|
On April 22 2016 07:06 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 04:57 Kaneh wrote:On April 22 2016 02:03 nafta wrote:On April 21 2016 23:34 Zess wrote:On April 21 2016 21:46 Scip wrote:
"Jungle camps have global icon/timers regardless of vision" isn't what the riot page said lol
I was worried for a second that something retarded was done but all they did was made it so you didn't have to track enemy buffs by seeing when they expire on enemy champions
whoop de do. I rephrased it to be less misleading since the way I phrased it before didn't actually indicate what was going on. I don't think this change even registers on the slippery slope of "dumbing down the game." We've had a season of global Dragon/Baron timers (and these are just indicators) and most soloq games still don't have people taking Dragon on timer even when it is completely free (i.e. pushing down a lane where there isn't a tower to get and wasting time). If you want to actually contest a buff you're still going to have to have waves in the right place and laners in the right place and be prepared to drop vision. I mean, in Starcraft you also have a million timers telling you when supply is reaching the limit or when buildings are finishing, but people still missed build timings and got supply blocked because the visual information doesn't mean anything when it isn't part of your mental cadence of processing the game. It does dumb down the game. It is just every good player did this so it doesn't actually change anything for them only for the baddies. Then you get to the debate of whether or not memorizing timers is a skill that needs to be tested. I'm pretty sure Riot already agrees that it wasn't, considering dragon/baron timers. I also feel that its not a skill that fun or useful to test for and be good at, and removing it does not cheapen the required skill in an appreciable way. You can't even really be 'good' at memorizing timers, you either wrote it down in chat or didn't... by removing it, instead we get more focus onto the skill of vision games and skirmishing, which i feel is much more important than timer memorizing It is a slippery slope. Following that logic we should have all enemy summoner and ult timers cuz all you do is write it down amirite?
no. Because the aims and goals are an important part of this discussion. You cannot take slices of the discussion and then use hyperbole to minimize it. If you have an actual reason why the timers are bad in the context of creating more contested map objectives, I'd love to hear them.
Giving timers on buff camps will help "baddies" start contesting them, which should make that part of the game more accessible. I feel like this is only a good thing as this is a much more important, useful, and fun skill to have access to than the arbitrary gate of remembering their buffs come up in 5 mins.
Meanwhile, having summoner and ult timers will not increase skirmishing. It will mostly likely be a net neutral as the aggression of the stronger team is match by more passive play from the weaker team. In this case, adding timers would be a net loss, as it would be removing some timer skill for no reason.
Slippery slope applies only if the justification is poor. you have not shown that the justification is poor, all you have is doomsday claims with no reasoning. If the police come for your neighbor for no reason, then yes you have a right to worry. If they come for your neighbor cause he's a crack dealer and thief, then no, you don't have to worry about the police knocking down your door for no reason.
What it really comes down to is: is this skill we're testing for integral to the game, or does it hinder access to a more interesting part of the game. In this case I believe its clearly the latter
|
On April 23 2016 03:20 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 02:54 Fildun wrote:
I think you are the one who should look up what slippery slope means, but whatever. Do we really have to do this? Show nested quote +a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things - sourceNow tell me how adding red/blue buff respawn timers would make a completely different, theoretical feature (champ cool down timers) part of a "series of events" that cannot be reliably controlled. Riot has full control over what goes into their game. Seriously guys, a dictionary. Use it if you don't know what something means.
Except we read that and that was what we meant. And you started the whole "look it up" thing, so yeah, you do have to do that.
To put it in terms you'd understand: Towers/Dragons > Kills > Buffs. We get more info (CD timers) about dragons and buffs, so a clear next step would be ore info about kills (CD timers).
Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 02:54 Fildun wrote:
As far as I know Riot only made buffs matter less and less (number nerfs, xp nerfs, gold nerfs), so not sure what you're referencing there. Read up on the PBE changes. Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 02:54 Fildun wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by "meant to be contestable". Do you mean that you can contest it? You can contest a lot of things, so that doesn't really say much. I can clarify: I meant that Riot's making Red/Blue buffs something that you'd want to contest more heavily compared to what's currently in the game. That's their entire design goal with the changes to the buffs and the addition of global timers on them in PBE.
Ok, I read up on the PBE changes about the buff buffs (heh). Didn't really seem too impactful. Earlygame the buffs aren't that big and lategame it's just damage, while most lategame teamfights are more about positioning. I see the changes as a small buff.
I don't think however that people will really contest the buffs that much more, since people only really fight around baron/dragon and if you're in a position to contest the enemy buff around that time, you're probably already so strong you have a big chance of winning regardless.
Also it's more that you don't want to fight when the enemy has the buff.
I love how you know the exact goals of Riot though, that's some good shit right there.
Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 02:54 Fildun wrote:
The whole towers bit seems rather weird to me, we all agree towers are important but that's not what we were talking about, we were talking about the importance of blue/red. You're the one that brought up kills and turrets, so I made mention of them. For my comment on turrets specifically, I was just making the point that important objectives tend to get clearly marked at a global level (which is what Riot is doing for the new buff timers/indicators).
I brought up kills/towers in a very specific way, namely that they are more important than blue/red in winning the game. Actually towers work in almost the exact same way as buffs right now: they always show up on your minimap, unless you had vision when you destroyed/killed them. The only difference is that towers don't respawn.
Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 02:54 Fildun wrote:
Also not quite sure what is "incredibly variable" about the idea of "if the dude uses ability X I can trade favorably". I can plan the entire scenario except whether he'll actually use the ability or not, that's why the plan hinges on that. You can't plan for how an opponent is going to play from moment to moment. That's what I mean by variable; if an ability is on CD that you can exploit, it's the result of circumstance. Compare that to something like shotcalling a baron bait.
Alright, maybe you can't, I can.
The details of every single lane phase/baron bait are different. However, with both I can see the most likely moves the enemy is gonna make and plan accordingly. Also, in both cases I can spot bad moves made by the enemy team/player and capitalize on that. Just because the given scenarios differ in the number of players and game time, doesn't mean that the core concept is different.
|
On April 23 2016 04:36 Kaneh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 07:06 nafta wrote:On April 22 2016 04:57 Kaneh wrote:On April 22 2016 02:03 nafta wrote:On April 21 2016 23:34 Zess wrote:On April 21 2016 21:46 Scip wrote:
"Jungle camps have global icon/timers regardless of vision" isn't what the riot page said lol
I was worried for a second that something retarded was done but all they did was made it so you didn't have to track enemy buffs by seeing when they expire on enemy champions
whoop de do. I rephrased it to be less misleading since the way I phrased it before didn't actually indicate what was going on. I don't think this change even registers on the slippery slope of "dumbing down the game." We've had a season of global Dragon/Baron timers (and these are just indicators) and most soloq games still don't have people taking Dragon on timer even when it is completely free (i.e. pushing down a lane where there isn't a tower to get and wasting time). If you want to actually contest a buff you're still going to have to have waves in the right place and laners in the right place and be prepared to drop vision. I mean, in Starcraft you also have a million timers telling you when supply is reaching the limit or when buildings are finishing, but people still missed build timings and got supply blocked because the visual information doesn't mean anything when it isn't part of your mental cadence of processing the game. It does dumb down the game. It is just every good player did this so it doesn't actually change anything for them only for the baddies. Then you get to the debate of whether or not memorizing timers is a skill that needs to be tested. I'm pretty sure Riot already agrees that it wasn't, considering dragon/baron timers. I also feel that its not a skill that fun or useful to test for and be good at, and removing it does not cheapen the required skill in an appreciable way. You can't even really be 'good' at memorizing timers, you either wrote it down in chat or didn't... by removing it, instead we get more focus onto the skill of vision games and skirmishing, which i feel is much more important than timer memorizing It is a slippery slope. Following that logic we should have all enemy summoner and ult timers cuz all you do is write it down amirite? no. Because the aims and goals are an important part of this discussion. You cannot take slices of the discussion and then use hyperbole to minimize it. If you have an actual reason why the timers are bad in the context of creating more contested map objectives, I'd love to hear them. Giving timers on buff camps will help "baddies" start contesting them, which should make that part of the game more accessible. I feel like this is only a good thing as this is a much more important, useful, and fun skill to have access to than the arbitrary gate of remembering their buffs come up in 5 mins. Meanwhile, having summoner and ult timers will not increase skirmishing. It will mostly likely be a net neutral as the aggression of the stronger team is match by more passive play from the weaker team. In this case, adding timers would be a net loss, as it would be removing some timer skill for no reason. Slippery slope applies only if the justification is poor. you have not shown that the justification is poor, all you have is doomsday claims with no reasoning. If the police come for your neighbor for no reason, then yes you have a right to worry. If they come for your neighbor cause he's a crack dealer and thief, then no, you don't have to worry about the police knocking down your door for no reason. What it really comes down to is: is this skill we're testing for integral to the game, or does it hinder access to a more interesting part of the game. In this case I believe its clearly the latter
You don't think that is an interesting skill I do. Before you could sneak dragon and the enemy had no way of knowing when you did it. This in turn forces the enemy team to keep constant vision and try to guess by how the enemy team moves when it is gonna be up again. That to me was interesting.
There is no right or wrong just different directions for the game to take.
Considering timers are getting removed every season don't see how are those doomsday claims.
|
On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
Except we read that and that was what we meant. And you started the whole "look it up" thing, so yeah, you do have to do that.
Why can't you just read a dictionary? Why do I have to spell it out for you? Why does there have to be a tangential argument about what "slippery slope" means because you can't take a moment to figure it out on your own? And now a new one: why do you still not understand what a "slippery slope" is even after the literal definition was provided to you?
All of these questions are the long form of my saying "do we really have to do this?" The fact that I even have to explain this makes my head hurt.
On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
To put it in terms you'd understand: Towers/Dragons > Kills > Buffs. We get more info (CD timers) about dragons and buffs, so a clear next step would be ore info about kills (CD timers).
On live servers, yes. Baron/Dragon/Turrets/Inhibitors/Nexus > Kills > Buffs. The entire point of the buff changes is that Riot wants to raise the priority of buffs. They literally came right out and said this. This entire thread is about discussing the mid-year updates, not talking about what is true for live.
On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
Ok, I read up on the PBE changes about the buff buffs (heh). Didn't really seem too impactful. Earlygame the buffs aren't that big and lategame it's just damage, while most lategame teamfights are more about positioning. I see the changes as a small buff.
I don't think however that people will really contest the buffs that much more, since people only really fight around baron/dragon and if you're in a position to contest the enemy buff around that time, you're probably already so strong you have a big chance of winning regardless.
Also it's more that you don't want to fight when the enemy has the buff.
This is perfectly reasonable theorycrafting about the current PBE changes to buffs. Feel free to provide feedback to Riot about it, maybe with some suggestions about how they could better accomplish making buffs feel more contest-worthy if you think their current iteration isn't gonna cut it.
On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
I love how you know the exact goals of Riot though, that's some good shit right there.
It's not hard when Riot made a gigantic announcement outlining their goals (as I linked above). If you don't feel silly now, you really should.
On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
I brought up kills/towers in a very specific way, namely that they are more important than blue/red in winning the game. Actually towers work in almost the exact same way as buffs right now: they always show up on your minimap, unless you had vision when you destroyed/killed them. The only difference is that towers don't respawn.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that turrets are more important objectives to take than buffs. Still doesn't change the fact that Riot is actively trying to make buffs contest-worthy, and making balance/UI changes to reflect that.
On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
Alright, maybe you can't, I can.
Woah guys, we got a Challenjour over here. He can pre-emptively plan that you're gonna use your ult on someone well before you do it, and co-ordinate a counter play with his team before the fight even breaks out.
If that sounds stupid to you, that's what you just tried to tell me. If that is hard for you to wrap your head around, I'll simply remind you that we're comparing summoner/ability cool downs to contesting objectives (and inevitably all of the set up leading up to actually contesting the objective) -- which, to be frank, is a stupid comparison to begin with IMO, but if you thought it was stupid too we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On April 23 2016 08:05 iamcaustic wrote:
Woah guys, we got a Challenjour over here. He can pre-emptively plan that you're gonna use your ult on someone well before you do it, and co-ordinate a counter play with his team before the fight even breaks out.
You're talking about this as if it required some arcane knowledge when in fact all it requires is thought and experience
|
On April 23 2016 08:05 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
Except we read that and that was what we meant. And you started the whole "look it up" thing, so yeah, you do have to do that. Why can't you just read a dictionary? Why do I have to spell it out for you? Why does there have to be a tangential argument about what "slippery slope" means because you can't take a moment to figure it out on your own? And now a new one: why do you still not understand what a "slippery slope" is even after the literal definition was provided to you? All of these questions are the long form of my saying "do we really have to do this?" The fact that I even have to explain this makes my head hurt.
That's because you're wrong. Let's go back to the original post.
On April 21 2016 23:34 Zess wrote:
I don't think this change even registers on the slippery slope of "dumbing down the game." We've had a season of global Dragon/Baron timers (and these are just indicators) and most soloq games still don't have people taking Dragon on timer even when it is completely free (i.e. pushing down a lane where there isn't a tower to get and wasting time).
Zess here very clearly outlines the actual slippery slope in question, that is, "dumbing down the game". The scenario Zess is describing is a very well known slippery slope in competitive gaming communities, so I assume you're aware of it and that it is, in fact, a slippery slope, regardless of how significant these specific changes are.
On April 22 2016 07:06 nafta wrote:
It is a slippery slope. Following that logic we should have all enemy summoner and ult timers cuz all you do is write it down amirite?
Here Nafta is very clearly referring to the same slippery slope, that is, "dumbing down the game". This argument may be a non-sequitur or strawman based on the content, I'm not sure, I don't actually play this game, but it certainly isn't a false identification of a slippery slope.
|
On April 23 2016 09:10 TheHumanSensation wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 08:05 iamcaustic wrote:On April 23 2016 05:29 Fildun wrote:
Except we read that and that was what we meant. And you started the whole "look it up" thing, so yeah, you do have to do that. Why can't you just read a dictionary? Why do I have to spell it out for you? Why does there have to be a tangential argument about what "slippery slope" means because you can't take a moment to figure it out on your own? And now a new one: why do you still not understand what a "slippery slope" is even after the literal definition was provided to you? All of these questions are the long form of my saying "do we really have to do this?" The fact that I even have to explain this makes my head hurt. That's because you're wrong. Let's go back to the original post. Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 23:34 Zess wrote:
I don't think this change even registers on the slippery slope of "dumbing down the game." We've had a season of global Dragon/Baron timers (and these are just indicators) and most soloq games still don't have people taking Dragon on timer even when it is completely free (i.e. pushing down a lane where there isn't a tower to get and wasting time). Zess here very clearly outlines the actual slippery slope in question, that is, "dumbing down the game". The scenario Zess is describing is a very well known slippery slope in competitive gaming communities, so I assume you're aware of it and that it is, in fact, a slippery slope, regardless of how significant these specific changes are. Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 07:06 nafta wrote:
It is a slippery slope. Following that logic we should have all enemy summoner and ult timers cuz all you do is write it down amirite? Here Nafta is very clearly referring to the same slippery slope, that is, "dumbing down the game". This argument may be a non-sequitur or strawman based on the content, I'm not sure, I don't actually play this game, but it certainly isn't a false identification of a slippery slope.
You're right that Zess brought it up first, but even then Riot still has full control over how "smart" or "dumb" they want their game to be. In short, Zess misused the term too but I gave that a pass because his point was that jungle buff timers would be anything but a "slippery slope" of dumbing down the game. In that regard, he was kind of right -- it's not a slippery slope.
Nafta was the one that made the claim that it is a "slippery slope" with a really bad example that still didn't qualify as a slippery slope (which prompted my original comment). Everything since then has been responses like this from people -- apparently a lot of you, judging from this thread -- that don't know what a slippery slope is.
Now, can we finally move on from this off topic sideshow? Or does someone else want to give an opinion about slippery slopes without reading a dictionary first?
On April 23 2016 08:51 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 08:05 iamcaustic wrote:
Woah guys, we got a Challenjour over here. He can pre-emptively plan that you're gonna use your ult on someone well before you do it, and co-ordinate a counter play with his team before the fight even breaks out. You're talking about this as if it required some arcane knowledge when in fact all it requires is thought and experience
Maybe I need another example to explain the point... I'd love for you to reliably predict an enemy TP play every time, before they ever start channeling. After all, it only takes a little thought and experience to do so.
|
On April 23 2016 13:02 iamcaustic wrote:
You're right that Zess brought it up first, but even then Riot still has full control over how "smart" or "dumb" they want their game to be. In short, Zess misused the term too but I gave that a pass because his point was that jungle buff timers would be anything but a "slippery slope" of dumbing down the game. In that regard, he was kind of right -- it's not a slippery slope.
Nafta was the one that made the claim that it is a "slippery slope" with a really bad example that still didn't qualify as a slippery slope (which prompted my original comment). Everything since then has been responses like this from people -- apparently a lot of you, judging from this thread -- that don't know what a slippery slope is.
I understand what you're saying as the following, please let me know if I misinterpret it: "A slippery slope by definition cannot be something that someone (or some group of persons) has absolute control over".
|
On April 23 2016 13:48 TheHumanSensation wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 13:02 iamcaustic wrote:
You're right that Zess brought it up first, but even then Riot still has full control over how "smart" or "dumb" they want their game to be. In short, Zess misused the term too but I gave that a pass because his point was that jungle buff timers would be anything but a "slippery slope" of dumbing down the game. In that regard, he was kind of right -- it's not a slippery slope.
Nafta was the one that made the claim that it is a "slippery slope" with a really bad example that still didn't qualify as a slippery slope (which prompted my original comment). Everything since then has been responses like this from people -- apparently a lot of you, judging from this thread -- that don't know what a slippery slope is. I understand what you're saying as the following, please let me know if I misinterpret it: "A slippery slope by definition cannot be something that someone (or some group of persons) has absolute control over".
Pretty much.
|
The point is that "it's only a minor simplification" is a slippery slope argument because you can argue it every single time they remove another "skillcheck" aspect of the game. We had the same discussion when curse voice happened, and again when they made timers global even without vision. Riot is consistently making changes that "dumb down" the game, and regardless of what your opinion is, people are allowed to think that's a bad thing. I'm not gonna get into a debate about exact definitions, but it's pretty sad 4+ people who aren't even first language english have a better grasp of it than you.
Whatever the justification, ever change like this just removes another way that players can differentiate themselves skillwise. Some of the people here are actually competitive people who enjoy trying to be better than their opponents. And while you seem to baulk at the idea of having to actually use thought processes to outplay the opponent, that's a core component of the game for a large number of people.
|
Are these changes for the whole jungle or just buff camps?
If it is the former, so many junglers instantly become unviable.
|
On April 23 2016 21:46 iCanada wrote:
Are these changes for the whole jungle or just buff camps?
If it is the former, so many junglers instantly become unviable.
Buffs.
|
The smaller changes (annie/fiddle/swain/ziggs etc) all seem so arbitrary lol
Just adding a bit of extra complexity into the kit without actually changing anything, just for the sake of it >.>
|
On April 23 2016 21:48 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 21:46 iCanada wrote:
Are these changes for the whole jungle or just buff camps?
If it is the former, so many junglers instantly become unviable. Buffs.
Still bad but not earth shattering.
Any good jungler has the timer of his opponent +/- 30 seconds regardless I guess. I think might give laners more ephasis to come though. Not sure.
|
They remove complexity from everything else, might as well put it somewhere.
|
On April 23 2016 19:07 killerdog wrote:
The point is that "it's only a minor simplification" is a slippery slope argument because you can argue it every single time they remove another "skillcheck" aspect of the game. We had the same discussion when curse voice happened, and again when they made timers global even without vision. Riot is consistently making changes that "dumb down" the game, and regardless of what your opinion is, people are allowed to think that's a bad thing. I'm not gonna get into a debate about exact definitions, but it's pretty sad 4+ people who aren't even first language english have a better grasp of it than you.
Whatever the justification, ever change like this just removes another way that players can differentiate themselves skillwise. Some of the people here are actually competitive people who enjoy trying to be better than their opponents. And while you seem to baulk at the idea of having to actually use thought processes to outplay the opponent, that's a core component of the game for a large number of people.
That's still not what a slippery slope is... you guys are killing me. I even linked the dictionary definition in this thread because people like you were making posts like this. People are certainly allowed to think that Riot's changes are bad, but thinking an intended result is bad isn't the same as a slippery slope. Slippery slopes are about unintended negative consequences that spiral out of control.
If a dictionary definition alone isn't good enough for you, here's a wiki description too.
Riot can, at any point in time, choose to reverse their design decisions or completely alter course on their goals. Therefore, by its very definition, game design and balance changes in the game cannot be a slippery slope. If this conversation has taught me anything, it's that a lot of people don't even know what a slippery slope is, and I find that kind of sad.
As for the idea of "baulking at the idea of having to actually use thought processes to outplay the opponent", all that Riot is adding to the game is more thought. Buffs are intended to be thought about more, and coordinating with your teammates requires active thought and communication. What I don't care for is the old school, selfish soloQ mentality, thinking you can ignore your teammates and win the game anyway. That much, though, is simply a difference of opinion on what type of thought process should be valuable inside League. My preference is in alignment with Riot's, yours isn't. Such is life.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On April 24 2016 02:27 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 19:07 killerdog wrote:
The point is that "it's only a minor simplification" is a slippery slope argument because you can argue it every single time they remove another "skillcheck" aspect of the game. We had the same discussion when curse voice happened, and again when they made timers global even without vision. Riot is consistently making changes that "dumb down" the game, and regardless of what your opinion is, people are allowed to think that's a bad thing. I'm not gonna get into a debate about exact definitions, but it's pretty sad 4+ people who aren't even first language english have a better grasp of it than you.
Whatever the justification, ever change like this just removes another way that players can differentiate themselves skillwise. Some of the people here are actually competitive people who enjoy trying to be better than their opponents. And while you seem to baulk at the idea of having to actually use thought processes to outplay the opponent, that's a core component of the game for a large number of people. That's still not what a slippery slope is... you guys are killing me. I even linked the dictionary definition in this thread because people like you were making posts like this. People are certainly allowed to think that Riot's changes are bad, but thinking an intended result is bad isn't the same as a slippery slope. Slippery slopes are about unintended negative consequences that spiral out of control. If a dictionary definition alone isn't good enough for you, here's a wiki description too. Riot can, at any point in time, choose to reverse their design decisions or completely alter course on their goals. Therefore, by its very definition, game design and balance changes in the game cannot be a slippery slope. If this conversation has taught me anything, it's that a lot of people don't even know what a slippery slope is, and I find that kind of sad. As for the idea of "baulking at the idea of having to actually use thought processes to outplay the opponent", all that Riot is adding to the game is more thought. Buffs are intended to be thought about more, and coordinating with your teammates requires active thought and communication. What I don't care for is the old school, selfish soloQ mentality, thinking you can ignore your teammates and win the game anyway. That much, though, is simply a difference of opinion on what type of thought process should be valuable inside League. My preference is in alignment with Riot's, yours isn't. Such is life. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jesus christ...
The slippery slope here is the logic that removing all "unneeded skillchecks" is a good thing, just because it makes it lower level play more exciting at the cost of differentiating factors at higher level play. It's a slippery slope because it's the same argument that's made in defence of a lot of changes like this, and if you accept that argument without criticism each time, then the changes resulting from it snowball out of control... Try and use your brain to understand what people are actually saying rather then trying to win an internet argument by linking to irrelevant wikipedia articles lol
The only people this adds "more thought" to the game for are people who were just being bad by not thinking about it before. Is your next argument going to be that flash timers need to be globally visible for both teams, because timing flashes gives more opportunities to play around things?
I'm not sure what you do when your playing if this is too complex for you, but i can guarantee that the majority of people in this thread already timed most buffs when relevant, and if anything the minigame of checking if buffs were gone, then trying to extrapolate when they would spawn (based off of when the jungler last took them) was an interesting skill test, and gave a chance for better players to outplay worse ones.
Your argument seems to literally be "it was hard before so therefore it was impossible, now it's easy so it's a more valid skill" or something ridiculous like that.
Great job derailing the entire thread with your amazing insight into how the english langauge doesn't work though
|
On April 24 2016 05:09 killerdog wrote:
The slippery slope here is the logic that removing all "unneeded skillchecks" is a good thing, just because it makes it lower level play more exciting at the cost of differentiating factors at higher level play. It's a slippery slope because it's the same argument that's made in defence of a lot of changes like this, and if you accept that argument without criticism each time, then the changes resulting from it snowball out of control... Try and use your brain to understand what people are actually saying rather then trying to win an internet argument by linking to irrelevant wikipedia articles lol
TIL you still are unable to comprehend what a slippery slope is even after being provided:
- a dictionary definition
- a wiki description
- an explanation that Riot has full control over each game design change that you may or may not disagree with
Agreeing/disagreeing with Riot's design decisions isn't a slippery slope scenario. I really don't know how many different ways I need to word that.
On April 24 2016 05:09 killerdog wrote:
The only people this adds "more thought" to the game for are people who were just being bad by not thinking about it before. Is your next argument going to be that flash timers need to be globally visible for both teams, because timing flashes gives more opportunities to play around things?
Not really. And whether you agree with it or not, that's Riot's position on their jungle buff changes. I happen to agree with it, and you clearly don't. Maybe this position is wrong and Riot ends up changing how they approach it down the road, but we'll have to see. By the way, if this was a "slippery slope", Riot wouldn't be able to make such a change in the future because it'd be out of their control to reverse course. Maybe if I keep explaining what "slippery slope" is meant to describe, you'll eventually understand it.
On April 24 2016 05:09 killerdog wrote:
I'm not sure what you do when your playing if this is too complex for you, but i can guarantee that the majority of people in this thread already timed most buffs when relevant, and if anything the minigame of checking if buffs were gone, then trying to extrapolate when they would spawn (based off of when the jungler last took them) was an interesting skill test, and gave a chance for better players to outplay worse ones.
This is still just debating whether or not that's a worthwhile skill test to have in the game. I don't think so, a number of other people in this thread don't think so, but there's also clearly a number of you who do.
On April 24 2016 05:09 killerdog wrote:
Your argument seems to literally be "it was hard before so therefore it was impossible, now it's easy so it's a more valid skill" or something ridiculous like that.
Sick straw man. When you resort to logical fallacies, you've lost having a point for me to pay attention to.
On April 24 2016 05:09 killerdog wrote:
Great job derailing the entire thread with your amazing insight into how the english langauge doesn't work though
I don't know why you're too stubborn to read a dictionary and instead resort to beating this sideshow like a dead horse (will I need to explain that phrase too?).
|
The argument you used to justify this originally can be used to justify a ton of other retarded changes too, which would completely destroy the game. Therefore if you invoke that argument then you have to explore the reasons why it applies here, and not in other cases (such as making all enemy cooldowns, summoner timers etc visible in client, hence why these were brought up as counter examples.)
Hence, using that argument without justifying it for this specific case would be called a slippery slope, since if it's just accepted, that's a SLIPPERY SLOPE to much worse changes down the line. The problem people are stating here is riot have never specified their terms for the details of when this applies and when it doesn't, as they've just notiriously skirted both sides of the issue without ever making their position clear. And you haven't even realised that this is what people are actually talking about.
It's really not that complicated... I'm not disagreeing with the definitions here, I'm just incredibly confused how you can't see that this is the definition you keep linking too... Unless you're just completely confused as to how falacies are used in every day conversation
|
I'm going to try and make this very simple.
On April 24 2016 08:15 killerdog wrote:
The argument you used to justify this originally can be used to justify a ton of other retarded changes too, which would completely destroy the game.
Your opinion that this is a retarded change is just that -- your opinion.
On April 24 2016 08:15 killerdog wrote:
Hence, using that argument without justifying it for this specific case would be called a slippery slope, since if it's just accepted, that's a SLIPPERY SLOPE to much worse changes down the line.
Bold emphasis mine. Two things here:
- If it's accepted, then it's not an undesirable nor unintended result in the eyes of the majority
- It's still an intended change regardless, which continues to preclude the notion of "slippery slope" no matter how hard you want it to be one
Riot manually implements any and all changes, past/present/future, making it impossible for future changes to somehow be unintended and outside the realm of control as a consequence of previous changes. A good example of this is Devourer, which Riot is deliberately removing from the game after it had its issues. That's a hard reversal in their game design. Game design and balance simply isn't an area that invokes the concept of "slippery slope", period. It doesn't matter how hard you try to twist and stretch the meaning of the term (and by doing so, you actually are debating the meaning of what a slippery slope is, despite your denial).
On April 24 2016 05:09 killerdog wrote:
Are you seriously saying you don't want league to be a skill based game... Literally nobody else in the thread is saying that...
Two straw man fallacies in two posts. I'm done here. I can't say I'm surprised, considering your absolute refusal to properly interpret meaning from English, be it this whole "slippery slope" thing or the arguments made by numerous people in favour of this change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
