: How do you know the new mode was in development for half a year? Are you assuming that it began when NB was shelved? It's not only possible but probable that the two modes were developed by different teams with different schedules. Also, some things are easier than others. And we don't even know whether TFT is good yet.
Because it's a clone of Dota Autochess, which was released in January?
: lol what time are u referring to my friend? because LoL has seen nothing but growth in concurrent players since its release. currently up to 120mil concurrent players. perhaps referring to the time when Riot was a new company and lacked funds for the proper server support they required for their game that exceeded their opening expectations? lulz.
While it's certainly hyperbole to state the LoL is dead/dying, it's also disingenuous to point to primarily foreign growth when the discussion is about NA servers. The NA playerbase has been stagnant/declining for a while now.
Doge2020 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Kerrigan 4 Prez,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=cmUsArEX,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2018-09-08T00:46:29.365+0000) > > I accept that people can do bad in their games. I will never flame someone for losing their lane, but I will still list their failures as why I lost at the end of the day. How about looking only at your mistakes and try your best to correct them and try to stop making them again? Blaming your loss on another person’s mistake is bad because in this game because we are all humans, we all make mistakes. and this is a team game, if you don’t realize your mistakes and strive to correct them you will be constantly losing more games than winning, and you won’t be pulling your weight, which causes your team (but mainly you) to be performing at a level lower than what your potential is.
Of course, you can do both though. It's perfectly consistent to say "I could have avoided this gank/cs'ed better/roamed more, but ultimately my bot lane going 1/17 was the primary factor causing me to lose". In this way, you both identify areas of improvement, and honestly assess the game. Of course, unless you tie your bot lane's performance back to your actions somehow (e.g. I should have roamed/teleported/ganked that lane to stop the bleeding) it doesn't really matter, since you can't control what other people do.
: Him being able to outrun rammus is not new, thats always been something he could do. The problem is that HoB makes it so you don't have to go full attack speed to do so.
Him being able to outrun rammus with a meme full attack speed build that did no damage isn't new. However, that's obviously irrelevant. Nobody cares that jhin with 5 attack speed items outran sion ult in URF, it was just a funny video. When stormrazor and HoB came out, and gave him massive movement speed without compromising his damage, then it became a point of concern.
: > [{quoted}](name=Weedlayer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=ULIychLi,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-04T05:32:37.058+0000) > > Any champion sounds overpowered when you just list out their abilities one after another. Don't believe me? Give me a champion, I'll make them sound OP. Ivern.
So Ivern can just walz into the enemy jungle, spend 2 seconds setting up his passive, and smite away any camp you happen to have up. You wanted a red buff? Too bad, it's stolen. You were going to contest that scuttle? Too bad, it's already gone. This isn't even mentioning his absurd clear speed and ability to share buffs. As for his Q, it's basically a morgana bind that also gives melee champions a free jump to the target. Get nabbed by this near a melee champion? Yeah, you're dead, just accept it. His W gives him an absurd amount of objective control. Just put a couple bushes down at the entrance to dragon pit and throw down a pink/sweeper, now the enemy has to facecheck 5 people to contest. His E? Janna shield. Oh wait, sorry, it's a Janna shield that EXPLODES, and slows enemies. This is really the core of his kit, you pick Ivern on a team with a lulu, braum, or zilean and hypercarry and there's just no possible way to kill the ADC that's running through your team 1v5. His ultimate immediately makes every fight a 5v6, and makes his already threatening objective control absurd. He doesn't even have to tank a dragon or baron, he can have daisy do it. Beyond that, you don't need minions to tower dive when daisy it up, just use it to soak the shots until everyone is in melee range. In all seriousness, Ivern is basically like a jungle Janna. He's been legitimately pretty OP in the past when support items were overtuned, and had his niche as an ardent abuser more recently than that. I know he's not very exciting because he doesn't do a lot of damage, but shields and CC are also important contributions for a team.
yohoona1 (NA)
: What's considered an S rank?
You can't possibly expect to get an S on a carry with only 2 wards and 166 cs in a 32 minute long game. My advice would be farm a lot more (in a 32 minute game you should be well over 200) and place more wards (get a control whenever you back without a control ward already active. Try to make sure your trinket is always recharging (within reason). Additionally, in my experience it's a lot easier to get S when you close out the game early. Go for quick wins whenever possible. If you have a decent game that ends at 20 minutes, it's a lot easier to get the S than if the game drags on for another 15 minutes.
: There is NOTHING that can be inferred from the article, except that it increases with wins and decreases with losses - big news! And yes, I think rank should reflect skill level (obviously not "perfectly", but at least somewhat - MORE SO than would be the case if a team with 5 silverIII players is considered evenly matched when there is another team with 3 silverIII and 2 goldII players - instead of simply distributing the goldII players across the two teams, are you seeing what I mean?). And: I was told "I lived behind the moon" by somebody else in this threat, I was quoting that... that statement in itself is weird, wherever it comes from (and "living under a rock" makes a lot more sense in terms of indicating a lack of perspective, or a lack of being up to date with things).
Specifically the place you can infer that win and loss streaks affect MMR more than rank is this section >You’re winning a lot, and the matchmaker is placing you against stronger opponents. A Silver player pushing for Gold should expect to see higher-tier players in their games. It means you’re winning more than you’re losing, and it means the matchmaker is starting to suspect that you’re worthy of higher placement. If you’re on a big win streak, you may even start to see opponents several divisions above you. Your opponent is losing a lot, and the matchmaker is placing them against lower-ranked opponents to find them an appropriate spot on the ladder. In other words, those 2 gold 2 players might have been on loss streaks, resulting in falling to silver 3 MMR. Alternatively, some of your silvers might have been on win streaks, resulting in attaining gold 2 MMR. Or a combination of the two.
: apparently, yasuo's endless dashes, shield for moving, ability that blocks all projectiles, cc that lasts for a couple seconds, and a passive that gives 40% crit chance for just a zeal is not overpowered. makes sense. also, apparently master yi's 70% damage reduction and 55 healing per 0.5 seconds for four seconds (at max rank) w, 1.5 second untargetable that strikes four enemies, insane ms and as ultimate, and incredible true damage with his e and conqueror is not overpowered. just look at the top left corner. I have some links for you as well! https://gyazo.com/4e0826fac63eb806b0910787206eb04a https://gyazo.com/5b1f048fdc9705e4d044b2dd4f34f013
Any champion sounds overpowered when you just list out their abilities one after another. Don't believe me? Give me a champion, I'll make them sound OP. As for your second... "point", it's just an appeal to popularity. The primarily bronze and silver boards think a pubstomper is OP? I'm shocked. SHOCKED! So let's get the record straight. On my side, I have statistics and objective reality. On your side you have popular opinion and a hate boner. Well, really this is a toss up.
: I don't think you understand what "correlated" means.... other than that, the above adds nothing, since I was NOT complaining that my rank is "silver" and "I am matched with gold", I was saying how can it be that there are 2 x 5 players (5 on each team), and one team has 5 x Silver III, and the other has 3 x Silver III and 2 x Gold II. If you are now telling me that has something to do with "the MMR changing faster than the rank" (which is your argument), then you are basically saying my option 2 is correct - "rank" means more or less nothing (unless we go to extremes, say Diamond vs. Silver), if it is possible that people in Silver III and Gold II have the same "hidden MMR" (more or less). Now, may I suspect - based on this quote from your own post: "If you’re on a big win streak, you may even start to see opponents several divisions above you." that, however, that is not the case... there is simply one huge myth about some sort of hidden MMR and that that would mean anything... the system has ONE purpose: get people to play and give them the ILLUSION that there is some sort of "progress". So they keep playing. And they pick whoever is close in current rank, the net grows the wider the fewer people are ready to play, and there is a little bit of hocus pocus around "oh, if you are on a streak, we will just increase the amount of win or loss of LPs" (by the way, it is statistically easy to demonstrate that that way is exactly THE WRONG approach, and that you have to do it the other way round IF your matches are fair to start with... but let's start with learning what "correlated" means before we go into that :)).
Rank isn't terribly important, if that's what you're saying. Rank becomes significantly more important in the highest elo, where the difference between the average diamond 1 player and masters player is noticeably large. Until then it's normal to see one playing with people from above and below their rank, especially if their rank is near the next tier, like silver 1s playing with gold or gold 5s playing with silvers. If you're characterizing my position as something like "gold 3 players are always worse than gold 2 players, because rank is a perfect indication of skill", that isn't my position at all. Hidden MMR definitely exists, and is confirmed by riot. To assert it doesn't exist would basically amount to a conspiracy theory, and I have no idea why you seem to doubt riot uses a different number than your rank to determine matchmaking. I'm sorry if I haven't responded to all of your points, or responded to some points you aren't making. I'm having some difficulty understanding what it is you're arguing. If it's that small changes of rank are unimportant, and it's not usual for gold 5 players to be matched with gold 1 players, that's certainly true. And you're absolutely right that the system gets more lenient with what is considered a "balanced match" the longer you're waiting in queue (this was addressed in the article I believe).
: From your link: "Matchmaking Rating Your Matchmaking Rating (MMR) is a number that Riot uses to determine your skill, and when matchmaking, the skill of your opponents. Everyone’s MMR starts at the same point when playing a queue for the first time. It goes up when you win, and goes down when you lose. When looking for games to put you in, it will look for other players whose numbers are close to yours. You have a separate MMR in each queue, so you can climb in one queue without it affecting others." Now, first: this does not explain how MMR is calculated (other than "goes up with w, down with l" - which is what I am arguing all along)... so would you mind explaining it to those who "live behind the moon"? Thank you in advance. Second: this is exactly my point. MMR goes up with w, down with l - so it has to be quite closely correlated to the rank. Therefore, my original statement is valid - either the matchmaking system does not work, or something is wrong with the ranks.
So as for how exactly MMR is calculated, I don't know all the specifics, but here are some things that can be inferred from the article. If you win continuously on a long win streak, your MMR per win will increase, as the system rushes ahead of your rank to find your proper place on the ladder. Something similar happens in loss streaks. If you see a player with significantly higher rank than everyone else in the game, it's very likely they're coming off of a loss streak. Similarly, if you see a player with a much lower rank, they're probably win streaking. Secondly, you probably get more MMR if you win games against teams with a higher average MMR than your own, but this should rarely happen since the matchmaking system tries to balance teams MMR. As for your conclusion, I think your statement "Something is wrong with ranks" might be accurate, if you think ranks should perfectly reflect skill level. The problem with reflecting skill level is some players are volatile, subject to tilting and losing a lot or going on hot streaks and winning a lot. Riot wanted their ranking system to be resistant to these sudden fluctuations in player skill, so they allowed MMR to update much faster than rank. As a result, if you're playing with players much lower than your current rank, you might have a lowered MMR from a loss streak. This is unrelated, but is your primary language german? I only ask because the phrase "living behind the moon" is unusual in english, the equivalent english expression is "Living under a rock", meaning "Out of touch or unaware of current events". Your english is native level, so this isn't intended to be a critique of your writing skill.
: Matchmaking is trash
The entire enemy team was silver too though. You're basically complaining that you can't beat silver players unless your team is carrying you.
: Well awesome - then why don't you explain it? For example, tell me how my "hidden MMR" is calculated. Let's start with that and take it from there.
>Your Matchmaking Rating (MMR) is a number that Riot uses to determine your skill, and when matchmaking, the skill of your opponents. Everyone’s MMR starts at the same point when playing a queue for the first time. It goes up when you win, and goes down when you lose. https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752954-Matchmaking-Guide
: You have one point regarding my English spelling - thank you. None of your other points make sense. Promotions don't change anything (you still have to win the majority of the games, or at least go 50-50 up until where the helper ends). "Smurfs" jump over leagues if their winrate is too high (exactly in order to KEEP "hidden MMR" and league position roughly correlated... which is what I am saying, I am not saying they are THE same, I say they have to be highly correlated and IF a difference of S3 to G2 is NOT indicative, THEN there has to be something that determines MMR or at least influences it in a dramatic way that has NOTHING to do with winning or loosing games). P.S. Half your argument is exactly that... "bring MMR and rank closer together"...
Ah, you're wondering how MMR and rank become uncorrelated. Well as I was saying, MMR updates significantly faster than rank, so if you go on win streaks or loss streaks, your MMR will begin to decouple from your rank. The following quote is taken from https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752954-Matchmaking-Guide . >While MMR is the number we use to determine your opponents, your personal progress is represented by the Leagues system. Here are a few familiar situations to illustrate the difference between your League and your MMR: >You’re winning a lot, and the matchmaker is placing you against stronger opponents. A Silver player pushing for Gold should expect to see higher-tier players in their games. It means you’re winning more than you’re losing, and it means the matchmaker is starting to suspect that you’re worthy of higher placement. If you’re on a big win streak, you may even start to see opponents several divisions above you. Your opponent is losing a lot, and the matchmaker is placing them against lower-ranked opponents to find them an appropriate spot on the ladder. The team’s average MMR is the same, but one team has five roughly-equal teammates and the other team has a few very highly-ranked players and a few lower ones. This one is pretty rare outside of full-premade teams, but we make our best efforts to try and ensure that we still balance queue times into fair matches.
: I didn't say always. That's statistically impossible. At the very least, my team would lose too hard for me to carry a decent portion of the time. And I'd run into many matchups where I would actually need skill on Jax to win. An above 50% winrate, though? Easily. He's just too easy to not get that high on.
Sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean more along the line of, you have no way of knowing how well you would do on jax, because you don't play him. If you want to say such things, you should probably play some games in order to demonstrate that you can "easily win" on jax. If not, you're just... wildly speculating with no evidence? I could claim I could "Easily win" on any champion, like Ahri, but if I never actually did, what weight would my words have, and how justified would my statements be?
: Nexus Blitz Needs Matchmaking or it Will Die.
Agreed. Even normal Summoner's Rift games have matchmaking. It's basically required for a game mode to have any longevity.
: Even me, the dumbass that I am, and the guy who has a total of 2 or 3 Jax games in my life, can easily win on Jax into a matchup that isn't horrendous for him. He's pathetically easy to play, and he succeeds too well for how easy he is. He dashes way too much, his Counterstrike can have **zero effective cooldown if you get Essence Reaver**, deals *way* too much damage with only a Sheen, is *way* too tanky, his DPS *and* burst are both too high, both individually and combined (No champion with that much effective burst should have that much DPS). The fucker is basically what everyone on the boards said Tristana was at the end of s7, except far more durable.
You have 2 or 3 jax games and you're confident you can always win on him? What? How can you possibly know?
: > [{quoted}](name=Weedlayer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=QZVq46qM,comment-id=000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T22:17:38.513+0000) > > I don't think you understood my post. What you're describing is the ranked system as it has existed since season 3. It's likely you started playing in S3 so don't remember what it was like before that. There were no divisions like "Gold 3", there was just a number, like "1600", and certain number ranges gave you ranks. For instance, if your number was between 1500 and 1800, you were "gold". > > Back when this was the system (season 2 and prior), your rank and position on the ladder were identical. However, the current system works differently, and you are correct that the current system doesn't always accurately reflect your ladder position in your rank. I know how it was before season 3, been playing since season 2. Yes, I know all that which is why I said that the current thing of "gold 3, gold 5" is nothing but eye candy to let you know roughly where you are and that is not actually used to put you in games. Not "you are gold 3 that means you must have 1609 MMR!" (just random number don't care if that number actually represents gold or not). You seeing "gold 3" would mean that you can expect to be around the middle point of the MMR that represents gold so if it's between 1500 and 1800 like you say then you can say around 1650 MMR. You won't be exactly 1650 but you can be 1600, 1690, 1700, 1580. Then there are those who get boosted so to whatever rank/MMR so their skill will never be what is shown regardless of anything shown. Also people who constantly lose but never get demoted since they win just enough so that they won't get demoted but since they are losing even if it says "gold 3" their MMR could be 1400 or less. It's just a way to give people a way to more easily understand where they stand in the ladder and nothing more. That is pretty much the entire change they did. You don't need to explain to me how ranked matchmaking works since I know how it works
Ok... then we agree? I never said the current ranked system represents your position on the ladder, just that it used to. I'm glad we're (apparently) on the same page.
: > [{quoted}](name=Weedlayer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=QZVq46qM,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T21:44:58.487+0000) > > You made a claim that the system has always been a rough estimation of your position on the ladder. I explained that in fact, this was not always the case, but rather that the system was changed to that deliberately by riot. > > So yes, right now your rank isn't necessarily indicative of your position on the ladder. But it used to be, so saying "always" is incorrect. it is still a rough estimation. If it says "gold 3" you are around that area unless you are one of the extreme cases. Like being a boosted monkey that had someone get your account to whatever rank it currently is. Or you game the system so much that you win just enough that you won't be dropped from whatever division you won't drop in rank while still losing the vast majority of your games so your MMR drops harder than a boulder would if dropped in an ocean
I don't think you understood my post. What you're describing is the ranked system as it has existed since season 3. It's likely you started playing in S3 so don't remember what it was like before that. There were no divisions like "Gold 3", there was just a number, like "1600", and certain number ranges gave you ranks. For instance, if your number was between 1500 and 1800, you were "gold". Back when this was the system (season 2 and prior), your rank and position on the ladder were identical. However, the current system works differently, and you are correct that the current system doesn't always accurately reflect your ladder position in your rank.
: If that is true, then the rank system is what does not work. Hence, my question answered. If there WERE an MMR behind it, it should be visible... if it's not, it just means it's bogus as I said. I even think there IS no hidden MMR... that's just a myth.
So here's an official riot post explaining how the matchmaking system works, and it includes an explanation of the MMR system. https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752954-Matchmaking-Guide
: This simply does not make any sense. Since you can only "win" or "loose" (as in only win or loose affects your "hidden MMR"), that means IF you have a higher rank (since you also get points when you "win" and loose points when you "loose"), then your "hidden MMR", hidden or not, has to be somehow correlated to your rank. And if there is a full division difference, it is extremely unlikely that this works out. Simple logic. But glad we have another "I say anything Riot says, because Im a fanboy" dude in this discussion - I am certain it will add more value :)
So it's a little hard to understand what you're saying here, but it seems you're saying that since your rank and MMR both increase when you win, and decrease when you lose, they must be the same. This is not the case, because while they both increase and decrease, they do so at different rates. Consider promotions. Whenever you're in a promotion, you have to win 2/3 or 3/5 games in order to advance. If you win a game while already at 100 lp, your rank does not increase. However, your MMR continues to. This is mirrored when, after getting advanced to a new division, you lose a game. Your rank doesn't decrease, because you're at 0 lp and can't demote yet, but your MMR does. This can be seen most obviously when high elo streamers "smurf", such as climbing with an unranked account to challenger. They generally have 90%+ win rates at the start of these challenges, and as a result of rank increasing more sluggishly than MMR (because of promotions), they end up consistently matched with higher rank players than themselves. The smurf might currently be ranked low plat, but matching with mid diamonds, simply due to the disparity between rank and MMR. That said, this discrepancy doesn't hold if you play for long enough. That's because the system corrects itself by giving you more LP for wins and losing less LP for losses when your MMR is higher than your rank, and the opposite occurs when your MMR is lower than your rank. This helps bring your MMR and rank closer together, and assures by the time several hundred games have been played, the two are largely similar. Also, you mean "lose" not "loose".
: Why the Matchmaking....
System is pretty simple. You have a number, called your "MMR". This number is hidden, but before season 3 it was displayed openly as your elo. Your MMR goes up when you win, and down when you lose. Riot tries to match teams so that the average MMR on both teams is equal, while minimizing the variance in MMR in the game (e.g. 3000 MMR + 2000 MMR vs. 2 2500 MMR players is not ideal). MMR also factors into your LP gains and losses. If your MMR is significantly higher than average for your rank (e.g. you're a silver player constantly matched with mid to high golds) you earn more lp per win and lose less for loses. Your MMR still rises and falls normally. This helps shift your rank closer to your MMR. If your rank is higher than your MMR, you gain less and lose more, until your MMR and rank are more in line.
: > [{quoted}](name=Weedlayer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=QZVq46qM,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-09-03T21:31:02.591+0000) > > They used to display MMR directly as elo, but the tier system was added in season 3 because people didn't want to play ranked when they were at the bottom of a tier, since they'd drop from e.g. Gold to silver by losing a single match. Also there was a lack of feeling of progression between the tiers. Everything from bronze (1200 elo I think) to silver (1500ish?) was just "bronze", and nobody cared if they climbed or dropped 100 elo within it. Divisions, like Gold 5 - 1 were added to increase the sense progression, but also served to divorce elo from MMR, which became hidden. why are you even telling me this? it's nothing but eye candy simple as that. You are still matched due to MMR so whether your visible rank says you are bronze or challenger, won't matter since if your MMR says you aren't you won't be matched with those types of players
You made a claim that the system has always been a rough estimation of your position on the ladder. I explained that in fact, this was not always the case, but rather that the system was changed to that deliberately by riot. So yes, right now your rank isn't necessarily indicative of your position on the ladder. But it used to be, so saying "always" is incorrect.
: He's probably just fed af **Watches the clip** Uhm Riot? Explain?
It's a Nunu. This isn't even a new Nunu thing, old Nunu did this better on account of his higher base states and visionary boosting consume. I feel like players just haven't played with or against Nunu in so long they've forgotten what consume is capable of. You need to have buffs/objectives warded against a Nunu if you don't want him to take them all.
BILLAY (NA)
: Irelia and taking literally everyones farm.
In truth, taking as many resources as you can (CS, jungle camps, kills, towers) is just the correct way of carrying in solo queue. If you want to climb, you need to be better than the people you're playing with, and then shift as many resources to yourself as possible so you can exploit that skill difference. As an ADC you should also be looking for opportunities to catch waves before they hit towers and maximize your overall gold.
Junkο (EUNE)
: I think the concept behind the ranked system isn't that bad. But matching is completely broken. Divisions basically mean nothing since you are matched with everyone from the same tier.
There's a hidden MMR value which determines who you get matched with, and matchmaking looks to balance the total MMR on both sides, while also minimizing the overall variance of MMR in the match. The problem people have is in the low-mid ranks there are a lot of players who haven't played many games, so their MMR might be Gold level while their rank is still silver level. Then they complain about getting silvers on their team when, from the system's perspective, that silver is the same skill level as a gold.
: the ranks that you are shown has never meant to be nothing more than eye candy while being just a very rough estimation of where you are in the ladder
They used to display MMR directly as elo, but the tier system was added in season 3 because people didn't want to play ranked when they were at the bottom of a tier, since they'd drop from e.g. Gold to silver by losing a single match. Also there was a lack of feeling of progression between the tiers. Everything from bronze (1200 elo I think) to silver (1500ish?) was just "bronze", and nobody cared if they climbed or dropped 100 elo within it. Divisions, like Gold 5 - 1 were added to increase the sense progression, but also served to divorce elo from MMR, which became hidden.
: I hate when people talk about a champion but only being up winrate as why the champion sucks or is op
The problem is it's basically the only objective data that exists for whether the champions is OP or weak. I could say "Oh my god, Riven is so OP she has 4 dashes and a shield that scales off of AD, a stun and a knockup and an ult that not only boosts all her other abilities but also executes enemies". The problem with that is I'm just describing her kit. That description was accurate when she's been strong and when she's been weak. Any champion can sound OP when you just describe their kit like that, and without win/play rate data we're just trading anecdotes like "I always see Rivens pop off" or "Riven sucks, you have to be super good at her just to perform averagely". Riven was chosen randomly as I haven't seen much circle jerk about her recently as OP or UP, so I figured people thought she was reasonable right now. But you can substitute any champions there.
: Just take yasuo or master yi for example. Read the patch notes and master yi's damage reduction got buffed. Idk what they are doing nowadays
Yasuo and Yi aren't overpowered. Any stat website demonstrates this. The only tier Yi *might* be OP in is bronze, where he has about a 52.5% win rate. In plat+ he's below 50%. Yasuo only performs well in silver and bronze. In gold his win rate is about 50% and in plat+ it's closer to 49%. The fact that yasuo and yi are taken to be OP on these boards is indicative of the average skill level of the players here. In the most polite way possible, it's not the champs, it's you. https://u.gg/lol/champions/yasuo/build/?role=middle https://u.gg/lol/champions/masteryi/build/?role=jungle
: Nunu is far less safe on objectives than he was previously. He's lost a good 400 health at max level, plus an extra 10% max health from Consume. Yes, he has more ways to actively control the zone, but he is vulnerable to AOE from over the wall and the enemy jungler simply hopping over and killing him.
Ah, you mean the loses to base stats. Yeah, true. They trimmed his stats to massively buff is kit, that's fair. I think he'll still be an objective control machine with a tank build, but he does have little to no survivability on his kit now, forcing him to buy it.
: That's pretty good, but if I did change anything it would probably be this. {{item:3147}} ***** Removed Blackout. This isn't a support item and bronze assassins never de-ward anyway. ***** Lethality reduced to 15 (from 21) as it's giving assassins too much power against armor-stacking foes.
You literally don't even know how lethality works. Flat armor pen like lethality has ALWAYS been better against foes who do NOT stack armor, as armor has diminishing returns. Going from 50 to 0 armor means you take 50% more damage. Going from 100 to 50 armor means you take 33.3% more damage. Going from 150 to 100 armor means you take 20% more damage. Lethality is for assassinating low-armor targets, and if you believe armor stacking is ineffective against it, that is probably the reason you think it's OP.
: Buffing boring non interactive tanks and nerfing zed who’s already shit. His trading patterns aren’t lazy lmao, without that he’s 100% unviable and his W CD is already obscene. Nerfing Conqueror just turns this game back into a slow obnoxious tank fiesta.. So you’re a tank player? None of these changes are healthy at all lmao.
Don't forget nerfing literally all damage by 10%. Not a sustained damage dealer or tank? Hope you enjoy being useless annie/syndra/every assassin. "Good, assassins and burst mages are intrinsically badly designed." -Bronze and Silver players
: > [{quoted}](name=VoidBorn13,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=R1wtwwZE,comment-id=0000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T00:52:12.221+0000) > > And? The knock-up on his W alone make's it a perfect ganking tool, and if his damage somehow starts falling off against champs with how ridiculous his Ult damage damage scales his he'll just waltz back into the jg with his 980 true damage Q ensuring the enemy has no jungle presence whatsoever. > > He doesn't have to do insane 1-shot damage to be useful, his CC and the THREAT of even his lowest base damages forcing out mobility and flashes will make him a pick/ban in pro, there are no doubts. He lost some objective control for hard cc and more support like. But yeh the attack speed steroid might make kaisa bs
How did he lose objective control when his chomp does the same damage to minions it always has? I mean, he lost the ability to boost it with visionary, but smite+chomp still does a consistent ~1500+ true damage that guarantees any buff/dragon/baron.
: > [{quoted}](name=Weedlayer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Ovrn8UQI,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2018-09-01T05:18:37.561+0000) > > They were talking about the competitive meta, obviously, not the gold solo queue meta. Im gonna be honest the gold solo queue meta is what makes them their money. If you have a pro scene and no players you get no money or viewers (starcraft 2 for example).
I actually agree with you. But I think it's possible to strike a balance by tuning the outliers in both cases. Currently for instance ignite is still viable in competitive (in some roles, like support or mid) in some circumstances, and teleport is still viable in top lane solo queue (again, mostly on some more passive or roam oriented champions). The number of people using these things will vary (you might sometimes still see 3 teleports in competitive, you might frequently see 3 ignites in solo queue) but both are within the ballpark of balanced in both modes. I think it's a mistake to demand everything be perfectly balanced for a particular skill level, be it low elo SoloQ, high elo soloQ or competitive. MF might be strong in gold while unplayed in competitive. Ryze might be good in pro while terrible in solo queue. These are fine, and as long as viable options exist in some form at every elo for every playstyle, not every individual champion or summoner skill needs to be equally represented.
: Umm bro they are easy to play have aoe cc they both do a lot if damage. Wtf are you talking abour
Amumu is hot garbage at reasonably high elo, he is too ult reliant and vulnerable to early invades/skirmishes. Udyr is an interesting case as he's kitable and so vulnerable in coordinated team fights (a reason you never see him in pro play), but manages to be strong even in plat+ solo queue due to his other strengths (like invading and objective control), though he seems to fall out of popularity in high diamond-challenger. I think toning down his damage and giving him more survivability might moderate his balance somewhat, but it'd be hard to do in a meaningful way without just turning him into another tank. He probably just needs a rework.
Rock MD (NA)
: Being good in the meta does not mean the champion shouldn't get nerfed
Sure, this is obviously true. But riot doesn't really nerf champions without them being strong for at least 2 patches (unless they're hotfix worthy), so I don't see the issue? Recently nerfed champions, like garen, have been strong for months now, and win rate data demonstrates this.
: "Teleport has emerged as a dominant summoner spell in most lanes"
They were talking about the competitive meta, obviously, not the gold solo queue meta.
: Please Explain to me how this Match making is 7ucccking Fair!
: > [{quoted}](name=Weedlayer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Tp24Eq7m,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2018-08-22T18:36:44.907+0000) > > This is actually hilarious. All win rate data suggests tanks like sion, poppy and rammus are the best solo queue champions on the current patch, but the circle jerk is still around complete non-issue champions like Yasuo and Lee Sin. Fucking Master Yi, a champion with basically a non existent pick rate in elos where people have hands is on the chopping block? Come on now... > > http://na.op.gg/champion/masteryi/statistics/top > > http://na.op.gg/champion/sion/statistics/top > > Tell me, which of these champions is the problem OP? Oh please, Yi with a ''non existent pick rate'', that's a big fat lie and you know it.
Yeah admittedly I was looking at top lane yi because that's what OP.GG defaults to, so I mistakenly read it as a .5% pick rate. In reality it's closer to 5-6%, which is pretty normal. His win rate is still meh (sub 49%) but I definitely misread the pick rate.
: You don't counter Garen, you counter the player. Most are HAMy. Just don't let him kill you. Play like a giant bitch. Take {{item:3301}} as your starter item and pick up whatever gold you can. Remember that if he's not getting kills, it's not so easy for him to snowball like he typically does. In top lane, sometimes starving the enemy is winning.
I... don't think this is good advice. Garen is a pretty nicely scaling champion, so if he wins lane, even if just with a cs advantage, he'll probably outscale you. Garen's win rate by game length climbs until 40 minutes, so he's not as easy to outscale as you imagine. Additionally, why start coin? Are you imagining being unable to CS you're getting bullied so hard? Garen doesn't bully most meta top laners until level 6, and besides, starting coin rather than a more defensive item like doran's shield probably makes you more vulnerable, not less.
: excuse me?
Because Silver 1/gold 5 isn't especially high elo, and it's reasonable to see players in their placements there? Where should players play their placement games, bronze 5?
: Yes, yes keep buffing my Kassadin
His base damages are really bad, and his scaling/CD/Mobility are really good. Very difficult champion to have an impact on early, but if you can just steal a few kills you'll roll over the entire game.
: What should my Jax build be in silver
The most standard builds are http://na.op.gg/champion/jax/statistics/jungle and https://www.probuilds.net/champions/details/Jax . You might argue that these builds are for higher elo than silver, but the truth is the optimal items for a champion don't usually change much with rank.
: I Quit Maining Tanks after 4 Years
Tanks are basically unplayable now. http://na.op.gg/champion/sion/statistics/top http://na.op.gg/champion/rammus/statistics/jungle http://na.op.gg/champion/alistar/statistics/support http://na.op.gg/champion/leona/statistics/support http://na.op.gg/champion/maokai/statistics/top http://na.op.gg/champion/poppy/statistics/top Might as well not even bother playing them.
Kelg (NA)
: Okay someone has to say it
You literally just lost to a Yi and immediately posted this thread. This board really is just complaining about champions people lost to, despite them not being a problem. I could post Yi's sub-50% win rate and abysmal pick rate in plat+, but why bother. Nobody cares about stats anyway unless they confirm their own prior beliefs. I'll instead explain why the argument "Just CC him" does not apply equally to every champion in the game, and is actually good advice for Yi. Yes, other than Olaf, every champion in the game can be CC'd. However, they are not all equally vulnerable to CC. Ranged champions in particular, such as Xerath or Lux, frequently outrage CC abilities, and thus are less vulnerable than melee champion to it. Additionally, tank champions are inefficient uses of CC, since they are too durable to be easily bursted while CC'd. Hence, champions like Rammus or Sion are also not particularly vulnerable to CC. Finally, burst damage dealers frequently front load enough of their damage that CC-ing them is too late to prevent them from being useful in the teamfight, making "Just CC them" bad advice for dealing with burst casters like Annie. So taking that together, we see "Just CC them" applies best to champions without long range, without excessive durability and without high burst. Ideally, it applies to sustained DPS, melee range champions that rely on mobility to survive. Examples of this include Master Yi and Katarina. Hence why "just CC them" is given to you as advice against Master Yi.
GreyfellD (EUW)
: When will Riot admit that Conqueror is badly designed and too powerful?
Conqueror isn't even a laning rune. You're literally complaining about it in the context in which it is weakest. Virtually any other damage rune, from Arey, to Grasp to Comet does more damage in lane. I mean, just use your head. 20% true damage conversion only matter if you have a lot of armor. In the early game players have the lowest armor relative to any other stage of the game. Hence, Conqueror is weakest in the early game. If you're dying a lot to Conqueror darius or something, consider that it might be because he's a DARIUS, not because he's running Conqueror.
ISmurfy420 (EUNE)
: Why would i pick Ryze over some1 else?
You shouldn't pick ryze. Nobody below master tier should pick ryze, at least if their primary concern is winning. The win rate data is clear enough about that.
: Rakan has an ap scailing suitable for a mage not a tanky support
Isn't it preferable to have high Scaling and lower base damage? That way, he has to make a decision on whether to itemize tanky (and do little damage) or AP (And be squishy).
: I think Players have to come together and be harder on the Balance Team for the greater good.
This is actually hilarious. All win rate data suggests tanks like sion, poppy and rammus are the best solo queue champions on the current patch, but the circle jerk is still around complete non-issue champions like Yasuo and Lee Sin. Fucking Master Yi, a champion with basically a non existent pick rate in elos where people have hands is on the chopping block? Come on now... http://na.op.gg/champion/masteryi/statistics/top http://na.op.gg/champion/sion/statistics/top Tell me, which of these champions is the problem OP?
: Make Urgot honorary melee
Wait his passive does 40-100% total AD based on level.
Mannerone (EUW)
: If that is so simple why her win rate is one of the lowest ?
Above 50% win rate in plat+ http://na.op.gg/champion/irelia/statistics/top She's more of a skill oriented champion now.
Show more

Weedlayer

Level 67 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion