|
Yes, most speculate that Na'Vi is going to pick them up.
|
On January 11 2013 06:42 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 06:36 kainzero wrote: i liked dreameater hypno better
sustain + stun = OP, right?
Hypno's special att growth is way too low.
And hes SLOW. In PVE better to just 1 shot them all day.
In PvP, he sucks also.
|
I can only guess M5 wants a better sponsor.
|
On January 11 2013 06:33 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 06:28 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 11 2013 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Fire starter is never wrong, except I think in Generation 3? Fire type is good by itself, and it's usually very hard to get good non-starter fire types.
This is especially true after the physical/special split that turned Flameon into garbage. I was never into all the theory behind Pokemon comps cuz I was too young when I played it a lot, and I haven't bought any of the recent ones. I know there's allll sorts of shit to think about when designing your team and leveling up your pokemon that I just have no clue about. Play Red/Blue. Get Kadabra. /game Pokemon games not dominated by Kadabra and his friends are not real.
Someone with some sense in here! Back in the day i'd have like 3 Kadabras per playthrough. Who needs a variety when that guy was so damn good.
|
On January 11 2013 06:44 Doctorbeat wrote:Yes, most speculate that Na'Vi is going to pick them up.
Didn't someone from Navi say they are not interested in picking them up?
|
On January 11 2013 06:44 Doctorbeat wrote:Yes, most speculate that Na'Vi is going to pick them up.
Oh I´ve not been following Lol so close these past days, so I was quite surprised when I read this. But I think it would be pretty cool if Na'Vi pick them up.
|
On January 11 2013 06:28 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Fire starter is never wrong, except I think in Generation 3? Fire type is good by itself, and it's usually very hard to get good non-starter fire types.
This is especially true after the physical/special split that turned Flameon into garbage. I was never into all the theory behind Pokemon comps cuz I was too young when I played it a lot, and I haven't bought any of the recent ones. I know there's allll sorts of shit to think about when designing your team and leveling up your pokemon that I just have no clue about.
In every pokemon game I ever played I had two criterion for my team:
(a) that no team member be the same type as any other (b) my team should look SWEET, no ugly stupid pokemon on my team
By ruby it was getting hard to fill out my team with pokemon I actually liked, but I managed it.. Recently I tried to play black/white (or was it diamond/pearl? I don't even know anymore), but I just lost interest 1/4th of the way through because all the pokemon were dull and I wasn't interested in catching them. Honestly the last "pokemon" game to grip me was Pokemon Mystery Dungeon.
I look forward to someone pokerapping the LoL champion list though when we hit 150.
|
United States37500 Posts
On January 11 2013 06:18 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 05:37 NeoIllusions wrote:On January 11 2013 05:35 smOOthMayDie wrote:What age is defined as getting old? As old as me. huk you still got that TM87 neo
LOL, I had to google this.
You are too cool, TheKefka. hi5
|
On January 11 2013 06:45 SgtSquiglz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 06:33 cLutZ wrote:On January 11 2013 06:28 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 11 2013 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Fire starter is never wrong, except I think in Generation 3? Fire type is good by itself, and it's usually very hard to get good non-starter fire types.
This is especially true after the physical/special split that turned Flameon into garbage. I was never into all the theory behind Pokemon comps cuz I was too young when I played it a lot, and I haven't bought any of the recent ones. I know there's allll sorts of shit to think about when designing your team and leveling up your pokemon that I just have no clue about. Play Red/Blue. Get Kadabra. /game Pokemon games not dominated by Kadabra and his friends are not real. Someone with some sense in here! Back in the day i'd have like 3 Kadabras per playthrough. Who needs a variety when that guy was so damn good.
Ahh, but the key is really to get him to the level where his Psybeam can 1-shot most of the elite 4, and you save Psychic for like Dragonite.
|
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +
Is that Locodoco @ 00:14? Did I miss some announcement or something?! (I thought he was planning to go back to Korea after leaving CLG?)
|
On January 11 2013 06:53 Live2Win wrote:http://youtu.be/sHeUKmUoJzcIs that Locodoco @ 00:14? Did I miss some announcement or something?! (I thought he was planning to go back to Korea after leaving CLG?) This was probably filmed when Loco was hanging out in the Curse mansion for a few weeks
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
Was when he was a homeless child living on the streets. Curse took him in for a while and let him crash.
|
On January 11 2013 06:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 01:27 Seuss wrote:On January 10 2013 17:02 TheYango wrote: I do think the sieging ability of a ranged carry is a significant factor.
At this point, the game doesn't really have a safe alternative to that for pushing high ground towers (split-pushing base towers is inherently slow, risky, and not what I'd call safe). This is especially the case insofar as LoL, unlike DotA, does not have casters that can siege towers well, nor does it have many sieging items that help a team's creep wave push the high ground (though the potential of Banner in this type of situation is worth exploring), or allow a melee to siege like a ranged carry does (Manta Style).
There is a LOT of merit in the fact that a ranged carry allows you to safely end a game without having to resort to diving or exposing yourself to 4v5s. I would agree it's a significant factor, but I think there are a number of champions who can work around that issue without needing to be or build like an AD carry. Jayce, Nidalee, Elise, and Kayle are four who stand out. All four can be played in various lanes/roles depending on the needs of your team composition, and all four can have the damage and range to siege turrets without having to build like an AD carry. They may not fit into every team composition, but they can fulfill the same sieging role. There are also plenty of AP champions who have the attack range to do some sieging. Anivia, Annie, Ziggs, Zilean, and Zyra all have attack ranges of 575 or more, and have plenty to bring to a siege, to a teamfight, or both. Another 10 AP champions (excluding Elise) have 550 range. With either Lich Bane or simply lots of AP they can still poke down towers. They may not be as good at taking towers as AD carries, but you will still be able to whittle down a tower without committing to a dive. This is all really just the tip of the iceberg, as team composition theory is a complicated and labyrinthine subject. However, I think it's fairly clear that there are ways around having an AD carry which don't involve split-pushing, diving, or taking every single baron/dragon while the enemy team sits in their trenches. The point is, though, you cannot just say, "Well we have no AD, the Assassin is worse." Because that is not true he just kills your AP Carry then and you have no teamfight engage. Or it become an AD Assassin-off where whoever gets the full combo in is the victor. Its like playing vs. a Twisted Fate that had a Magical 100% Lichbane uptime.
I would argue it isn't as simple as "the enemy assassin kills your AP". For one, at least half the possible AP options can build fairly tanky while still accruing significant AP and burst potential. At the same time, it's a heck of a lot easier to protect one vulnerable champion than it is two or three. To top it all off, APs typically have a lot of burst themselves, so if the assassin fails to kill the AP instantly they're at risk. It's not as cut and dry, either way, as you might think.
This is why I said it's a labyrinthine subject. We're talking on a fairly theoretical level, so it's easy to throw assertions onto the table because there's a definitive lack of hard data to use in support of or against an argument. This is practically philosophy.
|
Anyone ever have the error in LoL replay. "spectator server data request failed."? How did you fix it?
|
On January 11 2013 06:51 phyvo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 06:28 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 11 2013 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Fire starter is never wrong, except I think in Generation 3? Fire type is good by itself, and it's usually very hard to get good non-starter fire types.
This is especially true after the physical/special split that turned Flameon into garbage. I was never into all the theory behind Pokemon comps cuz I was too young when I played it a lot, and I haven't bought any of the recent ones. I know there's allll sorts of shit to think about when designing your team and leveling up your pokemon that I just have no clue about. In every pokemon game I ever played I had two criterion for my team: (a) that no team member be the same type as any other (b) my team should look SWEET, no ugly stupid pokemon on my team By ruby it was getting hard to fill out my team with pokemon I actually liked, but I managed it.. Recently I tried to play black/white (or was it diamond/pearl? I don't even know anymore), but I just lost interest 1/4th of the way through because all the pokemon were dull and I wasn't interested in catching them. Honestly the last "pokemon" game to grip me was Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. I look forward to someone pokerapping the LoL champion list though when we hit 150.
Actually, all you need are 3 real pokemon to beat the game. I usually go with fire (starter), water, and electric. After the game is beaten I start gathering and breeding semi-legendaries and other strong pokemon (either because they have high att/speed as a sweeper or has good defense/utility as a wall) so I can beat the battle tower.
|
I give up. I googled variations of "darkness spawns" to see if it existed in some popular RPG or stuff and ask Neo when he'd cement his old dude status with a child, but I didn't find anything convincing.
On January 11 2013 06:56 Seuss wrote: To top it all off, APs typically have a lot of burst themselves, so if the assassin fails to kill the AP instantly they're at risk. Reminds me of my early Viktor builds. WotA Rylai Zhonya QSS. Poke till you get caught/jumped, activate QSS, R, Zhonya. That item build had "FUCK YOU" written all over it (especially as they wait for Zhonya to end and you just Q a survivor immediatly).
On the topic of masteries, I switched Artificer's 2 points and Vampirism's 3 points to ward 4 in Awareness and 1 in Explorer (the main purpose of the Explorer ward will be to avoid level 2 ganks or smiteless -> level 3 double buff ganks, I'll test this with the flask nerf to see if I can manage to open flask+pots and still get enough protection from the jungler, in case flask+pot+ward makes my sustain not strong enough to outdo boots+3 openings).
|
you guys.
I just fire up pokemon online so I don't have to actually breed anything :<
|
On January 11 2013 07:30 thenexusp wrote: you guys.
I just fire up pokemon online so I don't have to actually breed anything :< But there are too many dumb people
|
On January 11 2013 07:22 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 06:51 phyvo wrote:On January 11 2013 06:28 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 11 2013 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Fire starter is never wrong, except I think in Generation 3? Fire type is good by itself, and it's usually very hard to get good non-starter fire types.
This is especially true after the physical/special split that turned Flameon into garbage. I was never into all the theory behind Pokemon comps cuz I was too young when I played it a lot, and I haven't bought any of the recent ones. I know there's allll sorts of shit to think about when designing your team and leveling up your pokemon that I just have no clue about. In every pokemon game I ever played I had two criterion for my team: (a) that no team member be the same type as any other (b) my team should look SWEET, no ugly stupid pokemon on my team By ruby it was getting hard to fill out my team with pokemon I actually liked, but I managed it.. Recently I tried to play black/white (or was it diamond/pearl? I don't even know anymore), but I just lost interest 1/4th of the way through because all the pokemon were dull and I wasn't interested in catching them. Honestly the last "pokemon" game to grip me was Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. I look forward to someone pokerapping the LoL champion list though when we hit 150. Actually, all you need are 3 real pokemon to beat the game. I usually go with fire (starter), water, and electric. After the game is beaten I start gathering and breeding semi-legendaries and other strong pokemon (either because they have high att/speed as a sweeper or has good defense/utility as a wall) so I can beat the battle tower.
My point kinda was that efficiency had little or nothing to do with my pokemon experience. I always had a team of 6 with my starter roughly 2 levels ahead of the rest of my team and I never bothered with "battle towers". Variety and coolness were more important than anything else, and if I were to play again still would be.
|
On January 11 2013 06:56 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 06:22 cLutZ wrote:On January 11 2013 01:27 Seuss wrote:On January 10 2013 17:02 TheYango wrote: I do think the sieging ability of a ranged carry is a significant factor.
At this point, the game doesn't really have a safe alternative to that for pushing high ground towers (split-pushing base towers is inherently slow, risky, and not what I'd call safe). This is especially the case insofar as LoL, unlike DotA, does not have casters that can siege towers well, nor does it have many sieging items that help a team's creep wave push the high ground (though the potential of Banner in this type of situation is worth exploring), or allow a melee to siege like a ranged carry does (Manta Style).
There is a LOT of merit in the fact that a ranged carry allows you to safely end a game without having to resort to diving or exposing yourself to 4v5s. I would agree it's a significant factor, but I think there are a number of champions who can work around that issue without needing to be or build like an AD carry. Jayce, Nidalee, Elise, and Kayle are four who stand out. All four can be played in various lanes/roles depending on the needs of your team composition, and all four can have the damage and range to siege turrets without having to build like an AD carry. They may not fit into every team composition, but they can fulfill the same sieging role. There are also plenty of AP champions who have the attack range to do some sieging. Anivia, Annie, Ziggs, Zilean, and Zyra all have attack ranges of 575 or more, and have plenty to bring to a siege, to a teamfight, or both. Another 10 AP champions (excluding Elise) have 550 range. With either Lich Bane or simply lots of AP they can still poke down towers. They may not be as good at taking towers as AD carries, but you will still be able to whittle down a tower without committing to a dive. This is all really just the tip of the iceberg, as team composition theory is a complicated and labyrinthine subject. However, I think it's fairly clear that there are ways around having an AD carry which don't involve split-pushing, diving, or taking every single baron/dragon while the enemy team sits in their trenches. The point is, though, you cannot just say, "Well we have no AD, the Assassin is worse." Because that is not true he just kills your AP Carry then and you have no teamfight engage. Or it become an AD Assassin-off where whoever gets the full combo in is the victor. Its like playing vs. a Twisted Fate that had a Magical 100% Lichbane uptime. I would argue it isn't as simple as "the enemy assassin kills your AP". For one, at least half the possible AP options can build fairly tanky while still accruing significant AP and burst potential. At the same time, it's a heck of a lot easier to protect one vulnerable champion than it is two or three. To top it all off, APs typically have a lot of burst themselves, so if the assassin fails to kill the AP instantly they're at risk. It's not as cut and dry, either way, as you might think. This is why I said it's a labyrinthine subject. We're talking on a fairly theoretical level, so it's easy to throw assertions onto the table because there's a definitive lack of hard data to use in support of or against an argument. This is practically philosophy.
That is good, if your AP is an assassin Character, but what if its a Cassio or Anivia, more sustained casters? It is a given that burst damage is better than sustained damage. If someone is disputing that, then we have a plethora of problems. So burst needs to be discounted, and it is, usually, except for certain characters, right now.
Moreover, if the enemy team, having 1 champ, requires your entire team to be tankier, that is an unbalance situation. If just because the emeny has Khazix, my Mid has to start: Cata>Rod>Chainvest>Zhonyas, and my AD has to go Dorans>Dorans>BT>GA/Warmogs then that is not a good situation.
|
|
|
|