: S + Nearly Impossible On Certain Champs While Being Too Easy On Others?
In games where you're so incredibly ahead, you shouldnt have problems to inflate your cs by taking jungle camps whenever you can. Go counterjungle, keep up wards so they dont gang up on you. Buy controls to clear wards whenever you know they're there, gives more vision score than planting 1 per game into your river bush. Also a friend of mine suggested that objective lasthits could matter. No clue if it's true, but she has several m6/m7 champs, so it might help ya. Gl!
: Tax minions. If people are going to take cs whenever it is available to them anywhere, then so am I. You're backing without pushing the wave? I'll take that. You died and there is a wave under your tower? Thanks. Everyone is in bot lane and top is pushed to our side? Don't mind if I do. The one, and only, time I EVER concede exp and gold is if there is a laner ACTUALLY carrying my game on my team for once. If I am 6/0/10 and there is a 0/7/2 laners taking my jungle camps instead of killing the cs under the tower in top lane then they wont be missing it. You need 100 gold for an item? Alt + click it into chat, I get it. But don't start killing a camp I am 2 feet away from when you see me going to it and then get mad when I clear your minion wave to make up for it when you are not even pulling your weight anyway.
Depending on the situation, it's not bad for a sidelane to take gromp/krugs. If the jungler is ganking top, died or it's the only alive camp compared to 2-3 on the other jungle side, and if you have the time, go take it. With the new respawn timers it'll be up again once your jungler actually comes to clear it anyway.
Myrmiron (EUW)
: Sorry to crush your hopes and dreams but Riot has been lowering rank requirements for quite some time by now and they'll most likely keep doing it so players who never improve can climb the ranks as well and feel good about their performance. This is of course so players don't quit the game out of frustration over not climbing so they can keep spending money. This season Diamond + was top 4% and we already heard Rioters saying that they want Diamond to be around top 8%, so next season we will probably see Diamond + to encompass the top 5-6% of players. Gold + will likely get devalued to top 50% so that half the playerbase can have that Victorious skin. Being a good player these days only grants you early access to the high ranks as over time everyone will be able to get into them.
> [{quoted}](name=Myrmiron,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=kAZqZ2b9,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-12-08T23:26:37.794+0000) > > Sorry to crush your hopes and dreams but Riot has been lowering rank requirements for quite some time by now and they'll most likely keep doing it so players who never improve can climb the ranks as well and feel good about their performance. > This is of course so players don't quit the game out of frustration over not climbing so they can keep spending money. > This season Diamond + was top 4% and we already heard Rioters saying that they want Diamond to be around top 8%, so next season we will probably see Diamond + to encompass the top 5-6% of players. Gold + will likely get devalued to top 50% so that half the playerbase can have that Victorious skin. > Being a good player these days only grants you early access to the high ranks as over time everyone will be able to get into them. And at the same time they supposedly force a 50% winrate? How's that gonna work then?
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Nj1Ekb1E,comment-id=0003000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T10:55:54.417+0000) > > I guess that's another reason for them to do so that just goes hand in hand with each other. > But why wouldn't they give the same amount of bans to any offenders then? Likelihood? > > And even if that was the only reason, it still gives you multiple chances to notice and better yourself. I'm not sure what you mean by "same amount of bans to any offenders then?" Are you asking why they wouldn't give the same bans to DIFFERENT types of offenses? Or to different people committing the same offense? And of course, one should always be introspective and work on themselves but I'd argue it's equally unrealistic to expect people not to react to situations like this in a negative way when you've essentially anchored everyone's personal progression to completely random strangers on the internet. It's one thing to keep a cool head in any singular incident but I'd imagine a lot of the people getting banned for being "toxic" are exposed to that same situation over and over and over and over for hundreds or thousands of hours and they just can't stomach it anymore. I'd rather they just keep chat-related offenses to chat-related punishments, I.E. chat mutes. People shouldn't be losing money and all their time/effort over being a human being.
> [{quoted}](name=Sõsuke Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Nj1Ekb1E,comment-id=00030003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T12:09:39.120+0000) > > I'm not sure what you mean by "same amount of bans to any offenders then?" Are you asking why they wouldn't give the same bans to DIFFERENT types of offenses? Or to different people committing the same offense? Yes, I meant the same amount of bans for any kind of offense, regardless of the person, severity or situation. If that was the case, I could understand that they don't care about someone's account at all, but it isn't. > And of course, one should always be introspective and work on themselves but I'd argue it's equally unrealistic to expect people not to react to situations like this in a negative way when you've essentially anchored everyone's personal progression to completely random strangers on the internet. That's understandable. But it's only unrealistic for players who actually cannot compose themselves. League is a toxic game, no doubt. And they should certainly try to improve, but it's not like Riot didn't try. There's the honor system and their "Teamwork" campaign for example. > It's one thing to keep a cool head in any singular incident but I'd imagine a lot of the people getting banned for being "toxic" are exposed to that same situation over and over and over and over for hundreds or thousands of hours and they just can't stomach it anymore. Again, it very much is on the player to compose themselves regardless of the situation. If those things happen over and over again, you'll have to learn to deal with it or stop. It's not like we could ever entirely get rid of trolling anyway. > I'd rather they just keep chat-related offenses to chat-related punishments, I.E. chat mutes. > > People shouldn't be losing money and all their time/effort over being a human being. I also don't think people should lose their invested money over trivial things. But if those trivial things accumulate to a large amount (as in 4 for League's case), you kind of missed the point of the punishments. If it was as easy to keep chat-related punishments to chat-related offenses, they'd have done it. They did try it for a while in earlier seasons, but players would eventually go to more gameplay related offenses once they received a permanent chat ban. So to avoid that, they instead get 4 chances to notice what they're doing is wrong. After all, what would profit Riot from perma-banning people for chat offenses instead of just muting them from the get go?
Raffyk (NA)
: Thanks for considering my point about that after I mentioned it. Appreciate it That's a pretty interesting idea, having DoT effects only be able to keep proccing the runes so many times until an ability or auto-attack gets used again. Perhaps something like Dot effects also proccing for less time than something like an auto-attack or ability as well? It seems silly to me that an overtime effect gets considered equal in proccing it when a champion could have walked away and been at their tower while that happens. Thanks for your comments friend. Good luck with your games.
If Riot tries to balance it as a bruiser keystone AND manage it for DoT as well, they'll run into problems at some point. I like the idea of less procs from spells/shorter time from DoT. I guess there is hardly anything better than a rune that gives you more damage over longer fights for DoT champs, that's why they buy Liandry's after all. Same to you, once doesn't see people coming together on the boards all that often ^^ enjoy your games as well!
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Nj1Ekb1E,comment-id=00030003,timestamp=2019-12-08T09:55:52.923+0000) > > Okay some of these answers here are just ridiculous. > > If Riot didn't care shit about your account you'd get banned for a single offense to just be safe and get rid of you. Is that the case? No, you get a second chance if you rage-int a game, even 4 if you just go berzerk in chat. Those are your chances to notice "hey what I'm doing isn't gonna work". It's on you to change your behaviour, just like it's your account. > > Then I always hear this "get banned for telling off griefers and trollers, cuz what they are doing is worse!" > a) you don't get to shittalk just bc someone else can't behave, it's your actions that you're responsible for. > b) how do you even manage to get banned _multiple times_ for that? Wtf are you telling those people? > c) what even is the point? Cool, you tell someone someone is inting. Now what? It doesn't matter if they are reported 1 or 9 times, Riot stated that themselves. What do you get for calling them out? It's not like they'll get punished any faster. > > Text offenses are easier to detect and people don't get why and get vocal about it, thats why those bans are much more common on the boards. Why would someone who inted 20 games write a post about how it's unfair? > > Is the system perfect? No. Thats why an optimized Tribunal should return to aid the algorithm. This is kind of a dishonest premise to suggest. League of Legends wouldn't exist if they banned anyone for first-time offenses. That isn't an act of altruism. They want to make money and exiling practically every person on the planet from the game the moment they so much as look the wrong way in chat would make quick work of that enterprise.
> [{quoted}](name=Sõsuke Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Nj1Ekb1E,comment-id=000300030000,timestamp=2019-12-08T10:07:20.108+0000) > > This is kind of a dishonest premise to suggest. > League of Legends wouldn't exist if they banned anyone for first-time offenses. > > That isn't an act of altruism. > > They want to make money and exiling practically every person on the planet from the game the moment they so much as look the wrong way in chat would make quick work of that enterprise. I guess that's another reason for them to do so that just goes hand in hand with each other. But why wouldn't they give the same amount of bans to any offenders then? Likelihood? And even if that was the only reason, it still gives you multiple chances to notice and better yourself.
: [Image Link](https://imgur.com/a/h9FYYvK) Right after being promoted? ..._for the eighth time in a row, right after being promoted a division or league?_ I'm starting to think the people who deny it are wearing the tin, not the people who notice the problem. Of course, this'll probably be removed by mods because apparently saying someone's donning a tinfoil hat is okay so long as it's in favor of Riot but not when it's in favor of an unfortunate reality.
Idk if it's a problem on my end or boards, but I don't get anything from that link, just random imgur galleries. I'm not in favour of Riot. I'm just telling you that not everyone is against you. It's ridiculous to think, otherwise there wouldnt be any players that could actually climb. With or without 1000s of games.
Raffyk (NA)
: As stated in my post and other comments, I agree that Conqueror is too strong right now and needs to be nerfed in a better way than is being done. I purposely stated in my post that I wouldn't be addressing how to do that because that is a different conversation than fixing Urgot from the random and unneeded nerf, albeit a conversation I would be interested in having outside of the context of Urgot. Personally, I still think one of the biggest problems is how much more AP it gives, because on champions with range and low cooldowns it really does become the biggest damage increase of any keystone, something that I do not think is intentional. I think making it much harder to generate stacks and maintain them (I.e giving 1 stack per ability and 3-second duration) would be a better way to accomplish that so that AP champs that need the rune can still use it while stopping some of the AP spam abuse it is currently offering.
My bad, I skipped your talk about conqueror for that matter ^^' As for the ap > ad amounts, since the rune is mostly used/supposed to be for champs with extended fights, 1 stack per spell makes sense. Perhaps you could also make DoT refresh the timer a limited amount of times then.
: I've been restricted multiple times in the past, I'm honor 3 now. But let me tell you, as someone who only has 1 account and put a lot of time and money into. I was actually scared to open my games to play because I wondered every single time, is this the moment I lose my account? Did too many people dislike me last game and report me? Riot doesn't realize or doesn't care how much this can affect people. I almost lost my account for telling off trolls and griefers, I've learned now just to let them troll. I can't imagine how many other people have given up on league or have just broken down because of this. And Riot does NOTHING. And this community makes the problem worse by not understanding what is right and wrong.
> [{quoted}](name=Yordle Gunner,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Nj1Ekb1E,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-12-07T21:39:56.140+0000) > > I've been restricted multiple times in the past, I'm honor 3 now. But let me tell you, as someone who only has 1 account and put a lot of time and money into. I was actually scared to open my games to play because I wondered every single time, is this the moment I lose my account? Did too many people dislike me last game and report me? > > Riot doesn't realize or doesn't care how much this can affect people. I almost lost my account for telling off trolls and griefers, I've learned now just to let them troll. I can't imagine how many other people have given up on league or have just broken down because of this. And Riot does NOTHING. And this community makes the problem worse by not understanding what is right and wrong. Okay some of these answers here are just ridiculous. If Riot didn't care shit about your account you'd get banned for a single offense to just be safe and get rid of you. Is that the case? No, you get a second chance if you rage-int a game, even 4 if you just go berzerk in chat. Those are your chances to notice "hey what I'm doing isn't gonna work". It's on you to change your behaviour, just like it's your account. Then I always hear this "get banned for telling off griefers and trollers, cuz what they are doing is worse!" a) you don't get to shittalk just bc someone else can't behave, it's your actions that you're responsible for. b) how do you even manage to get banned _multiple times_ for that? Wtf are you telling those people? c) what even is the point? Cool, you tell someone someone is inting. Now what? It doesn't matter if they are reported 1 or 9 times, Riot stated that themselves. What do you get for calling them out? It's not like they'll get punished any faster. Text offenses are easier to detect and people don't get why and get vocal about it, thats why those bans are much more common on the boards. Why would someone who inted 20 games write a post about how it's unfair? Is the system perfect? No. Thats why an optimized Tribunal should return to aid the algorithm.
klin537 (NA)
: That's actually disgusting. I honestly can't believe riot is like this. Like, shouldn't it be the opposite? You'd think inting and trolling would get you punished but it's _name calling_ that gets bans. That's ridiculous. Unfortunately it isn't likely that anything will be done about this.
> [{quoted}](name=klin537,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Nj1Ekb1E,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-12-07T22:03:02.348+0000) > > That's actually disgusting. I honestly can't believe riot is like this. Like, shouldn't it be the opposite? You'd think inting and trolling would get you punished but it's _name calling_ that gets bans. That's ridiculous. Unfortunately it isn't likely that anything will be done about this. It's not one or the other. You get banned for both. One is just much easier to detect and thereby more common. If someone else breaks the rules, you don't get a pass to do it yourself in response..
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EtdJO92x,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T09:14:06.379+0000) > > Then again, Riot can't predetermine what champs with what respective winrate will be picked by whom. So how would it even be possible to rig the game? > If someone has a 70% winrate on 1 champ and loses enough on other champs to make his general winrate <50% you still can't just accuse it of being rigged by general winrate matching. Yes they can. And they do. Their matchmaking clearly does things like; Match you with enemies that regularly main your counters. A simple op.gg lookup proves this. Make you 1st/2nd pick to get countered Match you Vs enemy junglers that typically pick champs you're weak Vs. There's all kinds of statistically BS at play here. Someone at RIOT clearly designs MM with certain intentions. By using a person's MMR and champion counter lookups matches and be weighted heavily in favour of a desired outcome. This isn't rocket science anyone with half a brain can see the patterns here. 140 champs but then you see the same champs 4 games in a row and they're not even the broken ass ones like akali or zed? Even if you broke that down by champion roles into choice limitations of say 10 it's still something stupid like 10x10x10x10 chances of it happening over 4 games. Fixed matches exist to keep you within your MMR bracket. That's why you have MMR. It's what the system 'deems' your skill value that dictates the potential for a match win or loss through these weighted games. Wake up please.
Out of your 10 last games, you played against 10 different champions. Out of your 10 last games, you played against 9 different jungle champions, Hecarim appearing twice. One of those Heca players played him regularly. Can't say how "weak" Garen is against Hecarim, but you tell me. 3 of those people played their champs "regularly", Urgot, Darius and Vayne (if you want to count ~30-40 games out of 100+ as regular). I'm not that familiar with matchups for Garen, but looking at winrates he doesn't seem to struggle against any of them immensly, even though Vayne should be quite tough. Correct me if I'm wrong. So not only did you get all different champs against you, none of them were actual mains of counter matchups for your champion. Also none of your enemy junglers could've been systematically put against you. Again, it's quite hard to predetermine what people will actually pick. A lot of those players in your games play many different champions in their respective roles. If you are just playing one and the same champion, it's gonna be obvious you'll see counterpicks to exactly your champion quite often, especially if they are picked after you. Tbh to me it sounds like someone who's spent thousands of games in ranked, playing a lot of different champions with a 4x% winrate except for your mains, who's had a 48% winrate over 1.6k games last season alone. You may take off your tinfoil hat.
Garson211 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gz6UvPHg,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-12-07T09:45:25.911+0000) > > Urgot is an individual case. A general conqueror nerf is needed. If Urgot is hit too hard he can be compensated. No no you thinking like riot,something is op so lets nerf it for everyone insted of script it to (range champ healing reduced to dunno 5% not 15%) or just simple range champs cant use conqueror ezez oh and i forgot. Why its giving more adaptive ap and less ad? Wtf?
Except.. Conqueror is probably the strongest rune in the game atm? By far? It's pretty good on everyone rn, so the numbers should be reduced for all, in a general nerf. Not just ranged for that matter. Ranged exclusion would fuck Urgot even more, what? It's also not good to exclude ranged entirely, simply make it harder for them to stack/maintain the stacks. It gives more AP than AD, because AD is also increasing AA damage.
Yenn (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9cwY8P5n,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T09:29:42.891+0000) > > How is that worse? > Since when is the most strategical summoner spell worse than "MuH tRuE dAmAgE" The jungle can't influence your lane. If you run Ignite and pick up an early kill, the jungle isn't in a position to try to stop you and recover the lane. You just go unchecked and snowball out of control. There's no need for Teleport if the jungle is too weak to 1v1 or 2v1 you, and you can eventually just run down the enemy team with a 4+ level advantage.
Yes, that is true for games where people don't know how to play safe and/or how to roam successfully with tp, that's why ignite is the better choice for most of soloQ. That's what I said. It's stronger and because of it's bland "deal damage over 5s" design _worse_ than the global mobility tp provides. In pro play you see a lot more tp than ignite. I'd much rather have people play competently with tp than smack 1/5 of my hp as true damage on me every 3 minutes.
Raffyk (NA)
: The Ranged Conqueror Change is an Unbalanced and (Near)Game-breaking Nerf to Urgot
Urgot is an individual case. A general conqueror nerf is needed. If Urgot is hit too hard he can be compensated.
Revech (NA)
: The point is with side minions clashing at the same time as lane minions neither team would be offering a leash. In General for most jg champs a leash is a luxury, not a necessity.
From a clear perspective it's a luxury to be faster. Considering it's meta and the enemy team is certainly getting a leash as well, you'd be in a disadvantage if you didn't get one. That makes it a necessity to keep up with the enemy. He's not wrong.
: not entirely. solo laners have more pressure this season. you'll see less ignite and more teleports, and that's far worse. a million times over far worse
How is that worse? Since when is the most strategical summoner spell worse than "MuH tRuE dAmAgE"
: I'm going to put it like this: statistics are reliable because they don't lie. You lose 20 LP on a loss, meaning it takes 2 dodges to lose equal LP and, unlike losing, dodging doesn't nuke your MMR. A 30% winrate over 50 games Silver on my team? Dodge unless there's a 70% winrate Silver on my team (as 20% is the variation from 50% (the ideal) between the two numbers.) A 45% winrate team across the board, playing champions they don't play? Dodge. A 45% winrate team playing their 45% winrate over 30 games champions? Why dodge that? It's a 5% uncertainty rating because you average out the winrate of your team and compare it to 50%, which is supposedly the ideal. If you're someone with an above-50% winrate, then you just add your winrate to the total number and divide it by 5. Me on Sona, for example, results in a net (50%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 66% = 266 / 5 = 53.5%) winrate if all things are equal. This is also why I'm almost 100% certain that Riot's system is rigged in some way. Random chance can include super unlikely things like having 4 AFKs on your team, but on the other hand it also at a 55% winrate would only end with a loss-streak of more than 3 individual games in a row 9.1125% of the time. If you up it to four games you'd only lose that many in a row 4.100625% of the time. Up it to five games and you'd only lose that much in a row a mere _1.84528125% of every 5 games._ It gets exponentially smaller. Evidently, that really is not the case. The number of people consistently displaying or reporting their massive loss-streaks & win-streaks seriously go against the mathematical facts. Conveniently, such people also have maintained a 50% winrate over a long period... which tells me that it is, indeed, forced even if just in a subtle way. Especially with all the smurfs and griefers recently, like wtf? Edit: if you want a super interesting factoid, there's only a 0.00032% chance that every player has (increased by 0.00000000025% per player who hasn't, somehow) experienced a loss-streak for only two games. Mathematics are fuckin' _insane,_ aren't they?
Then again, Riot can't predetermine what champs with what respective winrate will be picked by whom. So how would it even be possible to rig the game? If someone has a 70% winrate on 1 champ and loses enough on other champs to make his general winrate <50% you still can't just accuse it of being rigged by general winrate matching.
: Can SR Evelynn's Charm have the moan Added on to it?
klin537 (NA)
: i agree with this. The tribunal wasn't just about efficiency, it was about giving the community more say in things. With both you would get the [supposed] efficiency of the algorithm and the sense of empowerment that the tribunal gives. They'd get the best of both worlds
It doesn't even have to be just for individual contribution, even if that's a great point. But you can also improve the algorithm by first hand testing of thousands of players.
: As a late game scaling champion, he should have to choose between maxing Q for damage early game and skirmishing, or E for waveclear. He shouldn't get the best of both worlds so early into the game.
That doesn'r sound bad imo. Perhaps by making the E spread damage fixed to his E instead of Q and increase it with E level. That is, if number changes can't balance him in his current state
Artican (NA)
: Riot's Focus Has Shifted
I'll be happily spending my time playing the teased mmo once it's being released. But League is getting really stale without gamemodes, decent events and new champs being the only shakeup because they just become meta as soon as they are released.
: One of the biggest issues with the idea of bringing back the Tribunal to deal with trolls and intentional feeders is that players are sorely unreliable at discerning legitimate trolling/intentional feeding; people will eagerly vilify someone for simply underperforming, since they'd rather push blame on someone "intentionally" ruining their game rather than face the possibility that they might have been a factor in their own loss. To that end... > ...its rare to go more than 2 games without having these type of individuals in a game. I really doubt that you're dealing with trolls or intentional feeders nearly every other game. It's extremely unlikely that you'd legitimately run into trolls and the like _so_ frequently, and even if it were the case, one would think you would take a break and wait for another time to play. > How is "this" so called algorithm more efficient than tribunal? Well, let's start with the obvious. The Tribunal required players to function, and not many people actively cared to weigh in on Tribunal cases. Whereas the IFS doesn't need people to review and deliberate and vote on people's behavior - it just receives a report, reviews the behavior, and punishes accordingly. On top of that, not needing people to review the behavior means that the IFS is infinitely faster than the Tribunal could've ever hoped to be. The Tribunal was slow as all unholy hell (not helped in the least by the low player participation) and built up a massive backlog. The IFS works through far, far more cases than the Tribunal did and in much less time. And the Tribunal at one point had to be incentivized through Influence Point rewards for reaching a majority vote - and that panned out terribly, with people simply mass-voting to punish for the IP gains. The IFS avoids that inaccuracy and the need to be incentivized, because it's programmed to just work. > Should tribunal make a comeback? Frankly, no. The Tribunal was iceboxed for a reason, and it's an outdated, inefficient system. And in regards to trolling and intentionally feeding cases, I would much prefer an automated system that errs on the side of caution than a system that allows players to decide whether or not something is trolling/feeding. The system we have right now could certainly be much better at detecting trolling and intentionally feeding, but it's certainly better than what we'd have if we let players decide.
Why not have both? Even if it was for only a short period of time, you could a) actively help as a player to make league a less toxic game b) compare accuracy of both systems and c) be more precise in judgement through multiple viewpoints. I doubt that incentivising would be a problem.. simply give rewards based on accuracy (again compared with the algorithm _and_ other players) not quantity. Obviously an algorithm would be faster, that's why it exists.. but why not have players play a role and give them a chance to help make league a better game? Doesn't have to be just one of both. I'm sure they could also optimize the algorithm based on accurate player judgements.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BU4n2hOr,comment-id=0000000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T13:06:50.534+0000) > > Because the item itself is unhealthy. Once they buy the item these champions are problematic. Why balance their winrate around an unhealthy item, which has been deemed so bad, it got removed from the main part of the game. So, SR can have items ARAM doesn't but not the other way round? What kind of bs logic is this?
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BU4n2hOr,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T15:03:55.910+0000) > > So, SR can have items ARAM doesn't but not the other way round? What kind of bs logic is this? Why would you want unhealthy items in another gamemode for the sake of having them somewhere? Aram has the Guardian items instead of Doran's
Rokuroú (EUW)
: Can we get a report button outside of lobby?
While it sounds like a good feature, I wouldn't be surprised if we never see something like this. If people are willing to just straight run it down for no reason whatsoever, you'll surely find someone to write an algorithm to just cycle through names and flood incoming reports with random accusations. Perhaps per match history could work, but even then.. how often do you check your match history because of a feeder after a game. If you want to report someone.. just do it right after the game.
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=hEj8naPN,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T11:13:53.293+0000) > > Maybe Vayne's determination sort of "ruined" it for Eve to feed of her? Maybe, as you suggested they don't need to feed off of humans all the time, she didn't need it at the time? Just wild thoughts to make it sound somewhat reasonable, idrk. > > Any kind of additional lore would be appreciated! yeah tbh if {{champion:9}} becomes a demon with his VGU i hope with it they'll do like what they did with {{champion:266}} and bring the whole lot of them at least a minor update to lore if not individually than at least hopefully as a collective "demon" species but these are indeed just hopes
That would be very interesting indeed, but so far Fiddle isn't considered a demon, is he? He's an unearthly being, completely different from anything else Runeterra has seen. Also he doesn't have any real objective afaik, but they'll probably give his lore some life with his rework. We'll have to wait and see ^^
Salron (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BU4n2hOr,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-12-05T10:38:09.360+0000) > > Wtf? > It was removed for a reason, why keep it in another part of the game? What's the point? Because literally none of the SoS users are an issue in aram even WITH the item Why remove it and make them worse?
> [{quoted}](name=Salron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BU4n2hOr,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-05T12:16:56.895+0000) > > Because literally none of the SoS users are an issue in aram even WITH the item > Why remove it and make them worse? Because the item itself is unhealthy. Once they buy the item these champions are problematic. Why balance their winrate around an unhealthy item, which has been deemed so bad, it got removed from the main part of the game.
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=hEj8naPN,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-12-05T10:51:13.286+0000) > > As to why Eve doesnt just kill Vayne.. > > Look at Thresh's lore. He's been told to take everything from someone's life to see them wither in pain and anguish to collect their soul, when they give up on life. > Looking at her interaction with Thresh she clearly admires exactly that, so perhaps she would do the same or something similar? Play with her prey and make them suffer indirectly. Which also hints and further mental capabilities which isn't really portrayed by what she actually does outside of "I let one orphan go because it might be fun to play with my food" Also there is a slight difference in that Thresh tortures people solely because he gets a sick kick out of it where as Eve does this with the added effect of feeding, judging from Tahm Kench it doesn't seem completely necessary to feed constantly (at least off of humans alone), and while I have no idea if this extends to not eating other things (I'd assume they do), I don't see why she suddenly got the idea "well yeah let me let one go" it's very uncharacteristic and I hope it gets explored and expanded upon in the future
> [{quoted}](name=CaptainAntiHeroz,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=hEj8naPN,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-05T11:06:44.963+0000) > > Which also hints and further mental capabilities which isn't really portrayed by what she actually does outside of "I let one orphan go because it might be fun to play with my food" > > Also there is a slight difference in that Thresh tortures people solely because he gets a sick kick out of it where as Eve does this with the added effect of feeding, judging from Tahm Kench it doesn't seem completely necessary to feed constantly (at least off of humans alone), and while I have no idea if this extends to not eating other things (I'd assume they do), I don't see why she suddenly got the idea "well yeah let me let one go" it's very uncharacteristic and I hope it gets explored and expanded upon in the future Maybe Vayne's determination sort of "ruined" it for Eve to feed of her? Maybe, as you suggested they don't need to feed off of humans all the time, she didn't need it at the time? Just wild thoughts to make it sound somewhat reasonable, idrk. Any kind of additional lore would be appreciated!
: What is Evelynn's lore?
As to why Eve doesnt just kill Vayne.. Look at Thresh's lore. He's been told to take everything from someone's life to see them wither in pain and anguish to collect their soul, when they give up on life. Looking at her interaction with Thresh she clearly admires exactly that, so perhaps she would do the same or something similar? Play with her prey and make them suffer indirectly.
: stop complaining. would you rather have them put it back in SR? no? then zip it. SOS is perfectly fine in ARAM.
> [{quoted}](name=Inkling Commando,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BU4n2hOr,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-05T06:05:34.504+0000) > > stop complaining. would you rather have them put it back in SR? no? then zip it. SOS is perfectly fine in ARAM. Wtf? It was removed for a reason, why keep it in another part of the game? What's the point?
Comentários de Rioters
: > [{quoted}](name=Trump4Prison2020,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ArMqcsn8,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-12-04T18:15:40.119+0000) > > What does "ok, boomer" mean to you? I know what it means and personally it means nothing to me. I have no reason to jump onto mimicry when I know the intent of saying it. So why feel entitled to say it when you know what you're implying?
> [{quoted}](name=GeminiRune,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ArMqcsn8,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-04T18:49:35.767+0000) > > I know what it means and personally it means nothing to me. I have no reason to jump onto mimicry when I know the intent of saying it. So why feel entitled to say it when you know what you're implying? You couldn't have said less in a comment. What _does_ it mean? Dismissing someone because you ran out of arguments. Make someone realise they are overreacting. A stupid saying with no meaning other than joking about someone. And not even being offensive at that point either. So where does it cross any line at all
: > [{quoted}](name=ZackTheWaffleMan,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=6Qbjk2Zz,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2019-12-03T21:12:02.835+0000) > > it isn't. the counterplay to juggernauts is "don't let them get into melee range 4Head" Yup. So “out range them” is only counterplay if they are melee. Got it. Bias confirmed.
"Out ranging" is a given advantage of being ranged over melee, it's not counterplay. In other words, you are automatically not getting into their range if your own range allows you to stay further away.
: Every new champ released after S7 has been total failure.
Pyke has been the epitome of terrible and onesided design. Should never have been released, only 2nd worst to Zoe's one dimensional pokefest.
: > [{quoted}](name=iiGazeii,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=loMVvWT8,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-03T21:46:08.000+0000) > > The defensive options are {{item:3858}} {{item:3854}} You get a little bit of AD/AP, but mostly health, and the minion execute helps thin the wave and secure cannons when you can't be aggressive. those are for tanks not enchanters. The coin had Ms and sustain which helped enchanters keep up with there teammates and have enough mana to stay in lane applying buffs when needed.
Now they are for enchanters. Also ranged champs can execute minions, if you don't want to play aggressive. Mana reg/cdr was removed so it's no longer a lvl 1 spamfest. You are now allowed to buy other supp items (mana reg for enchanters) earlier, but not lvl 1. You can still apply buffs when needed, just not off cd.
: Yes and they pay each other to frick to make more minions to get into lane.
Prostitution among minions is a serious problem You'll eventually notice hookers in your games, it's the ones who randomly get stuck in the t1 turret.
: Can you put a list of Gemstone skins you're releasing just like what you did to the Prestige skins
Ever since Vayne the champs who got gemstone skins were the kind that didn't get too many other skins/aren't among the most popular champs in the game (except maybe j4 debatable). So if you main say Yasuo or Akali, you'll get skins, just probably not gemstone ones. Your best bet is to just save up to 10 and then spend the ones you get additionally.
: Please rethink what bust damage is supposed to be and should do in game.
Tbh since preseason they limited the max game time to elder spawn. Whoever gets it wins the game, have yet to see otherwise.
: > [{quoted}](name=iiGazeii,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xoeENQAG,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-03T16:19:19.851+0000) > > The healing on the new E has more that doubled to tripled at max rank, and the cooldown is less than half of one charge of her old E. Her healing output has the potential to be astronomical, but you need to hop out and expose yourself to keep your mana up. Key statement. At max rank. So in late game. In a game where late game doesn't exist.
Considering all the buffs E max doesn't seem too bad. So lvl 9 isn't late game, even lvl 13 isn't rare.
Kuro SF (NA)
: support items should ONLY nerf gold UNTIL COMPLETED
> [{quoted}](name=Kuro SF,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=NwKXVd6e,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-12-03T07:12:57.095+0000) > > The new support items come with this wonderful (sarcasm) new feature... > > "Receive diminishing gold from excessive minion kills." > > Maybe Riot wants to stop damage carry supports? Hopefully, they're unhealthy anyway. But the diminished gold reward is a problem for all supports, so that should be removed once completed. Nobody would be able to exploit them in solo lanes up to that point anyway.
: So are we going to have to waste a ban slot on Senna for the next 3 years like Yasuo?
Increase W cd. Spammable in lane without much drawback, once it hits you get to at least halflife an enemy without commiting like with any hook champ/leona fishing for all ins.
: Well, Heimerdinger does the same with his E in his Dragon Trainer skin. Maybe these dragon eggs he throws are unfertilised. Moral grey zone?
If it's okay when kids do it at Halloween, it's gotta be a grey zone at least.
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mIzzAcY2,comment-id=00020003,timestamp=2019-12-01T11:51:35.753+0000) > > He's scratching 50% winrate with an extraordinary pickrate of 31%. As a champ that supposedly takes a lot of skill to handle well. > > The champ is blatantly overbuffed, nerf him already. He used to have a strong early and fall off late, now he's useful in any game, any matchup, at any time.. > > "BuT tRaCkErS kNiFe ReMoVeD" > {{item:2055}} anyone above iron knows those exist. Trackers was strong because you get 2 free charges. Thats 150 gold per **each** back. Say you recall at least 4 times and calculate that. And I also want to explain, the only reason Lee is above 47% winrate is because Riot is dumb and keeps buffing his R which is the lowest skill expression skill he has. aside from cripple.
Of course it was strong on him. That doesn't mean it's removal justifies his stupid Q range buff and R damage increases. Control wards just keep him at the power strength of trackers, WITH the additional compensation buffs..
: Because he is not in every game. warwick (increased 10 placements in terms of pickrate and still rising) and ekko is. Stop making stuff up. And even if he is "popular" less than one in five can play at a average level. He is barely consistent in performance at all. Edit: To prove my point how Lee and his inflated newbie playerbase is irrelevant trivia. I'll show you the most picked junglers and their winrates. https://imgur.com/a/1n5eLZc People are actually picking to hunt and KILL Lee Sin players this patch. How the hell are you supposed to duel Ekko, Olaf, Reksai, Elise and Kha. warwick with Lee.
He's scratching 50% winrate with an extraordinary pickrate of 31%. As a champ that supposedly takes a lot of skill to handle well. The champ is blatantly overbuffed, nerf him already. He used to have a strong early and fall off late, now he's useful in any game, any matchup, at any time.. "BuT tRaCkErS kNiFe ReMoVeD" {{item:2055}} anyone above iron knows those exist.
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Iz5jZTIm,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-11-29T20:55:10.508+0000) > > I'd say it also depends on the likeliness for people to buy the skin. Ahri is very popular aside from mains. I know a lot of people who think "oh that new skin is nice, I'ma buy it", not because it's for their most played champ, but rather because it's an appealing skin. If a lot of people, even aside of mains and people who usually play Ahri buy her skin, it's definetly gonna be more profitable than releasing a skin for Ornn. It's just speculation, but I'd say those who play Ornn might not have bought his skin, compared to 1 out of the 14? that Ahri got. > > But yea, favouritism is ass, especially if a champ with 1 single skin gets pushed aside by the next half naked pretty barbie doll in line. shes obviously not 2% is not "very popular" this is just riots quite clear bias and favoritism
> [{quoted}](name=Tiamat Taric,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Iz5jZTIm,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-30T05:47:27.206+0000) > > shes obviously not 2% is not "very popular" this is just riots quite clear bias and favoritism You don't have to actively play a champ to buy a skin for them.
: > [{quoted}](name=The JigSAW,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Iz5jZTIm,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-11-29T16:16:33.983+0000) > > I like Ornn, but the truth is it makes more business sense to put out Ahri skins because she has a loyal fanbase willing to pay for them. Its not fair, but in business you appeal to the largest possible group to make money and right now Teemo, Ahri, even godawful Yasuo have enough fans to warrant more skins. say both champs are mained by 1 million players, now add 2% more to ahri, that's only 20k thats fuck all that's nothing compared to the 1 million. Riot have no base in their choice for an ahri skin over Ornn there's almost no difference in the player base because of the sheer size of players this game has in the 1st place this just proves riots own bias and favoritism towards champs and skins not the players
> [{quoted}](name=Tiamat Taric,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Iz5jZTIm,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-11-29T16:28:07.136+0000) > > say both champs are mained by 1 million players, now add 2% more to ahri, that's only 20k thats fuck all that's nothing compared to the 1 million. Riot have no base in their choice for an ahri skin over Ornn there's almost no difference in the player base because of the sheer size of players this game has in the 1st place > > this just proves riots own bias and favoritism towards champs and skins not the players I'd say it also depends on the likeliness for people to buy the skin. Ahri is very popular aside from mains. I know a lot of people who think "oh that new skin is nice, I'ma buy it", not because it's for their most played champ, but rather because it's an appealing skin. If a lot of people, even aside of mains and people who usually play Ahri buy her skin, it's definetly gonna be more profitable than releasing a skin for Ornn. It's just speculation, but I'd say those who play Ornn might not have bought his skin, compared to 1 out of the 14? that Ahri got. But yea, favouritism is ass, especially if a champ with 1 single skin gets pushed aside by the next half naked pretty barbie doll in line.
Comentários de Rioters
: >Riot promotes leaving games and inting, while cracking down incredibly hard on speech and AFKing from their own bugs So...How do they simultaneously punish AFK and not punish AFK at the same time? Are they punished or not?
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HfgEOzXQ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-11-29T07:26:04.338+0000) > > So...How do they simultaneously punish AFK and not punish AFK at the same time? Are they punished or not? So he has something to complain about. _Something_ has to be injust.
: > [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-11-29T09:01:36.290+0000) > > If someone's hitting you, just put on a bandaid and go away right? > > It's a bandaid fix, not your justification to act like an idiot. If someones hitting me, I punch back 10x as hard.
> [{quoted}](name=LightswornLance,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hmBhweAR,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-11-29T09:15:02.390+0000) > > If someones hitting me, I punch back 10x as hard. Congrats, you got yourself banned as well.
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Thingamajig,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=V4NBY7UX,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-11-29T09:00:57.475+0000) > > https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rClNZLXSKA8/maxresdefault.jpg > > please fuck off > > if you turn off your brain and die in a situation where you shouldn't even be then yuo are inting > telling me im abusing you for calling you out on your mindless actions is straight next level bullshit > > i lost a won game yesterday because my lee inted > we had a 4v2 and he decided to nexus turret dive the fed ahri that was 1 shotting him regularly throughout the game > > all his previous deaths were not ints > but at the end when the game was won > him going in and dying instead of protecting the turret pushing WAS AN INT > it wasn't a bad play > a Diamond player should NOT be playing in such a r%%%%%ed manner > and since that play lost us the game i did report him for inting > > im not saying he will be banned for it > but it was a concious INT on his part > and we all even the enemy called him a dirty fucking inter > so please gtfo with your abuse logic It's because of people like you who deteriorate the term from "_intentionally_ dying to help the enemy/put your team behind" to "anyone who dies in any manner that I don't approve of" why calling out for it is considered punishable.
: 10th Anniversery Annie
> [{quoted}](name=ll Gryphon ll,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=ghAbdZnY,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-11-29T03:29:24.384+0000) > > A huge beemo walking around would also be great. {{champion:117}} BEWARE OF THE BUMBLEBEAR!
Exibir mais

floo

Nível 392 (EUW)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão