: The label idea and the second idea are both things that require back-end coding which we can't really do at the moment from what I know. I can ask our local Wuks about it but I'm not very sure if it's possible at this time (even if it would definitely be beneficial).
The first one would undoubtedly require some architecture changes, so I wouldn't expect that to be something that would happen until maybe the next overhaul like the forums -> boards. The second one could require as little as passing a single extra user data flag back from the web instance, to the server back-end upon the get request send when you click on a discussion-list item and maybe a little copy paste on the back-end. It undoubtedly requests the post's data from the server, even without additional UI, just sending users an alert to their updates (even just a static "A rioter has viewed your post"). I'd imagine that this code roughly already exists in however replies are connected back to the OP's updates inbox, so just duplicating that upon opening the post if the request for the post was sent from a user account flagged as a "rioter" user. Sorry, if that's a little too technical or speculatively off the mark, I'm a web app dev and I'm just kinda thinking "out loud".
Comentários de Rioters
: Rioters: "Thoughtful, respectful posts are the way to attract Riot attention."
Well part of the problem is that you really only know if a rioter, or even a specific person, looked at your post if they respond to it... So something that's more likely to get them to respond doesn't necessarily mean it's the most likely to get their attention, it's just the most likely way to get confirmation that you did get their attention. Welcome to the internet where voluntary bias runs rampant. This is why some social media platforms (not naming any) {{champion:34}} get treated as the whole of society, when really they're just a small fraction of people who were outraged enough to even comment on something in the first place, regardless of the truth of subject at hand.
: On-Hit Neeko got hotfixed yesterday!
Lame, that seemed like a far more interesting build
: > Rioters should not willfully lie to the playerbase and should be held accountable. Agree. > lie on Twitter that it is a "western phenomenon" I said that her frustration is a western phenomenon. She is banned 60% more often in NA than her global average. Ban rate is a readily available statistic that we believe can be correlated to frustration. I also said on Twitter that Riven is a strong champion right now. Somehow that didn't make this post. There are good justifications to be made for nerfing Riven. I personally think some are pretty compelling. Good arguments can be constructed to nerf many things, however, and we want to be sure we're applying consistent measures in our approach to balance. I think we've not been great at this over the years, really. Some champion will always be the strongest one that does not get nerfed in a patch. This patch Riven's pretty darn close to that. If she picks up any more, she's probably due, but we don't think she's crossing that line right now. For those that are actually seeking a discussion, what is the criteria we should be using to justify a nerf to Riven this patch that we'd be 100% happy with applying to champions in the future (NOT the past, as I've already stated we haven't been consistent)?
How about the things in her kit that have skirted by being justified as making her "unique" have an inherent power advantage by undermining the normal limitations that other champions have to deal with. In this case providing her with a higher play tempo but unjustly providing equally impactful results. A literal example would be the fact that if you're playing against a Riven and you throw out a skill that you need to farm a wave effectively, then the Riven normally has an opportunity to engage, trade, and disengage before that particular skill used to farm has come off CD. Where as if a Riven uses a skill to farm, then her generally superior engage/disengage combined with her generally lower CDs, means that she can often use that same skill in a trade that's initiated onto her after she used it for farming. Riven simply has smaller discrete chunks to make equally impactful cumulative plays. Which inherently gives her an advantage over other champions by providing her the initiative, giving the player the sensation that they're not outplaying the Riven as much as they're waiting for the Riven player to become too arrogant and misplay. If league was a game of chess, then Riven matched into most of the rest of the roster plays like this... Riven moves to a line, the other champion moves a square, riven finishes her initial move into a square connected to that line, then moves to the next line, and the other champion moves a square again, exc. This increased input rate ceiling of the champion means that regardless of the skill advantage/disadvantage between the players, riven is always the one making with the leading action. The champion against Riven is almost guaranteed to be playing reactive, while their opponent is almost guaranteed to be playing proactive, even when they're in the lead. ___ TL;DR We don't need you to remove Riven from the game with one of the game's reworks though. It's just that you need to understand** for Riven, and similar champions, to not feel OP (even if numerically balanced by statistics) she needs to be treated like they're in a lower weight class**, not just faster...
: Repertoir on Riven “Frustration over her current state seems to be an especially western phenomenon.
When you have too large of a market, then the development has to diverge at some point. Attempting to force two different audiences into using the same products means that you will ultimately fail to provide what any of them want. This is both true for their West/East communal divide and their Strategy/Action divide. They've made their game too large and they need to create actual custom game tools that allow more player control and player driven development.
: > [{quoted}](name=deadlychuck,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=nbkxybWN,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-03-03T19:19:26.682+0000) > > Take everything that's come out in the past 5 years, and move it to the new game. > > Then continue development over there. So basically have the same game as it is now?
Yes, but obviously remove everything in the past 5 years from league 1.0 too
: I saw a lot of Ivern this week
The more appropriate question is "which streamer played him?"
: "It's almost exclusively competitive even,..." give me a break. League is far from competitive. It's a mess. A total joke. During the start of Preseason 8, do you really believe Riot was thinking about competitive integrity when they introduced the abomination that is Zoe? One shotting champions across the screen with RNG in her kit requires skill? Riot's "balance team" did nothing to address the excessive damage from Zoe for 4+ months. Do you believe Riot was thinking about competitive integrity when they implemented Klepto in their "Runes Reforged" system? What about when a developer who is a hard stuck silver Jungler decides to implement an RNG based Plant gimmick in the game. Was Riot thinking about competitive integrity? Riot wanted to cater toward new/casual people, period. There's no doubt about it.
I don't think you understand. The game is designed for a competitive audience that wants excitement, not for competitive integrity. In fact, it was never designed for competitive integrity, it's just that it now attracts a more competitively focused audience. The competitive integrity of the game comes secondary to appeasing the competitive audience of the game, which often want exciting matches which don't require much investment.
: I think they've concluded that old league wouldn't be profitable anymore due to the BR genre and other things siphoning off people who just want to run around killing everything. So they made Silver Troll Tactics very nearly the optimal way to play in the hopes of milking that audience a bit longer. I don't think there's any long-term plan at this point, just attempts to squeeze more cash out before the game dies.
If that's what they've concluded then they've got it all backwards. That's why the current version of league is slowly drying up. I think they're in an impossible spot, but that's of their own making. BR screwed over their new target audience after they back stabbed their existing audience, so why would those players trust riot to be genuine if they attempted to appeal to them? But equally so, old league also wouldn't be profitable for them either, for the same reason that they pushed to get a new target audience in the first place... new players have the entire history of skins and champions to purchase, where as existing players only have new releases that they MIGHT purchase. Ultimately that means you want to cycle as many unique players through your game as possible to turn the greatest profit. 1 new player might make them easily $100 for $50 of marketing, but an existing player might only make the $5-10 on a skin that costs them $15 to make, or a champion that costs them $50 they'd... well probably get the same $5-10 since most legacy players actually have enough Blue Dust (idk I still call it IP) to purchase the champion for free.
: Riot did exactly what 343i did with Halo 4. Turn a competitive gaming franchise into a casual shi*fest. Season 8's "Runes Reforged" System was designed for casual players. The skill gap was reduced due to the over excessive damage, overpowered/overloaded runes, RNG elements, and overloaded kits from new/updated champions. You can clearly tell that Riot wanted to introduce new players into the game with their "Noobs" campaign ads. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyq844xq2yY * Low tier animated, "What is League of Legends" ads * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNGDA5R048 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnsq2lseMk0 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwERJ6qJPuc * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z0CqQEHWxc * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayKbeS4chcI&t=12s * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo7jS88LZc8 * Forcing Pros to talk about being a noob * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvSeRqntf7U League is not competitive anymore. It's a casual game masked as a competitive game. The gameplay is a total mess. The sad truth is that the game is not fun for casuals, too. So, that's why people are leaving. During the late mid season 8 * Ghostcrawler steps out of Lead Position * Meddler takes over Lead Position * Meddler and his goons admit the state of League is garbage. The matchmaking is awful at the moment because Riot is forced to rely on the "Auto-fill" system and tried to cover up the population issues by implementing the Positional Ranking for Season 9. A system that also helps hold casual players hands.
I think that you have it a little off, it's not that league isn't competitive anymore. It's almost exclusively competitive even, just look at riot's behaviors and the kind of people that still play the game, don't you dare try to play something that doesn't have the competitive advantage, else face the wrath of every player in your game, 3 players from next game, the announcer, and fucking baron (probably). The term "casual" has never managed to settle on a definition, but I think it's fair to say that you can see an audience that is best catered to by the game's current design. Unfortunately it's too small of a demographic and most players are bleed over from one of the other two target demographics the game has historically had. The committed audience and the Noncommittal audience. ___ Committed: Learned every champion, have internal timers on base CDs for every champion, knows skills/details about the game that have since been added to the game's UI (e.g. buff/dragon spawn timers). These players aren't necessarily "competitive" playing ranked mode, but they do enjoy the game enough to want to learn as much as they can about it. Noncommittal: Has a hand full of champions that they know well enough to win matches, have a good amount of experience in their role/class but don't know the first thing about, likely, supports (except for maybe Pyke), wants quick games, these are the kinds of players who will frequently use 3rd party software to pick their build, and really just care about the excitement in a match rather than the details about the game. ___ Sadly a lot of the noncommittal players (as the name implies) are quick to jump over to other genres that offer more of what they're looking for, but especially the ones who aren't familiar with PC FPS games aren't likely to make that transition to the current action trend of BRs. But, I just realized I'm rambling again, in an attempt to make a game that catered to both these committed and noncommittal players, riot ended up with a game that best fits players who are noncommittal and competitive... Players who don't care to learn a ton about the game outside of what will get them those sweet sweet W's and as few L's as possible. This specific category of players isn't very large, because it's nearly impossible to make a cohesive game that only requires very narrow knowledge about the game. Yet (according to a lot of people who play the game) the ranked system tries to enforce a 50% win rate anyway, so good luck with that {{sticker:sg-lulu}}
Saianna (EUNE)
: That was a solid read with very good analysis. It's kinda funny how since the start in S0~ I kinda fanboyed LOL and never bothered to try DOTA2. I always took the suggestion more of a joke. Now the only and I really, really, REALLY mean ONLY reason why I haven't just gave up with LOL forever is the fact I love certain champions lol has. At least whatever are left of them. No HOTS nor DOTA2 has Teemo. They sure have something similar, but similar is not good enough. And same goes with several other champs. I so damn wish we had old LOL back. But at this point I'd rather take it as an insult if Riot tried to go "lol classic" as blizz tries with wow.
With regards to "classic" it depends on where it initiates from... Classic WoW was initiated as a result of a market demand for that version of the game and supplied by blizzard out of a necessity. Blizzard likely just looked into what they were going through to shut down the constant popping up of bliz like classic servers and decided that it would be more cost effective to give people what they wanted rather than trying to play off of nostalgia to draw players back in. Honestly I might drop the money on the current version of WoW along side the subscription I plan to get for classic, just so that I can juxtapose the two and analyze where the formula fell apart, since the last time I played was the release of WoD and that was after having skipped MoP (I was pissed at the talent changes, ironically I was pissed with the rune changes too still am). Again, if we saw LoL classic private servers popping up (which I've heard mentioned people might be attempting), then I might considered playing LoL classic, but for now as you said, it'd feel more like an insult for riot to attempt to release it unprovoked, because frankly we've lost trust in them to act in the interest of the players.
: Imagine that there was a League of Legends 2.0. What would you want to see in the game?
Take everything that's come out in the past 5 years, and move it to the new game. Then continue development over there.
: What happened to league?
Riot shifted their target audience because their existing audience wasn't as profitable as new players. The result was numerous systems being reworked, rebalanced, and ultimately ignoring the existing design that stuck around as a result of the identity of the game. Trying to shove this new system design into a map that hasn't been significant redesigned, a stat system that hasn't added any new secondary stats since inception, and a shift towards skillshots and mobility, then you end up with a game that's trying to juggle two fundamentally opposed designs. League is no longer "fit" to serve any target audience, now it's split between the legacy aspects which serve the old audience (which many have chased away from the game by the power advantage given to the new systems) and the new systems which are constantly trying to appeal to a new audience. Without getting into more specifics on what has changed, riot initially released a game that was basically a kind of more concise version of original DOTA (A very RTS style of design), but now the design has leaned more towards a kind of battlerite/bloodline champions design (a very action heavy style of of design). Yet these two categories of markets don't exactly see eye to eye, and yet you're forcing two groups of players with completely different "ideal" concepts for a MOBA into the same games under a single design, that can't properly cater to either of them on account of also trying to cater to the other. Unfortunately riot has put themselves in a bad position, BRs have overwhelmingly taking over the action focused portion of their market and they've already undermined the trust of the strategy focused portion of their market. So going back isn't an option now, but it's equally frustrating to want to play a particular style of MOBA that still exists in the game, only to be strong armed into playing the action moba of the newer generation of players, who are given excessive influence and initiative in a match. Riot would be better off pulling a DOTA 2, opening up their custom games, and allowing players to create lobbies with a range of global and targeted changes to champions as they see fit. Instead they're going to get more authoritative and try to keep their seat as the "true E-sport" and push their game to become hyper competitive, taking advantage of the fact that people already have a ton of game knowledge, since they've nearly completely lost all of their non-competitive markets either to their own intentional market shift or the rise of new genres.
: Oh I thought they stacked. Anyways I guess I'll rest that point then. Anyways the old drakes still gave you more consistent power than the new drakes, since the new drakes are largely based upon rng to give you more power and the old drakes consistently gave you a good bit of damage and gold and as the team ahead would usually be getting the drakes it's better for closing out the games where as with the new drakes you need to get one or two infernals for the drakes to really make the game harder for the team behind, and the drakes are heavily impacted by composition, like a team that gets a baron and has the right comp loves an ocean where as another comp wouldn't need/want it that much and another team really wants a mountain to burst down baron whereas it's not good enough and in soloQ because comps are so diverse the drakes are inconsistent in making it harder for the behind team to come back. Regarding the old drakes being good for catching up, a good team won't let the enemy have a chance at stealing the drake. Bad play shouldn't really be accounted for when we're talking about these things. Drakes also do have a catch-up experience thing for the team behind in xp.
You're completely clueless, please just stop... You're just rationalizing the current dragon design by jumping through hoops and selectively ignoring aspects of the dragons as it's convenient to justify the existing system over the legacy system. First the new drakes do give consistent power, it's just a question of where they benefit the team, second the type of drake is almost irrelevant in the new system, because each benefits a team that's ahead, better recovery (useless if you lose the fight), better ganking (benefits the leading team more), multiplicative offensive stats (self explanatory), and multiplicative objective damage. > Regarding the old drakes being good for catching up, a good team won't let the enemy have a chance at stealing the drake. Bad play shouldn't really be accounted for when we're talking about these things. ALL play should be accounted for when talking about these things, and the complete dismissal of any portion of play is going to result in some absolutely dysfunctional design. Now, here's the thing, that's not even a matter of "bad play" that's a matter of good play by the losing team. If you remove the ability for the losing team to gain an advantage by playing well... then that would go a long way in explaining how predictable and snowbally the game has become.
: New Dragon Idea - Resolve Dragon
This will never happen because it's the exact opposite of how the dragons are designed to work. They are designed to most benefit the winning team, and the winning team rarely has a lot of defensive stats. Dragons are now the game closing objective, not the catch up high risk objective. This would be such a buff, therefore will never happen.
Ηuawei (EUNE)
: This game is not fun to play anymore, its just a braindead activity
Good go play a BR, it's what riot wants their game to be anyway. Riot has built up a lot of resentment over the years and this problem is only going to get worse until riot eventually tries to backtrack and dies because they tried to get back the players who already don't trust them.
: They provided damage buffs stacking dtn? Besides the team that's behind isn't going to be getting the drakes, that plus the stacking makes it hard for the behind team. The new stats are less reliable because it's not always infernals.
**No... they use to provide a flat amount of Gold and Exp, nothing else until the MYMU.** You just said exactly what I had said though, the team that's behind is at a higher risk when attempting to take the dragon given that they've got lower gold invested into stats. But by this same mechanical disadvantage, the dragon is naturally worth more to them relatively speaking, so the further behind you are in the game, the more the old dragons use to be worth. Where as now, the further ahead you are, the more they're worth and the easier they are to secure. e.g. A team with 1000g getting a dragon worth 500g, gets a 50% power spikes from it, but a team with 2000g getting a 500g dragon only gets a 25% power spike. Compared to now where both teams gets the same power spike, meaning that if you get 10% more of the gold invested, then a dragon from a team with 2000g effectively gets 200g from killing it, while the team with 1000g only gets 100g, while still being at a disadvantage for taking the dragon. The new dragons are more of a snowballing objective, rather than a high risk catch up objective. It's just bad game design and needs to be reverted or changed to flat values per buff.
Comentários de Rioters
GripaAviara (EUNE)
: If they don't fix Yasuo this game will bleed players
Haha, now imagine that people have been saying this for literally 5 years, but nothing was ever "fixed". Eventually those people just give up and stop complaining, leave feeling neglected, and become disinterested in your game and distrusting of your company. People talk about the "yasuo test" for seeing the state of the game when it comes to boards post, but in reality there's just waves of people who eventually boil over about the champion and leave.
Moody P (NA)
: Its kind of annoying that a lot of juggernauts are better off going full damage
Yep, because damage has become so multiplicative. Especially AD's power which has benefited from now acting as ability power too.
: Rage Quitters thrive in system that refuses banning
Yeah, but in a system that liberally bans players, you get trolls who throw games. The problem isn't the banning system, the problem is the design that encourages people to quickly end a game if they can't just as quickly win it.
: > [{quoted}](name=deadlychuck,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=qwzgZiV5,comment-id=001d00000001,timestamp=2019-02-27T22:16:51.453+0000) > > OMEGALUL as if there's ever going to be a "final product" for this game. > Eventually there will be. It's sort of like how Diablo 3 eventually went into maintenance mode. It might be a LONG ways off but there'll come a point where the resources put into League aren't going to be worth it. It'll be a while (Hell, even Warcraft 3 is still going on in China) but nothing lasts forever. One day in the future we'll see the "We have no further content plans for League." (Or, alternatively, league 2) > because their current playerbase is comprised of people who wouldn't have been interested the older versions of league and they've already dealt with the older players overwhelmingly quitting due to the newer version of league. Those older players no longer trust riot (for good reason) and wouldn't be willing to come back just because riot came back trying to beg for their trust back. The older versions of League were still miles away from what DOTA was. Not to mention the playerbase's refusal to accept DOTA-style balancing, as every time I bring it up in threads I'm told "No don't" "We're the majority" "Don't balance around pros plzzzzz". Like I've said before: For the health of the game in the long term I absolutely think Riot should stop catering to lower-tier players and adopt a more pro-centric balance philosophy as DOTA does. It's one of the things I think DOTA does way better. Problem is we're not going to get that.
Riot hasn't tried to appeal to either the pro or lower-tier market, they've tried to appeal to the casual competitive market. Which is painfully obvious when you start too look at the kinds of behavior that they consider to be unacceptable, from both the community and the pro scene, and the groups that they neglect in the community. Unless league creates an actual custom game system, then the game will eventually go into a kind of maintenance mode, but that's not a "final product", that's a frozen product. You can bet your ass whenever that happens that morde will still have at least 50 obvious bugs. Nor do i think that old league was anything close to dota... I mean hell I made the conscious decision to play league over HoN. The problem isn't that league was more/less dota like in the past. Riot turned the game into something more like Bloodline Champions/Battlerite where objectives and strategy become secondary to the action and the team composition. You can argue this is more or less like DOTA, but it's more a tangential change relative to DOTA, yet those kind of action-centric MOBAs have constantly fallen flat time and time again. Something about the balance to strategy and actions just doesn't work when you skew the design that far into action. You could probably trace it back somewhere from the fact that the MOBA genre emerged from the RTS genre rather than the action RPG genre.
: > [{quoted}](name=Mavëríck,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=qwzgZiV5,comment-id=001d,timestamp=2019-02-27T00:08:26.905+0000) > > Imagine if IceFrog was allowed to take the game and rebalance for 6 months - 1 year. A majority of people would quit. It'd be like if the HotS team took control or if the SMITE team took control. It doesn't matter how good or bad of a job they do. The final product wouldn't be what players want. Even back in Season 1 people liked League because it wasn't DOTA.
> The final product OMEGALUL as if there's ever going to be a "final product" for this game. Your right though >A majority of people would quit because their current playerbase is comprised of people who wouldn't have been interested the older versions of league and they've already dealt with the older players overwhelmingly quitting due to the newer version of league. Those older players no longer trust riot (for good reason) and wouldn't be willing to come back just because riot came back trying to beg for their trust back.
: This basically, and then send their volunteer admins and mods into any complaints to praise the game and claim everyone is just nostalgic.
Yeah CaptainMårvelous is basically just a big shill it seems. I don't know if I've ever seen him be critical about anything to do with the game, even when riot does the opposite of something he's previously praised them over... And I've literally been on here since he was made a mod
Nuparu (NA)
: I mean, it's quite good on the champions it's on. Cass and Singed both use it quite well.
Not saying it isn't, only that there's no reason that it MUST be attached to a slow or be an AoE effect. When it's attached to a slow, the slow still impacts the immobile champion more, because the moment a champion with a dash or blink leaves the grounded zone, they can use it to quickly regain lost ground, while champions without it have no way to make up for the lost ground from the slow. Debuffs and slow free wider zones that provide the grounded effect are needed to help balance out the excessive mobility.
: The old drakes were more multiplicative. edit: nvm
What? They objectively weren't. They provided flat additional gold, making their reward static not multiplicative. As such, an equal amount of gold be given to one team inherently provides a proportionally greater benefit to the team that's behind rather than ahead, while being lower risk for the team which is ahead. Multiplicative buffs like the current dragons provide a benefit proportional to the amount of gold you've already earned. So a dragon which increases your AP by an easy value like 10% will provide more AP to the team who's put more gold into purchasing AP than the team which has put less gold into stats.
: Not specifically asking, because it won't happen and they won't change their ways. Game companies don't like their players in 2019, they barely make concessions on anything after massive outcry. It is just a personal rant to get my emotions out and hopefully anybody who feels the same can take it as a way of voicing that.
Naw don't discount the possibility. If they can figure out a way to remake that old game and then re-sell you all of the same content, when they can't find a larger demographic to move towards, they absolutely will.
: League of Legends is changing but we change as well, we adapt, we even learn how the game works . I personally had the problem ,that the day I started to play league of legends in 2013 and there wasn't any help for me to be correctly introduced to the game, so I watched YouTube tutorials to understand how champs like Jax actually work. (Thanks riot for deleting my old account) Today I watch all the abilitys the champ has and start creating powerfull item Builds because I want to be better than anyone, to 'SNOWBALL' and it really is fun. My winrate went up exactly because nobody expected that for example the {{champion:75}} on Top was ballin till minute 7-8 having 160 q stacks so early. And getting free kills. So yeah the game changed, but I learned to change as well, even surpass myself. That's why I still love league of legends.
Except that the "we" you speak of is riot's expanding player base changing their average based on new players, rather than old players actually changing what they find enjoyable or interesting about the game. No riot just abandons the old players as they move towards the fringe demographics, and eventually when you end up as the average player (which you appear to currently be), you can expect them to continue moving and change the game in ways that you don't like, with a complete neglect for the integrity of the things that you like.
: I quit playing last season. For pretty much the same reasons. But I can't blame riot for where they are now. The community asked for alot of these changes. And it's sad that it reached a point where we learned how bad of changes they were.
Yes and no. Riot attempts to appeal to a fringe of their community where they saw the most potential untapped market, and just neglected their existing audience. So yes a small group of players were likely asking for these changes and it likely that it was roughly the same group relative to the average player. Yet, there's no reason for riot to stop this behavior. Even if you joined the game in S8, by the time S14 rolls around, you're probably going to hate what the game has become.
: >dragon changes cemented it for me. What use to be a little gold/exp infusion for the team became something that the team who is ahead can use to be >sure the team who is behind stands no chance. Dragon used to be hotly contested and if you got stacks of it would make sure the team who is behind stands no chance. Now dragons are a different animal (pardon the pun) and they give buffs that are sometimes huge (infernal) and sometimes change the way you play (mountain) and are sometimes extremely situational and sometimes only work if you're ahead/in laning.
They're also multiplicative now, meaning that they promote closing a game out rather than acting as a relatively higher value objective to the losing team.
: Yeah, see, don't give Rito a thousand dollars... those skins aren't actual things and will die with your interest or eventually the game itself...
Correction, riot actually has incentives to move away from your interest, even without it dying, because it attracts a new audience who might have a thousand dollars to now spend on their existing content.
: I really miss League of Legends
> [{quoted}](name=Mira Arya Enthe,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=qwzgZiV5,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-26T16:38:50.036+0000) > I spent over a thousand dollars and no longer play. And that's unfortunately the ultimate pitfall of these "games as a service" model. You end up with a bunch of resentful players rather than a bunch of disinterested players. Riot has no reason to care about what you think, even more so if they're unlikely to receive more money from you now that you own over $1000 worth of skins. They could release a new skin and get that $10 out of you, or they could just neglect your concerns and try to attract a new player which hasn't spent a dime on the game, who could buy both that new $10 skin and the thousands of dollars worth of skins that they've already made that costs them nothing to "manufacture" more.
: I mean, the Grounding effect should really be expanded to include more things.
It's literally the only CC in the game that punishes mobile champions more than immobile champions
: There are a few non-knockback CCs that explicitly do stop dashes (Veigar cage, Jinx chompers, Ashe Arrow, Viktor's Gravity Well, Malzahar Ult, and Poppy "no dashing" zone), but for the most part immobilizing CCs will not stop dashes. Whether or not it's a good thing is up for debate, but they are balanced around that fact.
I think you mean, they balance in spite of that fact
: because god forbid if there was a counter to excessive mobility.
I mean, they already coded that effect it's called grounded. Yet for some reason they decided to only attach it to slows and only put it on like 2 aoe abilities rather than having any instances of it acting as a kind of "mobility silence"
Mael Jade (EUW)
: Ground work: You can stop every single form of movement with a knockup or lock the enemy out of using it through grounding them before dashing. Outside of that the number of a) dashes that do get stopped is very limited (only Yasuo coming to mind) and b) the number of abilities that are not a knockup that stop movement is very limited too (Veigar and Jinx E). Some things are just timing (Ekko dashing in the second hit by a root? He's rooted where his dash (not blink) stopped) and something people can play around but I agree, even a normal root should completely stop enemies from doing any kind of movement instanly. Then you could also make certain dashes stronger by allowing them to finish it before it goes into effect)
: > [{quoted}](name=deadlychuck,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=klJdW3Ni,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-25T14:58:52.599+0000) > > Eh, I'm not sure that they should buff AP varus anymore. He's kinda hidden OP, and I'd like to avoid that becoming more recognized True. But I think that could be resolved if his W % Max HP damage didn't scale with Bonus AP (having something like this scale, isn't really healthy to begin with).
I mean it's healthier than having whole kits scale with AD as if it was AP, and they've got plenty of those at this point.
: I have a few questions about Varus
Eh, I'm not sure that they should buff AP varus anymore. He's kinda hidden OP, and I'd like to avoid that becoming more recognized
: > Maybe the number of shots it can take can increase with rank, like 5/6/7/8/9 projectiles or maybe something more generous like 5/8/11/14/17 to take into consideration teamfights in the mid to late game. If you unironically throw ten projectiles at a windwall you actually deserve to be in iron.
Well not necessarily, in some cases it allows different ranged champions to have natural advantages against him, like {{champion:22}} who would basically be able to instantly break the wall with her W.
: Very simple Yasuo change to make him more balanced
I still think that they should turn his flow into a resource or limiter, specifically for his W. Give it a base duration (say 2 seconds total which includes the 0.25 second travel time), then make it so that he maybe spends his current flow to increase the duration of it by 0-100%, or even just making it so that based on his current flow the duration increases without consuming it like a resource. Just to make his passives more of a side grade than an actual innate upgrade.
Lapis (OCE)
: It's not bad that women tend to favour support... right?
It's just a shame that riot has moved the design of the role so far away from the teamwork focused position that it use to be smh.
: Damage is too high. Damage items are too strong.
Riot: "We hear you so we're going to fix the problem immediately!" Patch V9.5: Rammus - Defensive Ball Curl: Now increases damage of Spiked Shell, by 150% up from 50%.
k4rm4ffs (EUW)
: I don't get why people hate yasou actually, maybe just nerf his ult so he can only ult on his spell, otherwise I don't see him as an issue actually. I mean, have you seen kayle? he doesn't have a chance against her. All the champs in lol has counters and yasou has plenty of them
Pretty much what the OP said > [{quoted}](name=Klepto annie,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=eFbwy0oA,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-23T03:43:57.717+0000) > > I don't care if he is strong or weak, I just am sick of seeing him in every fucking blind pick game, whether he wins or loses. Whenever he is in the game, **he warps the entire game around himself and removes the agency from his opponents.** This is just a product of how he's designed. He just has positive mechanic after positive mechanic, and next to no real limiting factors of his kit. He never loses the initiative, because he basically doesn't concern himself with CDs and have enough mobility and CC that he can engage/disengage in virtually every situation. It's like a game of whack a mole, forcing you to ALWAYS play reactive, except on occasion with his shield and windwall, even when you land a hit, it doesn't count.
: Have you ever heard of the Yasuometer? More Yasuo complaints = the better state the game is in. Remember when people complained about something else other than Yasuo? Those were the bad days.
Naw, because there's an additional variable of people willing to complain about the problems with the game, that's assumed to be static. If people stop playing the game because the issues that they point out are never addressed, then you naturally see people tend to stop talking about the other problems with the game. If anything, the fact that Yasuo is always the default problem with the game when even the most critical people trend away from the game implies that he might actually be, or have something about him, that's the root cause of soooo many problems with the game.
Yara0 (NA)
: ***
Well apparently none of the players themselves complained about the bans, so I don't see why ANY punishment was issued. If the players agree on terms, then that's on them, not on riot to step in without request. Evidently the all female team was a last minute stand-in team anyway and might have been a publicity stunt... So if we're going to be assuming intent and punishing people based on their assumed intent to undermine the integrity of the game as a competitive sport and disrespected the other team, then it would've been said team executive. If riot wants to punish someone over the teams not being competitive, because they're sponsoring the match/tournament in some way, then take that up with the team owner/manager, not the players. But again, if the teams played on agreed upon terms, then it's unjust and unprofessional to change the terms post hoc.
Yara0 (NA)
: ***
Except that there's no rule about what champions you are/aren't allowed to ban. You can interpret anything someone does however you like, but legal arguments over intent are a fucking nightmare even outside of professional sports. Unless they did something that was outlined as illegal for the player(s) to do, then there's no reason to go around punishing people for it... Again though, if they're going to create rules as they interpret someone's actions and as they see fit, then you can't have a competitive sport since anything that you do can at any point they can change what is or isn't allowed to compensate for what they might consider to be an unfair. It's actually like playing with toddlers, they literally make up rules as you go along (which is fine when they're children). Not that the enemy team were acting like toddlers, but rather the ref representing riot was acting like a toddler.
: sigh... almost the entire team was support mains, if you punish people for this you have to start punishing for other stuff like banning all male champions vs a male lcs team, banning all monster champions ect ect, it sets a dangerous precedent to enforce this punishment. If they had wanted to mock them its simple enough to do, just don't ban anything and you say you are unworthy to even counter ban, now that is mocking disrespect.
Not even. Riot are the ones who programmed the game to automatically ban no champions if the players don't pick a ban, so by literally doing NOTHING they'd be mocking and disrespecting the other team? It's riot's fault, not for programming the game that way, but creating and applying additional rules arbitrarily as they see fit. They're like a fucking 5 year old who makes up a game and changes the rules until they win.
: I love the people saying it was "a tactical choice". You all know far too well this wasn't the case, for ROX didn't need tactics. They could have won banning pizza and playing with one hand. We all know it, they know it , and used the skill difference to send the message by memeing the girls. While the message IS FAIR (they are so bad we can do whatever we want to them---why are they here) it's not their right to openly disrespect their opponents (and the whole female gender playing lol btw.. Of all the memes they could have chosen in bans they chose the "women --support"). As a girl I am furious with that organization enforcing the meme creating a meme team. Still, everyone has to treat their opponents fairly, even if the opponents are really a joke
By the logic on display here, that means doing NOTHING (since it defaults to no bans) would be "disrespectful". When really riot are the ones which programmed the game to behave that way and there's no fault of the players if that's how riot wants their game to be.
Yara0 (NA)
: Think the main reason they punished them is because they already warned other teams for doing similar things. But really they shouldn't be there having an all low diamond team that isint built of players that can play each role well is just stupid. The team owners of Vaevictis eSports should be banned for creating a team that obviously exists for attention and not to actually compete. I cant think how a player could see that they would be joining a team of all low diamond players that wont have a player for each role and actually join that team wanting to be a professional player your just asking for your name to get slammed.
Wait so by this logic riot would also punish any team that didn't ban any champions. It's stupid, let people play how they want and let people be competitive how they want. Frankly riot just needs to stop trying to force the competitive elements of their game down people's throats. Just make a fun game for people and a competitive scene will emerge by simply having PvP. Riot arbitrarily created additional rules to be applied here that were never agreed upon by the players. It's like a 5 year old changing the rules of the game the moment they get upset how something went.
Exibir mais


Nível 64 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão