|
ali/fiddle/galio/malz all got new champ icon pics
|
On January 11 2012 05:33 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:18 turdburgler wrote:On January 11 2012 04:39 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 04:23 turdburgler wrote:On January 11 2012 04:07 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:40 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 03:30 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:06 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 02:59 wei2coolman wrote:
Did anyone notice that after the jungle changes that the frequency of ganks have actually gone up?
I remember a few weeks back, everyone was ridiculing how the new jungle was going to be a farm fest, (I even said this myself). Damn was I wrong. I'm gonna be impressed how all the "riot are morons who are ruining their own game" crowd are gonna contort themselves to neither admit they were wrong nor give riot any credit. I'm not going to admit that I was wrong or give riot any credit because the game is so much worse now than it was 3 months ago that it's not even fucking funny. new masteries and new jungle were both huge net changes for the worse. so sure, the jungle changes ended up not playing out how some of us expected them to, but that doesn't mean I enjoy getting camped top lane for the first 5 minutes of the game with essentially no consequence. Sorry, I don't want to start a fight here but I'm genuinely confused. When all the changes came through I though the main complaint people had was passivity, especially in the early game. And riot acknowledged that and said their changes were aimed at resolving that. And the response of the community was that the changes would just make the game more passive not less (and thes complaints accomanied by much bitching and name-calling directed at riot). Only that turns out to be wrong and the game is less passive. You seem (to me) to be complaining that you can't just passively free-farm like you could before - but I though that was exactly what the changes were supposed to do. MAYBE you could turn around and say "hey the GOAL of the changes is bad" but isn't that the fault of the community for bitching at riot about a problem that wasn't really a problem? I'm complaining that I can't play an aggressive laner top because I will just get camped. You know what the net impact on my character selection is due to the new changes? no more pantheon top, no more jarman top. now I only pick assholes who have absurd sustain or can play completely passively in lane and still manage to succeed. I'm not even trying to play 1v1 matchups anymore because you'll get burnt for that more often than not. It's more worthwhile to only make plays with your jungler now because chances are the opposing jungler is camping you too, because seriously, what the fuck else is he going to do? Look, they saw a passivity problem and they approached it the wrong way. Here are the real passivity problems: 1. High sustain and/or high difficulty gank targets @ top lane who scale well with farm into late game (Yorrick, Nidalee, Trynd, Riven, GP) 2. Blue buff on APs who can clear creep waves quickly (zzzzz, instafarming every wave in the shortest lane, so exciting...) 3. No way to gank bot lane vs. a good support FFS, the part of the game that needed the least work in terms of active play was the jungle, and it's where they put all their effort. Before the change, golems -> level 2 gank a lane was a viable and popular strategy. Early ganks were all over the place and they were strong, but back then they had an oppurtunity cost in terms of how they set you back compared to someone who was actually farming the jungle and possibly counterjungling your jungle. Fast 6 routes and early dragon threats were legitimate threats from a jungler who chose not to do early gank, it introduced an interesting gameplay decision, but now if you don't gank early and often, you're still lucky to get a level on someone who doesn't even succeed with their jungle ganks and even without kills, the level of lane presence they provide to their lanes while you farm the jungle will typically at worse break even in terms of the free cs they give their team vs. the cs you get from jungling. so you suggest what to punish people more for failing ganks? more jungle xp in general? less of it on the buff mobs? less xp but even easier / faster packs? since its not going to go back to how it was before so even if you hate the current version asking for the old version is just wasting your own time :D On January 11 2012 04:31 clickrush wrote:
your team deserves to lose when you dont get help while enemy jungler camps lane constantly. things like this make the game much more interesting to watch and to play imo. the more active the junglers the better. sorry but you guys just don't get it and I'm not going to waste my time with a real response. if you think the game is better off now than it was before, we have nowhere to go. I think what I'm asking for is pretty damn clear, if you haven't figured it out yet, IT'S AN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY DECISION INSTEAD OF CAMP LANE vs. LOSE THE GAME. i do get it. why are you so angry? your spending 90% of your post saying this is shit this is shit this is shit then going with the vague, they dont have to make any choices. how can we discuss how to do it differently if you arent outlining how the choices arent big enough and then how to change them etc? if camping lanes is just so effective then how about talking about adjusting lane width, or the sight around the river and the bushes that exist there. maybe increase starting gold to allow for a dorans + ward opening etc etc. the fact is i dont think anyone sees riot just flat out reverting the changes so you need to be pragmatic. Altering the map has been discussed to death. Junglers don't need to "camp" top to decide the matchup, they just need to come there ~2 times early and do even a little bit of damage or effective zoning. Top lanes are hugely binary, much like any lane with an assassin. The asymmetry of the map really hurts certain matchups a lot.
so if its been discussed to death we should just bitch and ask for the impossible ? :D
maybe they just need to change baron to a second dragon, make the dragon get stronger at set points in time until it becomes a baron late game, maybe with a scaling buff maybe not. maybe thats stupid :D but who knows. im angry and fuck you for asking isnt going anywhere though
|
On January 11 2012 05:18 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:39 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 04:23 turdburgler wrote:On January 11 2012 04:07 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:40 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 03:30 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:06 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 02:59 wei2coolman wrote:
Did anyone notice that after the jungle changes that the frequency of ganks have actually gone up?
I remember a few weeks back, everyone was ridiculing how the new jungle was going to be a farm fest, (I even said this myself). Damn was I wrong. I'm gonna be impressed how all the "riot are morons who are ruining their own game" crowd are gonna contort themselves to neither admit they were wrong nor give riot any credit. I'm not going to admit that I was wrong or give riot any credit because the game is so much worse now than it was 3 months ago that it's not even fucking funny. new masteries and new jungle were both huge net changes for the worse. so sure, the jungle changes ended up not playing out how some of us expected them to, but that doesn't mean I enjoy getting camped top lane for the first 5 minutes of the game with essentially no consequence. Sorry, I don't want to start a fight here but I'm genuinely confused. When all the changes came through I though the main complaint people had was passivity, especially in the early game. And riot acknowledged that and said their changes were aimed at resolving that. And the response of the community was that the changes would just make the game more passive not less (and thes complaints accomanied by much bitching and name-calling directed at riot). Only that turns out to be wrong and the game is less passive. You seem (to me) to be complaining that you can't just passively free-farm like you could before - but I though that was exactly what the changes were supposed to do. MAYBE you could turn around and say "hey the GOAL of the changes is bad" but isn't that the fault of the community for bitching at riot about a problem that wasn't really a problem? I'm complaining that I can't play an aggressive laner top because I will just get camped. You know what the net impact on my character selection is due to the new changes? no more pantheon top, no more jarman top. now I only pick assholes who have absurd sustain or can play completely passively in lane and still manage to succeed. I'm not even trying to play 1v1 matchups anymore because you'll get burnt for that more often than not. It's more worthwhile to only make plays with your jungler now because chances are the opposing jungler is camping you too, because seriously, what the fuck else is he going to do? Look, they saw a passivity problem and they approached it the wrong way. Here are the real passivity problems: 1. High sustain and/or high difficulty gank targets @ top lane who scale well with farm into late game (Yorrick, Nidalee, Trynd, Riven, GP) 2. Blue buff on APs who can clear creep waves quickly (zzzzz, instafarming every wave in the shortest lane, so exciting...) 3. No way to gank bot lane vs. a good support FFS, the part of the game that needed the least work in terms of active play was the jungle, and it's where they put all their effort. Before the change, golems -> level 2 gank a lane was a viable and popular strategy. Early ganks were all over the place and they were strong, but back then they had an oppurtunity cost in terms of how they set you back compared to someone who was actually farming the jungle and possibly counterjungling your jungle. Fast 6 routes and early dragon threats were legitimate threats from a jungler who chose not to do early gank, it introduced an interesting gameplay decision, but now if you don't gank early and often, you're still lucky to get a level on someone who doesn't even succeed with their jungle ganks and even without kills, the level of lane presence they provide to their lanes while you farm the jungle will typically at worse break even in terms of the free cs they give their team vs. the cs you get from jungling. so you suggest what to punish people more for failing ganks? more jungle xp in general? less of it on the buff mobs? less xp but even easier / faster packs? since its not going to go back to how it was before so even if you hate the current version asking for the old version is just wasting your own time :D On January 11 2012 04:31 clickrush wrote:
your team deserves to lose when you dont get help while enemy jungler camps lane constantly. things like this make the game much more interesting to watch and to play imo. the more active the junglers the better. sorry but you guys just don't get it and I'm not going to waste my time with a real response. if you think the game is better off now than it was before, we have nowhere to go. I think what I'm asking for is pretty damn clear, if you haven't figured it out yet, IT'S AN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY DECISION INSTEAD OF CAMP LANE vs. LOSE THE GAME. i do get it. why are you so angry? your spending 90% of your post saying this is shit this is shit this is shit then going with the vague, they dont have to make any choices. how can we discuss how to do it differently if you arent outlining how the choices arent big enough and then how to change them etc? if camping lanes is just so effective then how about talking about adjusting lane width, or the sight around the river and the bushes that exist there. maybe increase starting gold to allow for a dorans + ward opening etc etc. the fact is i dont think anyone sees riot just flat out reverting the changes so you need to be pragmatic.
He might be angry because "you won't get the old jungle back" is a fairly useless point to make. Though it may be a true statement it doesn't meaningfully contribute to the discussion. On a similar note "you aren't suggesting solutions" is also fairly irrelevant when Mogwai's core argument is essentially "I was not wrong when months ago I said the new jungle is worse than the old jungle".
Discussion of how to fix the jungle is a potential tangent/follow-up to what has been discussed these past pages, but for the most part fixing the new jungle hasn't been discussed because whether it needed fixing at all was a point of contention.
|
lol. 2-0 for TSM in under 3 minutes and CLG EU had their red stolen, and reginald has CLG's blue as well. Was looking forward to relaxing a bit and watching the game, but this is probably over.
|
On January 11 2012 06:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote:lol. 2-0 for TSM in under 3 minutes and CLG EU had their red stolen, and reginald has CLG's blue as well.
It's not even a lol, that was fucking embarassing. What were they thinking staying at blue for that long. Also lucky crit for chaox (unless he has crit runes).
|
On January 11 2012 05:04 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:01 Sandster wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking champions you like, Mundo and Urgot included. The reason to first learn standard champions is to understand the role first. Just to second this point. If you pick an unconventional champion, you're telling me you're super good at them and you know 100% you're going to crush your lane with it. Excuses not tolerated. Certain champions are unconventional for a reason, whether it be their lack of laning presence, scaling issues, inability to synergise with their team, or there being superior options. If you knowingly pick something that isn't standard, you better have a very good reason for it. But that's just how I see it.
Is everyone so harsh about this?
Why do I need an excuse for my champion pick? Why do I need to be super good if I pick Urgot, but it's OK if I pick Vayne and am terrible with her?
Note that if you get matched up with me, you're presumably no better with conventional champions than I am with unconventional champions. If you don't tolerate excuses for my character choice, why should I tolerate excuses for your ELO not being higher?
Note that I'm not playing in professional games, or even organized clan matches or whatever. I never try to troll, intentionally hurt the team, or pick unsuitable roles. I won't play champions if they clearly aren't viable at all -- you won't see me building crittlesticks or AD Karma in a ranked game. It just happens to be that most champions I enjoy playing are not the most popular picks (apart from Lee Sin/Nocturne).
But it is a game, and there's a reason we are allowed to choose from so many characters, and there's no imperative to always choose from the same small subset just because they're slightly better/stronger.
If this is the predominant attitude in ranked though, I'll just not play ranked. Since I have no intention of going professional, having a good time is what matters most to me, not my ELO.
|
On January 11 2012 05:46 NotSorry wrote:
ali/fiddle/galio/malz all got new champ icon pics
where can i find these?
|
On January 11 2012 06:07 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:04 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:On January 11 2012 05:01 Sandster wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking champions you like, Mundo and Urgot included. The reason to first learn standard champions is to understand the role first. Just to second this point. If you pick an unconventional champion, you're telling me you're super good at them and you know 100% you're going to crush your lane with it. Excuses not tolerated. Certain champions are unconventional for a reason, whether it be their lack of laning presence, scaling issues, inability to synergise with their team, or there being superior options. If you knowingly pick something that isn't standard, you better have a very good reason for it. But that's just how I see it. Is everyone so harsh about this? Why do I need an excuse for my champion pick? Why do I need to be super good if I pick Urgot, but it's OK if I pick Vayne and am terrible with her?
because you can faceroll your equally terrible opponents with vayne without knowing what you're doing. It's way easier to luck into a combination of plays that produces a win with a strong champion than a shitty one
urgot is a bad example though
|
On January 11 2012 05:18 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:39 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 04:23 turdburgler wrote:On January 11 2012 04:07 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:40 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 03:30 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:06 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 02:59 wei2coolman wrote:
Did anyone notice that after the jungle changes that the frequency of ganks have actually gone up?
I remember a few weeks back, everyone was ridiculing how the new jungle was going to be a farm fest, (I even said this myself). Damn was I wrong. I'm gonna be impressed how all the "riot are morons who are ruining their own game" crowd are gonna contort themselves to neither admit they were wrong nor give riot any credit. I'm not going to admit that I was wrong or give riot any credit because the game is so much worse now than it was 3 months ago that it's not even fucking funny. new masteries and new jungle were both huge net changes for the worse. so sure, the jungle changes ended up not playing out how some of us expected them to, but that doesn't mean I enjoy getting camped top lane for the first 5 minutes of the game with essentially no consequence. Sorry, I don't want to start a fight here but I'm genuinely confused. When all the changes came through I though the main complaint people had was passivity, especially in the early game. And riot acknowledged that and said their changes were aimed at resolving that. And the response of the community was that the changes would just make the game more passive not less (and thes complaints accomanied by much bitching and name-calling directed at riot). Only that turns out to be wrong and the game is less passive. You seem (to me) to be complaining that you can't just passively free-farm like you could before - but I though that was exactly what the changes were supposed to do. MAYBE you could turn around and say "hey the GOAL of the changes is bad" but isn't that the fault of the community for bitching at riot about a problem that wasn't really a problem? I'm complaining that I can't play an aggressive laner top because I will just get camped. You know what the net impact on my character selection is due to the new changes? no more pantheon top, no more jarman top. now I only pick assholes who have absurd sustain or can play completely passively in lane and still manage to succeed. I'm not even trying to play 1v1 matchups anymore because you'll get burnt for that more often than not. It's more worthwhile to only make plays with your jungler now because chances are the opposing jungler is camping you too, because seriously, what the fuck else is he going to do? Look, they saw a passivity problem and they approached it the wrong way. Here are the real passivity problems: 1. High sustain and/or high difficulty gank targets @ top lane who scale well with farm into late game (Yorrick, Nidalee, Trynd, Riven, GP) 2. Blue buff on APs who can clear creep waves quickly (zzzzz, instafarming every wave in the shortest lane, so exciting...) 3. No way to gank bot lane vs. a good support FFS, the part of the game that needed the least work in terms of active play was the jungle, and it's where they put all their effort. Before the change, golems -> level 2 gank a lane was a viable and popular strategy. Early ganks were all over the place and they were strong, but back then they had an oppurtunity cost in terms of how they set you back compared to someone who was actually farming the jungle and possibly counterjungling your jungle. Fast 6 routes and early dragon threats were legitimate threats from a jungler who chose not to do early gank, it introduced an interesting gameplay decision, but now if you don't gank early and often, you're still lucky to get a level on someone who doesn't even succeed with their jungle ganks and even without kills, the level of lane presence they provide to their lanes while you farm the jungle will typically at worse break even in terms of the free cs they give their team vs. the cs you get from jungling. so you suggest what to punish people more for failing ganks? more jungle xp in general? less of it on the buff mobs? less xp but even easier / faster packs? since its not going to go back to how it was before so even if you hate the current version asking for the old version is just wasting your own time :D On January 11 2012 04:31 clickrush wrote:
your team deserves to lose when you dont get help while enemy jungler camps lane constantly. things like this make the game much more interesting to watch and to play imo. the more active the junglers the better. sorry but you guys just don't get it and I'm not going to waste my time with a real response. if you think the game is better off now than it was before, we have nowhere to go. I think what I'm asking for is pretty damn clear, if you haven't figured it out yet, IT'S AN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY DECISION INSTEAD OF CAMP LANE vs. LOSE THE GAME. i do get it. why are you so angry? your spending 90% of your post saying this is shit this is shit this is shit then going with the vague, they dont have to make any choices. how can we discuss how to do it differently if you arent outlining how the choices arent big enough and then how to change them etc? if camping lanes is just so effective then how about talking about adjusting lane width, or the sight around the river and the bushes that exist there. maybe increase starting gold to allow for a dorans + ward opening etc etc. the fact is i dont think anyone sees riot just flat out reverting the changes so you need to be pragmatic.
who cares? being pragmatic and trying to get Riot to change anything proactively is worthless. there's no way to give worthwhile feedback to Riot in my experience. the only way to get Riot to do anything is be belligerent and bitch about it until you get enough people angry about what you're angry about. presenting legitimate complaints backed up with reasonable analysis gets you nowhere, so I don't see the point. I could probably write a fucking essay called "A Tale of Two Jungles" detailing why the old jungle is better in every single way than the new jungle, but it would just be a waste of my time. Trying to find some crappy middle ground between the two jungles doesn't interest me because we're not looking at any improvements from the old jungle to the new jungle IMO, it was a strict downgrade. And this is not my kneejerk my reaction, this is me tempering my initial reaction and waiting on 2 months of playing with it to pass judgement.
|
On January 11 2012 06:07 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:04 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:On January 11 2012 05:01 Sandster wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking champions you like, Mundo and Urgot included. The reason to first learn standard champions is to understand the role first. Just to second this point. If you pick an unconventional champion, you're telling me you're super good at them and you know 100% you're going to crush your lane with it. Excuses not tolerated. Certain champions are unconventional for a reason, whether it be their lack of laning presence, scaling issues, inability to synergise with their team, or there being superior options. If you knowingly pick something that isn't standard, you better have a very good reason for it. But that's just how I see it. Is everyone so harsh about this? Why do I need an excuse for my champion pick? Why do I need to be super good if I pick Urgot, but it's OK if I pick Vayne and am terrible with her? Note that if you get matched up with me, you're presumably no better with conventional champions than I am with unconventional champions. If you don't tolerate excuses for my character choice, why should I tolerate excuses for your ELO not being higher? Note that I'm not playing in professional games, or even organized clan matches or whatever. I never try to troll, intentionally hurt the team, or pick unsuitable roles. I won't play champions if they clearly aren't viable at all -- you won't see me building crittlesticks or AD Karma in a ranked game. It just happens to be that most champions I enjoy playing are not the most popular picks (apart from Lee Sin/Nocturne). But it is a game, and there's a reason we are allowed to choose from so many characters, and there's no imperative to always choose from the same small subset just because they're slightly better/stronger. If this is the predominant attitude in ranked though, I'll just not play ranked. Since I have no intention of going professional, having a good time is what matters most to me, not my ELO.
It's just that some champions are mathematically better than others. There's a reason people don't play, say, Eve. A terrible Rumble still contributes more than a terrible Eve. I'm not going to say anything about an Urgot pick because Urgot is actually good. But if you choose Eve, Mundo or some other funky stuff like that then I'm not going to have much sympathy if you fail. Perhaps we have different definitions of unconventional I guess.
|
On January 11 2012 05:46 NotSorry wrote:
ali/fiddle/galio/malz all got new champ icon pics
Gonna look stupid as hell I'm sure.
|
On January 11 2012 06:07 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:04 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:On January 11 2012 05:01 Sandster wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking champions you like, Mundo and Urgot included. The reason to first learn standard champions is to understand the role first. Just to second this point. If you pick an unconventional champion, you're telling me you're super good at them and you know 100% you're going to crush your lane with it. Excuses not tolerated. Certain champions are unconventional for a reason, whether it be their lack of laning presence, scaling issues, inability to synergise with their team, or there being superior options. If you knowingly pick something that isn't standard, you better have a very good reason for it. But that's just how I see it. Is everyone so harsh about this? Why do I need an excuse for my champion pick? Why do I need to be super good if I pick Urgot, but it's OK if I pick Vayne and am terrible with her? Note that if you get matched up with me, you're presumably no better with conventional champions than I am with unconventional champions. If you don't tolerate excuses for my character choice, why should I tolerate excuses for your ELO not being higher? Note that I'm not playing in professional games, or even organized clan matches or whatever. I never try to troll, intentionally hurt the team, or pick unsuitable roles. I won't play champions if they clearly aren't viable at all -- you won't see me building crittlesticks or AD Karma in a ranked game. It just happens to be that most champions I enjoy playing are not the most popular picks (apart from Lee Sin/Nocturne). But it is a game, and there's a reason we are allowed to choose from so many characters, and there's no imperative to always choose from the same small subset just because they're slightly better/stronger. If this is the predominant attitude in ranked though, I'll just not play ranked. Since I have no intention of going professional, having a good time is what matters most to me, not my ELO.
haters gonna hate, play who you want imo, as long as you have fun. I only get annoyed when ppl pick roles that are too overlapping (i.e. picking 2 ranged AD just kus both players are too stubborn to back down from their pick), but as long as you're picking a champ to fill an available role, everything is fair game, and if ppl say otherwise, well that's what the ignore function is for.
|
On January 11 2012 06:13 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 06:07 bmn wrote:On January 11 2012 05:04 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:On January 11 2012 05:01 Sandster wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking champions you like, Mundo and Urgot included. The reason to first learn standard champions is to understand the role first. Just to second this point. If you pick an unconventional champion, you're telling me you're super good at them and you know 100% you're going to crush your lane with it. Excuses not tolerated. Certain champions are unconventional for a reason, whether it be their lack of laning presence, scaling issues, inability to synergise with their team, or there being superior options. If you knowingly pick something that isn't standard, you better have a very good reason for it. But that's just how I see it. Is everyone so harsh about this? Why do I need an excuse for my champion pick? Why do I need to be super good if I pick Urgot, but it's OK if I pick Vayne and am terrible with her? Note that if you get matched up with me, you're presumably no better with conventional champions than I am with unconventional champions. If you don't tolerate excuses for my character choice, why should I tolerate excuses for your ELO not being higher? Note that I'm not playing in professional games, or even organized clan matches or whatever. I never try to troll, intentionally hurt the team, or pick unsuitable roles. I won't play champions if they clearly aren't viable at all -- you won't see me building crittlesticks or AD Karma in a ranked game. It just happens to be that most champions I enjoy playing are not the most popular picks (apart from Lee Sin/Nocturne). But it is a game, and there's a reason we are allowed to choose from so many characters, and there's no imperative to always choose from the same small subset just because they're slightly better/stronger. If this is the predominant attitude in ranked though, I'll just not play ranked. Since I have no intention of going professional, having a good time is what matters most to me, not my ELO. It's just that some champions are mathematically better than others. There's a reason people don't play, say, Eve. A terrible Rumble still contributes more than a terrible Eve. I'm not going to say anything about an Urgot pick because Urgot is actually good. But if you choose Eve, Mundo or some other funky stuff like that then I'm not going to have much sympathy if you fail. Perhaps we have different definitions of unconventional I guess.
I understand that some champions are strictly superior, but I thought people at my (non-pro) level also valued playing characters they enjoy playing -- not just characters they win more games with :-)
I have Eve, and once I realized how bad I did with her I never played her again. I already said that if Mundo really isn't a viable pick at higher levels, I won't play him. I have no intention to hurt my team, I just don't enjoy the very strongest picks for AD characters. I also jungle Lee Sin more often than Nocturne even though I'm better with the latter.
If Urgot is not an unconventional character, then sorry for the confusion. I have only played against him once or twice in my <200 games; about as often as Eve, so I thought he was generally considered an unconventional choice. I wouldn't play him if the guides consistently said that he was a bad character (as they do for Evelynn).\
Edit: Also, I'm not asking for sympathy if I fail, I just don't want to corrode the team spirit by having people complain about any character I pick that isn't Vayne/Kog'Maw (using ranged AD role as an example).
I'd like to reiterate the ELO factor: The chance to fail is close to 50% regardless of whether I always pick Vayne or some worse AD character (as long as it's a consistent choice). There's no reason to have sympathy with picking Vayne either, I'd lose just as often, just at a higher ELO.
If I always pick a worse choice than you, but we both are at the same ELO, then what high horse are you sitting on that justifies complaining about my character choice?
(This clearly doesn't applied to clan matches, tournaments, etc., where match-making doesn't work in the same way.)
|
On January 11 2012 05:59 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:33 Craton wrote:On January 11 2012 05:18 turdburgler wrote:On January 11 2012 04:39 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 04:23 turdburgler wrote:On January 11 2012 04:07 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:40 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 03:30 Mogwai wrote:On January 11 2012 03:06 Treadmill wrote:On January 11 2012 02:59 wei2coolman wrote:
Did anyone notice that after the jungle changes that the frequency of ganks have actually gone up?
I remember a few weeks back, everyone was ridiculing how the new jungle was going to be a farm fest, (I even said this myself). Damn was I wrong. I'm gonna be impressed how all the "riot are morons who are ruining their own game" crowd are gonna contort themselves to neither admit they were wrong nor give riot any credit. I'm not going to admit that I was wrong or give riot any credit because the game is so much worse now than it was 3 months ago that it's not even fucking funny. new masteries and new jungle were both huge net changes for the worse. so sure, the jungle changes ended up not playing out how some of us expected them to, but that doesn't mean I enjoy getting camped top lane for the first 5 minutes of the game with essentially no consequence. Sorry, I don't want to start a fight here but I'm genuinely confused. When all the changes came through I though the main complaint people had was passivity, especially in the early game. And riot acknowledged that and said their changes were aimed at resolving that. And the response of the community was that the changes would just make the game more passive not less (and thes complaints accomanied by much bitching and name-calling directed at riot). Only that turns out to be wrong and the game is less passive. You seem (to me) to be complaining that you can't just passively free-farm like you could before - but I though that was exactly what the changes were supposed to do. MAYBE you could turn around and say "hey the GOAL of the changes is bad" but isn't that the fault of the community for bitching at riot about a problem that wasn't really a problem? I'm complaining that I can't play an aggressive laner top because I will just get camped. You know what the net impact on my character selection is due to the new changes? no more pantheon top, no more jarman top. now I only pick assholes who have absurd sustain or can play completely passively in lane and still manage to succeed. I'm not even trying to play 1v1 matchups anymore because you'll get burnt for that more often than not. It's more worthwhile to only make plays with your jungler now because chances are the opposing jungler is camping you too, because seriously, what the fuck else is he going to do? Look, they saw a passivity problem and they approached it the wrong way. Here are the real passivity problems: 1. High sustain and/or high difficulty gank targets @ top lane who scale well with farm into late game (Yorrick, Nidalee, Trynd, Riven, GP) 2. Blue buff on APs who can clear creep waves quickly (zzzzz, instafarming every wave in the shortest lane, so exciting...) 3. No way to gank bot lane vs. a good support FFS, the part of the game that needed the least work in terms of active play was the jungle, and it's where they put all their effort. Before the change, golems -> level 2 gank a lane was a viable and popular strategy. Early ganks were all over the place and they were strong, but back then they had an oppurtunity cost in terms of how they set you back compared to someone who was actually farming the jungle and possibly counterjungling your jungle. Fast 6 routes and early dragon threats were legitimate threats from a jungler who chose not to do early gank, it introduced an interesting gameplay decision, but now if you don't gank early and often, you're still lucky to get a level on someone who doesn't even succeed with their jungle ganks and even without kills, the level of lane presence they provide to their lanes while you farm the jungle will typically at worse break even in terms of the free cs they give their team vs. the cs you get from jungling. so you suggest what to punish people more for failing ganks? more jungle xp in general? less of it on the buff mobs? less xp but even easier / faster packs? since its not going to go back to how it was before so even if you hate the current version asking for the old version is just wasting your own time :D On January 11 2012 04:31 clickrush wrote:
your team deserves to lose when you dont get help while enemy jungler camps lane constantly. things like this make the game much more interesting to watch and to play imo. the more active the junglers the better. sorry but you guys just don't get it and I'm not going to waste my time with a real response. if you think the game is better off now than it was before, we have nowhere to go. I think what I'm asking for is pretty damn clear, if you haven't figured it out yet, IT'S AN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY DECISION INSTEAD OF CAMP LANE vs. LOSE THE GAME. i do get it. why are you so angry? your spending 90% of your post saying this is shit this is shit this is shit then going with the vague, they dont have to make any choices. how can we discuss how to do it differently if you arent outlining how the choices arent big enough and then how to change them etc? if camping lanes is just so effective then how about talking about adjusting lane width, or the sight around the river and the bushes that exist there. maybe increase starting gold to allow for a dorans + ward opening etc etc. the fact is i dont think anyone sees riot just flat out reverting the changes so you need to be pragmatic. Altering the map has been discussed to death. Junglers don't need to "camp" top to decide the matchup, they just need to come there ~2 times early and do even a little bit of damage or effective zoning. Top lanes are hugely binary, much like any lane with an assassin. The asymmetry of the map really hurts certain matchups a lot. so if its been discussed to death we should just bitch and ask for the impossible ? :D maybe they just need to change baron to a second dragon, make the dragon get stronger at set points in time until it becomes a baron late game, maybe with a scaling buff maybe not. maybe thats stupid :D but who knows. im angry and fuck you for asking isnt going anywhere though
After something has been discussed a million times here, there's no point left kicking the dead horse. You don't get changes to this game made by posting in a subforum of TeamLiquid.
|
On January 11 2012 06:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote:lol. 2-0 for TSM in under 3 minutes and CLG EU had their red stolen, and reginald has CLG's blue as well. Was looking forward to relaxing a bit and watching the game, but this is probably over.
Game was indeed not close. But the other way around than you thought lol.
Wickd just too strong on top lane. Udyr was a bad pick against his Iralia though.
And really good team play on CLGs part.
|
this janna gets himself caught out of position a lot
|
On January 11 2012 06:25 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 06:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote:lol. 2-0 for TSM in under 3 minutes and CLG EU had their red stolen, and reginald has CLG's blue as well. Was looking forward to relaxing a bit and watching the game, but this is probably over. Game was indeed not close. But the other way around than you thought lol. Wickd just too strong on top lane. Udyr was a bad pick against his Iralia though. And really good team play on CLGs part.
Wasn't even Wickd, imo. I actually blame it solely on Reginald. He wasn't effective enough as LB. He roamed but couldn't secure kills, forcing odd one to sit in mid lane frequently. TSM never had wards and had no tabs on CLG because of it.
hah, just remembered reginald's awful attempt at a gank top in the 3v1 but dove right away for no reason, resulting in a lot of wasted summoners and no actual kill.
|
On January 11 2012 06:25 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 06:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote:lol. 2-0 for TSM in under 3 minutes and CLG EU had their red stolen, and reginald has CLG's blue as well. Was looking forward to relaxing a bit and watching the game, but this is probably over. Game was indeed not close. But the other way around than you thought lol. Wickd just too strong on top lane. Udyr was a bad pick against his Iralia though. And really good team play on CLGs part.
I tuned in after that comment and was a little confused lol. Snoopeh rocking the karthus jungle pretty well.
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
I really dont feel udyr is that strong :o Not as a jungle or not as a top
|
MF owns early, gets owned late. TRM loses his lane so badly clg eu can walk around raping every single other lane.
On January 11 2012 06:28 Beyonder wrote:
I really dont feel udyr is that strong :o Not as a jungle or not as a top
udyr rapes straight auto bruisers. GP, trundle, guys that don't do anything other than auto damage. Irelia gets true damage on her auto, that's a really bitch for udyr to deal with. She also has a stun like him and a dash, way better at initiating. She also has better sustain from her ult compared to turtle stance. Udyr isn't bad, irelia is just better (and wickd is amazingly good on her to boot).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
