1amSandwich (EUNE)
: Just saying your argument is stupid, everyone plays to win in ranked. The only problem would be if they were trolling in which seeing as how you're having a tantrum over losing that's not the case. You might say otherwise if the smurf was on your team. Either way smurf or not they're still playing the game properly, you just don't feel like acknowledging you lost. Also seeing as how the others are saying using Draft works, tell me how many Draft/Normal games have you played with teammates having the same attitude as if it were ranked?
Are you delusional? Lmao. DO you just come on boards to argue? You're not even addressing what he's saying. Sheesh, comments like this are such a waste of time to read. "everyone plays to win in ranked" does not address anything about the issue. "I'm sick of LeBron James playing in highschool basketball games and making games unwinnable!" - A fair complaint "Your argument is stupid, everyone was playing to win! Stop throwing a tantrum because you lost, just suck it up!" - You Sheesh, you sound VERY unintelligent. Just saying it as I see it.
Im Dark (OCE)
: Did not receive random legendary skin for day 10 of anniversary
I had the same issue, but I figured it out! So, it will be mixed in with your skin shards. It will look exactly like a skin shard, but when you hover over it the text will say "skin permanent". I assume it did this because I received a legendary skin for a champion I didn't own so it put it with the skin shards. I have 58 skin shards and it was the very first one, yours probably will be the first one too. If not, just hover all the skin shards with a red dot under it (which indicates legendary) until you see the one that reads "legendary skin permanent".
Frikgeek (EUNE)
: It doesn't matter if it's every match or every 5th match, a system that uses lopsided matchmaking to force you towards a 50% winrate can't be done. For example the number of plat players is about half the gold players and the number of Diamond players is a 10th of the platinum players. If you used platinum players to unbalance gold matches you'd be unbalancing way more platinum players. Since you need at least one of both in a match but platinum players are way more rare you'd have to end up using the same ones multiple times. For example you'd end up with gold players having to be "balanced" every 10th match but that would mean pulling a plat player to do it every 5th match. Then those plat players are suddenly getting free wins from golds. Then you'd have to balance them out with Diamond players which are so rare you'd very quickly start using the same ones and you'd have to "balance" those out with master players which are an infinitely small part of the playerbase and can't ever cover all the diamond players with rising winrates. This is why it doesn't matter how large the playerbase is unless it's literally infinite. The ratio of players in each rating would remain the same and that's the core of your problem. You seriously need to start looking at this from the perspective of an algorithm for an entire playerbase rather than what happens in a few of your own games.
This is only true if that was the SOLE and only way League determines matches, and is the only way League tries to keep your w/l ratio even without any other variables. And also you're coming at it from a perspective of player ranks, not player skill. You're using ratio's from the rank distribution. If rank MORE ACCURATELY reflected skill then this may work... but the skill from s2 players can range from what some consider b2 should be, or what some would consider plat 4 should be. So a match can still be predetermined with players all within 1-2 ranks of eachother. You can easily have an unwinnable game where all the players range from s3-s1, or even s2-s1 or even s1-s1. I'm not saying this is how the system is designed by any stretch of the imagination, to make every game predetermined by match you up with players of wayyy higher rank. I'm saying predetermined matches are often the (likely unintentional) result of the matchmaker attempting to keep you W/L at 50/50. In case I have to define "unwinnable". I mean placing 5 players who are ALL worse than every single player on the opposite team; determined by not just how they performed during that game (which can vary and isn't an accurate reading) but by also just looking at stats/scores. People can say "get good", but anyone who says that is blatantly missing the point. Because sometimes I'd like for my team just to get bad so it would feel like a more competitive, rewarding game. I'll repeat, I don't use OP.GG a lot, only after games to have a simple explanation as to why this game felt like a bunch of low tier silver players in a plat game. I started smelling something fishy so I was curious. After a few weeks of seeing a trend, I posted this post as my conclusion.
Frikgeek (EUNE)
: >This post is about how it doesn't feel like I'm being matched with similar players within my a consistent/fair skill range It might not feel like it on a small scale. It might even be true for your last 10-20 matches which is an insanely small sample size compared to all league games played at your rating. But any sort of system that tries to force this onto everyone is literally impossible. You're experiencing recency bias and negative bias towards matches that were very unbalanced. There's no grand conspiracy, the matchmaker is actually extremely simple. Most of the imbalance you're experiencing probably comes from role compatibility. You keep saying there's some sort of additional system working behind the matchmaker to ensure you'll definitely win some games and lose others. This sort of system simply can't be done for a finite playerbase. All the matchmaker does is place you in a game with 9 other players of relatively similar predicted skill(MMR) and then arranges the teams while adhering to role compatibility and duoQ restrictions. And here's what actually affects MMR: Games won, games lost, and your uncertainty rating(aka K value for an Elo system). With a new or freshly reset( after a season ends) account you'll gain or lose huge amounts of MMR per game. Once the system is fairly certain in your skill rating you'll gain or lose much smaller amounts. Your KDR or overall winrate mean absolutely fuck all. If you play 2000 games with a 51% winrate you'll have 1020 wins and 980 losses for a total of +40. That's +40 games worth of MMR. Someone who played 100 games and won 70 while losing 30(70% WR) will have the same +40 games worth of rating and will be placed in the same game.
And I never said this is how every match is. Obviously it would be an impossible system to pair 5 players who deserve a loss and 5 players who deserve a win every match. Maybe that's what you were trying to say? Thought this was obvious.
: > [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d0000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-04T07:45:37.105+0000) > > Players winrates do spiral out of control, it's called a smurf account. > > Why are you being matched with masters at all if they're not in you or your duo's league? that's not right, sounds like the game weighted that game against you. Which is my point. > > You say it's "mathematically impossible" but I'm seeing not math, or even LOGIC to back it up. I think you're using the term wrong. I think you meant to say, "I don't think it's possible". > > And you claiming matches are so volatile, but also snowball quickly and become one sided fast are contradictory of each other. Smurf accounts don’t spiral out of control. They always regress towards 50% once they hit the correct mmr. Also, I didn’t bother outlining the logic because it is already being explained to you by other people in this topic. The key to understanding matchmaking is realizing that there are 10 players every game, not just yourself. There is nothing inherently special about your account, matchmaking treats every account the same way. As a result, the only way to maintain any semblance of balance in the hypersnowball meta we are in is for matchmaking to pull 10 players of the same skill (and average skill for duo queue). In any other model, such as the one which you are proposing, the inherent imbalance between both team would make snowbally even worse and lead to lopsided win rates of accounts that gets worse as we move away from 1200 elo. I would encourage you to reread some of the points brought up by other people here instead of just dismissing anything that goes against your own views. They will help you build a more complete idea of how matchmaking works and in turn make it obvious why a model like the one you are proposing is impossible to apply on a large scale.
Lol I'm done with you, there's no reasoning with you. You keep going to the "world revolves around you" notion, when I make no comment to even suggest this. Grow up, I'm not going to respond again. You keep making about in game mechanics and how every game is so random... but really stats prove otherwise. I understand "20 games" is a small sample size. I really don't understand your point, nor do I want to. You're just arguing to argue without proving any points. "Other people say what I said. I want even try to explain" Then gtfo of my post pls:) other people have it under control!
Frikgeek (EUNE)
: How does the system trends towards that? Aside from the natural result of being matched with and against similarly skilled players how does the system "trend" towards a 50% winrate more than is expected within standard skill deviation?
That's what I stated how the system SHOULD be, being matched with similar players. This post is about how it doesn't feel like I'm being matched with similar players within my a consistent/fair skill range. The matches feel pre determined due to that.
Frikgeek (EUNE)
: So what exactly is your grand theory? How do you think the system deviates from simply taking 10 players that are queueing up at any given moment within a certain rating bracket and placing them in a game? > I feel it's the unintentional result of a system that is trying to keep your W/L ratio even. In these styles of ranking systems, the system matches you in such a way that attempts to challenge you and keep your W/L at 50/50 This is pretty much what you said in your opening post. The system isn't trying to keep your W/L at 50/50, all it's doing is finding 9 other players queing at the same time as close to your rating as possible while still maintaining role compatibility. If it can't do that it'll autofill a player and since role popularity isn't perfectly 20% for every role it'll have to do this quite often. Since the system isn't only looking at ratings anymore it has to find a balance between predicted skill(aka MMR) and primary/secondary/autofill roles. Any sort of system that intentionally deviates from "balanced" matches for the purpose of giving everyone a 50% WR is impossible.
"Ranked Matches Feel Predetermined" The title. "Just stating that the majority of my ranked matches are predetermined before champions are even selected based on being just completely outclassed, and the stats are only a tool to prove this." There you go. I'm not here to discuss what the win/loss ratios are supposed to be and if everyyone should be excatly that or whatever. You keep making new arguments every time i dismiss one and re state the original point.
Frikgeek (EUNE)
: So what exactly is your grand theory? How do you think the system deviates from simply taking 10 players that are queueing up at any given moment within a certain rating bracket and placing them in a game? > I feel it's the unintentional result of a system that is trying to keep your W/L ratio even. In these styles of ranking systems, the system matches you in such a way that attempts to challenge you and keep your W/L at 50/50 This is pretty much what you said in your opening post. The system isn't trying to keep your W/L at 50/50, all it's doing is finding 9 other players queing at the same time as close to your rating as possible while still maintaining role compatibility. If it can't do that it'll autofill a player and since role popularity isn't perfectly 20% for every role it'll have to do this quite often. Since the system isn't only looking at ratings anymore it has to find a balance between predicted skill(aka MMR) and primary/secondary/autofill roles. Any sort of system that intentionally deviates from "balanced" matches for the purpose of giving everyone a 50% WR is impossible.
"This is pretty much what you said in your opening post" lol only reading what you want to and still punching that strawman. I'm not saying everyone should be at a 50/50 win loss ratio. But the system does trend towards that whether you know it or not.
: > [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d00000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-10-04T06:09:20.195+0000) > > When I look at stats, and the 3 players are blatantly better in all regards, that's how you tell. When I look at stats and every person on their team has a hard time staying positive in their match history, and every player on my team has been d \oing well in their match history, that's how I can tell. > I stated that this was an "unintentional result" of the current matchmaking system. I don't believe the matchmaking is trying to "figure" anything out. That doesn’t mean anything because everyone was playing against different players. I wouldn’t do very well if I faced master players for the past 10 games but that doesn’t mean I am worse than someone with better stats in bronze. Also, you can’t have matchmaking “unintentionally” create the issues you are describing and still keep so many players win rate between 40-60%. That is simply mathematically impossible. Matches are already so volatile that if the teams aren’t relatively even at the start, players win rates would spiral out of control on both the high and low end.
Players winrates do spiral out of control, it's called a smurf account. Why are you being matched with masters at all if they're not in you or your duo's league? that's not right, sounds like the game weighted that game against you. Which is my point. You say it's "mathematically impossible" but I'm seeing not math, or even LOGIC to back it up. I think you're using the term wrong. I think you meant to say, "I don't think it's possible". And you claiming matches are so volatile, but also snowball quickly and become one sided fast are contradictory of each other.
Frikgeek (EUNE)
: >This would actually be very "mathematically" easy to sustain with such a large player base until you got to the very edge of the brackets. Not at all. You're severely underestimating how quickly this spirals out of control with the number of games played daily and the reducing player count as you go higher(or lower) in rank. This kind of system would break in about a week even with a 300 million player base due to the exponential rise in player number requirements. Stop and think about this properly. If you can't continually find 5 players "due for a win" and 5 "due for a loss" you run into the same problem. And for you to be able to find 5 players due for a win vs 5 due for a loss you'd again need an infinite playerbase. This isn't even a system that can be made to work "close enough" with a Gaussian skill distribution as once you hit the "edge" of the brackets the entire system breaks recursively. When the edge breaks that'll in turn break the bracket next to it and that'll then break the next bracket, etc. In your American football analogy you'd have a few hundred college teams vs 32 NFL teams. To balance out the college teams you'd need to drown the NFL teams in free wins, each of those 32 teams would need to be given like 50 freebies per season which would majorly unbalance their winrate. This shit would work once or twice but if you tried making an algorithm that applies this to everyone(which is what matchmaking is) it would break extremely quickly. You're stuck thinking about a few hundred games you play yourself and aren't thinking about the entire system mathematically. The only consistent way to trend everyone towards a 50% winrate is to match them with and against people of equal predicted skill and that's exactly what matchmaking does with MMR. And because MMR is hidden and doesn't have full correlation with your LP and rank it can often feel like your matches are "rigged". You will definitely have outliers where due to duo queuing and role compatibility the matchmaker is kinda forced to stack one team against the other. But there is no way to algorithmically ensure this happens consistently.
I was amusing your theory, it's not how I was saying the system works, it's obviously not like this. Nice strawman though. I won't even start with this as it truly takes away from the point you're missing.
Frikgeek (EUNE)
: Unless you believe Riot's matchmaker is balanced around you and you alone this is mathematically impossible. There are 10 players in every game. Every time you're "forced" to lose 4 players are forced to lose with you and 5 players are "forced" to win. For the system to keep up a 50% winrate for everyone it would need a literally infinite playerbase which is something that simply can't exist. Stop and think about this for more than 5 seconds. If Riot is "intentionally" matching you against players with shit winrates that you're sure to win against then how is the system working for them? Clearly they're going further and further away from that 50% and into the negatives. If Riot is matching you against total beasts with high winrates that are sure to win then how does the system work? Again, they're clearly going away from 50% and further into positive winrates. The simple fact is that you're not the centre of the universe and every single account you play with or against is just as valid as yours. This kind of "forced 50%" system simply cannot exist. If you try to push the players that were just handed a "free" win into a "free" loss against higher ranked players you're right back where you started. Those higher ranked players just got a free win. You're gonna have to expand indefinitely and you'll hit the ceiling very quickly. With the amount of LoL games played daily this would happen within a week. What you're actually experiencing is the fact that you're 1/10th of every game and you're not gonna have 100% of the impact on its outcome.
First off, did you even read what I wrote? You're coming at it from the perspective that I'm complaining because I'm getting paired up with bad teammates, not at all. No need to attack my person and play me out like I was being immature. I like to believe I'm a subjective person, the opposite of being the center of the universe, but I can't be the judge of that can I? I blatantly state it's happening both ways. I never said Riot was "intentionally" doing anything, I even said "...is an unintentional result...". I feel I have plenty impact on games, thank you. You're making up your own narrative completely, and painting a picture that just isn't true. Yea, I've considered all this and you're still missing the point. To entertain your theory... the game could easily find 4 other players who were "due for a loss" and put them against 5 other players who are "due for a win", but still be higher or lower in rank. They make up for this by how much LP you lose/gain. Just because the one team is "due for a loss" doesn't mean they're better or worse than the team "due for a win", they're in two complete different classes. An analogy would be bringing a college football team that was "due for a loss" and matching them against an NFL team that was "due for a win". This would actually be very "mathematically" easy to sustain with such a large player base until you got to the very edge of the brackets. There isn't an infinite player base, and the most perfect system isn't a perfect system, nor am I trying to advocate for one. Just stating that the majority of my ranked matches are predetermined before champions are even selected based on being just completely outclassed, and the stats are only a tool to prove this. Obviously not everyone is going to stay at a 50% win/loss rate,obviously some people are going to break from that, that's the point.
: > [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-04T04:06:36.040+0000) > > When the matchmaking stacks a team with ALL blatantly better players, wouldn't you say that has nothing to do with meta? How would matchmaking even figure that out in this meta? Games are too volition to determine the better player until after the game starts and a human goes over the replay. Measures like w/l, kda, cs lose meaning in this meta. The variance in any player’s individual play from game to game is wider than the mmr bracket of each game. As a result, it is impossible to predetermine games.
When I look at stats, and the 3 players are blatantly better in all regards, that's how you tell. When I look at stats and every person on their team has a hard time staying positive in their match history, and every player on my team has been d \oing well in their match history, that's how I can tell. I stated that this was an "unintentional result" of the current matchmaking system. I don't believe the matchmaking is trying to "figure" anything out.
DrDubb (NA)
: When the matchmaking stacks a team with ALL blatantly better players, wouldn't you say that has nothing to do with meta?
Blatantly better as... in W/L ratios, and KDR. Things I can look up and measure. Not "this person just played like a god this game so he/she just seems better".
: > [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d0000,timestamp=2019-10-04T03:01:23.595+0000) > > But that's not what I am experiencing. It's not that just one team snowballed and the other team didn't have a chance to come back, that's not the problem with what's happening. > The problem is that it was predetermined in champ select which team would snowball by the matchmaker blatantly stacking a team to be better INSTEAD of balancing out the teams. I blatantly see this happening. The Mets is far too volition for matchmaking to predetermine anything. The “better” team is simply losing too many games due to the snowbally nature of the meta.
When the matchmaking stacks a team with ALL blatantly better players, wouldn't you say that has nothing to do with meta?
Zardo (NA)
: >But sadly, that's not how the ranked system feels... anymore. And this fight here lies your issue. You're going off of your feelings. Since you cant climb you're looking for some sort of external force that's holding you back. Riot uses mmr to balance matches. That's it. They don't sabotage matches by using psychic powers to guess the the vayne one trick is going to try to first time yasuo. Riot isn't trying to hold you back. You're holding yourself back.
First off, you paraphrased half a sentence... nice. 2nd, You COMPLETELY missed the point. What a troll. Did you read anything else but that? I don't even know where to start with a reply, because i know you'll just miss the point. But I'll try anyways since I haven't lost faith in you:) I blatantly stated that this happens BOTH WAYS, winning and losing, so don't make it sound like this post is just some person who had a bad game and is blaming RIOT for it, because that's not what this post is at all. I'm having no problem climbing currently, thank you. I never said League sabotages games, so don't make me out to be some type of conspiracy nut either. "You're holding yourself back". You're literally creating new arguments out of nothing. I'm obviously not complaining about not being able to climb. Your comments are unpopular for a reason, please address what's being talked about instead of just being an annoying troll. "But sadly, that's not how the system is... anymore". Better? Sheesh.
Leadboo (NA)
: Have you heard of the 40-40-20 rule? It's basically this: 40 percent of matches, you'll win, 40 percent of matches you'll lose, so it's up to you to win that 20%. Ranked can be hell at times but it's all about constantly preforming well. I've found that matches aren't as horrible if your playing to learn from your mistakes ad recognize them, instead of solely focusing on winning.
This is what I'm stating with the 50/50 W/L, and is exactly my point. I get it and how it works. My point is, the games are supposed to be CLOSE and COMPETITIVE to achieve this goal, NOT predetermined W/W/W/L/L/L/W/L/W/L. The matches are determined by who is playing, not how the players are playing. The matches should consist of 2 teams with a (near) 50/50 chance of winning because the two teams are of the same skill/rank. It's a bad system if the game is putting you in unwinnable/unlosable situations to balance out your win/loss ratio.
: I have a strong feeling matchmaking was always like this, only reason people are unhappy with it now is because of how quickly games end. Games end faster, you play more games, and it feels like you lose more than ever. Granted you do lose more games than when games were longer, but on the flip side you're also winning more games than previous seasons. Not excusing how shitty games feel to play, just pointing out how previous seasons may have seemed more fair due to the length of time it took for teams to actually close games out and win. My thoughts.
Good input! I haven't thought of it like this! So maybe it's always been like this, but because games are shorter and it's harder to throw a game its more apparent. Where as before hand, you could be 12-0 and still lose because a team didn't know how to close a game, giving the other team time to catch up. The point still stands, games SHOULDN'T be predetermined by the matchmaker before champions are selected. Games should be close and competitive, to the point where it should be a toss up.
: This is what it feels like to plateau. If you want to rank up, you can keep a 50% winrate and you'll still rank up if you just keep at it as you'll always get more LP for winning than losing, if you really want an above 50% winrate you have to be significantly better than the players you're playing against, the games systems are not working against you. If you're struggling to stay above a 50% winrate, it's because you're only good enough to have a 50% winrate. Obviously, even the best players will lose games, there are bronze games Faker wouldn't be able to carry, but it would be disingenuous to say that they happen so often it's making it impossible for you to climb. You will only 'climb' instead of 'grind' if you're actually good. If you're a 50% winrate player, you're already in the elo you belong.
You completely missed the point and pretty much went on a rant that pretty much says "get good" when summed up. Real insightful buddy, thanks. I'm not saying it's hard to climb, I'm saying the games are always way too one sided and predetermined by the matchmaker. I actually find myself climbing just fine. I never said the system was working against me. I didn't even mention my win rate, (i'm actually sitting at a 58% with my main, 49% altogether thank you, but this has nothing to do with he point i'm making) My post blatantly points to one sided matches and this being both ways...too easy of games that are hardly satisfying and games that weren't even possible to win by how the games were stacked.
Sandixcx (NA)
: That's how every match in every competitive game feels. Most matches are already pretty equal, but it doesn't feel like it by the end of the game because of how small leads build up over time. Getting games that consistently feel equal was never a thing and is pretty much impossible to do.
(Just my repost to a similar reply) But that's not what I am experiencing. It's not that just one team snowballed and the other team didn't have a chance to come back, that's not the problem with what's happening. The problem is that it was predetermined in champ select which team would snowball by the matchmaker blatantly stacking a team to be better INSTEAD of balancing out the teams. I blatantly see this happening.
: Meta snowballs far too hard to be pre-determined. Weaker teams are constantly winning off of snowballing small leads into stomps to the point that I doubt any system can predict the outcome of games before they start.
But that's not what I am experiencing. It's not that just one team snowballed and the other team didn't have a chance to come back, that's not the problem with what's happening. The problem is that it was predetermined in champ select which team would snowball by the matchmaker blatantly stacking a team to be better INSTEAD of balancing out the teams. I blatantly see this happening.
: then stop looking at stats lol
I blatantly said I usually don't. I just started doing this for some type of explanation. I can stop looking up stats, but I can't ignore what I now know is happening.
Comentários de Rioters
: Looking back at this issue after all these years, here's what I think I would like: 20% CDR: {{item:3110}} {{item:3040}} {{item:3042}} {{item:3115}} 15% CDR: {{item:3110}} {{item:3003}} {{item:3004}} {{item:3078}} {{item:3025}} 10% CDR: {{item:3101}} {{item:3158}} {{item:3071}} {{item:3142}} {{item:3905}} {{item:3056}} {{item:3102}} {{item:3157}} {{item:3174}} {{item:3024}} {{item:3050}} {{item:3147}} {{item:3100}} {{item:3098}} {{item:3092}} {{item:3096}} {{item:3069}} {{item:3401}} {{item:3161}} {{item:3107}} {{item:2065}} {{item:3504}} {{item:3800}} {{item:3108}} {{item:3222}} {{item:1402}} {{item:1412}} {{item:3152}} {{item:3802}} {{item:3114}} {{item:3285}} {{item:3030}} {{item:3508}} 5% CDR: {{item:3057}} {{item:3133}} {{item:3067}} {{item:3813}} {{item:3001}} {{item:3065}} {{item:3070}} {{item:3163}} {{item:3301}} {{item:3083}} 0% CDR: {{item:3194}} [Most items losing CDR would be compensated. Adaptive Helm could receive increased MR for example.] No more Haste passive on {{item:3802}} or items built from it. {{item:3070}} gives 5% CDR. Items built from Tear of the Goddess grant stats from both mana and over-capped CDR (replacing Transcendence rune). {{item:3110}} builds out of {{item:3070}} + {{item:3024}} + {{item:3082}} and transforms into an upgraded version when Awe is fully stacked. Awe grants bonus health. The upgraded version has a stronger, ramping-up aura which can be toggled on, costing mana each second. {{item:3004}} builds out of {{item:3070}} + {{item:3101}}, gaining its Shock passive (reduced to 1.5% mana on-hit) before upgrading to {{item:3042}} (allowing the full 3% mana on-hit after upgrade). Because it would no longer build from {{item:1037}}, it would provide less AD, and the recipe change would make it somewhat more expensive. Manamune would offer a way for mana-gated AD champions to continue building CDR, while resourceless AD champions would have considerably less access to CDR than before. CDR capping doesn't need to be a super common thing for every champion class, and compensating some items with other strengths, like increased defensive stats, could help improve the game pace. Transcendence rune is removed (now part of Awe passive) and it is replaced by a Spell Weaving or Expose Weakness rune (just give it a 'Sorcery' sounding name, like Blighting Curse, and give it synergy with DOT and AOE). Also if Magic Resistance is increased on many items to compensate for reduced CDR on them, there will be room for a new Sorcery keystone tailored to DPS APCs. Deathfire Touch can make a return as a rune that reduces immediate ability damage dealt in exchange for a larger amount of delayed damage over time. This will allow players to give up instant burst potential in order to deal DOT DPS. For example, the keystone could convert 30% of damage that would be dealt by abilities into a burn over 4 seconds that deals 55% of the original ability damage. This would result in the ability doing 125% in total but spread out over a longer period. Squishy targets would normally die within 4 seconds of fighting, so this mostly impacts fighting frontliners, hence why this addition to the game would fit with increased availability of Magic Resistance on frontliner items.
I don't know if I want any of my CDR in 5% increments... just seems awkward! Other than that, great input! I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but suggested exact changes are always tough to agree with exactly. I agree that capping your CDR shouldn't be as common as it is for almost every champion. It felt a lot better when you chose CDR, instead of just being given it. And yes! Magic resist items need less CDR! What's up with the theme that MR needs to be accompanied by CDR? lol Thornmail, Randuins, Deadmans Plate, Sunfire Cape... I can stack these without reservation because I do not worry about the CDR cap. (Sometimes the double cold steel unique passive feels bad on thornmail+randuins, but whatever!) Spirit Visage, Adaptive Helm, Abyssal Mask (or even warmogs since the HUGE HP pool is good against burst champions) ALL have CDR.
: Too much cdr? In the optimal sylas jungle build its nearly impossible to get max cdr unless you compromise what items you build. Classic build is runic echos hextech protobelt and zhonyas, this gives you 30% cdr, the last two items you want, deathcap and morellonomicon / voidstaff dont give cdr so you either have to go cdr boots, or go for another cdr item like veil instead of morellonomicon. But this mostly happens because runic echoes only gives 10% cdr instead of the 20% from ludens. I could take transcendence but then I'm giving up the inspiration tree. For the magic resist problem I recommend adding {{item:4401}} to summoners rift. It won't be abused by bruisers because it doesnt give any health or offensive stats. It also is great as a first item for top lane tanks against mages and other ranged champions since it massively lowers their poke. It is also great for tanks because it becomes better the more health you have like cinderhulk. You cant really remove 10% cdr from ludens because then you end up with everyone having to go transcendence, but they already kinda do it anyways.
Runic Echo+Protobelt+zhonyas = 30%. (which is still considered good CDR.. or maybe once was) 10% from blue buff = 40% And you're choosing to take the Adaptive Force over the 10% CDR.
: Almost every AP CDR item has Mana. Meaning any non mana AP mid has to pay for a stat they cant use. On top of that the items with CDR and no mana are lower AP and defensive in most cases, ie: Zhonyas and Banshee's. The highest AP no mana with CDR is Nashor's Tooth at 80 but then its so niche most wont want to build it. My issue with CDR items is not the number but HOW MUCH they give mana champs. Archangel's Staff is the 2nd best AP item in the game and it gives 20% CDR and an assload of mana. Thankfully the ability haste on it and Luden's means you cant nab Luden's for a quick 40% CDR, but with the 600 Mana getting Ludens even with that ability not stacking doesn't suck and still gives you 30% CDR. And then you get wave clear, a shield, and enough mana to not really worry about spamming that much. Two items and suddenly its like you don't have mana if you play even a little bit smart. I don't mind the presence of CDR. I mind the way its stacked for mana based champs to easily have 40% within like 2 items but others have to sacrifice to hopefully meet 40% CDR with 3 or 4 items and typically with building something with stats you don't need and at a loss of AP.
Another great point, from a perspective different from my own since I don't play manaless champs mid. It's nice to know it's not just frustrating to play as, but against as well lol. I do play a lot of ARAM though, and I can tell you the problem persists past just mid mana users. Tanks are even easier to reach 40%CDR (although maybe a bit slower IF they don't buy Black Cleaver). And almost every bruiser item builds out of Caulfield's Warrhammer and gives 10% CDR.
: I think you focus way too much on not overcapping cdr : According to this : https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Gold_efficiency 1% cdr is worth 26.6 gold and 1 Ap cost 21.75 gold Transcendance earns you 2 Ap for every 1% cdr overcap, so you are turning 26.6 gold into 43,5 gold if you overcap while having transcendance. Even if you overcap on cdr and do not get transcendance, you only lose 266 gold worth of stats, thats nothing.
This is a great comment, I always assumed you lost in gold efficiency, not gained in gold efficiency. I never knew! That being said, all the CDR then makes a NON keystone rune VERY strong. This explains the strong Master YI 60-70% CDR transcendence builds lol. Saddly, anyone not going transcendence is still missing out.
: I don't know why there are any items with cdr. Everything would be much easier to balance if CDR was simply set at 0 for every champion. Then Riot could just adjust it so you are using abilities at an appropriate level.
I kind of agree from a comedic/ironic point of view... If everyone is always at MAX CDR anyways (bar A VERY FEW builds) then why not just balance the game around everyone having the same flat CDR? lol No. This isn't the answer, I like the strategic decision of a power trade off for CDR (or what should be a tradeoff!). Just lower the amount of CDR in game RIOT!:P
: I'm forced to play Kayle nearly full AP when I feel like I want shorter CDs on my ultimate but I prefer to play her on-hit. So, no, I don't feel like there is too much CDR in the game.
Kayle is an on hit champion, and extremely strong at being an on hit champion. Nashor's Tooth is the only on hit item that gives on hit dmg and CDR (not counting spell blade because it doesn't proc every hit, spellblade is a burst mechanic, not consistent on hit dmg). You are trying to have the best of two opposite worlds; on hit empowered autos, AND 40% CDR. This is like complaining that your tank build doesn't have enough AD in its build. Dmg is the opposite of tankiness. On hit is the opposite of ability CDR. This is why no armour items give AD, and why no recurve bow items give CD. (In fact, many adcs and other on hit champions take away from their on hit DPS when they go to use an ability) And IF you do go FULL AP, you should have no problem getting 40% CDR (nashor's tooth gives 20). Sounds to me like you want MAX AP and MAX CDR and MAX ON HIT without trade off lol. You're obviously trading 10% CDR for 10 AS in your runes... and that's most definitely your choice. And try to look at it from more of a objective view, rather than a personal "how can I make my champion stronger" view.
DrDubb (NA)
: Anyone else feels like there is TOO MUCH CDR in the game?
To make clear - My main problem with it is the wasted gold/stat efficiency. Taking transcendence for that sole purpose doesn't feel good. I did read somewhere that RIOT is going to start giving away extra adaptive force for every point of CDR over cap even without transcendence, (I'd imagine transcendence would still increase that bonus). I don't know if this is true or not, I have not confirmed. If this is true, I hope it's not their permanent solution, because I'd assume you'd still be missing out on gold/adaptive force efficiency similarly to how transcendence is now. (That is buying 10% CDR and transforming it to adaptive force would be more expensive than just buying that same amount of adaptive force upfront)
: CDR is a stat that allows making items stronger without buffing damage Imagine Ludens without 20% CDR. How will it be compensated? More AP? That just adds to the "oneshot meta" Less cost? Agin, that means people will get their (90 AP+passive) item sooner while their enemies have lower hp, which again just improves the oneshot potential CDR is a way to make the item stronger(and more expencive) without buffing the one-combo-damage If you find yourself overstacking cdr, Transcendence is actually a nice choice, even on tanks.
Also, I didn't want to make this about nerfing any one item, because that brings out a whole bunch of hypotheticals that always happens in these threads that distract from the main point. "Well if you nerf this item, then this champion would be useless, and they'd have to buff this ability to compensate and would make him broken, ... ect." Although I have my own ideas of how RIOT could solve what I believe to be "blatantly just too much CDR across the board", I'm not a game balancer. That is RIOTS job. We can only voice our wishes and opinions to them on the board hoping they'll listen!
: CDR is a stat that allows making items stronger without buffing damage Imagine Ludens without 20% CDR. How will it be compensated? More AP? That just adds to the "oneshot meta" Less cost? Agin, that means people will get their (90 AP+passive) item sooner while their enemies have lower hp, which again just improves the oneshot potential CDR is a way to make the item stronger(and more expencive) without buffing the one-combo-damage If you find yourself overstacking cdr, Transcendence is actually a nice choice, even on tanks.
Thanks for replying! I know what CDR does and it's purpose. Every stat has a purpose, but my point is CDR is blatantly the most oversaturated stat. The extra 10% CDR I always waste when building my Spectre's Cowl item as a tank/bruiser would sure be appreciated in ANY other stat!! lol
: Athene's Unholy Grail- Too much CDR?
I know this is an old post... But I love that it has more downvotes than upvotes because that's just how the people who hover over these boards and treat it like reddit are. They love to hate!! Well years later, League/RIOT completely agrees with you. It's at a solid 10% CDR, and it's definitely for the better! Thanks for posting and trying to make League a better place, despite all the constant push back I see most people get from this community!
Comentários de Rioters
: Too much CDR!
I personally find it frustrating to have so much CDR from an itemization perspective. I'm a mid main, and I wont even go into how efficient LUDENS ECHO is and how it's the Black Cleaver of mid lane... if you're a burst mage you ALWAYS build it first no matter what because it gives you EVERYTHING a mage needs unlike any other item (extra scaling burst dmg, wave clear, 20%CDR, mana item, HIGH AP) Damn, I said this wasn't about Luden's Echo ( or Black Cleaver...) Anyways. It's DIFFICULT to not have a build that goes over 40% CDR. It's a crappy feeling every game. Absolute Focus being weaker recently, and 10% CDR in the rune stats, compounds the situation. Although I often take Absolute Focus over Transcendence, I can't see myself trading 10% CDR for 9AP... Ludens ECHO plus the 10% CDR from runes is already 30%, so pick your 10% item carefully. Zhonyas? Banshees? Hextech item? Twin Shadows? Lich Bane?Maybe you're a AP bruiser who wants Spirit Visage. I find it ridiculous an optimal build can't have more than one these item's and Luden's together. After boots, your other 3 items HAVE to be Void Staff, Rabadons, Liandries, Rylais, Morrelonomicon, or Mejais. Maybe you're playing ARAM and want some weird itemization but often can't because it's ALWAYS over 40% CDR. Tanks have it EVEN WORSE. Pretty much CAN'T build Black Cleaver and Frozen Gauntlet together, because your MR item will put you over the cap. And I don't think you're running Transcendence as a tank, so you dont even have the chance to benefit from the extra adaptive force. Overall... ALL the CDR feels bad. P.S. Why are Ionian Boots even an item even more? If it wasn't for the summoner spell buff, they'd be COMPLETELY obsolete. Even the traditional support characters that would RUSH these boots don't because of excess CDR in every item. They're just better off with literally any other item. (Sorcerer boots for brand lux ect. Even tank boots are better than ionian boots for beefier supports. Swiftness/mobi boots are almost always good on supps)
DrDubb (NA)
: ^This is what's wrong with these boards. I agree that there's not enough information but..... I understand looking at your player history to confirm that you're definitely not a bot... but automatically just flagging games as suspicious because you couldn't carry your team when you had a lead? You're right, that's proof, he's probably guilty based on that. He wants information that you can't just obtain, so you argument it moot. Meanwhile, if you've been banned for MILD behavior and only have a one game instant the playerbase will assume "You must just be an overall toxic player, and we can just assume you've flamed in multiple games even though we dont' have that information." If you try to defend a ban on the boards, the "regulars" on the boards will run up with pitchforks and throw tomatoes at you. This is why you will never see a positive upvote on the behavior boards of someone trying to defend, OR EVEN TALK ABOUT a ban.
Ever hear the term echo chamber? These boards are pretty bad about it.
: There is too little information here for anyone to appropriately judge the probability of you botting. There are a few matches in your match history that are pretty suspect to me, but, since there's no way for anyone here to get any better insight on it, it's a moot point. Regardless, as rujitra said, if Riot's verdict was that you were banned for botting/scripting, then the ban will doubtless stay.
^This is what's wrong with these boards. I agree that there's not enough information but..... I understand looking at your player history to confirm that you're definitely not a bot... but automatically just flagging games as suspicious because you couldn't carry your team when you had a lead? You're right, that's proof, he's probably guilty based on that. He wants information that you can't just obtain, so you argument it moot. Meanwhile, if you've been banned for MILD behavior and only have a one game instant the playerbase will assume "You must just be an overall toxic player, and we can just assume you've flamed in multiple games even though we dont' have that information." If you try to defend a ban on the boards, the "regulars" on the boards will run up with pitchforks and throw tomatoes at you. This is why you will never see a positive upvote on the behavior boards of someone trying to defend, OR EVEN TALK ABOUT a ban.
: Speaking In a Negative Manner About Someone's Rank or Win Rate IS Harassment
If I'm Diamond and some bronze players tries to tell me how to play my champ, or the game in general, I'm going to remind him of his rank. He can get over it, or mute me. No need to be over-sensitive about it.
DrDubb (NA)
: You guys think calling someone a noob for trolling you is ban worthy? Jeez, you guys are monsters. He actually handled the situation with a very good attitude in-game. You guys are awful. I understand the down vote for the length... But Calling someone a noob twice is ban worthy? You guys agree with this? What is wrong with you? you noobs. Uh oh, don't ban man. FFS, this angers me reading. Here is at least one person who feels bad for you. The ecco chamber in these threads is real, no original thoughts. They all agree you were harassing. Pretty sad really. From experience, you never find any love in these threads. They're all trolls, just be careful not to call them newbs. IMO, calling someone who's INTing a noob with a smiley (as if to say, see I'm smiling you're toxic behavior isn't phasing me) is a good way to handle the situation. The toxic player would have never been rewarded with satisfaction if it weren't for an over sensitive ban systems. Sorry that ban systems always award the aggressor in every game. Aggressors go in with a game plan to get you banned, they know the system and work around it, and the fact you never see their chat supports the system when it comes to defending yourself. Literally got chat banned on XBL who was all cap flaming me for beating him. I said, "slide out the dm's unless you dtf" after being called a bitch and countless other profanities. Thought I missed the keywords to be banned, but guess not lol. It's any and every game, chat bans reward toxic behavior by empowering people who want to see you punished. It empowers the bullies. "Don't retaliate, or I'll tell on you". It's created a whole new form of toxic behavior within the last 5-10 years. Way worse than some blockable kid telling you he's going to shag your mother. Ahhh, I remember early online gaming, golden days<3 P.S. Don't listen to these kids, you're right. "It's not your place to punish people" haha, he called him a newb. Is that punishment? Get real. And I understand you used the chat too much (arguably), but that isn't ban worthy either. Feels bad man, the world is crazy.
Just read some comments/replies. Dude, you're shooting yourself in the foot and digging your grave deeper @OP. You're responses are sporadic, not well thought out, and sometimes just don't make sense lol. Despite all that, yeah you got shafted by RIOT.
: Banning the Victim. Letting the Aggressor go loose. (Literally this time).
You guys think calling someone a noob for trolling you is ban worthy? Jeez, you guys are monsters. He actually handled the situation with a very good attitude in-game. You guys are awful. I understand the down vote for the length... But Calling someone a noob twice is ban worthy? You guys agree with this? What is wrong with you? you noobs. Uh oh, don't ban man. FFS, this angers me reading. Here is at least one person who feels bad for you. The ecco chamber in these threads is real, no original thoughts. They all agree you were harassing. Pretty sad really. From experience, you never find any love in these threads. They're all trolls, just be careful not to call them newbs. IMO, calling someone who's INTing a noob with a smiley (as if to say, see I'm smiling you're toxic behavior isn't phasing me) is a good way to handle the situation. The toxic player would have never been rewarded with satisfaction if it weren't for an over sensitive ban systems. Sorry that ban systems always award the aggressor in every game. Aggressors go in with a game plan to get you banned, they know the system and work around it, and the fact you never see their chat supports the system when it comes to defending yourself. Literally got chat banned on XBL who was all cap flaming me for beating him. I said, "slide out the dm's unless you dtf" after being called a bitch and countless other profanities. Thought I missed the keywords to be banned, but guess not lol. It's any and every game, chat bans reward toxic behavior by empowering people who want to see you punished. It empowers the bullies. "Don't retaliate, or I'll tell on you". It's created a whole new form of toxic behavior within the last 5-10 years. Way worse than some blockable kid telling you he's going to shag your mother. Ahhh, I remember early online gaming, golden days<3 P.S. Don't listen to these kids, you're right. "It's not your place to punish people" haha, he called him a newb. Is that punishment? Get real. And I understand you used the chat too much (arguably), but that isn't ban worthy either. Feels bad man, the world is crazy.
DW Diana (NA)
: Xerath's passive is his mana sustain... Lissandra is a short range control mage while Xerath is an artillery mage. So lets consider for a moment they DID give Xerath a new passive, say when he kills someone they explode with energy like he does when he dies. Now you have no mana sustain, your abilities damage gets nerfed to compensate, and you now have LESS tools to kill people meaning you have LESS opportunity to use your passive making you on the whole far less powerful. All I'm going to say is be careful what you wish for. Look at what they did to Malzahar in 2016 and 2017. Do you REALLY want them changing Xerath?
Why are you making these crazy hypotheticals when it could be as simple as Lissandra's lol. Have you seen the Lissandra update? Or read the part about mana costs already being balanced around the passive? They didn't need to nurf her at all lmao, they just reduced the mana costs of her spells and gave her a real passive. It's not a true passive if the passive solely gives mana, then takes mana away in other parts of the via cost. They counter each other out. AND EXACTLY. Lissandra is a shortrange CC mage, so they give her a new passive that goes along the CC short range mage. Xerath is Artillery and they give him a short range mage passive? Only further proves my point. If they just gave him normal mana costs, instead of some of the HIGHEST mana costs in the game, he wouldn't need the useless passive that puts him in danger. As I said, he would literally be better off with no passive and NORMAL mana costs. And he only needs sustain before his first item, so his passive is useless after that anyways.
: All it takes is one to get the ball rolling. Before you know it Xerath will have a badass passive!
OMG. You're my favorite E-boy.
Comentários de Rioters
: Xerath should probably get a new passive
I'm a Xerath main, and I agree. Almost every passive in the game works alongside a champions kit, whereas this passive it completely COUNTER-INTUITIVE to his kit. Most passives are a added benefit to a champions whole kit, with Xerath this is not the case: With Xerath, he has HIGH mana cost and his passive counteracts that. This is not a bonus, he could just as easily have normal mana costs and NO passive and it would be the same thing; so he basically doesn't have a passive. In fact, he has a passive that puts him in danger and counteracts his kit. He'd be better off with NO passive and normal mana costs.
Crocele (NA)
: Should i be rushing seraphs or ludens on xerath?
I've likely have played more Xerath than all the other champs combined. As a Xerath main (I know, weird, we actually exist) I say ALWAYS Ludens. Xerath is extremely weak and almost useless fighting early on without kills, if you want to have any teamfight/map presence by the mid game (level 9-14) you need Ludens. It'll get you more kills, get you more gold, get you more fed in the late game than Seraphs ever will. Get Coupe De Grace, Arcane Comet + and Ludens burst, you'll be killing ADC's 1 or 2 levels below you at just below 50% health with a single Q. Xerath should worry ONLY about damage. The one exception might be a stopwatch, but even then I like to go Mejai's over Zhonyas, if it's safe to. (If they don't have REDICULOUS gap closers, like Zed, LB, ZED or EKKO). Even with those champs, if you farm well you can BULLY THEM out of lane before they get the nards to assassinate you. You obvious should be playing at a range that you should not be able to be touched. If you have more than 3 deaths as Xerath you are playing him wrong. I play Xerath with this rule "If I'm touched at all, I'm dead." That being said, I don't like to put myself in a situation where I need to use Seraph's active in the first place, if I'm in that situation, I should have been more aware and positioned myself better. In the end, I'd say 100% Ludens on Xerath. Hope this helped!
: Let's talk about the Fizz Ult hitbox
I hate the fizz ult. When I'm playing against fizz I feel its near impossible to sidestep the ult if he aims it right. The hitbox may be balanced (arguably), but the clarity is utter crap. And I agree with "Nameless Voice", why is fizz rewarded for missing his ult? It's similar to Zoe's sleepy time which drives me bonkers, but atleast Zoe's sleepy time AoE doesn't INSTANTLY proc and jump to you. But I agree, if you miss a skill shot it shouldn't turn into an AoE ability. It should be one or the other. The only abilities in the game that do that (Zoe E and FIzz R), feel so bad. When Zoe uses sleepy time, she's aiming to hit you, if she happens to get the sleep after she missed, it's usually because your champ sidestepped around a minion in some stupid way or it's just a freak mistake. All that being said, I think a good fix for Fizz would be to make it more like Zoe's sleepy time (despite how I hate the missed skillshot still turns into an AoE mechanic). Maybe with a shorter delay than Zoe's. But the current mechanics on his ult as is, is just not fun to play against and leaves me angered. Going "IT FUCKING MISSED ME!!!! HOW CAN I POSSIBLY DODGE THAT? WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN CHANGED! ARE THEY HAPPY WITH THIS HITBOX?! WHAT THE LITERAL FUCK" every time. And I get it, Fizz has been struggling a lot. But not fixing a certain BAD mechanic because a champion is weak isn't a good method to go by. Give him some type of quality of life buff, maybe a faster projectile speed to compensate, but his feels absolutely awful to lane against.
DrDubb (NA)
: Hextech Protobelt does not belong on the rift. Here's my thought on it.
Lol. Everyone is discussing the one missile left behind. When I mentioned it in the OP, my thought behind it was "Just why? The item would be fine without the extra missile in the back. Nobody would say, 'you know what this item needs, an extra missile in the back of the dash as well'. Really though, that point was supposed to be insignificant, so insignificant I probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all. One thing I didn't mention in the OP was the survivability it adds to already ridiculously mobile champions like Ekko/LB. Skillshots are hard enough to land, needing to account for even just one more dash makes landing skillshots near impossible against these champs if they still have an active up. Ekko/LB shouldn't have yet ANOTHER dash to dodge Xerath/Jhin/Ezreal abilities/ults. As far as the best rebuttal... Noted it is more of a fart than a dash... but really it's enough.
Comentários de Rioters
: Katarina ult not stopping to Amumu ult
An entangle is a root and a disarm combined. I'm pretty sure Amumu is the only champ with an entangle.
: Change surrender vote to 3/5 instead of 4/5
Are you crazy? I just lost a game WE SHOULD HAVE WON because Master Yi cleaned up one teamfight. We were ahead gold, towers (we still had all 2nd tier towers), and still one kill after it. And everyone surrendered. I'm sill livid about it. That is a habit that'll never allow you to move up in rank, surrendering prematurely. IMO surrender should be 5/5 in ranked. That's twice today this BS has happened to me today, where it was a perfectly close game and one wrong play and 4/5 people surrendered before a single inhibi tower was lost.

DrDubb

Nível 148 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão