|
On December 14 2012 08:39 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:20 TheYango wrote:On December 14 2012 08:11 Amui wrote:On December 14 2012 08:05 Sufficiency wrote:On December 14 2012 08:04 Parametric wrote:On December 14 2012 07:55 Ryalnos wrote:
Personally glad Zyra got off relatively lightly.
I'll have to see how much harder it makes it to hit her snare, but at least it's not a range nerf or something. Her passive is kinda crazy so it makes sense that they're toning it down. Imo it could've been a range nerf instead of the missile speed. Sometimes her E hits people beyond the actual animation and it's so far away i can't even Q them. Either way the entire patch seems like good changes, although i'm biased since i hate diana. The missile speed nerf was needed. Her E was going off way too fast (I complained about it since her release on D1) Yeah that was one of the biggest complaints IIRC. Morgana snare goes a bit further, but it's single target and only went 1200. Lux is roughly the same range as zyra snare, also 1200, 2 targets. Dunno how riot decided that a multi-target snare should move faster than single/double targeted snares that you can outposition. While I'm not going to discuss whether it's valid in this particular case, I will say that this is a very common approach to champ balance that is extremely flawed. You cannot compare X spell on champion A to Y spell on champion B, see that B is much stronger, and then consider this as a balance/design problem. Champions are balanced around their kits on the whole, not on the individual components. It's perfectly acceptable to have spells that are strictly better than their counterparts on other champs, provided you give the rest of the champ kit appropriate weaknesses to counteract this. Requiring similar spells to have similar power level without considering the rest of the kit is what leads to stale designs. Allowing yourself the design space to create lopsided kits where one spell is more powerful than comparable spells on other champs, and compensating in other areas of the champ kit creates room for far more interesting champs. I am not complaining because how it compares to Morgana and Lux, but Zyra's E was simply way too fast for a pass-through skillshot that also snares. I remember her first day of release I tried to lane against (iirc) Waveofshadow's Zyra, it was a complete nightmare because he could just pretend he was playing Cassiopeia and snare me when I try to last hit. Once a snare lands there goes a full combo that chips 50% of my health. Of course that was Zyra on release and her damage was then nerfed in a hotfix, but the problem remained. I think Zyra needs more nerfs. She is such a faceroll champion. You just press a few buttons and do sustained DPS through your plants while you run around and laugh.
Zyra's damage isn't the main issue, it's that her kit grants so much teamfight control
|
Diana nerfed, at long last!
|
|
|
But making the snare more dodgeable in a teamfight is going to lend more counterplay to the amount of teamfight control she has.
Yeah, her ult is still there, and it's still huge, but it's delayed CC, compared to, say, Sona's CC immediately.
I still have mixed feelings about her having so much free CDR from leveling W.
|
On December 14 2012 08:58 AsnSensation wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:54 Sufficiency wrote:On December 14 2012 08:40 AsnSensation wrote:
wtf... why would you ever go Diana now. literally every skill got nerfed lol riot plz. Well, currently if she lands a Q on you, YOU RUN AS IF YOU ARE RUNNING AWAY FROM THE DEVIL. That seems a little... weird, if you will. I know, but now you can't even follow up your Q with your ult on top of reduced dmg, and decreased E Range. She's probably shittier than Akali now lol. Only reducing her base Dmg on Q+R and maybe higher Mana cost on Q would have been better.
Well we will see. I am sure we all thought the same when Irelia's W's heal got halved and Ezreal's W's debuff was removed.
|
But underlying what he says is something bothersome. In those two games, he didn't look that bad. With the volume that goes through the Tribunal, there are going to be people like this who are reported enough to show up in the Tribunal, the tribunal randomly selects its evidence, 2-3 games are selected that look anywhere from innocent to vague, a ban might be given out anyway, and the person was just a victim who didn't do much wrong. They're withholding evidence and there's nothing preventing guilty verdicts being given to innocents.
I am fine with the tribunal, but saying that 100% of the bans it gives out are 100% justified is wishful thinking.
|
But the tribunal always autopunishes and everyone that shows up is innocent victims!
heh. Love those threads.
|
Where do you guys find this information of the changes (the Cho nerf for example)? I was digging for an hour and can't find it...
|
Yeah that post kinda reads as "if you get to the tribunal you should be banned no matter what".
|
|
|
On December 14 2012 09:14 sylverfyre wrote:But underlying what he says is something bothersome. In those two games, he didn't look that bad. With the volume that goes through the Tribunal, there are going to be people like this who are reported enough to show up in the Tribunal, the tribunal randomly selects its evidence, 2-3 games are selected that look anywhere from innocent to vague, a ban might be given out anyway, and the person was just a victim who didn't do much wrong. They're withholding evidence and there's nothing preventing guilty verdicts being given to innocents. I am fine with the tribunal, but saying that 100% of the bans it gives out are 100% justified is wishful thinking.
Statistically speaking the number of people who will get more than an errant warning is very small. If I recall correctly the system is only capable of giving out automated warnings, actual suspensions/bans require the review of an actual human. Given that Riot obviously has access to all the reported games and not just a semi-random selection, it's reasonable to assume that chances of being wrongfully banned, while not zero, are extremely small. Of the millions of players who play, only dozens may fit into this category.
Not to mention that this is still a subjective process. Your definition of "wrongfully" might be different than mine.
|
On December 14 2012 09:21 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:14 sylverfyre wrote:But underlying what he says is something bothersome. In those two games, he didn't look that bad. With the volume that goes through the Tribunal, there are going to be people like this who are reported enough to show up in the Tribunal, the tribunal randomly selects its evidence, 2-3 games are selected that look anywhere from innocent to vague, a ban might be given out anyway, and the person was just a victim who didn't do much wrong. They're withholding evidence and there's nothing preventing guilty verdicts being given to innocents. I am fine with the tribunal, but saying that 100% of the bans it gives out are 100% justified is wishful thinking. Statistically speaking the number of people who will get more than an errant warning is very small. If I recall correctly the system is only capable of giving out automated warnings, actual suspensions/bans require the review of an actual human. Given that Riot obviously has access to all the reported games and not just a semi-random selection, it's reasonable to assume that chances of being wrongfully banned, while not zero, are extremely small. Of the millions of players who play, only dozens may fit into this category. Not to mention that this is still a subjective process. Your definition of "wrongfully" might be different than mine.
so wat is the point of the tribunal, if riot thinks by getting to that point you are guilty why do the show. to make themselves look good and allow them to deny liability for mistakes? thats scummy.
|
On December 14 2012 09:21 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:14 sylverfyre wrote:But underlying what he says is something bothersome. In those two games, he didn't look that bad. With the volume that goes through the Tribunal, there are going to be people like this who are reported enough to show up in the Tribunal, the tribunal randomly selects its evidence, 2-3 games are selected that look anywhere from innocent to vague, a ban might be given out anyway, and the person was just a victim who didn't do much wrong. They're withholding evidence and there's nothing preventing guilty verdicts being given to innocents. I am fine with the tribunal, but saying that 100% of the bans it gives out are 100% justified is wishful thinking. Statistically speaking the number of people who will get more than an errant warning is very small. If I recall correctly the system is only capable of giving out automated warnings, actual suspensions/bans require the review of an actual human. Given that Riot obviously has access to all the reported games and not just a semi-random selection, it's reasonable to assume that chances of being wrongfully banned, while not zero, are extremely small. Of the millions of players who play, only dozens may fit into this category. Not to mention that this is still a subjective process. Your definition of "wrongfully" might be different than mine.
Well then the question remains, what about ente?
I am a huge supporter of the Tribunal, and from what I've seen and all the people who seem to be defending him, I'm wondering if this case is going to be one of those that just slips through the cracks.
|
On December 14 2012 09:16 Parnage wrote:But the tribunal always autopunishes and everyone that shows up is innocent victims! heh. Love those threads.
To quote someone from the thread who replied to WookieCookie's post:
Rysan Marquise wrote
That's nice. Those games weren't part of the Tribunal listing.
This speaks to Tribunal being more flawed not less - evidence wasn't given and a wrong verdict was given taken the evidence at hand.
Maybe he deserved a ban - I can't say, but he definitely didn't for these two cases. This is my problem with the ban. Not that this guy, in specific, got banned.
It's a problem when people are looking at "oh, it's 0/13 leblanc. punish." without actually reviewing the evidence at hand.
(and in the game 1 of that report card, it's clearly the Soraka that's being the toxic player, and he's just trying to provide a witty defense to the douchebag.)
I love laughing at banned people as much as the next guy (evidenced by my activity in TL's ABL discussion!) but the system is not going to be infallible, and I'll take issue with anyone who claims it is.
|
The tribunal is broken
my username has been g0atsebusters for over a year and I haven't even gotten a warning
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
They somehow need to make 5 reports from the same person count less than a report from 5 people, with a certain minimum of players who report you to even get to a tribunal imo. Idk, they might have such system in place already, but if they have it would seem insufficient.
|
On December 14 2012 08:51 Perplex wrote:
I predict rengar being terrible and never played after this patch until they buff him some time in the distant future
Right, because a manaless champ with an instant gap closer (that's not tied to an ability, additionally), stealth, a ranged slow, and free AS/attack speed reset is going to be bad.
I'll still play him after everyone does the whole "oh no, he's bad now because nerfs!". No more raid boss Rengar with infinity health, but "not broken" != "shit".
|
Perhaps this can be fixed by improving the automatic selection process of what shows up in the Tribunal - if there's more than just 2 reports on this guy, why do some tribunal cases have like 5+ games on them and some only have 1-2? If you showed us 5 games worth of evidence, there'd be fewer players who "look perfectly fine" (like, according to Wookie, this guy) in their report cards when they are, in fact, guilty of being toxic.
|
On December 14 2012 09:25 Scip wrote:
They somehow need to make 5 reports from the same person count less than a report from 5 people, with a certain minimum of players who report you to even get to a tribunal imo. Idk, they might have such system in place already, but if they have it would seem insufficient.
From Ente's tribunal experiences, it would certainly seem like they need to improve on such a system. He gets (flamed by, and) reported by the same people pretty much every game. It's been claimed by Riot that if a person reports VARIOUS people constantly, they don't get considered - but what if a person is just reporting ONE GUY constantly?
According to Ente, this is why he gets sent to the Tribunal. I'm inclined to side with Ente, as I've watched his stream multiple times and he's generally a nice guy, but obviously can't carry every game and seen some of the people he says don't like him people attack him or report him for the dumbest of things. Shit, his report card has one game report with just "toxic player" as the reason for report - and Ente literally says NOTHING that could be construed as against the summoner's code all game.
|
On December 14 2012 09:22 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:21 Seuss wrote:On December 14 2012 09:14 sylverfyre wrote:But underlying what he says is something bothersome. In those two games, he didn't look that bad. With the volume that goes through the Tribunal, there are going to be people like this who are reported enough to show up in the Tribunal, the tribunal randomly selects its evidence, 2-3 games are selected that look anywhere from innocent to vague, a ban might be given out anyway, and the person was just a victim who didn't do much wrong. They're withholding evidence and there's nothing preventing guilty verdicts being given to innocents. I am fine with the tribunal, but saying that 100% of the bans it gives out are 100% justified is wishful thinking. Statistically speaking the number of people who will get more than an errant warning is very small. If I recall correctly the system is only capable of giving out automated warnings, actual suspensions/bans require the review of an actual human. Given that Riot obviously has access to all the reported games and not just a semi-random selection, it's reasonable to assume that chances of being wrongfully banned, while not zero, are extremely small. Of the millions of players who play, only dozens may fit into this category. Not to mention that this is still a subjective process. Your definition of "wrongfully" might be different than mine. so wat is the point of the tribunal, if riot thinks by getting to that point you are guilty why do the show. to make themselves look good and allow them to deny liability for mistakes? thats scummy.
There were two basic points that were the thrust of that red post, which seem to be lost in the shuffle of words:
1. It takes a lot to get into the tribunal in the first place.
2. If you're punished as a result, it's rarely because you had merely a couple of "bad games".
That "if" is huge. Going to the tribunal is not a 100% you're guilty off with his head vigilante justice madhouse. There is discernment and people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons are pardoned accordingly. It's not 100% accurate, but people latch on to unfortunate cases like Ente's and become overly worried when he's ostensibly one rare mistake out of hundreds of thousands.
This is analogous to stories of people who survived car accidents because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. It happens, but you'd still be dumb if you didn't buckle up because the chances of that sort of miracle are on the same level as lottery odds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
