: i wish but that doesn't work in service to Riots LCSBIGPLAYS wet dream unfortunately
I really don't think they're enforcing this high burst, damage meta for LCS. I do fully believe it's because that's what the Chinese market and player base want. That's where the money is.
: >Or, looking at this from another perspective, the worst WORD he could use...and not in reference to the person such a word describes, but the word itself. This is really all I need here. Words have meaning. Its how we communicate. That word is used to describe black people... if the WORST THING he can think to call someone is a slur that refers to black people... and youre defending that... I mean holy fucking shit, fuck the fuck off, I hope every damn thing you ever fucking type on this board gets removed. I really cant even say anything else to you without getting banned myself at this point!
First of all, I'm not defending his use of the word. I was simply offering a secondary perspective, in that he was not referring to black people, but the word itself. I agree there are some words that simply should not be used. Definitely. Like the n-word. There is FAR too much extremely negative history regarding the background of that word. We are simply taking it too far with things like the "r-word." "Autistic" will likely be next. It will continue to get worse and worse for words that really aren't that bad. And, again. It is you who is assigning meaning to words which may not be there. Lastly, as I have said like 800 times now...I believe context and intentions matter. EDIT: Oh, and don't waste your time replying. I'm done with this. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change mine. I've said my piece, so I'm gonna peace out. Best of luck to you in the future.
: Im amused by people who say they arent bad people cause some other people in other places are worse... yikes! If you do a thing that offends other people, but feel like it shouldnt because there are worse things you may actually have some form of psychopathy. Ive posted elsewhere in the topic, but using the Rword is just trying to label others with a stereotypical image of a disabled person. Just like when other people call things gay, or refer to others as queer, or a slur. They are trying to say "your this kind of person, a bad person, a person I and others dont like you little (fa%%ot, n%%%%r, ret%%%%d)!" Pick your pejorative, but the take away is, this thing or person is = this other kind of person, you know, a bad person for being handicap or homosexual or black.
It's a philosophical discussion at the point of "what is good and what is bad?" Everything is relative. There are populaces where cannibalism is their way of life. It's ingrained into their culture, and is what they do. It is a sacred and religious thing of the highest honor to them. To most of the rest of us, it's disgusting and negative. And, for the record, you're the one who is associating those words with those labels. When I said the "r-word" I simply meant it was stupid or dumb. To me they were synonymous with one another, with the "r-word" perhaps being a step higher. "Brain-dead" might be even beyond that. That does not mean I am shaming other people. And, to be perfectly blunt and honest, if people are offended by that, then I don't really care. Too many people are far too worried about the feelings of others, when there are real problems in the world that could be worried about instead. > If you do a thing that offends other people, but feel like it shouldnt because there are worse things you may actually have some form of psychopathy. So you're telling me that through thousands of years most of humanity has had mild psychopathy because they don't worry about the mere chance that they might hurt another person's feelings? This is an incredibly recent trend, and is not one that I will adopt. I'm not going to walk around kicking kittens, or spitting on people. Hell, I've even bought food for homeless people, given friends a place to stay for months at a time when they've lost their feet, stand up for random individuals on the street who are getting bullied...but I will NOT adjust who I am out of fear for a chance happenstance. That does not make me a bad person, and it does not make me a psychopath. It is also incredibly hypocritical for you to call me a psychopath when you're championing anti-shaming.
: >I could almost (almost) understand if the term was directed at a person, but it wasn't. It was directed at a game mechanic AND IT IS A CENSORED WORD ON THE BOARDS. You called something "r%%%%%ed" to indicate its bad. Kinda like how people would, and still do, calling things "gay" to indicate its bad... cause you know, being gay is bad, so bad things are gay... Just like that time PewDiePie called someone a "ni***r" on his stream, and excused it by saying he just wanted to call the player the worst thing he could think of... yes, it seems the worst thing he could think of was 'a black person' (cringe). There are people with mental disabilities, they cant help that. Referring to others actions or choices and labeling them as someone with mental disabilities is using those people as a way to identify them as bad. Just like if you called them gay, or a racial slur. You are using one set of people as a negative concept to label others with your perception. I know, I know. Youre used to hearing others say "r%%%%%ed" to describe things as bad, so its "normal" to you. Its still using one set of people, their disability specifically, to identify things, people, decisions, you dont like as bad. Just like when someone says "That _blank_ is gay!" or "That _blank_ is r%%%%%ed!" The attempt is to convey the image of a person who has traits that are "bad." Thus it is an offensive thing to do to every person who has those traits you are attempting to associate with the thing you labeled with whatever pejorative you choose. My suggestion would be to replace "r%%%%%ed" with "ignorant" or even "foolish." Those are the words you mean anyway. You think the idea is bad, but you dont actually think the person, or persons who came up with the idea are actually mentally disabled do you? If not, then you dont mean what you said, and mean ignorant or foolish... just use those words instead.
Yet, it's okay to say "don't be a child" when someone is acting immature. It's okay to say "this is dumb" when thinking it is without logic. These are also words that pertain to groups of people and are completely acceptable in modern use. > Just like that time PewDiePie called someone a "ni*r" on his stream, and excused it by saying he just wanted to call the player the worst thing he could think of... yes, it seems the worst thing he could think of was 'a black person' (cringe). Or, looking at this from another perspective, the worst WORD he could use...and not in reference to the person such a word describes, but the word itself. Not sure if this happens on your server, but it's like when Chinese people say "SB" most people think it means "so bad" or "stupid bitch" but it's really a slur in Chinese that is the equivalent of calling someone every bad word in the book. "Sha bi" is meant to be used with extreme prejudice and hate. I would imagine that's probably what he was going for. > I know, I know. Youre used to hearing others say "r%%%%%ed" to describe things as bad, so its "normal" to you. Its still using one set of people, their disability specifically, to identify things, people, decisions, you dont like as bad. Just like when someone says "That blank is gay!" or "That blank is r%%%%%ed!" The attempt is to convey the image of a person who has traits that are "bad." Thus it is an offensive thing to do to every person who has those traits you are attempting to associate with the thing you labeled with whatever pejorative you choose. I firmly believe that intentions are incredibly important for this distinction. If a person says "I don't want to do that, it sounds gay." to mean it sounds boring or unfun or whatever, I don't think it's a bad thing. If a person looks at a gay individual and says "you're gay" with contempt and hate...then that's bad. Hating a group of people is a shitty thing to do. Using a word that has evolved into a variety of contexts, with no hate towards that group intended...this is not bad. And, censoring yourself on the latter because you fear that you might hurt someone's feelings is weak, it's destructive to communication, it's a slippery slope, and I think it's dumb. (Oh look. By your logic I just insulted mutes.)
Rathe6 (NA)
: The whole idea that ret**d is a bannable word is silly. It's not like the N word that has its origins as a racial slur. It's a medical term and a word with functional uses. The root 'tard' which simply means 'slow'. I can use the word in the sentence: "This is ret**ding progress" and it fits perfectly. The N word or like racial slurs are nouns and unable to be used in a context that is not insulting (lets ignore commonalities within certain racial groups for a moment). The R word has an abundance of uses, only one specific instance of which is damnably insulting. One can say something is foolish and stupid, or one can say something is 'R'. They are the same thing. The crux of the whole issue is a "If A then C" type of argument that ultimately ignores context or proper English.
> One can say something is foolish and stupid, or one can say something is 'R'. They are the same thing. 1,000x this. To me the words are synonyms. As they would be for anyone with whom I went through my teens, or really most anyone in my age group.
: And 'Autistic' will be quick to join that party. Which is actually funny to me, cause I have high-functioning autism, and it's hilarious to me when 0/10, 20 cs at 15 minute players start calling their whole team autistic. Like...if that's supposed to be an insult...and we're all doing *leagues* better than you...aren't you actually *complimenting* autistic players by technicality, your highness? xD It irks me that people feel the need to censor language for the sole reason that certain people decide that it's morally wrong to use the words. Maybe I'm just a fan of true expressionism, but the words are not the intentions behind them. If someone's meaning to use their words to destroy your mentality, that's one thing, and I can destroy your mentality with so many combinations of words it's quite literally impossible to censor by words alone. But if people use the words to express their dislike of something in a critical way (like the OP about blitz not needing a shield-breaker, which is definitely fucking unnecessary...) it's honestly more distasteful to censor that expression of opinion. At least, that's how I see it. Censorship should be far more sparsely used than it actually is...as closing the noose around a language is, in a sense, closing the noose around communication as a whole. And no communication, in almost any field, leads to violent conflict.
I think I love you. Don't tell my wife.
: Hey there, That's me who removed that post. I do take into account context when it comes to using that word. It's definitely worst when you're using it as an insult and still pretty bad when you're using it in the negative context as well. We do understand that there are some occasions when folks use that and it doesn't meet those two negative connotations, typically warranting lesser removals, but still sometimes bans (as is the case here). A review of your history showed that you had just had a removal for similar language. Not "r%%%%%" but actually a more specific insult related to mental disability. That prior removal was already a 1-day. Given the short duration (15 days), I didn't feel a lesser punishment was appropriate. As for autistic? I do think it's as bad, if not worse than r%%%%%. I don't think its use is as frequent as "r%%%%%" is though. I don't recall the team ever having discussed censoring that word.
That does make a lot of sense. I make no excuses for that other post. Straight up, I knew I shouldn't have posted it...hesitated...then did it anyway. That ban was deserved 100%...and taking into context that this ban is a result of that dumb thing I did...I suppose I can, to an extent, understand. It is still baffling to me that this is a ban when, again, I wasn't referring to an individual...though, if it's a zero tolerance word, then there's not really much I can do about it I suppose. On the topic of the word "autistic" it's probably simply that this game's community does not use the word as much. It does seem to be a younger generation thing, which would make it more ubiquitous in games like Fortnite, I would imagine. Have never played it myself, but that's what I would assume. On the other hand, what I really don't get, is why it's in your list of unacceptable words, but not censored. And, seemingly, not banned even when used as an insult with extreme negativity. Why the double standard?
JuiceBoxP (EUNE)
: This is absurd. it's almost as though this was a bot that was searching for key words and assigning punishments
It....wasn't a bot. There is a Rioter/moderator name attached to it. Didn't want to show the name. EDIT: In fact, the moderator in question even commented on this post.
Manxxom (NA)
: So they let other swears on the boards but that one word gives you a one day ban? ....... I am trying to think on how this makes sense.
Because swear words don't hurt people's feelings I guess? IDK. It doesn't make sense to me either.
Draffyr (NA)
: It was okay to use it as a medical term in a medical context. THAT'S what that means. It's NOT okay to use medical terms as insults. It feels like you're overthinking that. The first sentence of your third paragraph shows you understand exactly why it's not okay to say. You understand that the word is unacceptable to use in reference to anything because it's been used so much as an insult. You know that. I'm really confused why there's even an argument. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a person or not, the word itself is not okay to say. There are other words that are unacceptable to say no matter the context and I would imagine you know what at least a couple of those are and don't use them, either. It's NOT a slippery slope. There IS no slippery slope. "Slippery slope" is a well known logical fallacy that uses fictional outcomes as "proof" of where something will go but those things aren't going to happen. No one is going to ban the word "bad" and pretending that there's any kind of equivalency of the two words in terms of offensiveness makes no sense. Yes, it can be used to hurt people, but it's used for many other things much more often. The r-word is used almost exclusively to hurt people. It's not even the correct term to use in the medical field anymore, which is really the one other way it's been used in recent history in English-speaking countries.
Words change and evolve. In the 90s the "r-word" became less about its medical definition, and became more synonymous with the word "stupid." I grew up in this time period and the word was not used as an insult any more than calling your friend a dumbass. Close friends make fun of each other...it's what they do, at least commonly. Maybe not all friends...I would assume not your friends, but don't know anything about you outside of this conversation. If you're making fun of someone who isn't your friend, then you're just an asshole REGARDLESS of the words you use. Whether you agree with that or not is up to you. Only in the eyes of the beholder will it be a word that offends. This could be any words nowadays. People get upset when you call them the wrong thing. When will "he" and "she" become pejorative? When will "feminist" become pejorative? What about calling something "brain-dead"? "Annoying"? "I don't like you?" All words/phrases that can offend people, and are used commonly. If we continue censoring every god damn word that has the potential to hurt someone's feelings, there is a rabbit hole of never ending possibilities. As such, it is absolutely a slippery slope.
: Knowing where the line is exactly only matters if you try to toe the line, and **you shouldn't fucking try to toe the line**. Geez, just try and be a decent person, instead of trying to be exactly as terrible as you can be without being punished...
How is that toeing the line? I literally stated that I will no longer use the word they have told me not to use. Sounds like I'm being the obedient little dog you want me to be. I also really don't see how using a word makes me a terrible person. There are literally dictators in 3rd world countries enslaving children, getting them addicted to drugs, putting a machine gun in their hands, and then forcing them to murder others so that these dictators can create drug empires or participate in slave trading among other nefarious situations. When you REALLY put some thought into it, me using a word that you don't agree with, that might end up hurting someone's feelings, is an incredibly small deal. But, really...I wouldn't expect someone who thinks using the "r-word" makes the user of said word a terrible person to understand true evil.
: Well, start by being consistent yourself and using neither of them. Then it doesn't matter if one is censored and not the other.
First of all, I have zero intentions of changing the way I speak IRL. On the boards, I will not use the "r-word" and have never been a fan of the word "autistic" personally. Not because it offends, but because the connotation is just wrong. However, this is RIOT's place to do as they please and I have already decided to no longer use the "r-word" on the boards. All that being said, it totally matters. Consistency from them on how they police the boards should absolutely be a moderation priority. This guess and assume shit with different moderators having different views on what is pejorative or not is completely unacceptable IMO.
: Because "autistic" is a technical term without (too much) negative connotation (yet), it's the name of the condition. The "R word" is just purely an insult. EDIT: ah, I see others have already answered. Well, leaving that post here just to show that's really consensual.
To further clarify..."autistic" is listed in RIOT's pejorative terms list. It, however, is treated differently. Not censored. Seemingly accepted. All I want is consistency.
Myrmiron (EUW)
: ***
I literally said that out loud when I first read the ban. Won't say it on the boards though, so I guess they win!
: So, the r***** word or any other variance of the word is considered pejorative language. Therefore, regardless of context; using the word on the boards will be both censored and removed by moderation as long as someone takes the time to report your comment.
Perhaps they should just release a comprehensive list of all "pejorative" words...because frankly that is a HIGHLY subjective thing. That way, everyone knows what is and is not acceptable, and RIOT can more easily police these boards without mod emotions coming into play. To clarify, I am NOT claiming that a mod's emotions had anything at all to do with my situation, but there is no denying that it happens. And, yes. I have since seen the rules where they state the word I used is not an acceptable one. Fine. I won't use it. However, those rules have been changed since I started using these boards...I remember the first time I saw it censored, but I digress.
Rewt (NA)
: i got banned for mentioning a certain adult entertainment site for 7 days (maybe 14 cant remember) when someone asked me the question on how I detilt.
Purely out of curiosity...did you edit what the site in question rhymes with, or did someone else do that?
FkValeRly (EUW)
: AVOIDING A BOARDS BAN!?!?!??!?? that's a permaban mate. na but seriously tho the sjw shits getting out of hand, good thing I'm not american.
No joke. There are a lot of things about PC culture that straight up scare me when regarding the future. Makes me glad I moved to Australia years ago.
Vah Medoh (EUW)
: https://youtu.be/9me4ovGge-s?t=14 Second 14
Sandixcx (NA)
: >Every replacement word that people angry about the word tell others to use, are historically and factually representative of the same implication. Replacement words have a different connotation, making them pretty much an entirely different word.
I've used this example before, and I'll use it again. What about the word "autistic"? It is a very similar word used in exactly the same way...is not censored on the boards, and seems to be generally accepted here.
: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/485/153/a16.png
https://i.imgur.com/AevgXrO.jpg
Sandixcx (NA)
: >To the first point...it's a slippery slope, isn't it? At what point do the words "dumb" and/or "bad" when referring to someone or something become "pejorative"? They don't, that's why you can use them. Just stay away from offensive/controversial words, and don't be rude to a specific person. There are better ways for you to get your point across. >However, I'm certain there are people who have said far worse, Yeah but that doesn't really matter. Worry about yourself and do the best you can do, mods are human and they either miss, ignore, or give out passes to favorites or whatever. Even then it's not that big of a deal because you remain unaffected as long as you're looking out for yourself.
> They don't, that's why you can use them. Just stay away from offensive/controversial words, and don't be rude to a specific person. There are better ways for you to get your point across. The question was: at what point do they become words that are no longer usable? > Yeah but that doesn't really matter. Worry about yourself and do the best you can do, mods are human and they either miss, ignore, or give out passes to favorites or whatever. Even then it's not that big of a deal because you remain unaffected as long as you're looking out for yourself. It totally matters. The rules should be universal and not up to how any given mod is feeling at any given day. I have literally used "the r-word" multiple times on these boards, before it was censored, after it was censored...and none of those posts have EVER been removed until now, accompanying the ban.
Terozu (NA)
: idiot and dumb aren't using a mental illness as an insult. Calling someone stupid and insinuating that someone who has mental problems is a lesser person because of it are fairly distinct.
The word dumb is derived from mutes, or people who can't speak...so that one actually is. Stupid is definitely different. "mid 16th century: from French stupide or Latin stupidus, from stupere ‘be amazed or stunned’"
: i guess cuz u said r%%%%%ed. but u didnt rly come down as someone calling riot r%%%%%ed or a specific person, but just to get what you feel about it. i dont think it's correct.
I'm not completely following you here. Are you saying I'm in the wrong because my intentions of use with the word are negative? Or, are you saying that you don't agree with the ban, but can understand why the ban happened?
Draffyr (NA)
: The r-word isn't the preferred word to use in a medical sense anymore. It WAS the proper term a few decades ago, but people started using it primarily as an insult, so it was changed to "mentally handicapped." Then THAT was constantly used as an insult, so now it's "intellectual disability." That also gets used as an insult because of course it does, people are jerks and can't just let something be a medical term. "Autistic" and "autism," on the other hand, ARE currently accepted medical terms. That's the most likely reason they aren't automatically censored like the r-word. But they are still used as insults (because, again, _of course they are because people are jerks_) and using them as insults is still not acceptable in game or on the boards. As far as saying that referring to something that isn't a person with the r-word and saying that's victimization gone too far, that doesn't make sense. It's using a word that, for a long time, was a proper medical term and is still thought to be a proper medical term by many people for something that is inherently a part of someone and it's being used in a negative way. It's like using words that are associated with other things that are inherently part of someone's identity such as racial, religious, or sexual orientation-related words as a negative: You're saying that being that thing is bad by using it to mean "bad." So just say "bad" if you mean "bad," don't use words that could be part of who someone is and potentially hurt someone in the process. (And yes, I know not all people get upset about certain things, like some people with autism don't care if the word is used as an insult, but that's not true of a whole lot of people saying that it should be okay because Greg down the street doesn't mind is a bad argument.)
I really don't even know how to respond to the first two paragraphs. Why is it okay when it's a medically accepted term? That doesn't change the intentions of the use. The heart of your argument seems to be that context matters. To which, I would again point out that I did not even use it when referring to a person. On the last paragraph, the point is that if the word itself is now an unacceptable word it's because its ubiquitous use has been saturated to the point where enough people have become offended and victimized by it. Lastly, as for the "bad" portion...that is exactly my point. "You're bad" when referring to a player and their skill could be construed as hurtful and pejorative...so when does that start being banned too? It's a slippery slope.
: Okay so a couple things... 1). I'm not on the Mod team obviously so don't quote me, lol, but I'm going to guess that when a word is censored on the forum you shouldn't use it - period, even in it's censored form. This forum is not like other gaming forums, there's a very high limit on what you can say in terms of curse words - I mean the forum instructions on the side from Riot themselves literally has "Oh shit" in it. So the few words that ARE censored should just be avoided period, and I know there's an argument over being able to use what I guess I'll call the "r-word" in this post(lol). For a long time we've had dual uses for the word, like with the word "gay" and so on. However, nowadays it's generally not looked at in a good way to use the r-word as an insult or to say something is bad/dumb - so yeah. 2). Yes, I'm almost positive that other ban played a roll in giving you a harsher punishment for saying the r-word. Also how many posts you get reported or removed probably play a role too. If you would have had a history of no posts removed, and no forum bans, you probably would have just gotten your post removed and a warning - or at worst a 1-day ban. But since you have a history of getting posts removed and a 1-day ban already under your belt, yes, it made your punishment stiffer this time to hopefully "teach you a lesson." League has a pretty chill moderation team and set of rules for the forum, and I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time on other game's forums and found their rules and what they ban you for to be absolutely absurd.......so maybe reevaluate your state of mind, and language, when you come on the forum if you're running into bans and removals this frequently. Hopefully these three days fly by for you!
To the first point...it's a slippery slope, isn't it? At what point do the words "dumb" and/or "bad" when referring to someone or something become "pejorative"? That isn't to say that I don't understand where you're coming from. And, as I've said multiple times now, if I were referring to an individual, fine. They could have a case there...but when referring to a game mechanic it just seems ridiculous to me. You could be right in the 2nd point. However, I'm certain there are people who have said far worse, far more often. My removed posts are months apart (except for two of the four particular posts that were literally me repeating myself, in two different replies to the same person...which were on the same day.) For clarity, I'm not trying to make excuses for this behavior. I was being an asshole, and can understand why they were removed...however.... They REALLY weren't that bad. I'm not dropping n-words, telling people to kill themselves, etc. The worst I've done (outside of my removed post and 1-day ban...that one was actually pretty bad) is call someone stupid. Literally "How stupid are you?" and "Apparently the answer to 'How stupid are you?' is 'Incredibly.'" Are the two of four that were removed. I completely disagree that LoL has a chill moderation team in the context of anything that isn't swearing. It's true that most other gaming forums censor these words. However, that is where their tolerance ends. I've seen some ridiculous shit taken down on these forums.
CytheGuy (NA)
: The "r word" is, in the medical world, a person who is born with a specific mental disability that slows intellectual and adaptive learning. Because it is related to "being slow" it is also used in a derogatory sense to mean "stupid" (slow learner).
This is an extremely abbreviated, though not untrue statement. However, I have to ask. Why is the word "autistic" okay then?
: The part I have never understood, wether it's here or among people: Every replacement word that people angry about the word tell others to use, are historically and factually representative of the same implication. It's strange to me how the word itself matters and somehow the context doesn't.
Seriously. This is what really grinds my gears. Even in the OP I stated that I could almost understand if it were in reference to another individual. Even if my own beliefs don't necessarily align with that view, I could at least see where they were coming from. With this particular instance though? It's...well, nevermind.
: I don't fully understand it because we don't really have this phenomenon of "word banning" where I live, but according to my American friends, the word is considered dismissive of people with certain mental disabilities. Technically speaking, the meaning is "to slow"; for example, there are ret*rders on many delivery trucks for hilly areas, which slow the drive train digitally to prevent wear on brakes. But apparently, it's also become used to refer to people with mental disabilities or something? I don't know, but that's probably why. Edit: Wow, I actually had to self-censor that so it wouldn't show up as %'s. They really ARE serious about this.
In America, at least, it has roots in referring to mentally handicapped people. To an extent, when referring to another human being, I can kind of understand. On the other hand, and my actual belief is that, people are taking victimization too far. It also begs the question as to why the word "autistic" is allowed.
Comentários de Rioters
Teh Song (NA)
: but, I mean, it's ARAM. Bans, no bans, why do you care? If you're playing ARAM with any level of victory vs defeat making a difference to you you shouldn't be playing ARAM, bans or not. It's a fun mode where you can try things you wouldn't want to test in norms, winning isn't part of the ARAM equation.
> [{quoted}](name=Teh Song,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sHjbwHgA,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-07-05T08:00:35.372+0000) > > but, I mean, it's ARAM. > > Bans, no bans, why do you care? > > If you're playing ARAM with any level of victory vs defeat making a difference to you you shouldn't be playing ARAM, bans or not. > It's a fun mode where you can try things you wouldn't want to test in norms, winning isn't part of the ARAM equation. Speaking for myself, it's not about winning or losing with bans...it's about getting rid of one champ who I hate more than any other by a long shot on Howling Abyss--Veigar > [{quoted}](name=HeartVine,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sHjbwHgA,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-05T08:12:20.104+0000) > > Ah yes, because playing on 500+ ping is going to be ***SO FUCKING FUN!!!*** Can't wait to be getting 0-100ed all the time because I literally can't see a skill shot before it hits me. Such a fucking problem solver you are! ***THANK YOU!*** 500+? Come on, man. Let's be reasonable here.
Comentários de Rioters
Chermorg (NA)
: People being unable to adjust their play around a 6 minute one time use statis function is not Riot's fault, nor does it mean it's unbalanced. Yeah, it's a little overtuned, but it's not that broken.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Tkw1ZE0e,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-02-11T22:53:19.208+0000) > > People being unable to adjust their play around a 6 minute one time use statis function is not Riot's fault, nor does it mean it's unbalanced. Yeah, it's a little overtuned, but it's not that broken. It is after you use it, heyo. But seriously, how can it be overtuned but not unbalanced? And how is ANYTHING in this game not Riot's fault? They're the creators, they PUT things in the game and literally no one else can or does.
likerio (NA)
: Riot needs to Nerf Damage
You think the game is in a better state now than it was years ago? I miss winning lane through prolonged or multiple good trades, not jumping on someone and one shotting them a couple of times at level 3+. The current state of the game is 100% built around LC$, and Riot no longer gives a shit about the rest of us. It's depressing to someone who has been playing this game for nearly a decade. Not only is there more damage now than there ever has been before, but with the removal of runes there is also less defensive potential in the early game. Not really sure how you can defend this and claim to be high elo at the same time. Also, do you have Stockholm Syndrome?
Nautoday (NA)
: You just kill 400 minions as a team in a game. Just don't end the game until your team's CS >= 400.
> [{quoted}](name=Kunz,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mBKniPdh,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-06-16T20:43:04.658+0000) > > You just kill 400 minions as a team in a game. > Just don't end the game until your team's CS >= 400. No, that's slightly wrong. 400 minions (not monsters), so if you have a jungler, then you need to get 400 on top of whatever he has.
: My team had a total of 476 cs, yet I did not get it.
> [{quoted}](name=btlj3,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mBKniPdh,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-06-16T23:08:41.356+0000) > > My team had a total of 476 cs, yet I did not get it. That's because one of your teammates was likely killing jungle camps. It specifically says 400 minions, not minions and/or monsters.
: > [{quoted}](name=anonymous119,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=x90ZxwA6,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-04-25T16:04:19.810+0000) > > It's annoying on a principle level that they judged h2k's world performance to be that much more significant than clg's msi performance. > > I like h2k a lot. I think prolly gives some of the best interviews of any coach, but let's be honest they had the easiest group draw and the easiest possible quarter final match up in possibly the history of worlds. > > Clg took down skt/rng the best teams in the worlds for their finalist msi appearance with out a fluke group/match up. To look at last year and go "na sucks they have to play against IWC to even prove they're worth a spot" while eu gets a guaranteed slot just seems really shitty. They based it off more than just last season tho, as in the past two years EU also has had three semi finalists at worlds (more than every region but Korea) and had a better performance at MSI season 6 when FNC made semis while TSM missed the mark on even making it out of groups. Sure, they could've done t differently, but they didn't. But I mean let's be real, it'll be a good thing in the long run because it means more chances for TSM to play and prepare for the group stages, and, if they crap the bed and can't win over all the IWC then they didn't deserve to make groups anyway. It'll be fine
> [{quoted}](name=Gnarles Barkleyy,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=x90ZxwA6,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2017-04-26T23:01:54.287+0000) > > They based it off more than just last season tho, as in the past two years EU also has had three semi finalists at worlds (more than every region but Korea) and had a better performance at MSI season 6 when FNC made semis while TSM missed the mark on even making it out of groups. Sure, they could've done t differently, but they didn't. But I mean let's be real, it'll be a good thing in the long run because it means more chances for TSM to play and prepare for the group stages, and, if they crap the bed and can't win over all the IWC then they didn't deserve to make groups anyway. It'll be fine I don't know exactly what criteria they used to decide seeds, but your information is slightly inaccurate. TSM may not have even made it out of groups in the S6 MSI, however CLG went to the finals.
: Not bashing, but...
I have been playing this game since just before S2 started. This game has had me hooked like nothing else in a long, long time. I've put in more than 5,000 games across various queues, and have several thousand hours logged into LoL. My way of unwinding is to play 1-3 games of LoL per night, and I do this almost every night. I love this game. Now, for the first time in almost 5 years, I'm seriously contemplating quitting. Since the juggernaut changes, every update has been an abomination. Preseason 6 is far and away the worst of them all.
: Does Anyone Actually Like The New HUD?
It took a bit of getting used to, and I feel like the shop (and possibly abilities sometimes) are a bit unresponsive. However, as a whole, I'm enjoying the new HUD. It's minimalistic and much more streamlined than before. I like it.
: One person out of position late game means GG One person afking late game means GG One bad teamfight late game means GG Just about anything late game means GG. I fail to see the point Thresh is picked because he has so much damn shit in his kit to help him peel and catch Blitz is picked because he's a one trick pony. Lands a hook gj got a kill. Miss a hook time to get engaged on. Naut is picked because he's incredibly tanky with a ton of cc and in league of tanks (or so people say) he fits everything perfectly Only reason Raka/Sona etc. aren't picked as much is because everyone wants a tank. Not because the latter are op and need nerfing
I agree with your statement entirely, but I would like to point out that "latter" means the portion which comes last. The word you wanted to use was "former."
: > [{quoted}](name=Zeralyos,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Gd19xYtG,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2015-07-11T01:22:40.198+0000) > > {{summoner:3}} . You're welcome. Exhaust doesn't do shit to true damage.
It reduces all damage by 40%? So true damage as well?
Mandang0 (NA)
: I don't really care for this argument based on game time, and I made sure to not make any assumptions about who's getting what crits where when I framed my criticism of the OP's plan. Even if that is a real effect (not sure it is), I don't think Riot should be in the game of trying to change ADC powercurves. If people decide averaging out crits is the direction they want to go, I can get behind that, but you need to also buff the average damage to compensate for loss of threat range. Riot's already done this for Ashe, where her passive makes her autos do 110% AD instead of 100%, and then averages crit chance and crit damage into them.
But it's not really adjusting ADC power curves. It's only adjusting their damage curve a bit. When you have 20% crit chance, whether you crit on the 1st AA or the 5th, you will still get a crit (on average) at some point within those 5 AA's. If you don't get that crit until the 5th hit, then you're doing exactly the same amount of damage. It's simply more front loaded in that case. Regarding your Ashe example, when they changed her to be less seemingly random and more evened out, her pick/ban rate and relevance went through the roof. Also, when you get into late game situations with Ashe, she performs just fine. Her passive does not feel like a nerf to her damage at all.
: if only it would, but early downvotes means a lot less visability on these boards which translates into a lot less people even discussing it/getting more aware of the issue at hand...
: -2 on a very necessary discussion that is started by an objective post - just shows you that the up/down-voting system doesn´t work at all.
Doesn't matter. IDC if I get downvoted. All that matters is the discussion.
Mandang0 (NA)
: Crits give champions a larger threat range. Another way of looking at it is that burst damage is preferable to sustained damage, and even if crits don't provide more averaged dps than your system would, they provide the possibility for more up-front damage. More damage up-front forces people out of fights earlier (one way or the other) and helps your team take less damage as a result.
On the other side of the spectrum, not getting those crits will cause you to lose fights or even games. I get lucky crits. Everyone does, but what inspired me to write the OP was a game where RNG was being a bitch to me. 55% crit chance and not getting crits for 4-5 AA's in a row, in multiple team fights. I see what you're getting at, however whether it's a buff or a nerf is completely dependent on the situation and how RNG favors you at that given moment in time. A luck factor such as this should not exist in LoL. If the game were casual like Heroes of the Storm, then sure, it would be fine...but not in a game where the primary goal is to out-skill your opponent. Riot removed dodge for this very reason, crit should really get the same treatment.
Mandang0 (NA)
: Flattening out crit is a huge nerf to champions who build crit chance.
How is this the case? Defend your logic.
: > [{quoted}](name=Don Eulrich,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9mUEtQFm,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2015-07-07T15:32:03.195+0000) > > well, it´s still the easiest/most ressourcefull thing to do to solve the issue. And if they want to add excitement they could add special crit-scaling passives to ad-based champs like e.g. tris get´s more explosion-radius on e and w if she has more crit, sivir get´s a chance to "overload" her q and throws of two blades instead of one (ofc not for the fulldmg on multiple hits) etc etc. > Would still keep the rightclick-rng as boring as it should be, as there´s just no skill involved to rightclick a target - while keeping the stat potentially interessting n other ways. the way i would rework crit, is to keep the big hits but turn it into a stack mechanic like stattic shiv. auto attacking builds crit stacks until you reach a 100. at which point the next attack is a guaranteed critical strike. if the crit stacks are visible as buffs to both players, it gives them the ability to use that damage calculated, or to expect it. the only thing that would have to be added is, that crit stacks decay after a few seconds out of combat, so assassins cant sit on 100 stacks to use it as easily in their burst attempts. the only champs that would be directly affected by this change at all, would be the handful that has crit scaling abilities in their kits (guaranteed parrley crits from gp would be a gigantic buff for exampe). but those could be fixed by adjusting them directly. (in gps case i would just have the crit damage scale up with rank on the ability. meaning a rank 1 parrley crit deals 120% damage, a rank 2 140%... rank 5 the full 200% this would give his opponent a bit time to counterbuild and not get the everliving snot poked out of him). for most champions this change would make practically no diffference. it would be the easiest and least disruptiver method to remove rng from crits while keeping the statisfying big hits and have the stat feel like more than a boring multiplier.
I've thought about this idea too, but there are a couple of major problems with it, and both of them revolve around the stack drop-off. For the sake of argument here, I'm assuming that 20% crit = 5 AA's to stack fully, 50% = 2, etc. Also, before getting into these major flaws, the way stacks function could seriously hurt the stat as well. 25% crit could take 4 AA's to stack, then 1 to fire. This would mean that 25% crit chance now only crits 20% of the time and that's before the drop-off effect. Now, if you consider the fact that the stacks fall off after a certain period of time, that's going to absolutely dumpster the value of the stat itself. For example, say you're on the outskirts of a team fight. AA enough to stack up your crit, then get zoned until it falls off. You could potentially go entire games without getting a good crit off, if your opponents play around it well enough. On the flip side of that coin, if the stacks do not fall off, then you're faced with the problem of lane and team fight zoning. Whereas these are already things, they would be exacerbated by possessing a huge, burning symbol of death.
: sounds pretty much like ashes passive. flattening out the damage critical strikes would deal. thats one solution, but a boring solution tbh.
I agree that it's a bit boring, but it's healthy for the game as a whole IMO.
: > [{quoted}](name=Lord Khaoz,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9mUEtQFm,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2015-07-07T14:47:41.973+0000) > > being honest, it's the RNG crits that add an air of excitement to situations like the Ez duel you mentioned. If there was no element of randomness then it would just be whoever managed to get ahead through farm or kills would always stay ahead because the RNG for crits can help even things out and help an adc come back from being behind. After all who would want to lose a game from any one of a multitude of factors like the other guy has a better connection to the server, or from one adc helping leash for their jungler while the other doesn't. rng still doesnt have a place in this game. the little bit of "excitement" a lucky crit causes is nothing compared to a properly executed play being successful. i think crits randomness needs to be removed. but not like this.
Comentários de Rioters

Boomer

Nível 192 (OCE)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão