Welcome to this patch's General Discussion thread for the League of Legends subforum. This thread is for discussion around League of Legends. Free feel to talk about anything LoL related here that does not already have its own thread.
So I heard if you actually want to play a role, you should put it in your secondary slot, is this still true? Was this ever true? I got my secondary 3 times in a row just now, and I set it as mid because I thought that would be the most played
On March 23 2016 09:23 RagequitBM wrote: So I heard if you actually want to play a role, you should put it in your secondary slot, is this still true? Was this ever true? I got my secondary 3 times in a row just now, and I set it as mid because I thought that would be the most played
Well, if your secondary happens to be support, that is probably true.
On March 23 2016 09:23 RagequitBM wrote: So I heard if you actually want to play a role, you should put it in your secondary slot, is this still true? Was this ever true? I got my secondary 3 times in a row just now, and I set it as mid because I thought that would be the most played
Well, if your secondary happens to be support, that is probably true.
2/12 for top lane when picking top/support.
yeah I'm 0/6 now for Bot/Mid. I guess bot is just a super contested role
edit: set top as my secondary because of what amui said. Finally got bot. My hero
That Karma buff looks pretty insane, that's so much more shield scaling. I've always felt that it was super underwhelming especially in late game, hopefully that double ratio buff makes it so her 3rd and 4th item support scaling much stronger as a midlaner.
On March 23 2016 10:53 wei2coolman wrote: That Karma buff looks pretty insane, that's so much more shield scaling. I've always felt that it was super underwhelming especially in late game, hopefully that double ratio buff makes it so her 3rd and 4th item support scaling much stronger as a midlaner.
If you build a comp around the RE, it's going to be very powerful. Looking at something like 700 HP on primary and 350 AoE shield at 3 items, and the ability to go in/out very quickly. You'd need sustained damage from elsewhere though in order to make it work.
On March 23 2016 08:44 Gahlo wrote: RIP Riven's lane phase.
what happened now
They constantly weakened hear early game and with Corrupting Potion and Grasp of the Undying made the early game even safer for tanks. That ruins her ability to get ahead of tanks and with the weaker LW makes it so she can't keep up with them in fights even if she itemizes for it. That is why Riven is bad right now.
Now, moving on. With the loss of Brutalizer, her lane phase is propped up by the powerspike of Tiamat. It was cheap and gave her the power she needed, but in losing the AOE onhit she was able to control lanes. Now that Tiamat has the AOE again she can't manage wave while having the strength to fight people.
"Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: a high-damage carry champion builds primarily tank items and still manages to deal enough damage to duel everyone while being impossible to take down."
Fiora isn't only getting shat on at the moment, but she is practically useless until she has 2 DAMAGE items (hydra and BC), then she builds tank because she NEEDS it to survive, not to make her "impossible to take down".
On March 23 2016 14:30 foxmeep wrote: Does Riot even watch their own game?
"Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: a high-damage carry champion builds primarily tank items and still manages to deal enough damage to duel everyone while being impossible to take down."
Fiora isn't only getting shat on at the moment, but she is practically useless until she has 2 DAMAGE items (hydra and BC), then she builds tank because she NEEDS it to survive, not to make her "impossible to take down".
Yeah, and then she does stupid damage. That's the problem, that she does as much damage as she does while investing little into it. She blows up priority targets and tanks when rolling.
you're right that she has a power spike at 2 items but it's not from useless -> ok
it's ok -> holy shit no one can beat her even with a gold lead
she builds tanky because going damage is just overkill. you already shit on everyone as a splitpusher at 2 items anyways, why not go tank so that you can still teamfight when need be without sacrificing splitpush capabilities at all
if she's going to be that unstoppable splitpusher its totally fair that she should build more damage items.
Am super okay with the Lux change, and am fairly sure I said her shield was bullshit and needed to be nerfed something like two seasons ago.
Wonder if she'll stay competitive. Dropping the level 1 shield strength that much might actually make her weak in lane to Assassins instead of only weak to Assassins in peoples imagination.
The shield stacks, so unless you burst the first half of the shield, deal damage, then manage to break off the trade before the second half comes in (without taking more damage because of the premature disengage) it's a buff, though.
On March 23 2016 13:54 MooMooMugi wrote: Mao finally gets that MR scaling that all the tanks in the game already do
That + his passive tend to make him pretty tanky to mages in lane though.
Aaaaand Riot are laying the groundwork to backtrack on soloQ and say "well in the end we won't make it" with the usual bullshit "we didn't anticipate this well, we're sorry and we deserve the heat we're taking." This feels disingenuous. And if it isn't, then it means it's the 4th or 5th occasion in which they rehash this, so they're got a poor track record in terms of expertise in evaluating/planning stuff.
if anything its the opposite. Fiora is cancer to lane against early game, and then as soon as I get 2 items I can just 2 shot her and she barely scratches me.
I still can't get over how strong her level 1 is, surprises me everytime how many times she can proc grasp before you are even lvl 2, so fucking annoying
On March 23 2016 19:37 Alaric wrote: The shield stacks, so unless you burst the first half of the shield, deal damage, then manage to break off the trade before the second half comes in (without taking more damage because of the premature disengage) it's a buff, though.
On March 23 2016 13:54 MooMooMugi wrote: Mao finally gets that MR scaling that all the tanks in the game already do
That + his passive tend to make him pretty tanky to mages in lane though.
Aaaaand Riot are laying the groundwork to backtrack on soloQ and say "well in the end we won't make it" with the usual bullshit "we didn't anticipate this well, we're sorry and we deserve the heat we're taking." This feels disingenuous. And if it isn't, then it means it's the 4th or 5th occasion in which they rehash this, so they're got a poor track record in terms of expertise in evaluating/planning stuff.
Just as most of us predicted. What a joke. Pros are rightfully mad, but Riot knows they won't just switch games or something like that. The casual-fest is real, so apparently Riot was extremely fearful of losing massive amounts of players if they don't dumb down the ranked system into oblivion.
Meh, at least they said since we are not getting solo ranked and will be forever stuck with this glorified teambuilder, they are implementing voice comms. Oh, wait...
At least Fiora and Yi are nerfed, and someone took away the LSD from the people who tried to "balance" Lulu. God bless.
On March 23 2016 10:07 Celial wrote: Can I put in Fill/Support and basically get support guaranteed?
Just put in Support/x and basically get support guaranteed.
On March 23 2016 13:54 MooMooMugi wrote: Mao finally gets that MR scaling that all the tanks in the game already do
Getting it back. He had it when he was getting all the pro play from ages ago, they removed it and he lost a lot of favor.
On March 23 2016 19:37 Alaric wrote: The shield stacks, so unless you burst the first half of the shield, deal damage, then manage to break off the trade before the second half comes in (without taking more damage because of the premature disengage) it's a buff, though.
No reason to be surprised that a solo q format is not coming out. dynamic gives the largest player base which is players of bronze-low gold the more casual experience they prefer while still under the guise they are playing in a competitive ranked mode. And every else is fuck u because they know people aren't quitting
On March 23 2016 14:30 foxmeep wrote: Does Riot even watch their own game?
"Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: a high-damage carry champion builds primarily tank items and still manages to deal enough damage to duel everyone while being impossible to take down."
Fiora isn't only getting shat on at the moment, but she is practically useless until she has 2 DAMAGE items (hydra and BC), then she builds tank because she NEEDS it to survive, not to make her "impossible to take down".
BC and Titanic aren't damage items. They're hybrid items and this is a fundamental misunderstanding a lot of people have about bruiser/melee carry/certain AP's itemization.
On March 24 2016 07:44 IamPryda wrote: No reason to be surprised that a solo q format is not coming out. dynamic gives the largest player base which is players of bronze-low gold the more casual experience they prefer while still under the guise they are playing in a competitive ranked mode. And every else is fuck u because they know people aren't quitting
I really wish we could see some actual numbers. Too bad it isn't what riot like to do. I know quite a few people who got fed up with this system and just stopped for now after playing a lot of games but that doesn't mean anything.
On March 24 2016 07:44 IamPryda wrote: No reason to be surprised that a solo q format is not coming out. dynamic gives the largest player base which is players of bronze-low gold the more casual experience they prefer while still under the guise they are playing in a competitive ranked mode. And every else is fuck u because they know people aren't quitting
removing soloq is a fucking travesty though i can see why riot would do it (same reason that sandbox mode will never happen)
On March 24 2016 07:44 IamPryda wrote: No reason to be surprised that a solo q format is not coming out. dynamic gives the largest player base which is players of bronze-low gold the more casual experience they prefer while still under the guise they are playing in a competitive ranked mode. And every else is fuck u because they know people aren't quitting
I really wish we could see some actual numbers. Too bad it isn't what riot like to do. I know quite a few people who got fed up with this system and just stopped for now after playing a lot of games but that doesn't mean anything.
On the other hand all of the incentives for stacking together and playing with friends means that there will be those that end up playing more as a result.
I'm sure this is a net positive for Riot's business in terms of keeping playerbase engagement high.
On March 24 2016 07:44 IamPryda wrote: No reason to be surprised that a solo q format is not coming out. dynamic gives the largest player base which is players of bronze-low gold the more casual experience they prefer while still under the guise they are playing in a competitive ranked mode. And every else is fuck u because they know people aren't quitting
I really wish we could see some actual numbers. Too bad it isn't what riot like to do. I know quite a few people who got fed up with this system and just stopped for now after playing a lot of games but that doesn't mean anything.
On the other hand all of the incentives for stacking together and playing with friends means that there will be those that end up playing more as a result.
I'm sure this is a net positive for Riot's business in terms of keeping playerbase engagement high.
Probably. Problem is when you kill competition at the top like everything else it is going to slide down and everyone else will feel it as well. I am not claiming me or people I know just getting bored is gonna kill the game but it is kinda funny how instead of making ranked an actual competitive gamemode( the closest it ever was to one was s2) they made people who play normals move there as well for the shiny borders.
Remember even when soloq was announced they said they were going to give extra rewards in dynamic to make people play it more.
On March 24 2016 07:44 IamPryda wrote: No reason to be surprised that a solo q format is not coming out. dynamic gives the largest player base which is players of bronze-low gold the more casual experience they prefer while still under the guise they are playing in a competitive ranked mode. And every else is fuck u because they know people aren't quitting
I really wish we could see some actual numbers. Too bad it isn't what riot like to do. I know quite a few people who got fed up with this system and just stopped for now after playing a lot of games but that doesn't mean anything.
On the other hand all of the incentives for stacking together and playing with friends means that there will be those that end up playing more as a result.
I'm sure this is a net positive for Riot's business in terms of keeping playerbase engagement high.
agreed from a bussiness side it's a smart move.also remember they just made it much easier to rank to level 30 which to me means they are trying to keep and grow the type of player who won't ever play much or any competive solo q but will play a lot of "competitive dynamic" with friends.
On March 23 2016 19:37 Alaric wrote: The shield stacks, so unless you burst the first half of the shield, deal damage, then manage to break off the trade before the second half comes in (without taking more damage because of the premature disengage) it's a buff, though.
It's not a buff.
It's a 1v1 nerf and an early game nerf. In a lot of tense matchups Lux relied on her shield giving 200ish health at level 1 to hold off all ins, such as vs. Fizz or Zed or whoever. No clue on if the nerf will swing those matchups, but my guess is it will be significant.
Lux is fantastic at not losing lane to basically anybody, but in order to win lanes she relies on a strong early game, and the shield is a big part of her strong early game.
For late game and teamfights it's sort of net neutral, I guess? Hard to guess. It's definitely not as bad in a teamfight scenario. Previously her shield was theoretically absurdly strong, but very difficult to get that best case out of, you basically had to use the shield in some prescient timing of right as the engage happened so the first shield is broken on your team before the second shield hits. Theoretically possible but in real scenarios the theoretical best case doesn't happen. And since Riots post game stats don't show shielding figures we don't really know how good it actually was.
You're losing about 300 total value on the shield in a best case scenario with a full build, and that's a lot. But it's also going to be much easier to get that total shield value on allies. Getting the second shield refreshes the timer, which in total lasts about 6 seconds (unless that's changed), and her shield has a 6 second cooldown with 40% CDR, so you theoretically shouldn't have to time it any more at all, you just spam it on cooldown on whoever you need shielded and they should have the total shield at something like 75-100% uptime.
So my guess would be something like it's an early game nerf (potentially significant), late game its either neutral or very slight one way or the other, hard to tell.
I'm very interested to see how her Champion.gg numbers change in the next week or two.
So crafting is up for EUW. I still have no idea how that works but I guess you need essence to permamently unlock anything? I had some RP left so I've bought 3 chests/keys.
From free gift I got Safari Caitlyn -_- and then from opened chests : Arctic Ops Varus, Corsair Quinn, Guardian Of the Sands Xerath, not that bad huh?
Just want to say I agree with nafta that this move might be good in short-term, but I wonder if it is long-term. Might be coincidence but most people I played League with now play significantly less or not at all.
On March 24 2016 14:22 739 wrote: So crafting is up for EUW. I still have no idea how that works but I guess you need essence to permamently unlock anything? I had some RP left so I've bought 3 chests/keys.
From free gift I got Safari Caitlyn -_- and then from opened chests : Arctic Ops Varus, Corsair Quinn, Guardian Of the Sands Xerath, not that bad huh?
The orange essence is to unlock skin shards. The blue essence is to unlock champions. And it will be permanent once you unlock them.
I'd say you got a pretty nice draw. I got Charred Maokai from my free chest. That ice rammus skin, temple jax, and pulsefire ezreal from the chests i've opened so far. Probably just going to disenchant the rammus looking ward I got from the free chest because I like the Victorius ward too much.
On March 24 2016 15:21 AlterKot wrote: Just want to say I agree with nafta that this move might be good in short-term, but I wonder if it is long-term. Might be coincidence but most people I played League with now play significantly less or not at all.
From what I've seen, apart from the OTPs who buy every single skin for their champion, old timers don't spend that much, especially now, since they've ground most of the content they need and thus make do with IP. By comparison, the most casual people who don't even play every week still find skins shiny and stuff and plan to buy a couple whenever they come out. Or, more popularly, they gift each other skins they want, which is the same in Riot's eye.
As long as they keep buying new skins, and bring more people in the fold (hence the focus on social media, clubs, etc. so you can make your whole facebook friendlist start playing through your wall), it's more profitable for Riot than people who buy skins sparingly and are less satisfied with the state of the game because they've been witness to Riot's bullshit for quite long at this point.
Heck, the people who buy skins probably don't overlap much with those who read the patchnotes, they don't notice when most nerfs happen unless the champ's Olafed or it's very noticeable (such as "hey I have X gold why can't I buy item Y? - Nerfed cost. - Oh? Why?").
This doesn't disprove what nafta said - that as the high-level-player's interest in the game fades, it trickles down affecting what you might perceive as the casual audience as well. No idea how successful clubs and facebook integration are at bringing in new people, but I'm far from convinced they result in major or steady influx.
It's all speculation of course, but your post falls in line with my theory of short term strategy (lets focus on people who buy skins to buy more skins and introduce their friends to the game) vs long term (OK, so everyone already invited their fb friends... what more can we do?)
I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
I myself stopped playing regularly about a year ago and now play sparingly with friends, or out of curiosity/boredom. The thing that maked me stop is the direction in which this game is progressing. Certain design decisions made League much less enjoyable and here they continue to do so as well. The dynamic queue is really off-putting for players like myself. I like to play every role and would much more prefer if there'll be a way of choosing e.g. 3 or 4 roles, because let's be honest fill is nearly the same as support. I like this role, but getting it every time gets tiresome after a while. So for now, I'm sticking with playing normals. I'm hoping they won't change normal queues, but Riot likes to enforce their vision, so who knows.
Plus my favourite champions pool is diminishing with each season with their "reworks". I want to like this game, but it's getting more difficult as the time goes on.
I've disenchanted like 5 skins shards, opened 3 more chests and I've permamently unlocked DJ Sona, because I got her from 4th chest, kek. Pretty awesome.
yea i havent played normals since pre-ranked and I am actually playing normals and even ARAMs this season, ranked doesnt feel competitive at all anymore.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
those people played normals/team builder before hows that fucking different they just swapped queue names, removed soloQ screwing over high elo players and everybody who felt competitive about this game
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
those people played normals/team builder before hows that fucking different they just swapped queue names, removed soloQ screwing over high elo players and everybody who felt competitive about this game
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
breaking news, when you delete 2 queues and give heavy incentives towards playing a certain queue the players go up!
More people isn't a separate or good point btw, if the population increases naturally everything else does too. Its also an affect of dynamic q inflating rankings as you now have a steady 5 players climbing together instead of having to go through the ups and downs of playing by yourself.
You got banned because you bring up garbage arguments and defend riot just to play devil's advocate, not because of the "community is out to get you"
On March 24 2016 23:20 VayneAuthority wrote: yea i havent played normals since pre-ranked and I am actually playing normals and even ARAMs this season, ranked doesnt feel competitive at all anymore.
What about ranked makes it feel non-competitive to you now? I felt like the the late pre-S6 changes made SoloQ kind of a crapshoot since teams were punished more for bad individual plays than they were rewarded for good individual plays, but with more groups playing in dynamic queue, plus more players in general, I've had a much more positive experience. Teams tend to be more balanced, and when I'm 1 in 1+4s or part of 2 in 2+3s, the other people on my team feel much more willing to play as a team, which is the whole point of a 5v5 game.
These experiences are obviously anecdotal and subjective, but on a technical basis, having more players in ranked only makes it more competitive due to the feasibility of stricter thresholds for matchmaking.
On March 24 2016 23:20 VayneAuthority wrote: yea i havent played normals since pre-ranked and I am actually playing normals and even ARAMs this season, ranked doesnt feel competitive at all anymore.
What about ranked makes it feel non-competitive to you now? I felt like the the late pre-S6 changes made SoloQ kind of a crapshoot since teams were punished more for bad individual plays than they were rewarded for good individual plays, but with more groups playing in dynamic queue, plus more players in general, I've had a much more positive experience. Teams tend to be more balanced, and when I'm 1 in 1+4s or part of 2 in 2+3s, the other people on my team feel much more willing to play as a team, which is the whole point of a 5v5 game.
These experiences are obviously anecdotal and subjective, but on a technical basis, having more players in ranked only makes it more competitive due to the feasibility of stricter thresholds for matchmaking.
Dynamic Q has little to do with it, although yes ranked feels meaningless when I queue up with a lulu top/mid main in D2 that has like 2-5-7 for average KDA and obviously got there just being a lulu bot in a premade. Thats just one example. Makes my already garbage ranking feel even worse and pointless.
Mostly has to do with the game itself now. 4 ZZrots, catch/escape champs dominating the meta (because if you die mid/late game you get a massive death timer and can lose your entire lead in one death)
Example: level 13 vs their level 10 jungler after dismantling him all game. Die once in a teamfight, he doesnt. He is now level 12 while I was dead and my lead is irrelevant for playing in a teamfight.
The itemization right now is really bad. Mages have one AP/armor option and its super expensive. You can build pretty much anyone bruiser style and do well since bruiser items are quite good atm. Sated/guinsoo's is a joke combo, even devourer vi is really good with it.
I could go on and on at how noncompetitive the game is atm.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
breaking news, when you delete 2 queues and give heavy incentives towards playing a certain queue the players go up!
More people isn't a separate or good point btw, if the population increases naturally everything else does too. Its also an affect of dynamic q inflating rankings as you now have a steady 5 players climbing together instead of having to go through the ups and downs of playing by yourself.
You got banned because you bring up garbage arguments and defend riot just to play devil's advocate, not because of the "community is out to get you"
To be clear - you claim I'm making garbage arguments, and at the same time claim that deleting Team Builder / Dominion added over 5,000 Diamond players to EUW this early in the season? Who knew that there was so much European talent wasting away playing Dominion with bots.
Whether or not you're premade doesn't inflate MMR. For every 5-man premade that gains LP, there's another 5-man premade losing LP.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
breaking news, when you delete 2 queues and give heavy incentives towards playing a certain queue the players go up!
More people isn't a separate or good point btw, if the population increases naturally everything else does too. Its also an affect of dynamic q inflating rankings as you now have a steady 5 players climbing together instead of having to go through the ups and downs of playing by yourself.
You got banned because you bring up garbage arguments and defend riot just to play devil's advocate, not because of the "community is out to get you"
To be clear - you claim I'm making garbage arguments, and at the same time claim that deleting Team Builder / Dominion added over 5,000 Diamond players to EUW this early in the season? Who knew that there was so much European talent wasting away playing Dominion with bots.
Whether or not you're premade doesn't inflate MMR. For every 5-man premade that gains LP, there's another 5-man premade losing LP.
I was referring to team ranked, I obviously dont consider dominion a SR queue.
Sure it does, players that main stuff like lulu/janna/insert FOTM team player champ here would never get to masters on their own. But when you drop them into a system its easy to inflate your rank. The 5 man premades losing LP weren't meant to be masters anyway so there isn't a tradeoff.
hard to take anything you say seriously because in the post you got banned on you don't think death timers are a problem which is ignorant to say the least.
I mean, your argument remains the same: that this 20% increase in ranked play, with a 50% increase in Master Tier, is somehow STILL evidence that "ranked is dying" and "high elo ranked got killed by dynamic queue", because it's attributable to players who ONLY played Team Ranked and ONLY played Team Builder, never played ranked, but started playing ranked and made it to Diamond by March. It's completely illogical and you would never accept this reasoning if it didn't come out to a conclusion that you had already settled on.
Put it this way - if I had posted evidence showing the exact opposite - that ranked had lost 20% of its players , you wouldn't scrutinize it all. You'd immediately accept it as evidence that Riot fucked up ranked. But because the evidence doesn't come out the way you like, you're coming up with nitpicks and justifications that don't really make much sense. In reality, every bit of objective evidence suggests that ranked, especially high-elo ranked, is substantially more active and competitive than it ever has been.
I'm not being pro-Riot. I'm being anti-stupid-arguments. For example:
On March 25 2016 00:21 VayneAuthority wrote: Sure it does, players that main stuff like lulu/janna/insert FOTM team player champ here would never get to masters on their own. But when you drop them into a system its easy to inflate your rank. The 5 man premades losing LP weren't meant to be masters anyway so there isn't a tradeoff.
This doesn't make any sense. You're suggesting that: in solo queue, Platinum-level Lulu mains hit a 50% winrate and stay in Platinum, but as part of a premade, Platinum-level Lulu mains now win > 50% of their games and hit Diamond. Except that if a Lulu is consistently winning > 50% games at Platinum through teamcomps, teamplay, and being a team player, shit, maybe she doesn't deserve to be Platinum.
Moreover, even if this were true, what you're basically saying is that picking team-oriented champs gives you an advantage in premade v. premade games. Except that that directly implies that the other premade, who picked a bunch of solo queue heroes, is seeing their MMR drop for exactly the same reason. So while you might justifiably argue that people who main team-oriented champs disproportionately benefit from dynamic queue, you can't then go on to claim that the MMR of a server globally rises, because those team-oriented champs are beating solo queue champs, who are seeing their MMR go down.
How would I go about moving my account to garena? Does it cost zenybucks? Does garena have dynamic queue? I guess I don't have friends to play with anyway.
On March 25 2016 00:49 Ketara wrote: I know dynamic queue makes me want to play more.
How would I go about moving my account to garena? Does it cost zenybucks? Does garena have dynamic queue? I guess I don't have friends to play with anyway.
i really don't think you want to play on garena. i'd try japan or china first
On March 25 2016 00:49 Ketara wrote: I know dynamic queue makes me want to play more.
How would I go about moving my account to garena? Does it cost zenybucks? Does garena have dynamic queue? I guess I don't have friends to play with anyway.
You don't want to play on Garena. Friend of mine in 'Nam quit playing League over there because the server is a shitfest.
On March 24 2016 15:21 AlterKot wrote: Just want to say I agree with nafta that this move might be good in short-term, but I wonder if it is long-term. Might be coincidence but most people I played League with now play significantly less or not at all.
it'lll retain players much better this way. i don't think league has any population issues on the big servers to begin with but when people are encouraged to play with friends more, they are less likely to stop playing because all of their friends moved to different games.
On March 24 2016 15:21 AlterKot wrote: Just want to say I agree with nafta that this move might be good in short-term, but I wonder if it is long-term. Might be coincidence but most people I played League with now play significantly less or not at all.
From what I've seen, apart from the OTPs who buy every single skin for their champion, old timers don't spend that much, especially now, since they've ground most of the content they need and thus make do with IP. By comparison, the most casual people who don't even play every week still find skins shiny and stuff and plan to buy a couple whenever they come out. Or, more popularly, they gift each other skins they want, which is the same in Riot's eye.
As long as they keep buying new skins, and bring more people in the fold (hence the focus on social media, clubs, etc. so you can make your whole facebook friendlist start playing through your wall), it's more profitable for Riot than people who buy skins sparingly and are less satisfied with the state of the game because they've been witness to Riot's bullshit for quite long at this point.
Heck, the people who buy skins probably don't overlap much with those who read the patchnotes, they don't notice when most nerfs happen unless the champ's Olafed or it's very noticeable (such as "hey I have X gold why can't I buy item Y? - Nerfed cost. - Oh? Why?").
i'll still buy the championship skins each year, but outside of that i think the most recently made skin that i purchased was officer vi last summer. i feel like i have the best looking skins already for all of the champions i play and have no interest in the new ones i've seen. there are a small handful of skin concepts that have appeared over the years that would interest me like rococo orianna but i don't think it will happen.
i think that the majority of the people currently complaining about the state of the game started either during or after season 2. so they never really had the chance to see it in much worse states.
I never said that the playerbase is lowering I said that it isn't competitive. If more people play wouldnt that mean that the people who actually try just keep shitting on those baddies and move up? The fact that a lot of people with 2k+ games last season couldn't get d2 for months are now in master is a great example. I didn't talk much about this before because this is what happens at the start of every season. But now it is still a reality and it isn't just the start of the season with plebs like gross gore in challenger.
I do think dynamic q is good for streaming but not for pushing people to actually try to become strong players.
Old players getting bored is natural even in a game like this that changes 24/7.
Something that you completely ignore is that since q times are longer more people make smurfs and they get to chall/master again.
Also GI you aren't the only person who got banned while the other side that was just as aggressive was ignored
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here".
Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo)
I've seen a lot of DynamicQ complaints from varying angles.
1) High queue times. I think this is now only a problem at Masters+ and maybe Bronze-. Probably slightly higher than previous average still, if I were making assumptions. And high Elo matchmaking time was always awful. I think a lot of this is now because there is an easy scapegoat that segues into the next most common argument:
2) People think this now means Elo is not representative of actual skill. I don't personally think it really ever was at the most granular level and that it almost certainly averages out over the long run like it always did, but that's just me. I think there's a widespread 'carry complex', especially among mid-tier players and elitists, believing that somehow some people much shittier at the game than one's self will ruin future games because of bad matchmaking at the team level and that DynamicQ encourages this by allowing three- and four- stacks. I won't get into how unlikely this is given matchmaking restrictions/people not actually playing with the same group all the time, or even the wide disparity in somebody's personal Elo rating at a role level. It's just an inherent MOBA complex to think we're individually great and that others ought to be as well.
Everything else is tangential. High-elo players make smurfs for reasons unrelated to DynamicQ and it's not a problem solved by removing it, that's for sure.
For longer-term effects, I've got no reason to think it'll be bad for the game and haven't seen a convincing argument why it would be. I think this is espoused by the same people who think displaying Elo was good for long-term engagement.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here".
Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo)
I have in fact found that ranked games are very different this season. To some extent this is based on changes in the game since last year, but I think the overall quality of play has risen considerably.
I attribute this to the fact that there are far less players playing a role that they aren't good at. For example, top lane might have been 50% top lane mains and 50% people forced into the role, but is now like 70% top lane mains and 30% people forced into it. And the top lane mains themselves are better at top lane because they can play it over and over again, whereas before they spent a lot of ranked games playing non-top roles.
I got to say I'm pretty happy with new graves you can play him top, bot or jungle and he is still effective just need to change up build. And he's fun to play.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here".
Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo)
Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd.
The new champ select is amazing though. I thought this is what team builder was going to be when it was announced and was very sad at how it turned out. It can be improved still but it is pretty good.
My main problem with dynamic is that I feel if you are playing solo you have much less impact on the game outside early laning. If each team has a 3 person group and yours is not as organized as the others I see myself lose a lot of games where we had a huge lead because of this. I have had a lot of games going 3/0/3 out of jungle but in the mid game just getting out rotated and picked constantly because the other team is shitter players but are clearly on voice Comms and my trio are not.
* some pretty big poppy nerfs yesterday and graves nerfs on pbe today
wonder how long till riot realizes grasp of the undying is bonkers on tanks and reason they are so silly now, knowing them we are for a treat and 6 months of pointless nerfs to individual champions first
On March 25 2016 04:24 kongoline wrote: wonder how long till riot realizes grasp of the undying is bonkers on tanks and reason they are so silly now, knowing them we are for a treat and 6 months of pointless nerfs to individual champions first
literally the only thing that keeps T-lord and fervor tops in check though, you can't just randomly gut it. The other 2 defensive keystones are nowhere near as good top. jax would have a field day if you couldn't just out sustain him. same thing with people like kindred/quinn/etc top who are already oppressive.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
It messes up the MMR in two ways for high ELO players. Besides the obvious that groups have advantages due to coordination at high levels the best players are playing together. So if the 4 best players on the server queue up as 4. There can be no game which splits them into two teams. And so they will play whomever is lower. It means that many games are very lopsided and makes it very difficult to rise if you're not playing with one of the top tier groups.
Basically if you queue solo you're not just playing against coordinated teams you're playing against coordinated teams of better players than you and the optimal strategy is to grab a group of players around your level so you can be that coordinated team playing against solo queue players.
For lower tier players it merely messes up MMR by adding coordinated teams. I don't feel like i should have to find a 4 or 5s group and practice with them in order to rank up. But that is what coordinated teams do. Because a platinum Lulu who is playing with a coordinated team certainly can rank up to diamond. The coordination will make up for a lot of deficit.*
And this is true basically so long as the game isn't perfect in matching 5s with 5s [and that has other MMR issues if it is true, because now team MMR is a separate queue and so a separate MMR and when playing outside of that you now have bias in MMR for queuing in different group sizes]
edit: There are other considerations for Vayne if he/she is a bot lane main. I feel like the meta is very top/mid focused right now and i have a hard time carrying, even if i win lane and provide vision and do everything right. I feel more at the mercy of my team (particularly getting and using rift herald effective) than i had in prior seasons
On March 24 2016 07:14 739 wrote: It's true. He had MR scaling iirc then it was removed and he's getting it back cause they release Meowkai skin.
I know. I feel like he started out without, then got it, then lost it, and is now getting it again. But i can't find it in the patch notes so i am feeling that may be wrong.
*edit: If we accept that players will generally have different skill levels on different champions and also have different skill levels when playing with a coordinated team (some people better, some people worse, but on the whole better) then there are basically two possible MMR effects of a dynamic queue depending on how "segregated" the different queue types are.
1) Queues types are perfectly segregated. Such that you have a queue of 5v5 and 4/1 v 4/1. You can queue up however you want, but at the end of the day the system never matches a 4/1 against a solo team.
In this case whenever you play inside or outside of your primary queue your MMR will be some weighted average of your MMR in those queue types.
If we accept that people people don't have the same difference between their cooperative and solo MMR then this will increase MMR variance between teams because it will increase the effective MMR variance within a team.
That is, unless people never queue up outside of their primary queue. In which case dynamic behaves exactly like 7 different queues (a 5's Q, a 4's Queue, A 3/2 queue, a 3/1/1, a 2/1/1/1, a 2/2/1, and a solo queue).
2) Queues are not perfectly segregated. Such you can have a 5's team against a 4/1 or a 3/2 or even a solo team.
In this case, because teammates and coordination is almost always an advantage a coordinated team will raise higher than their individual skill levels would in a solo queue.
If no one queues up outside of their normal queue then players who play with other people have an overall absolute advantage in MMR because the difference in general power between a 5's team and a soloqueue team will eventually be reflected in MMR once enough overall games are played. And this will hold true even for teams that incidentally only get matched up into their queue type on the other team because other teams will have had that MMR adjustment from playing against solo players.
If people queue in other queues then they will have an advantage/disadvantage when playing in a group they don't normally play in and this will create general bias against/for them in that queue [which all things considered is worse than increased variance]. The bias will most assuredly go towards playing in a group.
So if you had the thought that "dynamic queue is unfair to solo players" you were right. It is, and its not ELO Hell.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here".
Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo)
Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd.
At that level it is a totally different problem because you don't have enough players that you can always match 5s vs 5s or even 4+1s. At every other skill level unequal matchmaking isn't an issue over large samples of games played.
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here".
Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo)
Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd.
At that level it is a totally different problem because you don't have enough players that you can always match 5s vs 5s or even 4+1s. At every other skill level unequal matchmaking isn't an issue over large samples of games played.
Ignoring everything else, being the solo player in a 1,1,,3 or a 1,4 team is sometimes incredibly unpleasant for a wide variety of reasons. Sure it's not every game, (I mean, I could be having 4/3 mans every single game and just not noticing because it's not an issue) but I have multiple games a week that are just terrible in ways they never were before dynamic queue, and every time I look it up after, it's a 4 stack >.>
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote: I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community.
So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW.
I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here".
Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo)
Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd.
At that level it is a totally different problem because you don't have enough players that you can always match 5s vs 5s or even 4+1s. At every other skill level unequal matchmaking isn't an issue over large samples of games played.
Actually it is. So long as the % of matches 5v 4+1 or 5v solo doesn't approach zero as games goes to infinity then as you increase the number of games played the MMR differences between queues manifests normally.
It works just like the standard MMR argument regarding getting to your level. If 99.99% of the games are random and only .01% of the games are determined by your skill you still reach your proper MMR eventually. It just takes longer.
If 1% of the games you queue up 5s will get you against a non-5's team then the MMR difference between 5's and non will almost assuredly have been manifested by now in the million upon millions of games that have been played.[This is because, even if your 5's team never matches up with solo players you will play against 5's who have had the MMR boost associated with playing against solo players]
Edit: Basically, if MMR works at all(and it does) then Dynmaic Queue is fundamentally unfair* to players who do not coordinate and do not coordinate with the same people over and over again.
*unfair in terms of your MMR. So maybe we would consider it unfair in terms of end season rewards but frankly i don't really see that as much of an issue.
On March 25 2016 08:22 JimmiC wrote: Life is not fair, get over it and play =-)
It also has negative effects on the quality of games because players playing outside of their queue have an advantage/disadvantage due to the discrepancy of what their MMR is, and what it would be in that situation.
This increases the variance of MMR in the game which makes them more likely to be one sided. Its not simply unfair to soloqueue players. It also makes their games worse.
Its not a big deal for people who don't care if MMR is accurate or who don't care about their MMR but its not right to dismiss the effect it has on the game.
So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
Exactly, its just another reason for people to complain about why they are not higher than they are. Not to mention it should have the effect that if someone is pulled up by there team than goes solo you should dominate them when you run into them. Now with the club thing it's often easy to see if you have a stack or are vs a stack and so far I am 8-1 vs stacks of 3 or more I could see from clubs. Sure it's super small sample size and blah blah, but stacking is far from a free win. Also when I watch QT or others it appears that there winrates go down with more people in the stack.
Is there any actual data on win rates for stacks or is that not published?
On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote: So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
there is no chance anyone can prove that they won that 1 game solely because they were a 5 stack
On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote: So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
Its more like, If every 5 stack plays 99 games against other 5 stacks, but 1 game against non-5 stacks then collectively all of their MMR increases in small increments for every non-5 stack game they play. This occurs until the MMR difference between the 5 stack and 1 stack player is the same is the same as the MMR difference that would occur if 5 stacks always played 1 stacks. This is true even for the exact same player.
If you take any player, and put them in a coordinated team, their MMR will(almost certainly) increase over what it would be playing soloqueue.
There is no end MMR difference between the system, the only difference is the time it takes to get there. If 5's always played 1 stacks it would occur very fast. If 5's very rarely play 1 stacks it occurs relatively slowly. But Dynamic queue has millions of games. So even if it occurs relatively slowly it should probably still have happened by now.
Its exactly the same system that keeps YOU at your proper MMR despite being only 1/5th of a team or not having played some other specific person in your same MMR range. This even happens for 5s vs 4/1 so long as 4/1 will play a 3/2 and a 3/2 might play a 3/1/1 and so on and so forth for the same reason that two players of similar quality who have never played each other will still have similar MMR.
It is not the same as the effect of your MMR from people bitching. Because people bitching is unbiased with regards to who has to deal with it (unless of course you're a 5 but this is the same effect as the cooperative effect) and so doesn't effect overall MMR.
Its a tiny problem if you don't care about your MMR. But lots of people do care about their MMR.
And even if you discount the MMR issue you also have the other game issues with increased variance due to queue mixing, and dealing with groups as a solo.
On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote: So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
there is no chance anyone can prove that they won that 1 game solely because they were a 5 stack
Well that is not how it works. Suppose you have a group of 5's at their "proper" mmr when they all play together. They play 99 games vs 5's and 1 game vs 1's.
Against 5's their win rate is 50% because this is the population of 5's and its mathematically forced. Overall no one moves.
But against 1's their win rate is 51%.[so a small effect]
Collectively then the win rate of 5's teams is 50.01% And this will occur until all of the 5's is forced to 50%. Which means that the win rate of 5's against non-5's would also have to be 50%.
So then the question becomes. Suppose you have players of the same MMR outside of a group. Half plays as 1's and half plays as 5. Initially when they have the same MMR, what do you think the 5's win rate would be against the 1's? 55%? 60%?
I am not even sure its better to say "well things haven't adjusted yet' because if things haven't adjusted you're saying that randomly you will get matched up against groups who will have an advantage against you not corrected for in your quality of play.
On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote: So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
Its more like, If every 5 stack plays 99 games against other 5 stacks, but 1 game against non-5 stacks then collectively all of their MMR increases in small increments for every non-5 stack game they play. This occurs until the MMR difference between the 5 stack and 1 stack player is the same is the same as the MMR difference that would occur if 5 stacks always played 1 stacks. This is true even for the exact same player.
If you take any player, and put them in a coordinated team, their MMR will(almost certainly) increase over what it would be playing soloqueue.
There is no end MMR difference between the system, the only difference is the time it takes to get there. If 5's always played 1 stacks it would occur very fast. If 5's very rarely play 1 stacks it occurs relatively slowly. But Dynamic queue has millions of games. So even if it occurs relatively slowly it should probably still have happened by now.
Its exactly the same system that keeps YOU at your proper MMR despite being only 1/5th of a team or not having played some other specific person in your same MMR range. This even happens for 5s vs 4/1 so long as 4/1 will play a 3/2 and a 3/2 might play a 3/1/1 and so on and so forth for the same reason that two players of similar quality who have never played each other will still have similar MMR.
It is not the same as the effect of your MMR from people bitching. Because people bitching is unbiased with regards to who has to deal with it (unless of course you're a 5 but this is the same effect as the cooperative effect) and so doesn't effect overall MMR.
Its a tiny problem if you don't care about your MMR. But lots of people do care about their MMR.
And even if you discount the MMR issue you also have the other game issues with increased variance due to queue mixing, and dealing with groups as a solo.
On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote: So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
there is no chance anyone can prove that they won that 1 game solely because they were a 5 stack
Well that is not how it works. Suppose you have a group of 5's at their "proper" mmr when they all play together. They play 99 games vs 5's and 1 game vs 1's.
Against 5's their win rate is 50% because this is the population of 5's and its mathematically forced. Overall no one moves.
But against 1's their win rate is 51%.[so a small effect]
Collectively then the win rate of 5's teams is 50.01% And this will occur until all of the 5's is forced to 50%. Which means that the win rate of 5's against non-5's would also have to be 50%.
So then the question becomes. Suppose you have players of the same MMR outside of a group. Half plays as 1's and half plays as 5. Initially when they have the same MMR, what do you think the 5's win rate would be against the 1's? 55%? 60%?
I am not even sure its better to say "well things haven't adjusted yet' because if things haven't adjusted you're saying that randomly you will get matched up against groups who will have an advantage against you not corrected for in your quality of play.
so you have 2 groups of 1900 elo players. a team collectively that got to 1900 and 5 solo players that all got to 1900 playing their main roles. the winrate should be 50/50 because despite the communication/coordination advantage the 5 stack would still be incapable of playing at a level greater than what matchmaking deems to be an equal match.
essentially any single player or groups mmr is limited by their biggest weaknesses. if a team has better communication or whatever than a group of solo players then for them to be at the same mmr it means they are sorely lacking in other areas like decision making or mechanical ability relative to the solo players they are matched against
On March 25 2016 10:08 Frolossus wrote: so you have 2 groups of 1900 elo players. a team collectively that got to 1900 and 5 solo players that all got to 1900 playing their main roles. the winrate should be 50/50 because despite the communication/coordination advantage the 5 stack would still be incapable of playing at a level greater than what matchmaking deems to be an equal match.
essentially any single player or groups mmr is limited by their biggest weaknesses. if a team has better communication or whatever than a group of solo players then for them to be at the same mmr it means they are sorely lacking in other areas like decision making or mechanical ability relative to the solo players they are matched against
Snipped quote tree for long
Yes. But if the team would otherwise be 1700 playing solo you might see how someone who is 1700 playing solo might resent the fact that, in order to climb to where they should/could be in the ladder, they need to get a 5's team.
Or someone on the border of silver or gold. Or anyone dealing with the variance that adds to the system when one guy from the 1900 team decides they're going to play a couple of solo queue games and then is 200 MMR above where he should be, just like someone who was boosted.
Its most obvious around the top of the ladder. But it still effects everyone.
On March 25 2016 10:08 Frolossus wrote: so you have 2 groups of 1900 elo players. a team collectively that got to 1900 and 5 solo players that all got to 1900 playing their main roles. the winrate should be 50/50 because despite the communication/coordination advantage the 5 stack would still be incapable of playing at a level greater than what matchmaking deems to be an equal match.
essentially any single player or groups mmr is limited by their biggest weaknesses. if a team has better communication or whatever than a group of solo players then for them to be at the same mmr it means they are sorely lacking in other areas like decision making or mechanical ability relative to the solo players they are matched against
Snipped quote tree for long
Yes. But if the team would otherwise be 1700 playing solo you might see how someone who is 1700 playing solo might resent the fact that, in order to climb to where they should/could be in the ladder, they need to get a 5's team.
Or someone on the border of silver or gold. Or anyone dealing with the variance that adds to the system when one guy from the 1900 team decides they're going to play a couple of solo queue games and then is 200 MMR above where he should be, just like someone who was boosted.
Its most obvious around the top of the ladder. But it still effects everyone.
not really if you are 1700 you are 1700. anyone who claims otherwise is looking for excuses as to why they can't climb.
the solo player only has to worry about them and their mistakes. the team queuing together has to worry about all of the individual mistakes that their teammates make holding back their mmr on top of all of the mistakes that they make collectively as a team.
say the team has a top laner that sucks at using tp correctly. that suddenly limits the mmr of not only him, but the other 4 players on his team too.
i'd say the system works pretty well.
when one guy plays solo again he drops. simple as that. it doesn't affect anyone else over time just him. the literal same thing happens if you play an off role or champ in solo queue. your mmr drops to match the level it thinks you play that character at.
it's always going to be easier to climb solo than in a group simply because you only have to worry about yourself. your group has to worry about every single person in the group if they want to climb.
for every bad person in a 5 man team that is slightly above where they ought to be due to playing in that team, there would be someone(or multiple people) slightly below where they ought to be because that bad guy is actually holding their team back.
On March 25 2016 10:23 Frolossus wrote: if you are 1700 you are 1700. anyone who claims otherwise is looking for excuses as to why they can't climb.
I literally just explained how that isn't the case.
Remember back when dodging would lower your MMR? And how you could intentionally tank your MMR by dodging games. This is kind of like that. Your MMR goes up playing with 5's and then when you play solo you're now over where you should be.
That is true so long as you believe that 5 1700 solo queue players who make a 5s team and practice and play together will be better in general than 5 1700 solo queue players who play solo and end up on the same team by luck.
Do you believe that? If no, then i think you would have to justify it.
the solo player only has to worry about them and their mistakes. the team queuing together has to worry about all of the individual mistakes that their teammates make holding back their mmr on top of all of the mistakes that they make collectively as a team.
No. Unless when you solo queue you don't have a top lane and its 1v1 at baron the entire time and whomever wins decides the game. But i don't recall that map being implemented and certainly not in dynamic queue.
say the team has a top laner that sucks at using tp correctly. that suddenly limits the mmr of not only him, but the other 4 players on his team too.
OK so basically what you're saying right here is "suppose 5 players who would be 1700 in soloqueue if they played in soloqueue alone actually would have one of them be 1400 in soloqueue if they played soloqueue alone despite actually having made it to 1700 alone and that is their proper MMR"
Its non-sense. Yes if you play in a group you may have to deal with weaker players but those weaker players effect your MMR and those weaker players will still increase their MMR relative to not playing in a group because playing in a group is advantageous
it's always going to be easier to climb solo than in a group simply because you only have to worry about yourself. your group has to worry about every single person in the group if they want to climb.
No. The math does not work that way i am sorry. Unless being in a 5's group is a disadvantage (good lord no its not). The easiest counterexample is that pro teams do not lose to soloqueue teams even when those teams have higher individual or group soloqueue MMR.
On March 25 2016 10:23 Frolossus wrote: if you are 1700 you are 1700. anyone who claims otherwise is looking for excuses as to why they can't climb.
I literally just explained how that isn't the case.
Remember back when dodging would lower your MMR? And how you could intentionally tank your MMR by dodging games. This is kind of like that. Your MMR goes up playing with 5's and then when you play solo you're now over where you should be.
That is true so long as you believe that 5 1700 solo queue players who make a 5s team and practice and play together will be better in general than 5 1700 solo queue players who play solo and end up on the same team by luck.
Do you believe that? If no, then i think you would have to justify it.
the solo player only has to worry about them and their mistakes. the team queuing together has to worry about all of the individual mistakes that their teammates make holding back their mmr on top of all of the mistakes that they make collectively as a team.
No. Unless when you solo queue you don't have a top lane and its 1v1 at baron the entire time and whomever wins decides the game. But i don't recall that map being implemented and certainly not in dynamic queue.
say the team has a top laner that sucks at using tp correctly. that suddenly limits the mmr of not only him, but the other 4 players on his team too.
OK so basically what you're saying right here is "suppose 5 players who would be 1700 in soloqueue if they played in soloqueue alone actually would have one of them be 1400 in soloqueue if they played soloqueue alone despite actually having made it to 1700 alone and that is their proper MMR"
Its non-sense. Yes if you play in a group you may have to deal with weaker players but those weaker players effect your MMR and those weaker players will still increase their MMR relative to not playing in a group because playing in a group is advantageous
there is no case of how you play solo vs how you play in a team in regards to how mmr works. it simply measures how well you perform in the game. playing in a group does have certain advantages in a game. but it has so many disadvantages for climbing. mainly that if you don't belong in the elo you are playing at, you are a burden to the rest of your team regardless of whether or not you are playing solo or in a group. your mmr reflects this fact either way. if you are in a team then your whole team's mmr will be affected by it.
not every player has the same reasons they are stuck at their mmr. 5 solo players at 1700 vs a team of players who collectively got to 1700 should have a roughly equal chance to win. if it didn't think so then one side or the other would be rated above or below 1700. the mmr will try to approximate how much "skill" being a coordinated team is worth and give you appropriate matches.
if someone plays solo and is convinced their teammates are holding them back, they will never, ever, ever climb past that point. if 5 people play in a team and can't get their weakest player to improve, every single person's individual mmr(and season rewards) hinge on the weakest player's inability to improve.
to matchmaking 5 players that play the game together and never solo it'd probably treat them as a single "player". for everyone else playing the game and trying to climb it doesn't affect them at all.
for players that sometimes solo and sometimes play with friends the system is still always going to try to find an equal match for both teams. it's not somehow less equal just because you got your buddies together and pressed play.
i think when discussing this it's very important be aware that when you get put into a game, no matter who you play with. both teams have an mmr that is roughly the average of the 5 players playing the game. 5 solo players have more variance in their individual rankings than teams that play exclusively with themselves do. but the result is that the system still puts teams of similar mmr to play against each other.
there is no case of how you play solo vs how you play in a team in regards to how mmr works. it simply measures how well you perform in the game. playing in a group does have certain advantages in a game. but it has so many disadvantages for climbing. mainly that if you don't belong in the elo you are playing at, you are a burden to the rest of your team regardless of whether or not you are playing solo or in a group. your mmr reflects this fact either way. if you are in a team then your whole team's mmr will be affected by it.
not every player has the same reasons they are stuck at their mmr. 5 solo players at 1700 vs a team of players who collectively got to 1700 should have a roughly equal chance to win. if it didn't think so then one side or the other would be rated above or below 1700.
This is nonsense. MMR does not measure how well you perform in a game. MMR measures whether or not you win. Playing in a group increases your chance of winning for a number of reasons. Because it increases your chance of winning it must necessarily have advantages for climbing the ranks UNLESS its the case that group queues only and always only play other group queues*. They do not.
The question isn't "does a group that is collectively 1700 have a >50% chance to win against individuals that are 1700?" The answer to that question is no. But its immaterial.
The question is "does a group that is individually 1700 have a >50% chance to win against individuals that are 1700?" and the answer to that question is yes. Similar is the question "does an individual who is 1700 in a group but not in a group have a <50% win rate against individuals who are individually 1700?" And the answer to that question is also yes.
Such that "if you are individually 1700, you can go up in MMR by getting into a group". And "if you are in a group at 1700 when playing soloqueue you will more likely be a detriment to your team"
*technically the percentage of games has to approach zero but its close enough.
there is no case of how you play solo vs how you play in a team in regards to how mmr works. it simply measures how well you perform in the game. playing in a group does have certain advantages in a game. but it has so many disadvantages for climbing. mainly that if you don't belong in the elo you are playing at, you are a burden to the rest of your team regardless of whether or not you are playing solo or in a group. your mmr reflects this fact either way. if you are in a team then your whole team's mmr will be affected by it.
not every player has the same reasons they are stuck at their mmr. 5 solo players at 1700 vs a team of players who collectively got to 1700 should have a roughly equal chance to win. if it didn't think so then one side or the other would be rated above or below 1700.
This is nonsense. MMR does not measure how well you perform in a game. MMR measures whether or not you win. Playing in a group increases your chance of winning for a number of reasons. Because it increases your chance of winning it must necessarily have advantages for climbing the ranks UNLESS its the case that group queues only and always only play other group queues*. They do not.
The question isn't "does a group that is collectively 1700 have a >50% chance to win against individuals that are 1700?" The answer to that question is no. But its immaterial.
The question is "does a group that is individually 1700 have a >50% chance to win against individuals that are 1700?" and the answer to that question is yes. Similar is the question "does an individual who is 1700 in a group but not in a group have a <50% win rate against individuals who are individually 1700?" And the answer to that question is also yes.
Such that "if you are individually 1700, you can go up in MMR by getting into a group". And "if you are in a group at 1700 when playing soloqueue you will more likely be a detriment to your team"
*technically the percentage of games has to approach zero but its close enough.
mmr is calculated by how often you win. but the thing that it is trying to measure is your ability to play the game relative to every other individual who plays. playing together as 5 does not somehow make you better at the game. it just means that your mmr is now accounting for more factors that contribute to game outcomes associated with playing on a team.
if you are individually 1700, and everyone in your party would play at 1900 aside from you had they been queuing solo for a long time. the result is that everyone in your party might be like 1850 or something. this means that you are slightly above where you belong but the other 4 are all below where you belong. however this does not affect the other team at all. the game will go through the player base and try to make whole teams of similar mmr and put them against each other. do you see how it favors solo players yet?
So you think that a group of players who are 1700 individually after playing together for many games would not have an advantage playing against 5 players who do not know each other and have never played with each other before who are 1700 individually?
Because i think they do. And i think that the suggestion that they do not is ridiculous.
I understand the implication that a group of players who are 1700 as a group does not have an advantage over a group of players who are 1700 individually. But that isn't the issue and your insistence that it is makes me think you do not understand how MMR works.
E.G. lets say you take a 1700 player and 4 1900 players and you put them in a group. The first game they play together they will look like a 1850 MMR. The second game they play together will depend on whether or not they won. The 20th game they play together will be the result of the last 20 games. After playing together for 20 times do you think that they're just as good as 1850 rando's? Or do you think they might be better? Suppose they are actually the same despite that being ridiculous.
Additionally what happens is everyone individual MMR's converges to the groups MMR. So eventually everyone in the group has 1850 MMR if the group really never gets better. But they're not any better individually either and they decided to queue solo.
Now you have 4 1900 players playing in 1850 games and one 1700 player playing in 1850 games. Variance of games at 1850 have increased and playing in a group has negatively effected the rest of the population.
edit: But its pretty clear that playing in a group DOES make you better at the game. It makes it easier to communicate and coordinate. And the more you play the more that happens. You will have better strategy as you are able to easily discuss things in advance, you can construct game plans during champion select knowing what everyone else knows how to play. You can trade champions easier, etc etc etc.
On March 25 2016 11:05 Goumindong wrote: So you think that a group of players who are 1700 individually after playing together for many games would not have an advantage playing against 5 players who do not know each other and have never played with each other before who are 1700 individually?
Because i think they do. And i think that the suggestion that they do not is ridiculous.
I understand the implication that a group of players who are 1700 as a group does not have an advantage over a group of players who are 1700 individually. But that isn't the issue and your insistence that it is makes me think you do not understand how MMR works.
E.G. lets say you take a 1700 player and 4 1900 players and you put them in a group. The first game they play together they will look like a 1850 MMR. The second game they play together will depend on whether or not they won. The 20th game they play together will be the result of the last 20 games. After playing together for 20 times do you think that they're just as good as 1850 rando's? Or do you think they might be better? Suppose they are actually the same despite that being ridiculous.
Additionally what happens is everyone individual MMR's converges to the groups MMR. So eventually everyone in the group has 1850 MMR if the group really never gets better. But they're not any better individually either and they decided to queue solo.
Now you have 4 1900 players playing in 1850 games and one 1700 player playing in 1850 games. Variance of games at 1850 have increased and playing in a group has negatively effected the rest of the population.
ah i see what is missing here a group of 1700 players playing together and improving as a group would no longer be 1700. for a group to be 1700 it means that you have a bunch of players that together average out to be 1700. therefore they would be matched against other teams that average out to 1700.
at 1850 when they play solo, what they do does not change other peoples' mmr. the only thing that changes your rank when you play solo is how well you perform over time. if you are playing above your mmr you go up. if you are below then you drop. more people playing at an mmr doesn't affect your mmr over time at all. the only constant factor when you play solo is yourself. that is the only thing that matters when determining your mmr all other factors like smurfs or leavers or afkers or whatever level out over time.
it does not make you better at the game. all of the mistakes your team makes over time are now affecting your ranking just as much as all the perks of playing with them do. for the 4 guys who are better than the one guy they are carrying, their mmr is collectively suffering as a result of their team. therefore playing on a team makes them all worse in the eyes of matchmaking.
all that playing in a group does is add more variables that influence your individual mmr. when you play solo there are fewer things that can go wrong and cause you to be stuck at a particular mmr. thus for climbing it is better to play solo.
But, if this system makes it so the collective winrate of 5s teams is 50.01%, then that only inflates the MMR of people who play in 5 stacks by 0.01% right? So the team that should be 1700 MMR has their MMR inflate by 1.7 for every hundred games that they play?
So after 1000 games, which is a fairly appreciable amount for an entire season, their MMR has inflated by 17, about one games worth?
That sounds horrible!
Also didn't this same "issue" occur previously with duos?
This is dumb. This makes me feel dumb. Why do I read this thread, I wanted to talk about Lux. I'm going back to offtopic where at least the conversations are supposed to be dumb.
What is annoying is how some people feel the need to turn this thread into a stats argument thread only post about that. Someone open an "argue about stats loosely related to league thread" pls.
Anyone played the new champ? how does he/she feel?
On March 25 2016 11:21 Ketara wrote: But, if this system makes it so the collective winrate of 5s teams is 50.01%, then that only inflates the MMR of people who play in 5 stacks by 0.01% right? So the team that should be 1700 MMR has their MMR inflate by 1.7 for every hundred games that they play?
No. Suppose you had 90/10 games. Such that your win rate was 50.1% instead of 50.01%. The final MMR would be the same. Suppose that you had 0/100 games such that your win rate was 51%. The final MMR would be the same. Changing the ratio only changes how fast you converge to the MMR which gives you 50% win rate in both queues.
The time it take to converges depends on all of the 5's play and not simply your group. Because all of the 5's play is interconnected. When you lose a game against a team which has had its MMR increased due to playing solo's you will lose less MMR. And when you beat them you will gain more.
The difference in MMR would be whatever the difference in MMR would be to cause a 1% win rate difference(between 5's and a solo queue). Now, a 51% win rate really isn't that much MMR. By the original ELO system about 6.9.[no clue what that translates to in league] So no big deal. A 60% win rate would be about 70 MMR, and a 70% about 150 MMR.
If you think the advantage is pretty large(and i do, frankly) then the effect is pretty large.
Also didn't this same "issue" occur previously with duos?
Yes, it did. And riot previously but no longer, gave players who played together a positive penalty on their MMR to counteract the advantage they had playing together. That is, your MMR would be calculated as if it were higher, but it would not increase.
On March 25 2016 11:37 JimmiC wrote: What is annoying is how some people feel the need to turn this thread into a stats argument thread only post about that. Someone open an "argue about stats loosely related to league thread" pls.
Anyone played the new champ? how does he/she feel?
Banned in my game thus far. One report of hilarious OP but it was on treeline so no guarantees
On March 25 2016 11:21 Ketara wrote: But, if this system makes it so the collective winrate of 5s teams is 50.01%, then that only inflates the MMR of people who play in 5 stacks by 0.01% right? So the team that should be 1700 MMR has their MMR inflate by 1.7 for every hundred games that they play?
No. Suppose you had 90/10 games. Such that your win rate was 50.1% instead of 50.01%. The final MMR would be the same. Suppose that you had 0/100 games such that your win rate was 51%. The final MMR would be the same. Changing the ratio only changes how fast you converge to the MMR which gives you 50% win rate in both queues.
The time it take to converges depends on all of the 5's play and not simply your group. Because all of the 5's play is interconnected. When you lose a game against a team which has had its MMR increased due to playing solo's you will lose less MMR. And when you beat them you will gain more.
The difference in MMR would be whatever the difference in MMR would be to cause a 1% win rate difference(between 5's and a solo queue). Now, a 51% win rate really isn't that much MMR. By the original ELO system about 6.9.[no clue what that translates to in league] So no big deal. A 60% win rate would be about 70 MMR, and a 70% about 150 MMR.
If you think the advantage is pretty large(and i do, frankly) then the effect is pretty large.
Also didn't this same "issue" occur previously with duos?
Yes, it did. And riot previously but no longer, gave players who played together a positive penalty on their MMR to counteract the advantage they had playing together. That is, your MMR would be calculated as if it were higher, but it would not increase.
On March 25 2016 11:37 JimmiC wrote: What is annoying is how some people feel the need to turn this thread into a stats argument thread only post about that. Someone open an "argue about stats loosely related to league thread" pls.
Anyone played the new champ? how does he/she feel?
Banned in my game thus far. One report of hilarious OP but it was on treeline so no guarantees
You're focusing to much on the theoretical end state where everyone has played enough games to even out their MMRs. 5's are not matched against smaller groups enough for this to matter.
Assume Riot is accurate that 5's are only matched against smaller groups 1.4% of the time. Let's say you play 1000 games in a season. You get around 20 LP for winning a game. Assuming the 5 stack wins 100% of the time in this 1.4% (which they won't), then they gain 10 free LP each time. (You would expect to win 50% of the time anyways). Over 1000 games, this is 140LP aka about 1 and a half divisions. This is within the variance I see when playing normally. Since you aren't going to win 100% of the mismatched games, the real bonus is going to be less than a division which is not a noticeable difference.
Yes. My main point is that even if this does boost people to some degree, I don't think they amount they gain will be enough to really matter to anyone. It will be less than normal fluctuations that happen by chance.
On March 25 2016 11:21 Ketara wrote: But, if this system makes it so the collective winrate of 5s teams is 50.01%, then that only inflates the MMR of people who play in 5 stacks by 0.01% right? So the team that should be 1700 MMR has their MMR inflate by 1.7 for every hundred games that they play?
No. Suppose you had 90/10 games. Such that your win rate was 50.1% instead of 50.01%. The final MMR would be the same. Suppose that you had 0/100 games such that your win rate was 51%. The final MMR would be the same. Changing the ratio only changes how fast you converge to the MMR which gives you 50% win rate in both queues.
The time it take to converges depends on all of the 5's play and not simply your group. Because all of the 5's play is interconnected. When you lose a game against a team which has had its MMR increased due to playing solo's you will lose less MMR. And when you beat them you will gain more.
The difference in MMR would be whatever the difference in MMR would be to cause a 1% win rate difference(between 5's and a solo queue). Now, a 51% win rate really isn't that much MMR. By the original ELO system about 6.9.[no clue what that translates to in league] So no big deal. A 60% win rate would be about 70 MMR, and a 70% about 150 MMR.
If you think the advantage is pretty large(and i do, frankly) then the effect is pretty large.
Also didn't this same "issue" occur previously with duos?
Yes, it did. And riot previously but no longer, gave players who played together a positive penalty on their MMR to counteract the advantage they had playing together. That is, your MMR would be calculated as if it were higher, but it would not increase.
On March 25 2016 11:37 JimmiC wrote: What is annoying is how some people feel the need to turn this thread into a stats argument thread only post about that. Someone open an "argue about stats loosely related to league thread" pls.
Anyone played the new champ? how does he/she feel?
Banned in my game thus far. One report of hilarious OP but it was on treeline so no guarantees
You're focusing to much on the theoretical end state where everyone has played enough games to even out their MMRs. 5's are not matched against smaller groups enough for this to matter.
Assume Riot is accurate that 5's are only matched against smaller groups 1.4% of the time. Let's say you play 1000 games in a season. You get around 20 LP for winning a game. Assuming the 5 stack wins 100% of the time in this 1.4% (which they won't), then they gain 10 free LP each time. (You would expect to win 50% of the time anyways). Over 1000 games, this is 140LP aka about 1 and a half divisions. This is within the variance I see when playing normally. Since you aren't going to win 100% of the mismatched games, the real bonus is going to be less than a division which is not a noticeable difference.
Actually, it makes more sense if you just think of it like this: All 5stacks are boosted by the 1.4%, because every time any 5stack wins it brings extra ELO into the 5v5 bracket. Thus the 5v5 pool is always inflated. This means you are actually always better off queuing as 5 because you get greater ELO gains just by the virtue that other 5s teams win, even if your 5s sucks.
Also, it matters because epeen is actually the goal, and people should stop saying silly things like "play to improve". Its all about next season's sweet Kindred skin, or a border.
On March 25 2016 13:19 droserin wrote: Yes. My main point is that even if this does boost people to some degree, I don't think they amount they gain will be enough to really matter to anyone. It will be less than normal fluctuations that happen by chance.
A clutz notes:
Consider a set of two games involving the same five stack. This can be two five v fives of one five v small and one five v five. The net mmr in the first two games is necessarily zero for the five stacks. In the second the net mmr for the five stacks is positive if the five v small was won and negative if the five v small was lost. This mmr transfer between queues effects the second fives group that plays after the five v small regardless of who wins.
The mmr transfers continue until the probability of winning the five v small is 50% and that initial win rate difference determines how far the correction happens and nothing else
How fast it happens depends on how many five vs small games take place in total not how many you play in particular. Because of their above reason where the other team benefits from your win
So if there were only 1000 games played by five stacks in the entirety of a server in a year you might have an argument. But that number seems widely low to me.
Please boys it's Elo not ELO, Elo-rating is named after it's inventor Arpad Elo. As a statician it hurts my eyes and very soul to see it so often it's almost come to be a standard error (hue).
On March 25 2016 11:37 JimmiC wrote: Anyone played the new champ? how does he/she feel?
Hard to say, he's pretty unique and so far the only games I've seen with him he has been solving world hunger or being on the receiving end of a Flame horizon. I think once people learn to play him he's fairly strong. Currently I'm using the secret special operations tactic of banning him if someone on my team wants to play him and leave him open if not granted of course someone else doesn't ban him. Kinda dickish but it have worked flawlessly since his release.
The only space dragon I've met who was relevant played him top and went Rylai's into tank with Frozen Heart as the mana item.
I think he's one of the better new champs at release.
theres lots of angles you can take the with the long initiation and as long as you have an initial cc/engage to keep people in place for a bit, you can get sick initiates or picks.
just make sure you sweep your jungle and take a route through it to mid or w.e
pretty sure he'll be picked up by pros within a month or so.
kinda feel similarly about him as when i first evaluated bard, but might be a hit or miss depending on his role. at least bard was clearly sup
He wants mana / regen so he can keep his W on for the duration of a fight, but doesn't want CDR since really only his Q gets returns from it, and his Q cooldown is long enough that it's not particularly significant. He also doesn't really want Seraphs (does anybody these days?) because he will have some issues stacking it.
He also really wants spell effects since he'll be AoE proccing them the whole fight long.
He also likes Movespeed as a stat, since the faster he moves the longer he'll be able to stay with his Q and the bigger it will get.
So Rylais + Liandry seems really obvious, either RoA or Frozen Heart seems really obvious. His other 2 items could very easily be tank items for a more AP bruisery sort of build, or they could be like Ludens + Void for a more damage heavy build.
How does he work with Zhonyas? When he's stasis'd do his orbs still orbit?
He seems neat. Neater than I thought he would be. I like him.
He can actually stack Tear super fast since W spam triggers it, like Singed's Q. W cost per second ramps up really fast as you level it tho, but it's easily toggled on/off. Interestingly W also triggers Shen items.
Please boys it's Elo not ELO, Elo-rating is named after it's inventor Arpad Elo. As a statician it hurts my eyes and very soul to see it so often it's almost come to be a standard error (hue).
On March 25 2016 11:37 JimmiC wrote: Anyone played the new champ? how does he/she feel?
Hard to say, he's pretty unique and so far the only games I've seen with him he has been solving world hunger or being on the receiving end of a Flame horizon. I think once people learn to play him he's fairly strong. Currently I'm using the secret special operations tactic of banning him if someone on my team wants to play him and leave him open if not granted of course someone else doesn't ban him. Kinda dickish but it have worked flawlessly since his release.
The only space dragon I've met who was relevant played him top and went Rylai's into tank with Frozen Heart as the mana item.
Auto correct says its ELO and I'm too nice to correct it.
Please boys it's Elo not ELO, Elo-rating is named after it's inventor Arpad Elo. As a statician it hurts my eyes and very soul to see it so often it's almost come to be a standard error (hue).
On March 25 2016 11:37 JimmiC wrote: Anyone played the new champ? how does he/she feel?
Hard to say, he's pretty unique and so far the only games I've seen with him he has been solving world hunger or being on the receiving end of a Flame horizon. I think once people learn to play him he's fairly strong. Currently I'm using the secret special operations tactic of banning him if someone on my team wants to play him and leave him open if not granted of course someone else doesn't ban him. Kinda dickish but it have worked flawlessly since his release.
The only space dragon I've met who was relevant played him top and went Rylai's into tank with Frozen Heart as the mana item.
Auto correct says its ELO and I'm too nice to correct it.
I loved playing Aurelion on the PBE but his passive really screws with my last hitting. Waiting for price drop to buy him with IP on live.
Also, if you have enough movespeed (Q travel speed is 600) you can Q from your nexus to their nexus. At that point Q takes up your entire screen. It's hilarious.
I really don't like the new champion. Visually cluttered, so much mobility, a ton of cc, and his base damage seems absolutely bonkers given the amount of cc he brings. I also don't even know if it is possible to miss his ultimate, given how fast it shoots out.
I suppose his cooldowns are extremely long except his w toggle, but I don't think it is going to matter much when if you hit a q on squishy late game, they're pretty much dead.
Also it boggles my mind they can put so much effort into a champion, and can't even bother to put up 4 sentences on his lore page.
Gotta say, after stopping playing after preseason ended, crafting has brought me back for a few games. I still don't completely get it, but having the reward potential is really nice. Got Snow Day Ziggs and the Soraka Ward from the free chest, and earned another chest thanks to Mid Varus. Also got two key fragments in something like 10 games.
I don't mind Aurelian Sol, but he's a bit 'meh'. I've only been playing normal games, so I've seen him a bunch. I haven't seen one hard carry, but I've definitely seen them be useful. No one has really exploited his E yet though (apart from getting massive Qs from the Nexus for funsies). I can see him being used.
On March 26 2016 09:26 zer0das wrote: I really don't like the new champion. Visually cluttered, so much mobility, a ton of cc, and his base damage seems absolutely bonkers given the amount of cc he brings. I also don't even know if it is possible to miss his ultimate, given how fast it shoots out.
I suppose his cooldowns are extremely long except his w toggle, but I don't think it is going to matter much when if you hit a q on squishy late game, they're pretty much dead.
Also it boggles my mind they can put so much effort into a champion, and can't even bother to put up 4 sentences on his lore page.
A ton of CC? An Anivia stun that can't be insta destroyed like hers can for self defense and a knockback that has such a low duration I haven't even noticed it stunning or impeding anyone from continue fighting is a ton of CC?
On March 26 2016 09:26 zer0das wrote: I really don't like the new champion. Visually cluttered, so much mobility, a ton of cc, and his base damage seems absolutely bonkers given the amount of cc he brings. I also don't even know if it is possible to miss his ultimate, given how fast it shoots out.
I suppose his cooldowns are extremely long except his w toggle, but I don't think it is going to matter much when if you hit a q on squishy late game, they're pretty much dead.
Also it boggles my mind they can put so much effort into a champion, and can't even bother to put up 4 sentences on his lore page.
A ton of CC? An Anivia stun that can't be insta destroyed like hers can for self defense and a knockback that has such a low duration I haven't even noticed it stunning or impeding anyone from continue fighting is a ton of CC?
the q is clunky when trying to reactivate up close to someone for sure. when u have yasuo or leblanc going in on you its very hard to hit them with it. I think when people figure out his w he will be fotm because it does deal a shit ton of damage and when a fight takes place in the jungle I have gotten double kills from over walls which is pretty hilarious.
so yeah about nidalee, apparently her clear got FASTER lol.
i've already seen some videos by random guys/a friend doing the same clear in the same time as before.
with leash, I saw a guy in my soloq game do a full 6 camp in 3:10
without leash my friend got 5 camp + scuttle in 3:15? and he made several mistakes
so yeah jungle nid should still be fine for anyone who pays attention to their clear. might actually be stronger. did see 1 the shy soloq game where he got 2:52 5 camp clear with a 1 man leash.
depends on how much one values the pounce auto reset but shaving an extra 5-10 seconds off your clear seems pretty worth to me. either way, its not really looking like a nid nerf for the top level nids.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
On March 26 2016 09:26 zer0das wrote: I really don't like the new champion. Visually cluttered, so much mobility, a ton of cc, and his base damage seems absolutely bonkers given the amount of cc he brings. I also don't even know if it is possible to miss his ultimate, given how fast it shoots out.
I suppose his cooldowns are extremely long except his w toggle, but I don't think it is going to matter much when if you hit a q on squishy late game, they're pretty much dead.
Also it boggles my mind they can put so much effort into a champion, and can't even bother to put up 4 sentences on his lore page.
A ton of CC? An Anivia stun that can't be insta destroyed like hers can for self defense and a knockback that has such a low duration I haven't even noticed it stunning or impeding anyone from continue fighting is a ton of CC?
His ult is pretty much instacast, and at level 3 is an 80% slow. If you don't have flash or a dash, you're not dodging the followup Q. The only thing hindering his cc is the fact that his q is on such a long cooldown. Also his q is like 2-3 times as wide as Anivia's, and I'm pretty sure it travels faster.
On March 27 2016 10:39 JJMC wrote: If you consider that to be a ton of CC then I do not know what to tell you.
It's still significant amount of CC, especially compared to other AP caster types.
Was messing around with nautilus top last night, enemy Aurelion Sol was feeding his ass off, but still ended up with most damage dealt on his team. His AoE damage is pretty fucking nuts in teamfights.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
On March 27 2016 06:32 Gahlo wrote: It's the ganks where the change hits.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
barely if at all. in most scenarios its a straight buff in ganks.
just compare the times you will pounce onto the enemy VS the times you will auto -> pounce -> auto reset onto an enemy
the latter scenario happens like less than 5% of the time.
would like some more explanation on why you think the change affects her ganks the most because I couldn't disagree more.
Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
On March 27 2016 07:35 Gahlo wrote: [quote] Because pouncing to a hunted target reduced the CD by 70%. With proper mechanics you could string together a lot of auto resets very quickly between Pounce and Takedown. Now you can't.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
This is what I've been saying for the last few posts. Learn to read.
cd is still lowered if you pounce to hunted target.
"removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
This is what I've been saying for the last few posts. Learn to read.
then what the fuck are you saying. are you agreeing with me that the 'nerf' is negligible then?
my point was that auto->pounce->auto vs champions was a rare enough occurrence that the loss of it barely hurts nidalee if at all when compared to the buffs she got on her pounce for her clear.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
what is this then? you just said pounce -> auto is affected by this change. if you have been saying pounce -> auto is still in the game, how the fuck can you say pounce -> auto is affected by this change?
On March 27 2016 07:59 Gahlo wrote: [quote] "removed FURY SWIPES No longer resets Nidalee's basic attack "
Reduced is supposed to be reduces, typo.
??
that's her pounce auto reset
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
This is what I've been saying for the last few posts. Learn to read.
then what the fuck are you saying. are you agreeing with me that the 'nerf' is negligible then?
my point was that auto->pounce->auto vs champions was a rare enough occurrence that the loss of it barely hurts nidalee if at all when compared to the buffs she got on her pounce for her clear.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
what is this then? you just said pounce -> auto is affected by this change. if you have been saying pounce -> auto is still in the game, how the fuck can you say pounce -> auto is affected by this change?
???
pounce -> auto is not affected at all whatsoever.
only auto->pounce->auto
learn to read your own posts maybe?
No, I'm saying that the auto reset being removed is going to be a bigger detriment than it is an improvement. While the patch is still young, there's already a .7% drop in her winrate in Plat+ from those changes.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
that is completely different from her hunted passive that lowers her pounce CD.
have you ever played nid? lol
Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
This is what I've been saying for the last few posts. Learn to read.
then what the fuck are you saying. are you agreeing with me that the 'nerf' is negligible then?
my point was that auto->pounce->auto vs champions was a rare enough occurrence that the loss of it barely hurts nidalee if at all when compared to the buffs she got on her pounce for her clear.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
what is this then? you just said pounce -> auto is affected by this change. if you have been saying pounce -> auto is still in the game, how the fuck can you say pounce -> auto is affected by this change?
???
pounce -> auto is not affected at all whatsoever.
only auto->pounce->auto
learn to read your own posts maybe?
No, I'm saying that the auto reset being removed is going to be a bigger detriment than it is an improvement. While the patch is still young, there's already a .7% drop in her winrate in Plat+ from those changes.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
You've still yet to prove how the pounce auto reset is used properly in a gank, let alone consistently enough for it to outweigh the benefits of a faster clear and more pounce damage.
I've already stated that there are certain scenarios where the pounce auto reset will be missed, but my point is that it is rare enough that it does not outweigh the benefits of the pounce buff. Please address this point first.
Not only is the .7% drop in winrate laughable, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion and I already stated multiple times before in the previous thread that this is most definitely a huge nerf to bad nidalees. The clear alone takes dozens of trials to get down to an acceptable level. My friend has done over 3 hours of nid clears since the patch was released and he can barely get it within ~10s of theshy's. I myself am struggling to get near that consistently as well and have spent more time on nid clears than I have on any other champ. The difference between a good, practiced nidalee and your average nidalee player is immense. And seeing how much more volatile nidalee's clear became (more reliant on pounce, no more root) it is no surprise at all that most nidalee players are getting fucked by the clear. + Show Spoiler +
Also please don't try to say plat is a great elo or anything by citing statistics again. I've seen more god awful nidalees than not all the way up to diamond 1/masters soloq and even pro play. Please refer to Procxin's first nidalee game where he had the shittiest nid clear I've seen in pro play ever.
If you're trying to prove me wrong by showing me nid's winrate dropped by .7%, sorry I'm not surprised as at all, in fact I expected it. This is of course completely ignoring how stupid citing that statistic is.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
? Again, what is the point of this. Why are you interpreting my argument as "auto resets are useless" instead of "auto-pounce-auto is so rare to the point that it's negligible"?
Most ganks do end in autos, especially in human form where you unload your full combo and then switch to human form for the auto reset and last few autos as they try to run away + trying to dodge your next human Q that is coming up.
This however is completely different from the auto->pounce->auto sequence I've been talking about.
How about this, find me a game where auto-pounce-auto was the difference between a kill or not. That itself is super rare. Definitely possible to find, but you won't have an easy time. Let alone a game where it happens multiple times and/or a string of multiple games where it happens. It is simply that rare. If you do however manage to prove me wrong on this point I have no choice but to admit that I'm wrong.
On March 27 2016 08:25 Gahlo wrote: [quote] Right, why would bursting a target ever be hurt by repeated auto resets being removed? I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
Have you ever played League?
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
I mean, the target is just going to sit there and let you do it after all.
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
This is what I've been saying for the last few posts. Learn to read.
then what the fuck are you saying. are you agreeing with me that the 'nerf' is negligible then?
my point was that auto->pounce->auto vs champions was a rare enough occurrence that the loss of it barely hurts nidalee if at all when compared to the buffs she got on her pounce for her clear.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
what is this then? you just said pounce -> auto is affected by this change. if you have been saying pounce -> auto is still in the game, how the fuck can you say pounce -> auto is affected by this change?
???
pounce -> auto is not affected at all whatsoever.
only auto->pounce->auto
learn to read your own posts maybe?
No, I'm saying that the auto reset being removed is going to be a bigger detriment than it is an improvement. While the patch is still young, there's already a .7% drop in her winrate in Plat+ from those changes.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
You've still yet to prove how the pounce auto reset is used properly in a gank, let alone consistently enough for it to outweigh the benefits of a faster clear and more pounce damage.
I've already stated that there are certain scenarios where the pounce auto reset will be missed, but my point is that it is rare enough that it does not outweigh the benefits of the pounce buff. Please address this point first.
Not only is the .7% drop in winrate laughable, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion as I already stated multiple times before in the previous thread that this is most definitely a huge nerf to bad nidalees. The clear alone takes dozens of trials to get down to an acceptable level. My friend has done over 3 hours of nid clears since the patch was released and he can barely get it within ~10s of theshy's. The difference between a good, practiced nidalee and your average nidalee player is immense. And seeing how much more volatile nidalee's clear became (more reliant on pounce, no more root) it is no surprise at all that most nidalee players are getting fucked by the clear. + Show Spoiler +
Also please don't try to say plat is a great elo or anything by citing statistics again. I've seen more god awful nidalees than not all the way up to diamond 1/masters soloq and even pro play. Please refer to Procxin's first nidalee game where he had the shittiest nid clear I've seen in pro play ever.
If you're trying to prove me wrong by showing me nid's winrate dropped by .7%, sorry I'm not surprised as at all, in fact I expected it. This is of course completely ignoring how stupid citing that statistic is.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
? Again, what is the point of this. Why are you interpreting my argument as "auto resets are useless" instead of "auto-pounce-auto is so rare to the point that it's negligible"?
Most ganks do end in autos, especially in human form where you unload your full combo and then switch to human form for the auto reset and last few autos as they try to run away + trying to dodge your next human Q that is coming up.
That's funny, because I very plainly did earlier and the fact that her winrate took a dip while she is supposedly "buffed" by the changes is laughable. You literally can't say it outweighs the benefits when gameplay has said otherwise. The average games of a player on Nidalee with those numbers is 50+, which is just out of the top quarter when it comes to junglers when it comes to gameplay density.
lol this is funny, you first thought that her pounce CD being reduced was removed and now you're backpedaling without admitting you were wrong about it.
and you're still wrong because you completely don't understand what the pounce auto reset even is.
it's only when you are already in melee form and you auto -> pounce -> auto.
[quote]
that's exactly the point. the target is not going to stay in a stationary position so your damage is completely unaffected unless the target stays in a stationary position. (edit: however there are situations where the target stays still and decides to fight back or is cc'd hard enough so yes this is the 5% I talked about earlier where I said it would matter. but in general, this situation more often than not does not occur. meanwhile her clear was improved by the pounce damage buff, so it is a net gain at best, no loss at worst. basically any worries about nid being 'dead' should be dispelled which was the intent of my post)
also that was a genuine question, dunno why you're so butthurt about it. if you haven't played nid I can understand why you couldn't tell the difference between the passive and what the patch notes say. but if you do that makes 0 sense how you wouldn't know.
also you can't string those pounce auto resets because that is assuming A) you out run your opponent while auto attacking them (which isn't true) and B) you aren't switching to human form at all
show me an example or clip of a person stringing more than 1 on a non stationary target from any previous patch and I will eat my words.
It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
This is what I've been saying for the last few posts. Learn to read.
then what the fuck are you saying. are you agreeing with me that the 'nerf' is negligible then?
my point was that auto->pounce->auto vs champions was a rare enough occurrence that the loss of it barely hurts nidalee if at all when compared to the buffs she got on her pounce for her clear.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
what is this then? you just said pounce -> auto is affected by this change. if you have been saying pounce -> auto is still in the game, how the fuck can you say pounce -> auto is affected by this change?
???
pounce -> auto is not affected at all whatsoever.
only auto->pounce->auto
learn to read your own posts maybe?
No, I'm saying that the auto reset being removed is going to be a bigger detriment than it is an improvement. While the patch is still young, there's already a .7% drop in her winrate in Plat+ from those changes.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
You've still yet to prove how the pounce auto reset is used properly in a gank, let alone consistently enough for it to outweigh the benefits of a faster clear and more pounce damage.
I've already stated that there are certain scenarios where the pounce auto reset will be missed, but my point is that it is rare enough that it does not outweigh the benefits of the pounce buff. Please address this point first.
Not only is the .7% drop in winrate laughable, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion as I already stated multiple times before in the previous thread that this is most definitely a huge nerf to bad nidalees. The clear alone takes dozens of trials to get down to an acceptable level. My friend has done over 3 hours of nid clears since the patch was released and he can barely get it within ~10s of theshy's. The difference between a good, practiced nidalee and your average nidalee player is immense. And seeing how much more volatile nidalee's clear became (more reliant on pounce, no more root) it is no surprise at all that most nidalee players are getting fucked by the clear. + Show Spoiler +
Also please don't try to say plat is a great elo or anything by citing statistics again. I've seen more god awful nidalees than not all the way up to diamond 1/masters soloq and even pro play. Please refer to Procxin's first nidalee game where he had the shittiest nid clear I've seen in pro play ever.
If you're trying to prove me wrong by showing me nid's winrate dropped by .7%, sorry I'm not surprised as at all, in fact I expected it. This is of course completely ignoring how stupid citing that statistic is.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
? Again, what is the point of this. Why are you interpreting my argument as "auto resets are useless" instead of "auto-pounce-auto is so rare to the point that it's negligible"?
Most ganks do end in autos, especially in human form where you unload your full combo and then switch to human form for the auto reset and last few autos as they try to run away + trying to dodge your next human Q that is coming up.
That's funny, because I very plainly did earlier and the fact that her winrate took a dip while she is supposedly "buffed" by the changes is laughable. You literally can't say it outweighs the benefits when gameplay has said otherwise. The average games of a player on Nidalee with those numbers is 50+, which is just out of the top quarter when it comes to junglers when it comes to gameplay density.
1) plainly did what? 2) 0.7% what a dip, wew 3) if you honestly think that 0.7% dip after 3 days of a patch proves you right, you go take that internet argument victory, I'm out then rofl 4) I said near the same and/or buffed (or thats what some nid mains I've talked to said). so even if that statistic was 100% accurate and she really did get 'worse by' 0.7%, that falls in line with what I expected. Like I said, the whole point was to just say that the changes were not even close to killing nid. 5) If you honestly think any player who plays 50 games of nidalee is a competent nidalee player I've got a bridge to sell you. I'd doubt most players would even be able to consistently clear well after 50 custom game runs. I've played over 50 games of nidalee every season (always a top champion across my accounts) and I've only gone from shitter->slightly less shit->mediocre->almost competent. 6) Is this your most compelling argument? I'm confused about whether you're just putting low effort into your posts or if this is actually the main argument you're going with.
On March 27 2016 11:06 Gahlo wrote: [quote] It's a shame you don't know how to make an ass out of yourself. It's called a typo, shit happens. There's no point in me changing it after it gets quoted because you'll just continue being a prick about it.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
no the typo is not the issue here, I only realized that was a typo so ignore that portion about the patch notes. the issue here is you just don't understand how the pounce auto reset even works or how ganks even play out.
pounce -> auto is not removed. you can still instantly auto after a pounce. auto -> pounce -> auto is removed, the first auto being in melee form. the scenario you described is still possible on this patch.
that's why I'm saying it's totally irrelevant in most scenarios. if you have the pounce available to use as an auto reset and not to gapclose, that means that the opponent has given up running away (or is incapable of doing so). in most of those cases, the opponent is dead anyways. in the few % of cases that you actually need that damage for a difference in kill vs no kill (very rare) it will be relevant.
That is your own misguided inference.
who cares, point is you're wrong about nidalee. why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of continuously expressing how hurt you are by me mistaking you were even more clueless about nid than you already are.
And no, you can't auto reset on Pounce anymore, RTFPN.
? what is the point of this line. we already established that pounce doesn't have an auto reset, it's in the patch notes right there.
are you mistaking pounce -> auto as an auto reset? because it's not, if there is no auto in the first place an auto reset is not necessary.
auto -> pounce -> auto requires an auto reset since you need to cancel the auto attack timer from the first auto. pounce -> auto does not.
unless again, you are assuming you are doing human form auto -> cougar form -> pounce -> auto, which is a moot point since the missing pounce auto reset wouldn't even be necessary because we have the form switch auto reset.
tl;dr pounce -> auto is still in the game. auto -> pounce -> auto is not.
This is what I've been saying for the last few posts. Learn to read.
then what the fuck are you saying. are you agreeing with me that the 'nerf' is negligible then?
my point was that auto->pounce->auto vs champions was a rare enough occurrence that the loss of it barely hurts nidalee if at all when compared to the buffs she got on her pounce for her clear.
With the base CD being as low as it is and the cd refund being as big as it is, unless the initial combo is enough to finish the job then it only makes sense to Pounce > Auto afterwards. That Pounce > Auto will be adversely effected by this change and will cause more ganks to fail than the 30 damage boost that the pair of pounces will provide.
what is this then? you just said pounce -> auto is affected by this change. if you have been saying pounce -> auto is still in the game, how the fuck can you say pounce -> auto is affected by this change?
???
pounce -> auto is not affected at all whatsoever.
only auto->pounce->auto
learn to read your own posts maybe?
No, I'm saying that the auto reset being removed is going to be a bigger detriment than it is an improvement. While the patch is still young, there's already a .7% drop in her winrate in Plat+ from those changes.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
You've still yet to prove how the pounce auto reset is used properly in a gank, let alone consistently enough for it to outweigh the benefits of a faster clear and more pounce damage.
I've already stated that there are certain scenarios where the pounce auto reset will be missed, but my point is that it is rare enough that it does not outweigh the benefits of the pounce buff. Please address this point first.
Not only is the .7% drop in winrate laughable, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion as I already stated multiple times before in the previous thread that this is most definitely a huge nerf to bad nidalees. The clear alone takes dozens of trials to get down to an acceptable level. My friend has done over 3 hours of nid clears since the patch was released and he can barely get it within ~10s of theshy's. The difference between a good, practiced nidalee and your average nidalee player is immense. And seeing how much more volatile nidalee's clear became (more reliant on pounce, no more root) it is no surprise at all that most nidalee players are getting fucked by the clear. + Show Spoiler +
Also please don't try to say plat is a great elo or anything by citing statistics again. I've seen more god awful nidalees than not all the way up to diamond 1/masters soloq and even pro play. Please refer to Procxin's first nidalee game where he had the shittiest nid clear I've seen in pro play ever.
If you're trying to prove me wrong by showing me nid's winrate dropped by .7%, sorry I'm not surprised as at all, in fact I expected it. This is of course completely ignoring how stupid citing that statistic is.
Anyway, we're going to play a little game. Show me a gank combo that isn't intentionally wasteful on Nidalee that doesn't end in an auto, and I'll show you why I have you the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot.
? Again, what is the point of this. Why are you interpreting my argument as "auto resets are useless" instead of "auto-pounce-auto is so rare to the point that it's negligible"?
Most ganks do end in autos, especially in human form where you unload your full combo and then switch to human form for the auto reset and last few autos as they try to run away + trying to dodge your next human Q that is coming up.
That's funny, because I very plainly did earlier and the fact that her winrate took a dip while she is supposedly "buffed" by the changes is laughable. You literally can't say it outweighs the benefits when gameplay has said otherwise. The average games of a player on Nidalee with those numbers is 50+, which is just out of the top quarter when it comes to junglers when it comes to gameplay density.
1) plainly did what? 2) 0.7% what a dip, wew 3) if you honestly think that 0.7% dip after 3 days of a patch proves you right, you go take that internet argument victory, I'm out then rofl 4) I said near the same and/or buffed (or thats what some nid mains I've talked to said). so even if that statistic was 100% accurate and she really did get 'worse by' 0.7%, that falls in line with what I expected. Like I said, the whole point was to just say that the changes were not even close to killing nid. 5) If you honestly think any player who plays 50 games of nidalee is a competent nidalee player I've got a bridge to sell you. I'd doubt most players would even be able to consistently clear well after 50 custom game runs. I've played over 50 games of nidalee every season (always a top champion across my accounts) and I've only gone from shitter->slightly less shit->mediocre->almost competent. 6) Is this your most compelling argument? I'm confused about whether you're just putting low effort into your posts or if this is actually the main argument you're going with.
1) I have some bad news, I think you have amnesia. 2) Considering the nerf had countermeasures, it is relevant. 3) First, I did say the patch was young. Second, I don't you having anything to back you up other than "because I say so." 4) I never said it was going to kill nid. Perhaps we're both wrong with what we think the other perceives the changes will do to her. 5) That's an average of 50+ ranked Plat+ games on her. It doesn't matter if they played 1 or 10000000000000000 custom games, none of them will show up in that statistic. Her play rate has cut nearly in half this patch, meaning a lot of the bad Nids are jumping ship and yet she's still seeing a dip.
1) Or you drop a one liner without stating what exactly it was referring to. If you're referring to proving that auto-pounce-auto is not a rare happening, no you did not do that. 2) I already accounted for a potential drop in performance by the common nidalee player. Nothing newsworthy here. 3) Common sense + actual experience playing/watching nid + lack of any evidence on your part that auto-pounce-auto is anything more than a rare happening. Meanwhile you just cite a 0.7% drop in winrate on a 3 day patch which doesn't even dispute my point in the first place and think it has any merit just because you managed to admit in advance that it's a bad statistic to cite. 4) I know, but that was my whole intent of the post - saying how the perceived nerfs were barely relevant. If anything your 0.7% statistic backs me up there. I'm saying that you're not disputing my point at all even if you think you are. You are supporting it. 5) Which is exactly why that statistic is near meaningless. Also you're missing a lot with that 50+ statistic. Not only is it based on 2014-2015 games played, it doesn't show how it affected the winrate for those with that many games. For all we know, the shit nidalees got even worse and lowered the winrate to what it is now while the better nidalees with more experience raised it. It's all speculation.
Also for a champion with such a low overall winrate (49.23) her winrate with 125+ game players aka nid mains is bonkers (57.89). That is one of the biggest 0-5 games played and 125+ games winrate difference I've seen on a champ. If anything the better nids probably got better (wow better clear!).
edit: wow what do you know, nidalees with 50+ games had their winrates increased this patch. so according to your champion.gg stats, it backs me up in that the nerf was pretty much negligible and did not outweigh the buff in clear time for those who could consistently pull off proper clears.
5-15 went from 49.32 -> 47.36 15-50 went from 50.77 -> 49.23 50-125 went from 52.4 -> 52.41 125+ went from 56.44 -> 57.89
not that I think these stats are actually that important, but quite funny how it backs me up instead. Also this is assuming that all 50+ game nids are good (they aren't) and many bad nid players quitting her but using your assumption it still backs me up lol.
Could you two take this to pm it's been 24 hours of you two measuring epeens no one else has chimed in and the circular conversation is boring. We get it you disagree if you want to continue pm please.
Goddamnit, now Sion is popping up in every other game on account of the new skin coming out and qtpie just let slip that he's OP so that's only gonna get worse. Soon the forums will be awash in cries and wailing and then the nerf train will come into station.
On March 27 2016 22:29 JimmiC wrote: Could you two take this to pm it's been 24 hours of you two measuring epeens no one else has chimed in and the circular conversation is boring. We get it you disagree if you want to continue pm please.
Au contraire, I think this is extremely valuable discussion. Seeing people repeatedly shit on for being a) extremely wrong and b) trying to disingenuously backtrack while c) throwing out insults to distract from their own wrongness, will hopefully discourage other people from making extremely wrong posts in the future.
Let's not forget that Nidalee was originally scheduled for even harsher nerfs, before her fanbase popped up here and on Reddit crying that those nerfs were going to gut her. So Riot was forced to backtrack, and the end result is that Nidalee's "nerfs" don't really hurt her at all, and even buff her a bit to boot. I wish all my champs could be "nerfed" like that.
On March 27 2016 15:29 Gahlo wrote: 4) I never said it was going to kill nid. Perhaps we're both wrong with what we think the other perceives the changes will do to her.
Gahlo, how many games of Nidalee have you played? Cause it's really starting to sound like you're just armchair analyzing here with no actual gameplay experience. You claim her ganks were what's being hit when auto reset mechanic was mostly for clears and you almost NEVER see it used in an actual gank. Not in ranked, not in norms, not in pro play. Maybe against bots, I don't fcking know about that but you're pretty much in the wrong here if you thought if you thought her ganks got a big hit from this patch.
and that can be optimized even more with better aa resets and micro. simply hitting all pounces and kiting decently gets you a really nice clear.
though not bad considering theshy's clear that was on frontpage last time on previous patch was 3:02 and finished with much less health. he also only had like 1 mistake I believe (missed 1 minion with pounce) and ran MR. friend ran scaling CDR so not a huge boost, but still worth mentioning nonetheless.
I'm enjoying Aurelion Sol a lot - very interesting champion, and learning to use his passive properly is fun. Laning seems pretty brutal, because (as posters in this thread have pointed out), his Q can't be detonated at point blank range, which makes shaking off Yasuo/Zed/Fizz/Talon nearly impossible.
Despite bad laning/feeding, it doesn't seem to matter as his team fight potential is so high. Tonnes of damage and CC...also don't underestimate his ult, it's another huge chunk of damage which you can land on 2-3 people, and is basically undodgeable.
The AA reset being removed from Nid adversely affect her early clear the most, but the straight dmg buff pretty much compensates for that. Basically Riot just made the champ easier to play while lowering the power level by a miniscule amount (but now the champ is easier to play).
Her passive rooting monsters is a meme, you barely use that to kite anyways if you're going for super fast clears. It mostly affects her ability to quickly do the scuttle but if you're as the enemy jungler are forced into being a pansy in your jungle because she's dicking you and your lanes then it doesn't really matter.
Graves' ability to do scuttle was also severely nerfed but he's still a top jungle pick in soloq and competitive and it looks like these Nid changes are basically a tiny power tune but not anywhere close to removing her from the game like the initial harshest PBE nerfs.
On March 27 2016 22:29 JimmiC wrote: Could you two take this to pm it's been 24 hours of you two measuring epeens no one else has chimed in and the circular conversation is boring. We get it you disagree if you want to continue pm please.
Seems rare on here that someone actually knows what they're talking about, and has a lot of experience with a champion decides to argue with someone, it's refreshing to see
On March 27 2016 23:58 Osmoses wrote: Goddamnit, now Sion is popping up in every other game on account of the new skin coming out and qtpie just let slip that he's OP so that's only gonna get worse. Soon the forums will be awash in cries and wailing and then the nerf train will come into station.
The OP part likely just comes from him being super lane dominant against most of the common picks right now, and being able to convert the huge HP into massive grasp procs.
So after a day of soloq(climbing slowly up to d4), playing against some poor silver friends, and reading PBE notes.
warlord's is getting nerfed, rightfully so(double nerf for ranged yay). It's kinda silly atm. Yi is still stupid(mostly devourer+double hit interaction with onhit/attack effects). Maybe a BAT nerf? While last patch nerfed sterakk's on him, maw is still ridic good. Irelia buffs inc? Probably still won't be good because tank meta, but it's nice. Sivir is a bit silly. Critting some poor fool for 300 later on in the game because he stood too close to creeps a screen away doesn't feel right.
I think a lot of players still don't know how op Warlords is. People are still going Fervors on Sivir when Warlords lets you go ER->Shiv/PD->IE while still having sustain
i saw warlods trynd few days ago his sustain was super dumb, saddest part is the nerf wont include him so i guess yasuo and trynd sustaining for ages top for free are going to stay
How can you make it so you don't sport a club tag? And after finally playing some with the new champ select, yeah, even "improved" it still feels way too clunky for a "modern" "revamp" stuff. But hey it sparkles I guess. My job includes making ergonomic stuff so seeing this irks me.
On March 27 2016 23:58 Osmoses wrote: Goddamnit, now Sion is popping up in every other game on account of the new skin coming out and qtpie just let slip that he's OP so that's only gonna get worse. Soon the forums will be awash in cries and wailing and then the nerf train will come into station.
Are you also on the double dring spam E all day Sion train or is there a different way to play him?
On March 29 2016 01:02 IamPryda wrote: So I recently discovered how easy it is to take enemy's red at level 1 on graves top was it always that way or did warlords make it that much easier
Warlords doesn't work against jungle monsters so it has always been that easy, granted you get a lot of free sustain to heal back up now.
On March 27 2016 23:58 Osmoses wrote: Goddamnit, now Sion is popping up in every other game on account of the new skin coming out and qtpie just let slip that he's OP so that's only gonna get worse. Soon the forums will be awash in cries and wailing and then the nerf train will come into station.
Are you also on the double dring spam E all day Sion train or is there a different way to play him?
Corrupting pot>sunfire+specters>gauntlet is a pretty good way to go. Lot's of viable items on him since he doesn't need to buy HP items to still get very tanky if he farms well. He's very strong in lane against most common picks, and 3 semi-ranged skills with 2 soft cc's lets him keep corrupting pot ticking easily. Past a certain point he just ignores most other tops as mana pools dip faster than HP bars.
I also like the zzrot portal on him for maximum pushing. The whole ulting into other lanes to blow summoners and tping back to lane. Or tping to lanes and ulting back to own to not lose much farm or a tower is also pretty dang strong.
runic armor in literally 98% of scenarios, since other people that do shit to you also counts.
If you are playing a champ that does not sustain in any way possible, does not have any shields, and there are no champs on your team that can heal or shield you then go for Veteran scars
But you probably realized that means your champ/team comp sucks dick anyway.
I can't think of a situation where veteran is better than runic. The only possible such would be like if you are going to lvl 1 all in but even then runic is probably better.
On March 30 2016 05:30 nafta wrote: I can't think of a situation where veteran is better than runic. The only possible such would be like if you are going to lvl 1 all in but even then runic is probably better.
It increases everything as far as I know.
In any scenario where you aren't going to go all-in immediately or die upon entering lane, runic is better, and scales, far, far better.
passive regen is roughly 10Hp5, which gives you 12 HP/min extra. Doesn't immediately pay off, but 2 minutes in lane at not-full HP(fairly common), and you're halfway there.
Each potion/corrupting flask charge is 15 health.
Every grasp charge early on (1k hp) is 3 extra health. If you get off 5 that's 33% of the way to breakeven.
It's so easy to see why the 10% would be far better than 45 health if you don't die instantly.
Does that runic echoes vs veterins scars logic apply to junglers as well? I.e. With someone soft who is gaining health smiting red and from hunters tailisman and refillable potion would I be better off with echoes?
So I suppose the natural follow up is why does everyone on OP.gg and most of the pros on probuilds have it wrong? Or does that veer into deep questions...
On March 31 2016 00:44 General_Winter wrote: So I suppose the natural follow up is why does everyone on OP.gg and most of the pros on probuilds have it wrong? Or does that veer into deep questions...
Because the majority just never stopped to think about it.
Would probably be more helpful if there's a champion build/spec you find off and want to discuss. I opened a bunch of Top champ tabs and an overwhelming of them spec into Runic Armor.
I was just in a game where we were almost surely going to less when suddenly I DC, check my inet it's all good and try to relog back on repeatedly. eventually reboot come back game gone check match history no record of it.
Is this just a bug or did I have a cheater on my team? Hoping for 1 would hate to see this be a common thing.
On March 31 2016 02:16 JimmiC wrote: I was just in a game where we were almost surely going to less when suddenly I DC, check my inet it's all good and try to relog back on repeatedly. eventually reboot come back game gone check match history no record of it.
Is this just a bug or did I have a cheater on my team? Hoping for 1 would hate to see this be a common thing.
Probably a drophacker on your team sorry.
I'm trying to do sol top and its going to take a lot more practice playing with the distances of the w'ed stars and the non w'ed stars. Triple ring swifties bottle are usually enough to get me through the lane before the power curve items.
On March 31 2016 00:55 kongoline wrote: 45hp can be important for early duels i usually take it on olaf despite his W heal cuz i often all in lvl1-3
I feel like this is a poor choice. On Olaf you can gain the 45 HP in the span of a W later on, not even including what you'd get from SV, passive, regen, grasp etc. You're quite literally gimping yourself on the hope that you can kill the guy between level 1-3, and that he would've been able to kill you on a ~20-30 health difference.
Even then, it is still champ dependent. Maybe someone like Zyra if you plan on going ham early on and your only sustain is your own potions/regen, but any lane you envisage going in an even slightly passive way, increasing your healing is always better in the long run. Hell, Zyra can sometimes be so dominant in lane, that she doesn't need the extra health anyway, so I'm not sure that's a good example. Even then it would still be situational.
One of the KR potato one-tricks I follow takes Vet Scars on Poppy along with a full armor page into Darius. I think in any scenario where you're not in an attrition/poke matchup and you don't need the sustain and you want to Not Die Now, the +45 HP is definitely valuable.
On March 31 2016 08:46 dsyxelic wrote: immediate ones that come into mind are leona/annie sup
vet scars definitely better on them.
Annie sure
Leona you're getting targon procs as extra healing + you're probably getting poked down a bunch against most typical supports, so you're almost always going to be regening health. Besides, the number of times a leona survives a level 2 with 30 hp really isn't very often, if they're focussing you that hard you're probably winning anyway :p
Two targon procs (2x4) + 30 seconds of base sustain (0.84*6 = 5) + summoner heal @ level 2 (10.5) and you're only gaining about 20 hp total from vetaran scars in the absolute worst case scenario where you all the exact moment the second wave arrives. (Generally it'd be even worse, as you don't hit level two until halfway through the second wave, or you've been passively healing since 1:40 because of gromp/kruggs.)
scars on poppy literally makes no sense when she has a pretty good shield. just a few shield procs and you beat scars already meh. dont feel like mathing it
On March 31 2016 08:46 dsyxelic wrote: immediate ones that come into mind are leona/annie sup
vet scars definitely better on them.
Annie sure
Leona you're getting targon procs as extra healing + you're probably getting poked down a bunch against most typical supports, so you're almost always going to be regening health. Besides, the number of times a leona survives a level 2 with 30 hp really isn't very often, if they're focussing you that hard you're probably winning anyway :p
Two targon procs (2x4) + 30 seconds of base sustain (0.84*6 = 5) + summoner heal @ level 2 (10.5) and you're only gaining about 20 hp total from vetaran scars in the absolute worst case scenario where you all the exact moment the second wave arrives. (Generally it'd be even worse, as you don't hit level two until halfway through the second wave, or you've been passively healing since 1:40 because of gromp/kruggs.)
If youre against poke thats fine. Vet scars is good on leona still because 1) roams 2) youre the one who tanks turret in dives 3) resists from w synergizes greatly with health
Just did some test clears on Rek'sai/Gragas and both times Veteran Scars was superior in first clear in terms of health after the clear by around 20-30 health. Considering both don't suffer too much after that in terms of sustaining through clear because of their passives, I actually think that Veteran Scars is slightly superior at least first clear wise if you're looking to make the plays.
Edit: Will redo when I'm not dying of no sleep though. Maybe i messed up my clears.
On March 31 2016 08:46 dsyxelic wrote: immediate ones that come into mind are leona/annie sup
vet scars definitely better on them.
Annie sure
Leona you're getting targon procs as extra healing + you're probably getting poked down a bunch against most typical supports, so you're almost always going to be regening health. Besides, the number of times a leona survives a level 2 with 30 hp really isn't very often, if they're focussing you that hard you're probably winning anyway :p
Two targon procs (2x4) + 30 seconds of base sustain (0.84*6 = 5) + summoner heal @ level 2 (10.5) and you're only gaining about 20 hp total from vetaran scars in the absolute worst case scenario where you all the exact moment the second wave arrives. (Generally it'd be even worse, as you don't hit level two until halfway through the second wave, or you've been passively healing since 1:40 because of gromp/kruggs.)
This is one of the more blatant abuse of numbers I've seen in a while on this forum, and you still are conceding that Veteran's Scars is twice as good as Runic Armor.
The better view of it is that if you have no built-in sustain, you need about 4 health potions worth of healing for Runic Armor to be better. And even then it's only health regeneration and not raw health; there's a reason why Ruby Crystals cost 8x as much as a Health Potion even though both are 150HP.
On March 31 2016 08:46 dsyxelic wrote: immediate ones that come into mind are leona/annie sup
vet scars definitely better on them.
Annie sure
Leona you're getting targon procs as extra healing + you're probably getting poked down a bunch against most typical supports, so you're almost always going to be regening health. Besides, the number of times a leona survives a level 2 with 30 hp really isn't very often, if they're focussing you that hard you're probably winning anyway :p
Two targon procs (2x4) + 30 seconds of base sustain (0.84*6 = 5) + summoner heal @ level 2 (10.5) and you're only gaining about 20 hp total from vetaran scars in the absolute worst case scenario where you all the exact moment the second wave arrives. (Generally it'd be even worse, as you don't hit level two until halfway through the second wave, or you've been passively healing since 1:40 because of gromp/kruggs.)
This is one of the more blatant abuse of numbers I've seen in a while on this forum, and you still are conceding that Veteran's Scars is twice as good as Runic Armor.
The better view of it is that if you have no built-in sustain, you need about 4 health potions worth of healing for Runic Armor to be better. And even then it's only health regeneration and not raw health; there's a reason why Ruby Crystals cost 8x as much as a Health Potion even though both are 150HP.
before you even reach lvl 3 and it scales better.....
The fact that you are pretty much never full hp as support in lane and you get locket at the very least makes it even better.
I also run grasp most of the time so that does help too later in the game.
Neither mastery is remotely relevant on Leona by the time you get Locket, so I don't really see how that matters.
Veteran's Scars is equal to 6 HP seals. By way of analogy, does anyone choose to run 6 HP regen seals instead of 6 flat HP seals on Leona instead, netting you ~20HP every 30 seconds?
On April 01 2016 05:01 GrandInquisitor wrote: Neither mastery is remotely relevant on Leona by the time you get Locket, so I don't really see how that matters.
Veteran's Scars is equal to 6 HP seals. By way of analogy, does anyone choose to run 6 HP regen seals instead of 6 flat HP seals on Leona instead, netting you ~20HP every 30 seconds?
To be fair, it isn't uncommon to see Leonas running HP regen quints, getting their armor from marks.
On April 01 2016 05:01 GrandInquisitor wrote: Neither mastery is remotely relevant on Leona by the time you get Locket, so I don't really see how that matters.
Veteran's Scars is equal to 6 HP seals. By way of analogy, does anyone choose to run 6 HP regen seals instead of 6 flat HP seals on Leona instead, netting you ~20HP every 30 seconds?
To be fair, it isn't uncommon to see Leonas running HP regen quints, getting their armor from marks.
Unfortunately most of her pro/proam play comes from LMS, where I can't pull runes from match history.
Champion.gg only shows the highest winrate and most common rune sets, comprising of 2268 of the 34834 games she's been played that are relevant to their metrics, for a total of 0.065% of the games.
League of graphs is a solid source that I was unaware existed, I'll have to look into it.
The Spellsy imgur link is over a year old.
So yeah, it might not be as common as I had thought, but some of your sources are far from credible or conclusive.
Unfortunately most of her pro/proam play comes from LMS, where I can't pull runes from match history.
Champion.gg only shows the highest winrate and most common rune sets, comprising of 2268 of the 34834 games she's been played that are relevant to their metrics, for a total of 0.065% of the games.
League of graphs is a solid source that I was unaware existed, I'll have to look into it.
The Spellsy imgur link is over a year old.
So yeah, it might not be as common as I had thought, but some of your sources are far from credible or conclusive.
That's 6.5%, not 0.065%. I'm not sure pro play is a good metric here though. I feel hp regen would have more benefit in a soloqueue game where you tend to fight a lot, than in a pro game where you laneswap and roam a lot more.
Unfortunately most of her pro/proam play comes from LMS, where I can't pull runes from match history.
Champion.gg only shows the highest winrate and most common rune sets, comprising of 2268 of the 34834 games she's been played that are relevant to their metrics, for a total of 0.065% of the games.
League of graphs is a solid source that I was unaware existed, I'll have to look into it.
The Spellsy imgur link is over a year old.
So yeah, it might not be as common as I had thought, but some of your sources are far from credible or conclusive.
That's a really fast backtrack to go from "isn't uncommon" to "was used once by a guy in Korea Challenger Tournament", probably because he loaded the wrong runepage or something. That, to me, is the definition of uncommon.
Feel free to keep nitpicking at my sources. In turn, I eagerly await your "credible and conclusive" source that aggregates Leona's rune data to show that it is "not uncommon" to run HP regen quints.
More to the point, even if you can find a second guy that once ran HP regen quints on Leona, the point is that it would be wrong to do so. Regenerating HP is not useful in a game that is primarily built around burst damage. No one cares about that 150 gold power spike when you can back for a Rejuvenation Bead. Runic Armor has meaningful value on champions that have instant sustain and/or shielding, but being able to chug your Health Potion 8% faster is not by itself better than having 120 gold of raw HP.
Unfortunately most of her pro/proam play comes from LMS, where I can't pull runes from match history.
Champion.gg only shows the highest winrate and most common rune sets, comprising of 2268 of the 34834 games she's been played that are relevant to their metrics, for a total of 0.065% of the games.
League of graphs is a solid source that I was unaware existed, I'll have to look into it.
The Spellsy imgur link is over a year old.
So yeah, it might not be as common as I had thought, but some of your sources are far from credible or conclusive.
That's 6.5%, not 0.065%. I'm not sure pro play is a good metric here though. I feel hp regen would have more benefit in a soloqueue game where you tend to fight a lot, than in a pro game where you laneswap and roam a lot more.
Unfortunately most of her pro/proam play comes from LMS, where I can't pull runes from match history.
Champion.gg only shows the highest winrate and most common rune sets, comprising of 2268 of the 34834 games she's been played that are relevant to their metrics, for a total of 0.065% of the games.
League of graphs is a solid source that I was unaware existed, I'll have to look into it.
The Spellsy imgur link is over a year old.
So yeah, it might not be as common as I had thought, but some of your sources are far from credible or conclusive.
That's a really fast backtrack to go from "isn't uncommon" to "was used once by a guy in Korea Challenger Tournament", probably because he loaded the wrong runepage or something. That, to me, is the definition of uncommon.
Feel free to keep nitpicking at my sources. In turn, I eagerly await your "credible and conclusive" source that aggregates Leona's rune data to show that it is "not uncommon" to run HP regen quints.
More to the point, even if you can find a second guy that once ran HP regen quints on Leona, the point is that it would be wrong to do so. Regenerating HP is not useful in a game that is primarily built around burst damage. No one cares about that 150 gold power spike when you can back for a Rejuvenation Bead. Runic Armor has meaningful value on champions that have instant sustain and/or shielding, but being able to chug your Health Potion 8% faster is not by itself better than having 120 gold of raw HP.
My last sentence was me basically saying "Yeah, I'm wrong on this." I'm not going to debate this further with you.
On March 31 2016 08:46 dsyxelic wrote: immediate ones that come into mind are leona/annie sup
vet scars definitely better on them.
Annie sure
Leona you're getting targon procs as extra healing + you're probably getting poked down a bunch against most typical supports, so you're almost always going to be regening health. Besides, the number of times a leona survives a level 2 with 30 hp really isn't very often, if they're focussing you that hard you're probably winning anyway :p
Two targon procs (2x4) + 30 seconds of base sustain (0.84*6 = 5) + summoner heal @ level 2 (10.5) and you're only gaining about 20 hp total from vetaran scars in the absolute worst case scenario where you all the exact moment the second wave arrives. (Generally it'd be even worse, as you don't hit level two until halfway through the second wave, or you've been passively healing since 1:40 because of gromp/kruggs.)
This is one of the more blatant abuse of numbers I've seen in a while on this forum, and you still are conceding that Veteran's Scars is twice as good as Runic Armor.
The better view of it is that if you have no built-in sustain, you need about 4 health potions worth of healing for Runic Armor to be better. And even then it's only health regeneration and not raw health; there's a reason why Ruby Crystals cost 8x as much as a Health Potion even though both are 150HP.
wut?
It gives about 20 hp more if you fight to the death the second you hit level 2 without having popped any of your hp pots, and if you use a potion, or wait until level 3 to engage (which isn't at all uncommon) then you're even or losing out. Not to mention if you kill their adc/support before dying, there's another +5 hp swing from dangerous game if you're running it. And if you pop a pot as you enage, then you're probably going to break even just off that unless they have ignite... How on earth is that an "abuse of numbers?"
You're the one using inflammatory language and randomly quoting the prices of items instead of actually considering how lanes actually play out...
In what % of leona games do you live/die by +- 20 hp in an all in the second you hit level 2, because unless that's a super super common occurrence for you I don't see what your argument is... And I really don't expect it is >.>
And sure her w synergises with health, but even taking that into account, just the bonus in health she receives from having a pot ticking for the length of a typical fight, and your adc's lvl 2 heal alone already make up like 50% of the health from veretan scars in pure guaranteed health, and that's if you start the fight at full health.
Only real benefit of veteran scars I see is when you're going to be in threat of being 100-0'd early game, which really isn't that likely on leona.
Also the idea that leona doesn't care about lategame hp regen is pretty dumb... I guess you just expect her to sit behind her entire team not tanking any poke lategame, instead of actually using her tankiness to soak stuff for squishier teammates/tanking towers in dives. Being able to regen up to full after fights/poke/objectives isn't at all useless, and 10% regen isn't negligible later on. + any aoe shields or heals or anything your team has are just icing on the cake.
On April 01 2016 09:08 kongoline wrote: are gem stones worth keeping if im not interested in crafting annie skin at all?
I just spend mine.
But expect to be raging a lot... You get a super rare 5% drop instead of a shard... and then you get Resistance Caitlyn shard and some blue essence...
I think its way cheaper to just buy the content I want. Hextech is cute because its something nice every now and then, but I'm not really feeling the chest buying.
Edit: @Amui, like, IP sinks, replays, sandbox, competitive integrity and champion diversity? /s
On April 01 2016 09:08 kongoline wrote: are gem stones worth keeping if im not interested in crafting annie skin at all?
I just spend mine.
But expect to be raging a lot... You get a super rare 5% drop instead of a shard... and then you get Resistance Caitlyn shard and some blue essence...
I think its way cheaper to just buy the content I want. Hextech is cute because its something nice every now and then, but I'm not really feeling the chest buying.
Edit: @Amui, like, IP sinks, replays, sandbox, competitive integrity and champion diversity? /s
Totally.
For some of us who've been around for long enough, and who happily empty wallets for riot, what other choice is there?
Granted I probably will never buy chests, but if I end up falling too far behind on keys to catch up I'd probably consider it.
Look at your own risk! Tells you exactly how much you've spent.
Jeez. I'd like to see that information, but a handwritten letter and a $5 fee? If it weren't wrapped up in all of Riot's stuff I'd guess it's some kind of scam...
Edit: Of course, a $5 scam is a pretty shitty scam, but if it grabbed all my payment info? Blech. Internet paranoia sensors activated.
Apparently that fee is fairly common in the EU, where companies must give you all the info they have on you if you ask. It used to be free before someone made a Reddit thread and the poor guy in that section of support probably got inundated with requests. Makes it sure only people who MUST know for whatever reasons go after the info and probs saves them having to hire more people.
not bad but pretty sure that could still be done way faster with that setup. saw some missed aa cancels + skipped autos
i've seen similar times with a less offensive set up (strength of ages / scaling glyphs) but yea simply pouncing properly gives you excellent clear now.
So, when does loot that you activated the rental period for end? Pretty sure it said 7 or 14 days, but the ward skin I activated the rental period for, I still have and can still use and its been well over 14 days. There also hasn't been any popups in the client telling me that the rental period is ending soon or has ended.
Also, the ward I activated the rental period for better end up back in my inventory after its done.
On April 04 2016 21:44 Disengaged wrote: So, when does loot that you activated the rental period for end? Pretty sure it said 7 or 14 days, but the ward skin I activated the rental period for, I still have and can still use and its been well over 14 days. There also hasn't been any popups in the client telling me that the rental period is ending soon or has ended.
Also, the ward I activated the rental period for better end up back in my inventory after its done.
On April 04 2016 21:44 Disengaged wrote: So, when does loot that you activated the rental period for end? Pretty sure it said 7 or 14 days, but the ward skin I activated the rental period for, I still have and can still use and its been well over 14 days. There also hasn't been any popups in the client telling me that the rental period is ending soon or has ended.
Also, the ward I activated the rental period for better end up back in my inventory after its done.
Not sure that's how it works.
Why not? That'd be so stupid if the stuff you activate the rental period for simply just disappears instead of going back in your inventory.
It's not stupidity, it's a system meant to bait you with fragments and make you shell out real money to get skins anyway, under the pretense that it's potentially free (which it is, if you're fine with whatever). And it does its job just right.
pretty much. Got 3 skins for completely free so far no gimmicks or anything just playing as usual. I thought everyone knew from day 1 not to rent anything with all the tutorials and explanations of it out there
On April 04 2016 19:22 Jek wrote: Anyone know if you can extend Twitch's expunge range like with Kalista's rend? (hit a minion if the enemy is slightly out of usual range)
yes you can. Expunge's range is also slightly farther then it shows as the entire champion model has to be out of range for it to do nothing. Been playing twitch a lot again recently and he's really strong. Doesn't fit the pro meta since hes super weak early and can't take towers reliably but great in solo q all the same.
On April 05 2016 00:18 VayneAuthority wrote: pretty much. Got 3 skins for completely free so far no gimmicks or anything just playing as usual. I thought everyone knew from day 1 not to rent anything with all the tutorials and explanations of it out there
I apparently never got that memo of never to rent anything.
I don't think there's an issue with hextech. Personally you're getting free cosmetics and have the option to pay for more. I think that's perfectly fine tbh. It's far sillier that we're still paying IP for runes/rune pages >_>.
i agree its kinda wasteful, you could just go to youtube to see skin spotlight or use 3d models from sites like lolking if u want see the skin from close, i also think riot should have added sandbox map like heroes of storm where i can play every champion/skin for free vs bot before buying
on a side note my luck with skin shard sucks so far, senguine garen, warden karma, muse sona, riot graves hate every single one besides graves but hes banned a lot and about to get gutted so cba to play him ;/
On April 05 2016 03:21 KissBlade wrote: I don't think there's an issue with hextech. Personally you're getting free cosmetics and have the option to pay for more. I think that's perfectly fine tbh. It's far sillier that we're still paying IP for runes/rune pages >_>.
Are you saying we should be paying runes/pages with RP?
people keep saying there is no drawback to hextech chests chests you just get free stuff periodically, but personally I dislike the exclusive skins, I've got the cash and I don't want to gamble, just let me dole out the 1850 for Annie. If they make one for your favorite hero it is potentially the most expensive skin in the game by a lot.
I am OCD about "wasting" stuff so it could literally be the fucking coolest nasus skin in the world and i still wouldnt get it since I already have a skin for him. I never have 2 skins for a champ unless one of them was victorious after the fact or something free like that.
If your not, if you don't want to pay the 50 bucks that is fine you can work to get it, if you do and think the skin is cool enough, and you like how exclusive it is do. If not don't. Lots of people think 5-10 bucks for a skin is too much some think paying for any is bad. Why not be mad at riot for trying to make money at all! And if you got the cash there should be no problem. This system will keep the skin rare and make it worth more.
What were people willing to pay for PAX TF codes and so on? Rarity = value.
It is a negative to someone like you who wants to buy it on the cheap, it is a positive to someone who is willing to either wait for it or buy it on the expensive and have some rarity. You my friend are only looking at it from your point of view and assuming all feel that way. Some would call this narcissism.
On April 05 2016 05:36 Slusher wrote: people keep saying there is no drawback to hextech chests chests you just get free stuff periodically, but personally I dislike the exclusive skins, I've got the cash and I don't want to gamble, just let me dole out the 1850 for Annie. If they make one for your favorite hero it is potentially the most expensive skin in the game by a lot.
Skip to around 8:00 in. For people who dont know Black Lotus, the Alpha Black Lotus is the most rare magic card in the game and are worth well over 15.000$, in mint condition I dont even want to think of what it would sell for. You wont get this kind reaction if you could just buy it in the shop.
On a completely different note. Tank Karma toplane has to be the most hilarious and troll thing in the game, once she gets Iceborn and Spirit Visage she's impossible to kill and equally impossible to get away from.
On April 05 2016 13:52 739 wrote: I have a bad feeling they gonna screw up taric rework, dunno why. Also he will be probably played top/jungle instead of support :<
judging purely from the splash art, they are going the right direction with this
On April 05 2016 13:52 739 wrote: I have a bad feeling they gonna screw up taric rework, dunno why. Also he will be probably played top/jungle instead of support :<
judging purely from the splash art, they are going the right direction with this
It makes me very hopeful.
We probably are not seeing a return to Taric's glory days. That will likely make some people sad, and as someone who loathed and loathes the Xerath rework I can respect that. I mean, maybe his old self-healing super-push ultimate will come back, but I sincerely doubt it.
On April 05 2016 13:52 739 wrote: I have a bad feeling they gonna screw up taric rework, dunno why. Also he will be probably played top/jungle instead of support :<
judging purely from the splash art, they are going the right direction with this
I'm pretty bummed that the only gem was the Doran's ring he threw away in the web comic.
On April 05 2016 20:47 JazzVortical wrote: That splash is godlike. Feeling better about owning Taric all of a sudden, as well as getting Bloodstone Taric as a mystery skin.
There is only one Taric skin and it isn't Bloodstone!
really for me it's going to be all about his voiceover. Like a lot of the other reworks I feel like they've gone towards a more generic vo compared to the old one, in the case of like Nasus and Karthus who had some great lines in their original.
But there are also cases where it got a lot better, like Poppy and Sion, even though both had some so bad it's good charm.
Taric has some of the best lines in the game and the delivery is on point, it's hard to imagine any change being an improvement, but with his storyline change it's unlikely they will leave it, so I really hope for the best here.
there are some champs voices that arent very clear in the game and i can barely hear what they are saying over typical game sounds. Aurelion sol is a good example. Zero idea what any of his lines are because he talks in a way where in game sound overtakes whatever he is saying for me
geez definitely a flashy kit. What happened to "keeping taric simple" rofl. That's literally top 10 hardest kits easily in league now. Giving him a "league style" meepo to keep track of and delayed timing stun and invulnerability.
I think there's a vast difference between "hard to master" and "hard to learn". The former is good, the latter is not.
Thankfully these skills don't seem like multiple-paragraph monsters (looking at you, Mordekaiser W / Illaoi E) - Q is AoE heal, W duplicates your spells, E is skillshot stun, and R is AoE invincibility. Very simple to describe, but using them correctly is going to be fucking hard though.
On April 06 2016 04:17 VayneAuthority wrote: geez definitely a flashy kit. What happened to "keeping taric simple" rofl. That's literally top 10 hardest kits easily in league now. Giving him a "league style" meepo to keep track of and delayed timing stun and invulnerability.
hahaha laughing so hard right now
Recommended champion for beginners yo. I hope they remove that tag from him...
On April 06 2016 04:17 VayneAuthority wrote: geez definitely a flashy kit. What happened to "keeping taric simple" rofl. That's literally top 10 hardest kits easily in league now. Giving him a "league style" meepo to keep track of and delayed timing stun and invulnerability.
hahaha laughing so hard right now
Recommended champion for beginners yo. I hope they remove that tag from him...
I'm going to miss the one-dimensional taric of old, where you just stun, walk up, and blow everything.
New taric will have none of that simplicity unfortunately.
a potential champ he will be a nightmare with i already see is twitch. Not sure how the interaction will be yet but obviously being able to stealth AOE stun is lolz in lane. and making twitch invulernable before he opens fire is also really easy. Provides him with a heal through laning and stuff. Yea looks like one of his best potential partners.
That E is strong, sure, but you'd have to wonder about Riot's designers when they're shitting so hard on the point'n'click design space, despite its value if only in highlighting the differences with skillshots.
As for the voice I'd wish they stop using these shitty filters, it makes it much worse. Although even without the filter, I'd still like the old one better. His tone being so monotone and flat is obviously intended, what with "he's an Aspect!" and all, but it just doesn't work for me.
Yea, it is a bummer that they hate Point and click so much. On the other hand, this is one of the best (imo) changes eliminating point and click. Contrasting it with the new Ryze Q, which basically made it the lamest skill in the game, or Poppy Q (I love auto resets!) its pretty good.
pretty sure every pro player complained about invulnerable ults how stupid lulu,tahm and kindred are making assassins obsolete and game super boring yet they add another one zzzzz
On April 06 2016 05:27 Caiada wrote: Old Taric had one of the worst kits to build a point-and-click CC around. One-dimensional and boring.
Contrast with Fiddle, who is I think one of the only champs in the game where old kit design actually worked.
Wait, why? Old Taric is a clear anti-assassin (particularly AD assassin) support. Point and Click stun is perfect for stopping things like Talon, Zed, Renekton, etc from sneakily dodging around and killing your carries without retribution. That his heal and both the versions of his ult he has had are lame has nothing to do with his stun being point and click.
His kit wasn't lacking cohesion, it just lacked anything particularly exciting. When his numbers worked he was perfectly viable like anti-AD Rammus top is today. Especially old-old Taric. New-old Taric was somehow less cohesive and more boring. But using a bad rework as justification for another rework is like using alcoholism to get into meth.
Challenger, Master, and Diamond players can now only queue up for ranked matches with players within +/- 2 divisions of them. Master and Challenger are each counted as single divisions above Diamond.