|
Interested in helping start an on-topic, serious League discussion thread? PM Neo to talk about how to get started. |
Oh dear. What I have I started lol
|
On June 22 2013 07:15 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 07:05 ArchAngelSC wrote:
Guys quick! I need a crash course on how to play rengar top. Gogo! Max R>E>Q>W, best trading skill after they make empowered abilities scale with champ instead of abilty level. All in with W->Auto-Q-PassiveQ every time you possibly can assuming it a killable lane If it something stupid like Kayle just use empowered W for the heals, waveclear, and imba trading. If you really far ahead, push lane with W, wander mid and use R for imba ganks unless they bought pinks, in which case your laner should win anyway.
i spectated this guy yesterday http://www.lolking.net/summoner/na/38057509
and he maxed Q first maybe its situational but still
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On June 22 2013 07:40 thenexusp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 07:04 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 07:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
all th epeople who complain about tribunal giving false positives probably do deserve a ban, even if not for that particular game lol
if you really dont troll and dont flame you're not gonna get banned. I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. iunno, i got a 6 month ban for playing like fiddle, j4 and some other unconventional supports. i didn't even do that badly in any of the reported games. ur not allowed to play unconventional champs if your team doesnt want you to whether or not that's a reasonable rule is a separate topic, but under the current guidelines, you definitely deserved the ban. I'm fairly sure its not a rule, especially considering all the stuff Riot says about "not enforcing the meta". I'd argue Fiddle support is better than, say, Soraka in a number of cases, and J4 is a very fun bully. He's very similar to Leona, except that many people get a little confused on how to play against him. there were multiple riot posts explicitly saying that falls under "refusing to communicate with team" or something of the sort. it's not limited to meta picks - if i wanted to play, say, ahri mid - perfectly standard, and 4 peopel vocally disagree for whatever reason and then report me, i will get banned (if this is a common problem) it has nothing to do with viability/fit within the team, and it's certainly more likely to happen with picks outside of the meta. point is, this is definitely a rule that's being enforced. On June 22 2013 06:59 LaNague wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:24 Numy wrote:On June 22 2013 06:22 zer0das wrote:
[quote]
Why would you get banned? If you're giving intelligent reasons, no one on tribunal is going to hold that against you as long as you're not toxic. You are assuming people on the tribunal actually read through and do stuff properly. I guess these days with no real reward it might be a safe assumption but it wasn't always so. all th epeople who complain about tribunal giving false positives probably do deserve a ban, even if not for that particular game lol if you really dont troll and dont flame you're not gonna get banned. I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. i dont want to do digging now, but there was a riot post on the forums that riot from now on does not observe the tribunal anymore. But i hink we arent supposed to talk about the tribunal here, just want to clear this misconception up. if you really want a source, you will have to search the official league forum (good luck). what do you mean by "not observe tribunal?" as in they don't base decisions on it, or they're not monitoring it for quality, or what? Riot doesn't review non-permaban cases anymore, and they haven't done so for quite a while. AFAIK they still manually review all cases that go up for permaban. Also, "refusing to communicate with team" reports do not get sent to Tribunal, like Unskilled Player or Leaving the game/afk. Riot uses these signals to tell when a region has too many people not speaking the native language, their matchmaking is screwed up, or their leaverbuster needs work, respectively.
interesting, didn't know that;
but there definitely were posts by multiple rioters that basically said if you pick unconventional things and your team doesnt want you to and you get reported, that is ground for a ban
idk if i can find those posts but that definitely used to be policy, and i've not heard anything to the contrary
my overall point is that people qq too much about false positives in bans when honestly 99.9% of bans are deserved. i've rarely seen anybody get banned who didnt actually deserve it outside of human error lol. toxic players dont want to admit they're toxic ~_~
|
On June 22 2013 05:46 SagaZ wrote:
A question about the so called "soloqueue mentality"
So I'm not too big on the ranked soloqueue thing, I used to almost not do it at all and just play 5s. Thing is because of some dirty backstabing this is no longer an option. So i have been soloqueueing a bit and I find myself in odd soloqueue situations sometimes.
Since I'm not very good, most the games i play is like a bit of laning then everyone randomly rotate mid and aram it up for a bit, when we already destroyed their tower... So like my inner self is like "there's no point of being there, we can instead pressure top or something else", like there is nothing mid for us to take, the enemy team is mia and the team just wants to group there. So i'm like meh, I rather you know group with them and not do anything for a bit instead of them being caught 4v5. Keep in mind I still think it's a terrible decision being there, but it would be even worst not to be with the team. And then, the soloqueue magic happens, the enemy team pops out of the fog of war and come to fight us mid... for absolutly no reason either. We have no tower to defend, they have no tower to defend, but there's just this gentleman agreement to all come and duke it out midlane... SO we fight, and win the teamfight, making that "call" of going midlane a successfull one, but at the same time, it was only good cause the enemy team was equally as retarded as us..
So how u guys deal with the situation? Is my gut feeling complelty mistaken and I should go fight mid for the hell of it? Should I ditch the team to make the strategic choice i feel is better, but risk the rest of the team getting cauht like retards? I guess that climbing a bit in ranking will make this situation uncomon, but making decisions of fighting like this in the middle of nowhere for absolutly no objectives and getting rewarded for it feel like it actually turns you into a worst player, but allow you to climb the ladder.
tl;dr: follow a bad call with the rest of your team? or ignore it cause it's bad and ping them back furiously knowing that if the enemy is retarded the call will work anyway?
You have 2 options:
1: Play as a warrior, in this case you treat your team as something you react to and you can't control in any way, but you can make the best possible individual play and this is almost always enough to win
2: Play as the leader, you have to make solid calls, most ppl go mid because they have nothing else to do, but you have to really make sure everyones doing the same thing because someone always wants to go farm a few waves bot or clear a few jungle camps (small golems aww yeah).
You have to put a lot more effort in to do this but you have to play less well individually but you're putting just as much focus into leading anyway so its your choice.
In the aforementioned situation, you win the teamfight mid if you play well. If you make a better call and pressure top maybe they're out of position and you win a teamfight, or maybe you take a free tower, but going mid might not make sense because you could also lose a teamfight. (think of going all in in poker with a 40% chance to hit a winning card, better play is to fold and wait for a better hand)
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On June 22 2013 07:17 zer0das wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:if you're actually at your skill level your super awesome calls that would guarantee victory if not for the fact that people don't follow them probably aren't as genius as you'd like to think.
basically admit you suck first.
I fully admit I suck, but maybe 1/3 of my loses are games that would be slam dunk wins if people would just close the game out properly. If you have a >10k gold lead, unless the enemy team comp has really good wave clear, there shouldn't really be any reason at all you can't just knock down an inhib, then go around the horn and end the game. So many games are lost on people not knowing how to group up and press an advantage, diving towers when the enemy team is full of people who are worth 100 gold, when all they have to do is knock down the tower and the inhib. Or we all back after baron one at a time in a conga line until its 90% gone and none of our lanes are pushing. I feel stuff like this should be exceedingly obvious after you get past a certain point, and for a lot of players, it is. But not nearly enough.
that's just standard execution errors tbh, not really people "not listening to calls"
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On June 22 2013 08:11 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 07:40 thenexusp wrote:On June 22 2013 07:04 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 07:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. iunno, i got a 6 month ban for playing like fiddle, j4 and some other unconventional supports. i didn't even do that badly in any of the reported games. ur not allowed to play unconventional champs if your team doesnt want you to whether or not that's a reasonable rule is a separate topic, but under the current guidelines, you definitely deserved the ban. I'm fairly sure its not a rule, especially considering all the stuff Riot says about "not enforcing the meta". I'd argue Fiddle support is better than, say, Soraka in a number of cases, and J4 is a very fun bully. He's very similar to Leona, except that many people get a little confused on how to play against him. there were multiple riot posts explicitly saying that falls under "refusing to communicate with team" or something of the sort. it's not limited to meta picks - if i wanted to play, say, ahri mid - perfectly standard, and 4 peopel vocally disagree for whatever reason and then report me, i will get banned (if this is a common problem) it has nothing to do with viability/fit within the team, and it's certainly more likely to happen with picks outside of the meta. point is, this is definitely a rule that's being enforced. On June 22 2013 06:59 LaNague wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:24 Numy wrote:
[quote]
You are assuming people on the tribunal actually read through and do stuff properly. I guess these days with no real reward it might be a safe assumption but it wasn't always so. all th epeople who complain about tribunal giving false positives probably do deserve a ban, even if not for that particular game lol if you really dont troll and dont flame you're not gonna get banned. I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. i dont want to do digging now, but there was a riot post on the forums that riot from now on does not observe the tribunal anymore. But i hink we arent supposed to talk about the tribunal here, just want to clear this misconception up. if you really want a source, you will have to search the official league forum (good luck). what do you mean by "not observe tribunal?" as in they don't base decisions on it, or they're not monitoring it for quality, or what? Riot doesn't review non-permaban cases anymore, and they haven't done so for quite a while. AFAIK they still manually review all cases that go up for permaban. Also, "refusing to communicate with team" reports do not get sent to Tribunal, like Unskilled Player or Leaving the game/afk. Riot uses these signals to tell when a region has too many people not speaking the native language, their matchmaking is screwed up, or their leaverbuster needs work, respectively. interesting, didn't know that; but there definitely were posts by multiple rioters that basically said if you pick unconventional things and your team doesnt want you to and you get reported, that is ground for a ban idk if i can find those posts but that definitely used to be policy, and i've not heard anything to the contrary my overall point is that people qq too much about false positives in bans when honestly 99.9% of bans are deserved. i've rarely seen anybody get banned who didnt actually deserve it outside of human error lol. toxic players dont want to admit they're toxic ~_~
Off the top of my head, I believe the issue was communicating why you were doing something unusual rather than the act of picking something unusual itself. Their reasoning was that if you want to do something unusual, the onus is on you to make sure your team understands why you are doing so and how it works because otherwise they don't understand what is supposed to happen.
As always, the safest way to try zany stuff is still in pre-made 5s though.
|
On June 22 2013 08:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 07:17 zer0das wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:if you're actually at your skill level your super awesome calls that would guarantee victory if not for the fact that people don't follow them probably aren't as genius as you'd like to think.
basically admit you suck first.
I fully admit I suck, but maybe 1/3 of my loses are games that would be slam dunk wins if people would just close the game out properly. If you have a >10k gold lead, unless the enemy team comp has really good wave clear, there shouldn't really be any reason at all you can't just knock down an inhib, then go around the horn and end the game. So many games are lost on people not knowing how to group up and press an advantage, diving towers when the enemy team is full of people who are worth 100 gold, when all they have to do is knock down the tower and the inhib. Or we all back after baron one at a time in a conga line until its 90% gone and none of our lanes are pushing. I feel stuff like this should be exceedingly obvious after you get past a certain point, and for a lot of players, it is. But not nearly enough. that's just standard execution errors tbh, not really people "not listening to calls"
Players not being able to close out games is just something that happens a lot lower elo and slowly tapers off as you go higher. It doesnt matter thoug because you'll win just as many games by staying positive when you're behind and them diving and doing dumb shit.
The easiest solution is just to be like alright guys don't throw lets just bait baron/push mid etcetc generally ppl will go with the path of least resistance and follow a call and some annoying pings if they dont come
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On June 22 2013 08:14 MoonBear wrote:
As always, the safest way to try zany stuff is still in pre-made 5s though.
yeah theh solution to all league problems boils down to: find some friends and play 5s
|
just pretend everyone in solo queue is your friend
dont pretend your friends dont argue when you play 5's
a 5's team will generally have a disconnect between people who are too serious, and people who are too laid back, and also generally arguments are going to happen when 2 players both refuse to back down from a point of view
in solo q you don't care because you play with 5 new guys next game so you don't worry if 2 guys are arguing
so peaceful
|
Friends are so hard to find though!
|
On June 22 2013 07:40 thenexusp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 07:04 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 07:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
all th epeople who complain about tribunal giving false positives probably do deserve a ban, even if not for that particular game lol
if you really dont troll and dont flame you're not gonna get banned. I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. iunno, i got a 6 month ban for playing like fiddle, j4 and some other unconventional supports. i didn't even do that badly in any of the reported games. ur not allowed to play unconventional champs if your team doesnt want you to whether or not that's a reasonable rule is a separate topic, but under the current guidelines, you definitely deserved the ban. I'm fairly sure its not a rule, especially considering all the stuff Riot says about "not enforcing the meta". I'd argue Fiddle support is better than, say, Soraka in a number of cases, and J4 is a very fun bully. He's very similar to Leona, except that many people get a little confused on how to play against him. there were multiple riot posts explicitly saying that falls under "refusing to communicate with team" or something of the sort. it's not limited to meta picks - if i wanted to play, say, ahri mid - perfectly standard, and 4 peopel vocally disagree for whatever reason and then report me, i will get banned (if this is a common problem) it has nothing to do with viability/fit within the team, and it's certainly more likely to happen with picks outside of the meta. point is, this is definitely a rule that's being enforced. On June 22 2013 06:59 LaNague wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:24 Numy wrote:On June 22 2013 06:22 zer0das wrote:
[quote]
Why would you get banned? If you're giving intelligent reasons, no one on tribunal is going to hold that against you as long as you're not toxic. You are assuming people on the tribunal actually read through and do stuff properly. I guess these days with no real reward it might be a safe assumption but it wasn't always so. all th epeople who complain about tribunal giving false positives probably do deserve a ban, even if not for that particular game lol if you really dont troll and dont flame you're not gonna get banned. I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. i dont want to do digging now, but there was a riot post on the forums that riot from now on does not observe the tribunal anymore. But i hink we arent supposed to talk about the tribunal here, just want to clear this misconception up. if you really want a source, you will have to search the official league forum (good luck). what do you mean by "not observe tribunal?" as in they don't base decisions on it, or they're not monitoring it for quality, or what? Riot doesn't review non-permaban cases anymore, and they haven't done so for quite a while. AFAIK they still manually review all cases that go up for permaban. Also, "refusing to communicate with team" reports do not get sent to Tribunal, like Unskilled Player or Leaving the game/afk. Riot uses these signals to tell when a region has too many people not speaking the native language, their matchmaking is screwed up, or their leaverbuster needs work, respectively.
waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. reporting afk does NOT go to tribunal? I always reported those idiots that rage "afk", but still move their champ from time to time as afk. None of those got banned for it? 
|
On June 22 2013 08:18 Numy wrote:
Friends are so hard to find though!
Solo queue you get 4 new friends every game and some you can add as permanent friends
genius
its like speed dating for League friends
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On June 22 2013 08:24 LaNague wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 07:40 thenexusp wrote:On June 22 2013 07:04 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 07:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. iunno, i got a 6 month ban for playing like fiddle, j4 and some other unconventional supports. i didn't even do that badly in any of the reported games. ur not allowed to play unconventional champs if your team doesnt want you to whether or not that's a reasonable rule is a separate topic, but under the current guidelines, you definitely deserved the ban. I'm fairly sure its not a rule, especially considering all the stuff Riot says about "not enforcing the meta". I'd argue Fiddle support is better than, say, Soraka in a number of cases, and J4 is a very fun bully. He's very similar to Leona, except that many people get a little confused on how to play against him. there were multiple riot posts explicitly saying that falls under "refusing to communicate with team" or something of the sort. it's not limited to meta picks - if i wanted to play, say, ahri mid - perfectly standard, and 4 peopel vocally disagree for whatever reason and then report me, i will get banned (if this is a common problem) it has nothing to do with viability/fit within the team, and it's certainly more likely to happen with picks outside of the meta. point is, this is definitely a rule that's being enforced. On June 22 2013 06:59 LaNague wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:24 Numy wrote:
[quote]
You are assuming people on the tribunal actually read through and do stuff properly. I guess these days with no real reward it might be a safe assumption but it wasn't always so. all th epeople who complain about tribunal giving false positives probably do deserve a ban, even if not for that particular game lol if you really dont troll and dont flame you're not gonna get banned. I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. i dont want to do digging now, but there was a riot post on the forums that riot from now on does not observe the tribunal anymore. But i hink we arent supposed to talk about the tribunal here, just want to clear this misconception up. if you really want a source, you will have to search the official league forum (good luck). what do you mean by "not observe tribunal?" as in they don't base decisions on it, or they're not monitoring it for quality, or what? Riot doesn't review non-permaban cases anymore, and they haven't done so for quite a while. AFAIK they still manually review all cases that go up for permaban. Also, "refusing to communicate with team" reports do not get sent to Tribunal, like Unskilled Player or Leaving the game/afk. Riot uses these signals to tell when a region has too many people not speaking the native language, their matchmaking is screwed up, or their leaverbuster needs work, respectively. waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. reporting afk does NOT go to tribunal? I always reported those idiots that rage "afk", but still move their champ from time to time as afk. None of those got banned for it?
Afk and leavers are handled by LeaveBuster, not Tribunal iirc
|
I was winning a game and something came up and I had to go and when I came back like 1 hour later turned out we had won the game (they were raging and we had baron but they looked liek they would turtle up)
am I still fucked?
hueheu
thats one of the twice a year afks ppl have I guess
|
I mean, nothing happens when you AFK. Its only when you do it a lot in a short period fo time.
|
On June 22 2013 08:25 Slayer91 wrote:Solo queue you get 4 new friends every game and some you can add as permanent friends genius its like speed dating for League friends
People only like me when I'm carrying on malph or zed though. How do I show them my soft gentle center!
|
In other news, Chaox is retiring.
|
On June 22 2013 08:33 caelym wrote:
In other news, Chaox is retiring.
Oo want he on his way back to the US with big news?
Who makes a hype post over there retirement announcement Oo
|
United States37500 Posts
On June 22 2013 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:Oo want he on his way back to the US with big news? Who makes a hype post over there retirement announcement Oo
Slasher.
|
On June 22 2013 08:14 MoonBear wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 08:11 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 07:40 thenexusp wrote:On June 22 2013 07:04 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 07:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system
so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. iunno, i got a 6 month ban for playing like fiddle, j4 and some other unconventional supports. i didn't even do that badly in any of the reported games. ur not allowed to play unconventional champs if your team doesnt want you to whether or not that's a reasonable rule is a separate topic, but under the current guidelines, you definitely deserved the ban. I'm fairly sure its not a rule, especially considering all the stuff Riot says about "not enforcing the meta". I'd argue Fiddle support is better than, say, Soraka in a number of cases, and J4 is a very fun bully. He's very similar to Leona, except that many people get a little confused on how to play against him. there were multiple riot posts explicitly saying that falls under "refusing to communicate with team" or something of the sort. it's not limited to meta picks - if i wanted to play, say, ahri mid - perfectly standard, and 4 peopel vocally disagree for whatever reason and then report me, i will get banned (if this is a common problem) it has nothing to do with viability/fit within the team, and it's certainly more likely to happen with picks outside of the meta. point is, this is definitely a rule that's being enforced. On June 22 2013 06:59 LaNague wrote:On June 22 2013 06:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On June 22 2013 06:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On June 22 2013 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 22 2013 06:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
all th epeople who complain about tribunal giving false positives probably do deserve a ban, even if not for that particular game lol
if you really dont troll and dont flame you're not gonna get banned. I think false positives are a thing to some degree. I know people who would just choose punish on every report because it would still guarantee that they'd get like 80% agreement. except it has been repeatedly stated and shown that riot manually reviews before any bans. so if a manual review says you should be banned, chances are you should, and if not, it's attributable to the one-off human error of a riot employee, not of the tribunal system so you getting "banned unjustly" for "nicely telling your team what to do" is not a real occurrence, but rather a delusion that people have when 99.9% of the time they deserve the ban, and no, it's not cause of tribunal punish spam. You sure ? I'm pretty sure they only manually review before any life time bans, not after small 2 weeks bans. "The Tribunal automatically assigns some low-level penalties to players, such as e-mail warnings. More severe cases, however, are reviewed and assigned punishments manually by Player Support." AFAIK, all bans fall under "severe" punishments. i dont want to do digging now, but there was a riot post on the forums that riot from now on does not observe the tribunal anymore. But i hink we arent supposed to talk about the tribunal here, just want to clear this misconception up. if you really want a source, you will have to search the official league forum (good luck). what do you mean by "not observe tribunal?" as in they don't base decisions on it, or they're not monitoring it for quality, or what? Riot doesn't review non-permaban cases anymore, and they haven't done so for quite a while. AFAIK they still manually review all cases that go up for permaban. Also, "refusing to communicate with team" reports do not get sent to Tribunal, like Unskilled Player or Leaving the game/afk. Riot uses these signals to tell when a region has too many people not speaking the native language, their matchmaking is screwed up, or their leaverbuster needs work, respectively. interesting, didn't know that; but there definitely were posts by multiple rioters that basically said if you pick unconventional things and your team doesnt want you to and you get reported, that is ground for a ban idk if i can find those posts but that definitely used to be policy, and i've not heard anything to the contrary my overall point is that people qq too much about false positives in bans when honestly 99.9% of bans are deserved. i've rarely seen anybody get banned who didnt actually deserve it outside of human error lol. toxic players dont want to admit they're toxic ~_~ Off the top of my head, I believe the issue was communicating why you were doing something unusual rather than the act of picking something unusual itself. Their reasoning was that if you want to do something unusual, the onus is on you to make sure your team understands why you are doing so and how it works because otherwise they don't understand what is supposed to happen. As always, the safest way to try zany stuff is still in pre-made 5s though.
If anyone wants to dig up the posts, they were in a thread where a guy was complaining that they had banned the guy who made AP Trynd, QualityPlayer, or whatever his name is.
There were a few red posts explaining that he had played his way into Diamond legitimately, and then after that he had started being reported in every other game because he never communicated with his team before picking weird shit like AP GP and AP Trynd. Combining that with his strat of "split push all game and usually feed then keep pushing" is what earned him the ban.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
