free) didn't work on the reset? I was pretty positive it did, but now I'm having second thoughts. I can't check, obviously. It didn't work on the E per se, it was always a static 0.5 but it could lower the CD if you would use it to non poisoned target ... then it would have dropped the CD from 5 to 3.75, if i remember correctly. Not sure.
> [{quoted}](name=Snake on bush,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=0005000000010000,timestamp=2016-05-11T11:56:04.900+0000) > > Why do you assume that you have to get all the CDR from items? > > You can get 10% from Runes + Masteries, and then the remaining 20% from Morello. Sorry, what? I meant the 30% bonus AP she got from maxing out her old innate, Aspect of the Serpent. Getting a 30% bonus on 5 AP items was worth more AP than being able to build a 6th AP item. Therefore, her full build now offers less AP than it did before. As for CDR runes, her inability to build Sorcerer's Shoes makes magic penetration runes pretty attractive, doesn't it? Especially if she wants to last-hit minions with E. Given that Abyssal Scepter's aura no longer affects minions, that's basically 35 mpen she's losing mid-game against minions, in addition to the lower damage against non-poisoned targets.
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2016-05-10T20:41:41.837+0000) > > But your full build will have less AP. Nope, unless people build items that don't have much AP. > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2016-05-10T20:41:41.837+0000) > > Between that, the greatly increased Twin Fang cooldown (seriously, even after the buff, it's 50% longer than it was with the reset, so there goes 1/3 of her DPS right there), Nope. It's not hard to obtain 30% CDR without sacrificing your raw AP / DPS. > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2016-05-10T20:41:41.837+0000) > >Also, she can't last-hit effectively with E anymore because it's barely more than an autoattack without poison, That's only a matter of getting used to it ... also many people just suck. It's way easier to last hit now than before lulz. > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2016-05-10T20:41:41.837+0000) > > and she doesn't even scale into late game like she used to. Yes, she does. > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2016-05-10T20:41:41.837+0000) > > > Oh, and she can't peel with Miasma, so she dies easier, too. Was never a good self-peel tool anyway. That's why we have Rylai's.
> [{quoted}](name=Snake on bush,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9xAPHu44,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2016-05-10T22:41:53.148+0000) > > Nope, unless people build items that don't have much AP. Yes, because 30% of 5 items is always more AP than your sixth best item. > Nope. It's not hard to obtain 30% CDR without sacrificing your raw AP / DPS. Are you saying CDR (which she got for free) didn't work on the reset? I was pretty positive it did, but now I'm having second thoughts. I can't check, obviously. > That's only a matter of getting used to it ... also many people just suck. No, it's a matter of poisonless E being barely stronger than the autoattack of someone who builds no AD, which has _always_ sucked for last-hitting. The fact that it's still technically possible is not the point. > Was never a good self-peel tool anyway. That's why we have Rylai's. Yes it was. A lot better than Q, because of the duration. Even if they tried to get past it, it would make it easy to land Q by making their movement predictable even if they avoided the slow.
Zerolera (NA)
: My Thoughts on Cassiopeia
Regarding the innate passive, it saves you 300-1100 gold in the early to mid game. It's not strictly a late-game thing. But your full build will have less AP. Between that, the greatly increased Twin Fang cooldown (seriously, even after the buff, it's 50% longer than it was with the reset, so there goes 1/3 of her DPS right there), slightly lower scalings, and the loss of poison damage amplification, Cass has lost a _huge_ portion of her damage output. That's the problem. She's a "hyper-carry", and she does no damage. Also, she can't last-hit effectively with E anymore because it's barely more than an autoattack without poison, and even when she does manage it, any net mana gain will only come from Doran's Ring and Tear of the Goddess. So her laning is awkward, her E is weak, she still goes OoM fast, and she doesn't even scale into late game like she used to. Oh, and she can't peel with Miasma, so she dies easier, too.
1337JMAN (NA)
: Riot Is Flat Out Ignoring Us
They've already said everything they have to say on the matter. Of course they're not going to reply when the same thread is on the front page 10 times and says absolutely nothing new. What do you expect?
: I was wrong, naysayers were right; Current Cass is garbo (36% win rate)
Well, they reduced her maximum DPS by _half._ She has lower AP totals (a 6th item is less than a 30% increase), 50% higher E cooldown (was 80% higher) compared with the old reset, and less AP scaling. CSing is also clunkier because missing the poison penalizes your damage instead of your cooldown. She no longer gets a net gain in mana for killing units with E. They removed her ability to scout and peel with Miasma, and Q has lower range and damage (without E poison amp), so she's altogether worse at kiting. ...Yep. She got gutted.
: How is it offensive to call someone transgender when their transgender? It's not offensive to call a black person black.
It's not. But a lot of people don't like being called "transgenders" rather than "transgender people". Just being informative. I think it's silly, but I'm not going to go out of my way to say something offensive just because I think it shouldn't be.
: ***
This is wrong on so many levels. It's not like you have the slightest need to understand the principles at work, because it doesn't matter to you anyway, but that doesn't mean you get to take your grossly oversimplified children's stories about how the world is supposed to work and impose them on people who don't have any choice but to know better. Calling people "mentally broken" because you don't understand them is bullshit.
Aír (NA)
: I just meant that "gender is a social construct and doesnt have to be based off biological sex" is a phrase that transgenders use. Don't hate me for it. Ask any trans and this is what he or she will say. I am not saying I agree with the statement that Kass is a girl (trust me, I really really don't), I just simply mean to state that the description of gender is extremely appropriate. Otherwise, how do you explain trans people? (I hope to god that you are not someone who plans to be wicked offensive to trans people.)
For one thing, that's not a noun. It's an adjective. It's generally considered offensive to call people "transgenders". More to the point, I think Kassadin might have something to say about it, and I don't recall anything about him ever being represented as female, so it's pretty strange to call him a mom.
Wygol (EUW)
: Ekko's still broken, right?
No. Building defensively and still doing "relevant damage" isn't a problem. If it is, gut Mundo. But it's not. And we've already seen "Tankko" getting blown up and being useless in teamfights even before the latest rebalancing attempt. They already nerfed Iceborn Gauntlet's damage, which was a large chunk of his damage output as a tank. And the funny thing is that Ekko didn't have enough damage to kill people before (without his ult, which is not remotely reliable), but now he might get a squishy into execute range if he goes full AP (but he'll still have to whack them a couple of times after the combo). Suggestion 1 is terrible. His bases are already low. If you reduce them any more, he will be so useless in the early game he won't even reach mid game. Suggestion 2 is similarly untenable. His CC is essential to him being able to accomplish anything. His Q is an easily dodgeable skillshot, his W does no damage and is highly telegraphed, and his E alone isn't that useful without landing something else. And he needs the slow and movespeed from his passive to be able to move in and out of a fight, because he's either squishy or barely does "relevant damage" with significant cooldowns. For what it's worth, a Rioter (I don't remember who) commented on suggestion 3, specifically with respect to his Q, as being something they might want to do.
: Riot, I love Taliyah's special interactions
{{item:3100}} "Huh. Towers are stone, too. Interesting." Dayum~!
TallyZrg (NA)
: Are you seriously arguing about 0.25 seconds on an effect? You can't even react that fast so why are you complaining about it? Especially when they gave Kennen's ult the GP treatment of affecting EVERYTHING inside of it for more consistency. If anything you should be grateful for the Ultimate update.
First, a quarter of a second is _well within_ normal human reaction time. Second, reaction isn't relevant, since the o/p was talking about spamming W as soon as it comes off cooldown, which doesn't require reaction anyway. What _is_ relevant is the increased availability of CDR, which makes rank 5 W still overlap with the innate passive.
Tsohgder (EUW)
: I feel like Riot doesn't even play their own champions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Zhonya's Hourglass a core item, maybe even the _first_ item, on AP Kennen? Because it now builds out of Fiendish Codex, which gives Kennen easy early access to 10% CDR. If he doesn't want that, Abyssal and the new Protobelt also grant 10% CDR. And _most champions_ have to actually buy _some_ CDR if they want to cross certain overlapping recast thresholds on their abilities.
GenoXx (NA)
: Now see here you go with the sexualized mess.... It was all good until u brought up sexism...Just be happy its a new champion, gawd. Saying something like "I'm happy she not sexualized :D" states that feminist are still ready to go at it again with the anatomy war again. No one said anything about Taric being too sexualized for girls did they? Honestly, it was uncalled for to say that. Let's not start a sexism war.
Well, there was nothing resembling a "war" until you showed up getting angry that anyone mentioned that subject at all. Food for thought.
JungHai0 (NA)
: Taliyah's Design
Agreed. She has a unique appearance that I find appealing and a valuable addition to the game, artistically speaking. Her gameplay looks like a lot of fun, too. As an aside, I have to laugh at all the people acting like 16-year-olds have no sexuality of their own and don't play League either. "But she's a child!" Americans. My country. LMAO. She's a minor by many standards, yes. That's not what a child is. Creeping on people much younger than you is obviously gross and often illegal, but this is a fictional character, and there are people of her nominal age playing League. Of course, what do I expect from a culture that puts gore and mutilation on TV, but hides nipples? XD I digress. Taliyah's hypothetical sexuality is irrelevant, and the o/p is right in saying there's no reason to sexualize her. I just thought it was hilarious to see people acting like a 16-year-old is a totally non-sexual entity. Clearly, they don't remember being 16. I'm laughing forever at all this squirming.
: What do you call Riot Lyte burning a toxic player.
{{summoner:11}} & {{summoner:14}}
: Kinda sad about losing Mana Regen on Morellonomicon/ {{item:3165}} {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-rainbows}}
Look on the bright side. It inherited Athene's old kill/assist regen AND provides a large chunk of flat mana (and more AP!). And Lost Chapter gives you the level up mana regen from Catalyst (but not the health). I think it'll be okay.
6KEMBE4ORBA (EUNE)
: Let's be real - you don't have any clear motivation, nor you're fighting for smth here. Who has the higher chances of being a troll? hah You leveled the SoloQ/DQ threads with "lies"? How clever. --- Real life sports don't allow top players to compete with "amateur/lesser" leagues, nor have individual ranks for every player based solely on their team performance. _"You contend that the entire ladder is invalidated"_ - this is an absolute statement of mine which is not entirely true just because the game ultimately rewards the "better" players, because that's how the game is designed. Even with that said - this dosn't speak in favor of DQ in any way and its fundamental problems. Which are (ignoring voice-comm/synergy vs solos) - reduced quality of matches till the system "outseeds" the "bad" players. You don't know (neither do I or Riot) which rank is the "cut-off" point and how many (unfair match ups) the system needs in any tier. 10? 100? What about 500? The consequences are reduced quality/fairness of ranked games just because there is the chance of that happening (even in gold). Which reminds me that you didn't answer: >HOW DO YOU MEASURE AND TRACK A PARTICULAR PLAYER OR EVEN A GROUP TO OTHER GROUPS, when they are constantly changing internally in the MM pool? You can't track it and you can't measure it. If you can't track/measure it - how do you compare it even relatively and rank it on a ladder? It's fine - I already answered it. **Adding variables with no possible way (intention) of tracking means inaccurate results for whatever you're "trying" to accomplish.** We are done here, pro.
> [{quoted}](name=6KEMBE4ORBA,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=0007000000000001000000000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-03T20:29:22.920+0000) > > Real life sports don't allow top players to compete with "amateur/lesser" leagues, nor have individual ranks for every player based solely on their team performance. You still think the ranked queue is for "top players"? Well, there's your problem. If your goal is LCS, Challenger is a nice way to get noticed, I'm sure, but otherwise, ranked is little more than a fun way to show off. It doesn't mean anything. It never meant anything. You keep talking about extraneous variables distracting from individual players' actual merit, but those were always present (it's not LCS or any other controlled tournament environment, after all), and always weeded out by the process of climbing. Are there more, now? Sure. Does it take longer to weed them out? Maybe. Is it worth it for the merits it brings? That's a matter of opinion. When you say there are extraneous variables, and players polluting the ladder by having inaccurate MMR, you're _not talking about top players._ You're not even talking about anyone _near_ the top. You're talking about people near the middle of the ladder occasionally getting matched with or against someone who's significantly better or worse, and stomping or getting stomped; and you're saying it's unfair that this ever happens. Reality check: in the middle of any ranked ladder, this happens anyway. You could perhaps argue that it happens more often, now, or persists higher in the ladder to some extent, and I wouldn't challenge that. > You don't know (neither do I or Riot) which rank is the "cut-off" point and how many (unfair match ups) the system needs in any tier. 10? 100? What about 500? > > The consequences are reduced quality/fairness of ranked games just because there is the chance of that happening (even in gold). I don't know where the cut-off is, but I'm 100% certain it's higher than gold. Bronze through gold are never going to be accurate. They're never going to be fair. They're for fun. They're inconsistent enough that variations in individual performance can easily exceed alleged MMR discrepancies. That may extend even to the middle of platinum. And I'm going to remind you that you yourself scoffed at gold when you talked about low-rank players trying to pontificate on this subject, so don't act as if you suddenly think gold was ever a bastion of skill and fairness. So here's my answer to your question (which I did in fact already give, but now I'm putting it plainly): _it doesn't matter._ By the time it starts to matter, the players themselves will weed out those extraneous variables. "Top players" who have _proven_ they are top players will not be playing with amateurs in ranked matches. They are vastly more skilled than anyone who could even conceive of being boosted or carried, and players worse than them will have already crushed anyone getting too big for their breeches. Are we done, now? All settled?
6KEMBE4ORBA (EUNE)
: Yeah, you play games with bots. :) I just take with a huge grain of salt everything you say as any person would. Actually, you should be glad I'm still bothering with you. People are making threads (and I'm still commenting/answering on Boards - not so much lately) cause they care - don't try to dismiss it with wave of a hand ala "cluttering the boards/same thing over and over again". --- 1. They will climb until their better premades can not outdo the opposition and make up for having a worse player on the team.* 2. One doesn't need to think for himself or to understand to follow orders/calls - they just need to do it. A support player that wards/initiates only where/when the leader tells him to **is** contributing but he **isn't** developing any skills until he starts to. (it's doubtful that he will at all - cause there's already someone doing the work for him) 3. _"Except that it isn't. By your own words, "a player that plays 100% solo exclusively is still being matched with and against dynamic groups"_ - Shows logical deterioration/discrepancies in Riot's own statements and that they can dance around the subject and that the statistics can be tweaked/presented to whatever they want them to represent. - Overall your argument consists of: _"Having one person who sucks in 100% of your queues will stop you from climbing. If you insist on boosting that one person, then you will hit a point where you are unable to effectively climb."_ Which undermines the whole point and logic behind the ranked mode (with the exception of team ranked 5vs5 - oh, wait, they removed that too) and its integrity. ** Neither of the two players - the vastly better one and the "bad" one are where they should be and their "current" ranks are meaningless/not accurate.*** --- The smart ones that play ranked for the competitive side will understand (when being explained carefully) that currently the RANKS/LADDER of the whole RANKED PLAYERBASE ARE MEANINGLESS (+ not accurate/less accurate) which is correlated with how MM works and the purpose of it and thus the whole mode --> game altogether, which is: _"Matching 10 similarly skilled players (at an even ground) with the single goal of making the fairest match possible between the 2 teams alongside with making an accurate probable prediction of the outcome of the match."_ **DynamicQ is a major blow to this and the whole point of the ranked gamemode.**
Let's be real. You're responding because you want to. It's fine by me if you get bored and stop. I expected you to do so earlier, but I guess you didn't want me thinking you were a troll. > [{quoted}](name=6KEMBE4ORBA,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=00070000000000010000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2016-05-03T09:44:59.608+0000) > > People are making threads (and I'm still commenting/answering on Boards - not so much lately) cause they care - don't try to dismiss it with wave of a hand of "cluttering the boards/same thing over and over again". But it _is_ the same thing over and over. Look at some more recent replies, here. People claim Riot won't discuss things with them, while ignoring that they've already commented, because those people _don't want_ discussion, and they admit it. They want obedience, and they're going to yell until they get tired or something changes. They are repeatedly posting what they call "daily reminders" that they want solo queue, which, regardless of their actual frequency, contain no arguments whatsoever. There is _nothing to dismiss_ in the first place, except for the lie that Riot won't talk to them. They're the ones who won't discuss. I see nothing wrong with calling people out on a lie. > One doesn't need to think for himself to follow order/calls - they just need to do it. To do it accurately within the required time frame that is needed at higher levels of play? Yes, one does need to think for oneself and understand one's options. You need to have been prepared to do the thing the shotcaller says before they say it. LCS teams have shotcallers, too. > Your argument is this: _"Having one person who sucks in 100% of your queues will stop you from climbing. If you insist on boosting that one person, then you will quickly hit a point where you are unable to effectively climb."_ No, it's more that a group will climb as fast as its worst player improves, which (and this is the important part) very much disagrees with any assertion that "boosted" players will not improve at all as they climb. Additionally, the worst player will improve faster with the same effort, simply because there are more things they can start doing to improve their game, which better players are already doing. > Neither of the two players - the vastly better one and the "bad" one are where they should be and their "current" ranks are meaningless/not accurate. And that problem is mitigated by a few things. 1. It doesn't matter, if they are both in the same game. Their matchups will still be fair overall. 2. If they aren't both in the same games, their MMR will self-correct over time. Even a "boosted" player will be forced to improve or be demoted if they go solo, and that's assuming they didn't improve while climbing in the first place. This is the reason Riot was always okay with duo queue and the like, but not okay with players being boosted in a way that doesn't require them to play (i.e. another player using their account). 3. Opportunities and margins for improvement favour weaker players when it comes to climbing. It takes less effort to become a gold level player from bronze than it does to become diamond from gold. 4. The situation is in principle _not possible_ above a certain rank. The tenable gap in skill between players will shrink as they climb, as it will become progressively less possible to "carry" the weaker player to a higher rank than their skill would otherwise permit in the first place. For above reasons, as they _do_ climb, or even while they're not climbing, both players will grow closer in manifested skill relative to their experience, because one of them has more room to improve. The better player is not going to improve much, if at all, without climbing high enough to face players of their own level anyway. That's what I'm getting at. You contend that the entire ladder is invalidated. My reply is that only the lower ranks lack integrity, and, meaningfully, _they always did._ I won't pretend to know the exact rank at which the high pressure and low margin for error will squeeze out "boosted" players who don't deserve it (and there's almost certainly not a clear line you can draw where it starts to happen), but I can say with confidence that is the only rank that matters, anyway. That's the point at which rank starts to mean anything at all, and dynamic queue won't change that. It's a condition enforced by the players at that rank, naturally, as they compete. The same is true in _any_ sport with rankings. TL;DR: A dynamic queue player can only be "boosted" by this system to the bottom of the "real" rankings, before they will have to actually learn and play better. It's not like you take gold seriously, anyway, right?
6KEMBE4ORBA (EUNE)
: The higher MMR you go the more important teamwork related decisions are. IE; When to roam, when to group, when to split — these are all teamwork related decisions. When you queue up by yourself in SOLO Q you have to learn how to develop (fast) these teamwork related decision making skills by yourself because if you don’t try to play with your team then you will not climb very high. In a group or a team all these teamwork related decision making skills get relegated to one or two people. What will actually happen is that some people will get very good at leading dynamic groups to victory while some people will just get lucky by happening to know someone who is a really strategically minded person. This means that the followers in the dynamic group will not truly earn the MMR gained by playing in the group because it isn’t their decision-making that is winning them games. This means that when follower X actually queues up at an MMR gained through following calls of another player then they will not have developed the skills necessary to play at that MMR. Secondly, the reason why high level team games are so different from solo queue is because the teams build actual team compositions to fullfill particular objectives. Dynamic groups of less than 5 cannot play this way because there is no way to guarantee that the 1 or 2 players playing with the group of 3 or 4 will play the correct champion for the teamcomposition. Plus, Esports top team competition is an entirely different thing in itself. Thirdly, players who have been boosted by their dynamic group will not be able to play by themselves in ranked anymore because they will get destroyed by players who might be actually worth their MMR. This will mean that players in gold because their dynamic group has a diamond level shotcaller will be thrashed by actual gold players once the midgame rolls around and the actual gold level players with actual decisionmaking skills group roam correctly and the boosted gold player doesn’t. Lastly, rank will mean nothing. You just got carried by your dynamic group even if you didn’t. --- What will happen when one player from a 4 d. premade goes and plays alone? The moment he does that, HIS MMR IS NO LONGER EVEN REMOTELY ACCURATE. "Consider two players who both reach Gold 1 rating. Player A only ever plays alone. Player B always plays as part of his 5 man group. According to Riot the matchmaking should ensure Player A only plays with other solo players/small groups whilst Player B nearly always plays vs other 5s or large groups . 95% working system, remember? Player A can pretty much never be matched against Player B. The entire population of players they play against is different." **The math:** *Going solo ensures you're the only constant after X number of matches. Going with any size of groups, ensures that the rank the "group" gets, represents the variables within it as a whole. You can have 2 of your teammates, improving from Gold to Diamond skillwise and you still not improving. The group becomes better, meaning it will probably achieve higher rank, while your performance stays the same.* Thus minimum requirement for ranked integrity is THE RANKED LADDERS to be entirely separate. You can't rank those 2 players aka solo and groups on the same ladder. Basically, the whole unpredictability and inaccurate intent behind Dynamic Queue - aka its very nature - fosters inaccurate results. You can have groups of various sizes: 2/3/4/5s + solos in the same MM pool. HOW DO YOU MEASURE AND TRACK A PARTICULAR PLAYER OR EVEN A GROUP TO OTHER GROUPS, when they are constantly changing internally in the MM pool? You can't track it and you can't measure it. If you can't track/measure it - how do you compare it even relatively and rank it on a ladder? --- **You're too easy, "dude"**... Your claims towards me are on thin ice + all of your posts in the current thread (+ other threads) consist of general stuff and repeating/explaining "what Riot have said". Also: Have you played/are you playing ranked?
Well, I'm surprised. I was sure you didn't care what I think. Since you took the trouble to dig up something you clearly haven't used in a while (as seen from mashing "pagedown" on your profile, at your invitation, and seeing nothing but the same dismissive non-arguments), I suppose I should respond. > [{quoted}](name=6KEMBE4ORBA,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=000700000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T22:45:54.674+0000) > > the followers in the dynamic group will not truly earn the MMR gained by playing in the group because it isn’t their decision-making that is winning them games. How high do you expect them to climb without understanding the decisions being made? Even voice chat is not fast or efficient enough for someone who does nothing but blindly follow smarter players to perform well at higher levels. No. They will learn, or they will not climb. Even absent their usual shotcaller, they will understand their options. > Secondly, the reason why high level team games are so different from solo queue is because the teams build actual team compositions to fullfill particular objectives. Dynamic groups of less than 5 cannot play this way because there is no way to guarantee that the 1 or 2 players playing with the group of 3 or 4 will play the correct champion for the teamcomposition. Plus, Esports top team competition is an entirely different thing in itself. You say it's different, but they are still fundamentally playing the same game, and the principles under which they play are increasingly relevant as lower ranked players climb, because optimizing your play according to those principles is how you get better at the game. Fulfilling those objectives in the most efficient and effective way you can manage is how you win, and this is required at _all_ levels of play, from solo players and groups of 5. > Thirdly, players who have been boosted by their dynamic group will not be able to play by themselves in ranked anymore because they will get destroyed by players who might be actually worth their MMR. No. Again, shotcaller or no, they need to understand the decisions available to them, or they will perform poorly. We ought to remove the term "carry" from LoL strategic discourse, because it's a myth in every practical respect. If you are much better than an ally, they will _not_ make it to your rank by following your orders, and you aren't going to carry them. Leadership makes a difference, but it does not change the fact that you need your team to be a team, and they must be playing somewhere near your level. In the long run, they will only climb by improving, and if you are able to carry a much worse player, it means you are also much better than your opponents, not just your allies. Even then, the fact that there are phases in which a player must hold their own means they will be forced to improve if they are facing better players. > Lastly, rank will mean nothing. You just got carried by your dynamic group even if you didn’t. Rank won't mean less than it did before, if that's what you mean. If you're offended that it's more likely to reflect a player's ability to be a functional part of a team that performs well than it is to reflect their independent mastery and initiative, well, there's that "philosophical difference" again. It's not like one is objectively better or healthier or of greater integrity than the other. > Player A only ever plays alone. Player B always plays as part of his 5 man group. According to Riot the matchmaking should ensure Player A only plays with other solo players/small groups whilst Player B nearly always plays vs other 5s or large groups . > 95% working system, remember? If player B and player A have climbed to the same rank, and they end up in the same match 1 time out of 20 (you know, the _other_ 5% of the time), you don't think they'll perform similarly if they each queue the same way they always do? And if player B decides to solo one game, they will somehow forget everything they learned when playing with their team against many of the same opponents player A faces, and become utter trash instantly? Maybe you assume that everyone got dynamically boosted/carried, like you suggested earlier that everyone would assume, but that doesn't make it true. > Player A can pretty much never be matched against Player B. The entire population of players they play against is different." Except that it isn't. By your own words, "a player that plays 100% solo exclusively is still being matched with and against dynamic groups" (see, I read your post history like you asked). Remember that 4-player queues must by necessity be matched with solo players (and in fact, this is one of the most common criticisms of DQ), and that 5-player queues can often be matched with 4+1 queues, _and_ that 5% of the time, 5-player queues get matched with smaller groups and solo players anyway (there are screenshots in this thread). They are already playing together, and playing separately against many of the same players, and they _must_ be playing at the same level on average to have reached the same rank. > *Going solo ensures you're the only constant after X number of matches. Going with any size of groups, ensures that the rank the "group" gets, represents the variables within it as a whole. > You can have 2 of your teammates, improving from Gold to Diamond skillwise and you still not improving. The group becomes better, meaning it will probably achieve higher rank, while your performance stays the same.* No, that's not how it works. If your diamond-deserving allies drag your gold ass to plat, you face plat opponents and are forced to play better or lose. Your diamond allies will not beat fed plat enemies. And before you face plat opponents, you face high gold opponents, and learn to hold your own against each in turn. Will you individually be slightly behind the curve? Maybe. Maybe not. But you will be a functional and competent member of a team that performs at the rank you have earned. Yes, earned. The _whole team_ must consistently reach a given level of play in order to be ranked as such. As a team game, League is very sensitive to weak links. The "lowest common denominator" of players on a team will strongly correlate with that team's performance, and that becomes increasingly true with higher ranks, where the skill difference of things like smurfs is necessarily far less pronounced. That's why duo queue was never a problem, and dynamic queue isn't either. The only ranks that ever had any integrity will continue to have it. That integrity is enforced by the players, not the system. > **You're too easy, "dude"**... What am I, a shitty arcade game? What's even your goal, here? I decided you earned a genuine response. Does that mean you "win"? Pfft. And why is "dude" in quotation marks? Are you quoting someone? I'm sure it's not me, and I'd prefer not to be called that if it's all the same to you. > Your claims towards me are on thin ice + all of your posts in the current thread (+ other threads) consist of general stuff and repeating/explaining "what Riot have said". My claims towards you were based on what you had given me to work with, which was nothing but hostility and dismissal followed by evasiveness. Clearly, I was wrong, to some extent. Maybe you're just as tired of this discussion as I am. As for what I've said in other threads, of course I've been explaining what Riot has said. I've been responding to claims that Riot hasn't addressed their concerns, and explaining that spamming these "daily reminder" threads isn't going to change anyone's mind. What other evidence would be appropriate for me to provide in those cases? Why am I doing it? They're cluttering the boards, and I'd rather read something more interesting. It's not often (or ever) that one of them provides me with an actual argument, so I typically have very little to argue against or acknowledge. > Have you played/are you playing ranked? Nope. Not a smurf. Not a dummy account. I just don't play ranked. If you think that matters, that doesn't bode well for discussion. I play the game. I study its design and gameplay theory. I watch play at all levels. There are three possibilities here. One: you think I'm so stupid that I can't judge that wealth of information and reach logical conclusions. Two: you think it's impossible for _anyone_ to judge that information without being directly involved in those games, because you conflate being good at the game with understanding how it works, instead of recognizing that the former is dependent on the latter, but not vice versa. Three: you just knowingly asked a completely useless question. The implication here is that you are trying to attack my integrity, which is the same thing you did when you commented on the ranks of other people you talked to. I would be disappointed, if you hadn't already established your tendency to deflect with illogical appeals to a false authority. Instead, I will simply sit here and judge you for discussing my lack of rank (or anyone else's) like it means anything. LOL. It's like you don't know how to deal with someone you can't talk down to.
: > [{quoted}](name=TyRamos,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=HZyJXum9,comment-id=002a000100000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T21:02:01.084+0000) > > How are earth would you consider her "very attractive"? She has huge eyebrows, a gigantic nose, and a super unnaturally angled face. She looks closer to Rock Lee from Naruto than any female I've ever seen. Here, here shallow minded person. Let me tell you a story about beauty. Most people arent super models, most people have flaws. Most people look differently depending on where they live, what culture they belong to, and their biology. What you think is attractive is only one example that exists and is not the definitive "this is how all attractive people should look like" rules. She looks like a normal girl with middle eastern facial features. She also is kinda cute to begin with. So please dont exaggerate someones features (which arent that bad to begin with, in actuality she looks perfectly fine from where she comes from), you wouldnt like it as well if someone exaggerated yours (which can happen because different cultures and levels of tolerance, intelligence, and understanding). http://mein-mmo.de/magazin/medien/2016/05/loL-Taliyah-980x500.png
> [{quoted}](name=Tesla Effect,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=HZyJXum9,comment-id=002a0001000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T21:09:49.413+0000) > > Most people arent super models, most people have flaws. Not to mention that super models also have "flaws" and don't actually look like their magazine pictures. And ideas about what is generally considered "attractive" vary not only between cultures, but within the same culture from one generation to the next.
Dextix LT (EUNE)
: Yes, boards community is no the entire playerbase, but i have noticedd a quite high increase for que times in almost every position exept for support. This points into less players playing the game than before, or the system doing the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do and instead icreaseing que times.
> [{quoted}](name=Dextix LT,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=000a000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T08:54:44.930+0000) > > Yes, boards community is no the entire playerbase, but i have noticedd a quite high increase for que times in almost every position exept for support. To be fair, that's a problem with the support role that has existed for a long time, exacerbated by the fact that players can now refuse to play support at all before they queue up. Bringing back solo queue would not fix this problem, as long as the role selection part of the queue remained intact. The solution is to make support a desirable role so it stops hemorrhaging players. It's not fewer players, just fewer support players.
Akeydel (NA)
: I'll save you the time SoMNia. Over the past 3 months (didnt bother to scroll back farther) this guy has made like 70-ish posts, and none of them have actually explained his positions. There are lots of posts about "sacrificing ranked integrity for profit" Lots of posts saying Riot is too stupid to understand the effects of Dynamic Queue SO MANY calling people "stupid bronzies" or claiming other ranked superiority one comment that is nothing but "retard" several posts saying "_its logical that the only reason DynamicQ exists is for Riot to make money, and the reasons are obvious, and I'm not going to bother explaining to retards_" But none (in the past 70 posts over 3 months) actually explaining how he came to that conclusion, or any reasons backing it up, only that it's "common sense".
Yep. It took me about 10 seconds after clicking on his profile to recognize that he repeatedly makes the same claims and never backs them up. I'm going to assume he's trying to get a rise out of people for amusement.
: Kindred and Illaoi don't gain nearly the same benefit from their mini games that Skarner does. If Skarner gets caught out in his shrine, his shrine benefits him to help him either escape or turn it into a kill. Jungle vision is IMPROVING this patch with red and blue timers being given out for free. Riot wants there to be more scuffles in the jungle, not less. Skarner has those crystals to kill champions, not monsters. Removing the key aspect that helps opponents fight Skarner on their turns makes the crystals all about clear speeds, and that's not interactive.
> [{quoted}](name=NeoSeraphi,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=dhNEYa7Y,comment-id=0003000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T12:53:25.987+0000) > > Kindred and Illaoi don't gain nearly the same benefit from their mini games that Skarner does. > > If Skarner gets caught out in his shrine, his shrine benefits him to help him either escape or turn it into a kill. You're kidding, right? Illaoi can solo whole teams if she's allowed to fight near her tentacles (to a far greater degree than Skarner could ever dream), and Kindred have unlimited scaling that allows them to potentially become the most potent hyper-carry champion in the game, out-scaling even Vayne and Kog'Maw by counterjungling. > Jungle vision is IMPROVING this patch with red and blue timers being given out for free. Riot wants there to be more scuffles in the jungle, not less. You can see the buffs. These changes do not allow you to see champions without vision. What you've just said is an argument in favour of _not_ giving away Skarner's position, because the timers promote invasions and turn buffs into contested objectives. Contested objectives are fundamentally about vision and positioning, and that should never be given away for free. > Skarner has those crystals to kill champions, not monsters. Citation needed. Killing monsters is their primary use, since most champions spend a lot of their time in lane, not in the jungle. Yes, location-based power around contested objectives is one of his strengths, but it's not his only strength. > Removing the key aspect that helps opponents fight Skarner on their turns makes the crystals all about clear speeds, and that's not interactive. Wait, "on their turns"? I don't understand what you're trying to say, here. But there's nothing any less interactive about invading Skarner or being invaded by him, as compared with any other jungler in the game, even if you don't automatically know his position.
6KEMBE4ORBA (EUNE)
: Riot is bulshitting and damage/PR controlling. There isn't any "philosophical difference" - it's pure math and common logic/sense which Riot ignores for potential increase in profits. They **are not** aiming for increased teamplay on even ground aka better competitive environment.
And your supporting evidence is...where? Straight up, if you have actual math that supports solo queue being an objectively better choice, bring it. I don't think you do. Common sense certainly doesn't support what you're saying. It's obvious that players who know each other and queue together are more likely to cooperate effectively. By merely allowing this, Riot has created an environment where solo players are required to demonstrate better teamplay than they otherwise would have, in order to compete with premade teams. That's common sense. And yes, certain players want their individual skill to matter more, while Riot wants teamplay to be more important. The value that solo queue allegedly creates in basically every argument in favour of it is _explicitly_ cited as _not_ being a value Riot wants to promote. That's a philosophical difference. Bluntly contradicting everything Riot says on the matter because you're mad at them, and tossing out wild speculation about their motives without offering any evidence, is a waste of time.
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=dhNEYa7Y,comment-id=0003000000000001,timestamp=2016-05-02T04:07:11.780+0000) > > _That's the point._ That's the goal. It's not a criticism of this idea. It's not an unwanted side-effect, but actually the intended effect of such a change. The enemy should not be given free up-to-date information on Skarner's location like that. It even signals opportunities for enemies to push on the other side of the map when he's clearing _his own_ jungle. It's an unreasonable weakness, and it should be mitigated. Why? In exchange for this 'unreasonable weakness', he gets a crap-ton of attack and move speed for his clears, as well as when he's taking baron and dragon. It's a fine weakness. It gives Skarner's opponent ways to capitalize on his movements across the map.
Because other champions have similar strengths in terms of clears and objective control while avoiding this unprecedented weakness, that leaves him disadvantaged in a way that directly relates to fundamental principles and mechanics (i.e. maintaining vision control and responding to your enemy's positioning). Because the drastic reduction in availability of wards made additional map info that much more valuable, thus increasing the weakness. Because capitalizing on his movements across the map should require you to put effort into knowing where he is, like every other champion in the game. Because other champions with minigames that put info on the map (like Kindred and Illaoi) have received considerations that prevent them from giving their position away to enemies who don't have vision, and it's only fair to give him the same treatment.
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=000700000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T04:18:42.150+0000) > > No, they aren't. They're saying that they have other priorities, on top of a "philosophical difference" with people who think SQ is better. And an extremely vocal minority is saying the same thing over and over as if they expect it to garner a different response. It won't. I see that you still haven't read the comments on that post. If you did, you would know that players feel very alienated by Riot's enforcement of group play. Group play is now being rewarded in literally every possible aspect: higher chance for key fragment drops, larger IP gains, and now that you can take your premade into ranked, potentially higher chance of climbing. Players that prefer to just play solo, whatever the reason, are absolutely being discouraged from doing so. And when Riot calls this a "philosophical difference" they are very much dismissing the concerns of these players, causing them to feel even more alienated. Also, how the hell do you figure that this is a minority argument??? Again, if you'd only just look at the comments on that post you linked you would see that nearly 100% of them are absolutely against Solo Q and Riot's attitude toward those who are protesting it.
I have read them, actually. I know that _some_ players feel alienated by it. And yes, it's a minority. People who are okay with the direction of dynamic queue (if not its current state or the efficacy of its execution) are largely playing League, not complaining about it, so many of them aren't participating in that conversation at all. You know there are tens of millions of players, right? You see a couple hundred upvotes on complaints, and you think that's a lot, but it really isn't. > [{quoted}](name=MonkeyMadness,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=0007000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T04:45:22.676+0000) > > Group play is now being rewarded in literally every possible aspect: higher chance for key fragment drops, larger IP gains, and now that you can take your premade into ranked, potentially higher chance of climbing. Players that prefer to just play solo, whatever the reason, are absolutely being discouraged from doing so. Yep. That's the way Riot wants it. It's a team game, and they want to encourage teamwork, and promote situations which enable teamwork. They've evidently decided that means giving players extra reasons to create premade groups. They've made it clear they want your rank to take into account your ability to play with a team, whether it's one you queue with or one you're matched to. Can't keep up with premades? Don't climb. That's consistent with the values they've expressed, to be honest. Whether they've created a play environment which promotes those values in a healthy way is another conversation, and to be clear, they don't think they have. They want to fix the problems preventing that before they even start to discuss bringing back solo queue (which, again, they don't want to do at all, and which they expect to be unnecessary when all is said and done). > And when Riot calls this a "philosophical difference" they are very much dismissing the concerns of these players, causing them to feel even more alienated. Yes, they are very much saying "we're sorry you feel that way". That's just how it is. It's not like they didn't respond. They just aren't bending knee and doing what you demand, which is quite different from actually ignoring you. It seems the only thing you would regard as acknowledgement is for them to simply say "okay" and do what you ask. Frankly, if they wanted to promote a competitive environment, ranked 5s would be the _only_ ranked queue, reflecting the highest levels of play, but they clearly wanted to allow a bit more flexibility than that. Why am I translating for them? I don't know why I even care if you understand their intentions. I'm just a game design geek, and I think League is an interesting case study. I'm mostly just talking through my own observations.
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2016-05-02T02:07:40.927+0000) > > Daily reminder that they already addressed this. > > http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/riot-games/announcements/riot-pls-dynamic-queue-sandbox-and-league-2016 > > You claim they won't talk to you, but they already did. Repeating yourself isn't going to get a further response. They're working on issues in DQ. Are you being intentionally dense right now? If you perhaps read some of the comments on the post that you linked you may be better equipped to comment here. People want soloQ back, and Riot is basically saying "no you don't". They are giving us the biggest of middle fingers and force-feeding us their BS "community" system that we just don't want and honestly don't really need, at least in ranked queues. Just type in "Dynamic Queue" or "premades in ranked" into the forum search bar and start reading. I find it hard to believe that Riot will be able to conjure up an improvement to this system that can resolve even some of these complaints as long as Dynamic Queue is allowed to exist in ranked.
> [{quoted}](name=MonkeyMadness,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IEoRyl3v,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2016-05-02T04:07:28.118+0000) > > People want soloQ back, and Riot is basically saying "no you don't". No, they aren't. They're saying that they have other priorities, on top of a "philosophical difference" with people who think SQ is better. And an extremely vocal minority is saying the same thing over and over as if they expect it to garner a different response. It won't.
: > [{quoted}](name=SoMNia,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=dhNEYa7Y,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2016-05-02T02:34:53.255+0000) > > Gain? No, the point is to _remove_ the unfair advantage Skarner's enemies have from knowing where he is _without having vision_ the moment he takes a spire. As I said, there's no benefit for the enemy then. Riot doesn't want counterjungling to be strong, so they give the newest power counterjungler a clear weakness to keep him from doing it too much.
> [{quoted}](name=NeoSeraphi,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=dhNEYa7Y,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2016-05-02T03:26:27.096+0000) > > As I said, there's no benefit for the enemy then. _That's the point._ That's the goal. It's not a criticism of this idea. It's not an unwanted side-effect, but actually the intended effect of such a change. The enemy should not be given free up-to-date information on Skarner's location like that. It even signals opportunities for enemies to push on the other side of the map when he's clearing _his own_ jungle. It's an unreasonable weakness, and it should be mitigated.
: @Meddler Can Skarner get the Kindred treatment?
They definitely need to rein in the extent to which champion-specific map information is visible in the fog of war. I believe they're already addressing the issue with Illaoi, and it seems fair to give Skarner the same consideration.
: What would an enemy gain from knowing Skarner was in their jungle 8 seconds later? He has a huge boost of MS from it, he could already be ganking a land by then. The vision aspect is more beneficial to the opponent because the opponent doesn't gain combat stats from it.
Gain? No, the point is to _remove_ the unfair advantage Skarner's enemies have from knowing where he is _without having vision_ the moment he takes a spire.
: Daily reminder that we want Solo Queue
Daily reminder that they already addressed this. http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/riot-games/announcements/riot-pls-dynamic-queue-sandbox-and-league-2016 > [W]e’re not making a call on solo queue because there are some critical issues we need to fix in dynamic queue to understand what’s actually missing. Promising solo queue in our original announcement was premature - a knee-jerk reaction to a situation we were still figuring out. You claim they won't talk to you, but they already did. Repeating yourself isn't going to get a further response. They're working on issues in DQ.
: they have owned the **majority** for 5 years Do you know when Riot sold over the **rest** of their shares to Tencent? December '15. A month before Dynamic Que started. Tencent went from owning majority to owning **ALL** of Riot
Clearly, you don't understand the concept of a "majority shareholder" with "[controlling interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_interest)" in a company. They already had decision-making power. That's not new.
: A Nuanced Look at Dragons, Randomness, and Competitiveness
I don't have enough upvotes for you. Fantastic analysis.
Brascus (NA)
: You think you do but you don't
> [{quoted}](name=Brascus,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gA91ExhE,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-04-26T11:34:58.841+0000) > > Is Riot really thinking: "solo'ers all love dynamic queue they just don't know it yet, and if they don't we'll make them like it...eventually". No. They're thinking they have problems with the existing system that need to be fixed before they introduce any distractions that make it harder to solve those problems. They're thinking that after they solve those problems, introducing another queue won't have much of a point. They're also thinking that they have a "philosophical difference" with players who want to put emphasis on individual skill rather than good team play by playing in an exclusively solo queue, and it's not going to be reconciled unless those players change their minds.
Are (NA)
: Can sightstone recharge wards like yellow trinket?
This seems fair. They did recently say that they're re-defining mana regen as a support stat because supports are supposed to have the most sustainable play patterns and not have to back as much. Maybe specify upgraded Sightstones (Ruby or Eyes)?
: ohh noess i don't know how to use the ponctuation in english because this is not my most fluent language oh gosh i guess its mean i am not a human being and i can't use my liberty of expression rights. yep another grammar nazi on the web, i guess ur a toxic bully in-game.
I'm a bully? Says the person who came out of nowhere just to call me a sheep? Some day, you'll learn to actually think for yourself instead of spouting this reactionary defiant nonsense, and then you'll realize what a hypocrite you've been. Until then, farewell.
: ***
I'm supposed to take that from someone who doesn't even know how capitalization and punctuation work? Wow, such a rebel. The original post claimed Riot is silent on the matter. I pointed out they've already said what they have to say. You don't have to like it. As for me, I make my own choices. I don't agree with all of Riot's decisions, but a majority of the time, they prove to be a good deal smarter than the people raging at them.
: Tips on how to last-hit minions?
Don't forget the windup on your attack animation, and projectile travel time (if ranged). It's different for each champion. If you start too late, minions can often die before your attack lands. You need to predict when their health will fall low enough for you to get the last hit (select them to watch their health, and compare it to your AD), and start your attack just before then. I lose a lot of CS from five or more allied minions attacking the target at once and out-damaging my autoattacks. It gets most difficult when you have to land your attack in the middle of a round of minion attacks. It's all in the timing. And yes, for the most part, you'll want to wait for your minions to get them low before last-hitting. If you continually attack, you'll often move the front line towards the enemy tower ("push the lane"), which can leave you vulnerable to attacks from behind by their jungler or other laners roaming. Try to only last-hit on minions, unless you're about to go back to base, or you see their jungler on the other end of the map and you're ready to attack their tower. When farming under tower, remember that melee minions at full health will survive two tower shots. Don't hit them until after the second shot, unless they've already taken damage. Casters will only survive one shot, so unless you can finish them with one attack, you'll need to start attacking them earlier instead of last-hitting only. Cannons are a bit different, because they'll survive multiple shots, but also end up taking damage from minions in the next wave due to how long they last, which can make killing them under tower somewhat unpredictable. You'll need to try to control how fast their health falls so that a tower shot gets them into kill range for you.
: dynamic and solo q
No, it's evident that the same couple hundred players (out of tens of millions) are making the same thread over and over and upvoting each other. Even threads about rotating game modes and threads complaining about mage updates are more popular. The players demanding solo queue are _nowhere near_ a majority. With respect to queue issues, there are more complaints about queue times, the state of the support role (the inability to include it as either role without getting it nearly every time), and badly weighted primary and secondary roles in general than there are about premades. Riot isn't replying to the threads about solo queue because they've already addressed the matter. They aren't going to even think about making solo queue until they fix the problems with dynamic queue and champion select, and they expect that once they've done that, there won't be a reason to make another queue at all. They're not saying "never" because they haven't arrived at that conclusion yet. What they _are_ saying is "Not now, and probably not later either."
: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BANS ALREADY! COME ONNNNNNN
Why? Because a larger roster doesn't actually increase the number of champions that any individual player can use well, but a larger number of bans would actually require them to practice more champions without granting them the benefit of a larger champion pool (since they'd just be banned anyway). It would increase the burden on players to learn many different champions, decrease the consistency with which they would be able to play any given champion, and overall reduce the ability of players to enjoy the game the way they choose. More bans would be a terrible idea.
: Veigar's old ult compared to new.
I'd much rather see Veigar rewarded for farming well than his enemies punished for farming well. He'll still delete people with his R, as long as he stacks enough Phenomenal Evil.
: Rageblade is now doing what Devourer did but BETTER, the new Bloodrazor is doing 3% max health on top of the 6% current from BotRK. Add the new Rageblade and that's 6% max and 12% current every AA.
Phantom Hit (now Guinsoo's Rage) is still every _other_ attack. Bloodrazor's on-hit at 2k health does as much physical damage as Sated Devourer did in magic damage. So BR performs about like Devourer (without Phantom Hit) by itself. Rageblade lost the AoE damage, but gained a flat 15 single target magic damage on hit, as well as less attack speed. So attack speed jungle item + Rageblade combo is significantly weaker now. Less on-hit damage (unless it's a health-stacking supertank), less attack speed, no AoE, and ramping up takes longer for melee. Plus, you don't get the extra on-hits until you've fully ramped up GR. Not weak, by any means, but definitely not as strong as Sated Rage.
: That is how companies fail. They get arrogant and think they know more than everyone else. They start believing their own hype and listening to the echo chamber. They know how THEY play. They know that when people queue with friends they are generally less toxic. The corollary is not necessarily true; that people that prefer solo queue are more toxic. I know that this might come as a shock, but many people that play computer games are introverts and don't want to be FORCED to find friends to queue with just to get rewards (Hextech key fragments). Add to that what a disaster the new picking room is when it comes to supports or fill and you can foresee the decline of this game. Many folks on my friends list never log on anymore and after 75 games of jungle/support and getting jungle once, I have given up as well.
Okay, first, they do collectively know more than any individual player. It's their job. In fact, in terms of raw data about how the game is played, yes, they know _a lot more_ than anyone else. It would be a surprise if they didn't. Players with no design experience and no foresight, who don't understand the consequences were they to get what they want, are talking like they should be allowed to dictate design decisions, and it's absurd. _They_ are the arrogant ones, not Riot. Besides, even if some players end up playing in a way that they didn't expect or intend, that doesn't mean Riot is obligated to change their design goals to accommodate that (they can, but they don't have to). They'll make the game they want to make. Second, we're not talking about "everyone". We're talking about a minority of a minority of players who want DQ and new Champion Select gone instead of fixed. You understand that dynamic queue does not prevent people from queuing solo, right? That in fact many people continually do so, despite certain people's claims that all solo players are opposed to dynamic queue? They are not toxic. But people who want to prevent others from queuing together? Yeah, those people are toxic and selfish, and they want to use a team game to demonstrate personal, individual skill without teamwork. I'm an introvert, myself. I also suffer from social anxiety that makes me irrationally avoidant. I don't have a lot of opportunities to queue up with others, and in fact I haven't even played PvP in quite a while (though I still watch others, and I find the game interesting from a design perspective, so I study it). But I still understand that this is a team game, and that even queuing solo still requires you to cooperate with other players to win. It would be counterproductive to design a team game to specifically cater to people who don't like teamwork. I'll grant that it's also counterintuitive to have a dynamic queue coupled with a rewards system that favors premades. Isn't the whole point of DQ to allow solo and premade players into the same games? The support problem is not endemic to new Champion Select. It is one that has existed in the game for many seasons, and is only more visible now that people are able to say they won't do it at all before joining the queue (whereas before, people would be forced via pick order to play support sometimes even if they didn't want to). It's pretty clear what the problem is, frankly, and people bring it up regularly. There are four areas on the map where players gain gold and experience, and 5 players per team. Support is the one that is forced to play without exploiting _any_ of the map resources, instead only picking up crumbs, and is behind for basically the entire game. Only players who are stubbornly attached to supportive/enabling playstyles are willing to do it, and that number is dwindling because the game doesn't reward them mechanically (i.e. with gold and xp, which are central to the game's core design). It's not DQ, and it's not new Champion Select. The support role itself is badly designed, and that is what's creating long queue times and near 100% support rates for anyone willing to do it at all. The thing that seems to be Riot's hangup is finding a way to reward successful support plays equally with others, without creating opportunities for non-support players to abuse those rewards and get ahead. They've currently settled on just accepting that supports are behind, and making special, cheaper, weaker items just for them. Utility items are great and all, but not if they're vastly less slot efficient than every other completed item in terms of overall game impact, and supports are expected to _fill_ their inventory with sub-par items (while also being behind in levels).
: mmm no, in a life or death situation, it's never a bad idea. And like i said, that was just a few, i didnt mention diana, nidalee, jayce, or tahm kench. All champs who greatly depend on something that can be easily be sashed away.
Mmm yes. Quicksilver Sash is expensive for the stats it provides, because of its active ability. Unless you are guaranteed to die if you don't do it _and_ your death will cause the immediate loss of an objective or throw a teamfight, it is a waste of the gold you spent on QSS to use it on cleansing a low-cooldown, low-impact debuff. If dying now means you still have QSS in 40 seconds and nothing else has changed, yes, it's a bad idea to use it. Especially if you know a dragon is going to be up in one minute, and you want to be able to win that fight. It's the same reason people sometimes die instead of using Flash to escape. Flash can easily be worth more than one death, and so can QSS. And again, those "integral" debuffs can be quickly reapplied. Spending a 90-second cooldown to thwart a 6-second one is _usually_ a bad idea.
Show more

SoMNia

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion