: Thanks, I was hoping you'd repost this here :D >If I crush my lane opponent and get off to a 4/0/0 start and he ragequits, I EARNED that win. I don't care if it was easier to win a 5v4 than if he had stayed - I'm the reason he quit! Don't drop my reward because I played too good. If you get off to a 4/0/0 start and someone ragequits, you still won a 4v5 and do not deserve the same rewards as if you beat an entire team. And I'm not talking a kneecapping here either, it seems like the median LP gain is between 15 and 30 points, so we're talking a difference of maybe 4ish LP for a 1 man difference. I can't speak to MMR since Riot goes out of their way to hide that, but it would be an equally small change. My goal here is to get the matchmaking system to _reflect reality_, and in reality, if the other team is down people and you win, there is no logical or mathematical reason that your MMR should go up as if you won a 5v5. You still win, you still get your rewards, you still get a W in your promos, but that reward is proportional _to reality_. >Likewise, I may get an opponent that ragequits because I crushed him 3/0/0. Then somehow the enemy team wins a 4v5. Does that mean they would have won 5v5? Maybe, maybe not. _Statistically_, yes. The whole point of an ELO-like system is to assign arbitrary numeric values to your skill and then adjust that value in response to various events, with the adjustment having a logical connection to the thing its measuring. >Or a DC when you're already way ahead? I tried to address that - this adjustment formula goes away based on time, objectives, or a certain level of ahead-ness, precisely to avoid this kind of abuse.
> [{quoted}](name=Karunamon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Hm8JQt0E,comment-id=000d0000,timestamp=2017-12-14T18:09:09.045+0000) > > Thanks, I was hoping you'd repost this here :D > > If you get off to a 4/0/0 start and someone ragequits, you still won a 4v5 and do not deserve the same rewards as if you beat an entire team. And I'm not talking a kneecapping here either, it seems like the median LP gain is between 15 and 30 points, so we're talking a difference of maybe 4ish LP for a 1 man difference. I can't speak to MMR since Riot goes out of their way to hide that, but it would be an equally small change. No, this thought I can't agree with or even see how someone thinks this way. He quit BECAUSE I beat him badly. That's not my problem. It wasn't a 4v5, it was a 5v5 where I literally made one of my enemies useless. Let's also include the fact that, if I'm getting fed off of someone they're going to be blamed and harassed a ton so their allies can convince them to AFK and lower their penalty and my reward. Again, there's no acceptable train of thought as to why I would get less rewards because I played TOO GOOD and made someone so far behind he'd rather not play. Simply nothing to justify that. I earned that win just like any other 5v5 win. His team lost because they failed to help him before he raged out. It's still 5v5.
xGunna1 (EUW)
: CertainlyT is the best champ designer and the proof for that his champs are popular
He makes very popular champions that anyone who's not playing them wishes never existed in the first place. There's no doubt that an OP or overloaded champion will be popular. People want to win. That doesn't make them good design. You could give Urgot stats to have a 60% win rate and he'd be 100% pick or ban.
: What if you weren't up a creek when someone left your ranked match?
> [{quoted}](name=Karunamon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Hm8JQt0E,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-12-13T21:49:51.639+0000) > > Reposted by request. In another thread was the common complaint that you're screwed with no recourse if someone leaves in the middle of your ranked game (or god forbid, in your promo series). > > Here's a better idea. What if we had a vote when someone disappears and isn't coming back? > > Someone leaves and gets 3 minutes to reconnect. > > If they fail to do so, everyone on the shorted team gets a popup (kinda like the surrender window). They're voting on staying or leaving. > > * If majority votes to stay, they're locked into the game and proceed as usual. Someone who doesn't vote is considered to have voted "stay", a tie vote is resolved "stay". > * if majority votes to go, their nexus pops and they lose instantly. > > This puts some control back in the hands of the shorted team and lets them make a tactical decision. They can't be held hostage by a leaver, *and* they can't really abuse this all that much. > > So far, all I've described is an automatic surrender vote > > Now here's where the magic happens: > > # What if we factored LP/MMR calculation into this as well? What if we recognize that measuring skill is a bit different when teams are imbalanced? > > In short, everyone in the game wins and loses (abs(player difference) * .20) more or less LP/MMR depending on the details. > > ## If they vote to stay, and the shorted team wins: > > * They gain 20% (or one-fifth) more LP and MMR than usual. > * Carrying a team down a person is not a small achievement, and this serves as a small incentive to play the game out. > * The losing team loses 20% more LP and MMR than usual. > * Losing against a team you're up a man on should also be reflected. > > ## If they vote to stay, and the shorted team loses: > > * They lose 20% less LP and MMR than usual. > * Being down a guy statistically ruins games and means the match result isn't as much a reflection of skill as it should be. > * The winning team gets 20% less LP and MMR than usual. > * Winning against a team down a guy requires less skill. > > ## Now, what happens if they vote to go? > > * LP is calculated normally for both winning and losing teams > * If a player on a leaving team is in a promo series, *the loss is not counted against the series*. They get another try. > * The player on the winning team still gets the win in their series. > * In the case of both teams, _**Their MMR is not impacted.**_ > > The general goal here is realizing that the game is already blown, and trying to minimize the impact of the errant game, while also minimizing possibility for abuse. > > The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, but the result shouldn't be held against your skill so we leave MMR alone. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty because, in a way, you were deprived of a real test of your skill. > > Possible modifications of the basic idea: > > * Apply small leaverbuster penalties to those who vote to bail out of a game. More incentive to play it out, a token inconvenience for not doing so. > > * All of this adjustment goes out the window either past some time after midgame, or after an event like an inner turret/inhibitor going down. This protects against abuse of the leniency by a losing team in the late-game taking steps to minimize the loss to their stats. At that point, the normal surrender system should be sufficient. > > * Timers and percentages are best effort and pulled completely out my ass and could be moved either way. And I'll repost my response which also got upvotes and people largely agreed with (you've addressed a couple of the comments, but still not the major one): The problem I have with this is that you're adjusting the winning team's award/penalty. That's not right. If I crush my lane opponent and get off to a 4/0/0 start and he ragequits, I EARNED that win. I don't care if it was easier to win a 5v4 than if he had stayed - I'm the reason he quit! Don't drop my reward because I played too good. Likewise, I may get an opponent that ragequits because I crushed him 3/0/0. Then somehow the enemy team wins a 4v5. Does that mean they would have won 5v5? Maybe, maybe not. Presumably I could have gotten fed even more off the guy that quit. Maybe if I got to 6/0/0 I could have hard carried. Why should I be punished more again because my opponent quit because I beat him too hard? The point I'm making is that while this is great for a random DC, it's really unfair for a rage quit. That guy could have kept playing and feeding, he quit - so what? Or a DC when you're already way ahead? So your team wins off it's lead and the enemy gets extra punished because someone dc'd at 20min when the team was up 15 kills to 2? There are just too many side cases that make this seem unfair to me. It isn't often that a game isn't a remake, and isn't a case of someone rage quitting. So 90% of the games receiving this adjustment, it doesn't seem warranted for. You don't get extra rewards for carrying a feeding ally, why get them for carrying an ally that stops feeding by dc'ing?
: Elaborate op pls.
> [{quoted}](name=DrAtomMagnumMDPh,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=wnAk3eQE,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-12-14T07:12:52.063+0000) > > Elaborate op pls. Was playing as {{champion:150}} against {{champion:75}}. Their {{champion:121}} jungle had ganked me 5 times before 10min, and their {{champion:136}} mid had roamed on me 3 times in the same time frame. Our {{champion:92}} counter ganked twice for 3 kills, {{champion:13}} followed the roam twice for 2 or 3 kills, they also pressured bot lane and our bot lane got ahead knowing {{champion:121}} was top all game long. I was 0/6/6 at the end of the game, but there was never really a worry that we'd lose since everyone else was pretty far ahead. Also at 0/6 I could still 1v1 Nasus whenever he tried to split, and managed to TP as Mega Gnar in to a teamfight and CC locked Nasus when he was threatening our Varus and that fight got us our inhib. Was overall just a nice change of pace from the games where I'll win top lane 1v2 in a tough lane (e.g. {{champion:516}} vs {{champion:122}}) but the enemy Draven was 15/1 before 15min despite his jungler always being in my lane so it didn't matter at all (literally the game before this).
: Flash has almost 100% pick rate but havent received any changes for years
There's really only one nerf they can give to flash - a longer cooldown. Which they've already done, it has a huge cooldown. Flash and TP are both at 300sec cooldowns. Heal is at 240, then Exhaust and Cleanse at 210. TP was a shorter cooldown if used on a turret (200 sec instead of 300) and eventually became mandatory for top lane and popular in mid lane, so it was nerfed to always be 300sec cooldown (although still 200sec if canceled). Admittedly, that's still favoritism (why shouldn't TP have a shorter cooldown than Flash?) but I think putting flash on anything more than a 5min cooldown just makes it available too infrequently that you don't get to see plays with it. While almost all champions use flash, there are some champions that are precariously balanced around flash and depend almost entirely on it to succeed. Annie for example is only useful in high level play due to her flash-Tibbers combo. If flash was on a sufficiently long cooldown to make it not as popular, Annie would become almost completely unplayable as she'd only get to flash-Tibbers twice in a typical game. The game is basically dependent on flash at this point. Finding something that works better is obviously possible and can be used well because people don't expect it. So take advantage of that, because you're going to struggle to convince Riot to get rid of Flash or nerf it to a long enough cooldown that other summoners are chosen more often.
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=ValyrianBlade,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=W54hF1Ef,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2017-12-13T23:06:25.440+0000) > > Pretty much the reason I stopped playing ADC. Mid laners trade kills like mad (or mine just feeds) and it doesn't matter where I go or if I have allies around me, I'm 100-0'd the second the enemy mid laner sees me. > > I understand that kills give rewards so that you can scale and carry by playing well. In lower elo this transpires in to "get fed or lose". They say winning your lane consistently will win you >50% of games, but realistically that's not true in low elo. If you grind out a farm lead and maybe 2 or 3 kills in lane for 90% of your games, go even in 5%, and lose hard in 5% because the enemy tried to go HAM, but mid lane is trading 12 kills every game, you're going to have a 50-50 win rate on the 95% of games where you're even or ahead, and a 0% win rate on the 5% you're behind. That translates to a sub-50 win rate despite winning your lane 90% of the time. > > Long story short, when I somehow got put in to bronze 1 in flex queue last season, I couldn't climb out until I switched to mid lane. Winning your lane 90% of the time as a mid laner generally lets you climb. Did this make sense to you as you were typing it though... If blue team's ADC has a 45% chance of winning and red team's ADC has a 45% chance of winning... who wins the other 10%. If you actually won lane 95% of the time and lose more than half your games, then you're throwing your lead as soon as you leave lane or *actively* causing your team's loss.
> [{quoted}](name=PandemicPanda5,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=W54hF1Ef,comment-id=00070001,timestamp=2017-12-14T02:20:25.248+0000) > > Did this make sense to you as you were typing it though... > > If blue team's ADC has a 45% chance of winning and red team's ADC has a 45% chance of winning... who wins the other 10%. If you actually won lane 95% of the time and lose more than half your games, then you're throwing your lead as soon as you leave lane or *actively* causing your team's loss. My argument ___ lots of space ___ your head... Let's put it in simple terms. Your contribution, even if you're better than your lane opponent, only sums to a 50% chance to win when you have allies trading tons of kills. That's because with one ally and one enemy so ridiculously fed, the two of them will single-handedly decide the game and you don't have a say. So if you play safe and consistently win your lane by a reasonable margin, you'll only have a 50% win rate on those games. Let's say that's 90% of games, so that gives you 45% wins and 45% losses. Of the 10% remaining games, your mid wins 5% and the enemy mid wins 5%. Overall that would be 50-50 EXCEPT in that subset of 10%, maybe there's 1% of games where you lose hard and the enemy ADC is actually able to carry against your mid. So even though you win lane 90% of the time, that 1% of the time where you lose lane AND your mid wins hard but the enemy ADC carries results in you losing. However you never carry against the enemy fed mid because you give too much respect and only win by smaller margins. So you win 45% + 5% - 1% = 49% of games. That means you lose 51%. You have a sub-50% win rate despite winning lane 90% of the time, because the amount you win by means nothing compared to the traded kills mid lane. I'm not literally saying this happens, but in low elo it can be close to this for long stretches.
Bultz (NA)
: I love building tank with full mr against a team of all ap
I think we need a lot of context here. In general, all AP teams are incredibly weak. Most tanky champions can survive most magic damage from building 1 big MR item plus the HP from their other items. If a team is AP heavy and you build 3 big MR items, you generally become almost immune to damage... There are of course a few champions that are really strong (e.g. Azir) because they're sustained damage and not burst (and Void staff exists), but nonetheless you'll still be doing a lot better than if you were against that champion and needed to build armor too... If anything this problem exists against all AD teams. I hate how the enemy team can be all AD, I can be even/ahead and be building only armor items, and still get blown up fairly reliably because of the sheer amount of armor shred and penetration in kits and items.
: I'm starting to hate this fucking game.
Pretty much the reason I stopped playing ADC. Mid laners trade kills like mad (or mine just feeds) and it doesn't matter where I go or if I have allies around me, I'm 100-0'd the second the enemy mid laner sees me. I understand that kills give rewards so that you can scale and carry by playing well. In lower elo this transpires in to "get fed or lose". They say winning your lane consistently will win you >50% of games, but realistically that's not true in low elo. If you grind out a farm lead and maybe 2 or 3 kills in lane for 90% of your games, go even in 5%, and lose hard in 5% because the enemy tried to go HAM, but mid lane is trading 12 kills every game, you're going to have a 50-50 win rate on the 95% of games where you're even or ahead, and a 0% win rate on the 5% you're behind. That translates to a sub-50 win rate despite winning your lane 90% of the time. Long story short, when I somehow got put in to bronze 1 in flex queue last season, I couldn't climb out until I switched to mid lane. Winning your lane 90% of the time as a mid laner generally lets you climb.
: I agree with you *on principle*, but it can and will be abused if modified the way you describe. Here's what's gonna happen - teams will have a sacrificial leaver. They'll give up a kill, the usual push to FF all the things starts, and one guy quits. The entire team dodges a deserved loss. (And this is sorta what happens with remake - you can't do it after there's been a death) Matchmaking is already a bit ridiculous, but this would lead to *insane* rank inflation. --- (crazy idea reposted to its own thread: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/Hm8JQt0E-what-if-you-werent-up-a-creek-when-someone-left-your-ranked-match) Here's a better idea. What if we had a vote when someone disappears and isn't coming back? * Someone leaves and gets 3 minutes to reconnect. * If they fail to do so, everyone on the shorted team gets a popup (kinda like the surrender window). They're voting on staying or leaving. * If majority votes to stay, they're locked into the game and proceed as usual. Someone who doesn't vote is considered to have vote "stay". * if majority votes to go, their nexus pops and they lose instantly. This puts some control back in the hands of the shorted team and lets them make a tactical decision. They can't be held hostage by a leaver, they can't really abuse this all that much. So far, all I've described is an automatic surrender vote. Now here's where the magic happens: What if we factored LP/MMR calculation into this as well? What if we recognized that winning or losing a game when the teams are imbalanced should be recognized? In short - you win and lose (team imbalance * 20%) more or less. If one person leaves: * If they vote to stay, and the shorted team **wins**: * They gain 20% (or one-fifth) **more **LP and MMR than usual. Carrying a team down a person is not a small achievement, and this serves as a small incentive to play the game out. * The losing team *loses* 20% **more** LP and MMR than usual. Losing against a team you're up a man on should also be reflected. * If they vote to stay, and the shorted team **loses**: * They lose 20% **less** LP and MMR than usual. Being down a guy statistically ruins games and means the match result isn't as much a reflection of skill as it should be. * The winning team gets 20% **less** LP and MMR than usual. Winning against a team down a guy requires less skill. Now, what happens if they vote to go? * They lose LP as they normally would for a loss. * Their MMR **is not impacted**. Again, deciding you don't want to play a game when you're short a person at a bad time should not be held against your skill rating. The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, and the result shouldn't be held against your skill. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty, because in a way, you got screwed.
> [{quoted}](name=Karunamon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=xlgR9pVJ,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2017-12-13T21:27:00.029+0000) > > I agree with you *on principle*, but it can and will be abused if modified the way you describe. > > Here's what's gonna happen - teams will have a sacrificial leaver. They'll give up a kill, the usual push to FF all the things starts, and one guy quits. The entire team dodges a deserved loss. (And this is sorta what happens with remake - you can't do it after there's been a death) > > Matchmaking is already a bit ridiculous, but this would lead to *insane* rank inflation. > > --- > > Here's a better idea. What if we had a vote when someone disappears and isn't coming back? > > * Someone leaves and gets 3 minutes to reconnect. > * If they fail to do so, everyone on the shorted team gets a popup (kinda like the surrender window). They're voting on staying or leaving. > * If majority votes to stay, they're locked into the game and proceed as usual. Someone who doesn't vote is considered to have vote "stay". > * if majority votes to go, their nexus pops and they lose instantly. > > This puts some control back in the hands of the shorted team and lets them make a tactical decision. They can't be held hostage by a leaver, they can't really abuse this all that much. > > So far, all I've described is an automatic surrender vote. Now here's where the magic happens: What if we factored LP/MMR calculation into this as well? What if we recognized that winning or losing a game when the teams are imbalanced should be recognized? > > In short - you win and lose (team imbalance * 20%) more or less. > > If one person leaves: > > * If they vote to stay, and the shorted team **wins**: > * They gain 20% (or one-fifth) **more **LP and MMR than usual. Carrying a team down a person is not a small achievement, and this serves as a small incentive to play the game out. > * The losing team *loses* 20% **more** LP and MMR than usual. Losing against a team you're up a man on should also be reflected. > > * If they vote to stay, and the shorted team **loses**: > * They lose 20% **less** LP and MMR than usual. Being down a guy statistically ruins games and means the match result isn't as much a reflection of skill as it should be. > * The winning team gets 20% **less** LP and MMR than usual. Winning against a team down a guy requires less skill. > > Now, what happens if they vote to go? > > * They lose LP as they normally would for a loss. > * Their MMR **is not impacted**. Again, deciding you don't want to play a game when you're short a person at a bad time should not be held against your skill rating. The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, and the result shouldn't be held against your skill. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty, because in a way, you got screwed. The problem I have with this is that you're adjusting the winning team's award/penalty. That's not right. If I crush my lane opponent and get off to a 4/0/0 start and he ragequits, I EARNED that win. I don't care if it was easier to win a 5v4 than if he had stayed - I'm the reason he quit! Don't drop my reward because I played too good. Likewise, I may get an opponent that ragequits because I crushed him 3/0/0. Then somehow the enemy team wins a 4v5. Does that mean they would have won 5v5? Maybe, maybe not. Presumably I could have gotten fed even more off the guy that quit. Maybe if I got to 6/0/0 I could have hard carried. Why should I be punished more again because my opponent quit because I beat him too hard? The point I'm making is that while this is great for a random DC, it's really unfair for a rage quit. That guy could have kept playing and feeding, he quit - so what? Or a DC when you're already way ahead? So your team wins off it's lead and the enemy gets extra punished because someone dc'd at 20min when the team was up 15 kills to 2? There are just too many side cases that make this seem unfair to me. It isn't often that a game isn't a remake, and isn't a case of someone rage quitting. So 90% of the games receiving this adjustment, it doesn't seem warranted for. You don't get extra rewards for carrying a feeding ally, why get them for carrying an ally that stops feeding by dc'ing?
Ralanr (NA)
: Even then they shouldn’t. Riot stated they wanted tanks to be the most durable class.
> [{quoted}](name=Ralanr,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4WEW9Rc6,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2017-12-07T17:04:34.794+0000) > > Even then they shouldn’t. > > Riot stated they wanted tanks to be the most durable class. Tanks can be more durable via lowering enemy DPS with CC, while fighters can have similar tanky stats.
Quepha (NA)
: Because.
> [{quoted}](name=Quepha,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UEBpj29,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-12-12T22:43:40.926+0000) > > Because. To rephrase, why are they nerfing inspiration keystones (like lowering summoner spell cooldown from 30% to 25%, and getting rid of 25 bonus range on kleptomancy) when they're giving more base stats for going inspiration than for going any other tree, instead of just lowering the base stats to be more in line with the other trees?
Quepha (NA)
: Inspiration gives more base stats based on the secondary tree for ALL secondary trees, not just resolve.
> [{quoted}](name=Quepha,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UEBpj29,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-12-12T22:11:07.291+0000) > > Inspiration gives more base stats based on the secondary tree for ALL secondary trees, not just resolve. But why?
: > [{quoted}](name=ValyrianBlade,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UEBpj29,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2017-12-10T14:54:59.381+0000) > > Don't you get a keystone and a rune in the inspiration tree though? > > Specifically: > Unsealed spellbook offers immense summoner spell CDR (25% more often flashes for your tanky engage and teleports for your bad laning phase?). > Glacial Augment has niche potential for champions that need more CC (admittedly not many resolve takers) > Kleptomancy has applications to tanky champions that want to stay longer in lane and goes well with that longer potion duration. > > Then Biscuit delivery also helps you survive longer in your bad laning phase, or you can take a free stopwatch towards your GA or Gargoyle. > Nothing wrong with free boots that are even faster than normal (also helps your engage), or futures market to hit your power spike earlier. > Celestial body makes perfect sense for tanks (there's another 100HP). > > Sure, Grasp now gives a permanent 5hp on hit which will make up the HP difference, but then the argument becomes that Grasp is stronger than any Inspiration keystone on any champion that wants a little tankiness. > > You're trading aftershock/grasp + demolish/font for 20% longer pots, 15 HP, an inspiration keystone, and 350g value boots with 10 extra MS is the more appropriate comparison. Which I don't see how the 15HP measures out there. It just seems illogical that the tree for tanks gives less tank stats than the inspiration tree. taking everything i said out of context, clearly your boy op doesn't care about anything but health... "Why does inspiration (second resolve) give **more health** than resolve primary?" but yes assuming you take the runes you are inciting you do (which i wouldn't on something like darius/irellia) yea utility vs health
> [{quoted}](name=rrett44556,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UEBpj29,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2017-12-12T15:46:03.429+0000) > > taking everything i said out of context, clearly your boy op doesn't care about anything but health... "Why does inspiration (second resolve) give **more health** than resolve primary?" but yes assuming you take the runes you are inciting you do (which i wouldn't on something like darius/irellia) yea utility vs health I didn't take it out of context, I corrected what was wrong. You said you didn't get the keystone - you do get a keystone, just not the resolve keystone. I explicitly listed instead what the trade is: aftershock/grasp + demolish/font for 20% longer pots, 15 HP, an inspiration keystone, and 350g value boots with 10 extra MS. Clearly I care about more than health. I'm alluding to the point that inspiration keystones must be pretty weak if they give more base stats on top of the extra potion duration. So why are inspiration keystones "weak"? Especially when we're complaining that ezreal/GP are abusing kleptomancy and it doesn't seem OP but also not weak otherwise, and that pros are abusing the summoner spell cdr on unsealed spellbook? Why do the keystones necessarily need nerfs, when the extra base stats tagged along are higher for inspiration than for the other trees?
: "such heavy synergies" so heavy that Yasuo can use his ultimate ability when ally team mates give him a knockup!! wow! every other champion can use their ult just by pressing a button, no setup required, but goddamn dat Yasuo synergy!!
> [{quoted}](name=Red Wreckage,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Otbcp5TK,comment-id=001b0015000200000000,timestamp=2017-12-11T15:42:23.503+0000) > > "such heavy synergies" > > so heavy that Yasuo can use his ultimate ability when ally team mates give him a knockup!! > > wow! every other champion can use their ult just by pressing a button, no setup required, but goddamn dat Yasuo synergy!! Yasuo's ult varies from an unreliable single target cc and damage to a super reliable multi-target aoe damage ability. It's not that they allow him to use his ult, it's that they make it much more reliable and able to hit more and better targets. Not to mention Yasuo has other synergies: he benefits from allied magic damage threats that most mid laners bring themselves. He benefits more from ranged waveclear allies since he can't himself. Certain champions like zyra support bring all of this at once, so yes that's a heavy synergy.
: So a "carry" champion should be only allowed to be good if his team mates pick champion that heavily favor it? You mean dictating 4 other picks by just picking 1? or auto lose?
> [{quoted}](name=Red Wreckage,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Otbcp5TK,comment-id=001b00150002,timestamp=2017-12-11T05:43:53.842+0000) > > So a "carry" champion should be only allowed to be good if his team mates pick champion that heavily favor it? You mean dictating 4 other picks by just picking 1? or auto lose? Not in general, but when said carry has such heavy synergies with other champions, you're going to have a disparity in win rates depending on comps. It's a lot more fair to the non-Yasuo player base to give him a 40% win rate on other comps and a slightly over 50% win rate in his preferred comps, rather then a 50% win rate in his preferred comps and potentially a 60+ % win rate in his preferred comp. It's not our fault that Yasuo players only play Yasuo and won't adapt to allied picks (or one trick a generalist rather than a specialist). If you only play a specialist, you should expect to generally be at a disadvantage. It's also not 4 other champions. The reason i listed the top row of champs separately is that they're examples of champs that alone in Yasuo's team can make it a decent comp for him. For example malphite brings a reliable aoe knockup, tankiness, engage, and magic damage.
: I typically don't engage in these sorts of threads, but think this is a perfect opportunity to outline why it can be rough to attempt to engage in topics on the boards. I saw the thread crop up about Yasuo last week, and deemed it a good opportunity to engage even briefly into why we would even consider buffing him, knowing full well that he's a fairly contentious champion. A lot of players gave some really good thoughts, some were rather typical vitriol, and some were just misinformed. I personally don't have the time to address every question that came up in the thead (which feels really bad), but still thought it was valuable to provide even just a small window of insight into why we may or may not make a change to the game - in this case deciding to buff Yasuo. What's a major pain in the ass is to check the boards over the weekend and see that a thread near the top that took my replies completely out of context, spreads a false narrative, and only serves to turn more people against Riot (or the balance team in this case). I want to provide context on our work when I can, but having my words twisted into a message that's blatantly false makes me wonder sometimes if it is worth it. No we are not buffing Yasuo because he's popular/has a large player base. We are buffing him because he has the highest average games played per player out of EVERY champion in League, and even with the largest number of players who HAVE mastered him, he's struggling to win the "promised" number of games based on what you would expect from a mastery curve (this is just one of the reasons). Long story short - we're buffing him because he is NOT a balanced champion currently, and it's our job to react to champions like him accordingly. Now - other than the title of your post which is what I find to be most misleading, I can understand the sentiment from the body of your post and empathize with the feeling. If you're a Skarner main (not saying you are, but if a player is), they'd be much happier to see us working on Skarner as opposed to buffing Yasuo, but issues with champions with low play rates are (typically) more deep seated issues around core abilities, play pattern, thematic, visuals etc - all of which are likely better handled with something from a mini-update to a full blown VGU - many of which are the types of work the champion team would take on as opposed to the balance team. That's not to say we don't talk about those champions if there's quick wins we can get from the our teams perspective, but we need to make sure we're also focusing on "problems" we can get some progress on in the next patch, vs only focusing on longer term champion wins. You can absolutely disagree with our decisions to buff/nerf certain aspects of League, that's part of what I love about our playerbase because it means you fucking care. But what I'd really appreciate is not having any time we try to engage turned into a spin fest for how our words can be used against us. Sorry if this came across super agro, just something I feel passionate about since I WANT to engage more, but also want it to be valuable for both sides - not incendiary.
> [{quoted}](name=Maple Nectar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Otbcp5TK,comment-id=001b,timestamp=2017-12-10T23:06:26.193+0000) > > No we are not buffing Yasuo because he's popular/has a large player base. We are buffing him because he has the highest average games played per player out of EVERY champion in League, and even with the largest number of players who HAVE mastered him, he's struggling to win the "promised" number of games based on what you would expect from a mastery curve (this is just one of the reasons). Long story short - we're buffing him because he is NOT a balanced champion currently, and it's our job to react to champions like him accordingly. Can you share any internal data on whether Yasuo's win rate differs significantly based on the team comps he's a part of? I feel like Yasuo should see a below-50% win rate for two reasons, and you're only addressing one of them (that he's a high skill cap champion and players that haven't put a lot of time in to him will do poorly on him). The second reason which I've not seen addressed anywhere, is that Yasuo simply does not fit in the majority of team comps in league. That should make him a niche champion, and yet as the graphs Riot released show he has the widest and deepest playerbase of all champions (I think largest breadth, and second deepest after Kayn). That's a **huge** red flag to me. Why is a niche champion being played so much? Is it because the teams that allow him to thrive are super popular right now? **Absolutely not. The meta is actually very against comps that Yasuo would thrive in.** So the alternative is that players are **picking Yasuo in the wrong situations**. Why is Riot buffing a champion who is losing games that **he should lose**? What do you want your mid laner to bring to a game of league? Typically a threatening amount of magic damage, ranged waveclear to stall from behind, and some utility. If you look at historically good mid laners they all have all of these: {{champion:103}} {{champion:34}} {{champion:268}} {{champion:69}} {{champion:42}} {{champion:245}} {{champion:99}} etc... all demonstrate all of these properties. Yasuo **demonstrates none of them.** What do you want your top laner to bring to a game of league? Typically engage, peel, tankiness. In the recent meta even more than ever, you want a lot of peel and tankiness to let your ADC thrive. **Yasuo does none of this.** Then, Yasuo has a kit that's more dependent on allies than most champions. His ultimate is only usable on champions that are airborne, and he only has a somewhat unreliable way of doing it himself and often only on one target. Allies like {{champion:154}} {{champion:59}} {{champion:12}} {{champion:54}} {{champion:201}} {{champion:267}} {{champion:516}} etc... are great for Yasuo because they can knockup multiple enemies fairly reliably. Most champions don't bring AOE knockups for Yasuo to thrive with. You throw all of this together, and I'd expect that if Yasuo is being consistently picked with disregard to his team comp (which as we've all seen in solo queue, that last pick mid goes Yasuo in to allied {{champion:23}} {{champion:77}} {{champion:222}}). In games like that, he should lose. Yet I've had plenty of games like that where I'm on a true tank and stacking 300 armor and still struggling to win what should be free because Yasuo just puts out soo much damage through armor. So what I want to know: is Yasuo mid seeing a sub-50% win rate in all team comps, or is his win rate varying a lot across different teams? What is Yasuo's average win rate with any of these champions on his team: {{champion:12}} {{champion:54}} {{champion:154}} {{champion:31}} {{champion:59}} {{champion:143}} ? What about with these champions? {{champion:254}} {{champion:40}}, Support {{champion:63}} (i.e. his support can bring the magic damage). Or better yet, use the data to identify which champions Yasuo does well with, and see if he's consistently winning over 50% with a subset of specific champions. Tell me those are under 50% and I can be on board with Yasuo buffs. If they're like 54% then I think it's clear that Yasuo mains are just picking him knowing it's not a good time to do so, and they shouldn't get compensated for that. They're volunteering to have a sub-50% win rate if they're going to pick like that.
HTC VIVE (NA)
: Reminder that Yasuo is currently sitting at a 46% winrate
High skillcap champion, who should be highly niche (relies on allied knockups, allied engage, tankiness, CC, and magic damage) but is chosen regardless of comp, has a poor win rate? Big surprise there... Tell me that Yasuo's win rate is under 50%, or heck even 52%, when he has a team with champions like {{champion:54}} {{champion:154}} {{champion:12}} {{champion:267}} {{champion:33}} {{champion:497}} {{champion:59}} etc... on his team and I'll accept that he needs buffs. Just because he loses with {{champion:23}} {{champion:77}} {{champion:222}} {{champion:21}} as his team doesn't mean he's weak.
Zed genius (EUNE)
: > They're buffing Yasuo, but realistically he's fine at the moment and if anything is overtuned. How can a champion with a 42% winrate be overtuned, regardless of skill cap?
> [{quoted}](name=Zed genius,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Yl5Gpph4,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2017-12-10T15:33:49.228+0000) > > How can a champion with a 42% winrate be overtuned, regardless of skill cap? Well the whole point was that the champion is being picked in the wrong situations. If Yasuo had a 47% win rate when being picked alongside tanky engage knockups and AP damage, then I'd agree he's underpowered. I'd imagine he has well over a 50% win rate in those scenarios though. If people have data to the contrary then I'd gladly revise my opinion, but as I see it the champion is strong in the situations where he should be played. It shouldn't affect his state of balance if he's picked in situations where he shouldn't be and loses because of it.
Rioter Comments
: how doesnt it? when u go Resolve -> Inspiration you get the resolve keystone and 130+ hp Inspiration -> Resolve 145 + 20% pots duration? but you don't get the keystone your not getting more... the reason its higher is you lose out on 1 perk and the keystone basically trading aftershock/grasp + demolish/font of life for 15 hp and 20% stronger pots
> [{quoted}](name=rrett44556,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UEBpj29,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-12-10T14:08:24.145+0000) > > how doesnt it? when u go > > Resolve -> Inspiration you get the resolve keystone and 130+ hp > > Inspiration -> Resolve 145 + 20% pots duration? but you don't get the keystone > > your not getting more... the reason its higher is you lose out on 1 perk and the keystone > > basically trading aftershock/grasp + demolish/font of life for 15 hp and 20% stronger pots Don't you get a keystone and a rune in the inspiration tree though? Specifically: Unsealed spellbook offers immense summoner spell CDR (25% more often flashes for your tanky engage and teleports for your bad laning phase?). Glacial Augment has niche potential for champions that need more CC (admittedly not many resolve takers) Kleptomancy has applications to tanky champions that want to stay longer in lane and goes well with that longer potion duration. Then Biscuit delivery also helps you survive longer in your bad laning phase, or you can take a free stopwatch towards your GA or Gargoyle. Nothing wrong with free boots that are even faster than normal (also helps your engage), or futures market to hit your power spike earlier. Celestial body makes perfect sense for tanks (there's another 100HP). Sure, Grasp now gives a permanent 5hp on hit which will make up the HP difference, but then the argument becomes that Grasp is stronger than any Inspiration keystone on any champion that wants a little tankiness. You're trading aftershock/grasp + demolish/font for 20% longer pots, 15 HP, an inspiration keystone, and 350g value boots with 10 extra MS is the more appropriate comparison. Which I don't see how the 15HP measures out there. It just seems illogical that the tree for tanks gives less tank stats than the inspiration tree.
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=ValyrianBlade,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HzMQqmTk,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-12-09T14:07:00.609+0000) > > It's also the reason that there's a soft reset every season. Many more people would be high elo, and it would take much less time to get there, if there was no reset. So people would stop playing the game as they'd accomplish their goals too quickly and get bored. without a soft reset there would just be players with insurmountable elo scores, new players would have absolute zero chance of ever catching up..
> [{quoted}](name=Professor Ward,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HzMQqmTk,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-12-09T14:10:45.268+0000) > > without a soft reset there would just be players with insurmountable elo scores, new players would have absolute zero chance of ever catching up.. I'm pretty sure the way elo works, as you go higher it's harder to gain. It's determined partly based on the elo difference between you and your opponents. Therefore, you'd reach a point where a win would only give 1 (or possibly even 0) LP and a loss could cost 50+ LP. You'd need other players to get up to a similar elo in order to get real LP gains off of them, which would mean they would need to catch up. However, even if we accept the premise, you could still do a soft reset on only the challenger/master tier (and bring them back to diamond 1) and let everyone else remain. The reset is there pretty much solely for economic purposes. They guise it in "fairness" but that's just an illusion because the real purpose of making people play more games is obviously less acceptable.
: How High elo Is Actually Achieved on most occasions
It's also the reason that there's a soft reset every season. Many more people would be high elo, and it would take much less time to get there, if there was no reset. So people would stop playing the game as they'd accomplish their goals too quickly and get bored.
Kevon G (EUW)
: How do you convince teammates of a sure thing?
I guess you should tell them at the start of the game that you play a lot of Ivern and that the enemy jungler almost ALWAYS responds to your invade on his north camp by invading your south camp. Say you want them to be ready to respond at 2:45 (or whatever time it normally goes down at) and to have pressured the wave so that they're ready. Half the problem is preparation. I tell my mid laners I plan to gank them after 1 camp as level 2 {{champion:59}}, so what ends up happening is they push the wave trying to rush level 2 for the gank. NOT what I wanted. Then the enemy mids caster minions end up only slightly too far back that they give vision when I circle behind the mid lane walls. I didn't get it for ages why all my mids did the same thing - I'd tell them I'm coming right away (thinking it meant to let the enemy push) but in reality it was my fault because they took it as "push hard for level 2". So I think your issue is that your laners don't know when this invade is expected to happen. Do they need to push out their lane hard, or freeze it, or let it push? Maybe they let it push at the start and now there are too many minions for them to go. Or they pushed out and got caught trading heavily and are afraid the enemy jungler will insta-gib them. All I can say is that the more specific you are, the more confidence that should instill in your team and allow them to respond appropriately. "Push your first wave kind of hard and kill a few creeps of the second wave, then give up the last 2 casters and come respond to the invade at 2:45 so we can get a free first blood + triple buff + they lose their buff".
Mizaya (NA)
: What melee without an ability that applies on-hit uses it anyways? I can't think of any really
> [{quoted}](name=Mizaya,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YkfvMeWB,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2017-12-06T17:40:33.135+0000) > > What melee without an ability that applies on-hit uses it anyways? I can't think of any really It's not to say that it's optimal on any of them - so why nerf it when some people may be trying to make use of it? Kleptomancy was actually the highest win percent rune on top lane Ornn... I've been trying it out and it makes a lot of sense. You can reliably proc it every time you trade with your W and I'd imagine the extra auto range is necessary to get the auto off after you slow yourself with W in the trade. It also therefore greatly increases your trade damage since you get the passive application on your auto that you may otherwise not have reached for. I like klepto on Ornn because it gives him more gold and health/mana to abuse his passive of building items in lane (he also loves biscuit delivery and celestial body from that tree. The highest win-percent rune page has him taking future's market as well, however I personally only just started with him so I can't take advantage of building something just a little early for it to seem worthwhile for me so I take the faster boots instead). I've also seen Illaoi run Klepto to decent effect. I'd imagine there are other melee champions that would like to try klepto, and since the extra range benefits melee users more and these users definitely aren't abusing klepto, it seems like a backwards change to the keystone. Especially when they're now looking to buff grasp - just making us all take the same thing instead of letting us be creative.
Rioter Comments
PDistyX (NA)
: Is J4 support a thing?
Can it be a thing? Sure. I've both played J4 support, and had a J4 support when I was ADC and it has gone well. He brings lots of things you'd want to bring as a support - good base damage with his passive, AS buff for his ADC, armor shred for his ADC, a cc knockup and a slow, a shield to be tankier on low gold, and a CC ult with decent base damage. Is it legit/meta? Not really. It can work but it depends on snowballing a bit too much. Leona does pretty much everything better as a support. I.e. if you can afford a damage item then J4 is better than Leona (why you don't often see Leona in the jungle or top lane, but J4 is there) but if you can't afford to invest in damage then there's not much reason to pick J4 over Leona. Maaybe there exist team comps for it (enemy has Gangplank top, Annie mid, Varus ADC, Morg Support [i.e. a team with no dashes] and you have like Anivia mid and Jinx ADC [i.e. lots of AOE damage]) where J4's ult gets maximum value, but in general there are support champions who can do the same stuff as J4 better on that income level. J4 will have a much better levels 1-2 than they do (and possibly even 4-6 or in general until your first back) but once you start getting minimal items, J4 needs some damage to scale whereas other tanky supports will do much better without the gold income.
Penns (EUW)
: J4 is still a stromg champ tho, is he not? Like I said, people dont just complain about how it feels like you do. Its more like "bruisers are unplayable and only the champs that I think are weak are actually fighters. Pantheon isnt one lel". I mean when my bot feeds despite my jungler camping them I lose as mid laner too.
> [{quoted}](name=Penns,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=oQq2UGpU,comment-id=000600010000000000020000,timestamp=2017-12-05T16:16:41.721+0000) > > J4 is still a stromg champ tho, is he not? Like I said, people dont just complain about how it feels like you do. Its more like "bruisers are unplayable and only the champs that I think are weak are actually fighters. Pantheon isnt one lel". > > I mean when my bot feeds despite my jungler camping them I lose as mid laner too. Yes J4 is strong, which is why I could survive the lane and go even in CS. My point was moreso "here's a real example to back up what I'm saying, my jungle will ignore the teemo top that's perma pushing if my bot is losing". If I was something like Darius or Fiora, that game would have been awful. As a mid laner, you could at least shove the wave and roam bot to help. As a top laner that's constantly shoved in, I can't go anywhere else or teemo takes 2 towers and then we lose due to all the global gold I just gave up. I could have tried to 1v1 teemo more, but their Ornn jungle was looking for tower dives occasionally so I didn't want to risk it.
Penns (EUW)
: Well if theres like a Teemo perma pushing and poking you under tower, that should be pretty easy to punish for a jungler or mid laner, shouldnt it? Its hard to deal with on your own, but a safe mage killing every wave instantly and roaming is hard to deal with for a whole team. Bruisers can also build defense better, I doubt a Vayne top that isnt 4/0 already is gonna do much to a Ninja Tabi Jax or Irelia anymore. I mean theres busted ranged top laners like Jayce or Malz and busted tanks like Maokai or Ornn, but it really doesnt make ALL bruisers "unplayable" like some people say. Irelia has 51% win rate with 7% play rate, around the same for Jax, J4, Yorick, and so on.
> [{quoted}](name=Penns,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=oQq2UGpU,comment-id=0006000100000000,timestamp=2017-12-04T20:33:57.506+0000) > > Well if theres like a Teemo perma pushing and poking you under tower, that should be pretty easy to punish for a jungler or mid laner, shouldnt it? Its hard to deal with on your own, but a safe mage killing every wave instantly and roaming is hard to deal with for a whole team. > > Bruisers can also build defense better, I doubt a Vayne top that isnt 4/0 already is gonna do much to a Ninja Tabi Jax or Irelia anymore. > I mean theres busted ranged top laners like Jayce or Malz and busted tanks like Maokai or Ornn, but it really doesnt make ALL bruisers "unplayable" like some people say. Irelia has 51% win rate with 7% play rate, around the same for Jax, J4, Yorick, and so on. Coming back to respond to this again. Literally just played J4 against teemo. He had me perma pushed under tower the whole laning phase. I blew his flash with my first ult. My jungler still literally never came top once, the entire laning phase. I'm J4 and he's a flashless teemo, BUT my bot lane was losing so my jungler spent the entire game around bot and didn't come top once. Bot lost anyways. I could do nothing but farm (and I went even in farm, but who cares if I only have farm but have to build MR to survive teemo and they have a fed twitch), and then we lose late game because I can't dive twitch with only Maw, merc treads, and randuins. So the games lost, I have a boring laning phase and a useless late game. That's why people feel like top is bad right now.
Feel Apathy (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Face The Win,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=20rW1orE,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2017-12-04T02:02:19.535+0000) > > "ASAP" > J4 has been meta for the entire season > > Do you even play the game? {{champion:59}} Has been meta since release just like Lee Sin.
> [{quoted}](name=Feel Apathy,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=20rW1orE,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2017-12-04T02:11:07.008+0000) > > {{champion:59}} Has been meta since release just like Lee Sin. As someone who mained J4 in s5 and s6, I can guarantee you that J4 was not meta in either season. I never was unable to pick him due to an enemy picking him (or even my allied jungler, as I played him top). I also got accused of troll picking him top in champion select several times. J4 was not meta until past the midpoint of season 7, and it wasn't until worlds that his popularity went nuts. Obviously when J4 is in a strong state, given that he's relatively easy to play, he'll get picked up a lot and become very meta. J4 shows up nearly every game at worlds? He instantly becomes meta in solo queue, and bam the nerf bat. He was somewhat meta a few patches before worlds and really popular after.
: Idk if that game mode even has a mmr. But imo you should try it, I personally like barrier+ghost instead of flash cause that overcharge mode is overturned(getting 5 bots) resetting cds making having high MS up constantly better than a short flash. I usually go rageblade->lichbane->luden/deathcap if game last any longer I would've went void or nashoor maybe for a bit more on-hit. That game mode is better played if going AP imo than ad aside from corki.
> [{quoted}](name=EcchiOtakuTM,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=k254KMhT,comment-id=000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-04T21:56:48.267+0000) > > Idk if that game mode even has a mmr. But imo you should try it, I personally like barrier+ghost instead of flash cause that overcharge mode is overturned(getting 5 bots) resetting cds making having high MS up constantly better than a short flash. > > I usually go rageblade->lichbane->luden/deathcap if game last any longer I would've went void or nashoor maybe for a bit more on-hit. That game mode is better played if going AP imo than ad aside from corki. I typically went barrier/heal to have as much defenses as possible in skirmishes. I'd have taken exhaust if it were allowed.
: You forgot kog, he steamrolls with just rageblade+sheen->AP. Ap ezr, kog and normal build corki are the only ones I played, kog being the main one cause of that busted rageblade+sheen start.
> [{quoted}](name=EcchiOtakuTM,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=k254KMhT,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-04T21:17:11.800+0000) > > You forgot kog, he steamrolls with just rageblade+sheen->AP. > > Ap ezr, kog and normal build corki are the only ones I played, kog being the main one cause of that busted rageblade+sheen start. I never saw a kog, probably because I fed so badly and lost all my early matches, my game-mode mmr dropped so much that anyone playing OP kog wouldn't be in my games?
: Agreed tristana is just absolutely busted and i say that as someone who plays her , her siege power and mobility and self peel and late game potential is just so fucking good i feel disgusting playing her, and yeah her jump is interruptible but thats a small downside to what she is
> [{quoted}](name=Iffy Jarl,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=k254KMhT,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2017-12-04T21:05:32.930+0000) > > Agreed tristana is just absolutely busted and i say that as someone who plays her , her siege power and mobility and self peel and late game potential is just so fucking good i feel disgusting playing her, and yeah her jump is interruptible but thats a small downside to what she is It didn't take many games of overcharge to realize that Tristana, Xayah, Ezreal, Corki, Vayne, and Lucian were the only really viable picks. Stuff like Caitlyn and Draven were okay in the next tier. I tried playing some Jinx though and it was hopeless... not having allied peel just made me a punching bag for everyone else. You'd think a hyper carry starting at level 6 and having a boatload of gold to avoid the early game would make her strong (and her passive would help her a lot when overcharged) but nope. A bunch of Jinx games where I fed, then first game on Corki and I went like 11/3/7 with 31 points.
Sunibee (NA)
: I got a couple questions/suggestions 1.Why {{champion:28}} level 1 ult CD 140s when the norm tends to be 120~110? I dont think its a strong enough skill to warrant such a high CD... 2.Wud it be cool if {{champion:254}} got a some changes specifically so she feels better about {{item:3053}} Like making denting blows total AD instead of Bonus?? 3.{{champion:25}} has a passive update on PBE currently but what about {{champion:75}} and {{champion:103}} ? Both passives are relics from pass seasons where everyone and their grandma had sustain of some sort tacked onto their kit so they could lane properly (Hiemerdinger being the most obvious example) and the latter could definitely use more synergistic updates as well. 4.{{champion:127}} Hows her passive update coming along? 5.{{champion:429}} When is she going to get Azir'd so I can actually enjoy her in SoloQ again? Is it really that hard to just nerf the stuff that makes her too good in proplay(W ability,Rend outsmiting junglers, Get outta jail free card for support) and instead buff the stuff that makes her solid in more uncoordinated environments?like her hop mechanic and maybe re-tune her scaling to be more relevant late (like removing that dumb "Auto attacks deal 90% damage" Caveat. ) 6.{{champion:32}} let his OWN auto attacks reduce the CD of his E skill . I really like Amumu but he's basically working with only two skills right now, his Q and R. Maybe even rework the passive part of this skill? Its so outdated.... 7.Thoughts {{champion:120}} Warpath giving bonus ARMOR based on MS instead of AD then Give Devastating Charge (E) a Move Speed Ratio same as {{champion:40}} W? I think it would make Hecarim a better diver and it just makes more sense imo because E seems to be the only skill that really makes use of his current passive. 8.{{champion:17}} please destroy the base damage on E and amp up the ratio OR give Toxic shot an actual cooldown . Teemo has been way to oppressive with this thing for too long Im so tired of seeing Teemo go full HP Tank and still have kill pressure due to this skill. Its also stupidly obnoxious in lane because it makes any auto poke deal like double damage.
> [{quoted}](name=Sunibee,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=rmqkXiog,comment-id=000200010002,timestamp=2017-12-04T07:16:59.992+0000) > > 7.Thoughts {{champion:120}} Warpath giving bonus ARMOR based on MS instead of AD then Give Devastating Charge (E) a Move Speed Ratio same as {{champion:40}} W? I think it would make Hecarim a better diver and it just makes more sense imo because E seems to be the only skill that really makes use of his current passive. As a Hecarim player, I really don't want to see this. Leave me with the AD please. The whole fantasy of Hecarim is getting enough MS from items + ghost + potentially predator or ally buffs to charge at an enemy and annihilate them with a midair Q and your E's auto damage, all while they fruitlessly try to run/dash away but it's hopeless because you have like 800MS. Replacing a chunk of that damage with armor would just destroy that fantasy - I can build armor because after triforce I don't need damage thanks to my passive.
Penns (EUW)
: Well thats true of course, picking the top 4-5 champs is gonna be fun as long as they arent extremely boring to play. I wouldnt have a problem with people saying "playing bruisers against Teemo or Pantheon isnt fun because you cant outplay them", but what I hear more often is something like "every bruiser is unplayable/weak period", not just vs overpowered champs.
> [{quoted}](name=Penns,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=oQq2UGpU,comment-id=000600010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-04T20:57:24.936+0000) > > Well thats true of course, picking the top 4-5 champs is gonna be fun as long as they arent extremely boring to play. > I wouldnt have a problem with people saying "playing bruisers against Teemo or Pantheon isnt fun because you cant outplay them", but what I hear more often is something like "every bruiser is unplayable/weak period", not just vs overpowered champs. Yes, people misspeak. You need to acknowledge that the people coming on here to complain, are people who play a bruiser and just had 3 games in a row against these sorts of champions. They know it doesn't happen every game but it feels bad and they're venting (and also want some sort of change). Just like the people that complain that bot lane decides every game. Not even close to it (although more now than ever, although it seems to be largely due to support disparity honestly...), but the ones complaining just had 3 games in a row where their bot was 0/6 before 8 minutes and the game was over. If something that bad-feeling can happen 3 times in a row for someone to make them feel that way - I think it's a good idea to start a conversation about whether there's a gameplay/balance problem or not. Do we need a melee-only item that reduces all incoming damage from ranged sources? I'd like to think we don't need to go that far and hope that something in the middle can make things feel a bit better (the updated Doran's shield is a good start) without wrecking the whole purpose of these champions. I think Pantheon mains shouldn't be completely shut out just because their champion's design is to win lane hard or lose trying. Some people like that play style. I just want to be able to play the game with them, rather than watch them play from the (un)safety of my tower for the first 15 minutes.
: Riot will make a whole new map and mode for adc mains but won't even listen to bruiser mains
Honestly, I hope the game mode was Riot's way of trying to get a whole bunch of data on ADC's power in skirmishes and various scenarios. Which adc's have which levels of damage output. **Which ADCs hugely depend on team peel, versus which ones can own a fight without much help needed** I'm optimistically hoping that overcharge is a speedboost to getting ADC balance. I have no problem with metas where Jinx or Caitlyn or Sivir or Jhin or other less mobile / cc-light ADCs can control teamfights. I don't like this meta where Xayah / Twitch / Tristana / Ezreal dominate the entire game while being insanely safe (with the exception of Twitch who just stealths then ults from outside of detection range and 1v5s). ADCs that are peel-reliant in teamfights = good hypercarries. ADCs that are self-reliant and can skirmish well = good champions but shouldn't have hyper carry damage. Xayah, Ezreal, Tristana, etc... shouldn't do as much teamfight damage as Jinx, Kog'maw, Sivir, etc... to balance for their extra safety.
Penns (EUW)
: Well if theres like a Teemo perma pushing and poking you under tower, that should be pretty easy to punish for a jungler or mid laner, shouldnt it? Its hard to deal with on your own, but a safe mage killing every wave instantly and roaming is hard to deal with for a whole team. Bruisers can also build defense better, I doubt a Vayne top that isnt 4/0 already is gonna do much to a Ninja Tabi Jax or Irelia anymore. I mean theres busted ranged top laners like Jayce or Malz and busted tanks like Maokai or Ornn, but it really doesnt make ALL bruisers "unplayable" like some people say. Irelia has 51% win rate with 7% play rate, around the same for Jax, J4, Yorick, and so on.
> [{quoted}](name=Penns,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=oQq2UGpU,comment-id=0006000100000000,timestamp=2017-12-04T20:33:57.506+0000) > > Well if theres like a Teemo perma pushing and poking you under tower, that should be pretty easy to punish for a jungler or mid laner, shouldnt it? Its hard to deal with on your own, but a safe mage killing every wave instantly and roaming is hard to deal with for a whole team. > > Bruisers can also build defense better, I doubt a Vayne top that isnt 4/0 already is gonna do much to a Ninja Tabi Jax or Irelia anymore. > I mean theres busted ranged top laners like Jayce or Malz and busted tanks like Maokai or Ornn, but it really doesnt make ALL bruisers "unplayable" like some people say. Irelia has 51% win rate with 7% play rate, around the same for Jax, J4, Yorick, and so on. Don't get me wrong - I agree that these champions aren't "unplayable". Just that it doesn't feel worthwhile playing them in to these specific matchups. A champion may have a 50% win rate overall, but they could still have like a 30% win rate in to specific matchups completely due to how the lane plays out in those instances beyond your control. Yes, a permanently pushing teemo should be dealt with a bit by the jungler, but it goes back to the bot lane. If your jungler is constantly dragged top to punish Teemo or Pantheon or whoever, the enemy jungler can take free reign of bot lane and dragon. It isn't worthwhile keeping your fighter even / slightly ahead and shutting down their teemo if your bot lane is going to go 0/6 because of it and you're going to lose the first two drakes. If your bot lane isn't doing well in the 2v2, your jungler is going to more likely spend time down there, and that allows these top lane champions to really punish you badly. Also most of these champions have something to allow them to push a bit more safely. Teemo can litter the gank paths with Shrooms for example. Everyone can ward too, and these champions have sufficient pressure to keep a control ward up at all times. Then there's the whole point that they have a jungler too - if you're just going to have your jungle camp top, it's easy counter gank double kills for their jungle. Your top fighter is already low to their ranged champion, so they'll win the 2v2. If your jungler doesn't show up, their jungle isn't wasting his time as he can just tower dive your fighter. I'm not trying to argue that fighters are unplayable, rather that it doesn't feel good to play them in to these matchups which appear to have no weaknesses. When do Teemo or Pantheon or Jayce or Kennen ever have a terrible lane? They can be picked and bully whoever they please (aside from each other) and unless your bot lane is okay without jungle help so your jungler can camp top, your laning phase feels terrible. Now also don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's imbalanced. I could even argue that "that's what you sign up for when you go top lane - you're prepared to get one of these matchups where you need to just not feed and that gives you a 55% chance at winning and be okay with that". And it's true. However, why take a risk and pick Darius or Fiora or whoever, when you could pick Ornn or Maokai and have the same outscale potential while still enjoying your laning phase and potentially getting ahead yourself. Or pick Jayce yourself and do the bullying and have the fun early. People want to have fun, and a lot of top lane games don't end up being that way.
Penns (EUW)
: {{champion:105}} cant cs from range either :c I understand the frustration of "I cant really beat this champ enough to get ahead and do something", but the same thing exists mid lane for example, with mages like Malzahar or Taliyah shoving all game. I dont really watch pro play but thats apparently what Crown did to Faker when he picked Malz in all 3 final games.
> [{quoted}](name=Penns,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=oQq2UGpU,comment-id=00060001,timestamp=2017-12-04T20:07:49.223+0000) > > {{champion:105}} cant cs from range either :c > > I understand the frustration of "I cant really beat this champ enough to get ahead and do something", but the same thing exists mid lane for example, with mages like Malzahar or Taliyah shoving all game. I dont really watch pro play but thats apparently what Crown did to Faker when he picked Malz in all 3 final games. It's much less of a problem in mid though. Fizz gets to walk through creeps and has mobility and untargetability in his kit to allow him to function in the mid lane. He may have some tough matchups and may take some damage trying to farm, but he has a kit that lets him farm against ranged champions. A lot of top laners don't have anything in their kit to let them function against ranged champions or range poke. They don't even necessarily have an ability to farm from range and at least get half of the creeps using an ability to not take poke damage. While there may be stuff like Malz or Taliyah shoving mid and being unkillable, that doesn't mean you're stuck under tower or else you die. If you can fight them, you can roam after them or in the other direction. A top lane melee champion is often just getting crushed under his tower.
: Pentas in Aram are not ok in youtube videos right?
I don't think there's anything wrong with posting it. Just don't clickbait the title by saying something like "Epic Penta montage on loads of diff champs". Title should include "ARAM" and "Penta". So people know. Then they won't get mad at you.
Penns (EUW)
: What exactly makes "all fighters unplayable"?
I think it sums up to this: Top lane is, and has always been, the lane most controlled by counter picks. They exist in top lane like they don't elsewhere, largely because of large disparity between ranged auto attacks, ranged abilities, sustain, and mobility, present in the top lane. You don't get real counters in the bot lane. Even if Morgana does well against Leona due to black shield, it doesn't make it so the enemy ADC needs to give up a lot of CS. Dodge morgana's Q and you can CS as you like. Likewise any two ADCs can both last hit relatively safely against each other - with the need to back up and give up CS only arising when your support isn't present to help you. Mid lane likewise sees no such disparity. There may be really tough matchups for some champions, but in general champions can CS from range and don't need to have a laning phase that feels like you're constantly just trying to survive and do nothing else (at least not due to the champion, you can die and start to feel this way because you're behind). Top lane though - there are simply too many matchups where through no fault of your own, the lane immediately becomes a "do not die and try to not lane your lane opponent get fed off of you or roams in laning phase". In itself that's not a huge problem - a tank is going to outscale that Jayce or Kennen or Pantheon top laner. The ranged/harass top laner is going to 'enjoy' their early game more as they try to create a lead, and theoretically you should enjoy the mid-late game more. The problem that arises is with how snowbally the game is, it's simply not viable to be a melee-only top laner hiding under turret against a Jayce/Kennen/Pantheon/etc... for all laning phase, because the game then gets decided by which bot lane wins. If the enemy bot lane is beating your bot lane, you lose the game. Your lane opponent literally got to win for free because he picked a champion that you can't fight in lane. If he was playing a melee champion, you could have the chance to be the better player and out-cs him and get solo kills on him and be strong enough to stand up to the enemy bot lane. Instead, you're relegated to lower-than-normal income due to being forced to give up CS AND the enemy bot lane is fed = you can't win, even though you played properly. There's a feeling of helplessness in those games, and that's a problem. I never get the feeling as a mid laner that my bot lane fed too hard and there's nothing I can do to win. I could have won mid lane harder and roamed harder on the enemy bot to keep us in it. Likewise as a jungler I could have had better presence bot lane (although when your bot lane is a combined 0/4 before you're level 3... well those games are lost hopes no matter what). As a top laner though? Sure, if my opponent is playing a melee champion I can feel like I could have own lane harder and TP'd down to help or something. If my opponent is a Pantheon/Jayce/Kennen though, nope, no luck. There's literally nothing I can do in a game where my opponent has that much priority on me by default and my bot lane happens to lose. And it's not a two-way street, because if their bot lane is losing they can still go super aggressive on me and get fed on me if I don't play it right, and they can be strong enough to beat my bot lane. Not the other way around though. Sure, I may have an edge if the game is close and we make it to late game, but even though we'll have a superior teamfight the late-game is often more decided by better macro play or whichever team successfully gets a pick / wins a fight at baron. I might get an edge, but they're nowhere near as useless in late game as I am helpless in the early game.
Rioter Comments
: WARNING FOR ALL THE JUNGLE MAINS OUT THERE!!!
I generally agree that camping top isn't the best strategy, although that doesn't mean you should never do it. If your bot lane is doing a decent job of playing back and warding and generally being safe from ganks, you don't really need to be there. When your bot lane is getting kills 2v2, it's often best to make sure the rest of the map is staying even/ahead and just let your bot lane get fed on their own. If your mid lane has priority, you don't need to be concerned about the enemy mid roaming on your bot lane for a 4man dive (or 5 with top's tp) and you can generally stay away from that side of the map if the enemy jungler isn't strong at ganking them. I generally like to gank top a couple times early - take advantage of my early level advantage on an enemy that will get too tanky to kill before long. Try to get my top laner a solid foundation so he can hold is own from level 6 onwards and not see me ever again. I'll look mid whenever it's available because opening them to roam bot helps ease my job. I'll look to gank bot, especially when I have ult and they don't. It really depends on if I'm good in to ganking them though, and where my bot lane is keeping the wave.
Nockos (NA)
: It Only Takes One Game
I agree that they should be punished as well. But as hard? That's questionable... you've worked your way up the punishment ladder, they may not have. Also, it's not exactly certain (from my point of view, having not been in the game) that you didn't do/say anything to bring it on yourself. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't - although I guess that isn't really the point. You get banned because you've shown a history of that behavior, and then you did it again. Do you report the people that incite you? If you and others do consistently, they would get banned too. I bet people who don't respond ALSO don't report these people, and that may be the problem to focus on. If the league community as a whole doesn't like people who incite ragers (which they shouldn't), then we should start reporting those players when they show up even if no one responds to it. Riot should encourage us to do that. That's a fight I'll stand beside. Responding to it is bad too though. Especially because it's likely you'll carry that attitude in to your next game. It's likely you'll lose that game and subsequent games because of that attitude, and possibly frustrate/tilt other players so they throw games too. It's not good for anyone involved. Yes, the guy who poked you for a while started it all, but he probably doesn't consistently lose games because most people don't respond.
EkyonKun (NA)
: I've always just wanted to see the gold equally split among all participating members. This is a team game. Why have the guy who just so happened to have gotten the last hit get the biggest slice of the pie? So it'd be like this Solo kill: 300 gold to 1 person Duo kill and above: 450 gold divided by the number of kill participants. So the bonus 150 gold is still there for working with your team, and no one can whine about ks'ing now. Is this a bad concept?
> [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AJiz76pt,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-12-03T05:00:51.827+0000) > > I've always just wanted to see the gold equally split among all participating members. This is a team game. Why have the guy who just so happened to have gotten the last hit get the biggest slice of the pie? So it'd be like this > > Solo kill: 300 gold to 1 person > Duo kill and above: 450 gold divided by the number of kill participants. > > So the bonus 150 gold is still there for working with your team, and no one can whine about ks'ing now. Is this a bad concept? Yea I agree. Although I think Riot may be concerned about the impact on pro-play (and even just general high elo play) where people actually intentionally funnel the gold in to the appropriate person. That makes a lot of sense and it's good to have that ability. It just feels **too bad** in solo queue right now when you're a part of every kill playing a gold-hungry champion and you just can't get the actual kills. So instead of being in a dominating position that you've earned, you're even/behind despite having played pretty great up to that point. I should never be even/behind as a jungler when I've not died and have participated in 7 kills in laning phase with only 1 or 2 ganks that didn't get a kill (but got summoners) (assuming of course there isn't one person on the enemy team wrecking face).
Funkynút (EUW)
: imagine 5 players getting 300gold for killing tyler1 running down mid 1 person 300 gold 2 people 300 gold 150 gold 3 people 300 gold 75 gold 4 people 300 gold 50 gold 5 people 300 gold 33 gold
> [{quoted}](name=Funkynút,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AJiz76pt,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-12-02T20:37:06.793+0000) > > imagine 5 players getting 300gold for killing tyler1 running down mid > 1 person 300 gold > 2 people 300 gold 150 gold > 3 people 300 gold 75 gold > 4 people 300 gold 50 gold > 5 people 300 gold 33 gold Well I mean, I explained what I suggested in my post. Obviously the assists don't get full kill gold. Total gold remains the same, killer still gets more gold, but the distribution is more balanced between the kill and assist.
Rioter Comments
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=i am elo booster,realm=NA,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=s2ugV3T7,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-02T19:14:24.662+0000) > > Stop trying to defend a lost argument with paragraphs of hyperbole. Being stubborn and argumentative will get you nowhere in life. You clearly have very serious mental issues that you need to address. You're literally attacking my character and claiming I have mental issues because I disagree with you. Right. I'm the one that's not going to get anywhere in life...
alasarcher (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=ValyrianBlade,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=k4IMZEUj,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-12-01T23:29:00.312+0000) > > Ahri orb has no CC and doesn't do 1/3 as much damage as a Zoe E-Q does (ahri's E-Q does considerably less damage than Zoe's E-Q). > Ahri charm is possible to be blocked by creeps, and has a much smaller hit box. > Zoe's E can extend it's range by the length of any wall/terrain it goes through. > Orianna ball isn't CC itself (the CC is on the much higher CD ult) and the ball doesn't move that fast (1400 speed). She probably has the ball pretty cloes to you already when she Q's if it's hitting reliably. That's your positioning. > Lux Q is slower and can be blocked by minions (2). Although I don't think Lux is a good example (idk I just find Lux overtuned although at least she's entirely immobile). > Morgana Q is blocked by minions easily and travels much more slowly too. > > Really what Zoe comes down to is that her e is up often, does loads of damage, has a huge hitbox that isn't blocked by minions, and has solid base range that can be drastically further extended by terrain. That's a pretty overloaded skill. When comparing to Ahri it may be understandable since Ahri is so much more mobile (although the damage difference is insane), and comparing to Lux or Morg it's really over the top with how consistent she can apply CC and land massive damage. But u are forgetting that Zoe E can also be blocked by creeps.
> [{quoted}](name=alasarcher,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=k4IMZEUj,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T23:40:21.783+0000) > > But u are forgetting that Zoe E can also be blocked by creeps. Oh seriously? That's more-so I barely played against her because after she q'd me for 49% of my max health on Hecarim when we were both level 5 and I had killed her twice in ganks already... I thought it was ridiculous and started banning her. So I just haven't had the opportunity to notice. So apologies for spreading misinformation!
: I did not hit yes or no, the rest of my team hit yes out of blind excitement over having won the game. We did not lose. This is a bug. Don't argue for the sake of arguing, it's immature and reflects poorly on your character.
> [{quoted}](name=Hagenator,realm=NA,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=s2ugV3T7,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2017-12-01T23:54:26.681+0000) > > I did not hit yes or no, the rest of my team hit yes out of blind excitement over having won the game. > > We did not lose. This is a bug. > > Don't argue for the sake of arguing, it's immature and reflects poorly on your character. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I mean - look at my post, I offered ideas on why the unexpected behaviour may have happened. I don't think it was a bug, it's just unexpected behaviour because the situation should never arise (why would both teams want to surrender?). I'm arguing because I think **your teammates** were dumb. In your original initial post (or perhaps just the way I quickly scanned it, maybe it was my fault there) it implied you voted yes as well. I apologize that I misunderstood that and lumped you in with that - obviously I sympathize with your situation and think your teammates are trolls. Nonetheless, your teammates were dumb and you weren't able to carry a 1v9. I don't think it's a bug. No one should be so dumb as to surrender because they're about to win. That's just dumb - why are you (I mean they here, not actually you) trolling so hard? "We did not lose." The game begs to differ. You did lose. You sound exactly like the "Trump isn't MY president" people. Yes, it sucks that you lost because you **entirely deserved to win that game and lost through absolutely literally no fault of your own.** You still lost though, your team surrendered. I've had teams force surrender 4 votes to my 1 on games where I was quite fed and was practically certain I could carry (like literally my first death at 30+ min and I'm like 12/1/3 and strong enough to 1v3 anyone on the enemy team but my first death they get an inhibitor and my teammates who are all behind vote to surrender). Obviously yours is more extreme (you literally would have certainly won if not for the surrender) but they still surrendered before you won.
Show more

ValyrianBlade

Level 42 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion