: taking bets: which will riot fail to support more, tft or clash?
The correct answer is full deletion of extra game modes, followed by "we couldn't stop smurfs in clash", then "just buy little legends and enjoy the slot machine gameplay of TFT"
Manxxom (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TI5sBrAf,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-15T22:42:33.912+0000) > > Seeing as you are another assassin, you roam and kill other lanes, and if Zed dares to try and interact with you drop a fat outplay shroud. not a fat outplay shroud. a T H I C C outplay shroud.
> [{quoted}](name=Manxxom,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TI5sBrAf,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-12-15T22:56:35.908+0000) > > not a fat outplay shroud. > a T H I C C outplay shroud. Akali lost any and all thicc in her VGU
Mc Raton (NA)
: Is botting your account to 30 and then selling it to smurf bannable ?
Account selling as a whole is a punishable offense, bot leveled or not.
Mártir (EUW)
: Why dont people, build defensive items?
Has to do with Riot believing that everyone deleting everyone is balanced, fun to play, and good for anyone who doesn't know wtf they're doing.
: how many skins do yall have
152, 51 of those are legacy. I also have 50 chromas. And I've spent less than $1000, closer to 700 or 750 if I recall correctly. Although that's also over the course of the 10 years I've played.
Reya8888 (NA)
: Automated PERMABAN off of 1 single game in 2 weeks (READ THE LOG!)
If it was a permaban, then there's one of two reasons: 1. You used a zero tolerance phrase to get to a 2 week suspension 2. You persisted with chat offenses beyond 2 separate chat restrictions into a 14 day suspension After a 14-day suspension, any offense no matter how light will result in a permanent ban unless you go for dozens of games without any offense at all.
Bultz (NA)
: Why is Poro King now random champions?
URF for me was ruined two fold. Random champions made it somewhat easier to avoid the tryhards. Riot's balancing made a lot of champions more broken than ever before. So even picking my choice champions, it was painful to deal with when it last came out. It's at a point where I can't stand to play URF, random champions or not.
: > [{quoted}](name=Taric the Gay,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=PaHThqBN,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-12-13T23:20:12.662+0000) > > Clearly a sign of PR misdirection. Take the focus away from their misogynistic office workplace debacle. > > http://www.auplod.com/u/pdolua802d6.png So if a man has a better resume than a woman they should hire the woman instead for "muh diversity!"?
> [{quoted}](name=Neeko eats puss,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=PaHThqBN,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-13T23:29:01.208+0000) > > So if a man has a better resume than a woman they should hire the woman instead for "muh diversity!"? That's what some people want since the man had the "privilege" required to become more qualified.
Ehhhh (EUW)
: BEFORE YOU BUY CHAMP SKINS CHROMAS FOR 300 TOKENS
For whatever reason, they think a 1350 skin + single Chroma is worth only 300 tokens when an epic level skin variant is all the way up at 2000. I pointed that out during Worlds and people got mad.
: With the new mecha skins coming out I feel like this girl deserves it the most
As long as she addresses Valor as "Laserbird" or similar (in slight reference to a well-known Decepticon) and he hugs her chest when not deployed, I'm all for it.
: Level Up Capaules are unfair
Yeah, level up capsules are definitely unfair. RNG on capsules means I can get a 4800/6300/7800 champ shard at any time. RNG on S rank chests means I can get a 4800/6300/7800 champ shard at any time from a limited reward. Why should my S rank chest ever be equivalent to a level up capsule? I can get a level up capsule by playing AP Talon in bots. I can't get an S rank chest except against other players and by either playing great myself or by being queued with someone playing great.
Gehco (NA)
: Good heavens! This is beyond ridiculous!
They already had Project Leona. Why did they need to give her Mecha? Between the 3 chosen for Dragonslayer skins, Olaf and Diana can both fit in. Diana isn't as good because of her kit but otherwise I can see it. Trundle just feels shoehorned in.
: > [{quoted}](name=Arcade Lulu,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ELmzvLtT,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-11T08:33:07.243+0000) > > It's hard to detect because the system can't just look at a game and see them inting > Feeding isn't the same thing as inting tho. Feeding isn't punishable, playing badly isn't punishable > Soft inting and soft trolling is even harder to detect. How can the system know what someone's intentions are? Are they purposefully misplaying or are they just bad? > Someone may also be preforming badly because they are playing a new champ or a role they are not familiar with > > With toxicity it's easier to just give the system detect words etc, so it'll easily find toxic people. But you can't just give the system a specific score or a kda that will make it detect trolls and inters, it's just not possible right now > > If someone goes 0/18 in a 20 minute game with mobi boots etc, then yeah sure, that's easy to see and detect. But what if someone goes for example 4/9? Doesn't look like inting, maybe they soft inted, got tilted because their team etc and decided to give the enemy team a few kills? Maybe they were just having a bad game but were still trying their best? Maybe they are not familiar with the role or the champ and are learning which is why their score isn't the best. So many different scenarios > > But yeah, if you have a good idea how the system can detect inters and trollers better, please tell us. I'm sure riot would like to know too if someone is constantly having poor games where it appears they are feeding then yes they need to be punished by preventing them to play. The whole point is to stop people from ruining others experiences why is it ok to have someone who is constantly playing poorly, whether they are bad or not, in a game with someone as opposed to someone that you now have the amazing power to just mute? You can't mute someone feeding or correct that. But you have all the power to just mute someone if they are being toxic.
> [{quoted}](name=DaimondRageShade,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ELmzvLtT,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-11T08:48:53.852+0000) > > if someone is constantly having poor games where it appears they are feeding then yes they need to be punished by preventing them to play. The whole point is to stop people from ruining others experiences why is it ok to have someone who is constantly playing poorly, whether they are bad or not, in a game with someone as opposed to someone that you now have the amazing power to just mute? You can't mute someone feeding or correct that. But you have all the power to just mute someone if they are being toxic. Okay, let's just sort out what you've said here. Someone consistently playing badly for any reason should be punished. Playing worse than this arbitrary threshold over 5 games will result in an immediate and severe punishment. No, it doesn't matter if you're exploring a new lane. No, it doesn't matter if you're practicing a new champ. No, it doesn't matter if you're brand new to the game. No, it doesn't matter that your teammates threw you under the bus to avoid this system. None of that matters because playing badly is inherently ruining the game for 9 other players. You tell me how that's gonna do anything other than kill off any ability for League to get new players as well as systematically kill off the player base. Also, the mute function exists because toxic players do. But rather than putting the blame on the toxic players for not changing their habits which are affecting the match, the blame is put on everyone else. It's like you've put the blame for the toxic player's behavior on those receiving it, not the player actually behaving badly in the first place.
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:52:33.765+0000) > > Okay, hypothetical situation #1: > > I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? > > Hypothetical situation #2: > > Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical 1 doesn't actually apply because you still need to own the champion to earn the chest (it can't just be on free rotation). New players can only get as many chests as they own champions. They are getting less over the course of the year because they can't just unlock a new champion every week. This also comes with the assumption said players can even earn S ranks quickly enough over a variety of champions. In the second case, that player is almost guaranteed a chest per week because that champion restriction is no longer there. New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. Seriously, drop this "It's still once per week! We aren't breaking the hard limit" Because neither you nor OP are taking an objective look at how much easier it is to earn a weekly chest and how it affects new players in a way that Riot won't approve of.
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002,timestamp=2019-12-11T17:21:00.892+0000) > > If players play for the rewards in the current system, they are basically forced to grind on champions they would prefer not to play in order to get the rewards. This results not only reduces the enjoyment of the player but also increases how "grindy" the game feels, as the player is now playing for the rewards instead of the rewards coming organically as a result of play. Grindy games where the player feels forced to do things a certain way increases player frustration and lowers player satisfaction. > > Do you think frustrating players is more profitable? If you're really good at a champion, generally speaking you enjoy playing the champion enough to just pick him/her up for a few games just for an S rank. If you enjoy playing the champion, it doesn't feel as grindy. If you don't have extra pressure to perform on a different champion, you will enjoy it more. If you have skilled friends to queue with, it will be more enjoyable. At no point is extra effort actually required because you can just stick to what you know and practice what you've already practiced. It is more than reasonable to assume that any given player can score an S rank on 2-3 different champions, the trick is finding those champions.
Bvlee (NA)
: Regarding a permanently banned account
Probably not. You can contact support and ask, but it's unlikely you'll be allowed to recover the account.
: Fuck Marry Kill League of Legends Edition
F: {{champion:22}} Too cold to be good for much more than a one night stand. M: {{champion:21}} Strong woman who will bring home the bread? Yes please! K: {{champion:157}} Seriously, otherwise he's gonna hurt himself on all the edge he has. Repeatedly.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=kAZqZ2b9,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-08T22:10:19.833+0000) > > Let's not forget that Iron was supposed to take up a chunk of the Bronze players to better represent the total distribution. I mean, the entirety of Bronze V turned into various degrees of Iron
> [{quoted}](name=ZackTheWaffleMan,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=kAZqZ2b9,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-12-10T20:05:06.583+0000) > > I mean, the entirety of Bronze V turned into various degrees of Iron That's why there's less people in Iron division than Diamond+, right? It didn't do the job it was supposed to do because Riot didn't flipping enforce it.
afmghost (NA)
: The Summoner's Code is a dead contract
If the Summoner's Code was a dead contract, we wouldn't expect players to keep their flame out of the game. That said, if Tribunal comes back, it should only be for gameplay offenses. The bot will be much faster and almost as accurate when it comes to chat logs so I don't see the point in replacing it.
: If you feed that doesn't necessarily make you a troll
Doesn't this imply that I'm a troll for not immediately calling for a surrender after playing badly?
: If you were given the job of making a new passive for Kog'Maw, what would you make it?
I would remake him into a melee carry. Passive: Ravenous Hunger Kog's basic attacks deal 1/2/3% of the target's maximum health in true damage as long as he is not full (resource bar like rage). Each attack fills Kog's belly (resource bar) 4%, tripled when attacking champions and large monsters. Deteriorates slowly while not in combat for 6 seconds. Q: Nom! Kog leaps a short distance to attach into an enemy champion, large or epic monster, gnawing on them for 2 seconds. Deals physical damage. Increases fullness by 10%. While attached, the target cannot attack Kog (anyone else can attack him though). W: Gunk Shot Launches a ball of mucus forward, splashing in a cone behind the first enemy hit. All enemies hit take physical damage and are slowed. Costs 10% fullness. E: Hunger Pain When Kog attacks an enemy while below half fullness, he deals bonus damage and recovers extra fullness. This may be activated while above 50% fullness to use 25% of fullness to launch a ranged attack that snares the target. R: Bile Barrage Requires at least 70% fullness. Over the next 5 seconds, Kog spews acidic bile ahead of him. (Think Rumble Flamethrower but straight line ahead). Cannot attack while channeling. Fullness is consumed over the duration. Deals extra damage based on total fullness when cast.
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:52:33.765+0000) > > Okay, hypothetical situation #1: > > I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? > > Hypothetical situation #2: > > Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical 1 doesn't actually apply because you still need to own the champion to earn the chest (it can't just be on free rotation). New players can only get as many chests as they own champions. They are getting less over the course of the year because they can't just unlock a new champion every week. This also comes with the assumption said players can even earn S ranks quickly enough over a variety of champions. In the second case, that player is almost guaranteed a chest per week because that champion restriction is no longer there. New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. Seriously, drop this "It's still once per week! We aren't breaking the hard limit" Because neither you nor OP are taking an objective look at how much easier it is to earn a weekly chest and how it affects new players in a way that Riot won't approve of.
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-09T16:10:21.420+0000) > > #Finally we're getting to the bottom of this. > New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. > > You think i am asking Riot to remove every champion restriction, making every player unlock 50 earnable chests from the start, regardless of owned champions! > > That's not, AT ALL, what i was describing all this time. > I want "1 chest per OWNED champion, per season" restriction removed so that players CAN PLAY THEIR OWNED CHAMPIONS and literally earn chests just by getting S- ranks, while still being restricted with their owned champions in terms of how many earnable chests they get per season. > > If you own only 16 champions, the current total chest limit of your account is 16. > If you buy 3 more champions, the new limit is 19 (+1 chest per new champion). Unless you buy more champions, that limit isn't going up. Owned champions are essentially used as TOKENS to increase the chest cap of any account to maximum of 50 (since there's only 52 weeks in a year). > > #Playing unowned champions doesn't earn anyone a chest, like the system right works. This restriction is fine. I've never made an argument to remove it, once. > > I'm the only one here being objective, it seems. > Making chests earnable by consistent performance on any OWNED champion instead of consistent performance on multiple OWNED champions, is MARGINALLY "easier". The limits on how much you can earn per week, and S-ranks requirement still exists. People who own less than 50 champions, get an imposed chest limit proportional to their OWNED champion pool, per season. > > There is no downside to this simple and minor change. > The system works exactly like it does now but is more consistent. > > ##Simple math here: > > 1. Riot doesn't increase the number of chests in the system. > 2. Players get more consistent rewards, even across the maps. > 3. Players who don't own many champions, can't abuse the system. > 4. Players still have to earn S-, which is for good performance so no free loot. > 5. Every player can earn chests at the same rate (1 per week). Disregarding that tiny bit of semantics on owned champions... You are enabling all players to consistently earn 50 chests EVERY SINGLE SEASON ALL PLAYERS GET TO EARN THEIR CHESTS ON ANY CHAMPION THEY OWN WITHOUT FAIL SO LONG AS THEY CAN CONSISTENTLY ACHIEVE S RANK GAMES BY CREATING THIS CLEAR CONSISTENCY FOR ALL ACCOUNTS, ALL ACCOUNTS WILL INEVITABLY GAIN MORE PAID CONTENT FOR FREE. RIOT WILL LOSE MONEY AS A RESULT. RIOT WILL THEN IMPOSE A NEW LIMIT BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST "MARGINALLY EASIER". We're done. You refuse to acknowledge that your system is simply too consistent for delivering content and PRETEND that Riot will not impose a new limit as a result of the massive hemorrhaging of money that your system would give them.
Trias000 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=u2mLK4Bu,comment-id=00020000000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T23:02:37.948+0000) > > Fallacious logic. Your odds are the same regardless. My odds in a game where my team is 5k gold down are the same as in a fresh one?
> [{quoted}](name=Trias000,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=u2mLK4Bu,comment-id=000200000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-09T17:03:35.562+0000) > > My odds in a game where my team is 5k gold down are the same as in a fresh one? You queued up for one game. It has a chance to go badly. It went south. Queuing up for a new game does not remove nor change that chance for a bad game to happen. You are still potentially subject to a game that can go just as badly or even worse.
Trias000 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=u2mLK4Bu,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2019-12-08T02:55:44.079+0000) > > Poor logic. > What you're doing is throwing out a lottery ticket you already bought because you don't like the odds. But you can only have one ticket at a time. So when you throw this one away, you can buy a new one with much better odds.
> [{quoted}](name=Trias000,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=u2mLK4Bu,comment-id=0002000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-08T22:29:54.657+0000) > > But you can only have one ticket at a time. So when you throw this one away, you can buy a new one with much better odds. Fallacious logic. Your odds are the same regardless.
: > [{quoted}](name=Der Lindwurm,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BQOfMv04,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-12-08T18:31:46.399+0000) > > I got flamed for doing that in the past, but maybe it'll become a thing now. it's the only champ I have mana troubles on. her Q burns allot of mana fast.
> [{quoted}](name=Inkling Commando,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BQOfMv04,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2019-12-08T21:17:09.386+0000) > > it's the only champ I have mana troubles on. her Q burns allot of mana fast. With how Manaflow Band works, her Q is less of an issue than her E. I run Manaflow on her without too much trouble. Sometimes I have to fall back onto using her E to farm it. I also tend to be less liberal in my Q casts now that I can't just stack mana regeneration runes on her.
: Riot Please revert rank distribution
Let's not forget that Iron was supposed to take up a chunk of the Bronze players to better represent the total distribution.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:41:17.847+0000) > > Now remember that there are new accounts that exist. These can be due to smurfs, bots or actual new players. > > A new account is now able to earn tons of free skins without paying a cent. All it needs is those S ranks. Doesn't need to own the champion or do it on a different one. Just easy chests. > > Riot is going to lose money because of that restriction being removed. There is no way you can argue differently on that. Riot will, in turn, impose new limits on chests whether it be reducing how many can be earned per year or what can be earned from the chests. > > **That is the problem the proposed system faces. Riot will lose money from new accounts because of the restriction being dropped.** > > I can't tell if it's purposeful ignorance at this point. Okay, hypothetical situation #1: I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical situation #2: Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. How many chests per week do I earn?
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:52:33.765+0000) > > Okay, hypothetical situation #1: > > I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? > > Hypothetical situation #2: > > Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical 1 doesn't actually apply because you still need to own the champion to earn the chest (it can't just be on free rotation). New players can only get as many chests as they own champions. They are getting less over the course of the year because they can't just unlock a new champion every week. This also comes with the assumption said players can even earn S ranks quickly enough over a variety of champions. In the second case, that player is almost guaranteed a chest per week because that champion restriction is no longer there. New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. Seriously, drop this "It's still once per week! We aren't breaking the hard limit" Because neither you nor OP are taking an objective look at how much easier it is to earn a weekly chest and how it affects new players in a way that Riot won't approve of.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:07:10.533+0000) > > Look, if you're going to just dismiss what I'm saying with "you're wrong" and "that's not how it works" without actually reading what I'm putting on the damn screen, then I'm done. > > Snip. There is already a fixed amount of awards you can earn... Whether you are playing a one-trick and you get that chest in one game, or you're playing a new champion and it takes you a whole week, you earn the same number of chests per week, which is 1.
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:16:23.304+0000) > > There is already a fixed amount of awards you can earn... Whether you are playing a one-trick and you get that chest in one game, or you're playing a new champion and it takes you a whole week, you earn the same number of chests per week, which is 1. Now remember that there are new accounts that exist. These can be due to smurfs, bots or actual new players. A new account is now able to earn tons of free skins without paying a cent. All it needs is those S ranks. Doesn't need to own the champion or do it on a different one. Just easy chests. Riot is going to lose money because of that restriction being removed. There is no way you can argue differently on that. Riot will, in turn, impose new limits on chests whether it be reducing how many can be earned per year or what can be earned from the chests. **That is the problem the proposed system faces. Riot will lose money from new accounts because of the restriction being dropped.** I can't tell if it's purposeful ignorance at this point.
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: At this point, i've deconstructed this whole problem and my idea to a simple arithmetic of 1 + 1 and you're trying to convince me that the result is not 2. Your logic doesn't make sense because you keep returning to the same issue of "people will be earning more rewards", one that i have already addressed and that there is no more chests in the system than it's already possible to earn. >Riot put in the extra hoop to jump through because they didn't want any players to be getting massive amounts of free content. That is what happens when you straight up remove restrictions. How can i already have 44 chests earned, out of a possible 50 in this season? The season's still not over so that means a few more weeks (few more chests) + 2 in the bank i already have. Do you believe i am somehow cheating the system when Riot themselves have put this yearly limit to every account already? I am not an outlier of a player. Everyone can already earn 50 chests per season. >Because some players are that damn consistent with specific champions (regardless of the dynamic grading) and would **quickly max out their earned chests above other players.** #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. _**No player would be able to earn chests at a faster pace than the other player!**_ I can wait for 4 weeks and earn 4 chests in one sitting - the same thing i can do now. The other player can earn 1 chest per week. If i wait more than 4 weeks, i lose 1 chest per week because i cannot earn any more than 4 at one time. If the other player has been earning them consistently and keeping his chest bank clear, he's going to be ahead of me - as he should. No player gets to earn their loot faster than any other player. No player can farm 50 chests at once. > **Riot would start losing money**. and would need to reduce paid content you're getting. #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. Riot wouldn't lose any money because there wouldn't be ANY MORE LOOT to give out, other than Riot's already imposed limit of 50 chests per season and 1 chest per week timer. Removing the champion restriction DOESN'T ALLOW PLAYERS TO GET ANY MORE CHESTS THEN THEY ALREADY CAN. The system doesn't allow players to "farm" chests nor does it give them out for free. The limit is still 50 chests per season, per account (per owned champion). The rate at which people earn the chests is still the same (4 in the bank + 1 per week). The requirement to earn chests through S- ranks is still the same.
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T17:45:11.473+0000) > > At this point, i've deconstructed this whole problem and my idea to a simple arithmetic of 1 + 1 and you're trying to convince me that the result is not 2. Your logic doesn't make sense because you keep returning to the same issue of "people will be earning more rewards", one that i have already addressed and that there is no more chests in the system than it's already possible to earn. > > How can i already have 44 chests earned, out of a possible 50 in this season? > The season's still not over so that means a few more weeks (few more chests) + 2 in the bank i already have. Do you believe i am somehow cheating the system when Riot themselves have put this yearly limit to every account already? > > I am not an outlier of a player. > Everyone can already earn 50 chests per season. > > #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. > > _**No player would be able to earn chests at a faster pace than the other player!**_ > I can wait for 4 weeks and earn 4 chests in one sitting - the same thing i can do now. > The other player can earn 1 chest per week. If i wait more than 4 weeks, i lose 1 chest per week because i cannot earn any more than 4 at one time. If the other player has been earning them consistently and keeping his chest bank clear, he's going to be ahead of me - as he should. > > No player gets to earn their loot faster than any other player. > No player can farm 50 chests at once. > > #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. > > Riot wouldn't lose any money because there wouldn't be ANY MORE LOOT to give out, other than Riot's already imposed limit of 50 chests per season and 1 chest per week timer. Removing the champion restriction DOESN'T ALLOW PLAYERS TO GET ANY MORE CHESTS THEN THEY ALREADY CAN. The system doesn't allow players to "farm" chests nor does it give them out for free. > > The limit is still 50 chests per season, per account (per owned champion). > The rate at which people earn the chests is still the same (4 in the bank + 1 per week). > The requirement to earn chests through S- ranks is still the same. Look, if you're going to just dismiss what I'm saying with "you're wrong" and "that's not how it works" without actually reading what I'm putting on the damn screen, then I'm done. Here is what you're conveniently ignoring: - Consistency of earning rewards of paid content for free under your system - No two players are equal - Your system still favors one trick players over others because of consistency - Higher consistency of earning paid content for free results in less being given out because Riot is still a business One player cannot earn more chests than another player. All you're changing is which players have an easier time getting chests. And your system, without a shadow of a doubt, blatantly favors those who are one trick players. If Riot finds that too many players are earning paid content for free, they're going to cut down how much paid content is given out. BY STRAIGHT UP REMOVING A RESTRICTION TOWARDS THE EARNING OF PAID CONTENT, YOU HAVE MADE IT EASIER TO OBTAIN PAID CONTENT AND RIOT WILL BE QUICK TO REDUCE HOW MUCH IS GIVEN OUT THE INSTANT IT CUTS INTO THEIR PROFITS. And, news flash, that will happen immediately. It doesn't matter if the paid content is partially RNG locked because the Emporium is a thing so excess Blue Essence from chests can still be used on otherwise paid only content. That restriction is what keeps players from earning all of their chests in a season. For a new account with a handful of champions, this means that said account will not be overloaded with free stuff quickly due to the champion restriction. Riot would VERY quickly lose money from new/smurf accounts and immediately impose new, harsher limitations on how much content is earned. In short, I'm saying you're being exceptionally short sighted about this. Riot still wants their money and handing out tons of free content with extremely loose restrictions is not going to help them make more. That is going to be the long term penalty of your system if Riot were to implement it. You're free to believe otherwise. That doesn't mean said belief is founded in the deeper logic beyond simple math.
KingYusa (NA)
: I think Riot is way too strict when it comes to punishments
Obviously a chat restriction was too light of a punishment for you to stop breaking the rules. Are you really surprised that continuing to break the rules resulted in a more severe punishment?
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: #Let me be extremely simple in my logic here **Explain to me the difference between these hypothetical players:** _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player2 (focused)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player3 (OTP)** earns 1 chest per season. **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. **Player1 (diverse)** and **Player4 (new)** are the ONLY ONES which the system treats the fairest (and equally). Are **Player2 (focused)** and **Player3 (OTP)** not trying as hard to earn their S- grades? **Player3 (OTP)** is by far treated the worst as he gets close to nothing, barely getting ahead of **Player5 (inactive)**, who's currently an inactive account! **There is no fairness in this system with "1 chest per owned champion" restriction.** Players who play equally good, but diversify their picks to a lesser degree, get proportionally less rewards! >The more players play the game and earn their grades, the system dynamically aggregates the data and moves the line accordingly to the average performance of said champions. The more popular the champion, the stricter the line for a good grade is. The less popular the champion, the more loose the line is. > >The system cannot be cheated by "easy" grades from more familiar champions because the grading is dynamic and it constantly integrates new data from players. --- #REMOVING THE "1 CHEST PER OWNED CHAMPION" RESTRICTION **Same example, FAIR results:** _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player2 (focused)** earns 50 chests per season. **Player3 (OTP)** earns 50 chest per season. **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. **Player1 (diverse)**, **Player2 (focused)**, **Player3 (OTP)** ALL HAVE the SAME number of chests, according to their number of S- grades. **Player4 (new)** gets 10, ACCORDING to their number of S- grades. **Player5 (inactive)** gets 0 because they didn't play the game at all. ##THIS IS A FAIR SYSTEM! >A system that rewards players according to their capability of getting the desired results (S- grades on champion performance). Since the rewards aren't personalized per champion, this restriction doesn't make sense except **TO FORCE** players to diversify their picks. This system works exactly as the above one, there are NO MORE rewards (chests) being issued to the already imposed maximum limit of ~50 chests per season. The only thing that this change insures is that there are NO LESS rewards (chests) being issued. The timing and quantity of rewards doesn't change, the CONSISTENCY of issued rewards is the only thing that goes up. The minimum requirement for chest eligibility is to have one chest available and S- rank or higher grade. "Specific champion" requirement is an obstacle that doesn't have anything to do with performance grading. It should be general performance grading, not champion specific.
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T22:51:09.704+0000) > > #Let me be extremely simple in my logic here > > **Explain to me the difference between these hypothetical players:** > _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ > > **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. > **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. > **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. > > **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player2 (focused)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player3 (OTP)** earns 1 chest per season. > **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. > > **Player1 (diverse)** and **Player4 (new)** are the ONLY ONES which the system treats the fairest (and equally). Are **Player2 (focused)** and **Player3 (OTP)** not trying as hard to earn their S- grades? **Player3 (OTP)** is by far treated the worst as he gets close to nothing, barely getting ahead of **Player5 (inactive)**, who's currently an inactive account! > > > > **There is no fairness in this system with "1 chest per owned champion" restriction.** > Players who play equally good, but diversify their picks to a lesser degree, get proportionally less rewards! > > --- > #REMOVING THE "1 CHEST PER OWNED CHAMPION" RESTRICTION > > **Same example, FAIR results:** > _(Let's assume all of the players have 50 owned champions and can maximize their earnable chests to 50 per season.)_ > > **Player1** plays 50 different champions and earns 50 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player2** plays 10 different champions and earns 10 x 5 S- ranks during the season. > **Player3** one tricks a single champion and earns 1 x 50 S- ranks during the season. > **Player4** is new + inconsistent (learning), earns 10 x 1 S- ranks during the season. > **Player5** hasn't played League for the entire season and he has no account activity. > > **Player1 (diverse)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player2 (focused)** earns 50 chests per season. > **Player3 (OTP)** earns 50 chest per season. > **Player4 (new)** earns 10 chests per season. > **Player5 (inactive)** earns 0 chests per season. > > **Player1 (diverse)**, **Player2 (focused)**, **Player3 (OTP)** ALL HAVE the SAME number of chests, according to their number of S- grades. **Player4 (new)** gets 10, ACCORDING to their number of S- grades. **Player5 (inactive)** gets 0 because they didn't play the game at all. > > ##THIS IS A FAIR SYSTEM! > > This system works exactly as the above one, there are NO MORE rewards (chests) being issued to the already imposed maximum limit of ~50 chests per season. The only thing that this change insures is that there are NO LESS rewards (chests) being issued. The timing and quantity of rewards doesn't change, the CONSISTENCY of issued rewards is the only thing that goes up. > > The minimum requirement for chest eligibility is to have one chest available and S- rank or higher grade. "Specific champion" requirement is an obstacle that doesn't have anything to do with performance grading. It should be general performance grading, not champion specific. Riot put in the extra hoop to jump through because they didn't want any players to be getting massive amounts of free content. That is what happens when you straight up remove restrictions. If Riot went to your system, they would immediately cut down on all chests you could earn, probably down to one per month. Why? Because some players are that damn consistent with specific champions (regardless of the dynamic grading) and would quickly max out their earned chests above other players. Riot would start losing money and they won't allow that. I'm all for LOOSENING the champion restriction, just not removing it. I understand why Riot put it in place and you need to understand that Riot will reduce the paid content you're getting for free if it is too consistent.
Terozu (NA)
: Hey, as they say, "more than a handful's a waste". Jinx is the hottest girl in the game.
Jinx doesn't have enough to fill a finger's grip.
Bevdog101 (OCE)
: "Flat"
Considering Neeko has more boob than Jinx does (without transforming), I would say Jinx is flat.
AdamrCc (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Y26q1vGG,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-12-07T07:58:11.966+0000) > > No, we just expect you to not act like a monkey in chat over the fact something you can't control isn't going your way. I'd expect an adc main to say that. You're just trying to save your own ass because you adcs feed the most.
> [{quoted}](name=AdamrCc,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Y26q1vGG,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-12-07T08:58:21.722+0000) > > I'd expect an adc main to say that. You're just trying to save your own ass because you adcs feed the most. The point is that you're losing it over something you can't control and letting your in game chat reflect that. And from the looks of things, it's not simply "I'm fed up." Being consistently negative is what gets you punished. Not a one-off game where you finally snap. But then again, since you were so quick to attack me I don't think any of the above matters. You'll probably work your way through the punishment tiers. Then get permanently banned for your consistent behavior. Then blame Riot for the fact you chose to consistently be a raging jackass in chat despite multiple chances to turn it around.
AdamrCc (EUW)
: Match me with monkeys and expect me to be nice to them?
No, we just expect you to not act like a monkey in chat over the fact something you can't control isn't going your way.
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T23:23:10.435+0000) > > The point is that it's not easy to farm S rank chests with a single champ. > > I can consistently get A and S ranks on several Marksmen. Do I deserve to just spam them in SR and get my chests super easily in turn? I feel like i'm repeating myself a lot here. You can't spam earn chests because of the 1 chest per week timer restriction. Nothing i proposed chances the way you earn chests nor the rate at which you earn them. You still need an S- or higher and you still need to have a chest available on your account in order to bank it. Listing this champion restriction just makes earning chests consistent because you can play WHATEVER you want and if you get an S- or higher performance rank, you get a chest (if one is available per your own account's chest bank). Both ARAM and SR are covered by this change and no player is left behind. That's the whole point. This one less restriction makes it so that the system doesn't differentiate between any players or maps, everyone is equal. Riot themselves have set the pace of how much chests you can earn per season, there are no shortcuts. If you're consistent under this (right now) system, like i already am, my progress doesn't speed up one bit under the new one. If you're not consistent in earning S ranks on champions, you're not getting more chests than you're getting them now. This change is literally net neutral but it gives players more consistency because their picks don't matter, only their grade at the end of the game does. >Side note, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, S rank chests handing out champion shards (because they're Hextech not Masterwork) greatly invalidates the effort put into obtaining the S rank. Why should my S rank game equate to a lucky level up capsule? You're gonna have to ask Riot why this is the case. It could be just to make Masterwork chests a bit more expensive since they're dishing out only cosmetic content and not also champion shards. I don't like getting champ shards either from my chests but i've found a workaround to this problem by opening my chests 10 at a time (in a bulk). Yea, it takes more time to gather the chests and keys but at that point, i know i'm not gonna disappoint myself in getting a single champ shard and sit on that negative feeling for a week before i get to open another one potential disappointment.
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T02:00:15.904+0000) > > I feel like i'm repeating myself a lot here. > > You can't spam earn chests because of the 1 chest per week timer restriction. > Nothing i proposed chances the way you earn chests nor the rate at which you earn them. > You still need an S- or higher and you still need to have a chest available on your account in order to bank it. > > Listing this champion restriction just makes earning chests consistent because you can play WHATEVER you want and if you get an S- or higher performance rank, you get a chest (if one is available per your own account's chest bank). Both ARAM and SR are covered by this change and no player is left behind. That's the whole point. This one less restriction makes it so that the system doesn't differentiate between any players or maps, everyone is equal. > > Riot themselves have set the pace of how much chests you can earn per season, there are no shortcuts. If you're consistent under this (right now) system, like i already am, my progress doesn't speed up one bit under the new one. If you're not consistent in earning S ranks on champions, you're not getting more chests than you're getting them now. This change is literally net neutral but it gives players more consistency because their picks don't matter, only their grade at the end of the game does. Okay, for one, it DOES change how you earn chests because it is currently limited to one per champion and you have to go out of your way to get every possible chest you can in a season. Second, it just plain affects how easily you earn them. Anyone who can consistently earn an S rank on a champion is suddenly hugely favored by the system and anyone who can't consistently manage S ranks (either because they need to abuse meta or simply don't understand the game). So, no, the new system doesn't "balance out". It straight up favors players who are ahead of the game on specific champions, which is what I was trying to get across. The only group that's "net neutral" are those who go with friends to get S ranks. That's why I put up the new restriction on repeat chests for champions. Any player with consistently good gameplay on a single champ suddenly isn't hugely favored because they have to maintain that consistency. > You're gonna have to ask Riot why this is the case. > It could be just to make Masterwork chests a bit more expensive since they're dishing out only cosmetic content and not also champion shards. I don't like getting champ shards either from my chests but i've found a workaround to this problem by opening my chests 10 at a time (in a bulk). Yea, it takes more time to gather the chests and keys but at that point, i know i'm not gonna disappoint myself in getting a single champ shard and sit on that negative feeling for a week before i get to open another one potential disappointment. The short version is because Riot didn't update S rank chests when they moved from IP to BE. And Riot didn't care to because tons of players go "stop complaining about free stuff". And, frankly, it's disappointing no matter how you slice it because S rank chests are a heavily limited resource.
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: >However, each chest requires twice as many S ranks as the previously earned chest This is way worse. It's still excluding ARAM and is requiring exponential S ranks to earn same chests that you can at that point, easily earn from other champions if you simply decide to play with them. If anything, this feels like a punishment for playing the same champ, not the other way around. The point of removing per champion restriction is to allow players to simply worry about S- grades, not about diversifying their champion pool with S grades. Players shouldn't be forced to branch out unless they want to do so. This way, EVERYONE gets to earn chests no matter how they decide to play, even if you're a one trick pony. They get by far the worst deal out of this Hextech Loot. Even new players are cut out of the yearly chest earnings loop as they don't have many champions in their pool either. >If you have enough mechanical skill, the diversity requirement isn't so bad. Mechanical skill means very little on ARAM, considering i don't get to pick my champ at all. And the very idea that my random pick is viable depends on the enemy and my team comp. Also, mechanical skill means nothing if you get a champ like Tham, who's been gimped severely with nerfs. Nothing about him is good and he can just tank the damage. Too bad that doesn't count towards his score, the only thing that matter is KDA and minions, which champs like him cannot farm anyway unless they have an alternative build that works (AP or AD).
> [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-06T23:08:30.126+0000) > > This is way worse. > It's still excluding ARAM and is requiring exponential S ranks to earn same chests that you can at that point, easily earn from other champions if you simply decide to play with them. If anything, this feels like a punishment for playing the same champ, not the other way around. The point is that it's not easy to farm S rank chests with a single champ. I can consistently get A and S ranks on several Marksmen. Do I deserve to just spam them in SR and get my chests super easily in turn? > The point of removing per champion restriction is to allow players to simply worry about S- grades, not about diversifying their champion pool with S grades. Players shouldn't be forced to branch out unless they want to do so. This way, EVERYONE gets to earn chests no matter how they decide to play, even if you're a one trick pony. They get by far the worst deal out of this Hextech Loot. Even new players are cut out of the yearly chest earnings loop as they don't have many champions in their pool either. My solution still takes that into account and actually rewards mastery of a single champion. Why? Because if you can consistently get S ranks on a champion, then it's that much easier for you to grab chests with him/her. > Mechanical skill means very little on ARAM, considering i don't get to pick my champ at all. > And the very idea that my random pick is viable depends on the enemy and my team comp. Also, mechanical skill means nothing if you get a champ like Tham, who's been gimped severely with nerfs. Nothing about him is good and he can just tank the damage. Too bad that doesn't count towards his score, the only thing that matter is KDA and minions, which champs like him cannot farm anyway unless they have an alternative build that works (AP or AD). It matters a lot more than you might think. Sure, it can't guarantee you'll have the ability to score an S rank due to either team's composition. But it will make said S rank in ARAM much easier. I farm my S rank chests there because I am good enough to switch it up. That still doesn't change that the vast majority of my skill investment is in marksmen and mages. Side note, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, S rank chests handing out champion shards (because they're Hextech not Masterwork) greatly invalidates the effort put into obtaining the S rank. Why should my S rank game equate to a lucky level up capsule?
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: Why are Hesxtech Chests STILL tied to champions?
If you have enough mechanical skill, the diversity requirement isn't so bad. That said, I do believe it should be possible to earn chests multiple times per champion per season. However, each chest requires twice as many S ranks as the previously earned chest (with a maximum of 8 S rank games per chest). So it goes to 4 levels. 1 S rank, then 2, then 4, then 8. Anything above 8 is excessive yet 8 is not a small amount of gameplay. Players dedicated to a small pool of champions have an opportunity to demonstrate their consistent mastery of a champion. Players with general skill or skilled friends can still do the variety pack.
: Riot declares ally bots in PvE not their problem to correct
One, Moderator decision to remove the post (because they can't simply move it). Two, it isn't an actual bug so it's definitely in the wrong board.
: Did all of the old school forum goers leave? Is Jikker and Rift Herald Djinn the only two left?
: Ok in order for this game to be fixed we need to address the multiple problems that exist with this game, and with this in mind I'm going to list the problem and the possible solution to set problem, so here we go. 1) Extremely unbalanced champions.This game is over a decade old, now each season they basically try to change a ton of stuff but the thing they keep changing the most is the balance of the champions. And the problem is the WAY they change the balance. See they don't actually try to balance the champions all around, the way they do it, is they balance them in reference to other champions, which of course isn't a big problem when you have 40 champions but is impossible when you have 150+. So what is the solution to this problem? Well I've thought about this problem at some length and here is the solution I've come up with. It's not only impractical but impossible to balance this many champs against one another. So what could be done? They could flatten out every champion to literally the same starting stats. So at level 1 every champ in the game has the same damage, def, and speed. Now these stats with NEVER scale, and the reason is because scaling of base stats is one of the main things that breaks this game. So how will they differentiate? Instead of scaling on champs we will simply give them stats based on items, and maybe runes. This way everyone starts out even, and as the game progresses their builds will be their main factor. Now yes there are some obvious problems with this like what if one team pulls ahead and the other has less items, but honestly that's kind of the way the game is now, if one person pulls ahead items or no items currently they snowball into a win, so it wouldn't actually impact the current meta ideology, all it would do is finally balance out the drastic differences between balanced champs and broken champs. 2) Matchmaking, so riot has this thing where their matchmaking system is absolute garbage. As in it will put people that are clearly bronze with people who are plat. And for some reason they keep thinking that this system works well. It doesn't, it never has. So how do we fix this? Well, they did put a determination system in place now, a ranking system based on letters at the end of each match. And to that end if they can just fine tune that to place people who play similarly together that would be perfect. I think it can come a long way towards being better. The problem is they only seem to apply this system to ranked play. In norms and the like there seems to be no coherent system at all and that has to change. 3) The Punishment system, ok this is a HUGE issue. And the reason is because this game has progressively gotten worse in this regard. Now from season 1-3 they had people who would look over punishment systems and as a result a lot fewer players got punished or outright banned. From season 4+ they started trying out different system ranging from the tribunal to what we have now which is just autobot banning. And here's the problem with this. Autobots ban you and punish you for literally the smallest of infractions. And whats worse is even some of their "tips" on the loading screen are complete lies like this little gem "it's ok to trash talk but don't be toxic". That is a complete lie, if you trash talk in this game, it's immediately considered toxic and you will get punished and eventually banned for it. Another thing about this is that this is one of the most competitive games in the world. Made worse by the fact that unlike most competitive games every member of your team is relevant to you winning or losing, so when things go sideways there's a lot of anger and blame. And in this game they expect people not to be angry or blame anyone or they'll get banned for it. See the problem? They expect people to not react like people. So what's the solution. Ok here's the thing, in any competitive sport no matter what it is people will always lash out and name call, and be rude, and everything else. That is the nature of heated competition. If you act like a scumbag company and don't allow that behavior the only thing you're going to do is lose a good portion of your players and eventually people will quit playing your game. Which is exactly what's happening right now. They already have a mute button for everyone, they don't need a punishment system for chat, they never have. The only reason they have it in there is so they can ban accounts for talking so they have to remake a new account and potentially spend more money. So they actually shot themselves in the foot on this one. They should either remove the autoban bot for chat, or alternatively remove chat entirely, we already have pings we don't actually need a chat box.
> [{quoted}](name=p3tm4ster,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=wszGG6Ej,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-04T20:01:25.733+0000) > > Ok in order for this game to be fixed we need to address the multiple problems that exist with this game, and with this in mind I'm going to list the problem and the possible solution to set problem, so here we go. > > 1) Extremely unbalanced champions.This game is over a decade old, now each season they basically try to change a ton of stuff but the thing they keep changing the most is the balance of the champions. And the problem is the WAY they change the balance. See they don't actually try to balance the champions all around, the way they do it, is they balance them in reference to other champions, which of course isn't a big problem when you have 40 champions but is impossible when you have 150+. > > So what is the solution to this problem? Well I've thought about this problem at some length and here is the solution I've come up with. It's not only impractical but impossible to balance this many champs against one another. So what could be done? They could flatten out every champion to literally the same starting stats. So at level 1 every champ in the game has the same damage, def, and speed. Now these stats with NEVER scale, and the reason is because scaling of base stats is one of the main things that breaks this game. So how will they differentiate? Instead of scaling on champs we will simply give them stats based on items, and maybe runes. This way everyone starts out even, and as the game progresses their builds will be their main factor. Now yes there are some obvious problems with this like what if one team pulls ahead and the other has less items, but honestly that's kind of the way the game is now, if one person pulls ahead items or no items currently they snowball into a win, so it wouldn't actually impact the current meta ideology, all it would do is finally balance out the drastic differences between balanced champs and broken champs. > > 2) Matchmaking, so riot has this thing where their matchmaking system is absolute garbage. As in it will put people that are clearly bronze with people who are plat. And for some reason they keep thinking that this system works well. It doesn't, it never has. So how do we fix this? Well, they did put a determination system in place now, a ranking system based on letters at the end of each match. And to that end if they can just fine tune that to place people who play similarly together that would be perfect. I think it can come a long way towards being better. The problem is they only seem to apply this system to ranked play. In norms and the like there seems to be no coherent system at all and that has to change. > > 3) The Punishment system, ok this is a HUGE issue. And the reason is because this game has progressively gotten worse in this regard. Now from season 1-3 they had people who would look over punishment systems and as a result a lot fewer players got punished or outright banned. From season 4+ they started trying out different system ranging from the tribunal to what we have now which is just autobot banning. And here's the problem with this. Autobots ban you and punish you for literally the smallest of infractions. And whats worse is even some of their "tips" on the loading screen are complete lies like this little gem "it's ok to trash talk but don't be toxic". That is a complete lie, if you trash talk in this game, it's immediately considered toxic and you will get punished and eventually banned for it. Another thing about this is that this is one of the most competitive games in the world. Made worse by the fact that unlike most competitive games every member of your team is relevant to you winning or losing, so when things go sideways there's a lot of anger and blame. And in this game they expect people not to be angry or blame anyone or they'll get banned for it. See the problem? They expect people to not react like people. > > So what's the solution. Ok here's the thing, in any competitive sport no matter what it is people will always lash out and name call, and be rude, and everything else. That is the nature of heated competition. If you act like a scumbag company and don't allow that behavior the only thing you're going to do is lose a good portion of your players and eventually people will quit playing your game. Which is exactly what's happening right now. They already have a mute button for everyone, they don't need a punishment system for chat, they never have. The only reason they have it in there is so they can ban accounts for talking so they have to remake a new account and potentially spend more money. So they actually shot themselves in the foot on this one. They should either remove the autoban bot for chat, or alternatively remove chat entirely, we already have pings we don't actually need a chat box. None of your solutions are valid and your 3rd complaint lacks a lot of the context behind the "issue". Dealing with the first one is a massive wall of text issue that would make people think they're reading a novel. So I'm gonna skip that. I'll address number 3 first because I want to get that out of the way. Players being banned for consistently bad behavior according to a bot comes from several problems. First, the punishment was slow to be enacted during tribunal. Second, some players had a habit of spamming "punish" without actually reviewing the case. Tribunal punishments were often much tamer compared to now. Between the first and third point, players would stack up THOUSANDS of chat restricted games and not care because they would never actually be banned and still technically allowed to continue their disruptive behavior. So Riot changed the punishments to skip the middle man of "chat ban" and escalate further for players who absolutely refused to reform, all the way to a permanent ban. And this is why bots can get you permanently banned, because you were THAT consistent with your behavior of "lightest of infractions". The mute button exists because of toxic players. So it is not the responsibility of everyone else to mute the toxic player. It is there to make the match bearable to play because you agreed to play it from start to finish. Therefore it's a fallacy to say that the mute button is a reason to not ban players for their disruptive communications. Additionally, pings can only say so much. Creating a complicated ping system just slows it all down and hinders communication further. The competitive environment is not an excuse for the toxic behavior either. Acting out of frustration does not change whether or not said act is against the rules. What is expected is that you keep your frustration out of the chat. Not "don't be frustrated". There's a major difference and players shouldn't get a free pass for being assholes because of "mute", "competitive environment" or "lack of self control". Someone playing poorly in a PVP game is inevitable. Getting pissed off over it is never going to improve things nor will taking out your frustration on said ally. All that happens is reducing your chances to win. In regards to the grading system affecting your rank? Anyone can have a bad game. So should a consistently platinum player be instantly demoted to bronze for having a single game where he plays like a Bronze? It's not a simple matter. The team based nature affects the difficulty of your climb but matching by individual rating on a champion doesn't help matters since a champion isn't chosen until champion select, AFTER you've been matched with players and AFTER bans occur, at which point you could be stuck with champions you can't play well in roles you're not proficient at. There's simply no way to make personal performance a solid and reliable metric for affecting ranked matchmaking.
: ff should be 3 v 2 after 20.
I'm just gonna remind you that 3/2 is still almost a 50/50 vote based on a total of 5 voters. Do you think you deserve a surrender when 3 out of 6 players want to surrender? As Dusk said, you signed up to play the game. Stop whining because you didn't get the surrender you wanted.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T15:57:06.697+0000) > > Because Rengar could be full build from being fed with grievous wounds while Mundo was already very behind and possibly with zero armor items on top of the fact Rengar is designed to one shot targets from stealth. > > The Zed case isn't a big exaggeration anyway. He could still delete his target in one rotation without even using his shurikens because he doesn't need them while escaping anyway because of how his safety works. I literally gave you math on why your proposal that a lvl 7 zed can just E Q AA ignite a target to kill them (from full hp) is flat out impossible. Even if he sneaks in 2 additional autos (which is the max 3 autos he can do before his ult pops), he still wont 100-0 them, unless the laner is lvl 5 or something. If the enemy is smart and buys armor, youre going to need to land at least 2 qs and 2 autos to kill them. You havent reallyprovided a counter argument. Every assassin has some form of safety. Its not exclusive to Zed. Khazix has a reset in his jump after takedowns. He can jump back out. He has invisibility. Rengar can cleanse his and heal back his way up after one shottinf a squishy. He has camofaluge Katarina gives up safety fir high teamfight damage. She still has resets, but she has less safety than other assasins. Talon can escape over walls. He has invisibility, and is the best roaming assassin. In terms of raw mobility, he doesnt have a lot compred to other assasins, combat wise. Zed has 1 untargetablity, 3 blinks. In terms of raw mobility and target access he is S tier. He also has delayed damage, and the most counterply. Leblanc has invisibility and 2 dashes, 2 blinks, and hard cc. Akali has 3 potential dashes, and insibility. Fizz has untargetability which does not require a target. Also on a very short cooldown. He has hard cc, but I consider him more of a fighter than an assassin. Assasins have the tools to get in and out of a fight, while deleting their primary target. Thats their job. The counterplay to assassins, is to work on you positioning in teamfights. Also, a fed Rengar will delete tanks if they dont even have their tank items. But you can say that about any fed assassin.
> [{quoted}](name=MrSîsterFister,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T17:32:20.871+0000) > > I literally gave you math on why your proposal that a lvl 7 zed can just E Q AA ignite a target to kill them (from full hp) is flat out impossible. Even if he sneaks in 2 additional autos (which is the max 3 autos he can do before his ult pops), he still wont 100-0 them, unless the laner is lvl 5 or something. If the enemy is smart and buys armor, youre going to need to land at least 2 qs and 2 autos to kill them. You havent reallyprovided a counter argument. Yes, must be very smart for a marksman to load up on armor items. They don't need to do the one thing they're designed for (damage), just need to survive Zed! Rushing GA and sacrificing the damage spike they need is 30000 IQ! Mages aren't in a much better spot either. They are simply because they can rush Zhonya's against Zed which not only has armor but an active that can deny Zed the kill. That's still the only armor item they can reliably use. Your counter argument doesn't actually work. Additionally, you didn't put in that much math. You didn't even take into account his first item is going to be Duskblade, which WILL proc on his one AA for extra damage on his ult and help trigger electrocute prior, ALSO stacking onto his ultimate's damage. Electrocute deals a huge chunk of a squishy champion's health, at least 20% with no health items. And, again, a Marskman isn't gonna be rushing one of those except in really weird strategies. I can't think of any Marksman that would want to rush Black Cleaver unless they're massively behind, and at that point Zed's definitely pulling off easy deletions. > Every assassin has some form of safety. Its not exclusive to Zed. > > Khazix has a reset in his jump after takedowns. He can jump back out. He has invisibility. > > Rengar can cleanse his and heal back his way up after one shottinf a squishy. He has camofaluge > > Katarina gives up safety fir high teamfight damage. She still has resets, but she has less safety than other assasins. > > Talon can escape over walls. He has invisibility, and is the best roaming assassin. In terms of raw mobility, he doesnt have a lot compred to other assasins, combat wise. > > Zed has 1 untargetablity, 3 blinks. In terms of raw mobility and target access he is S tier. He also has delayed damage, and the most counterply. > > Leblanc has invisibility and 2 dashes, 2 blinks, and hard cc. > > Akali has 3 potential dashes, and insibility. > > Fizz has untargetability which does not require a target. Also on a very short cooldown. He has hard cc, but I consider him more of a fighter than an assassin. I said "with how his safety works". I wasn't saying jack shit about it being exclusive to him. > Assasins have the tools to get in and out of a fight, while deleting their primary target. Thats their job. > > The counterplay to assassins, is to work on you positioning in teamfights. The problem is that a lot of assassins have tools that allow them to ignore your good positioning. Kayn goes through walls, so you might need more wards to properly cover yourself. Zed can similarly ignore walls with his shadow. Talon uses walls for some of his mobility and can approach while invisible. Kha can use invisibility to prevent preliminary reaction. Rengar can stealth up and leap without being detected. Eve has a short detection radius and ignores wards almost entirely So, no, my counter play doesn't matter much when there's so much damage crammed in that an Assassin doesn't need to play as a high risk opportunist. Their job might be to delete a high priority squishy. They shouldn't be allowed to just do it with impunity. > Also, a fed Rengar will delete tanks if they dont even have their tank items. But you can say that about any fed assassin. And even if they don't end up deleting the tanks, Assassins still have the tools to evade or ignore them. Their job is meant to be high risk and high reward. The problem is that Riot crammed in so much damage that there's less risk for the same reward and defensive play (in an attempt to prevent snowballs) comes with a punishment in the form of towers being outright ignored because they can't protect you. Riot took a lot of the risk out for assassins. The only reason you don't see them in professional play is because teams actually work as teams in that environment.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T03:41:20.079+0000) > > Someone doesn't understand hyperbole for the purpose of making a point. You can undo your downvote now. Perhaps, why 99% of boards comments dont make sense. Because you Cant make apoint by exaggerating at all. Exagerrating = making incorrect claims of what actually happens in game. Hence why you don’t actually have a point. “Rengar just one shot me as full tank mundo”. Who would actually believe such an exaggeration?
> [{quoted}](name=MrSîsterFister,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T04:15:38.416+0000) > > Perhaps, why 99% of boards comments dont make sense. Because you > Cant make apoint by exaggerating at all. > > Exagerrating = making incorrect claims of what actually happens in game. Hence why you don’t actually have a point. > > “Rengar just one shot me as full tank mundo”. Who would actually believe such an exaggeration? Because Rengar could be full build from being fed with grievous wounds while Mundo was already very behind and possibly with zero armor items on top of the fact Rengar is designed to one shot targets from stealth. The Zed case isn't a big exaggeration anyway. He could still delete his target in one rotation without even using his shurikens because he doesn't need them while escaping anyway because of how his safety works. Either way, Riot pushes for these flashy deletions and calls it "fun to play" in a game meant to be "strategic and objective based". But Riot still pushed this sort of Call of Duty Hardcore TDM so even the tanks don't bother building like tanks.
: So like, is no one going to talk about aphelios?
I think he's complex for the sake of being complex while also being poor design by means of RNG reliance. The fact he's switching between 4 or 5 weapons, a rotation he can sort of manipulate at best, means he requires tons of planning and puts up a huge burden of knowledge on both the player and his opponents. Both of these are design choices that don't fit well in League. He feels like "Loot Crate the Champion" and it's not a comparison that should ever be made.
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-03T11:51:08.633+0000) > > Riot: "What do you mean you don't like being deleted starting at 7 minutes? You sure you don't like how Zed massively outplayed you by missing everything possible but still killing you from one auto, ignite, Electrocute and his ultimate?" Thats like, not even possible. Perhaps at lvl 16 yes, when his lethality and pen are maxxed out, at level 7, he only has one Lethality item, his ult does less damage than most ults (100% ad, 25% non true dmg dealt in past 3 seconds) In other words, you will usially see his ult do around 250 dmg lvl 1, assuming he lands a triple q and 2 autos. Lvl 16 ult, on a squishy with just e aa ignite electrocute, youll see it do around 800 dmg. But the premise of saying he can just E AA IGNITE eltrocute ti kill you, level 7, straight up bullshit.
> [{quoted}](name=MrSîsterFister,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-12-03T18:43:59.048+0000) > > Thats like, not even possible. > > Perhaps at lvl 16 yes, when his lethality and pen are maxxed out, at level 7, he only has one Lethality item, his ult does less damage than most ults (100% ad, 25% non true dmg dealt in past 3 seconds) > In other words, you will usially see his ult do around 250 dmg lvl 1, assuming he lands a triple q and 2 autos. > > Lvl 16 ult, on a squishy with just e aa ignite electrocute, youll see it do around 800 dmg. > > But the premise of saying he can just E AA IGNITE eltrocute ti kill you, level 7, straight up bullshit. Someone doesn't understand hyperbole for the purpose of making a point. You can undo your downvote now.
: You want mages to be useless if enemy picks a heavy tank? No thank you.
> [{quoted}](name=Farih Danh,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=coEiOqmh,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-03T13:20:52.017+0000) > > You want mages to be useless if enemy picks a heavy tank? No thank you. Implying that a single heavy tank being picked somehow denies a mage's ability to attack any of the other 4 targets. Implying that mages don't have tools to deal with heavy tanks Implying that mages have worse penetration items compared to Auto champs.
MarijaCarry (EUNE)
: Please give me just one non assassin patch
Riot: "What do you mean you don't like being deleted starting at 7 minutes? You sure you don't like how Zed massively outplayed you by missing everything possible but still killing you from one auto, ignite, Electrocute and his ultimate?"
: Trusted devices ...
Seems like a little more than a compromised account. It's possible your email or even your PC has been compromised.
: Daily reminder to those who complain about the lack of skins being released
I don't think it's a matter of how many skins are being released, but rather the variety of champions outside of the standard skin sellers group.
: Why do people not just forfeit ffs?!
You're gonna need to provide some evidence that your claim is the exact situation that happens consistently.
Exibir mais

Busty Demoness

Nível 203 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão