It's **really** good against champions who have a large heal that is not on demand, like Volibear and Mundo. You can Q in response to the activation of Mundo's ult, or right before Voli would hit the passive threshold, then cut it down to nothing.

I dunno, man. Turn 1 Delver is pretty triggering too.

Hey, I am all for having more reasons for my team to pick Kled. I would main him if he got Courage off jungle mobs. "NOOOOO PRISONERS!"

No, this is the way that counterplay works. You can't suppress a support's gold income by denying them farm and you can't pressure them out of XP because their abilities are largely level-independent. Once a support hits 6, they're about as strong as they would be at level 10. So the only other counterplay is to deny the enemy team vision. This is a reward the enemy team gets for playing well against you.

I hope you're finding some time to sleep! Congratulations, Andre. {{sticker:sg-kiko}}

For Garen, the reason the indicator is only on the Villain and not on others is because for others, the ultimate is magic damage. The game does not calculate the target's magic resistance beforehand and tell you if you can kill them or not because MR is something that can fluctuate throughout the course of battle. When Garen IS capable of ulting to kill someone for sure (the villain, who takes true damage from his ultimate) then the indicator exists and is there. Pyke, Cho'Gath, and Urgot all have an indicator. Darius is the exception. The reason for this is that they tested Darius with an indicator and found it was just flat out less exciting. There is more suspense and charm if you don't know whether you're going to get a reset or not. If you can see when you get the reset brightly on your screen you're just going to auto and Q until exactly that moment, then boom. Same for the next enemy, boom. Boom, boom, boom, pentakill. It doesn't feel like you earned it that way, from playtesting. The player's satisfaction goes down when you have an indicator.

I can certainly see why giving a tank support more damage reduction would be powerful, but it seems much less satisfying and appreciable to the player than empowered auto attacks. Leona's win rate might go up, but aren't you worried her pick rate will go down?

I don't think so, that is a lot of commitment just to break a shield. I like it better on burrowed Q, gives you more of a reason to shoot it. Now you can pop shields and then use the damage you dealt to go face with R after.

Putting it on an item would be a bad idea, it would just become a tax to defeating certain champions. If shields are so powerful that we need to BREAK them instantly, then an item isn't the way to do it, we need champs who are guaranteed to do it, and more than just 2 or 3. I would love seeing this on Rek'sai, to give her some reason to be picked in norms. Maybe Veigar's ultimate could destroy shields before it does damage? Lower Kog'maw's % health per second and give him bonus damage to shields on his W?

Feral Scream is his W.

> I shouldn't start the game trying to make a team out of Garen and Darius, only to never see more than two the whole game So, to kind of expand on what has already been stated in the thread, players have a shared pool. So if you see someone else get lucky and get a 2 Star Garen or Darius by round 2 or 3, you might want to reconsider going knights this game. That's 3 Garens that you can never get, for the rest of the game. If that sounds a bit railroady, that's because it is! If every player had access to every champion in the pool throughout the game, everyone would play the same top strategy every time. By limiting the access to a small pool, you encourage diversity in builds. By making access to that diversity random, you eliminate the possibility of a "solution" to it (if it was guaranteed, for example, the best players would devise the optimal pieces to select each round and everyone would net deck that). RNG deciding games feels bad sometimes, but it feels great others! That's how to make each game feel unique and different.

How is that better than how it was beforehand? The damage output total increases by 20% compared to before, but you have to wait until level 16 instead of level 13 to get the total boost.

Longer cooldowns don't matter if you can't constantly stay on top of someone to keep trading. A lot of melee top laners with mana (Olaf, Darius, Malphite, Tahm Kench) don't have the abilities necessary to chase anyone down. They just trade as they can, which can be a full ten seconds of downtime.

I'm not sure why you would ever take Exhaust on a support anyway. Heal is better on supports than it is on marksmen, because supports build Heal and Shield Power. People worry about the Heal debuff, in other words, you can't get the full benefit if your moron ADC burns Heal, but that's fine. If you're blowing both members' summoners, you're probably dying anyway. Better for you to be encouraged to save it and use it when your ADC doesn't have Heal.

> Riot, please, you can't allow this kind of behavior to progress. What's the solution? Ban all the players? We have a chat filter for a reason. We have an Honor system to reward other players' attitudes toward you for a reason. This is, ultimately, a game. We play the game to have fun. To some people, griefing is fun. It's short, it's sweet. It leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, and you move on. You think that because griefing makes you miserable that that gives you the right to take it away from other people? Even if you could do that, why would you think it was right? There are other people who might think that your uptight attitude and concern for taking objectives and organizing to win the game is killing their fun. Does that mean we should stop you from shotcalling? Obviously not. People are different. They play the game different ways, for different reasons. Some people want to get Challenger. Some people want to call everyone the n-word. At the end of the day, we're all just guys trying to relax after a hard day of school or work. Lay off and stop trying to police everyone's behavior online.

It's...a noble goal, to be certain, but how on earth are you going to accomplish it? No one wants to play a tank in the top lane with Conqueror running wild and Teleport being nerfed. And if you play a tank in the jungle you're risking falling behind in the early game which can turn a win into a loss at that level. Admittedly, I'm not a pro player, but I'm fairly certain if the current climate was attractive to tanks, people would play tanks. So it seems like once again this is going to be a situation of you changing the game for all players specifically to change how pro players choose their team comps? Again?

Why doesn't Grasp work in the jungle, exactly? Volibear can function with Predator, Glacial Augment, Conqueror and Aftershock just fine. He gets **less** armor than champs who build armor, but that's okay because he has more effective health with his higher HP pool if he builds health.

It's not supposed to be a bruiser keystone, it's supposed to be a tank keystone. The entire reason Courage of the Colossus was replaced with Aftershock was because scaling it off Health made it too good.

> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0004000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T22:46:21.698+0000) > > Ah yes the good ol, "I got mine so fuck you". Society is stronger and better when people care about one another. Equality in the work place effects everyone and it isn't exclusive to just Riot. I literally cannot explain human empathy to you if your a psychopath or just conditioned to not care about people who are suffering because at that point you are beyond help. So you went from "I never thought I would have to explain it" to "I literally cannot explain it". The signs of a person who has never actually stopped to consider his own position and only believes it because someone else told him to. "Society" doesn't matter to me. All that matters to me is me. What I can see and touch and feel. But okay, let's for a second accept that "hey, if you can do something that helps someone else, it's a good thing". Whatever. How is being concerned for someone that you will never meet, someone you can't speak to, someone you can't improve the condition of...how is that helping them? How is you bitching about the employees' conditions on a forum going to help them in any meaningful way? You're not making a strong case for empathy being anything other than a waste of time here.

> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0004000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T22:38:31.105+0000) > > Then you literally just lack empathy for other people, specifically minorities, which would probably stem from not being a minority yourself. Okay. I don't care. Empathy isn't a useful emotion to begin with.

> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=00040000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T22:36:07.783+0000) > > Riot literally admitted to having sexism issues. Nearly 200 people walked out, risking their jobs and future career, because this was that bad of an issue. Women were literally being paid less as Riot broke California's equal pay law. Those are facts. Do you literally have no empathy towards other humans? Holy shit I did not think I would need to explain why caring about other people is a good thing. Why is it a good thing, exactly? What benefit do I gain from wasting energy caring about this? Explain it.

> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=000400000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T22:07:59.287+0000) > > Rioters do not need to be farting on eachother, ball slapping, paying women less, and having an overall sexist environment with alleged sexual assault to be successful. Sorry that I have empathy for the employees but this behavior is neither necessary nor acceptable. Literally none of this affects you. You will never meet any of these people. You don't know their individual stories, or why they act the way they act. What you describe as "empathy" is just you being stupid and listening to their complaints and not the Rioter's answer. How is it empathy to completely believe one person and not even hear the other?

> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=00040000000000010000,timestamp=2019-05-07T22:10:57.153+0000) > > Oh no! The sexist corporate leaders are actually being punished! If Riot's upper management is as fucked as it looks they deserve to be sued. The average Rioter is not going to suffer from being allowed a fair and accurate trial. > > You seem very apologietic towards this sexism and nepotism. Yes. I don't care if someone is sexist.

> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=001800000001000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T21:38:31.444+0000) > > Ohhh, okay. That's what I thought would constitute as *aggrivated*. A single incident involving verbal abuse can be classified as assault, but only if that involves a direct threat to the person. Wishing ill upon them is not the same as threatening them. I've had to deal with the police regarding threats before, the language has to be very specific before they will even act on it.

> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0018000000010000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-05-07T20:59:26.275+0000) > > That's actually illegal and constitutes as verbal harassment. Or maybe it's not illegal. I do know that **aggrivated** verbal harassment is illegal, definitely. Lol, that's not harassment. Harassment from a legal standpoint involves repeated behavior over an extended period of time after the offender has been told to stop the behavior at least once.

> [{quoted}](name=Schoenberg,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=00180000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T20:46:18.511+0000) > > People have a right to be insecure! Absolutely. They have the right to be insecure and project it onto those around them... Sorta like the toxic people in league!! Yes, they do. I have the right to walk up to you right now and say "you are the ugliest piece of shit I have ever seen. I hope you drop dead and choke on your own vomit. You disgust me." That is my right. People are so damned worried about making everyone safe and happy when they should be worried about money and innovation.

> [{quoted}](name=Schoenberg,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0018000000010000,timestamp=2019-05-07T20:10:51.412+0000) > > And how does making someone uncomfortable benefit anyone? Surely the dude can just go without making the joke. Intent to make people laugh is nice, but if it doesn't make people laugh don't do it. Just toughing it out and not making the joke would be better for the company > > That and we don't know if it was just a joke. We don't know the context. We don't know the words. It benefits the person making the joke because it helps relieve stress and ease tension. Humor is a way of coping with depression, anxiety, anger... "If it doesn't make people laugh don't do it" is ridiculous. Everyone laughs at different things. And what if the person who is making the joke is the one intended to laugh? "Just toughening it out and not making the joke would be better for the company". Absolutely false. The guy who is in the senior position is the one who is doing the most. By a strict judgment of what is best for the company, you should always capitulate to the person who has the most responsibility and brings in the most cash. If we were doing things by what's best for the company, the policy should be "fire any low level employee who bothers the top brass". Because those at the bottom are easy to replace.

> [{quoted}](name=Schoenberg,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=001800000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T20:37:02.232+0000) > > People can get offended by jokes. Where do you draw the line. I think we'd both agree that someone making jokes about a recently deceased loved one at their funeral is unacceptable > > We have different opinions > > I will say this : I do think people are too sensitive, but there is also tons of people who are insensitive. There are also tons of folks who are racist/sexist/insecure yet don't even realize it. Take it from the jocks from my highschool. Their group loved going around making jokes about Asians and would shout out rice at them in the hallway... Say 'hello' or 'hi' to shy people... They'd also make fun of people who were working hard, "Really workin it there, are you x?" It makes them feel good about themselves. This is sorta how I'm seeing the situation here. If you make a joke about race/sex to someone of that race/sex who is not in your friend group or on fine/good terms, you are probably insecure. Bold claim, but from my **personal experience** it stands. Perhaps you have experienced otherwise And...? People have a right to be insecure. Would you rather them be insecure and not deal with it?

> [{quoted}](name=Serge THE GREAT,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=000200020000,timestamp=2019-05-07T20:23:47.067+0000) > > If you believe that people don't deserve to be able to eat or be treated fairly then you are already too far gone. Lol. What about all the people starving in North Korea? Do they "deserve" to eat or be treated fairly? What does that do for them? They're still starving and suffering.

> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=00180001,timestamp=2019-05-07T19:52:08.937+0000) > > Huh, can they? Can the court system legally decide to "ignore contractual obligations"? Apparently they do it with prenups all the time.

My opinion on all this: Riot is completely in the right. Don't bend down to your employees. You are the ones who have the power. If you let a bit of dissent and protest affect how you do things, it will ruin you. Don't change a single thing. If they find your environment so toxic, let them quit. If they walk out again, fire them. You aren't paying them to protest. Many people would jump at the chance to work for Riot, and firing an employee who has been there a while will actually save you money since you can hire someone to do their job and pay them the entry level wage or salary.

> [{quoted}](name=iamthegoatofwar,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=00180000000000000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T19:44:20.010+0000) > > Hmmm I dunno what normally happens to people who do this? Generally it ends with being IN FUCKING JAIL for it when it's proven. I'd also like to point out you say "assuming" they are true however there was clearly enough evidence riot had to punish him and only gave him a slap on the wrist. There wasn't enough evidence. Riot probably punished him without evidence because people are so scared of an accusation today. #MeToo and all that jazz. If these people want to involve the police, go for it. That has nothing to do with this. It's not Riot's job to call the police if their employees are being criminally harassed, that's the victim's job. If you are being harassed and you take it to the police, good for you. Otherwise, don't cry and moan.

> [{quoted}](name=HateDaddy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0014,timestamp=2019-05-07T15:27:37.023+0000) > > I am fairly positive that when they signed those contracts knowing arbitration was part of the deal, they didn’t think being sexually harassed and demeaned would result in someone simply getting a two month vacation. And then suddenly you’re supposed to talk it out with that person? Even still, companies breach contracts with their employees all the time and employees can’t do anything about it because they simply don’t have the financial backing. So you know what? There’s nothing wrong with someone saying “you know what? This deal is trash, let’s redo it.” > Oh yeah. Vacation. Let's see you stop working for two months without pay and come back. Call that a vacation. Not only are you massively behind and had to eat into your savings, but projects have piled up and you likely have a whole lot of matters sitting on your desk that no one has touched. Give me a break. Managers don't get nearly enough credit for all the shit they have to put up with. > And riot “promises” no retaliation? Lmao. Give me a break. All of those people will be conveniently gone within a year. They’ll get fired for things like “time theft,” “tardy policies” that have never been enforced or even updated, “undisclosed reasons.” Companies have to say they won’t retaliate but they all do, and riot is no different. This is why unions are essential, and I really don’t know when this young generation of kids became corporate bootlickers but it’s tragic. People are allowed to retroactively say “you know what? That was fucked up.” And there’s nothing wrong with that at all. Uh...sure. People are allowed to retroactively say "you know what? That was fucked up." And people are also allowed to say "hey, you've been late six times. Stop it or you're fired." The rules aren't enforced evenly? Don't care. Just because someone else breaks them and isn't punished doesn't mean you get to break them. Follow the damn rules if you don't want to get fired. You sound like the people who were crying about the black guys who got arrested at Starbucks. "Oh, I trespass there all the time and I'm never thrown out! They shouldn't have been either!" Right. Because what we need in that situation is _less_ enforcement of the rules and not more.

> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0004000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-05-07T16:00:48.079+0000) > > Your willingness to ignore the morality of a situation because it was legally agreed to disturbs me. *puts hand up* Be disturbed all you want, bro. Morality is subjective. Everyone has their own definition of what's right and wrong. And I don't give a fuck how moral a situation is when it comes to a business. It is more beneficial to these employees that Riot makes enough money to pay them than it is that they be treated with any sort of respect or dignity. They would rather have money than be treated well, obviously. Otherwise they would just quit. You seem to be under the assumption that changing the culture at Riot would have zero effect on production, quality, and other things. We don't know that for certain, and it's better for them to be immoral and successful than moral and shit.

> [{quoted}](name=iamthegoatofwar,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=001800000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T19:38:28.250+0000) > > "for saying a few naughty words" I'm sorry we are talking about the guy that was farting in peoples face's and humping them correct? That goes a bit further than "a few naughty words" You didn't answer the question. What punishment do you think is appropriate for a senior employee who has likely worked for decades with this company be for these complaints? Assuming they are true (which we don't know).

> [{quoted}](name=Arakadia,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2019-05-07T14:47:03.492+0000) > > Forced arbitration is massively in favor of the employer or company. Like 90% of the time kind of massively in favor. It also sweeps the issue under the wrong as they can make you sign NDAs and keep it secret. > > Just because they signed up for it doesn't mean it's okay. Yeah...and? The company has a lot more to lose than an individual employee does. If a company is fined a million dollars in court, how many individual employees do you think are going to have their hours slashed to cover that cost? What about those, totally innocent people, who would suffer? People have a tendency to refer to a "corporation" as an entity, as if a corporation is something more than just a bunch of everyday working joes like you and me.

> [{quoted}](name=Glaricion,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-05-07T18:30:23.311+0000) > > A jury trial is a Constitutional right, inappropriately touching and abusing your employees isn't, which is why Scott Gelb was suspended for a month or two. Sorry if you miss the days where you could be prejudiced and abusive with minimal risk of punishment. > Lol, you fucking what, mate? This isn't a criminal trial. You don't have a right to a jury trial in a civil case. These people are the plaintiffs, not the defendants.

> [{quoted}](name=AngusBoomPants,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0019,timestamp=2019-05-07T19:31:21.514+0000) > > Except paying based on gender is actually illegal, no matter what is signed. Yes, but all we have is a claim on that front. Riot didn't actually pay anyone less because they were women lol. They paid women less for other reasons, probably. Seniority, women taking more vacation days, individuals being less productive than others, there's a whole lot that goes into determining an individual pay rate in a company. Until it is proven in court, Riot is innocent of that charge. I do not believe a single employee who claims discrimination of wages based on sex or race.

> [{quoted}](name=iamthegoatofwar,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0018,timestamp=2019-05-07T19:24:11.932+0000) > > So I'm kinda laughing at people who have honestly said that they can't go to court and file law suits cause they signed the private arbitration agreement in the contract. The courts can decide to overlook that part of the contract and with what I've heard they should do so. Like seriously a high ranking employee was only given 2 months no pay (and as high up as he was that means little to him in a company making as much as riot does), and "training" that probably did little to nothing. Uh...yeah? What should the punishment be for harassment, exactly? Demotion? The employee's behavior towards his employees or subordinates has nothing to do with his ability to code or how much money he brings in to the company. You do realize that Riot is required by law to maximize profit for its shareholders, right? Riot doesn't have a legal obligation to its employees, that's just a culture we have built up over the years. But they **do** have a legal obligation to their shareholders, and firing an important team member for saying a few naughty words isn't going to help anything.

> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-05-07T01:50:57.271+0000) > > I had to look it up too lol basically a "manditory arbitration" policy that employees agreed to on hire. If you have an issue with someone, you file it through the company who brings in a neutral third party to look at the issues and serve as judge based on the evidence provided by both parties involved. That, and it forbids employees from taking their gripes to court. > > Basically, it requires employees to go through an internal court system. Loosely speaking, of course. It's not that complex lol > > My concern is...what is actually the issue with that? What's the difference between a public trial and a private trial aside from the power that 2019's outrage culture is providing? > > From what I've gathered, the issue is that problems aren't being solved this way. I don't think problems will be solved without it, neither. But Riot does what Riot does. Either they'll benefit or they'll fail. The problem is really that the company is protecting its name from being dragged through the mud and these people **want** to drag their name through the mud, because that's how they drum up outside press. The actual customers of Riot aren't going to support these employees and say "yeah, stop treating them badly!" because we just want to play video games. Hell, most of the playerbase probably doesn't even know or care that this walkout happened. These people want a big public trial and to get the news media involved because they want a bunch of outside activists who neither play League nor pay Riot anything to put a bunch of pressure on Riot on Twitter and elsewhere.

> [{quoted}](name=Serge THE GREAT,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-05-07T01:15:32.021+0000) > > So "get another job" isn't a simple answer, when you are paying off your college fees that are astronomically high because in this stupid country education isn't a right. It's a privilege. And if you can't afford that privilege (which most people cannot) you are set up to fail. If you can't see that this is how the world works then you are delusional or are a young kid lurking on these message boards with no concept of how messed up the United States (and many other countries) is. No, it's not a simple answer. There are no simple answers in life. Sometimes you have to tolerate a bit of a blow to your ego if you want to maintain your health and security. No one **deserves** to be treated well and certainly no one **deserves** to eat or pay rent. You earn these things on a daily basis. And there is a cost to it. Whether that cost is free time, a job you might like more, or your dignity and self-respect, you pay the price and you get something else. If these people valued their dignity more than their job, they would quit. They don't. That doesn't mean Riot has to cave in and change things to give them both.

> [{quoted}](name=hoganftw,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cNVPAl3Z,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-05-07T01:09:01.424+0000) > > I think the legality of it and the fact that Riot refuses to do the right thing despite legally being within their rights are two very different things. "The right thing" being...what, exactly? Actually take these people to court and crush them with a legal team versus whatever lawyer this group of employees managed to hire?

Japan probably just bans him to own the weebs, tbh.