Raul04 (EUW)
: Permabanning accounts for toxicity reinforces mental issues and leads to even more toxicity.
Honestly, I do not think that health issues of some people should be a reason to change the whole League. And I think that most 'toxic' people do not have those issues.I think, wWhat they have is bad manners, and a mindset of a spoilt kid. At the same time, I honestly think that permabans are bad for the game and the community in general. The reason being: banned people can always come back with a different acc and vent their anger on us, good players. Losing all property without a chance of retribution only makes them more angry.
: So much Toxic players
\*so many if you can count things, it's 'many', if you can't then it's 'much' Viva la /Grammar
Shamose (EUW)
: Swain doesn't even have to CC anyone himself.
: Who is the best hook/grab champion in your view? Why?
{{champion:50}} hit to root, click to pull.
: Item Concepts - Tier 3 boots?
We already had lvl 3 boots, long ago ) That was called: enchantment. One of those enchantments is now perma-feature (that speed boost you get when you return to spawn)
JamesaXwF (EUW)
: Best performing player of the losing team shouldn't lose LP.
Once you make any kind of criteria other than win, people start following that criteria instead of trying to win at all costs. As easy as that. I.e. they will start evading things that decrease their chances of "MVP" status and compete with their own teammates for the things that increase it. And the idea of a team game is that you cooperate with your teammates, not compete. I.e. you start pushing people to play for stats, not for win. This is a bad idea.
: Even with no leagues the mmr system is still the same, you either get super long queues or u either get OTPs at diamond level matched against bronze OTPs There's just not enough OTPs to fill a whole queue by themselves, specially considering that 90% of OTPs are mid top and jungle, filling the last two spots, specially support would take a ridiculous amount of time and PS : I'm talking about two OTPs playing the same champ in the same team, not mirror matchups
Oh, but judging by the amount of pro-OTP comments here on boards, it looks like there're plenty! (to be honest I am somewhat sarcastic here ;) )
urgeN (EUW)
: Bringing democracy to LOL
> MAKE EVERY PLAYER RATE THE OTHER PLAYERS. Ah ye. I think I even know what those ratings are going to be. > /all report jungle x9 thank you > /all ff 15 report bot ffs
: Since you absolutely don't want to have two OTPs that play the same champ in a single game, draft pick wouldn't work, instead they'd probably have to use some kind of team builder thing like they used to, but even with regular players, team builder would take 30 - 45 mins to find games in gold, so imagine how long it'd take to find games if you only include OTPs Then also consider that the average OTP is high silver, it really would make wait times crazy asf for anyone that's high gold or higher, either that or you'd have to completely ignore all mmr just to get a match started, which would make everythign way too imbalanced The idea itself isn't a bad idea but having something exclusive to OTPs just makes the targeted playerbase way too small for the wait times to be worth it
Ehm... I don't think it's going to have as many leagues as regular ranked. Kinda... On regular basis we have a span of ~3400 LP broken into 7 Leagues and 34 divisions (+challenger and master), playable for almost a year before new placements. If this special mode has a duration of a month or two, then it obviously should be several times shorter (so that people could climb anywhere other than playing 12h/day). PS: > Since you absolutely don't want to have two OTPs that play the same champ in a single game Why, but I'd be delighted to see this! :D
duccy (EUW)
: Victorious Skin Season 9
Hmmmmm... Victorious Poppy?
Rioter Comments
Hexa XV (EUW)
: > you know that you ban your teammate's main, and you know that you want to hurt him that way. While he most probably banned just 'a champion he doesn't want to see' And you hurt person who picked his main. Plz don't be a hypocrite. > But I say that you know what your intentions are, and they are definitely to hurt your teammate and team's performance (even though as a revenge for what they did to you). Again - you are doing exactly the same. And honestly I don't care that I am doing it only for revenge. It is as mean as banning my champ. Karma comes pretty fast. > The trick is... you can't trust anyone but yourself in soloQ. So this trick made you to Silver 4 with so many loses? Hmm sorry I prefer my way then. > people do not usually ban 'your champ' specially because of you. They do, because I picked it and they saw it. They don't ask, they just do it and feel awesome about it. Listen... I know it's great to give advices and write like a pro about stuff related to teamwork and game but when you have such stats maybe it's time to think about it... I am meeting a lot of geniuses on SR who knows what ally will do before game starts, they know people will feed in lobby already, they know "game is lost" before 2 minutes. Yeah, I met them a lot in low elo. Funny thing that the higher you climb people are not much better players per se but they have that totally different thinking. The thinking that make it possible to win more games. It's called "teamwork". Of course you will meet trolls, feeders and afks but you shouldn't judge everyone because of your previous games. It doesn't work this way. One Yasuo can be bad, the next one can carry team in 20 minutes. And yes, you should trust people unless you are able to carry 1v5 and don't cry later on boards that you lose because of "noob team". {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}}
> > people do not usually ban 'your champ' specially because of you > They do, because I picked it and they saw it. They don't ask, they just do it and feel awesome about it. Psssst. Pal. If you think that you can hear what's in a certain man's head... then I've got news for you. Those news are either good if you can hear them from my mind, and they are bad if you can't. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}} > And you hurt person who picked his main. Plz don't be a hypocrite. > Again - you are doing exactly the same. Ehm. No. {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} The difference is obvious: in case A you just make environment better for yourself regardless of anyone else, in case B you intentionally make your teammate's environment worse regardless of your own performance. Case A is pure capitalistic egoism. Case B is clearly driven by the idea of justice and revenge. In case B you stop being practical and start hurting your own team. In case A you just make sure that you can give out as much performance as you can (even if at the cost of someone else). > So this trick made you to Silver 4 with so many loses? Hmm sorry I prefer my way then. 'So many losses'? And what do you think a number of losses should be? :D Zero? It seems you've got a lot to learn about matchmaking, and winrates, and statistics overall. Anyway. Once you stop discussing the subject and start discussing the opponent, there's no more reason for the discussion itself. I am glad I've finally got to mid-silver from where I've been. Hope you can say the same about your own position and rank dynamics.
volkyr (EUNE)
: can not loggin from iran
Riot should raise a voice and protect its players. US Government may not even know that there's such thing as League Iranian community. It would be good to remind them. No really. It is not enough to just let people play. If you want a community loyal to you, you should also be loyal to the community.
Hexa XV (EUW)
: > And here you go breaking the code of conduct via malicious banning. Well, you are doing the same so why the hell not? Once someone banned my champ and random guy banned his too <3 that was so cute of him :D
The 'hell' is this: you know that you ban your teammate's main, and you know that you want to hurt him that way. While he most probably banned just 'a champion he doesn't want to see' (and you happened to be the one who gets the worst of it). I do not say that it is a case where you could be punished. But I say that you know what your intentions are, and they are definitely to hurt your teammate and team's performance (even though as a revenge for what they did to you). PS: The trick is... you can't trust anyone but yourself in soloQ. People say they 'main' something and that they will 'carry' so much more often than they really do. It's not you. It's just that you can't trust such claims in League (as long as there're no consequences for a lie like that). If you banned Yasuo as often as I do, you would know that 6/10 such players (at least) can easily play something else, or just can't play a champion as good as they claim. Often they don't even take the game seriously enough: they're not here to win a match, they're here to play their beloved champion once more. Whose fault is it that a player's word is not something you can trust? Neither yours, nor mine. But that changes nothing. PPS: I think you do not understand this little thing: people do not usually ban 'your champ' specially because of you. They ban a champ they do not want to see, and you personally are just not taken into consideration, at all.
: >Yasuo/Zed/Morde >OP Champ >LUL if someone bans my hover pick i op gg him and ban his main smh, there is an time to pick for a reason, it lets you see what champs your teammates want and eventually talk if they don't want to pick something else, if you feel uncomfortable, better than banning someones main, mains usually play their counters to be prepared if their main get picked.
Some "mains" are not even worth to be mentioned, sorry. "I am Zed main let me zed or I feed" says a guys with 44% winrate on Zed and average stats of Iron. Or it could be a guy who plays for two weeks total. I've seen this so many times, that I do not even try noticing that kind of claim. > if someone bans my hover pick i op gg him and ban his main smh And here you go breaking the code of conduct via malicious banning. Maybe that is not the case where you can be caught easily, but you know you're doing it. I.e. you join the evil you meant to fight. Congrats, Anakin! Funny thing is that it usually changes nothing, unless you meet someone who only knows how to play one champ.
Hexa XV (EUW)
: > The easiest example would be last pick Morde (Yasuo, Zed, any other OP champ). Chances are 5 to 1 that other team takes that champion before your own teammate. Therefore, it's technically better to ban him than to let the other team take him. No it's not... > Another good example many people would not understand would be this. Imagine you hate having Yasuo anywhere on the map. Now. If you ban him then maybe teammate will feed and lose his lane. Lol then maybe ban all champs because someone can feed and lose lane? Yeah I also hate playing against Yasuo but I will not ban him if my teammate picked it. It is just lame to do that. > PS: Riot does not want to solve that problem. They think it is not a problem. I'd prefer it to be solved the other way round. But nevertheless: Riots think current rules work well enough. So you are from Riot? That you say what they think about it?
> So you are from Riot? That you say what they think about it? No, I just saw their answer on the issue somewhere. You know, I tried to talk about this on Boards somewhat before you. > Lol then maybe ban all champs because someone can feed and lose lane? Did I say anything about them losing lane? No, I did not. Please, read it again. This is not a case of "he will fail", or I'd start with support Lux. > No it's not... What's not clear about chances 5 to 1? (even though in reality those chances may be much greater, depending on champion's pick rate).
Febos (EUW)
: I'm against firing someone because of a stupid mistake. Just admit what you did was wrong, apologize and revert the punishment. Same goes for NB3, but in his case he **should** be punished because of what **he said** in the game.
Banning someone because your buddy asked you to is not just some stupid mistake. It is nearly the same as a cop that arrests a man because his gangsta buddy asked him to do it (only on a smaller scale).
Hexa XV (EUW)
: but why? seriously I'm curious. Why it's ok to someone to ban my champ? Because what, he doesnt like it? Well I don't like his choice so I should ban it too? Let's ban all our mains because why not? Shouldn't it be possible to pick any champ you feel comfortable to play with? If dying under tower on purpose is banable then why banning ally champ is not? How it is going to help team? I really want to know. Unless people prefer to just downvote stuff and say mean stuff to feel better in the Internet.
> Why it's ok to someone to ban my champ? The easiest example would be last pick Morde (Yasuo, Zed, any other OP champ). Chances are 5 to 1 that other team takes that champion before your own teammate. Therefore, it's technically better to ban him than to let the other team take him. Another good example many people would not understand would be this. Imagine you hate having Yasuo anywhere on the map. Now. If you ban him then _maybe_ teammate will feed and lose his lane. But if you do not, you know you will feed and fail _for sure_. You see, few people really go nuts when they can't play a champion they want. So... the chances are: you'd better take a thin chance of someone go int rather than taking a sure 100% chance of your own performance decreased. > Shouldn't it be possible to pick any champ you feel comfortable to play with? Well... what if that champion makes someone else's game totally _uncomfortable_? Shouldn't it be possible to remove anything that makes your game uncomfortable, anything you totally do not want to see anywhere on the Rift? PS: Riot does not want to solve that problem. They think it is not a problem. I'd prefer it to be solved the other way round. But nevertheless: Riots think current rules work well enough.
: Yes, you scored a fail. All the information you ever needed was right under your nose but you are willfully ignorant so you refuse to take that information and say you are right unless all the information is spelled out for you. I'm not here to teach you how these things work. I'll let someone else with more time to do that. You refused to answer my legit question and yet you are saying i'm running away? pathetic...
> you ... you ... your ... but you ... so you ... you ...for you. Ah. So typical. In case one's got nothing to say on the topic, he starts talking of his opponent. > I'm not here to teach you how these things work. I'll let someone else with more time to do that. "Teach"? Pffffff. Tune down that attitude a bit pls. No one asked you of teaching. I only requested some proof on some statements of yours. I still do not see them, instead I see this pile of "you"-s and also some unbendable belief of the religious kind. I sincerely hope bonfires are not going to come in next. > pathetic... Ah ye definitely. Not being able even to _leave_ after claiming the end of "this little discussion" (this is a quote) is pathetic, sure thing!
: >I can tell you that as soon as I see real solid data. It's good that you acknowledge you don't have the necessary knowledge or skill to realize what would happen. That should also then make you realize why you are not eligible to talk about balance in a serious manner. >I.e. that's your idea of what should happen. I see. A fact, not an idea. Apparently you have ran out of valid arguments so i guess this little discussion ends here. Have a good day.
> It's good that you acknowledge > this little discussion ends here > Have a good day. Ah, nice runnig away. I think, we score a fail here. Come back when you find anything more rational than "I say so". Bye-bye.
: Every competitive game in existence is the proof. It's common sense really, but i guess common sense is not that common. It's not something i have to prove. Tell me, what would happen if azir was balanced around low elo instead of high elo? That should be enough to see the flaws of balancing around low elo players.
> Tell me, what would happen if azir was balanced around low elo instead of high elo? That should be enough to see the flaws of balancing around low elo players. I can tell you that as soon as I see real solid data. > It's common sense really, but i guess common sense is not that common I.e. that's your idea of what should happen. I see.
: >Below gold you have >50% of the playerbase. If the game is unfun in every other case, then there's no reason to play it. Funny thing is though that the game is actually more "fun" for the majority when it's balanced around high elo, not low elo. So it simply doesn't matter if the majority of the players are in low elo. All of this speculation about morde here isn't very accurate because he is a split pusher so it's not ideal most of the time to group with his team. My point was related to a situation where he is simply force to group up and there it's a completely valid argument.
> Funny thing is though that the game is actually more "fun" for the majority when it's balanced around high elo, not low elo. Any proofs? Any solid data?
: There was a player in his team playing support Teemo on midlane. He insulted this player, and went afk in base. You can see what happened here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIy8JUxaW7I Personally, I don't have a problem with unconventional play styles. If my teammates are trying their best to win I believe that is enough. But some people go bonkers when they see something different.
Welll, after NB3 gets away with it, we should not be surprised with people shouting "report jungler x9" and AFKing on the respawnThis example shows us exactly where Riot's priorities are, and what's allowed here.
: >Doesn't change anything. It changes A LOT. >Clever Morder ults when QSS on cooldown. A clever enemy doesn't use qss before morde ults unless there are multiple big threats that can be handled with qss. >Or he ults someone without QSS (maybe in pro play 5xQSS is possible, but not in silver-gold.). Yes, someone of not importance which is almost like wasting it. Silver and gold aren't really considered in balance like this. Lack of skill is not the reason to nerf/buff anything. >I.e. give another free kill to the enemy carry and hope like hell that your team can 4 vs 4 without you. If your team can't 4v4, then you have lost already anyway. So taking off the carry from the fight can acctually turn the tides, even if you die in the process. That's actually something you have to do sometimes on other champions as well. Dive in and kill that one person that is carrying the enemy team so your team can clean up and win. It's not even specific to morde but he can do it more reliably with his ult. >Also, the time you buy totally depends on how long you survive. Build in a way that helps you survive long enough. As long as you don't die in a second, it's going to be plently of time. Morde can just build full tank and hold the enemy hostage for up to 7 seconds.
> Silver and gold aren't really considered in balance like this. Below gold you have >50% of the playerbase. If the game is unfun in every other case, then there's no reason to play it. > A clever enemy doesn't use qss before morde ults unless there are multiple big threats that can be handled with qss. and a very clever Morde will cooperate with his ally so that an enemy spends his QSS for something else, and then Morde ults. C'mon! Do you even realise that it is an argument of ultimate shield and ultimate spear? I.e. pointless. ALL cases of Morde's ulti fall into one of two large bins: a banished opponent either can beat Morde in nether realm, or he can't (QSS falls into the bin of "can" cases, naturally). If Morde ults someone who can, then there's no reason to ulti. If Morde ults someone who can't, then he just gets more fed. Either you're behind and stay there, or you're ahead and snowball further. Same as in the whole game, i.e. your ulti only keeps the status quo, changing almost nothing in the fight between you and your adversary. The only case where ult changes anything is team cooperation. You can take your enemy from his support, or take a tank away from his damage dealer, or you can remove mass CC caster (like Malphite). The bad thing here is that you also remove yourself from the fight, and therefore you should always remove an opponent that is more important than you (or the one you can quickly kill, but why bother then). Which is... strange. Being a top carry, you've got practically no reason to go the nether realm: you make your team short of their strongest player. And being well behind, you need the team to help you win fights, which means you also don't want to go there. If only to sacrifice yourself... But you won't resurrect like Aatrox could. You see, if the purpose of the ulti was to remove the team cooperation, then you could achieve it via a lot of different means. For example you could banish a champion away without going with him. Or maybe you could cast a new kind of cc that makes him immune to heals, shields, buffs from his allies. Or it could be "disarm" + "silence" for 7 seconds. It could be anything! And nether realm doesn't look like the most clever decision here. And if the purpose of Morde's ulti was something else, then I do not see, what it could be. PS: you know what this banishing reminds me of? Old Urgot's ulti. The one they removed on rework.
: >Against those stronger than you it is kinda non-existent (you don't want to duel an opponent who kills you) Except you can use it in a fight to get rid of someone strong so your team can win a 4v4. >and against those weaker it is an almost sure kill. QSS removes his ult. Morde still steals the stats from the target so it's not completely useless for him but at least the enemy isn't going to die 100% of the time.
> QSS removes his ult Doesn't change anything. Clever Morder ults when QSS on cooldown. Or he ults someone without QSS (maybe in pro play 5xQSS is possible, but not in silver-gold.). > Except you can use it in a fight to get rid of someone strong so your team can win a 4v4. I.e. give another free kill to the enemy carry and hope like hell that your team can 4 vs 4 without you. Also, the time you buy totally depends on how long you survive.
VexLuna (EUW)
: Morde is a little nutty isn't he...
IMO death realm was not a very clever idea since the beginning. Against those stronger than you it is kinda non-existent (you don't want to duel an opponent who kills you), and against those weaker it is an almost sure kill. And where's fun in that?
: Mordekaiser
Maybe he is not very strong in lane, but gosh, so strong later! It's not even that he deals much damage... he just feels unkillable. And once you think you got him as a team, \*WHOOSH\*, he escapes into his nether realm and comes back with additional stats.
: Don't unban Nubrac.
All you say about Nubrac trolling or Nubrac not trolling is missing the point, actually. And the point is: Nubrac got his punishment _because NB asked his Riot friend to issue that punishment_. _That's_ what really matters. First, this injustice should be set right (i.e. punishment removed, damage compensated, offender named and punished, Riot's excuses issued), and only after that you can start judging Nubrac's actions again (and NB's actions too). It is a very simple thing, actually. You just _can't_ fight law breakers using corrupt law enforcement. You can't use "telephone rule" to make justice, for it'll be justice for the few chosen ones. That kind of things _always_ makes things worse, not better. Just believe me on this, for I am Russian, and I know a thing or two about corruption.
: How hard it is to place a ward?
Sometimes (not often) your opponent pushes you along the lane here and there so much, that a ward you set turns useless withing seconds; you just have no idea where you're going to stand 10 seconds later.
Haze97 (EUW)
: EuW has a massive problem with it's junglers.
AFAIK, Jungle is the most autofilled role in low Elo. Maybe that's the reason, hm? And before you say anything of autofill, note this pls: A role gets autofilled because there're too few people who want to play it at all (and know how to do it).
DeCoqq (EUW)
: How does restricting a team to one supp item would prevent buying a cencer? You can't buy jungle item without a smite so the idea is kind of in use already. Would had also fixed funneling and frostmancy strategies
Ah! I get it. You mean starter items, right? Targon, Coin and Spellthief?
Memuru (EUW)
: Maybe but there's actually a huge reason they haven't done that yet - potential griefing. This change would bring back Disco Nunu in full force, he would instabuy the support item, drastically reducing his teams win chance in an instant. Fair counterpoint to this though: if a player wants to grief a game then that team will lose regardless. For ranked it will not matter, but normals will be total chaos. They'd have to make it so you can only buy the support item if you get the role in champ select. Problem then is when people want to swap roles. They will have change swapping so it actually swaps your given role in client, which is actually a %%%%ing great idea holy shit that would fix the problem and would fix funnelling too omg I'm such a clever boi
> They will have change swapping so it actually swaps your given role in client Last season I was playing Lux mid. And half of the games I bought Censer just because it gave me AP, CDR, better shield and buff to my ADC (in case he got a bad supp). Strictly forbidding people to buy something sounds like a bad idea, honestly. I think that all this "MELEE ONLY" stuff and "ONE-TIME PURCHASE" stuff should be extinct from the game. We have other powerful tools to tune the variety of builds: Unique properties and Unique named properties.
: Sylas Imbalance Issue
> he most important thing is that it is not fair a mage / assassin - type champion has an axiomatically unreasonable heal on his W ability. Unreasonable heal @ mage/assassin @ Hmmmm... Ekko? Sounds just like Ekko!
: it's sad to see a company fall this low
Every system that is big enough falls that low early or late. The important thing is: how Riot will react as a company.
: #FreeNubrac
Well... the easiest explanation is that Nightblue3 really has a friend in Riot. It's called 'corruption' and it is nothing new.
King Lego (EUNE)
: The toxic "kills! kills! kills!" mindset
Yasuo @ Botlane @ toxic nothing new here, pal =)
: > And it’s not obsolete, the rule is litterally there to prevent a player from being unable to pick anything, it’s litterally just there as a solution to that niche issue. If that had been true, then freepick wouldn't have been blocked in Ranked. > And all to stop a problem that won’t stop... this won’t prevent boosted accounts, especially as most players who people think are boosted aren’t. I never said it was going to stop boosted accounts. And this is not the first time I state this. Don't you read what I say? > OTPs tend to be the ones that climb faster, plus high level OTPs pioneer innovation in the game, without them the meta moves slower. Numbers, please.
> I did read what you wrote, you want to add something which will unfairly block people from a game in an attempt to restrict something... that’s not worth it, your taking away more than your gaining. Ah but if you read what I say than you should have also read that if whole system needs a revamp to fulfill my demand then I agree to it. Maybe this experience bar should be equal to one B game. Or maybe it should replace lvl 30. I do not know. I just know that a fisrt timer in Ranked is a very bad thing that should not be easily accessible. > Free pick was stopped in ranked because it created toxicity... because if people didn’t get wha they wanted they trolled or flamed... Now they do it with champions they bought. Great solution! Anyway, you state that people get their primary roles most of the time, therefore freepick could have been returned already.
CJXander (EUNE)
: Players that are banned in-game should also be banned on boards
When you deny people ways to speak they start expressing their mind via worse things. Believe me, you do not want that.
Ιsaac (EUW)
: I bought an account and the owner took it back without refund or notice
Well... When you take part in outlaw activity, you deal with outlaws. You should account for that risk. This time you got unlucky.
: > OTP stops being healthy when it's "swap with me I can't play anything else or I feed". And this starts when people use "OTP" as an excuse to exploit a system of primary/secondary role, autofill, bans and draft pick (where you can be the last one to pick). Would you like to keep those? I would not. OTPs tend to be the ones that climb faster, plus high level OTPs pioneer innovation in the game, without them the meta moves slower. So they are more healthy for the game than you realise > Next. I do not want experience barrier to stop OTP. Nothing can stop that as long as there's demand, except total Orwell-style control. I'd like barrier to stop people going ranked on a champion they never played before. That is all. And as a side effect it would also increase the cost of boosted accs (decreasing there amount overall, according to the laws of economy). And if that requires a revamp of ranked restrictions, then so be it, for the system is old and full of holes. You might not want it to stop them but that’s what it will do, and more than just OTPs. Like I said people who have 20 or more champions in their pool are a minority, most people aren’t gonna have any more than 10 champions. So it’s not just OTPs, you’ve banned a lot of players from ranked with this. And all to stop a problem that won’t stop... this won’t prevent boosted accounts, especially as most players who people think are boosted aren’t. > The last thing. If there's so many unbendable OTPs as you claim, then "20 champions" rule is as obsolete as coprolith. But something tells me that if this was true, then we should have had way more people demanding a role swap in lobby. Which we don't have. We don’t have that many people demanding role swaps because the vast majority of the time you getting your primary role, it’s rare to get autofilled thanks to autofill protection. And it’s not obsolete, the rule is litterally there to prevent a player from being unable to pick anything, it’s litterally just there as a solution to that niche issue.
> And it’s not obsolete, the rule is litterally there to prevent a player from being unable to pick anything, it’s litterally just there as a solution to that niche issue. If that had been true, then freepick wouldn't have been blocked in Ranked. > And all to stop a problem that won’t stop... this won’t prevent boosted accounts, especially as most players who people think are boosted aren’t. I never said it was going to stop boosted accounts. And this is not the first time I state this. Don't you read what I say? > OTPs tend to be the ones that climb faster, plus high level OTPs pioneer innovation in the game, without them the meta moves slower. Numbers, please.
Shamose (EUW)
: She's "perma invis" in a small rectangle while near a bush. %%%%ing walk away or throw shit into that small area. How do you play against akali? Do you stand in the middle of her W hoping she just does nothing?
Did they change her element grab mechanics? In the video that explained her W it looked like she needed only to click element with her W. And her W has a very large radius.
: Except it wouldn’t do what you want it to do. You want it to stop boosted accounts, what’s stopping them from just putting more games into it to allow them into ranked... remember they get paid for this it’s not like they really care OTPs have done nothing wrong and don’t deserve to be kicked out of the game for wanting to play a single champion And you are encouraged to only have two or three champions per role, sometimes even just one so that you can learn them well... that’s only 10-15 champions at most assuming there’s no flex picks, in reality most players are only gonna have 6-7 champions in their pool. That’s less than the 20 required to play ranked. That’s what I’m getting at, it’s actually a bad idea to have a champion pool large enough to allow yourself to play ranked.... most players don’t bother with having that many champions, So you’ve kicked a large portion of the community off ranked... aka killed the game
OTP stops being healthy when it's "swap with me I can't play anything else or I feed". And this starts when people use "OTP" as an excuse to exploit a system of primary/secondary role, autofill, bans and draft pick (where you can be the last one to pick). Would you like to keep those? I would not. Next. I do not want experience barrier to stop OTP. Nothing can stop that as long as there's demand, except total Orwell-style control. I'd like barrier to stop people going ranked on a champion they never played before. That is all. And as a side effect it would also increase the cost of boosted accs (decreasing there amount overall, according to the laws of economy). And if that requires a revamp of ranked restrictions, then so be it, for the system is old and full of holes. The last thing. If there's so many unbendable OTPs as you claim, then "20 champions" rule is as obsolete as coprolith. But something tells me that if this was true, then we should have had way more people demanding a role swap in lobby. Which we don't have.
: the alternative is outright banning these players... It’s not perfect but like I said there would be way too many players negatively effected by an experience barrier... hell there aren’t actually many players who play all 20 of the required champions. An experience barrier could outright kill the game off
No, the experience barrier would just kill some OTPs and boosted accs. All in all, this system of restrictions to the Ranked queue is now widely exploited. It does not do its work anymore (except making people grind Normals to the lvl 30 or pay for the boosted acc). No more reason to hold to it. Time to make new restrictions that are more sensible, and it is also time to remove some of the most senseless old ones.
: You really didn’t follow what I was saying did you. Currently you need 20 champions owned to play ranked, as that prevents you from getting into a situation where you can’t pick anything. Most people only play 5-6 of those champions, one tricks play 1 of them. If there was an experience barrier like you asked for, so for example needs level 4 to play ranked with that champion, that means you need that level 4 on 20 different champions in order to play ranked for the aforementioned reasons. One tricks aren’t gonna have that are they, they are just gonna have one champion high enough to play. So you’ve banned them from ranked. That’s why experience barriers don’t work, because it doesn’t work well with the other restrictions to ranked play. Also doesn’t help vs reworked champions does it... you could play 1000 games of old morde and still be taking new morde into ranked for the first game...
I see what you say. I just do not understand why you can't follow those rules down to their roots. To their _purpose_. It's like... okay, you own 20 champions. You play one and you totally ignore others. Then you go Ranked, your OTP gets banned, you pick someone else (whom you've never played), a-a-a-a-aand... is it any different from playing a totally random champion that fits the role, what do you think? Next. Imagine I own 20 champions, and they all are toplaners and assassins. And... I go Ramked, and I get autofilled support/ADC. Will those 20 champions help me play a role well enough, what do you think?
: But the problem with that is that you need 20 champions to play ranked... saying there’s an experience barrier outright prevents one tricks from playing
Ah yes, now you can just buy 20 champions for RP (and boost your way to lvl30 through Co-Op scripting). This is so much better! > saying there’s an experience barrier outright prevents one tricks from playing You have just said that a player needs 20 champions to enter ranked. And here you speak of onetricks. Either this or that, man. If this is a game about playing only a single champion, then experience barrier on that champ should not be a problem. And if this is a game about being able to play 20 at least, then I do not see any reason to plead onetricks' cause.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > Why not disabled new/reworked Champions from ranked for first week?Is that simple. Not really, because there are actually a group of players that only play ranked. You're essentially saying that they're not allowed to play new champions for one week, and then what happens? The champion becomes available, and they have to try them for the first time anyway, so the problem wasn't solved, just delayed.
> You're essentially saying that they're not allowed to play new champions for one week, and then what happens? We've all been through this numerous times already. And the answer is still the same. There should be an experience barrier for playing a champion in Ranked queue. No one should go Ranked with a champion he sees for the very first time. No one should lose his LP only because some ('xcuse me here) peacock is too puffed-up to go Normals or Coop to _learn moves_ at least.
: And Udyr can run at you fairly quickly with his duck-feet brown pixelated wooden slippers and punch you with his dorrito hands. Meanwhile a giant space dragon that spits out galaxies dies to a rat with a McDonald's straw as a weapon. Realism.
You'd be amazed, but japanese wooden "geta" used to be quite practical kind of footwear.
: Riot, the players don't like Qiyana
You know, I've been playing League with champions' voices turned off for a long time. The reason was: all my very first champions were talking about death all the time, and that kinda got on my nerves. Well... maybe Qiyana would drive me into turning off all the voices, again.
: Riot is nerfing the wrong aspects of yuumi.
OP aspect of Yuumi is not her abilities. OP aspect of Yuumi is her synergy with bruisers/skirmishers/juggernaughts, who are already strong on their own: Jax, Master Yi, Sion, Darius, Jarvan, Shyvana... Sion+Yuumi double ulti is sooooo much control!
: I cant speak that language, but did u type anything in the search bar?
Looks like not. The text in it presumably means "search"
Show more

Rainfollower

Level 182 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion