[Patch 1.0.0.152: Preseason 3] General Discussion - Page 211

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...

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.

On December 14 2012 09:31 Seuss wrote:


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.

On December 14 2012 07:31 Gahlo wrote:
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/news/preseason-balance-update-1-patch-notes

Yikes, those Diana nerfs.

EDIT: inb4 darkness.

On December 14 2012 09:33 Sufficiency wrote:


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 09:38 Sufficiency wrote:
Isn't BC still 4 stacks? It's just the % per stack got reduced.

On December 14 2012 09:39 sylverfyre wrote:

And 25% armor reduction is still pretty crazy strong.

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.

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.

On December 14 2012 09:40 Seuss wrote:


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 09:39 sylverfyre wrote:

And 25% armor reduction is still pretty crazy strong.

On December 14 2012 09:43 Jumbled wrote:

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 09:47 Seuss wrote:


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 09:48 PrinceXizor wrote:

eh people who aren't toxic are less likely to bitch about being falsely banned and more likely to just do something else.

On December 14 2012 09:45 PrinceXizor wrote:

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 09:48 PrinceXizor wrote:

eh people who aren't toxic are less likely to bitch about being falsely banned and more likely to just do something else.

On December 14 2012 09:45 Perplex wrote:


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 07:18 PrinceXizor wrote:

SKT1 departed from boxer's team when oov stopped playing at least in my heart

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.