|
On August 06 2014 07:04 Volband wrote:
Ah, it's pointless to play agressively with Janna. You have much more to lose, than win.
So long as you're smart with it. Max W in a lane you're winning(shield if losing), stand behind creeps unless their CC is down, use your speed to move in to auto attack/dodge skillshots. If their CC is down, push them off the wave with W.
The supports you can't be aggressive against are Nami, Krama, Lux, Gragas, Zyra, and Sona. All of them too do much damage/too much sustain and can engage on you through creeps. You have to be very careful against thresh, blitz and post 6 Leona.
|
On August 06 2014 07:03 Prog wrote:
I think scaling runes on supports are terrible in general, because the lane is usually decided in the early game. Don't use them.
scaling runes overtake flat runes at around level 6. If i am running full defensive it makes a lot more sense to get the post lane advantage than move my bonus armor from 21 at level 1 to 28. Ditto for MR when you won't see large amounts of magic damage out of most lanes until level 6.
|
On August 06 2014 07:13 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:03 Prog wrote:
I think scaling runes on supports are terrible in general, because the lane is usually decided in the early game. Don't use them. scaling runes overtake flat runes at around level 6. If i am running full defensive it makes a lot more sense to get the post lane advantage than move my bonus armor from 21 at level 1 to 28. Ditto for MR when you won't see large amounts of magic damage out of most lanes until level 6.
In most botlanes a significant advantage is gained pre 6 or at lvl 6, if it doesn't turn into a super farm lane. Also you will see large amount of magic damage in quite a few lanes.
|
On August 06 2014 07:13 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:04 Volband wrote:
Ah, it's pointless to play agressively with Janna. You have much more to lose, than win. So long as you're smart with it. Max W in a lane you're winning(shield if losing), stand behind creeps unless their CC is down, use your speed to move in to auto attack/dodge skillshots. If their CC is down, push them off the wave with W. The supports you can't be aggressive against are Nami, Krama, Lux, Gragas, Zyra, and Sona. All of them too do much damage/too much sustain and can engage on you through creeps. You have to be very careful against thresh, blitz and post 6 Leona.
Hold on, I only referred to agressive play with eye of the storm. W is indeed awesome, albeit dangerous. The reason I don't do W max is 1. knife got nerfed, I was charmed by the dollars, but it's gone now 2. more importantly, I have to commit. I don't like the idea of adapting with the skill order on the fly (first few levels can vary, for sure, you can and should start with q for lvl 1 skirmish, and can lvl up w at lvl 2 as well), because whichever route I'd go, i'd feel that I could do that much better if I had known it in advance. An mpen with ap page is splendid for w max, but riskier than an average page. On the other hand, maxing w without ap or mpen just feels not right. The closest hybrid is an ap page without mpen, if you want an ap-oriented Janna support, for which you don't necessary need mpen cuz you'll only get significant ap boost from mid game onwards, and it will mainly benefit your ult and shield.
I would only do it vs Thresh or Braum anyway, Leona is tanky as hell, and can engage thourgh creeps.
|
On August 06 2014 07:13 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:03 Prog wrote:
I think scaling runes on supports are terrible in general, because the lane is usually decided in the early game. Don't use them. scaling runes overtake flat runes at around level 6. If i am running full defensive it makes a lot more sense to get the post lane advantage than move my bonus armor from 21 at level 1 to 28. Ditto for MR when you won't see large amounts of magic damage out of most lanes until level 6.
It's the first few levels when people walk away with 10 hp. I especially dislike the scaling idea on scaling supports, like Janna, because if your weakest stage in the game is the early one, than you should boost that the best you can, so you safely get through it.
But now that I think of it (I always wanted to be a baker!), full scaling runes are pretty shit on every support. With tanky dudes you either want to go in quite early, or you are not tanky early, so you want to survive those levels when utility supports shit on you. On agressive utility supports, you are constantly fighting from level 1, that is when you want to get as big of an advantage as you can. You can't play with the mentality "well, by lvl 6 I will be as tanky as them!", so it becomes a pointless risk.
|
i think running full hp seals and armor quints as an adc at lower levels of play is pretty strong. in my experience the benefits of coming into lane and having a noticeable EHP advantage for early game all-ins outweigh not having the extra ad or attack speed.
|
On August 06 2014 07:35 chalice wrote:
i think running full hp seals and armor quints as an adc at lower levels of play is pretty strong. in my experience the benefits of coming into lane and having a noticeable EHP advantage for early game all-ins outweigh not having the extra ad or attack speed.
But it makes last hitting harder, which is already bad at low level plays.
|
On August 06 2014 07:28 Volband wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:13 Goumindong wrote:On August 06 2014 07:04 Volband wrote:
Ah, it's pointless to play agressively with Janna. You have much more to lose, than win. So long as you're smart with it. Max W in a lane you're winning(shield if losing), stand behind creeps unless their CC is down, use your speed to move in to auto attack/dodge skillshots. If their CC is down, push them off the wave with W. The supports you can't be aggressive against are Nami, Krama, Lux, Gragas, Zyra, and Sona. All of them too do much damage/too much sustain and can engage on you through creeps. You have to be very careful against thresh, blitz and post 6 Leona. Hold on, I only referred to agressive play with eye of the storm. W is indeed awesome, albeit dangerous. The reason I don't do W max is 1. knife got nerfed, I was charmed by the dollars, but it's gone now 2. more importantly, I have to commit. I don't like the idea of adapting with the skill order on the fly (first few levels can vary, for sure, you can and should start with q for lvl 1 skirmish, and can lvl up w at lvl 2 as well), because whichever route I'd go, i'd feel that I could do that much better if I had known it in advance. An mpen with ap page is splendid for w max, but riskier than an average page. On the other hand, maxing w without ap or mpen just feels not right. The closest hybrid is an ap page without mpen, if you want an ap-oriented Janna support, for which you don't necessary need mpen cuz you'll only get significant ap boost from mid game onwards, and it will mainly benefit your ult and shield. I would only do it vs Thresh or Braum anyway, Leona is tanky as hell, and can engage thourgh creeps.
I actually think that W max first is better on a tank set Janna than it is on an AP set Janna. On a tank set Janna with a coin you will regain a good amount of HP from the creep wave. The extra resists increase this value. Because W slows (and increases its slow as you level up) your AD can follow up your W pushing with either damage of their own or zoning, and because you have relatively higher sustain due to the tank stats and the coin you can push your advantage.
The extra speed on W also allows you an easier time positioning and abusing lane dominance/catches. While the extra slow means you can follow up with more damage. Its not nearly as good as it was before they nerfed the shit out of W but its still very good.(it used to be 50 damage/level, 6% slow level, 4% move speed level  Now its 45 damage, 4% slow, and 2% move speed)
|
If a Janna tries to run full scaling defensive runes and to play aggressive against my Lulu (maxing W), I will shit on her from level 1 through spammed harass, abusing the range advantage and the better sustained damage.
It would be even better but because of mid Lulu her E had to be nerfed and it now lasts shorter than Janna's (otherwise you could bait the shield and Q once it's gone for a sure hit).
^ Janna's W is 55 damage/level now, according to your post it's better than before.
|
On August 06 2014 07:47 Alaric wrote:
If a Janna tries to run full scaling defensive runes and to play aggressive against my Lulu (maxing W), I will shit on her from level 1 through spammed harass, abusing the range advantage and the better sustained damage.
It would be even better but because of mid Lulu her E had to be nerfed and it now lasts shorter than Janna's (otherwise you could bait the shield and Q once it's gone for a sure hit).
No one said anything about full scaling defensive runes. I run scaling MR blues, scaling armor yellows. Flat armor quints, flat armor reds.
The difference is +22.5 armor at level 1 versus +30 armor at level 1. At level 2 its +23, at level 3 its 24.5 at level 4 its 27 at level 5 its 28.5 at level 6 its even. I am not going to lose the game because i take 5.5% more physical damage at level 1 than if i ran flat armor yellows (scaling down to zero at lower ranks). But i might if i get blown up later in the game by a few HP when i could have survived. MR works out a bit worse because flat MR blues are better, but again, not going to lose the game on 8% more magic damage at level 1 scaling down to even at level 8. You don't have enough abilities yet for that to matter and Janna's peel is really good.
|
On August 06 2014 07:47 Alaric wrote:
If a Janna tries to run full scaling defensive runes and to play aggressive against my Lulu (maxing W), I will shit on her from level 1 through spammed harass, abusing the range advantage and the better sustained damage.
It would be even better but because of mid Lulu her E had to be nerfed and it now lasts shorter than Janna's (otherwise you could bait the shield and Q once it's gone for a sure hit).
^ Janna's W is 55 damage/level now, according to your post it's better than before.
No that was my error, it was 55 before. I thought they had reduced it but looking at the wiki it seems to still be 55.
|
On August 06 2014 07:39 Volband wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:35 chalice wrote:
i think running full hp seals and armor quints as an adc at lower levels of play is pretty strong. in my experience the benefits of coming into lane and having a noticeable EHP advantage for early game all-ins outweigh not having the extra ad or attack speed. But it makes last hitting harder, which is already bad at low level plays.
no doubt there is certainly an adjustment period, but the difference in last hitting is more about how lazy and impatient you can be rather than creating new opportunities for last hits that aren't available with less ad.
like i don't think the majority of players gold and below are aware and taking advantage of required ad breakpoints for last hitting under tower or able to make use of a slightly wider window of time that you can grab a cs in an attempt to minimize the chance of being harassed while doing so.
there are a ton of reasons why bad players miss cs, attacking 6hp too early is probably just a drop in the bucket.
|
Let's just say it this way: There is a reason why supports in diamond+ do usually not play scaling runes. If you can manage with them, props to you. But if you feel you are worse than the average diamond support, it may be a good idea to listen to the diamonds and try without scaling runes. It's not going to bring you there on its own, but it can help.
|
On August 06 2014 07:56 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:47 Alaric wrote:
If a Janna tries to run full scaling defensive runes and to play aggressive against my Lulu (maxing W), I will shit on her from level 1 through spammed harass, abusing the range advantage and the better sustained damage.
It would be even better but because of mid Lulu her E had to be nerfed and it now lasts shorter than Janna's (otherwise you could bait the shield and Q once it's gone for a sure hit). No one said anything about full scaling defensive runes. I run scaling MR blues, scaling armor yellows. Flat armor quints, flat armor reds. The difference is +22.5 armor at level 1 versus +30 armor at level 1. At level 2 its +23, at level 3 its 24.5 at level 4 its 27 at level 5 its 28.5 at level 6 its even. I am not going to lose the game because i take 5.5% more physical damage at level 1 than if i ran flat armor yellows (scaling down to zero at lower ranks). But i might if i get blown up later in the game by a few HP when i could have survived. MR works out a bit worse because flat MR blues are better, but again, not going to lose the game on 8% more magic damage at level 1 scaling down to even at level 8. You don't have enough abilities yet for that to matter and Janna's peel is really good.
Yeah, I meant those runes. And why wouldn't you lose the game? If 7.5 armor and even more mr won't matter, why would a single point in the mastery tree on +2 armor or mr would? If that won't matter, why would 36 hp would? If that won't matter why would 1 or 2 reduced damage would? If that won't, why would blocking 2 damage would? If that won't, why would the 2 hp regen would?
After all those games, I'm not even surprised if I walk out with 5 hp, it could always happen, and the shittiest feeling is when you see the enemy botlane walk away with no hp whatsoever after killing you, and you know it is an uphill battle from now on. But the main reason you should switch is because by the time they overscale, it doesn't even matter. You should already have enough gold to buy what you want, and you are the least desireable target in teamfights, even if you keep diving into enemy lines. Also, you will always be at a level disadvantage, and be the last to reach lvl 18, so doesn1t make much sense to go with that runepage.
If you never die in lane, then just go with a gp/10 page, much more useful, and is not affected by your lvl.
|
On August 06 2014 05:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 05:27 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2014 03:26 Goumindong wrote:On August 05 2014 14:49 Gahlo wrote:On August 05 2014 14:47 Osmoses wrote:
That doesn't actually apply in this instance. How doesn't it? I doubt anybody plays enough soloque games to qualify for law of large numbers. In addition, Law of Large #s doesn't apply anyway. Things like coin flips and dice rolls have set outcomes. Who matchmaking pulls out of a hat of thousands from differing size and valued pools has way too many shifting parts. LLN applies. The average of the sum of different distributions is the average of the distributions. You will not, over a sufficiently large number of games played, get more or less ragers than anyone else in your same bracket or who is raising/falling. There will be variance but unless you're the problem you will rise because of the LLN. The more variables involved in the test, the higher the sample size required. The most common example of tLoL#s is flipping a coin 100 times and getting around a 50:50 ratio. But that comes with the standards of it being a two sided coin with one heads, the other tails and it's always the same coin or coins exactly like it. Soloque is like rolling 9 multimillion sided dice, where each have different distributions of heads and tails markings on them that can change their sides after rolling while still being determined and constantly swapping in and out hundreds of dice. The Gahlo doth protest to much, me thinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks
Why? I'm doing well in soloq lately and my LP splits tell me I should expect to do so for a while. I'm just saying that people can "be unlucky" with ragers and whatnot in soloq. It happens, trying to say it doesn't is ludicrous.
On August 06 2014 06:04 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 05:27 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2014 03:26 Goumindong wrote:On August 05 2014 14:49 Gahlo wrote:On August 05 2014 14:47 Osmoses wrote:
That doesn't actually apply in this instance. How doesn't it? I doubt anybody plays enough soloque games to qualify for law of large numbers. In addition, Law of Large #s doesn't apply anyway. Things like coin flips and dice rolls have set outcomes. Who matchmaking pulls out of a hat of thousands from differing size and valued pools has way too many shifting parts. LLN applies. The average of the sum of different distributions is the average of the distributions. You will not, over a sufficiently large number of games played, get more or less ragers than anyone else in your same bracket or who is raising/falling. There will be variance but unless you're the problem you will rise because of the LLN. The more variables involved in the test, the higher the sample size required. The most common example of tLoL#s is flipping a coin 100 times and getting around a 50:50 ratio. But that comes with the standards of it being a two sided coin with one heads, the other tails and it's always the same coin or coins exactly like it. Soloque is like rolling 9 multimillion sided dice, where each have different distributions of heads and tails markings on them that can change their sides after rolling while still being determined and constantly swapping in and out hundreds of dice. No. Its true that the less variance between the polled distributions (not variance of the polled distributions) the faster things converge, but soloqueue is not like rolling a 9 multimillion sided dice (and even if it was that wouldn't actually matter) In soloqueue the probability distribution that you get ragers/leavers on your team is Binomial n=4, p = ? the probability that you get ragers/leavers on the other team is Binomial n=5 p = ?. For any p, Binomial n=5 dominates n=4 (in that the probability of x or more success is necessarily higher for all x besides zero). The p has to be the same because when you queue for soloqueue you're pulling from the same distribution of people and while you're doing so without replacement the population is large enough that we can look at it like its a with replacement problem without really any loss of accuracy (and note that the with replacement problem still has Binomial n=5 dominating Binomial n=4 for any population) This isn't a 9 million sided die, its like rolling a d100 9 times for each instance and sometimes we record a success on a 9 or lower and sometimes we record a success on a 10 or lower (depending on the ratio of ragers to non ragers who ar online in your bracket at this moment. This makes the variance of the difference of ragers that are on the enemy team to ragers on your team pretty lowBy the law of large numbers we can know that the sum of your random rage difference will asymptotically be the weighted average of the rage difference distributions. Because Binomial 5 dominates Binomial 4 we know that this number will be negative in all cases (that is we expect in more ragers on the enemy team always) then for every person it is the case that as they play more games they will always have more ragers on the enemy team. Asymptotically we get there pretty fast, a hundred or so games will make the likelihood that you have more ragers on the enemy team only a few %. Two hundred games and its basically zero. The lower variance between the p's the faster we converge to the proper % but this doesn't have much of an effect on how fast we converge to "below zero with high certainty" The only time this doesn't hold true is if something that you're doing is causing people to rage and this something is consistent across your games such that in it actually increases the probability that people rage/afk in your games but not on the enemy team. So we have to look at what is more likely when someone legitimately gets more ragers on his team. Is it more likely that he is supremely unlucky, or is it more likely that he is an asshole that makes other people rage? Answer: its far more likely he is an asshole who makes other people rage. Note that there have been situations in the past which could create ELO hell, but describing that is another long post that I don't want to do and you probably wouldn't understand anyway. But as far as I can tell, Riot fixed that situation, and the other instance in which it can occur doesn't seem like enough of a problem to worry about. edit: The other thing that can be happening is observation bias. When people on their team rage and AFK they notice it. When people on the other team rage and AFK they don't notice it. This of course does make sense since everyone fucking complains about "always having the AFK's/ragers on their team". Everyone can't be above average so at least some of those people must be wrong that they get more AFK's ragers than the other side. But if you legitimately do get more AFK's/ragers you need to look at your behavior and see what is causing it.
I meant 9 different multimillion faced dice, 1 for each different player outside of our control player. Also, the bold part is pretty shitty, as I've been pretty civil so far.
|
I'm all out brawling by lvl1 so if either of us are running scaling runes it'll end up poorly lol
|
More nerfs on the PBE, for mao/elise/morg.
So does riot's whole balance philosophy revolve around nerfing whatever is used in LCS?
|
On August 06 2014 08:47 IMoperator wrote:
More nerfs on the PBE, for mao/elise/morg.
So does riot's whole balance philosophy revolve around nerfing whatever is used in LCS?
Riot has always nerfed what I played a lot so.. yes?
|
On August 06 2014 08:31 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 05:50 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2014 05:27 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2014 03:26 Goumindong wrote:On August 05 2014 14:49 Gahlo wrote:On August 05 2014 14:47 Osmoses wrote:
That doesn't actually apply in this instance. How doesn't it? I doubt anybody plays enough soloque games to qualify for law of large numbers. In addition, Law of Large #s doesn't apply anyway. Things like coin flips and dice rolls have set outcomes. Who matchmaking pulls out of a hat of thousands from differing size and valued pools has way too many shifting parts. LLN applies. The average of the sum of different distributions is the average of the distributions. You will not, over a sufficiently large number of games played, get more or less ragers than anyone else in your same bracket or who is raising/falling. There will be variance but unless you're the problem you will rise because of the LLN. The more variables involved in the test, the higher the sample size required. The most common example of tLoL#s is flipping a coin 100 times and getting around a 50:50 ratio. But that comes with the standards of it being a two sided coin with one heads, the other tails and it's always the same coin or coins exactly like it. Soloque is like rolling 9 multimillion sided dice, where each have different distributions of heads and tails markings on them that can change their sides after rolling while still being determined and constantly swapping in and out hundreds of dice. The Gahlo doth protest to much, me thinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks Why? I'm doing well in soloq lately and my LP splits tell me I should expect to do so for a while. I'm just saying that people can "be unlucky" with ragers and whatnot in soloq. It happens, trying to say it doesn't is ludicrous. Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:04 Goumindong wrote:On August 06 2014 05:27 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2014 03:26 Goumindong wrote:On August 05 2014 14:49 Gahlo wrote:On August 05 2014 14:47 Osmoses wrote:
That doesn't actually apply in this instance. How doesn't it? I doubt anybody plays enough soloque games to qualify for law of large numbers. In addition, Law of Large #s doesn't apply anyway. Things like coin flips and dice rolls have set outcomes. Who matchmaking pulls out of a hat of thousands from differing size and valued pools has way too many shifting parts. LLN applies. The average of the sum of different distributions is the average of the distributions. You will not, over a sufficiently large number of games played, get more or less ragers than anyone else in your same bracket or who is raising/falling. There will be variance but unless you're the problem you will rise because of the LLN. The more variables involved in the test, the higher the sample size required. The most common example of tLoL#s is flipping a coin 100 times and getting around a 50:50 ratio. But that comes with the standards of it being a two sided coin with one heads, the other tails and it's always the same coin or coins exactly like it. Soloque is like rolling 9 multimillion sided dice, where each have different distributions of heads and tails markings on them that can change their sides after rolling while still being determined and constantly swapping in and out hundreds of dice. No. Its true that the less variance between the polled distributions (not variance of the polled distributions) the faster things converge, but soloqueue is not like rolling a 9 multimillion sided dice (and even if it was that wouldn't actually matter) In soloqueue the probability distribution that you get ragers/leavers on your team is Binomial n=4, p = ? the probability that you get ragers/leavers on the other team is Binomial n=5 p = ?. For any p, Binomial n=5 dominates n=4 (in that the probability of x or more success is necessarily higher for all x besides zero). The p has to be the same because when you queue for soloqueue you're pulling from the same distribution of people and while you're doing so without replacement the population is large enough that we can look at it like its a with replacement problem without really any loss of accuracy (and note that the with replacement problem still has Binomial n=5 dominating Binomial n=4 for any population) This isn't a 9 million sided die, its like rolling a d100 9 times for each instance and sometimes we record a success on a 9 or lower and sometimes we record a success on a 10 or lower (depending on the ratio of ragers to non ragers who ar online in your bracket at this moment. This makes the variance of the difference of ragers that are on the enemy team to ragers on your team pretty lowBy the law of large numbers we can know that the sum of your random rage difference will asymptotically be the weighted average of the rage difference distributions. Because Binomial 5 dominates Binomial 4 we know that this number will be negative in all cases (that is we expect in more ragers on the enemy team always) then for every person it is the case that as they play more games they will always have more ragers on the enemy team. Asymptotically we get there pretty fast, a hundred or so games will make the likelihood that you have more ragers on the enemy team only a few %. Two hundred games and its basically zero. The lower variance between the p's the faster we converge to the proper % but this doesn't have much of an effect on how fast we converge to "below zero with high certainty" The only time this doesn't hold true is if something that you're doing is causing people to rage and this something is consistent across your games such that in it actually increases the probability that people rage/afk in your games but not on the enemy team. So we have to look at what is more likely when someone legitimately gets more ragers on his team. Is it more likely that he is supremely unlucky, or is it more likely that he is an asshole that makes other people rage? Answer: its far more likely he is an asshole who makes other people rage. Note that there have been situations in the past which could create ELO hell, but describing that is another long post that I don't want to do and you probably wouldn't understand anyway. But as far as I can tell, Riot fixed that situation, and the other instance in which it can occur doesn't seem like enough of a problem to worry about. edit: The other thing that can be happening is observation bias. When people on their team rage and AFK they notice it. When people on the other team rage and AFK they don't notice it. This of course does make sense since everyone fucking complains about "always having the AFK's/ragers on their team". Everyone can't be above average so at least some of those people must be wrong that they get more AFK's ragers than the other side. But if you legitimately do get more AFK's/ragers you need to look at your behavior and see what is causing it. I meant 9 different multimillion faced dice, 1 for each different player outside of our control player. Also, the bold part is pretty shitty, as I've been pretty civil so far.
Not shitty, just likelihood; the proof relies on the derivative of the ratio of two different normal distributions being negative. Not many people are equipped to understand what is going on. Given that you don't seem to understand the LLN as it applies to league with simple binomial distributions I am not going to assume i can make you understand one that relies on the calculus of continuous ones.
Anywho; It doesn't matter if its 9 different multimillion faced dice (i mean, its not) since someone is either a rager or not, the result is binary. The fact that a probability = .11012313422 is different than p=.11012313921 doesn't make much of a difference in the overall value.
If you're legitimately getting more ragers/afk's/trolls then other people then either the likelihoods are that either A: You're one of them or B: something you're doing is causing it
|
On August 06 2014 04:35 swim224 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 03:21 739 wrote:
Short question, because I was always wondering :
Are you possible to flash over projectiles? I mean are you able to flash on top of jinx's ult when it's going straight forward into you? Not sure about jinx ult because it's pretty long, but you can flash over the vast majority of projectiles.
You can flash over any projectile which is shorter than flash range.
Some examples that I've personally flashed::
Elise Cocoon
Ezreal Q
Syndra stun
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
