[Patch 4.2] Xerath/Skarner General Discussion - Page 88

On February 20 2014 19:28 Sarah Bryant wrote:


We can play, but as i said [and this is where "i dont say shit i can't back up part comes in] i can't make it work consistently on that level yet. And i said on my initial, ww forum, first post that he's not good vs top level play.....so what excuse are we talking about? =/.

Yes i could made up everything but that's my issue with this forum so far, why the f*** would anyone do that, and why, after reading my initial ww post forum message would anyone think that?


http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=246369&currentpage=22

Look, i say negatives first, i go in detail about negative and positive stuff, which you can disagree with, i tell to people to have fun with it even it wont get them into the lcs, and i offer people my help should they want to play it., Where is the troll/disrespect part?.....

On February 20 2014 19:51 Slayer91 wrote:


So I guess what you're trying to say is that basically it's a pick you find fun even if you don't really believe it's good it's at least good enough to win on your smurf accounts with. (It's your "pet" champ LOLOLOL PET WULF HURR)
Similar to fakesteves trinity adc sona, which he also liked even though there was zero reason to pick it over support sona since it was only good when support sona was op.

You posts really don't come off like that though, listing pros and cons as if they aren't acutely obvious tend to give the vibe that you think this champion if not "secret OP" is at least a tier 2 support. He's clearly a terrible support and you said yourself he's worse than in jungle and top lane it's just you like playing warwick and you don't like playing jungle and top or else you don't like to play warwick and struggle with farming and that's fine too, but it's definitely not what I was under the impression you were trying to say.

On February 20 2014 19:54 Gahlo wrote:

Debate Volibear top and how viable it could be.
+ Show Spoiler +

On February 20 2014 20:02 Slayer91 wrote:
I think you are falsely equating when a champion does and doesn't work and your own skill levels.

skill levels aren't violently different from division to division, its a slow increment of better players, I bet you could play support ww at diamond 1 and do alright If you were a better player

The problem I have is mostly the statement "is good at all levels but X" because I don't really believe champ viability and opponent skill are all that closely related. Like people love to say akali and master yi only work against terrible players but there have been times where master yi and akali did super well at least in solo queue and from time to time in competitive play.

The problem I have is that I have no desire to play support warwick and such I can't test anything myself.

I would have no issue with "this champ is bad but not that bad" as opposed to "this champ is good until X elo"



therealdevil played it for quite a while and with moderate successs so I'm assuming it's about average

On February 20 2014 20:12 Slayer91 wrote:
I think the discussion has very little to do with warwick at the moment and is a lot more related to what sponkz was talking about with the "T.R.O.L.L.S" thing.

"But from this to make me a troll, say i'm awful, laugh at the idea without even testing and treating me like i try to sell you people thresh 2.0 is awkward"

well as for thresh 2.0, if people misinterpret you constantly despite you trying to explain there's some kind of clash of views and not just a communication breakdown (dundnudnudnudnu DEN DEN DEN)
If the idea is to do it for fun, naturally people won't want to test it if the idea doesn't seem fun to them, so you can't force your opinion of fun onto them.
You sohludn't blame people for laughing either when warwick's lane phase is pretty horrible and thus the reasons for playing him support over somewhere else are few and far between but if you are playing for fun you don't care about that so much.
As for troll accusations refusing to show stats on accounts seems completely nonsensical because I can't think of any reason not to show stats on accounts I don't see what you have to hide.

"I don't like using "good at all levels "arguments too, but i used it because i really feel the vast majority of people will be able[in my opinion] to do it on thier own skill level with good play, rise in ranks."
I believe peopel can play pretty much anything and with good play rise in ranks.

On February 20 2014 20:12 Slayer91 wrote:
I think the discussion has very little to do with warwick at the moment and is a lot more related to what sponkz was talking about with the "T.R.O.L.L.S" thing.

"But from this to make me a troll, say i'm awful, laugh at the idea without even testing and treating me like i try to sell you people thresh 2.0 is awkward"

well as for thresh 2.0, if people misinterpret you constantly despite you trying to explain there's some kind of clash of views and not just a communication breakdown (dundnudnudnudnu DEN DEN DEN)
If the idea is to do it for fun, naturally people won't want to test it if the idea doesn't seem fun to them, so you can't force your opinion of fun onto them.
You sohludn't blame people for laughing either when warwick's lane phase is pretty horrible and thus the reasons for playing him support over somewhere else are few and far between but if you are playing for fun you don't care about that so much.
As for troll accusations refusing to show stats on accounts seems completely nonsensical because I can't think of any reason not to show stats on accounts I don't see what you have to hide.

"I don't like using "good at all levels "arguments too, but i used it because i really feel the vast majority of people will be able[in my opinion] to do it on thier own skill level with good play, rise in ranks."
I believe peopel can play pretty much anything and with good play rise in ranks.

"So of course it means i'm not good enough to make ww work at d1...it's my own skill that needs to be greater. And, i feel that he have huge flaws that prevent him from doing good at that level only, but that may be only me."
Me saying you aren't good enough to do well with warwick in D1 isn't the same as saying you aren't good enough to reach diamond 1. I couldn't reach diamond 1 with ADC at least without tons of improvement while doing it but it has little to do with my skill at other roles.
There isn't a skill level that translates to every champ. You have a certain skill level and a lot of it is champ specific. Because warwick has so many problems, you have to outskill to overcome them, and whne oppoents get better at abusing your pick you have to get better at abusing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses, and that isn't easy to do.

Because you are playing warwick on smurf accounts it somewhat delegitimizes any claims you make because the very fact that you are diamond on your main account proves that you are out playing your opponents on warwick and your perception of not playing well shouldn't apply because a diamond players perception of playing well is completely different from say a gold levels perception.

On February 20 2014 20:17 Sarah Bryant wrote:


Of course i can't force people to anything if it's not fun to them. But calling something bad, awful, saying i'm bad without actually testing it is not really okay. it would have if i posted some 1 line saying nothing, but i went in detail and for people to just dismiss it like this isn't constructive to any idea.

On February 20 2014 20:23 Sarah Bryant wrote:



Of course this isnt easy, those are my exact words and why i feel he's not legit only at the top level. Some champs are better than others...sure you can pick soraka in d1 and win with her, but you are putting yourself at a bad spot, ww is the same...only for proper zone and lane bullying i cant find good answer yet.

like i said, i win vs low diamonds too and it works fine, [which, you may argue, stil means shit because low diamonds are meh], but it does gives alot of people from almost all skill levels the chance of doing it.