: did the jungle changes do the opposite of what they were suppose to?
No, they're working as intended. Even if you may have had more ganks in your games, farming is more important than before. There's a cost to those ganks.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: November 22
Are you guys going to do anything about duoQ in S10? it's an inherently broken concept if players are try-harding with practiced strategies and synergistic champions. The average penalty for duoing can never represent what a competent duo can do and it feels incredibly unfair to play against even from level 1. This is especially true in high ELO where you see the majority of the highest ranking players duo a ton. Tarzaned reached something like 1700+ LP duoing. Santorin also duod a lot. The win rates achieved are also just astronomically higher than is doable solo. Tarzaned got to Masters going 56-0 with his duo. It's just clearly not balanced and it's never going to be because you can't custom tailor duo penalties in a representative way. Even if you eventually get close for a particular duo, they may just switch duo partners (or switching one of them to a lower ranked smurf). Besides being obviously unbalanced, as pretty much everyone in high ELO admits, it's extremely misleading for the ladder to mix duo and solo. They do not mean the same thing, just like singles and doubles in tennis are not the same thing. You can't throw them together and pretend it's all the same skills being tested. Even in the hypothetical and probably unreachable scenario of perfect balance for duo and solo, they would reduce the ladder's accuracy since conditions are not equivalent for everyone. Worst of all, duoing is often used to boost players and then when those boosted players play solo, games are completely ruined. I get that duoing has some advantages for allowing bot laners and aspiring pro players better practice but this isn't a good solution overall. Making the ladder worse and less representative is a big cost and when people don't trust the ladder, they also are less likely to invest as much time into the game since accomplishments don't feel as meaningful. We have flexQ. It isn't that popular but it probably would be taken much more seriously if there were no duoing in the other queue. There's clear overlap and flex is not fulfilling its goal. Let's actually improve the ladder and matchmaking this season. Tradition is not an excuse. BTW: Despite abusing duoing, Tarzaned has also said that he wish it were removed. This just highlights how much it's warping the game. He feels that he cannot compete on an equal playing field with players who are duoing if he's not and that the same rank cannot be reached through solo play alone.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: November 22
Please bring back a variant of S8 Dark Harvest. The new one removed the fun soul pickup game and changed the rune's identity as well as core users (despite keeping the name!). There's no skill to it anymore. It's just more damage for your damage. The old DH really changed my positioning in fights, my pathing and my approach to the game (even invades could be different if I had a chance to outsmite a camp and get a double proc.). It was also less tilting when teammates died because I could at least use their souls to possibly turn things. And of course, it had an actual late game. It wasn't just a snowball rune with no fallback mechanic. You could really see it evolve and there was a huge difference at 150+ stacks when the timer changed. Right now, there's hardly a playstyle decision or any thought in using it. It's just about which one is better on a particular champion. As far as the "Omnistone". I just don't see this as a useful addition. If the CD is low enough, it will be used a lot just because it would be overtuned. However, if it is balanced, almost no one would prefer it over an alternative rune with an actual clear purpose. Finally, I think making the Rift channel time so much shorter is a step back. 4 seconds gave some counterplay to it if you could land CC. It was sometimes even worth sacrificing a summoner spell to do it. Why eliminate the counterplay to it? It's essentially impossible to interrupt now. BTW: Even if you don't want to bring back Smite buffs as a whole, it would be cool to have at least side camps or buff camps have them. Of course, it would need a lot of thought so that it's not too complex or gimmicky but I think there's some potential there. Although, S10 already has a lot to learn so maybe for S11! :D
Rioter Comments
Tolinar (NA)
: The argument against Omnistone - a pointless rune.
Exactly my impression! It seems like a gimmick that doesn't add meaningful gameplay. Champions generally have runes that are synergistic and no one really wants to have some random keystone. I think Klepto is just as much of a gimmick.
: **Remake is a bad fix for a problem than should be solved elsewhere.** The game timer should never ever start unless everyone has connected (= see summoners rift and use input devices). Its not the 3:00 minute mark that causes issue - it is the game that starts without checking if everyone is ready.
> [{quoted}](name=VΕIGAR,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iiB5IPIx,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-11-13T16:54:36.561+0000) > > **Remake is a bad fix for a problem than should be solved elsewhere.** > > The game timer should never ever start unless everyone has connected (= see summoners rift and use input devices). > Its not the 3:00 minute mark that causes issue - it is the game that starts without checking if everyone is ready. You have a good point. It would probably be good to even do a ping check pre-queue or at least have some indicator of the connection status.
Kivolan (NA)
: Toning Down Ekko's Safety & Reliability
Ekko looks OP rather than actually being OP. Most of what he does that's impressive only works when ahead of the game or helping someone who is. If you play at least a few dozen Ekko games, I think you'll realize he has his own issues but I'd be fine with a revert to his R CD if needed. Personally, I'd rather he had better scaling at the cost of reliability anyway. Ekko's rather telegraphed and his jumping patterns/spots become predictable once players become better. He exploits mistakes but isn't that great at actually forcing them a la Shaco, Kha, Eve, etc. I'm pretty sure those are more rewarding to main for climbing. This is why you only saw him at Worlds 4x (all losses) despite being buffed for weeks and why the top 10 Challenger junglers in the main regions are not spamming him every chance they get. The best champions tend to have much less counterplay and have more direct CC or at least much higher upfront burst in a short window without requiring long animations such as Ekko's Q. BTW: Just because Ekko's a high skill-cap champion doesn't mean his skill floor is very high. It's above average but not by much and that's one of the big differences compared to when you see people on Lee, Kindred, etc.
Rioter Comments
Riot Pls (NA)
: In creative dev, positive feedback is as important or more useful than negative / critical feedback at times, because it lets an artist know when they’re crushing it, and _that they should do more of that_. Most artists (visual, writers, any medium) I know are most often their own harshest critics. Positive feedback is heard and appreciated and helps us know what players wanna see more of. That said, thanks for the kind words. My friends who worked on the skin worked super hard and I could not be more proud and happy for them. ❤️
> [{quoted}](name=Riot Pls,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=f2d1KTeY,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-11-09T07:37:35.484+0000) > > In creative dev, positive feedback is as important or more useful than negative / critical feedback at times, because it lets an artist know when they’re crushing it, and _that they should do more of that_. > > Most artists (visual, writers, any medium) I know are most often their own harshest critics. Positive feedback is heard and appreciated and helps us know what players wanna see more of. > > That said, thanks for the kind words. My friends who worked on the skin worked super hard and I could not be more proud and happy for them. ❤️ This one's great if you're into that style. Personally, I'm more into the fantasy elements and I'd love to see a Master Arcanist Ekko skin down the road in a few years. It's my favorite Ziggs skin too.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Aosy (EUW)
: Matchmaking... Broken as per usual.
Dodge bad comps and op.gg players to see they play their champs. If you do that for the next 50 games and are still stuck then it's definitely just where you belong right now. I used to think the same way back when I started out and making new accounts led to similar rankings around that time frame. This is proof that the system generally works. Otherwise, my smurfs should have been in quite different ELOs. Another thing is to figure out what you like playing and are better at. As far as performance, it's generally better to hone in on that - at least in the short term. I keep trying to play champions I'm not very good at executing and it usually costs me at least 3-4 divisions.
: > [{quoted}](name=astralwit,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=uE0V26A4,comment-id=0013,timestamp=2019-04-01T09:27:06.618+0000) > > Choosing to make it in Javascript is pretty questionable. It's such a shitty language if you want reliability and a good foundation. There are a lot of frameworks but they can't fix everything. With that said, it was still possible to have a good client but this isn't even an improvement at this point (incredibly buggy and laggy if not restarted after a few hours). Aesthetically it's also far worse than the original one imo. Not true. Computer Science student here. What language you use for scripting your program behaviorally doesn't really affect performance. That's just for functional stuff, at lower levels, it's not js.
> [{quoted}](name=goodiesohhi,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=uE0V26A4,comment-id=00130000,timestamp=2019-10-21T05:08:48.798+0000) > > Not true. Computer Science student here. > What language you use for scripting your program behaviorally doesn't really affect performance. That's just for functional stuff, at lower levels, it's not js. Performance of the language isn't the issue. Javascript is a terrible language (not even internally consistent) for writing safe and maintainable code. That create issues both in performance and reliability. It's actually a very fast language nowadays but as much as frameworks try to fix its crusty foundation born out of a few weeks of hacking, its fundamental flaws do eventually get exposed. Javascript's popularity is a result of first mover advantage making it ubiquitous as well as encouraging a tremendous amount of tooling. It doesn't hurt that you can throw something together quickly either. Quality of the language is not why it's ubiquitous and the many design flaws in it can't be fixed because of backwards compatibility being so important.
: Experimental "Max Cast Range" Changes Coming to PBE!
I really hope this isn't expanded to many champions. I can correct my own movement but want reliable ability aiming. Imagine trying to play AP Kog with this. I'm already far enough back that it's OK for me to move a few steps to hit at max range. However, it is NOT OK for me to waste R and get the mana penalty while hitting absolutely nothing. Please do not make the new behavior default. It ruins precision and makes some champions feel terrible. Let's say I'm trying to steal baron with AP Kog R and am not quite in range so it just wastes it at the Baron wall. That would be unintuitive and annoying. For some champions I suppose it can be more reasonable but then you have one set of rules for part of the roster and another for the rest. That inconsistency only adds to the learning curve when switching champions and the arbitrary nature of it seems clunky/unintuitive.
Xintium (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Abibyama II,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H9QIub3t,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-10-15T09:08:36.304+0000) > > Even with "precision and calculation" it will go wrong because a few devs and play testers will never outwit millions of players on the live servers. > > Something that looks bad to their internal servers and PBE might end up being broken and Something that looks broken might end up being bad on the live servers. Balancing is an iterative procedure. Your objective is not to "get it right" on the first few attempts. But you do need a reliable and systematic iterative scheme, which, at least theoretically, should converge asymptotically. This is exactly what we have not seen. Riot's balancing framework also has some significant flaws, such as not adjusting winrate with banrate in the case of high ban rates, except with a single correction at 7x ABR.
> [{quoted}](name=Xintium,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H9QIub3t,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-10-15T13:01:33.278+0000) > > Balancing is an iterative procedure. Your objective is not to "get it right" on the first few attempts. But you do need a reliable and systematic iterative scheme, which, at least theoretically, should converge asymptotically. This is exactly what we have not seen. Riot's balancing framework also has some significant flaws, such as not adjusting winrate with banrate in the case of high ban rates, except with a single correction at 7x ABR. All the stats are actually pretty hard to interpret by themselves. Ban rates are often due to preference and can be very influenced by bias (such as Zed seemingly always having a high ban rate regardless of his state). Win rates are affected by whether a champion is picked mostly as a counter, if it's a versatile champion, if the skill floor is low or high, if the pick rate is high or low and dozens of other factors. There's never going to be a purely objective system for balancing the game because there are just too many factors at play and it keeps changing so much. It's not a finished game like chess.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: August 9
Krugs have to be the most valuable camp or they aren't worth doing given the time/HP needed to clear them. Also, asymmetry in jungle can be good because it creates something to fight over/prioritize. It gives you a way to track and thus a chance to use that information for exploitative plays. Rather than nerf Krugs, why not just buff the camps on the other side a bit? Jungle is way underleveled anyway.
: It's getting really hard to take this game seriously anymore
Somehow, I don't think you'd perform if you tried to play these "freelo" champions you mention. The grass is always greener on the other side. Some champions are legitimately overpowered at times and Wu does have a dated kit but skill is still by far the most important factor. Unless we're talking about high ELO, it's not like playing Veigar is what's holding you back. I don't even think Veigar is bad, it's just not his meta and he's a situational pick. You shouldn't be playing Veigar into Kat (or in general if you don't know what you're up against).
: Galio has the lowest pickrate in the game and for some reason jax and lux deserves buffs before him?
I think they're not sure what to do with him and don't want to just do a lazy numbers change.
: I say leave em in. better yet, make any dodge at any time a loss. No dodging your way to the top allowed.
> [{quoted}](name=BigBellBrute,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=js1ksEkI,comment-id=0017,timestamp=2019-08-07T17:31:48.969+0000) > > I say leave em in. better yet, make any dodge at any time a loss. No dodging your way to the top allowed. I'd love for dodging not to be necessary but there are too many troll comps, ragers or players on champions they're simply not competent on. At least this tends to be drastically reduced in high Plat+. I just hate playing games where we're at a clear handicap before it even starts. That's a terrible experience and feels unfair. It also wouldn't be realistic for the match making system to take into consideration the champion someone picks. There are 144 champions in the game and getting any meaningful sample size for ranked players on a variety of champions isn't realistic. How do you fix this without simply forcing players to take autolosses which aren't fun at all?
Aekami (EUW)
: That was already suggested, however this will never happen because it would open for people to pressure a player into leaving. Say you have a bad laning phase and go 0/4, people could start pressuring you into leaving, and that opens a whole new world of toxicity. And don't tell me this wouldn't happen, we all know how people are.
> [{quoted}](name=Aekami,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=js1ksEkI,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-07T17:19:53.955+0000) > > That was already suggested, however this will never happen because it would open for people to pressure a player into leaving. > > Say you have a bad laning phase and go 0/4, people could start pressuring you into leaving, and that opens a whole new world of toxicity. > > And don't tell me this wouldn't happen, we all know how people are. The thing is also that you may have bad stats occasionally even when playing well and giving your team a large indirect advantage. For instance, if you went 0 4 but attracted massive pressure to your lane, pressured the enemy jungler etc., it may actually be more useful for your team than had you gone 0 0 playing passively and not relieving any map pressure. It's rare that this happens but I've certainly seen it (especially from Singed players). KDA is meaningless in a vacuum. Of course, if you go 0 4 because you get solo killed or you die to predictable ganks and overstay at low HP, you're generally just a liability.
: > [{quoted}](name=astralwit,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=js1ksEkI,comment-id=0010000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-07T15:54:27.573+0000) > > It's just a fundamentally broken approach. Imagine if you added this to sports rather than Win/Loss. You're letting an algorithm decide whether you played well or not. It solidifies a meta and may end-up punishing effective players with new strategies. The results will speak for themselves over a larger sample so there is just no need to have this black-box approach to LP gains. I hope Riot never does this and I think it would be terrible for competitive integrity. > > All it does is make you feel better about some CS stat, KDA etc. when it could be completely meaningless to the result of the game. Perhaps you have fantastic stats but you still misplayed a teamfight in a serious way or weren't where you should have been on the map. That can be game losing. > > I've lost track of how many fed carries made massive mistakes to lose a game (even if they didn't die) and they don't deserve to climb just because of stats. Many games wouldn't even have needed to get to a certain stage if they were played differently early. For instance if my bot is afk at a turret and doesn't watch jungle at the start, perhaps an invade bullies me out and I become suddenly very behind for no fault of my own. Maybe that bot player ends up 10-0 later on and we lose but he thinks he deserves to win. Meanwhile, here I am with my jungle ruined, my path revealed and my pace for map pressure greatly slowed. Had this player simply fulfilled his duty early, perhaps we'd win as a team even if he had a much worse KDA. In the first line you countered everything you used to try to explain why a system that takes into account how a player does is bad. Sports are made of teams that practice together, just like how premade teams work within esports. These premade teams are expected to play as a unit, and will win or lose as ONE UNIT. An all in win or loss system works perfectly for premade teams. From what I see, most people that don't think a system that takes K/D/A and other stats into consideration to dictate LP losses or gains will work don't understand the difference between premade team competition and solo queue competition. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Why do you think there are people at the top of the solo queue ladder that aren't invited into pro teams, or even collegiate teams? I'm sorry to say this, but your last paragraph is literally a statement to your lack of ability to adjust to the game, or to be a driving force to win yourself. You are literally blaming your team.....
> [{quoted}](name=Outrageously Old,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=js1ksEkI,comment-id=00100000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-07T16:28:20.261+0000) > > In the first line you countered everything you used to try to explain why a system that takes into account how a player does is bad. Sports are made of teams that practice together, just like how premade teams work within esports. These premade teams are expected to play as a unit, and will win or lose as ONE UNIT. An all in win or loss system works perfectly for premade teams. > > From what I see, most people that don't think a system that takes K/D/A and other stats into consideration to dictate LP losses or gains will work don't understand the difference between premade team competition and solo queue competition. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Why do you think there are people at the top of the solo queue ladder that aren't invited into pro teams, or even collegiate teams? > > I'm sorry to say this, but your last paragraph is literally a statement to your lack of ability to adjust to the game, or to be a driving force to win yourself. You are literally blaming your team..... It doesn't even matter that pro teams are a different environment and they also won't be getting anywhere near to the sample size of a dedicated SQ player. Guess what, everyone's in the same boat (other than duos I suppose) and the teams aren't holding you back long-term. This has been proven over and over with boosters, streamers doing unranked solo challenges and just high ELO players starting in other regions. So why would we introduce an incredibly meta enforcing and artificial system to fix a problem which doesn't really even exist? We don't need a mysterious algorithm to look at our stats and tell us if we're performing in the one true way to play League of Legends. There are so many pieces involved that the algorithm will always be inherently biased. The goal of the game is to kill the Nexus and gameplay decisions getting you closer to that goal will invariably lead to more wins over time -> more LP. Simple. For most players, it takes less than 100 games from unranked to get very close to the ranking of their main. I've even seen Challenger players solo from unranked to Mastes in literally less than 100 games. Meanwhile, you have guys like this with over 1000 games in Gold and 7.0+ KDA: https://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=cryocorebrand I've actually even played with him on a smurf and it was pretty annoying because he was afraid to go for any all-in play even when it was very favorable for us. He ran away from Baron when they started to come. We'd have burst it before the main fight started. A big "no, thank you" to encouraging this type of player. Anyway, with your condescending attitude it's pretty obvious that you are set in your thinking and have no interest in a discussion. I care so much about climbing through my own merits that I refuse to ever duo on more serious accounts and I don't think it should exist for Diamond+. I don't know if you're trolling or actually missing the point but blaming someone for something in the game doesn't magically make it false. The whole point in that hypothetical situation was that someone could have farmed nice stats but still been a detriment to the team due to decisions which would be hard to pick up by an algorithm. If someone refuses to watch the jungle entrances immediately early game, the consequences can reverberate for the entirety of the game and often go way beyond that player's lane. I also find the whole comment incredibly hypocritical. The very fact that you even suggest this sort of superflous system to pat you on the back for losses when you have seemingly good stats shows that you are blaming the team for the loss and your rank. BTW: There's already a smurf detection system partially based on stats. The way I understand it is that it starts testing you against higher caliber players and if you perform, continues doing so. This is the most that I'd consider OK based on stats. If your stats are great and you're underrated, perhaps it can give you the opportunity to prove yourself vs better players more quickly. I'm not sure how robust the current system is for this but perhaps it can be improved.
: Mundo doesn't need buffs. Leblanc doesn't need buffs. Ekko doesn't need buffs. Lux doesn't need buffs.
> [{quoted}](name=WoonStruck,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=hfYeKPXv,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-08-05T23:24:25.905+0000) > > Mundo doesn't need buffs. Leblanc doesn't need buffs. Ekko doesn't need buffs. Lux doesn't need buffs. All of those had room for buffs. Examine Masters+ and what champions are mained/popular, watch pro play, check stats in Diamond+ for each role etc. None of those choices are surprising. Lux is probably the most questionable one there but the data does show she's underperforming in support and has some room for a buff mid lane too. For Diamond+, she's almost 50% mid and 48% support but her play rate is rather high. Personally, I'd rather have buffed something like Braum before I'd help Lux again. People think they know balance on here and they're always in an uproar about something but the vast majority of the time, Riot's buff/nerf candidates are very logical and it's more just a matter of degree for the changes. Of course, there are always exceptions. Kled didn't need special grievous on Q and Renekton didn't need to break shields. The way people see champions and reality is incredibly biased. Maybe it's just more memorable getting beaten by some snowballed X. The flashy champions or the duelists always seem stronger than they actually turn out to be.
: > [{quoted}](name=Rylalei,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=js1ksEkI,comment-id=00100000,timestamp=2019-08-07T11:25:20.373+0000) > > The problem with performance based gains/losses is that they will be abused to no end. > > Players will stop caring as much for wins and play for themselves, you win the game? Cool, now you have a huge gain, you lost? Not losing too much. > > That system would simply make trolls and selfish players climb more than players who chose to play for the team. I for one won't jump to die if it gets my team no gain, but I'll be the first to go kamikaze if it means my team will win the fight, and if I win the game based on my plays, I'm fine with it, but your system will punish me for making the plays needed to win the game. I have seen the "players will abuse this system" myth all too often when people bring up individual performance dictating LP losses or gains, and I am honestly tired of it. Explain, in excruciating detail, as to why it would ruin the game? Sure, some people will play super safe, games might be a bit longer, but isn't that better than have a top lane die two times in 4 minutes and then continue to ram their face into the enemy team without thinking about how their feeding will hurt the rest of the team? I think a lot of people that are afraid of an LP gain/loss system that is effected by performance don't realize one simple thing...**The team that wins will still win, the team that loses will still lose.** GOOD PLAYERS will understand this and will be happy to sacrifice, if you can even call it that, their precious K/D/A to win a game. Players that play for purely K/D/A would most likely stagnate and stop climbing. The ratings on how much LP you gain and lose could simply be pulled from Champ -> Role stats within the players current rank/ranks around the player (for the rare cases of champs that are barely used). If you are playing a champ that can only win by going kamikaze it would be reflected in stats taken from the community and give you an appropriate LP gain or loss padding. If it isn't, than you are probably playing the champ wrong. Sure, there will be a few games where you literally have no option but to play outside of what is deemed "normal" for certain champs, but if you win, you still win LP.
> [{quoted}](name=Outrageously Old,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=js1ksEkI,comment-id=001000000000,timestamp=2019-08-07T15:29:16.915+0000) > > I have seen the "players will abuse this system" myth all too often when people bring up individual performance dictating LP losses or gains, and I am honestly tired of it. Explain, in excruciating detail, as to why it would ruin the game? Sure, some people will play super safe, games might be a bit longer, but isn't that better than have a top lane die two times in 4 minutes and then continue to ram their face into the enemy team without thinking about how their feeding will hurt the rest of the team? > > I think a lot of people that are afraid of an LP gain/loss system that is effected by performance don't realize one simple thing...**The team that wins will still win, the team that loses will still lose.** GOOD PLAYERS will understand this and will be happy to sacrifice, if you can even call it that, their precious K/D/A to win a game. Players that play for purely K/D/A would most likely stagnate and stop climbing. > > The ratings on how much LP you gain and lose could simply be pulled from Champ -> Role stats within the players current rank/ranks around the player (for the rare cases of champs that are barely used). If you are playing a champ that can only win by going kamikaze it would be reflected in stats taken from the community and give you an appropriate LP gain or loss padding. If it isn't, than you are probably playing the champ wrong. Sure, there will be a few games where you literally have no option but to play outside of what is deemed "normal" for certain champs, but if you win, you still win LP. It's just a fundamentally broken approach. Imagine if you added this to sports rather than Win/Loss. You're letting an algorithm decide whether you played well or not. It solidifies a meta and may end-up punishing effective players with new strategies. The results will speak for themselves over a larger sample so there is just no need to have this black-box approach to LP gains. I hope Riot never does this and I think it would be terrible for competitive integrity. All it does is make you feel better about some CS stat, KDA etc. when it could be completely meaningless to the result of the game. Perhaps you have fantastic stats but you still misplayed a teamfight in a serious way or weren't where you should have been on the map. That can be game losing. I've lost track of how many fed carries made massive mistakes to lose a game (even if they didn't die) and they don't deserve to climb just because of stats. Many games wouldn't even have needed to get to a certain stage if they were played differently early. For instance if my bot is afk at a turret and doesn't watch jungle at the start, perhaps an invade bullies me out and I become suddenly very behind for no fault of my own. Maybe that bot player ends up 10-0 later on and we lose but he thinks he deserves to win. Meanwhile, here I am with my jungle ruined, my path revealed and my pace for map pressure greatly slowed. Had this player simply fulfilled his duty early, perhaps we'd win as a team even if he had a much worse KDA.
: For the love of god please remove promos
Promos for divisions shouldn't exist imo
: this is just riot trying to ruin their game even more then it already is bc they fucked up adding all these new champs constantly instead of tweaking the champs they started out with and making the game a balanced game i dont get how dota can balance their game but riot can balance the issues on the rift when it is the same exact game
> [{quoted}](name=FiddleMyGoochh,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8UmywbYH,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-08-07T15:19:31.420+0000) > > this is just riot trying to ruin their game even more then it already is bc they fucked up adding all these new champs constantly instead of tweaking the champs they started out with and making the game a balanced game i dont get how dota can balance their game but riot can balance the issues on the rift when it is the same exact game If you take more of a data driven approach rather than how you feel about balance, you'll realize that it's in a rather good state and win rates are actually closer than in DoTA. While that's not the end all be all of balance, it does suggest that the average game should feel mostly fair from a balance perspective.
Hordes66 (NA)
: How can anyone look at this Fiora buff
It's only for two autos. It looks more insane than it actually is.
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika Fox,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8d2ARl6a,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-08-06T13:28:24.354+0000) > > Because support lux never needed nerfs. Yeah, that champion that see's pro play constantly as well as tons of play in high ELO while also being a low skill cap champion that low ELO also does well with, definitely didn't need nerfed. lol Insane playrate/winrate at all ranks and pro play
> [{quoted}](name=MorgManBasher,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8d2ARl6a,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-08-06T13:41:04.383+0000) > > Yeah, that champion that see's pro play constantly as well as tons of play in high ELO while also being a low skill cap champion that low ELO also does well with, definitely didn't need nerfed. lol > > Insane playrate/winrate at all ranks and pro play She hasn't really been a thing in pro play after the last round of nerfs. Her support role is also performing poorly in SQ.
: The Reason Tanks Aren't Played Often
The main reason is actually just that you can't solo carry. That makes playing from behind feel worse and it also means you depend more on your carries to be competent when ahead. That's pretty much the crux of the issue. Even when they have above average win rates due to high base usefulness, they tend to be incapable of taking over the game to the same extent that someone could maining a damage champion. Bruisers are sort of a middle ground and thus easier to swallow for most players.
Barkley (NA)
: Please stop saying "I'm X higher rank on my main"
The whole point of smurfing for a lot of people isn't to beat on lower ranked scrubs but to test different styles/roles and expand one's champion pool (normals aren't quite as useful). Sometimes they may even be on that account due to being too tired to play on their main. Either way, judging them by a smurf is kind of like judging someone for their performance in normals. Although, you're right that ultimately no one cares if it's a smurf or not.
: Sometimes it just cant be balanced without gutting the main role so they gut the offrole instead. It hurts less.
> [{quoted}](name=Aatrox Airlines,realm=EUNE,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=jo628Zmn,comment-id=004a0000,timestamp=2019-08-02T20:01:14.760+0000) > > Sometimes it just cant be balanced without gutting the main role so they gut the offrole instead. It hurts less. Ideally, a champion will have at least 2 supported roles but you're right that sometimes it's not easy without making one much weaker than the other. In this case though, a complete non-reason was offered for nerfing his jungling. Being a Flex pick is not about objective power but rather about enabling more comps. and thus being picked more often. This shouldn't be a balance factor.
: Remove IRON elo!
The point is to make Bronze players feel better about their rank since at least they're not Iron. :D
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: August 2
I don't even play Sylas but being a flex pick should not impact balance. If a champion is balanced in multiple roles and not overly strong, it should not get punished. To me that makes no sense and actually seems antithetical to balance. It may serve to make a champion less popular but that shouldn't be a goal of balance as long as that champion isn't dominant due to raw strength. Also, why does it always seem that the jungle variants are the ones to get the nerf every time a mage jungles? It seems there's some inherent bias to keeping mages better mid. Almost every time one dares to venture elsewhere, the secondary role gets nerfed into oblivion and it becomes forgotten about instead of being balanced properly just like the other role.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: Why are you buffing khazix?
I thought it was strange too when I gave my thoughts [here](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/lRAAmbnj-xerath-is-getting-buffed-but-ziggs-remains-the-same). Kha is doing fine even in high ELO. He's above 50% in both Diamond+ and Masters+ despite having an above average skill-cap. That Kha buff seems too big and there are plenty of weaker off-meta junglers who need it more. By comparison, Amumu is at 49% in Diamond+ and a pathetic 45% in Masters+ even though his skill floor is low so an above average base win rate should be expected. Nocturne is just under 48% in Diamond+ and ~45% in Masters+. I could find many other examples. I think this buff brings Kha to S- tier if he's picked situationally. In an ideal world there wouldn't be any tiers at all but let's not get carried away. :D
: ThornMail does not accomplish it's anti-aa function.
I actually think it's one of the better items. Maybe it can get a buff of another 25-50 HP or something like that but its passives are pretty useful and not just for dueling. Deadman's is in a worse spot imo.
: Xerath is getting buffed but Ziggs remains the same?
That makes no sense to me either. They're considering buffing high skill cap champions with high play rates and respectable win rates even in high ELO, such as Kha (52% Diamond+), Vayne (51% Diamond+), and Lee (49% Diamond+ but a whopping 23% play rate). Ziggs is not played competitively at all and is one of the lowest play rate champions in the game at 1.3%. Despite such a tiny play rate (indicating more mains/situational picks), his win rate is barely 50%. How does he not trigger their balance framework? Lee is 51% win rate and over 21% play rate even in Masters+ and is popular at all levels. He even gets competitive play. A lot of the champions lined up for buffs aren't actually weak but simply take a lot of investment to utilize well. Ziggs has a decent skill cap too but his skill floor is low and yet he's still not performing well. Champions without a high skill floor should naturally have higher win rates and he should be ticking every checkbox in their balance framework. I don't understand the point of that framework if they fail to utilize it and then do whatever they want anyway. It seems more like it's just creating the illusion of objectivity. Maybe blindly applying that framework isn't the right way to do things but it definitely feels like Riot's playing favorites to try to intentionally mold the Worlds meta to what they want. Ziggs is basically a unicorn in Masters+ (0.65% play rate including Bot) and yet we have Kha, Vayne and Lee buffs lined up first? Even Xerath is ~50% in Masters and 2%+ play rate. I also completely disagree with the idea of playing favorites with balance. That hurts a game's competitive integrity and there should never be an excuse for it. Riot's job is to properly balance the game so that we have freedom to do whatever we want. It is is not to decide what we should do and curate a segment of the roster. Anyway, I think your complaints would get more attention on Twitter. BTW: While I like Ziggs and used to play him, I've never mained him. I rarely play Mid/Bot. Still, I think this thread offers fair criticism. Ziggs is treated like a forgotten champion while those that have been meta breaking for years are still getting more attention. Another slap in the face is Graves being prioritized above Ziggs. Graves is 52% in Masters+ and almost 50% win rate with a 3% play rate in Diamond+. He's getting his second buff in a not so long time.
: So, Riot just buffed the Baron without mentioning it in the patch notes?
Ekko has a weird W bug that shows his clone even when you cast from an unwarded bush. This was never mentioned in patch notes and it's a pretty massive nerf in specific spots.
Rioter Comments
: Will you ever consider to make ap scale with ap on spells because i feel rly bad to play ap champs and scale rly bad with it for example :anivia q is 60 / 85 / 110 / 135 / 160 (+ 45% AP)or ziggs w 70 / 105 / 140 / 175 / 210 (+ 35% AP) but draven q is 35 / 40 / 45 / 50 / 55 (+ 65 / 75 / 85 / 95 / 105% bonus AD). I feel like the ratio need to be fixed to 70%(for the spammable spells)/80%/90% and 100or more (for the ability with a high cd like ziggs r 200 / 300 / 400 (+ 73.33% AP) ty for your time and sorry for my english .
> [{quoted}](name=Nobuyuki91,realm=EUW,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=7Zmn3Jst,comment-id=0036,timestamp=2019-07-12T17:45:08.890+0000) > > Will you ever consider to make ap scale with ap on spells because i feel rly bad to play ap champs and scale rly bad with it for example :anivia q is 60 / 85 / 110 / 135 / 160 (+ 45% AP)or ziggs w 70 / 105 / 140 / 175 / 210 (+ 35% AP) but draven q is 35 / 40 / 45 / 50 / 55 (+ 65 / 75 / 85 / 95 / 105% bonus AD). I feel like the ratio need to be fixed to 70%(for the spammable spells)/80%/90% and 100or more (for the ability with a high cd like ziggs r 200 / 300 / 400 (+ 73.33% AP) ty for your time and sorry for my english . Yes, I think they should add something like this too to some champs. It can give a way to ramp up power mid to late in a faster way without also buffing early. Certain champions with mediocre early and low scaling abilities such as Ekko's E (40% AP) or Kog's R could maybe use this.
: Nothing feels worse than loving a champion who isn't on Riot's favorite list
I used to love AP Kog. Dream is dead though. I still like Ziggs, does that count? :D
Moody P (NA)
: Buff tank items
I think nearly every melee carry (AP or AD) can be far more useful with 2 defensiveitems (one for each type of damage). Otherwise, split pushing is often your only win condition since you're burst down by everything. It's just not very viable to go full squishy when melee. Even Rhaast, despite all his healing, mobiltiy and his R, still often goes Visage and Randuin's/Thorn (despite his build already including some HP from Black Cleaver/Sterak's etc.) They might be worried about buffing some carries more than tanks if they buff defensive items too much. These items aren't meant for only tanks.
Rioter Comments
: Client Hangs @ 14%
I've had it stuck at other values like 94% too. Worst of all, restarting the computer and client crashed with a "Critical error" on reconnect. After clicking it a few more times, it did finally connect me though.
: Blitz breaking shields in 1.14
This is just a terrible mechanic in general. It shouldn't exist in this absolute form. Shields are supposed to encourage going for plays you otherwise wouldn't (unlike the more static power of raw HP). This messes with the whole purpose of shields.
Rioter Comments
: Any changes planned for jungle? It feels like the worst role to play right now by far. The gameplay is very linear and it feels like you have no impact on the game past laning phase. So many junglers are quitting or role swapping right now, including me, it really feels like it should be addressed soon.
> [{quoted}](name=Black T Poison,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=17fpOPh5,comment-id=0056,timestamp=2019-07-05T21:15:57.509+0000) > > Any changes planned for jungle? It feels like the worst role to play right now by far. The gameplay is very linear and it feels like you have no impact on the game past laning phase. So many junglers are quitting or role swapping right now, including me, it really feels like it should be addressed soon. Jungle scaling, especially for APs suffered a lot from the DH rework. The AP ratio was hit harder than the AD one. Although, it's simply not a very good rune now and it went from being a scaling jungler rune into something that's bad on almost all junglers. The scaling in general is a lot worse even very late.
: Unpopular opinion: yes healing is too good right now, but so is access to practically unlimited mana
I don't even think there's an issue with healing. It's just that teams are refusing to itemize intelligently. I had a game vs 5 healers and not one person bought healing reduction besides me. They deserve to lose. It's not the fault of the game.
Rioter Comments
: You nerfed Inspiration sustain.. It's time for Domination
Ravenous hunter needs no further nerfs. It already got nerfed and hurt a lot of weak early junglers in the process. It's completely fine. Relentless and Ultimate Hunter even got buffed significantly. It's just a more general rune.
Show more

astralwit

Level 31 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion