: I play two matched of TFT every day, just because of the beta rewards
I agree. Half the reason these game modes drop off is that the rewards/missions drop off. Repeatable missions and a longer rewards track will certainly boost the exposure of any mode.
: why am i in gold 4?
I love seeing the perspective of gold players compared to bronze/iron players. Gold players say the game is too easy and that all the other lanes feed and the game failed because you can't 1v9. We played like 3-4 games last night as a group of iron players and we couldn't get any advantage in lane. The game feels plenty challenging and teamwork dependent at that level. You can't win unless you skirmish or get a good team fight.
: Buddy you're not getting flamed in TFT because everyone else profits from you being bad, why would you get flamed?
> [{quoted}](name=mAvTwUCecilia,realm=EUW,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=q7EEsuKm,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-10-23T06:53:23.012+0000) > > Buddy you're not getting flamed in TFT because everyone else profits from you being bad, why would you get flamed? This concept has made me really want to see them put more effort into more free for all type modes outside of TFT.
HeeroTX (NA)
: Long, long ago, turrets used to give you a shield when you were near them. This made turret "diving" really, really hard because the defender had higher "effective" health when under turret usually giving them time for the turret to lock onto attackers and assist. Now, with various mobility and reset mechanics, it's easy for a good number of champs to dive and escape with no real reprisal from the turret itself, and if you can't survive the burst (which spoiler: you usually can't) then it's a simple in-and-out with no consequences. Riot likes it this way tho, because you get more dives in pro play, which is like home runs in baseball, flashy and good for highlights rather than methodical careful play.
> [{quoted}](name=HeeroTX,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=bX2vzXeJ,comment-id=0000000300000000,timestamp=2019-10-09T17:49:55.059+0000) > > Long, long ago, turrets used to give you a shield when you were near them. This made turret "diving" really, really hard because the defender had higher "effective" health when under turret usually giving them time for the turret to lock onto attackers and assist. Now, with various mobility and reset mechanics, it's easy for a good number of champs to dive and escape with no real reprisal from the turret itself, and if you can't survive the burst (which spoiler: you usually can't) then it's a simple in-and-out with no consequences. > > Riot likes it this way tho, because you get more dives in pro play, which is like home runs in baseball, flashy and good for highlights rather than methodical careful play. I mean, I still play pretty safe. I'm an iron player so whenever I try to dive it's always a one for one trade. I'm not able to pull it off at all. I don't really have any issue with diving though, personally.
: Hook supports are too strong
Hook supports are popular not because they are overpowered, but because they counter to what people are playing in bot-lane.
GotherL (NA)
: Rank is so Toxic
Yeah, it makes it very difficult for me to play ranked without duoing a friend to help chill me out for that reason.
: My problems with worlds
Looking at the actual stats, it is surprising to me that Kaisa has a 55% win rate along with a high presence. Gragas and Syndra are actually doing better than her though. Personally I think she's tied with Xayah and Trist for best carry right now rather than being the best. What's your issue with zombie wards though?
HeeroTX (NA)
: Snowballing in and of itself is not bad and has always been a thing, BUT previously snowballing meant you "slowly" built up a lead and got bigger and bigger until you were unstoppable. (hence the name) "Snowballing" now is basically "I completed an item with one of the currently busted champs", click abilities, boom you're dead, take nexus. The detractors hated how it used to be because stalling or "turtling" used to be doable, and now it's really not. To that end, I think making the barons and Elders increasingly stronger was a great idea, but the weakness of turrets was a TERRIBLE idea. The advice USED to be if you fall down early "play safe" and farm up to a relevant state, in the current META that's not really doable, if you get pushed out of lane you're basically done. You can't "safely" farm from under turret, you'll get dove and killed, all you can do is get a few scraps of cs and concede ground over and over, which is why you get more people calling for FF at 15 mins or even earlier.
> [{quoted}](name=HeeroTX,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=bX2vzXeJ,comment-id=00000003,timestamp=2019-10-07T15:29:50.829+0000) > > Snowballing in and of itself is not bad and has always been a thing, BUT previously snowballing meant you "slowly" built up a lead and got bigger and bigger until you were unstoppable. (hence the name) "Snowballing" now is basically "I completed an item with one of the currently busted champs", click abilities, boom you're dead, take nexus. The detractors hated how it used to be because stalling or "turtling" used to be doable, and now it's really not. To that end, I think making the barons and Elders increasingly stronger was a great idea, but the weakness of turrets was a TERRIBLE idea. The advice USED to be if you fall down early "play safe" and farm up to a relevant state, in the current META that's not really doable, if you get pushed out of lane you're basically done. You can't "safely" farm from under turret, you'll get dove and killed, all you can do is get a few scraps of cs and concede ground over and over, which is why you get more people calling for FF at 15 mins or even earlier. I do agree the game needs more defensive options, I'm just hoping that Riot doesn't take that feedback and determine that we need some kind of rubberbanding mechanic or buff tanks to try to compensate and wreak the game again. I'd be willing to see if a rubberband mechanic works on PBE though, just to see if it might help.
Ilovemobas (EUNE)
: Everyone complains about pyke meanwhile blitzcrank visibly grabs not only free kills but free LP
I mean, as someone who mostly plays bot lane I've always been way more afraid of blitzcrank than Pyke. The buff to blitz isn't really a massive difference because technically he's still doing the same thing he's been doing forever. He's just slightly better at it now. When I lane against pyke it does actually feel fine (to me), but champs like blitz and leona have literally caused me to go 1/10 just because they shut down most of the champs I play. That being said, I find that blitz is much less dangerous when he's not in a tight lane. In mid-game it's much easier to move around him. The problem is that he can set you back early game, but I think that's a legit strategy.
: > [{quoted}](name=NovaPh,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=bX2vzXeJ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-07T01:13:46.139+0000) > > As someone who didn't play league until season 8, was snowballing seriously not a thing back before then? How did games end up going, because I heard the earlier seasons had their own problems that seem worse than just snowballing (assassin meta, tank meta, ardent meta, cleaver meta, ect.). I think compared to lopsided degenerate metas, snowballing and high damage isn't that much of a problem. There used to be huge numbers of strategies and team comps. Team fight comps Split push comps Siege comps Protect the kog Shit like that. Games used to build up until one thing finally broke and the flood gates opened. Compared to now where the flood gates don’t exist and it’s burst or be bursted.
> [{quoted}](name=The thigh guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=bX2vzXeJ,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-10-07T01:21:20.640+0000) > > There used to be huge numbers of strategies and team comps. > > Team fight comps > Split push comps > Siege comps > Protect the kog > Shit like that. > > Games used to build up until one thing finally broke and the flood gates opened. > > Compared to now where the flood gates don’t exist and it’s burst or be bursted. I'm very confused...because all those things still exist... I'm watching worlds right now and the casters are always talking about split comps or team fight comps or siege comps...so why do you say tthey don't exist anymore? I'm also confused as to why you say the game has no build-up because the game still has three distinct phases. Early game is where the teams size eachother up, build up early advantages and mostly stay in lane. Then in mid-game they roam around the map more and focus on objectives like herald before closing out the game around late game with something like baron. If the other team defends well, then that cycle just continues.
: Xayah is a bigger Problem then Ryze ever was
Why is Xayah good in solo-que? I could see the argument for Xayah-Rakan being good in a duo-que, but saying she's good on her own really seems strange to me considering I think Xayah is pretty hard to play solo and haven't done well with her at all (even though she's one of my favorite champs).
: I hope Season10 brings back league as a strategy based game
As someone who didn't play league until season 8, was snowballing seriously not a thing back before then? How did games end up going, because I heard the earlier seasons had their own problems that seem worse than just snowballing (assassin meta, tank meta, ardent meta, cleaver meta, ect.). I think compared to lopsided degenerate metas, snowballing and high damage isn't that much of a problem.
: > [{quoted}](name=NovaPh,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ra2NJabK,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-02T10:37:07.423+0000) > > That's very close to how things are already being done. Consistency/ELO is measured by wins and losses, but I'm not sure if you mean by some other methods. I don't really see how comparing based on specific champion consistency changes anything. It's also important to understand that being 'carried' is a subjective determination that players make, it's not something you can determine. Can you explain in more detail instead of simplifying it? No its very different from how its currently done. Its currently based on Win and Loss, thats the only thing that affects your MMR. This would be a secondary system that has nothing to do with increasing/decreasing MMR, instead it determines your teammates and enemies within that MMR. So if it flags you as performing worse than others in your MMR, it will place you with others flagged as being worse. If it flags you as performing better (such as Smurfs) it will place you against others who perform better for the MMR. Actually its pretty easy to see when someone is getting carried, you look at their damage, CS, KDA, Vision Score, and map pressure/objective control. If its all significantly lower than every one elses, they are getting carried. Even if you are behind, you can still perform in most of those just as well as your teammates. I look at all my teammates past games during loading screens, and i notice all the time 1 or 2 people who consistently perform poorly in nearly every way. They have low kill participation, they don't ward, they have a lot of deaths. Its not just one or two bad games, they still have lower scores even in wins. That person may be ranked a little too high for their skill level and are getting carried enough to not fall or not fall fast enough. Like if you look at my match history, I perform pretty consistently for my Rank. I pretty much am ranked around my skill level. Even in games where I am doing REALLY bad I still have good kp% and vision score. However my teammates are all over the place, some perform way better and some perform way worse consistently in all their games. Thats where my system would come in, it would place those people with other people in similar situations. That way they are still at the same MMR, but now they are playing against people at their own skill level. They would be taken off the system once their scores match the average for whatever MMR they end up at.
> [{quoted}](name=Stephenizgod,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ra2NJabK,comment-id=000100000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-10-02T20:42:20.161+0000) > > No its very different from how its currently done. Its currently based on Win and Loss, thats the only thing that affects your MMR. This would be a secondary system that has nothing to do with increasing/decreasing MMR, instead it determines your teammates and enemies within that MMR. So if it flags you as performing worse than others in your MMR, it will place you with others flagged as being worse. If it flags you as performing better (such as Smurfs) it will place you against others who perform better for the MMR. > > Actually its pretty easy to see when someone is getting carried, you look at their damage, CS, KDA, Vision Score, and map pressure/objective control. If its all significantly lower than every one elses, they are getting carried. Even if you are behind, you can still perform in most of those just as well as your teammates. I look at all my teammates past games during loading screens, and i notice all the time 1 or 2 people who consistently perform poorly in nearly every way. They have low kill participation, they don't ward, they have a lot of deaths. Its not just one or two bad games, they still have lower scores even in wins. That person may be ranked a little too high for their skill level and are getting carried enough to not fall or not fall fast enough. Like if you look at my match history, I perform pretty consistently for my Rank. I pretty much am ranked around my skill level. Even in games where I am doing REALLY bad I still have good kp% and vision score. However my teammates are all over the place, some perform way better and some perform way worse consistently in all their games. > > Thats where my system would come in, it would place those people with other people in similar situations. That way they are still at the same MMR, but now they are playing against people at their own skill level. They would be taken off the system once their scores match the average for whatever MMR they end up at. I mean, the whole principle is that if you narrow the parameters for how people can be matched and enforce those parameters with stats...you still get a situation where less games will be able to be played. The whole point of a matchmaking system is to let people play games with an abundant pool of players, but if you use a system to narrow it even further than it already is then people are going to have a hard time finding a game. I mean, as an example again...I'm in low iron with a 1.22 kda. In a system like this, I'd never be able to play anyone better than me and there's very few people who are worse. I played a game today against a bronze Yi who got crazy fed and killed our whole team over and over. In the end we won because we focused down objectives, got turrets down before they did, and grouped Yi during the base rush to get the win. You don't need to have fair matchups to have a fun time.
: > [{quoted}](name=NovaPh,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ra2NJabK,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-09-30T23:16:35.758+0000) > > I'd be very much in support of using player metrics to match people together but I think the real problem is that it would dilute the ques and create situations where creating a que could be impossible. > > So for example if the system has to find "people who have a high vision score and also have a 2.1 kda ratio" and it gets no hits at the time...you can't play league? I don't think it needs to be so specific tbh, I think it would really only need to look at the players consistency and how well they perform on that champion compared to others in their ELO. So if someone performs poorly in a role in most of their games, but ends up getting carried enough to rank up it would flag them. It would then put them in a game with other flagged people to see how well they perform. Obviously im over simplifying it, but that would kind of be the general idea.
> [{quoted}](name=Stephenizgod,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ra2NJabK,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-01T04:04:56.857+0000) > > I don't think it needs to be so specific tbh, I think it would really only need to look at the players consistency and how well they perform on that champion compared to others in their ELO. So if someone performs poorly in a role in most of their games, but ends up getting carried enough to rank up it would flag them. It would then put them in a game with other flagged people to see how well they perform. Obviously im over simplifying it, but that would kind of be the general idea. That's very close to how things are already being done. Consistency/ELO is measured by wins and losses, but I'm not sure if you mean by some other methods. I don't really see how comparing based on specific champion consistency changes anything. It's also important to understand that being 'carried' is a subjective determination that players make, it's not something you can determine. Can you explain in more detail instead of simplifying it?
: > [{quoted}](name=NovaPh,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ra2NJabK,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-09-30T10:11:35.130+0000) > > I think it's really interesting because, in reality, it would be impossible to perfectly match a team together because there are so many factors involved. Even in real-life sports the teams aren't really guaranteed to be on an equal skill level. I think the real problem with digital sports verses real sports is the fact that unlike in real life you can play for a few years and then still come back (and smurf). Unless you have a medical condition it's unlikely you're going to get injured playing league and have to retire. I was watching football last night so the thought really came to me there. In these kinds of games, there aren't really large mandated rotations of new players coming into the game (while the older ones rotate out) because of retirement and injuries. You can have people who have been playing for 10 years against someone who is brand new because of smurfing. It's a lot easier to manage in real sports as well because they only have around 1.7k players compared to the around 1.2 million-plus that the NA server has. > > I do see some 'close' games in pro-play about 2/5ths of the time or so. It's more likely to happen in a regulated league like the LCS or NFL than it is in an unregulated pool of over a million people. There's only around 50 pro-players overall in the entire NA pool, so it's easier to regulate and manage a more consistent skill floor. The players are more likely to have equal skill levels in those types of games because they are all held to the same standard. Even in the LCS where you have 10 teams, only 3-4 of them end of really being viable for high-tier competitions. There's never going to be fair matchmaking. > > I'm also trying to say that if league was always 5 v 5 flex (where both teams got to scout, play with friends, or pick people they trusted not to int) then matchmaking would always lean closer to fair (but still not be perfect). They could start looking at individual skill though. Instead of doing this bullshit Eternals thing, they could develop a system that looks at your personal performance. This system wouldn't affect your LP gains or losses, it would purely be used to match you up with and against people. That way someone who consistently performs terribly but gets hard carried every other game, gets matched with and against other people who consistently do poorly. This would be a way more accurate way to rank someone, they wouldn't be getting carried in enough games to rank up. They would obviously drop to the rank they deserve to be in.
> [{quoted}](name=Stephenizgod,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ra2NJabK,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-09-30T20:19:33.414+0000) > > They could start looking at individual skill though. Instead of doing this bullshit Eternals thing, they could develop a system that looks at your personal performance. This system wouldn't affect your LP gains or losses, it would purely be used to match you up with and against people. That way someone who consistently performs terribly but gets hard carried every other game, gets matched with and against other people who consistently do poorly. This would be a way more accurate way to rank someone, they wouldn't be getting carried in enough games to rank up. They would obviously drop to the rank they deserve to be in. I'd be very much in support of using player metrics to match people together but I think the real problem is that it would dilute the ques and create situations where creating a que could be impossible. So for example if the system has to find "people who have a high vision score and also have a 2.1 kda ratio" and it gets no hits at the time...you can't play league?
: > [{quoted}](name=NovaPh,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=yFLnEj0q,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-30T10:55:19.044+0000) > > But that's the thing. There's no way to prove the difference. By your logic every new player would be banned out of the game for having bad item builds and KDA as a new player. If a Level 45 {{champion:238}} Support player who buys only {{item:1054}} 's plays Ranked and spams /joke for the entire game doesn't scream trolling, I don't know what is.
> [{quoted}](name=KnKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=yFLnEj0q,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-30T21:05:55.872+0000) > > If a Level 45 {{champion:238}} Support player who buys only {{item:1054}} 's plays Ranked and spams /joke for the entire game doesn't scream trolling, I don't know what is. I'm not saying there won't be obvious cases, I'm just trying to say that the actions you're describing aren't actually disallowed in the game. Those are all things you can do without being banned. You can't prevent players from buying all doran's shields and then emoting the whole game. You'd have to add a line of code to make exceptions for that like they did with Tears, and is it really worth preventing any player from doing something pretty harmless? If it's not some kind of 'illegal move', it's not something Riot can tell people not to do. For something to be banned en mass by a robot or automatic system, the criteria have to be something that can be detected by a machine. The bot could detect if someone buys a ton of the item, but that isn't against the rules. It can detect zero-tolerance words and things like that. Machines can't detect the intent of someone behind the screen.
: > [{quoted}](name=KnKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=yFLnEj0q,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-30T04:08:00.513+0000) > > Rito is slower than a drowsy snail when it comes to banning blatant trolling. The issue isn't Riot being slow but rather their philosophy of "even if there's a 0.00001% chance this player is innocent and not trolling and just "bad" or "unknowledgeable" about the game we're not gonna punish them despite it looking like 99.99999% like intentional trolling".
> [{quoted}](name=Introspective,realm=OCE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=yFLnEj0q,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-09-30T05:41:44.261+0000) > > The issue isn't Riot being slow but rather their philosophy of "even if there's a 0.00001% chance this player is innocent and not trolling and just "bad" or "unknowledgeable" about the game we're not gonna punish them despite it looking like 99.99999% like intentional trolling". But that's the thing. There's no way to prove the difference. By your logic every new player would be banned out of the game for having bad item builds and KDA as a new player.
: I'm so tired of egirls
It's funny to me because we actually had some cutesie-named person in one of my games who basically carried us with Lux because they were pretty good. I don't think it's fair to say they're always bad.
: Ranked is Frustrating
I think it's really interesting because, in reality, it would be impossible to perfectly match a team together because there are so many factors involved. Even in real-life sports the teams aren't really guaranteed to be on an equal skill level. I think the real problem with digital sports verses real sports is the fact that unlike in real life you can play for a few years and then still come back (and smurf). Unless you have a medical condition it's unlikely you're going to get injured playing league and have to retire. I was watching football last night so the thought really came to me there. In these kinds of games, there aren't really large mandated rotations of new players coming into the game (while the older ones rotate out) because of retirement and injuries. You can have people who have been playing for 10 years against someone who is brand new because of smurfing. It's a lot easier to manage in real sports as well because they only have around 1.7k players compared to the around 1.2 million-plus that the NA server has. I do see some 'close' games in pro-play about 2/5ths of the time or so. It's more likely to happen in a regulated league like the LCS or NFL than it is in an unregulated pool of over a million people. There's only around 50 pro-players overall in the entire NA pool, so it's easier to regulate and manage a more consistent skill floor. The players are more likely to have equal skill levels in those types of games because they are all held to the same standard. Even in the LCS where you have 10 teams, only 3-4 of them end of really being viable for high-tier competitions. There's never going to be fair matchmaking. I'm also trying to say that if league was always 5 v 5 flex (where both teams got to scout, play with friends, or pick people they trusted not to int) then matchmaking would always lean closer to fair (but still not be perfect).
: Matchmaking Nosedive
I'm not sure if you're talking about ranked or normals in this case, but I'm assuming normals because of the data I saw. Your ranked MMR is fairly stable and is in good condition, but I did notice that your normals MMR is starting to trend down. However, it's worth noting that the data is only really trending down to around where it would've been at the start of this month. How long have you been having this problem?
: Can people stop using the term "inting"?
It is something that does honestly bother me in game...when people assume I'm inting and threaten to report me when I'm just being outplayed or not playing as well as I could. The other posters have explained this better, but it's a real pet peeve of mine because I'm not the type of person who ints/trolls but I get called out for inting all the time. On the other hand, I'm fine with being called a feeder if I die too much because that's what the word has come to mean...but saying I'm feeding on purpose (inting) is just really rude imo.
: Xsmithie should just spam Sej/Skarner to win MSI
I think his Jarvin and Skarner are solid enough that TL can win games as long as he doesn't play them out too bad. His sej and hecrim are usually pretty bad, especially if he's playing against Sylas who can steal those ults and often uses them better than he does. His pool does become very limited all things considered but I don't think he's really that bad of a player...he's just worse compared to everyone around him at MSI. I feel the same way about Impact. Impact has made some very good game-saving plays for TL but people still think he's not good enough because he's not a carry like TheShy or Wunder.
: Daily reminder that better jungler wins
I feel like there's a logical problem with this kind of thinking. Why is it bad that, especially in pro play, having two people in the lead while everyone else is behind means that leading team has an advantage and a better chance to win? A better jungler does mean a lot, I agree. If you watch Clid play, you'll see he can get 2-4 ganks off and basically put every lane behind. That's what the jungler is supposed to do though, and if he's playing well he should be able to give an advantage to his team if he has the ability to outplay the laners rather than the other way around. If you predict a gank and turn it around it's just as good of a play.
Ahri Baka (EUNE)
: When a Business company makes skins It has to include popular champions they already made the previous event for 4 unpopular champions Can you stop the circle jerk already? Lux and Ezreal were perfectly suited for the skins Not because of how the champions look like It's because a huge percentage of League players are anime fans , and most of those animes fans chose to play league for anime material like Lux , Ezreal , Yasuo , Ahri So Lux was perfectly chosen , stop arguing it already , no one will buy anime Urgot
> [{quoted}](name=Kitsune Kawaii,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=U27UJbdf,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-05-17T23:35:48.199+0000) > So Lux was perfectly chosen , stop arguing it already , no one will buy anime Urgot I agree with your post and I know it's just a joke...but...I know plenty of people who would love to have an anime-styled urgot (including myself). A lot of people dislike urgot's appearance (he's statistically considered one of the least visually appealing) so I think a skin like that would make him popular. The real issue is that making a mecha urgot doesn't really work because he already has a kaiju form and malphite is the mecha. I actually play with his battlecast skin for the mech flavor.
mack9112 (NA)
: It would ruin game experience so many people would be first timing champs
> [{quoted}](name=mack9112,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=oE0pxwEJ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-05-13T11:40:51.607+0000) > > It would ruin game experience so many people would be first timing champs First timing champs in ARAM is one of the most fun aspects of it for me and actually gives me a chance to play things I normally don't play like Riven or Yasuo. Lots of picks I don't see in the normal meta like Rammus were really fun to play in ARAM.
Syrile (NA)
: Small incremental buffs over a decent period of time. Adjustments rather than complete reworks. Paying attention to bad decisions and correcting them instead of trying to "fix" them with worse mistakes. These are very simple basics that would work. And there are other ways to ensure it. However, Riot has no interest in balance. They have interest in making the game as broken as possible.
> [{quoted}](name=Syrile,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E9Jc5wYE,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-05-13T04:03:31.396+0000) > > Small incremental buffs over a decent period of time. > Adjustments rather than complete reworks. > Paying attention to bad decisions and correcting them instead of trying to "fix" them with worse mistakes. > > These are very simple basics that would work. And there are other ways to ensure it. However, Riot has no interest in balance. They have interest in making the game as broken as possible. You realize that the three things you mentioned is basically riot's current strategy, and yet you're complaining that they don't do those things and that they don't care about balance.
: Alternate Taric Ult concept.
I don't think that'll actually help since, as you say, we'll just end up with taric-rammus instead of taric-sona. Though, I do like the idea of it for the sake of solo que.
: All future champs/Legendary skins should have a "Thank you" voice line for heals/shields.
I love the idea, but they should definitely not have it trigger on every heal and shield (maybe every five or so) or else I might have to stop maining Taric jk lol.
: Unbalanced game ..
I've noticed these kinds of 'problems' in the game before. I would ask how many deaths would be considered enough for people. Dying two times should mean you have a loss in lane, that just makes sense. Some people play too fast, including me, and will die 3-4 times in lane and that shouldn't be something you can comeback from in early game. Would being able to die six times be acceptable? Where do you draw the line. I have the same question for the bruiser situation. Even as Garen I can chip someone down to 50% with a full combo if they don't react. Does that mean Garen is broken too? You have to consider the tradeback and the flow of play in these type of situation. Even if you lose 60% you can heal up/use potion and setup a gank to counter. It's not unrecoverable. The thing with tower dives is that even if the tower isn't always going to do what you want is that they are still risky and require coordination. You can defend against them if you predict them and react defensively. Even three man dives in pro play can be called out and traded. It's not really unfair in my opinion.
: Please stop making us watch LCS/MSI/w/e for quests.
As someone who likes watching esports I really like the missions. I'm getting rewarded for something I do anyway and I'm being reminded/pushed into doing something I like already. At the same time, even as someone who supports the missions I think there should be an option to dismiss it because plenty of people don't care/outright hate esports and this kind of thing annoys them.
: Something I notice with the most recent champion releases.
I've seen Neeko and Pyke pretty frequently in the games I'm playing (at least 30-40% of the time), and I've even seen Sylas once or twice once I went into ranked...so I really wouldn't say they've died out in popularity at all. Sylas is obviously seen less due to the nerfs, but I've still seen him here and there and he's very playable in low-elo despite how much they nerfed him for the sake of high-elo/pro-play.
: Just in case it wasn't clear , you're not supposed to play that cat (yummi) with an adc
Honestly, if there's any chance we'll actually get a new meta where we can have supports working with someone in top-lane I'll be very happy. From what I've been seeing, you could really have Yuumi go either way and that makes me curious as to if this will give teams more options in terms of lane positions.
: Why does nearly every game ask us to spend so much time grinding these days?
I mean, you could look at it that way, but it's also logical to look at it from the inverse perspective. If you have a game that people will put down quickly, then the chance they will spend on microtransactions will decrease down towards zero. If a game is short and you finish it easily then you're not going to have any pressure to put any money into the game.
: Get Rid Of A U T O F I L L
I've dealt with the problem by having at least one solid pick in every role...so I don't really have an issue with being autofilled. I know that doesn't work for everybody, but I think it's reasonable to expect from a higher ranked player at least. You don't need to be good at every role, but you should be prepared to play what fits the situation. I'm technically not good at any role, so I just hop around depending on who I want to play.
: Well, the issue is that there are plenty of champions in the game right now, if you read my points, who have been gutted and have been given no buffs to compensate them while others, like Urgot, were immediately buffed after being gutted because....reasons? It's either incompetence or favouritism. Morgana is one of the best midlaners for nearly two months with no nerfs while Sylas gets gutted, Rakan gets gutted and still has no buffs given to him. Pyke, sitting at a very very comfortable win rate and was completely balanced, got his Q and E buffed. Like what? How on earth does Pyke require a buff but Rakan doesn't. It just doesn't make any sense to me how they go about balancing champions. It just seems like a completely random roulette on who gets buffed or nerfed at this stage. It used to be where you could tell what the patches were going to bring but nowadays it's just "Oh okay I guess wits end is buffed now while Stormrazor is useless on every adc except Kai'sa" (Who only builds it because it gives her Empowered E+Q, not because it's a good item).
> [{quoted}](name=MajorMillow,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Nr3H9X2R,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-04-25T05:36:41.917+0000) > > Well, the issue is that there are plenty of champions in the game right now, if you read my points, who have been gutted and have been given no buffs to compensate them while others, like Urgot, were immediately buffed after being gutted because....reasons? It's either incompetence or favouritism. Morgana is one of the best midlaners for nearly two months with no nerfs while Sylas gets gutted, Rakan gets gutted and still has no buffs given to him. Pyke, sitting at a very very comfortable win rate and was completely balanced, got his Q and E buffed. Like what? How on earth does Pyke require a buff but Rakan doesn't. It just doesn't make any sense to me how they go about balancing champions. It just seems like a completely random roulette on who gets buffed or nerfed at this stage. It used to be where you could tell what the patches were going to bring but nowadays it's just "Oh okay I guess wits end is buffed now while Stormrazor is useless on every adc except Kai'sa" (Who only builds it because it gives her Empowered E+Q, not because it's a good item). I've watched multiple videos talking about how they balance league, and it's really important to understand that they have so many factors to take into account when working with the game. They don't just use win rates to determine which champions to change. They look at play-rate, skill level, and they have much more detailed data collection than what's provided on public websites. They explain why they make each change in the patch notes to the best of their ability, but I can't really deny there's probably some favoritism or incompetence sometimes. Morgana did get nerfs once Riot decided morgana was a problem in midlane, and one of the main reasons that Sylas had to be gutted was because (for example) you can see that he was basically permabanned in the LCS. When it comes to sampling data, they directly state that they can't just take data from one game to decide what they want to change...and it probably takes months for them to follow a process. First they have to find a problem, which would take weeks of collecting sample data...then they'd have to decide how they want to deal with the problem...then they have to test the changes internally and on the PBE...and based on what they have said it takes several days for them to actually code the patches themselves. It's not a quick process. Also, for the record, Stormrazor being useless is a consequence of player choice...it's not really Riot's fault. The item is useful, but people are just choosing not to use it. I was playing a game just the other day that had a really awesome build of toplane Lulu with Stormrazor.
: The state of game balance. (Genuine discussion)
I think the real problem with people's perception of balance is that the discussions are always very short-term minded. Sylas is weak right now, but from what I saw they are going to be giving him compensation buffs next patch. People always want problems to be fixed the very next day, but Riot's patch cycle is weekly/monthly. The only time they'd nerf something immediately is if it presents a large problem that requires an emergency fix. Jinx and Riven aren't really in a state where they require emergency fixes...they're just good right now in the current meta. If the meta shifts in two months and people stop using Jinx, for example, because Nautilus (or something else) takes over bot lane...then does she still need to be nerfed?
: This is Why Ganking Needs to be Nerfed
Normally I'd agree, but based on the principle of balance it's important to understand a few things. The video points out that these ganks were only possible thanks to high levels of team coordination, understanding of high-level strategy, and knowledge of angle tricks that make Rek'Sai more powerful than intended. It's not really something that can be nerfed so easily, it's just high-level game knowledge. Even if, say, Rek'Sai skipped farm and was a level underneath Kayle due to some kind of theoretical nerf...the ganks would still work because Riven is still right there and they have good wave management.
: Riot: The Current Tutorial Needs an Update and Here is a List of Reasons Why
I made a similar post a long time ago when I started playing, because there are serious flaws with how the tutorial teaches you how to play. You basically have to look up a guide anyway to learn anything, so I guess they figured it didn't matter.
: Playing immobile champs in this game feels like shiit.
I was trying to make this argument to my team, but they don't really seem to get it. I played Urgot verses Fiora and my team was screaming at me that I was a ranged character and that I should win that matchup...but it's really not that simple when she can turn the ranged matchup into a melee matchup with one dash and some good positioning. Urgot has great options for countering melee, but the specifics aren't really what I'm addressing in this case. I just wanted to explain that it feels weird to play a low-mobility character against a high-mobility one because it becomes very hard to press any kind of advantage while they can basically move twice as fast as you do. The real problem for me is that I wouldn't want a game where you have ONLY high mobility or low mobility characters, so I wouldn't know how to solve it. If you gave everyone high mobility then it would remove the fun fantasy of playing a slow and powerful character (ie: Sion, Urgot, and Garen...despite them all being able to increase their speed somehow with charges...you get what I mean.)
: Has Matchmaking Ever Been Worse?
I can't think of many videogames where matchmaking has actually been solved, so I'm curious as to what other people feel about that. When I played DOTA the game said I'd be matched with people of my skill level as a new player...which was also a flat lie since the first game I played was with people who knew the game well and it made me quit just based on being insulted for not knowing what I was doing. It's the same even in fighting games, where it's way more common to be matched with people far above my skill level. I honestly can't think of any game that's balanced to the level that people are expecting of LoL, but that's why I'm asking the question in the first place.
Jarack (NA)
: My team won't stop trying to slay the fucking dragon.
if nine (or even eight) players are fighting over the dragon, I don't see why you couldn't come up with a plan to split push if you wanted.
Oooreo (NA)
: Honor more than one player
There are so many times where I've wanted to honor more than one person on my team (usually two out of the five) and I have trouble narrowing it down to one. I also agree there should be an 'honorable opponent' because I've had just as many moments where I've wanted to give my opponent props for good play and admit that they outplayed me.
faure (NA)
: @Riot please add a tooltip about benefits of pushing to tower after a successful gank
Yeah, it's really something you need to figure out in the moment. Sometimes I've gotten flamed for staying in someone's lane too long after a gank, so I tend not to go for tower unless it's a really easy hit. It'd be nice if my team communicated with me if they needed the help because then I'd know for sure.
: Survey: How often do you get flamed?
It's usually about 1 in 5 games for me when it comes to normals, but that rate goes up to about 1 in 3 if I'm playing ranked or ARAM.
: wanna change up the game?
How is that healthy for people who main Yasuo, Zed, or Morgana? Note that I'm saying this because I have friends who main those champs and would be very unhappy if something like this happened.
Nerull (NA)
: How do you convince your team to not chase, face check, or 1v4.
1. I can't really speak for other people, but sometimes I don't notice every alert I get. I'll die to an ambush and someone will tell me I got a warning but I legitimately didn't notice it. 2. Some people are just arrogant and need to learn when to facecheck better. When I started ranked, I came in still being used to normals where I could get someone down to 10% health and that would almost always cause a loss or a retreat. In ranked, I can lose a facecheck because the opponent is smart enough to know they can still win the engage (and they do usually beat me by a small margin). I can't take the same fights I used to be able to win. 3. I always listen when people give me shotcalls in chat (stay with the team, splitpush, ect.) but I can't really understand why someone else would just flat out ignore that kind of advice unless they have their own plan (which they should share with the team either way). 4. Insulting your team is going to make them less productive and play worse. I can speak from experience, because I have been (for lack of a better word) mentally damaged by those kinds of comments. It's never productive.
: Riot is trying so desperately to get money from absolutely anyone they can (general QQ post)
First of all, I lost around 12-13 games in ranked before I started getting wins and I was never placed in silver. Maybe the ratio makes a big difference, but I'm pretty sure that your first 10 games are going to be important for determining your placement. Thus, winning 1 in 8 might be considered silver worthy. Secondly, given the above...I don't think all new players end up in Iron. I'm bronze 4 now based on my own hard work and slowly improving to the point where I can contribute more and more to wins.
vivimos (NA)
: Champion Mastery Requirement for Ranked??
The main reason I would disagree is because of personal experience. My friend, who I just introduced to league, is level 19 and already has three mains that they've played between 5 and 27 games on (each). For myself, I already had around 9 mains that I played between 5 and 14 games on (each) before I hit level 30 and started playing ranked. There's no point in introducing a barrier by saying that someone needs to have a mastery level with a certain champ because most people will have hit that level where they have multiple champs they are comfortable with already before going into ranked. I do think it could be good for other reasons though since it would cut down on smurfing or botted accounts who have 0 points listed on their champs...as well as people just trolling in general by making picks they know they would lose on. However, I don't think it would reduce any of that to the point where it would matter so I end up feeling like it would just have no effect. I think the best thing that Riot could do would be to put a warning before joining a ranked game that people take them very seriously and that the player should be prepared to do their best on the champion they are the best with. If they choose to ignore that kind of warning then that's on them.
: Scared to play ranked.
I'm the type of player who will feel gratified in my own performance rather than being frustrated at my team. If someone does badly on my team, I'm more likely to laugh it off rather than blame 'bad luck' or something. In that sense, I'm at a point now where (as a new player) not faceplanting and walking out with less than 10 deaths is a victory for me even when I lose. I've been working to slowly improve over time and I went from feeling confident...to being crushed into the ground...and then slowly becoming more confident again with some help from the community. It's a very natural (and heroic/narrative) sort of cycle.
Rustypug (NA)
: for the love of god DO NOT NERF TARIC
I feel like the problem is more with the Inspiration Runes more than Taric himself. I've started playing Taric for fun based on seeing him in pro play (which is something that's common. People like to try out what streamers/pros do in general.) and he's my favorite support and one of my favorite champions overall. I think Riot is already planning on tweaking inspiration though, and I agree nothing should be done to Taric. That's especially considering that Blitzcrank is going to get a buff and he's one of the main counters to Taric right now based on what I've seen.
Exibir mais

NovaPh

Nível 58 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão