Yenn (NA)
: Can whoever designed Omnistone explain who is intended to use it, and why they would choose it?
The keystone procs up to every 3 seconds? I mean, that sounds spammy enough to make a number of champions give it a look-over (well, melee in the case of 3-second cooldown). It also sounds like something situational that can make an enemy keep on his toes, probably get a surprise once in a while. I think I'm safe from dying from the enemy's combo, but surprise, there's Electrocute on top, or I can outrun the enemy, but surprise, there's Predator. I just don't like the idea of having to guess while playing against it, and hope that RNG doesn't bite you. They've tweaked it to be potentially effective with limited gameplay experience, I think. I just hope the ceiling on effectiveness is higher than it sounds, and I don't think it is.
: Buff tenacity
Honestly, CC isn't meant to be countered so easily. I hate it, but think of it like Ninja Tabi. If it were a shut-down type power, it'd shut down team comps like Yas/Tryn/Yi/ADC with no room for gameplay error, simply win. Now, there are physical damage champs that bypass Tabi's passive heavily, such as Zed/Panth/Talon/etc., but the effectiveness potential is there. If those items got enough power to actually shut down those comps, it'd make enough reason to buff those champions to compensate, which is arguably where we got with Grievous Wounds, and why it's been contemplated as a removed mechanic many times before. Without GW on an enemy, some champions can appear immortal, like the occasional Warwick/Soraka(well, her ally), Vladimir, Akali, or any lifesteal build champion with BT/RH/DD, or even BotRK.
ITZ ICY (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Xavanic,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=z86aFIER,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-11-14T18:26:10.794+0000) > > always someone looking to try and start something, these abilites look like stuns when used, which is what im getting at... They don't look like stuns. Not only that, you said >they say stun but in fact are displacements So don't change your words because you were wrong. Admit it, change your arguments, move on.
Only example I know if is old Alistar Pulverize, which claimed it tosses into the air, stuns 1.5 seconds, but it actually tossed 1 second, stunned .5 seconds. This was changed in rework season 6 / preseason 7. That doesn't mean everything is perfect, Amumu ultimate says that it roots, even though it also stops enemies from attacking, which roots don't prevent. I later realized that Sion has a related issue, where it says he gets 1.25-2.25 seconds of stun/knockup, where the knockup portion only lasts .5-1 seconds. That said, it's a moot point. OP just pointed out a large list of displacements he thought were stuns. Instead, those displacements were merely part of the problem, one of the many displacements on an ever-displacement-heavy list of CC in LoL.
: Would melee mages benefit from AP versions of the AD items?
I don't really get why, but the AP versions of those items always get watered down, then sunk. I think the closest thing to AP BC would be old {{item:3091}} , or maybe even simply {{item:3135}} , which for whatever reason never seemed UP despite BC holding a crap-ton of stats. AP Hydra would basically be the old Will of the Ancients, or even {{item:3146}} , considering the active. In either case, neither turned out to last healthily because AP champs being burst first and foremost keeps this from being possible. I kinda wish there was an URF-like item (though I do hate the URF mode in general) which reduced cooldowns to URF level, reduced CC durations, and reduced spell damages, but allowed more fringe uses for certain things in game, such as {{item:3285}} and the Arcane Comet Keystone, and made any mage feel more like a battlemage, especially with the possibility of more consistent sustain from Spell Vamp. However, the burst-centric mage builds make anything over like 10% Vamp feel like a full heal on every combo, and sustained damage strats only ever work when absurdly tanky with Liandry's to whittle enemies down.
: Is it fair that if someone AFKs, everybody that is on the Losing team loses LP?
So... you lose ranking in the fake ranking system (LP), but lose no ranking in the real ranking system (MMR). What's the point? The two should be following each other regardless, but even pretending it's fair for one and not the other is ridiculous. The fact there are two systems is bogus in the first place. You shouldn't ever be publicly ranked better or worse than you are matched up as. That's just dumb in the first place. However, aside from that, leavers aren't supposed to be something to feel better about. I'm not supposed to have a goal of making other teammates' lives unbearable to the point that I may force one to leave and alleviate my loss burden some, just be sure not to cross the toxic line. I'm also not supposed to be boosting the records of early-game champions, who likely get more players to ragequit against them than enemies get your allies to ragequit, and thus have a higher favorable 10 LP vs -3 LP tradeoff. That's not supposed to be considered in this game. Your goal is to win the game more than you lose, and since 100% attendance is not an attainable goal, ever, you need to simply live with a vanilla form of endgame distribution. Other forms of distribution *are* able to be abused, and result in other negative game impacts, including increased leaver amounts. Just do what you can to make sure you aren't encouraging leavers, and you'll get plenty of leavers on the other team to offset the ones you get.
: Thoughts on Viktor with suggestions on how I believe he could be improved
The problem with Viktor is that he has a lot of clunky mechanics for a plethora of roles. Not that they can't work well together, but if you're expecting to out-poke with your E on the majority of games, you'll likely not enjoy playing him as much as someone like Morgana or Lux. The potential is there with a sleeping enemy, but highly unlikely. Yes, it is hard to hit your E twice on a champion, basically ever. However, it's meant to be dodgeable. The alternative is old Vik who stacked his damage with no fail. It wasn't OP for a while, but once hardcore Viktors got the mechanic down, the damage was just ridiculous. So, instead of completely shelling the skill altogether, the upgrade will not commonly deal that extra damage, but still has potential if you were to, say, slow/stun somebody with a skill, or sneak a shot from the other side of a wall. Heck, I wouldn't put it past a timely slow from Glacial/Hextech GLP/Rylai's Vik. However, the lane-shove potential is still there from before, completely in tact. W also has fairly generous range as well, but is typically ineffective from afar. Most of the time you'll be wasting it at a range, and lack any CC as you attempt to flee. The skill really shines moreso on holding approaching enemies in their tracks and keeping Vik particularly safe, especially if you are facing a melee enemy and place it at your feet. Your Q also has generally low range, and also works better in a melee skirmish, particularly when the autoattack enhance got added in update. Heck, even Chaos Storm has been given melee prevalence since the update, where the storm only keeps up with an enemy if he's more melee, but the damage has been slowly backloaded into the ticks later on in the effect. It's no coincidence that Vik is played far more commonly top these days, he's basically a melee skirmisher with a potent poke in his own right. As far as costs of the Cores go, they used to be 1k every level, but most players would grab the E upgrade and build toward poke damage all game, no matter what. The diminishing costs are meant to incentivize getting those secondary cores, despite them not necessarily benefitting Vik as much as the first upgrade does. You can delay your first core if you want a stronger main poke still, but this doesn't typically work on Vik, as he moreso benefits from shredding waves and hopping lanes, or, depending on the opponent, can also whittle melees with minimal opportunity to counter at level 3-4. TL DR; Vik has the tools to engage in multiple roles, so his power budget is not going to afford him even stronger poke. It's good enough.
Shahamut (NA)
: Juggernauts are technically (at least according to RIOT) a tankier sub class of fighter, and not a more damage oriented tank. If you ask me, its 6 one way, half dozen the other. I think the difference they are going for though is that juggernauts primary role is to deal damage, while a tank's primary role is utility. Its confusing because, while its true that lots of other types of champions share traits with all other classes of champions, the reason you pick them up and their PRIMARY function is what RIOT wants to focus on. Juggernauts are a tanky fighter varient. They are still primarily damage dealers, but they tend to also have high survivability or "tankiness" mid fight. The trade off is usually low mobility and low cc. Tanks are about team utility. This can be in the form of large AoE lockdown/initiation (mummy/sej) or solid amounts of peel/protection (Maokai, Taric) but what ties them together is the reason you pick them in a comp. Utility. You don't pick Darius if your goal is to protect your adc with his one pull and slow on W. You pick Darius to try and dunk 5 worms that have the audacity to play on YOUR rift. You don't pick Illaoi to initiate fights, you pick her to be a constant side lane threat with very high 1v1/1v2 potential and wave clear. Its a tricky conversation to have, but juggernauts are in fact NOT tanks. Though they are certainly "tanky"
I disagree that Juggernauts aren't tanks by Riot's standards. The problem with the logic on this is that tanks were bulky characters back when all tanks had a degree of hold or mobility to them, and the majority of the champion pool was lacking in mobility. Back then, when Garen was "tanking" he wasn't even doing that right, and was basically shunned for not even having a true class. Most other Juggs featured some type of CC, or were powerful enough to hold their own without CC (or potentially both, like old Sion, Xin, and Skarner). As the game grew more mobile, these playstyles fell aside more often, and CC moved more toward CC, while damage kept focusing the damage. At the same time, mobility kept creeping in, and items like Zhonya's forced assassins to become even more potent as well. At the same time as these champions were changing to fit their niches more, the tank class kinda dissolved into Wardens/Guardians/Juggs/Divers, and even more weird crap. I've yet to see Riot take a true stance on what a tank is anymore, but somehow we're certain that {{champion:36}} is not one these days, despite having some of the best tank synergy alongside a potential permaslow. Again, I've seen nothing that resembles Riot's stance on this since before the class updates.
: Prove it. I want to know what sources you're pulling out with the term of 'Tank'.
You couldn't have been that fresh to have never heard of the tank archetype in video games before... can you? The class is most certainly prevalent in almost any game that features a health bar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(gaming) might help you out a bit to get caught up. Keiaga's sources should help as well.
IainG10 (EUW)
: 'Tank' in games being derived from tank, the military hardware. Able to take more of a beating than a man due to armour plating, but not generally known for speed and manoeuvrability. But if you think that tanks just sit out on the battlefield occasionally firing on anything that takes their fancy, you need to update your tactics from WW1. Tanks require thinking to properly use, and that holds true in games as well. Contrary to whatever people on here are saying, a tank does not just sit there mashing 'attack'. They do in fact have to keep an eye on their HP, they have to control aggro to stop it going onto the healers or that one idiot DPS that just won't position correctly, they have to face the boss correctly (and that's not always purely away from everyone else), dodge damage zones, throw up self-mitigation at the right times, and if it's WoW raids, know when to hand off to the _other_ tank because the boss is designed to wear through one over time. If a tank isn't paying attention to their HP, it's because they have more important things to worry about that no one else can do for them, whilst at least their HP can be dealt with by the healer. Everything OP has listed as things MOBA tanks do that MMO tanks don't, MMO tanks are doing. But going away from that (not-so-)little aside, do you know what a Juggernaut is doing? They're taking all the attention onto themselves because they're going non-stop for the enemy squishies. If Nasus gets in amongst the ADCs/Mages, does the team ignore him? No, usually everything goes on the Nasus: CC, damage, shields/heals on his target. Juggernauts disrupt fights every bit as much as the things Riot has accepted are tanks; the only difference is they do it by being a threat rather than by being a pest with CC. The very fact we describe them as tanky should suggest to the sensible that they are tanks. If you want to give them their own sub-class _within_ tanks then by all means go ahead. Riot's position on this is like going into a shop and seeing a blue hat being advertised as a red hat. The store can say it's red all they like, but if I throw that hat into a spectrometer and get a reflected wavelength of 450nm, it's blue irrespective of how delusional the shopkeeper is. Now, to get downvoted by all the very obvious 'I MUST stand in the fire' DPS players I can see that think MMO tanking is a faceroll....
I liked what you were saying until you started throwing in secondary ideals of a tank. Every military unit has a measure of disruption available, that's kinda the point of war in the first place. The military tank is solely based on running into the fray, taking a beating with high amounts of plating, and staging powerful, generally stationary strikes, more powerful than an infantry would possibly have, because of the durability. There is a such thing as infantry-based siege, but the lack of protection often forces the unit to dial down the scope of damage involved. You can place as many secondary purposes on a tank as you want, their primary reason for existing in battle is having protection to get into range, and then fire absurdly powerful artillery. I'm glad you're on the Juggernaut=Tank side, but I feel like the disruption segue kinda throws a weird uncertainty on the issue.
: PSA: Juggernauts =/= tanks
And another PSA about this non-fact. Tank is a cross-genre concept, not a MMOBA thing solely, definitely not just LoL. Tanks tank damage, surprisingly enough. It is for this reason that LoL has stopped using the terminology "Tank". But for some reason, people keep placing definitions onto tank like this little tidbit here: >So don’t expect a juggernaut to help save you with a shield or heal that they don’t have. And don’t expect a tank to bust through other enemy defences like a damage dealer. Okay, maybe tanks don't necessarily have the damage to do the latter (though they can), but saying a juggernaut isn't going to save you with a shield or heal? What tank shields or heals? There's like 3 {{champion:12}} {{champion:44}} {{champion:201}} . Typical "LoL tanks" are the CC variety, which tend to hold more than use regenerative support. However, that does not mean that "Tanks deal CC". Much of the CC in the game comes from controller champions, for crying out loud! It's just insane to be calling controllers tanks {{champion:99}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:143}} {{champion:518}} . So, what is it that holds Controller champions separate from "Tanky" Tank champions? Any guesses?
Shahamut (NA)
: Thank you. I understand better what you are now saying in general. It is worth noting, that I also removed the cooldown portion of his E when stunning and ulting folks. While I think E/R into stun is nice, I think E/R/stun/E/stun is overkill, and only necessary because of how little damage he has and how much of his power is locked away in his passive atm. Most Skarner players, including myself, that care to talk about him really do enjoy his general playstyle/kit as a whole (disregarding the passive of course). If Skarner went back to what he was prior to juggernaut update, he would still be a very good 1v1 duelist which would give him plenty of power when not ulting someone. The only real goal of this suggestion is to give Skarner his base stats back, and remove the NEEDLESSLY long stun combo. E granting a stun immediately was the only good thing that came from the juggernaut rework as it greatly enhanced his gank potential pre-6 not having to stack 3 skill hits first.
I guess I'd have to agree on most of this. I usually got around the pre-6 gank by simply sparingly doing so at all, which is probably why I fell off of him post-Juggernaut-rework. His only bright spot was basically not needing a red buff to gank, as Q gave plenty of slow, and I guess that's why they never did drop its value pre-rework. The damage just dropped too much, and I wasn't as much a fan of his lategame presence in teamfights. Before he felt like a battery that wouldn't lose its charge as long as he kept knocking on enemy champions, and that's what disappeared the most in his rework, so I've honestly barely touched him since. I feel like the fury in this is trying to emulate that, but I feel like some of the stun combo has to be more significantly hit before that can happen.
Shahamut (NA)
: I dont think you understand what I am saying... If you can Kite Skarner, you can kite Skarner. If you are successfully kiting Skarner, he doesn't get his ult. How does his ult being up make kiting Skarner harder? My point is it doesnt. If Skarner manages to get on top of you, ult or no, you are in trouble. Skarner almost never gets to ult carries unless they are out of position already. At which point it isnt much stronger than other displacements. Its particular strength being the disable duration vs other displacements having better access to priority targets.
You're not entirely wrong, Skarner is very opportunistic, but it's clearly much simpler to hit a skill which can't classically "miss", can be recast if "missed" prior to fully cast somehow, and doesn't require autoattacking to activate the hard CC, leaving room for a number of countering options. On top of that, the small stun is far from the end of the chase when landed without the ultimate as an option, as your CC is completely gone when wasted for a 1.25 second stun while on a generally low-damage champion. If an ally isn't right behind you, you're probably better off with basically any other true diver champion, again, unless his ultimate is up, which leaves room for chaining significantly, plus a higher chance of allied input. >If you can Kite Skarner, you can kite Skarner. If you are successfully kiting Skarner, he doesn't get his ult. How does his ult being up make kiting Skarner harder? Overall, the answer is that if his ultimate isn't up, he's usually already kited. There's little to no impact to be had Also, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Skarner is not a particularly high damage champion, by design. His double-hard-CC Impale-Fracture combo is basically what he lives for. This combo accounts for most of his power budget, and if a damage infusion were added as suggested in this post, he'd have to lose something, else he'd be a running Garen who could also put off extremely limiting CC. You're trying to stack his power level where it's already highest, with his ultimate and crippling CC. What Skarner needs is something to even out his impact and allow him to be more effective than just his grab, and that won't be through late-teamfight impact alone. If he's going to even out his lulls a bit, he needs some of his potential impact reduced, particularly when he does activate Impale. Right now his highs are too high, and his lows are too low. Improving his lows is a nice touch, but not when his highs go sky-high, and especially when it improves the highs far more than the lows.
Shahamut (NA)
: I sorry, I just cant get past this statement... > but when he already has a tough kit to land, he'll just be kited until his ultimate is up again, making the stat boost generally irrelevant until Impale is up again. how does his ult make him unkiteable?
It's literally a suppression... You end up in range for a split second, and you are going to be kiting in the wrong direction, and for a pretty significant duration, despite any mobility that may be in your kit. Meanwhile, Skarner manages to get in range with his E, it can still be somewhat easily dodged, and heavy amounts of CC/mobility can offset the stun chance by kiting, and if you can manage to pull this off, the impact is still minimal compared to a suppression in the wrong direction. Pickoffs are the name of his game, but those aren't going to happen easily lategame. You'll be spending every last Flash/Ghost/Protobelt/Righteous Glory just to get the simple Impale grab, but a successful Fracture on the carry will be very easy to miss and turn the fight against your team instead, with basically no other upside in his kit with his ultimate already gone. Overall, the game is about power spikes and lulls. This iteration of Skarner has him riding his already strong power spike, from which he can somewhat easily chain heavy CC. This rework would tie power to his ultimate on top (especially with Spear of Shojin). This will once again force more power into his ultimate, which leaves the rest of his kit lackluster and pitiful unless crazy gimmicks are thrown in, like Spires, which enforce a clear power option to play around and mimic a fluid kit.
Shahamut (NA)
: Skarner's ultimate isnt that oppressive. It's only ever complained about in the context of his being reworked. It has plenty of counterplay and is not imho unhealthy or too powerful. My changes barely use up the power budget of the spires by making the stats more accessible to Skarner. Why do you think this limits his power?
It's highly limiting on his power. Plenty of champions have grabs to force the enemy toward your team, plenty have suppressions or stuns. Other than Lee Sin, who requires even better positioning, nobody holds for that amount of time *and* brings you even closer toward your doom. That's potentially a lot of impact, and with a somewhat limited fail-rate.
Shahamut (NA)
: Skarner still has mana. The fury bar is more like Annie's passive in a sense, In that it shows how much ms/as he has from his passive, and at max Grant's some small boons. Trade off being, it slowly drains out of combat UNLESS it hits max, at which point it resets to zero out of combat. Spending his fury to trade his attack and movespeed for something equally powerful would be too much to add.
Main point is Fury should not be on Mana champions, even a diluted form as this is sounding. On top of that, Skarner doesn't need power at the end of teamfights, he already has high early teamfight relevance with his Impale. Impale is currently used as an early champion trade, but makes the rest of his kit required to be flimsy and worthless. Adding power to the kit sounds nice, but when he already has a tough kit to land, he'll just be kited until his ultimate is up again, making the stat boost generally irrelevant until Impale is up again. I'd like to see one of two things on Skarner: 1. Some mechanic to decrease the viability of Impale unless the rest of his kit has been utilized. I don't think that's too much to ask for on a champion like Skarner. The easiest way I see of accomplishing this would be causing his Q to imbue extra damage as he stomped champions, as always, and have it chargeable. If Skarner is unimbued, he gets a half-duration Impale. If imbued, he can scale up the Impale duration up to live duration (maybe after 3-4 charges or something). 2. Some mechanic to increase the viability of holding an Impale off until later in the fight, making a valid choice between dealing a heavier teamfight impact or simply champion-snipe, like this: >The only saving grace for this idea in my mind is that, contrary to this build for Skarner, a Fury build which focused on Fury building power, and his ultimate costing his Fury pool (Think Shyvana Fury building with the Fury stat boost described above) might actually be a workable solution to Skarner's power cycle, making Impale cost much of his remaining teamfight viability for its high immediate impact. However, again, I feel this still would be against the character of Skarner. ------ This all said, I'm still a fan of old-old Skarner. That Skarner was oppressive because his hold was too great between Impales. He never should have had a 40% slow on his Q, which was easily reapplied permanently, yet that's what it was *nerfed* to. The dream on that Skarner was to use non-jump-type mobility to hop onto enemies with enough presence to stick, and if a carry comes to try to pick me off, turn the tables on them and have the option of bringing them toward my own hunting party, if needed. Right now, he only has that presence if within a Spire, and that's just a bad joke. If I had my choice, we'd go back to that Skarner, drop his hold to maybe a 15% slow, and maybe a couple other tweaks here and there. I don't feel like I needed more than 15% slow back then. Why would I? I had enough resilience to withstand failed approaches, a little extra if I did happen to succeed, and enough damage stacking to hold my own against most of the low-to-mid-powered champions. Adding some crazy ranged slow/stun combo made his tankiness potential feel unrewarding, and turned him into a weird Warden/Vanguard combo that excels a little at pulling enemies like a Vanguard, but also at holding enemies off the carry, because E rarely hits anything if it isn't point-blank. They never should have tried to add true range relevance to his kit, if that's even what they were going for.
Shahamut (NA)
: Skarner rework concept, again.
I don't like the idea of tossing Fury on a mana champion. Truth be told, I'm not a fan of Fury, anyway. I also feel like Mana has always been a stronger motivation behind his theme, and why he felt so good manipulating his cooldowns. I know jack about any lore, but what I am aware of (basically from his quotes) feels more like a frustrated but controlled lonely hermit who lost everything, yet finds the restraint to linger and survive. Definitely not a Fury champion for me. The only saving grace for this idea in my mind is that, contrary to this build for Skarner, a Fury build which focused on Fury building power, and his ultimate costing his Fury pool (Think Shyvana Fury building with the Fury stat boost described above) might actually be a workable solution to Skarner's power cycle, making Impale cost much of his remaining teamfight viability for its high immediate impact. However, again, I feel this still would be against the character of Skarner.
Cloud273 (NA)
: Can we make it so cinderhulk doesn't automatically aggro jungle monsters?
I feel like this is rarely an issue. If anything, the extra damage proc or 2 on every monster and enemy (most often) will offset the occasional unwanted aggro. Especially on champions that tend to get tanky follow-style kills with only enough mobility to follow, like an Amumu pleading for a crying kill. The issue for me is that tanking can't be done easily anymore. The whole spirit behind Bami's Cinder is aggro everything around (towers included, which wasn't listed as an issue, somehow), and actually tank the enemy damage so that others don't have to. I feel like Bami's Cinder is doing its job right, and the issue is that A. tanks don't tank well anymore and B. water drake actually holds (I miss vanilla drake). Also, why can anybody sneak around a friggin' dragon?
: CLICK CONTINUE AFTER A LOSS>>>
It's a bit of salt in an open wound, maybe, but it's there to bring the player out of the game. It could automatically do so, but I don't see that as a real improvement. The other option would be alternative happy messaging or something, "Almost had 'em!", which I don't see the point. You lost. As annoying as it is to see the same "Rattata Fainted" style message after every match, I think it makes more sense to smooth the edges of the game than to simply crash into results immediately. What game does that?
Tsuko (NA)
: Glad I had to sit in this game for 16 minutes for absolutely no reason.
I'll start off by saying I'm a huge fan of leaving Surrendering as is. You already get Early Surrender at 15 minutes, even after the AFK surrender at 3 minutes. Adding a 10 minute surrender chunk simply won't be effective often, and probably add even more complexity to the system. As an example, /Remake gives a loss to the disconnecting player when you lose, but also gives a loss to Diamond+ players who are queued with them to avoid surrender strats from popping up. Additionally, there was a First Blood caveat, but I believe that was removed since the advantaged team can feed first blood to avoid a remake with little allied input required. So, overall, surrendering in its boring, normal form currently is only adjusted to not be taken advantage of. I don't need new schematics to blow the game wide open for LP farmers with a creative mind. I will admit, the game here was pretty legit. I caught the replay, and all lanes were (mostly) overwhelmed, and with limited AFKing, even by OP. The whole team did AFK at about 12 minutes I think it was, and a couple others before that, but I'm proud of OP for sticking it out, for what it's worth. However, this game could have ended prematurely with a new surrender mechanic. For example: * Kayn could have actually disconnected and simply return and continue the game. (Not saying it would've happened in this case, since Kayn made it clear he was bouncing, but a legit Kayn may have been sunk by his own team). * The perception of team weakness early can be offset by having a strong lategame (cough *Kayle* cough). * There's always an opportunity for an enemy team to overplay their advantage, such as with Tryndamere splitpushing into ganks constantly while the team teamfights 4v4 at a decent win chance. I'm not saying you'd have the advantage or anything, but an impossible win would be overstating it, even in this blowout. Only bottom lane was having any luck at all, and that was offset by ganking pressure you guys couldn't reciprocate. However, if that Varus starts popping off, you as GP start poking stronger, Kayle sneaks in on the enemy team overextending, and Brand just be Brand, this game might have seemed more possible with just a little more time. There's always Surrender@15 if you really can't hack it anymore.
: I knew the new logo reminded me of something
It's not even that close. They're just boxy letters, that's all. Aside from that, LoL is more slender, has less letter overlap, and has padded edging on the lettering. Not saying it's completely different by any means, but it's a font. Unless you start calling in Wingdings, you're going to start to run out of options, at least ones that are clean-looking.
Shahamut (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=crippler38,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=NcyYFg5E,comment-id=0000000000010000,timestamp=2019-09-15T13:55:19.989+0000) > > That actually both explains a lot and makes sense because of how his healing works. Since it's just refilling a grey health bar and all and Pyke's healing is based on damage from champions up to a cap and all instead of just healing for a bit. Since that bar isn't filled as fast since ignite is cutting it in half, it'll fill up the rest of the way faster later. I think if you are ignited and have grey health that it should also burn your grey health bar significantly. But thats just me.
What should happen is that gray health consumption should stay equal at all healing times, and whatever healing is accumulated is reduced. That's not what happened here. Consumption slowed down along with healing, which effectively left his healing at 100% power. That's not what I brought Ignite for. Keep in mind during the video that Gray Health maxes at [60% of your health bar. ](https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Pyke#Gift_of_the_Drowned_Ones)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ice Weasel X,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=NcyYFg5E,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-09-15T11:55:20.839+0000) > > I think his point was less that Pyke dashed away and more that he so quickly went from 1% to 60%HP after the burst failed to kill him. People have long been frustrated at the relative lack of consequences for Pyke getting caught out. Did he have spirit visage maybe?
He didn't. Records show {{item:3401}} {{item:3147}} {{item:3142}} with various pieces of {{item:3814}} possibly built. Nothing towards SV bought in the game.
: Why trolls win League of Legends.
I played against somebody who griefed the team. Played with a Syndra with Smite, not as jungler, and split her time between midlane and last-hitting monsters, which is extremely easy on Syndra since she can throw the monsters as she wants. She was not aggressive in tone or anything, just played the bully all game long. Probably reported by everybody on team. I look at history, they've done this before, though sparingly. I was hopeful for some action, but none was taken immediately, which I'd figure wouldn't happen on somebody flagged for reports heavily. Maybe I'm wrong, my team just moved on. However, a day later, I decided to send a report to Support about it. I flagged it as a particularly malicious case of griefing. I got BlitzBot immediately, and got an option to go up a rung and get somebody on the case. I received a message about them looking into the case from a Rioter, but not being able to divulge any details about whether a punishment might occur. The guy hasn't played yet this month. And he was not one to miss a day. Maybe I got lucky. But my thought is that the automated system is not going to work in griefing situations often. Riot doesn't want to reverse bans basically ever. If there's any doubt on the malicious behavior, they're not going to do anything about it. 0-14 Soraka Top may just be camped or griefed themselves, which is common for off-metas. Sitting in base with minimal movements could be someone fighting their internet, or even their own mouse (I have done both myself in bad times, though probably not typically in a way that looked malicious). The automated system is not going to be able to measure these issues perfectly across the servers, or even somewhat close to perfect, so Riot is looking for dead-to-rights bad behavior tells. You have something that can even be remotely written off, or even requires player chat for context, you will likely not get much from a standalone report or 10. However, I can tell you from my experience that Player Support appears to have helped in my specific case.
: @Riot Any news about him?
I'm going to go with simple things to say about what's here. 1. They don't want him to have more standard power. Power was his first iteration, basically. I always wanted him to maintain this niche, and still believe he could have lived until now if they kept that as his niche. But for some reason, his Q kept a stifling 35% slow until its demise in a decent AoE. I bet he'd still work out fine at a 15-20% slow today, but overall, I think they decided power wasn't the way to go between grabs. Instead, he's mostly going to be the CC guy with flares of power in crappy jack-in-the-box-Shaco type zones that still leave the enemy team enough counterplay to avoid being overwhelmed if they want to. 2. They don't want him to have more mobility. His W was too much mobility, they nerfed it down to an accelerating speed boost so that you had to work up to a decent speed. The overall message is that you're gonna earn your grabs. 3. ... Stop circling his ultimate. It's already the staple to his kit. It's already his defining factor. It's so ingrained that they redesigned his E to have a crippling slow, a massive stun on autoattack, a speck of extra damage on a lackluster kit, a vicious damage boost for a short time, and still it's a shit skill compared to the ultimate. The ultimate is k, he needs something to do on cooldown. In fact, going off of what I just said, I think the first thing I'd do redesigning him is giving him a passive while on cooldown. I think at this point that Skarner simply needs a kit while on cooldown, kinda like you see with Gnar. If Gnar went Mega Gnar and stunned all over the place for 5 seconds, but then did nothing else in a teamfight, we'd have a problem. However, if using the Crystal Power to drag an enemy helplessly a couple seconds, maybe some type of power surge would be allowable afterward. It could be a mobility surge that gives him better positioning while without his ultimate, it could be power (probably delayed) that surges from him, maybe built up energy around him reacting after using all that power. I'd personally vouch for this power surge to be his old passive, which allows all his abilities (not just Q) to be reduced in cooldown on autoattack. Another option would be energy imbuing his old abilities. Think like New Skarner before ulti, Old Skarner after. Obviously there'd be some tweaks, like a 5-second lapse before and after ultimate where you'd still be the lackluster version, and despite being imbued with power, I'd probably drop the CC after Skarner ultis.
rujitra (NA)
: **Riot does not support the Danish language in ANY region of League of Legends**. As such, it does not **MATTER**. I can say that my native language of Hooplah uses the "n/f" words to mean something different. That doesn't mean it's acceptable in League. If you are using a non-supported language that conflicts with the supported languages, that's your own problem.
This is not right, nor most of the defense you've put down about this. "Kys" is a bad phrase to put down because of context. For that reason, it should not be bannable in my previous sentence. God help me if you guys decide to ban me for putting it here. The phrase can be flagged. That's perfectly fine, and expected for following such high amounts of players. Even flagging for a ban. However, to be irreversible is an extremely big problem, and should be fixed. If the context fits a more positive scenario, somebody should be able to reverse such an action. Danish being unsupported is garbage. Sure, I wouldn't expect the automatic system to automatically notice when an unsupported language has an issue, but for human beings to be unable to reverse it is just nonsense. Context is key in all of this. If the player is putting down "Kiss kiss to you beautiful" to an allied player who is speaking Danish with them, give them a darn pass. However, if they decide to say "kiss kiss" every time someone mocks them, that would probably be a good scenario to lock in the ban. I don't understand the rub on this one.
Warix3 (EUW)
: Stop mixing tft ranks with league ranks
They want this to be a real mode this time. They apparently don't want second-string shenanegans happening like Dominion and TT. It's kinda annoying. If they treated other gamemodes with any care, they'd probably still be around, but Riot decides to put their attention in the braindead balance game mode to pretend they have a second mode. So irritating.
Savvyal (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Terchio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-08-18T02:19:30.452+0000) > > Not that the actual value is fair, but... > > 850 RP x 145 Champions / 3 Eternals per pack = 850 x 145 / 3 = 41,650 RP, not 246,000. > > 41,083 RP x $100 / 15,000 RP is $300 with 3,350 RP to spare, not $16,000. > > I feel like he conveniently left out the 3 per pack, then doubled the value needed for good measure. > > Unless they retracted the 3-pack? > > It's BS either way, but if you're going to use figures, use the right ones. Lmao its kinda funny how you're angry that he used the wrong figures but you also used the wrong figures... Each champion has 3 eternals which is why they come in a 3 pack. So it does cost 850rp per champion like he showed in the video.
> [{quoted}](name=Savvyal,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=00040006,timestamp=2019-08-18T18:59:33.461+0000) > > Lmao its kinda funny how you're angry that he used the wrong figures but you also used the wrong figures... Each champion has 3 eternals which is why they come in a 3 pack. So it does cost 850rp per champion like he showed in the video. > [{quoted}](name=King Braum,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=000400020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-18T19:50:15.139+0000) > > A single set of eternals is 3 eternals, if they're making another set that'd be 6. > > "How do I purchase an Eternals set? > You can purchase Eternals sets directly from the champion detail page (in the new Progression section) or from the Eternals tab in the Store for RP. **Each set** contains three Eternals." > https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/features/faq-eternals-coming-patch-917 > > If you buy Eternals per set, and each champion would have 2 sets with a total of 3 eternals in them since a set contains 3 eternals. > Than that means for the entire thing, you'll be paying twice per champion for a total of 6 eternals. I had a different understanding of what the system meant. I'm still not certain what's correct, but the values on the video make more sense to me now. It was my understanding that this would be sold in packs of 3 champions you own because Riot didn't want to sell this feature 1 champ for 300 RP or summat, so they did 3 for 850. I also knew a number of champions would not be fitting in all 6 Eternals categories mentioned as well, so 6 sets made little sense (good luck getting Warden Yi, for example). I'll have to wait and see what the system actually comes up with, but I'd hope to god it's nowhere near $1,600 for everybody. I did also use one wrong figure. Small typo in trying to explain my reasoning instead of popping a random number on the screen like the vid.
: > [{quoted}](name=Terchio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=000400020000,timestamp=2019-08-18T09:09:51.128+0000) > > You guys seem to have some interesting info. Care to share the source? Heck, not only have Riot said they only have "1 set" right now, the stats I've seen tracked have varied in amount by champion, and have had no indication they'd require multiple purchases. https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-gb/2019/08/dev-exploring-eternals/ "We’ve already got a list of potential Eternals for Set 2 that we’re playing with, but we’d love to hear what Eternals you’d want to see for your favorite champions going forward!" - What’s Up With All the Statues? "we’re already in the process of making Set 2 for all of the champions in the game," - What’s Next for Eternals?
> [{quoted}](name=King Braum,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2019-08-18T10:36:00.997+0000) > > https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-gb/2019/08/dev-exploring-eternals/ > "We’ve already got a list of potential Eternals for Set 2 that we’re playing with, but we’d love to hear what Eternals you’d want to see for your favorite champions going forward!" > - What’s Up With All the Statues? > > "we’re already in the process of making Set 2 for all of the champions in the game," > - What’s Next for Eternals? That isn't 6, or anywhere close. On top of that, there's no indication there will be any additional charge. I also already alluded to "set 1" because I was aware of set 2. You expecting 6 sets for some reason? That's what I was really digging for.
: > [{quoted}](name=Terchio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-08-18T02:19:30.452+0000) > > Not that the actual value is fair, but... > > 850 RP x 145 Champions / 3 Eternals per pack = 850 x 145 / 3 = 41,650 RP, not 246,000. > > 41,083 RP x $100 / 15,000 RP is $300 with 3,350 RP to spare, not $16,000. > > I feel like he conveniently left out the 3 per pack, then doubled the value needed for good measure. > > Unless they retracted the 3-pack? > > It's BS either way, but if you're going to use figures, use the right ones. The full eternal set was made up off 6 eternals, you only get 3 when you buy them
> [{quoted}](name=King Braum,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2019-08-18T06:44:08.429+0000) > > The full eternal set was made up off 6 eternals, you only get 3 when you buy them > [{quoted}](name=Físt,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=uOUchTr1,comment-id=00040003,timestamp=2019-08-18T08:48:33.871+0000) > > Cuz there are 6 eternals per champ, so you need to buy 2 packs of 850 for all 145 champions You guys seem to have some interesting info. Care to share the source? Heck, not only have Riot said they only have "1 set" right now, the stats I've seen tracked have varied in amount by champion, and have had no indication they'd require multiple purchases.
Accenix (NA)
: Riot Is Ruining League of Legends
Not that the actual value is fair, but... 850 RP x 145 Champions / 3 Eternals per pack = 850 x 145 / 3 = 41,650 RP, not 246,000. 41,083 RP x $100 / 15,000 RP is $300 with 3,350 RP to spare, not $16,000. I feel like he conveniently left out the 3 per pack, then doubled the value needed for good measure. Unless they retracted the 3-pack? It's BS either way, but if you're going to use figures, use the right ones.
: In Rift, spending money is a sign of loyalty. In LoL, spending money will be an achievement. I eagerly look forward to other positive characteristics which companies will assign to customers in the coming years. Handsome? Genius? Philanthropist? Doctoral candidate? If a game tells you that you really do be like that, it's gotta be legit.
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZTi0fbR3,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2019-08-14T04:10:07.090+0000) > > In Rift, spending money is a sign of loyalty. In LoL, spending money will be an achievement. I eagerly look forward to other positive characteristics which companies will assign to customers in the coming years. Handsome? Genius? Philanthropist? Doctoral candidate? If a game tells you that you really do be like that, it's gotta be legit. They all have some gimmicky way of bringing you in. At least Rift's Loyalty system gives you bonuses on top of the money you spend (I believe?). Instead, LoL is trying to pawn off content of zero gameplay value, and charge you for it. Kinda the opposite.
: I'm calling out the Moderator in demand of an explanation.
> [{quoted}](name=sanjiluv,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=d0gisVEt,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2019-08-09T00:02:18.668+0000) > > Im unranked. And silver in TFT. > > Does this mean im harassing myself by stating these things? I seriously don't get the logic behind this. This has pretty much been covered a few times in the thread. >Surely it should be against the rules only when it's used to insult or harass others rather than in all situations. >[{quoted}](name=The Djinn)It is. In this case it was borderline enough that we removed it without a punishment, which we commonly do for edge-case content. It was not being used for any purpose other than to suggest that the OP was surprisingly toxic for a new player and/or was a repeatedly punished smurf, neither of which is really okay. Overall, it's one thing to state a ranking, and another entirely to imply said ranking dismisses your opinion or defines you. Most of us want to be measured by our opinions, not some background measurement behind their weight. Also, your comment is fine because you're using your own rank to your advantage... I guess... as a point. However, if someone were to make that same statement after your opinion, that's where he's measuring the point against your rank, and not for the point itself. ------ Sadly, I explained this, but I know this didn't need an explanation. We're trying to break down the semantics of the phrasing as though you can't jumble the wording and find a way to be passive-agrressive on the boards.
: Why is Pantheon left handed?
Someone spears you or whatever on the right side, you're not going to be happy, either, even if it misses the heart. Surprise, your right lung is hit, guess you'll just not be breathing now. If you're a switch hitter, sure, maybe protect that organ a smidge more, if even that makes sense. Otherwise, choose your dominant hand for your spear thingy and kill him now. And why do you refer to him being "left handed" and then say everyone should be shield on left hand? Isn't he just "doing it wrong" at that point? Seems like even you acknowledge the weapon should be in the dominant hand.
Comentários de Rioters
koshkyra (NA)
: Can this stop being posted please? I see this at least once a month. There is no correlation between attack range and provocation of minion aggro, that is a fact and no amount of arguing or replays will get around that. Instead of dividing melee and ranged champions even more we should be uniting and discussing how minion aggro is extremely RNG in the first place regardless of range, you can attack someone once and multiple minions will literally chase you into your turret, or you can attack someone 5 times in a row and the minions will ignore you. It has nothing to do with range (stop saying it does) it is simply that the system as a whole is completely random and needs an overhaul.
Actually, I don't know the specific rules on it, but there are very different outcomes for range vs. melee to my knowledge. Easiest example to give in my opinion is when an enemy is fleeing a tower because he knows he can't hold it. Once that enemy gets a certain distance outside his tower's sight, the tower doesn't see you anymore. You can deal damage to that champion from the base of an enemy tower and it won't aggro you if the enemy is outside the tower's sight range (which I believe to be just a hair outside the attacking range). You also don't draw aggro if the positions are switched and you're outside the enemy turret's sight range. That leaves a lot of room for abusing tower aggro when the odds are stacked against the turret's team. Similarly, a ranged champion can do the exact same thing to melee champions with minions: attack out of minion aggro range (at least moreso than the melee champion could possibly do), and skate past minions mostly undisturbed to finish off that champion inside the enemy minion's aggro range, but while the melee champion is outside of it, and ultimately still not disturb the minions. This is very easy to do with a handful of champions like your Teemos and Lucians who can either deal heavy damage with intermittent hits, or who can combo quickly for damage while keeping distance, and follow up on a fleeing situation at the most opportune time. Range is a very effective tool against tower aggro, and is similarly useful against minion aggro as well.
Socon (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Terchio,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yLWg3Ewk,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-06-28T01:55:45.691+0000) > > Tanks are not defined by CC. Enchanters and other fluffy supports are not tanks. Tanks soak damage. That's the definition. If you're asking whether juggernauts are enchanters, then yes, I agree, juggernauts never were enchanters. But tanks? Some Juggernauts tank better than most other tanks. > > If you want a Warden, ask for a gorram Warden. However, don't pretend that Lux and Zyra are tankier than Garen and Mundo. Are you saying enchanters use cc as their main thing? Enchanters buff other character or heal them. Lulu, soraka, janna, nami, etc.
Basically my point. You give me a list full of CC champions who have some other specialty on top, and yet the class can't be based on CC. Soraka, the ultimate LoL healer, has a slow, silence, and root by herself. But no, wardens and Vanguards are the CC specialists, so much so that apparently "it makes them tanky." Thing is that's not true, never was. Tanky means you resist damage, plain and simple. If you can call wardens and vanguards tanky, but not anything on your list (all with 3 forms of CC apiece), you need to address what it actually means to be tanky. We keep mixing up the definition of tanking because nobody wants a Mundo or Garen on an assassin team with limited CC. However, tanky still means resistant to damage, as it always has. When I'm building tanky, I'm not building {{item:3905}} {{item:3030}} .
: PSA: Please remember Juggernauts =/= Tanks
Tanks are not defined by CC. Enchanters and other fluffy supports are not tanks. Tanks soak damage. That's the definition. If you're asking whether juggernauts are enchanters, then yes, I agree, juggernauts never were enchanters. But tanks? Some Juggernauts tank better than most other tanks. If you want a Warden, ask for a gorram Warden. However, don't pretend that Lux and Zyra are tankier than Garen and Mundo.
Ęsdeath (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Terchio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=c9TvWYbY,comment-id=0005000100000000,timestamp=2019-06-16T02:14:55.474+0000) > > The reporting system is literally a system that works automatically, not that I even claimed anything worked automatically. The system does not work on all reports. It followed through on this one. > > There is basically no evidence anything would have flipped the decision without the topic being visible through arguing. I would like to know how you think that behind the system, by automatic or manual means, they reversed that decision without our input while countless other issues (both real and fake) are also clamoring for attention. > > Not sure what you're arguing here. Riot needs scandals to do things, but how do you think we get scandals? The last bit of advice any of us needs right now is: > > I feel like you're trying to say that this one is over, it has the views, let something else take the spotlight. While it would be nice to fix everything tonight, they have to fix this, first. Riot has plenty of history not fixing things, too. If OP wants this fixed like her issue was fixed, we'll be here arguing for it. I think I can't really explain myself without having you twisting my words (no offense). A good example is the first citation you made, but I am not going to repeat myself again just so I can explain it, because I think I left it very clear. I even read what I wrote again and I think the point stands out quite nicely and easily. My advise? You can't really read things to the letter. When I said "Seriously ... arguing with them is worthless at this point" I didn't exactly mention "Just stop and remain silent". It's just an idiomatic way of saying that if they listened and cared about what people said, these extreme "efforts" to make a change would not have to exist. Or simply a away of expressing discontent before the laziness some of the Rioters display before these topics. They might care, but it only seems like that after we have a huge scandal going live on a few gaming news website, boards and reddit. All in all, I can summarize that quote as a way of expressing the negative environment this company spreads on its community. We might be responsible. But not in an universal manner. Riot is, somehow, as responsible as us when it comes to matters like these. That's all I can really express. Sorry if you understood it wrongly.
> [{quoted}](name=Esdese,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=c9TvWYbY,comment-id=00050001000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-16T15:43:59.161+0000) > > I think I can't really explain myself without having you twisting my words (no offense). A good example is the first citation you made, but I am not going to repeat myself again just so I can explain it, because I think I left it very clear. I even read what I wrote again and I think the point stands out quite nicely and easily. > > My advise? You can't really read things to the letter. When I said "Seriously ... arguing with them is worthless at this point" I didn't exactly mention "Just stop and remain silent". It's just an idiomatic way of saying that if they listened and cared about what people said, these extreme "efforts" to make a change would not have to exist. Or simply a away of expressing discontent before the laziness some of the Rioters display before these topics. They might care, but it only seems like that after we have a huge scandal going live on a few gaming news website, boards and reddit. All in all, I can summarize that quote as a way of expressing the negative environment this company spreads on its community. We might be responsible. But not in an universal manner. Riot is, somehow, as responsible as us when it comes to matters like these. > > That's all I can really express. Sorry if you understood it wrongly. I guess I'm wrong. It felt more like you were trying to shut us up. I can kinda see where you were taking it. My apologies. I don't think the references in between really made either point stand apart from one another. Maybe they should've, I was probably seeing red a li'l bit there.
: What Nubrac did IS against the rules
>Being a good team player begins at champion select. Be open minded when considering the needs of your team. If you're the last one to pick, try to fill a niche in your team that hasn't already been filled. If everyone's picked and something stands out as a deficiency in your team composition, try asking for another player to fill the gap, or change roles to embrace that responsibility yourself. If this were at all enforced, an off-meta couldn't be a thing. Support roaming could never have been a thing. Top Teleport ganks could never have been a thing. This is the Summoner's Code, which I can't even find, how did you? They've been phasing this out for a long time because nothing is enforcible on it, but it keeps being used as evidence of crimes committed. There is nothing in that description that has Nubrac's strategy any more invalid than those I've mentioned, nor other ones like kill-lane bottom lanes, AD skirmisher supports, supporty mid/tops, ranged tops, dual jungle, nor even funneling. It's a cheese strat like any other, and while his may not be effective or mutual, he has a specific niche in mind when going this strategy, like any of the strategies I've listed above. I'm not even a fan of Nubrac's choice, but the reality is that this passage has limited weight already on being in an archaic rulebook. This only holds as a good rule when compared with issues with heavier bearing, such as Suicide Singed and Top Supports, and it definitely has good comparison with those issues. However, this is NOT the rule you should be going off of. The actual rule is not concrete, has Riot's judgement heavily behind it, and other factors such as success rate, role contribution, and general teammate consideration. I'll add that teammate consideration should not include full gameplay disclosure if deemed unnecessary, another fallacy of the Summoner's Code. While team relevance should be a major function behind the decision, it's up to the player to decide whether his playstyle will fit in the scenario and whether it needs explaining, but it could be an infraction if not team-conscious. As an example, it'd probably be a bad strategy to set up level 1 invades at an enemy inner turret unless there's teammate coordination. Going solo all the way up there with no communication is probably going to land an infraction. However, your build direction is up to your discretion, as long as it isn't an obvious issue like Tears on Tryndamere. Overall, metas are meant to be broken, just like the Summoner's Code, at least if you translate it to mean issues like this are actual infractions.
Ęsdeath (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Terchio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=c9TvWYbY,comment-id=00050001,timestamp=2019-06-15T21:39:26.753+0000) > > Riot's system flagged her name as offensive, and took action. We argued with them about it. The action was reversed. > > It is not worthless arguing with Riot... Seriously. Your hush-hush sentiment isn't helping anybody. Ehhhh ... I don't really think the system flagged it as offensive. Quite the contrary. From what I read and saw, the "punishment" (if we can call it that) was merely based on a "high number of reports". So, despite the system putting a stop to it, doesn't necessarily mean it autonomously decided it was against any terms or rules. Probably it considers numbers of reports as a valid reason, which, in my opinion, is ridiculous and invalid. There are many people out there who try their best to see someone fail or spell something in the wrong way (that can be understood as offensive when, in fact, it is not) just so they can report them and most likely succeed at it. And where's the problem here? Precisely on the matter that he ended up meeting a support agent who did not care at all about what he was saying. And I do agree. We argued about it. Sure we did! But was the post really the reason why they finally admitted they were wrong? According to what I remember, it was another agent who actually answered and declared the "punishment" as invalid. And I distinctively remember the OP had asked to talk to another person (a more, interested and willing-to-hear one) because it was clear the one who was listening to him was not doing a really good job. So, on my end (and based on the pictures displayed on the thread) I can only say he was lucky enough to get someone who took time to actually read and think things through. We might have not had any impact. Or we might have, but I chose the worst case scenario. I don't see it as a "hush-hush sentiment", I see it as a real way of embrassing things. Because, unfortunately, this company has the flaw of needing scandals to go public for them to act. The sad truth? This case is just 1% of many. Sure, not every case comes with an NB3 using his personal comm line to a Rioter. But the liberty given to the guy who is as responsible as the other, is an issue. And it happens all the time. Simply because they. Do. Not. Listen. Especially support agents, who are supposed to ACTUALLY support ...
> [{quoted}](name=Esdese,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=c9TvWYbY,comment-id=000500010000,timestamp=2019-06-16T01:53:11.339+0000) > > Ehhhh ... I don't really think the system flagged it as offensive. Quite the contrary. From what I read and saw, the "punishment" (if we can call it that) was merely based on a "high number of reports". The reporting system is literally a system that works automatically, not that I even claimed anything worked automatically. The system does not work on all reports. It followed through on this one. > > And I do agree. We argued about it. Sure we did! But was the post really the reason why they finally admitted they were wrong? There is basically no evidence anything would have flipped the decision without the topic being visible through arguing. I would like to know how you think that behind the system, by automatic or manual means, they reversed that decision without our input while countless other issues (both real and fake) are also clamoring for attention. > > I don't see it as a "hush-hush sentiment", I see it as a real way of embrassing things. Because, unfortunately, this company has the flaw of needing scandals to go public for them to act. The sad truth? This case is just 1% of many. Sure, not every case comes with an NB3 using his personal comm line to a Rioter. But the liberty given to the guy who is as responsible as the other, is an issue. And it happens all the time. Simply because they. Do. Not. Listen. Especially support agents, who are supposed to ACTUALLY support ... Not sure what you're arguing here. Riot needs scandals to do things, but how do you think we get scandals? The last bit of advice any of us needs right now is: >Seriously ... arguing with them is worthless at this point. I feel like you're trying to say that this one is over, it has the views, let something else take the spotlight. While it would be nice to fix everything tonight, they have to fix this, first. Riot has plenty of history not fixing things, too. If OP wants this fixed like her issue was fixed, we'll be here arguing for it.
Ęsdeath (EUW)
: They are literally the same people who denied your username. When I literally don't see any issue with it. And that's where the issues lies. It's always been there. You state that they are unprofessional, but let me tell you ... that has always been part of their signature. I swear this company loves having these events stamped on its back. First, sexual harassment, then, fighting it with even more sexual harassment, and as if that was not enough: Let's reveal our true Bias by banning someone while ignoring every single offense NB3 has committed. Seriously ... arguing with them is worthless at this point.
> [{quoted}](name=Esdese,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=c9TvWYbY,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-06-15T20:32:04.678+0000) > > They are literally the same people who denied your username. When I literally don't see any issue with it. > > . . . . > > Seriously ... arguing with them is worthless at this point. Riot's system flagged her name as offensive, and took action. We argued with them about it. The action was reversed. It is not worthless arguing with Riot... Seriously. Your hush-hush sentiment isn't helping anybody.
: That has pick "locking" and banning. Essentially what I'm saying is Blind pick should be: 1) You can't see enemy picks 2) You can't ban 3) You all pick at the same time **4) You're assigned a role for no purpose other than saying what role you are** FYI, that ain't what Draft Pick is.
That's not much of a different skin at that point. More of a Chroma. Blind pick is mostly a mode of players who will fill unpopular roles and masochists who would see the world burn at the chance of playing Yasuo, even if playing support. It is a time-saver if you really wanna crank out mass toxicity at a fast rate, too. Theoretically. Last thing it needs, though, is zero support players to drag queue times in the gutter. Or jungle? I feel like Norms are still going to be extremely Support-light, in my estimation. Could be a bad guess, but last I saw, that queue was a little bit slow for the amount of reckless abandon it tends to favor. I don't need it slowed down so that Ranked Games become the new playground out of necessity.
: > [{quoted}](name=AlienPrimate,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EgrRWKML,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-06-02T19:20:51.386+0000) > >Should have I surrendered? Well the answer is no because I won that game. I would not have won if I quit to cater to my teammates who wanted out. > Congrats on a rare turnaround. Now, realize that, assuming your 51% ranked WR holds, you'd be better off spending your time in the future getting out of games where the odds are *that* stacked against you. For every one of these that you turn around, you're losing 9 others. That's time you could have spent getting into another, non-doomed game.
Every game turned around is a 2-game swing, at least, assuming you're at least a 50% player. If you turn around a loss at 50%, suddenly you're +1 of 50% instead of -1. It takes 2 wins to scrape back up to +1. At the 66% threshold, it requires 3 wins to make up for that loss. Surrendering doesn't save that much time, either, at least after the hopeless threshold. Even if you're somehow helpless after 15 minutes, there's next to no chance you'll hit 30 minutes, you'll probably be done by 20. Half a game duration is the best you get back of your life, and that would be ignoring the several minutes it takes to enter the game. You add it all up, it's not as pious as you make it out to be. This goes especially since it's not as great for the winning team, either. However, winning despite the odds is quite nice. It actually makes the game... well, fun. You should try it some time.
: Given how powerful the quick recall is, I'd say it's perfectly fair to have a small trade-off for taking advantage of it, since the fast recall is only a SIDE EFFECT of the objective, not even the primary benefit.
It's a quick recall. That has minimal impact on play, definitely nowhere near that of removing in-combat mobility of {{champion:24}} {{champion:64}}, and that's literally the only benefit of the buff while holding it. Dragons/Baron/Red buff/Blue buff and every other map objective has never had a detracting factor, other than arguably blast plants shaking up teamfights in negative ways for some. For a global objective to have such a targeted (albeit strong) effect on the map, there's no reason it should hinder its holder when nothing else does.
: Exactly. It gives you a positive. And alongside it you get a negative. That's a 'trade off'. They WANT you to get it, set up a play, and use it. If you choose to hold it as a threat, then you get map presence and power off that, but you make the tradeoff of vision control.
Map objectives should not be a trade-off of that type. And it most certainly should not be a stronger trade-off for certain champions more than others. The trade-off is being in a vulnerable position when obtaining the buff, not being handicapped while holding it.
: Removing the bans from ARAM is the absolute last straw for me. It's a very poor decision.
I don't really care for ARAMs so much. I did, however, play the recent event around it, and did not enjoy the banning portion of it compared to times I played prior. It was just another little thing to extend the setup on a short game mode, and also felt distracting before you receive your champ and try to scramble to find appropriate runes or decide if you're willing to gamble for a new one. Just my two cents.
Icecoon (NA)
: Banned for toxic name?
I feel like nobody here understands how racism works. Racist terms come from legitimate words. They didn't just make up a word and people started laughing at the expense of the odd man in the room. There's usually a deep understanding of the implications beneath the phrase, and that's no different here. Just because it's a #2 definition under the associated animal means nothing. It's still racist.
: > [{quoted}](name=KittyKàtKàtàrinà,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0LXvhw5U,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-12T10:07:24.305+0000) > > bruh xd ye if the first thing that comes to your mind from a name like firecoon is racism then ye you are most likely a lot more racist than the person using that name. I legit had to google definition of c**n 2 years ago to figure out why people got upset about it cause first thing i always thought about that words meaning was racoon cause it only makes sense. cant wait when i get my chat restriction for saying RAcoon next time im in game :^) How is that racist? I mean it is Racoon right? Idk I don't get it and nor do I understand why the guy got punished.
It simply is racist, in the same fashion as all the rest of them. The only redeeming factor is that the term still has a clean usage, though arguably tainted by the racist term. This is not Clerks 2, we're not "bringing it back". And if you don't get that reference, it doesn't matter, the point still stands. There are plenty of people who understand my reference, and more still that understand the racial connotation ("reference") of the OP's phrase. Same rules apply as any charged phrase. I don't know how else to explain it without comparing to (and using) other such phrases. It's bad, M'kay? Say it in real life, and you will get trouble for it in most circumstances you said it to the offended race, as I'm sure they haven't forgotten. I'd like to know what criterion would be needed to settle this, exactly? Sure, it's a generation or so late for many, but the term is still well alive for many of us. I'm not even part of said offended race... Seriously, it's a thing, and not a good one. I don't really care if you can't Google it because South Park decided to play off the phrase. It's bad.
: Any reason why Nasus W cooldown doesn’t start after the ability is finished??
Nasus' problem is that his kit is wonky. You can't take out his W and call it OP alone. Well, you could, but it doesn't give the full picture. W is the game's longest duration slow. Period. It's the only reason the cooldown off duration ever nears 0 seconds. It also stacks up to almost the strongest slow (Thresh Ulti is more), and isn't a pushover immediately, either, and that's ignoring the attack speed slow. But it's livable. Mostly, Except that he has the tankiness to live through crazy amounts of damage on top of it, by singling out the AD damage unit with Wither, activating ulti early for resistances (and health), and why not, healing himself when he does get on top of a unit. Other than that, totally killable if you can't run somehow. And then he has the damages. Of course he has to farm it up... except that 2 of his abilities take extremely heavy synergy from Cooldown Reduction. It's the source of his damage from Q, and it's the source of his single-target CC focus on top of that, to compound basically every effect already listed prior, but especially Wither. Tie on his Armor Reduction on Spirit Fire, and he has nearly assassin power. His only downfall is single-target focus. He can't kill 3 enemies instantly, but he more than has the capability to whittle them down heavily while soaking damage from the rest of the team. The reason he does well in low ELO is lack of team coordination mostly, and probably a lack of escape prowess. Vision probably helps the problem, too, because you aren't running from river to tower if a Ghosting Nasus has got your tail. You have to escape before he ends up in range, and if you aren't winning the vision battle, he'll knock you down even further for trying. Surviving Nasus means strategically focusing him while he's trying to assassinate a target, but then knowing when to save your abilities to no longer save your ally, but instead focus down other enemies who have a bit stronger damage coming up the back. It's like fending off something like a Mundo or Renekton, except when Nasus manages to get in range, that target is nearly impossible to save, and he just switches around to the most powerful targets to whittle the enemy team to nothing. Nasus needs something taken away from him to give him a real counter. These tanks need to forego either their damage or CC to be as beefy as they are. While Mundo/Renek have all 3 as well, at least their CC window doesn't seem infinite on their target. Nasus just gives allies too much time to build their advantage.
: Why can zoe use her second q while in zhonya's?
Some say it's a "fun for the user" thing. Honestly, though, How useless would she be without it? She's already a poke mage with limited melee viability, how terrible would it be if she had to double-cast her bread and butter poke ability only outside of CC? She'd never be viable in pros, and absolutely dominate low ELOs.
Exibir mais

Terchio

Nível 143 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão