|
Want to rage about your latest loss? Use the QQ thread. If you whine in GD, you'll get warned. ===== + Show Spoiler +If your [Stream] thread was moved to the general TL Stream subforum (aka SC stream land), find your thread and PM it to me and I'll move it back to LoL territory. I can argue with staff that moving a non-SC thread into a SC subforum is just asking for that thread to get buried.
- Neo, Dec. 15 2011, 6:33 KST I have admin approval. I'll be moving LoL streams back to the subforum. Stream name will be based on Summoner name. - Neo 7:07 KST |
United States37500 Posts
saint rolling kids at 1200 elo as a 16 0 2 Shaco in 22 minutes. All is right in the world.
On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them?
Trynd should have an advantage at all stages. He poses more of a thread at any point during the laning phase as well as early team fights. Nas wins if he somehow obtains more farm than Trynd at late game and Trynd has been setback a great deal.
At equal farm, Trynd is still more of a threat.
|
On December 21 2011 13:19 tobi9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 12:58 r.Evo wrote:
Honestly... if I was Riot I'd ban any of his smurfs on stream too. That's what TL would do and it seems to work out well. =P UMMMMM as much as I'd like to agree uhhhhhh ... what? If Random TLer 1 and Respected TL member 2 were in the same league of legends game, and a mod was moderating it like a forum thread....... Random TLer 1 locks in jungle after Respected TL member 2 calls it. then Random TLer 1 banned. So, if TL moderators were in charge of what went down, the guy who picked jungle after Saint called it would be gone.
A) i wouldn't say that 'calling' your role is grounds for trolling if you dont get it.
B) i was under the impression that the random guy 'called' it first anyways
C) you're totally dodging the point that sv was banned for his reaction to what happened, so regardless of how you toss it, saint deserved to be banned. If you establish that the random guy was also trolling, then if you want 'justice' then they both get banned, not saint getting off. if you want to be mad, be mad that the other guy didn't get banned, not that saint did.
|
On December 21 2011 13:26 NeoIllusions wrote:saint rolling kids at 1200 elo as a 16 0 2 Shaco in 22 minutes. All is right in the world. Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them? Trynd should have an advantage at all stages. He poses more of a thread at any point during the laning phase as well as early team fights. Nas wins if he somehow obtains more farm than Trynd at late game and Trynd has been setback a great deal. At equal farm, Trynd is still more of a threat.
But who is supposed to win the lane? Or does it just turns into a farm fest?
|
On December 21 2011 13:30 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:26 NeoIllusions wrote:saint rolling kids at 1200 elo as a 16 0 2 Shaco in 22 minutes. All is right in the world. On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them? Trynd should have an advantage at all stages. He poses more of a thread at any point during the laning phase as well as early team fights. Nas wins if he somehow obtains more farm than Trynd at late game and Trynd has been setback a great deal. At equal farm, Trynd is still more of a threat. But who is supposed to win the lane? Or does it just turns into a farm fest?
idk with the nerfs (tho i doubt they amount to much in this matchup) but trynd should either win the lane, or force a farmfest. if farmfest and it comes down to junglers, trynd is harder to gank, so he has an advantage there too.
edit: i feel like trynd should win the lane due to the fact that nasus has to be close to cs, hence you;re going to get crits off on him
|
United States37500 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:30 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:26 NeoIllusions wrote:saint rolling kids at 1200 elo as a 16 0 2 Shaco in 22 minutes. All is right in the world. On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them? Trynd should have an advantage at all stages. He poses more of a thread at any point during the laning phase as well as early team fights. Nas wins if he somehow obtains more farm than Trynd at late game and Trynd has been setback a great deal. At equal farm, Trynd is still more of a threat. But who is supposed to win the lane? Or does it just turns into a farm fest?
1v1, it's a farmfest with both champions with some form of sustain. Trynd can get an advantage with lucky crits when the two trade hits. I see no way Nas "wins" lane and comes out on top without a gank.
Edit: What BEAR says is also very accurate. If you incorporate gank possibilities for both sides, Trynd can get away with spin, on top of his summoners. Nas only has summoners. Nas can only Wither one champion while retreating, Trynd will chicken in response too.
|
On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them?
Well, Trynd definitely wins this pure 1v1 setting because Nasus isn't ranged and can't hurt Trynd enough to push him out of lane.
But Nasus is generally the winner because he can support a gank better with his wither than Tryndamere can.
How you always want to play is of course out last hit them.
The BEST way to win lane is by watching this video on zoning
It is incredibly effective if you are Nasus because you can just last hit forever, and then can punish over extenders hard with your W.
|
ah ok. I guess I was laning vs bad tryndameres then. Who should be able to beat tryn in lane?
Edit @tobi thanks for that link, I'll check it out when I'm on my pc later 
|
On December 21 2011 13:16 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:03 Ecael wrote:On December 21 2011 12:48 NeoIllusions wrote:On December 21 2011 12:29 Ecael wrote:On December 21 2011 12:16 NeoIllusions wrote:
Riot may not be everywhere, but their PR team is top notch. Eh, bullshit. I'd rather see him troll and get away with it because the due process sucks rather than knowing that Rioters will ban at a whim. What the ban reflects to me is not that Riot cares about the playerbase, but that it is willing to hang people randomly to set an example. It might have been a good PR move, but it reflects horribly upon the way things work currently far as I am concerned. There are plenty of shit players who get away with consistently worse behavior than what Saint did one game. Saint was a dick for intentionally fucking the guy over, but getting banned just because some Rioters caught sight of it in action when dozens more troll consistently and are shown in streams, albeit not their own? zzz On December 21 2011 12:12 overt wrote:On December 21 2011 12:00 Parnage wrote:
It also weakens the thing they are promoting. "You should use tribunal and report them, but don't worry we'll just ban the guy at first game we see because we happened to be watching" The Tribunal bans no one. It just tells Riot, "these people should be punished." Most tribunal cases end in a warning from Riot and nothing more. It's only repeat offenders who, after being warned, don't correct their behavior that get temp banned. Pendragon just did an AMA on how the Tribunal works on reddit. Basically, all of this talk about it going through the process is irrelevant since Riot has always banned people when they see something ban worthy. They rarely perm ban people. It's a pretty cool methodology of wanting players to just improve their attitude rather than just flat out punish them forever. It's three fuckin' days. Maybe now saint won't tell people, "I'll throw games and make more money than you doing it" or follow people around stealing their CS. And again, it probably wasn't just for one game. He was being a dick to other people earlier today too.Nevermind. He was banned for just that one game. I agree with Riot's reasoning though. Frankly I feel like this promotes bad behavior more than anything else. How much bitching and taunting do you see people do about how the tribunal doesn't work? Fortunately for me, I am not saint and I don't play with a stream for thousands of people. So I guess since the tribunal doesn't do shit and Riot is only going to bother banning when they are personally watching, well, I'll just be an ass all I want. Chances of me running into a rioter is slim, the development from tribunal to an actual ban even slimmer. Riot has other ways of enforcing good behavior on stream, what happened to all the people who were saying how the featured streamer function does exactly that? You troll on stream, you don't get featured. Simple and clear cut. You troll on stream at a bad time and get banned? What kind of random rules are we going by here to ban? Has one game always weighted that much? What happens to all the people who get slapped on the wrist (not even) for similar behavior in one game due to tribunal? Meh, to me, this is as much of an abuse as the whole affair with Psyonic, if anything, it is worse because people actually looks at it positively. due process? wat? People need to not bring real life law to the interwebs as the basis of their argument. This is like people crying freedom of speech on forums. The Tribunal is not a real trial. There is no due process. You do realize the same thing happens here on TL, right? Mods ban users when they see it. Sometimes people get away with things worse than what we ban for due to oversight. Does that reflect poorly on TL that we don't catch every infraction? To me, moderators anywhere can ban on a whim if the reason is justified. You aren't going to catch every infraction, you handle the ones you do see. zzz Except that what kept TL's posting standards to a certain level is not that moderators catch every infraction, but a high enough rate of them reacting that people stop and think twice about doing dumb shit. To put that in perspective, it would be having a PR guy watching all of the public streams and ban every time they see someone step out of line. If they could do that and actually show the idea that Riot is monitoring the streams, then I wouldn't find the idea as appalling. The thing with Saint looks more to me that one of the Rioters had a gut reaction, pulled the trigger and PR people ran along to make it sound better. The Tribunal is nothing like a trial, it is a pretty good PR system that also, hopefully, gets people to not do dumb shit because of the pressure of peer review. So to use a TL analogy, it is the report post button we get after posting on TL for so long. The idea being that we report and flag posts for moderators who hand out judgment based on the highlighted post. The situation with LoL though is nothing like how it operates on TL. Where we can see the result of our reports because of a much smaller population, LoL's player base is much higher and we hardly get the idea that the report function works. Then you follow up with a PR talk about how the report function, in fact, doesn't actually report. That people only act upon the reports after a literal ton of offenses. But, if you are unlucky, you run into a Riot employee and get banned. It isn't a problem to not ban every problem child, it is however a problem to give the notion that such bans are infrequent and purely luck based. The ban on Saint, to me, enforces the latter view much more than it does anything else when put in contrast of the behavior you catch on stream. So to me this is just a farce, if a mod is only going to look once a day on a specific day, you might as well as never look and preserve the idea that you are watching. Honestly I think they'd get across the message for players to behave better if they banned, at random, people who got flagged in the tribunal and never explained anything. The inconsistency is an encouragement for the masses to troll, not a warning against bad behavior. Ok, there's is a lot more that I agree with in this post than your previous. Your assessment of TL is correct, LoL's population is huge in comparison, so it's no wonder that it's more difficult to moderate. It is a pity that Riot doesn't have a more active system to weed out the trash in our community. Yes, the individual banning of saint does make it look like Riot's actions are infrequent and purely luck based but I wouldn't let saint skate off scot free because of how it would look retroactively. No, I don't see Riot inconsistency as an encouragement to trolls. Trolls can view Riot as slow, in which they are, but they aren't incompetent. Trolls will get caught "eventually", it's up to the individual if they want to play that game. If they see an infraction, Riot handles it. There's no just reason to just let it slide out of some semblance of consistency (we're watching but we're really not) when the semblance is false. Riot should deal with what they can and strive for more consistency thereon.
Meh, it is coming down to a pretty fundamental difference in how we view things. But I guess that tends to be the case with disagreements like this.
A huge player base makes for difficulty in moderation, but to me that only highlights the importance of consistency. Like I said in the previous post, I feel like there is a better way of moderating streamers in the featured streamer system. They can cook up explanations about the Saint ban using the Tribunal if they acted a few days later to both suggest that the tribunal is working and that they place an importance on certain players. While it still makes for inconsistencies in how cases are handled, it demonstrates to the average players that idea that Big Brother is watching us all, not just that particular tall one here.
I used to watch a lot more EU streams, then I caught a streak of games with this one guy, QUESTIONMARKHERE or something like that, where he just trolled every game and everyone in the game bitched about how endless reports don't work, then I shut off the stream in disgust and boredom. A few weeks later I look at random EU stream again and see that guy in game, still trolling. I then yawned and hardly watch EU streams unless I know that some team is doing 5s. Even if they get caught eventually, well, the rate is slow enough to not matter. Heck, the risk of running into a rioter seems to be higher. Doing what they can and strive for consistency in what they manage to do is nice, but it is so infrequent that I feel like they'd get a better result overall even if they have to present a falsified image on how things are.
In the end, I'd much rather getting the feeling that people are watching, even if they are not, rather than knowing that they aren't watching 99.9% of the time and it is up to chance to determine who gets fucked that 0.1% of the time. Or alternatively, if they can actually throw out a punishment harsh enough to make a 0.1% chance of running into a Rioter to be not worth it, that'd do too. The risk to actual punishment ratio is just too low to warrant any change in behavior.
|
On December 21 2011 13:38 Ecael wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:16 NeoIllusions wrote:On December 21 2011 13:03 Ecael wrote:On December 21 2011 12:48 NeoIllusions wrote:On December 21 2011 12:29 Ecael wrote:On December 21 2011 12:16 NeoIllusions wrote:
Riot may not be everywhere, but their PR team is top notch. Eh, bullshit. I'd rather see him troll and get away with it because the due process sucks rather than knowing that Rioters will ban at a whim. What the ban reflects to me is not that Riot cares about the playerbase, but that it is willing to hang people randomly to set an example. It might have been a good PR move, but it reflects horribly upon the way things work currently far as I am concerned. There are plenty of shit players who get away with consistently worse behavior than what Saint did one game. Saint was a dick for intentionally fucking the guy over, but getting banned just because some Rioters caught sight of it in action when dozens more troll consistently and are shown in streams, albeit not their own? zzz On December 21 2011 12:12 overt wrote:On December 21 2011 12:00 Parnage wrote:
It also weakens the thing they are promoting. "You should use tribunal and report them, but don't worry we'll just ban the guy at first game we see because we happened to be watching" The Tribunal bans no one. It just tells Riot, "these people should be punished." Most tribunal cases end in a warning from Riot and nothing more. It's only repeat offenders who, after being warned, don't correct their behavior that get temp banned. Pendragon just did an AMA on how the Tribunal works on reddit. Basically, all of this talk about it going through the process is irrelevant since Riot has always banned people when they see something ban worthy. They rarely perm ban people. It's a pretty cool methodology of wanting players to just improve their attitude rather than just flat out punish them forever. It's three fuckin' days. Maybe now saint won't tell people, "I'll throw games and make more money than you doing it" or follow people around stealing their CS. And again, it probably wasn't just for one game. He was being a dick to other people earlier today too.Nevermind. He was banned for just that one game. I agree with Riot's reasoning though. Frankly I feel like this promotes bad behavior more than anything else. How much bitching and taunting do you see people do about how the tribunal doesn't work? Fortunately for me, I am not saint and I don't play with a stream for thousands of people. So I guess since the tribunal doesn't do shit and Riot is only going to bother banning when they are personally watching, well, I'll just be an ass all I want. Chances of me running into a rioter is slim, the development from tribunal to an actual ban even slimmer. Riot has other ways of enforcing good behavior on stream, what happened to all the people who were saying how the featured streamer function does exactly that? You troll on stream, you don't get featured. Simple and clear cut. You troll on stream at a bad time and get banned? What kind of random rules are we going by here to ban? Has one game always weighted that much? What happens to all the people who get slapped on the wrist (not even) for similar behavior in one game due to tribunal? Meh, to me, this is as much of an abuse as the whole affair with Psyonic, if anything, it is worse because people actually looks at it positively. due process? wat? People need to not bring real life law to the interwebs as the basis of their argument. This is like people crying freedom of speech on forums. The Tribunal is not a real trial. There is no due process. You do realize the same thing happens here on TL, right? Mods ban users when they see it. Sometimes people get away with things worse than what we ban for due to oversight. Does that reflect poorly on TL that we don't catch every infraction? To me, moderators anywhere can ban on a whim if the reason is justified. You aren't going to catch every infraction, you handle the ones you do see. zzz Except that what kept TL's posting standards to a certain level is not that moderators catch every infraction, but a high enough rate of them reacting that people stop and think twice about doing dumb shit. To put that in perspective, it would be having a PR guy watching all of the public streams and ban every time they see someone step out of line. If they could do that and actually show the idea that Riot is monitoring the streams, then I wouldn't find the idea as appalling. The thing with Saint looks more to me that one of the Rioters had a gut reaction, pulled the trigger and PR people ran along to make it sound better. The Tribunal is nothing like a trial, it is a pretty good PR system that also, hopefully, gets people to not do dumb shit because of the pressure of peer review. So to use a TL analogy, it is the report post button we get after posting on TL for so long. The idea being that we report and flag posts for moderators who hand out judgment based on the highlighted post. The situation with LoL though is nothing like how it operates on TL. Where we can see the result of our reports because of a much smaller population, LoL's player base is much higher and we hardly get the idea that the report function works. Then you follow up with a PR talk about how the report function, in fact, doesn't actually report. That people only act upon the reports after a literal ton of offenses. But, if you are unlucky, you run into a Riot employee and get banned. It isn't a problem to not ban every problem child, it is however a problem to give the notion that such bans are infrequent and purely luck based. The ban on Saint, to me, enforces the latter view much more than it does anything else when put in contrast of the behavior you catch on stream. So to me this is just a farce, if a mod is only going to look once a day on a specific day, you might as well as never look and preserve the idea that you are watching. Honestly I think they'd get across the message for players to behave better if they banned, at random, people who got flagged in the tribunal and never explained anything. The inconsistency is an encouragement for the masses to troll, not a warning against bad behavior. Ok, there's is a lot more that I agree with in this post than your previous. Your assessment of TL is correct, LoL's population is huge in comparison, so it's no wonder that it's more difficult to moderate. It is a pity that Riot doesn't have a more active system to weed out the trash in our community. Yes, the individual banning of saint does make it look like Riot's actions are infrequent and purely luck based but I wouldn't let saint skate off scot free because of how it would look retroactively. No, I don't see Riot inconsistency as an encouragement to trolls. Trolls can view Riot as slow, in which they are, but they aren't incompetent. Trolls will get caught "eventually", it's up to the individual if they want to play that game. If they see an infraction, Riot handles it. There's no just reason to just let it slide out of some semblance of consistency (we're watching but we're really not) when the semblance is false. Riot should deal with what they can and strive for more consistency thereon. Meh, it is coming down to a pretty fundamental difference in how we view things. But I guess that tends to be the case with disagreements like this. A huge player base makes for difficulty in moderation, but to me that only highlights the importance of consistency. Like I said in the previous post, I feel like there is a better way of moderating streamers in the featured streamer system. They can cook up explanations about the Saint ban using the Tribunal if they acted a few days later to both suggest that the tribunal is working and that they place an importance on certain players. While it still makes for inconsistencies in how cases are handled, it demonstrates to the average players that idea that Big Brother is watching us all, not just that particular tall one here. I used to watch a lot more EU streams, then I caught a streak of games with this one guy, QUESTIONMARKHERE or something like that, where he just trolled every game and everyone in the game bitched about how endless reports don't work, then I shut off the stream in disgust and boredom. A few weeks later I look at random EU stream again and see that guy in game, still trolling. I then yawned and hardly watch EU streams unless I know that some team is doing 5s. Even if they get caught eventually, well, the rate is slow enough to not matter. Heck, the risk of running into a rioter seems to be higher. Doing what they can and strive for consistency in what they manage to do is nice, but it is so infrequent that I feel like they'd get a better result overall even if they have to present a falsified image on how things are. In the end, I'd much rather getting the feeling that people are watching, even if they are not, rather than knowing that they aren't watching 99.9% of the time and it is up to chance to determine who gets fucked that 0.1% of the time.
TBH, i'd rather riot be inconsistent but try to be correct in the bans that they DO make, rather than be consistently lax all the time.
|
So I just did some math regarding last whisper, because I wanted to know how good it was. So here are some numbers, assuming no flat penetration (which makes last whisper worse) and assuming the 10% penetration talent from offense. Taking or not taking that talent doesn't do a whole lot to the numbers, but I just assumed anyone picking last whisper up will have that talent anyway.
Armor - Increase in damage from the 40% armor penetration.
80 - 20%
150 - 30%
278 - 40%
Here is the function with plot:
+ Show Spoiler +
This makes last whisper look quite bad compared to picking up something like a phantom dancer for an auto attacking champ. Having an infinity edge (and the offense talent), a phantom dancer will net you a 48% damage increase on critchance alone. Then there is the attack speed from PD, and LW has flat AD. But I am too tired and lazy right now to calculate those against each other.
|
On December 21 2011 13:40 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:38 Ecael wrote:On December 21 2011 13:16 NeoIllusions wrote:On December 21 2011 13:03 Ecael wrote:On December 21 2011 12:48 NeoIllusions wrote:On December 21 2011 12:29 Ecael wrote:On December 21 2011 12:16 NeoIllusions wrote:
Riot may not be everywhere, but their PR team is top notch. Eh, bullshit. I'd rather see him troll and get away with it because the due process sucks rather than knowing that Rioters will ban at a whim. What the ban reflects to me is not that Riot cares about the playerbase, but that it is willing to hang people randomly to set an example. It might have been a good PR move, but it reflects horribly upon the way things work currently far as I am concerned. There are plenty of shit players who get away with consistently worse behavior than what Saint did one game. Saint was a dick for intentionally fucking the guy over, but getting banned just because some Rioters caught sight of it in action when dozens more troll consistently and are shown in streams, albeit not their own? zzz On December 21 2011 12:12 overt wrote:On December 21 2011 12:00 Parnage wrote:
It also weakens the thing they are promoting. "You should use tribunal and report them, but don't worry we'll just ban the guy at first game we see because we happened to be watching" The Tribunal bans no one. It just tells Riot, "these people should be punished." Most tribunal cases end in a warning from Riot and nothing more. It's only repeat offenders who, after being warned, don't correct their behavior that get temp banned. Pendragon just did an AMA on how the Tribunal works on reddit. Basically, all of this talk about it going through the process is irrelevant since Riot has always banned people when they see something ban worthy. They rarely perm ban people. It's a pretty cool methodology of wanting players to just improve their attitude rather than just flat out punish them forever. It's three fuckin' days. Maybe now saint won't tell people, "I'll throw games and make more money than you doing it" or follow people around stealing their CS. And again, it probably wasn't just for one game. He was being a dick to other people earlier today too.Nevermind. He was banned for just that one game. I agree with Riot's reasoning though. Frankly I feel like this promotes bad behavior more than anything else. How much bitching and taunting do you see people do about how the tribunal doesn't work? Fortunately for me, I am not saint and I don't play with a stream for thousands of people. So I guess since the tribunal doesn't do shit and Riot is only going to bother banning when they are personally watching, well, I'll just be an ass all I want. Chances of me running into a rioter is slim, the development from tribunal to an actual ban even slimmer. Riot has other ways of enforcing good behavior on stream, what happened to all the people who were saying how the featured streamer function does exactly that? You troll on stream, you don't get featured. Simple and clear cut. You troll on stream at a bad time and get banned? What kind of random rules are we going by here to ban? Has one game always weighted that much? What happens to all the people who get slapped on the wrist (not even) for similar behavior in one game due to tribunal? Meh, to me, this is as much of an abuse as the whole affair with Psyonic, if anything, it is worse because people actually looks at it positively. due process? wat? People need to not bring real life law to the interwebs as the basis of their argument. This is like people crying freedom of speech on forums. The Tribunal is not a real trial. There is no due process. You do realize the same thing happens here on TL, right? Mods ban users when they see it. Sometimes people get away with things worse than what we ban for due to oversight. Does that reflect poorly on TL that we don't catch every infraction? To me, moderators anywhere can ban on a whim if the reason is justified. You aren't going to catch every infraction, you handle the ones you do see. zzz Except that what kept TL's posting standards to a certain level is not that moderators catch every infraction, but a high enough rate of them reacting that people stop and think twice about doing dumb shit. To put that in perspective, it would be having a PR guy watching all of the public streams and ban every time they see someone step out of line. If they could do that and actually show the idea that Riot is monitoring the streams, then I wouldn't find the idea as appalling. The thing with Saint looks more to me that one of the Rioters had a gut reaction, pulled the trigger and PR people ran along to make it sound better. The Tribunal is nothing like a trial, it is a pretty good PR system that also, hopefully, gets people to not do dumb shit because of the pressure of peer review. So to use a TL analogy, it is the report post button we get after posting on TL for so long. The idea being that we report and flag posts for moderators who hand out judgment based on the highlighted post. The situation with LoL though is nothing like how it operates on TL. Where we can see the result of our reports because of a much smaller population, LoL's player base is much higher and we hardly get the idea that the report function works. Then you follow up with a PR talk about how the report function, in fact, doesn't actually report. That people only act upon the reports after a literal ton of offenses. But, if you are unlucky, you run into a Riot employee and get banned. It isn't a problem to not ban every problem child, it is however a problem to give the notion that such bans are infrequent and purely luck based. The ban on Saint, to me, enforces the latter view much more than it does anything else when put in contrast of the behavior you catch on stream. So to me this is just a farce, if a mod is only going to look once a day on a specific day, you might as well as never look and preserve the idea that you are watching. Honestly I think they'd get across the message for players to behave better if they banned, at random, people who got flagged in the tribunal and never explained anything. The inconsistency is an encouragement for the masses to troll, not a warning against bad behavior. Ok, there's is a lot more that I agree with in this post than your previous. Your assessment of TL is correct, LoL's population is huge in comparison, so it's no wonder that it's more difficult to moderate. It is a pity that Riot doesn't have a more active system to weed out the trash in our community. Yes, the individual banning of saint does make it look like Riot's actions are infrequent and purely luck based but I wouldn't let saint skate off scot free because of how it would look retroactively. No, I don't see Riot inconsistency as an encouragement to trolls. Trolls can view Riot as slow, in which they are, but they aren't incompetent. Trolls will get caught "eventually", it's up to the individual if they want to play that game. If they see an infraction, Riot handles it. There's no just reason to just let it slide out of some semblance of consistency (we're watching but we're really not) when the semblance is false. Riot should deal with what they can and strive for more consistency thereon. Meh, it is coming down to a pretty fundamental difference in how we view things. But I guess that tends to be the case with disagreements like this. A huge player base makes for difficulty in moderation, but to me that only highlights the importance of consistency. Like I said in the previous post, I feel like there is a better way of moderating streamers in the featured streamer system. They can cook up explanations about the Saint ban using the Tribunal if they acted a few days later to both suggest that the tribunal is working and that they place an importance on certain players. While it still makes for inconsistencies in how cases are handled, it demonstrates to the average players that idea that Big Brother is watching us all, not just that particular tall one here. I used to watch a lot more EU streams, then I caught a streak of games with this one guy, QUESTIONMARKHERE or something like that, where he just trolled every game and everyone in the game bitched about how endless reports don't work, then I shut off the stream in disgust and boredom. A few weeks later I look at random EU stream again and see that guy in game, still trolling. I then yawned and hardly watch EU streams unless I know that some team is doing 5s. Even if they get caught eventually, well, the rate is slow enough to not matter. Heck, the risk of running into a rioter seems to be higher. Doing what they can and strive for consistency in what they manage to do is nice, but it is so infrequent that I feel like they'd get a better result overall even if they have to present a falsified image on how things are. In the end, I'd much rather getting the feeling that people are watching, even if they are not, rather than knowing that they aren't watching 99.9% of the time and it is up to chance to determine who gets fucked that 0.1% of the time. TBH, i'd rather riot be inconsistent but try to be correct in the bans that they DO make, rather than be consistently lax all the time.
Yeah I just edited the end a bit, if they can be inconsistently harsh enough in their bans (perm, IP) then I'll take that. The current situation is more like that the punishments are meted out at an inconsistent rate, but consistently lukewarm in measure.
The thing though is that with people's money tied into accounts and Riot not having the balls that Valve has, they aren't gonna be able to do much more than a slap on the wrist. Maybe they'll prove me wrong yet, but until they can dish out some harsher punishments, I feel like a consistent system would get more players to behave better.
|
SV going for mad snowballs on nunu @ low Elo. Real silly.
(QUADRA KILL)
|
On December 21 2011 13:37 tobi9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them? Well, Trynd definitely wins this pure 1v1 setting because Nasus isn't ranged and can't hurt Trynd enough to push him out of lane. But Nasus is generally the winner because he can support a gank better with his wither than Tryndamere can. How you always want to play is of course out last hit them. The BEST way to win lane is by watching this video on zoningIt is incredibly effective if you are Nasus because you can just last hit forever, and then can punish over extenders hard with your W.
video is so good.
|
On December 21 2011 14:34 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:37 tobi9999 wrote:On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them? Well, Trynd definitely wins this pure 1v1 setting because Nasus isn't ranged and can't hurt Trynd enough to push him out of lane. But Nasus is generally the winner because he can support a gank better with his wither than Tryndamere can. How you always want to play is of course out last hit them. The BEST way to win lane is by watching this video on zoningIt is incredibly effective if you are Nasus because you can just last hit forever, and then can punish over extenders hard with your W. video is so good.
Actually, this fails 90% of the time because junglers don't know how to play the game.
Many times, junglers have pushed my lane, and I have had to deal with this. Or I'm in the process of doing it and my jungler clears the fucking wave.
And then they blame me for losing lane after they take 7 waves.
On another note, wish I was 1200 ELO or w/e so I could queue and pray to get in the same game as Saint and camp him in jungle whether on ally or enemy team bahahahaha.
|
On December 21 2011 13:41 h3r1n6 wrote:
Having an infinity edge (and the offense talent), a phantom dancer will net you a 48% damage increase on critchance alone. Then there is the attack speed from PD, and LW has flat AD. But I am too tired and lazy right now to calculate those against each other.
You don't seem to be accounting for the fact that IE already provides 25% crit chance (+4% from masteries). The crit from the PD actually only contributes ~33% more damage. Also, I was under the impression many ranged carries got zeal/PD before LW anyway.
|
On December 21 2011 14:45 tobi9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 14:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 21 2011 13:37 tobi9999 wrote:On December 21 2011 13:22 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
In the top lane matchup - Nasus vs tryn - who is supposed to have the advantage? Also how should you optimally open for both of them? Well, Trynd definitely wins this pure 1v1 setting because Nasus isn't ranged and can't hurt Trynd enough to push him out of lane. But Nasus is generally the winner because he can support a gank better with his wither than Tryndamere can. How you always want to play is of course out last hit them. The BEST way to win lane is by watching this video on zoningIt is incredibly effective if you are Nasus because you can just last hit forever, and then can punish over extenders hard with your W. video is so good. Actually, this fails 90% of the time because junglers don't know how to play the game. Many times, junglers have pushed my lane, and I have had to deal with this. Or I'm in the process of doing it and my jungler clears the fucking wave. And then they blame me for losing lane after they take 7 waves. On another note, wish I was 1200 ELO or w/e so I could queue and pray to get in the same game as Saint and camp him in jungle whether on ally or enemy team bahahahaha.
I like the video cause the guy is obviously an intelligent being who plays LoL
in other news, i got a Dota 2 key. im done with this game for a while ^_^
|
I actually don't agree managing your lane like that. It can be so easily exploited by their top lane and their jungler. For example, if either of their top or jungler is tanky or mobile enough to tank towers, you're probably going to die under your tower (ie cho and gp - of course many more combinations will work). And with that much missed cs, you probably lost your lane in the worst manner possible (if they're not stupid to destroy your cs consuming tower).
Just saw the last half of the video. I take back what I said. This method of lane management can work if you're already winning your lane as hard as his yorick was to irelia.
|
On December 21 2011 14:49 fasdaf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 13:41 h3r1n6 wrote:
Having an infinity edge (and the offense talent), a phantom dancer will net you a 48% damage increase on critchance alone. Then there is the attack speed from PD, and LW has flat AD. But I am too tired and lazy right now to calculate those against each other.
You don't seem to be accounting for the fact that IE already provides 25% crit chance (+4% from masteries). The crit from the PD actually only contributes ~33% more damage. Also, I was under the impression many ranged carries got zeal/PD before LW anyway.
yeah could you run the numbers on having IE/PD and IE/PD/BT? LW is usually a really late item. some streamer (I forget who) commented that it's called last whisper because you build it last.
|
Whoa Saint knows how to last hit O_O
|
Riot, please buff Karma.
-Thx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.hawnutor.org/image/nOEUtaH.png)
