|
On December 14 2012 09:18 Tilorn91 wrote:
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...
It's on the frontpage lol http://na.leagueoflegends.com/ "Preseason Balance Update 1"
|
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.
I am 100% sure they have a weighting system.
1. Players that (falsely) report a lot have a lot less weighting and taken less seriously.
2. 4 reports from pre-mades are taken less seriously than 4 reports from randoms.
|
On December 14 2012 09:31 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:22 PrinceXizor wrote: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.
But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans.
|
It doesn't seem like they're removing the portion of black cleaver that people wanted to remove. %Armor reduction still reduces armor by too much when combined with other sources of % armor reduction like eg: Wukong's Q. It just takes longer to stack the passive now that people won't stack cleaver.
|
On December 14 2012 09:33 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +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. I am 100% sure they have a weighting system. 1. Players that (falsely) report a lot have a lot less weighting and taken less seriously. 2. 4 reports from pre-mades are taken less seriously than 4 reports from randoms.
But, based on the fact that Ente gets banned for pretty mild manners, they may not have the weighting system take into account a handful of guys reporting you whenever they run into you in solo queue - something which doesn't really happen except at high elo.
|
Isn't BC still 4 stacks? It's just the % per stack got reduced.
|
On December 14 2012 09:38 Sufficiency wrote:
Isn't BC still 4 stacks? It's just the % per stack got reduced.
And 25% armor reduction is still pretty crazy strong.
|
On December 14 2012 09:39 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:38 Sufficiency wrote:
Isn't BC still 4 stacks? It's just the % per stack got reduced. And 25% armor reduction is still pretty crazy strong.
5 less flat penetration though.
|
On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:31 Seuss wrote:On December 14 2012 09:22 PrinceXizor wrote: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. But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans.
I would agree with that because it's a reasonable position. Obviously the Tribunal is not perfect and thus we should try to do better, nobody wants Ente and other players to suffer needlessly. The problem is a lot of people, particularly those I've been addressing directly, come out of the woodwork constantly and essentially claim that because the Tribunal is flawed it has no point, is dumb, and might as well not exist. This is as silly as suggesting that because Congress is being stupid about our financial crisis we should immediately hold a revolution rather than attempting to reform a system that's been doing a surprisingly good job despite its obvious faults.
|
On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:
But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans.
What undeserved bans? I'm yet to see a single player complain about getting banned by the tribunal and not turn out to be guilty as hell.
|
On December 14 2012 09:40 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:On December 14 2012 09:31 Seuss wrote:On December 14 2012 09:22 PrinceXizor wrote: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. But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans. I would agree with that because it's a reasonable position. Obviously the Tribunal is not perfect and thus we should try to do better, nobody wants Ente and other players to suffer needlessly. The problem is a lot of people, particularly those I've been addressing directly, come out of the woodwork constantly and essentially claim that because the Tribunal is flawed it has no point, is dumb, and might as well not exist. This is as silly as suggesting that because Congress is being stupid about our financial crisis we should immediately hold a revolution rather than attempting to reform a system that's been doing a surprisingly good job despite its obvious faults.
i'd celebrate if tribunal was canned. it's a terrible system. riot should just hire someone to screen shit all day if it means a (more strict) formula. and stop with the pansy 2 day ban shit. at least then there would be a standard and not a whoever you get lucky/unlucky enough to screen your case.
|
On December 14 2012 09:39 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:38 Sufficiency wrote:
Isn't BC still 4 stacks? It's just the % per stack got reduced. And 25% armor reduction is still pretty crazy strong.
It's still gonna be core on almost every AD caster, but obviously you won't see people stacking them anymore and you also won't want to rush it as a first item in every scenario. It still might be on the strong side post-patch, but not blatantly overpowered.
|
On December 14 2012 09:43 Jumbled wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:
But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans. What undeserved bans? I'm yet to see a single player complain about getting banned by the tribunal and not turn out to be guilty as hell.
Ente has the only case I've seen where it looked questionable. I've seen a crapton of would-be innocents, but his is the only possible exception I know of. That actually says a lot about the system, if it were as cripplingly flawed as many purport you'd expect a much, much greater volume of such complaints given the sheer number of players.
|
On December 14 2012 09:47 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:43 Jumbled wrote:On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:
But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans. What undeserved bans? I'm yet to see a single player complain about getting banned by the tribunal and not turn out to be guilty as hell. Ente has the only case I've seen where it looked questionable. I've seen a crapton of would-be innocents, but his is the only possible exception I know of. That actually says a lot about the system, if it were as cripplingly flawed as many purport you'd expect a much, much greater volume of such complaints given the sheer number of players.
eh people who aren't toxic are less likely to bitch about being falsely banned and more likely to just do something else.
|
I really like all of these changes. Considering the initial bumps on the new season changes, these seem like pretty good steps to make things go smoother. I especially like that I can stop banning Rengar and Diana so often now.
|
On December 14 2012 09:48 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:47 Seuss wrote:On December 14 2012 09:43 Jumbled wrote:On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:
But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans. What undeserved bans? I'm yet to see a single player complain about getting banned by the tribunal and not turn out to be guilty as hell. Ente has the only case I've seen where it looked questionable. I've seen a crapton of would-be innocents, but his is the only possible exception I know of. That actually says a lot about the system, if it were as cripplingly flawed as many purport you'd expect a much, much greater volume of such complaints given the sheer number of players. eh people who aren't toxic are less likely to bitch about being falsely banned and more likely to just do something else.
If it's a fresh lvl 30 account i'd be inclined to agree, however with the way the game works (play/pay lots to unlock everything) it seems more likely that people would be invested into their accounts.
And i agree that the tribunal isn't a perfect system, but it's pretty hard to think up something that doesn't require insane man power to do what it currently does.
|
On December 14 2012 09:45 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:40 Seuss wrote:On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:On December 14 2012 09:31 Seuss wrote:On December 14 2012 09:22 PrinceXizor wrote: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. But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans. I would agree with that because it's a reasonable position. Obviously the Tribunal is not perfect and thus we should try to do better, nobody wants Ente and other players to suffer needlessly. The problem is a lot of people, particularly those I've been addressing directly, come out of the woodwork constantly and essentially claim that because the Tribunal is flawed it has no point, is dumb, and might as well not exist. This is as silly as suggesting that because Congress is being stupid about our financial crisis we should immediately hold a revolution rather than attempting to reform a system that's been doing a surprisingly good job despite its obvious faults. i'd celebrate if tribunal was canned. it's a terrible system. riot should just hire someone to screen shit all day if it means a (more strict) formula. and stop with the pansy 2 day ban shit. at least then there would be a standard and not a whoever you get lucky/unlucky enough to screen your case.
We've been there. Odd as it may seem hiring someone to spend 8+ hours a day wading through filth is actually slower, less efficient.
On December 14 2012 09:48 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:47 Seuss wrote:On December 14 2012 09:43 Jumbled wrote:On December 14 2012 09:35 sylverfyre wrote:
But there's people who end up in the tribunal for stupid reasons and DON'T get pardoned, and I am of the opinion that we need to improve this. I am not okay with the tribunal actions taken being 99% deserved and 1% undeserved. In my opinion, this is far more analogous to the handful of guys who are sent to prison for life and exonerated years later - which bothers me immensely. I'd far rather the tribunal ban 10% fewer 'deserving' players if it could appreciably decrease the number of undeserved bans. What undeserved bans? I'm yet to see a single player complain about getting banned by the tribunal and not turn out to be guilty as hell. Ente has the only case I've seen where it looked questionable. I've seen a crapton of would-be innocents, but his is the only possible exception I know of. That actually says a lot about the system, if it were as cripplingly flawed as many purport you'd expect a much, much greater volume of such complaints given the sheer number of players. eh people who aren't toxic are less likely to bitch about being falsely banned and more likely to just do something else.
"Less likely" doesn't particularly matter much when you have 32 million players. A very small statistical blip can mean thousands of angry players. This is why I find so many arguments against the Tribunal hollow. If it's really as bad as people claim Ente would not be a weird anomaly, but a common occurrence.
|
On December 14 2012 09:45 Perplex wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:39 sylverfyre wrote:On December 14 2012 09:38 Sufficiency wrote:
Isn't BC still 4 stacks? It's just the % per stack got reduced. And 25% armor reduction is still pretty crazy strong. It's still gonna be core on almost every AD caster, but obviously you won't see people stacking them anymore and you also won't want to rush it as a first item in every scenario. It still might be on the strong side post-patch, but not blatantly overpowered.
And then you realize brutalizer took a big hit
|
On December 14 2012 07:18 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:14 onlywonderboy wrote:On December 14 2012 07:11 NeoIllusions wrote:On December 14 2012 07:08 onlywonderboy wrote:
Seeing as BW was a little bit before my time, why was SKT1 so awesome? It's BoxeR's team. A quick search of Liquidpedia answered most of my follow-up questions. So pretty big deal haha. SKT1 departed from boxer's team when oov stopped playing at least in my heart 
This is really late, but I just checked this thread, and I like to read the pages I missed.
Oov stopped playing, yes, but he became a coach. And guess who he coached... Fantasy! Therefore making it like a big family tree. Boxer being the grandpa. Now when Fantasy stops playing he needs to become a coach and teach a new Terran the ways.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 14 2012 09:56 Seuss wrote:
We've been there. Odd as it may seem hiring someone to spend 8+ hours a day wading through filth is actually slower, less efficient.
Well to be fair, I don't think any of the complaints about Tribunal have remotely to do with how fast or efficient it is.
Having a Riot employee do this means that there's someone accountable for errors. The tribunal as it stands means accountability is in the hands of "the community" which isn't exactly something I'm comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
7161
5568
1892
216
189
EPT
