• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

League of Legends |OT13| Diamond is Unreachable

pigeon

Banned
Also, if having a champ shard is approximately equivalent to 20% off the champ's cost in blue essence, and grinding a shard gives you about 20% of the champ's value in blue essence, then there's literally zero benefit to getting a champ shard for the champ you actually want to play.

edit: Okay they specified on Reddit that the leveling curve is going to Overwatch standard -- flat curve with resets.
 

zkylon

zkylewd
after the convoluted mess they've made with currencies, loot, missions and events, i wouldn't trust riot not to royally fuck this up

i'm hoping for the best but i expect riot to make something dumb and then fix it like they always do
 
Also, if having a champ shard is approximately equivalent to 20% off the champ's cost in blue essence, and grinding a shard gives you about 20% of the champ's value in blue essence, then there's literally zero benefit to getting a champ shard for the champ you actually want to play.
Buying champs with shards will be cheaper than buying them from the store
 

shira

Member
So apparently China is franchising all the big teams for LOL and Dota2 etc. Each team required to have a mini home stadium with seating and booths. For leagues teams will have HOME and AWAY games
https://mobile.twitter.com/LGDgaming/status/903627922367406080

https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6xf72k/lgd_is_building_its_own_esports_arena_in_hangzhou/ said:
Hiya. That's actually something every Chinese team playing in the LPL must do coming next split. Franchising system takes root, games will be HOME and AWAY and basically every team will need to do this: LGD, VG, Newbee, EDG, iG, WE etc. You need to have an "arena" where to host your home games when other teams travel to face you.

Crazy money in China
 

pigeon

Banned
Buying champs with shards will be cheaper than buying them from the store

Yeah, 20% cheaper.

We also want to focus the rewards experience around content drops that feel far more substantial and cool when you earn them. With champ shards specifically, you’ll get to experience that lucky feeling of getting the shard for exactly the champion you were saving up for anyway, and the shard will give you a 20% discount.

In the current system, for example, disenchanting a champ shard will get you about a third of the BE you need to buy a champ at that shard’s tier; In the new system it’ll get you 20% of the way there.

It's 20% whether I disenchant it or use it!
 

SMgamer83

Member
Also, if having a champ shard is approximately equivalent to 20% off the champ's cost in blue essence, and grinding a shard gives you about 20% of the champ's value in blue essence, then there's literally zero benefit to getting a champ shard for the champ you actually want to play.

edit: Okay they specified on Reddit that the leveling curve is going to Overwatch standard -- flat curve with resets.

Real Example:

Ornn Shard will DE for 1260 BE.
If you want to upgrade the shard into Ornn, it will cost 3780 BE.

So its an effective 40% discount.
 
The argument seems to be that Karma being a low-skill champ increases the skill requirement for people who need to lane against her.

The argument is you get a variety of outcomes according to skill levels when you have champs that interact in lane. It's why people respect those who can play hard matchups in top lane, mid lane or the jungle and come out even or without losing too much. It's also why most pro top laners don't play Jayce - sure he wins almost all lanes, but are you good enough to snowball it before it doesn't matter? Not just get a 10cs lead, but crush the other guy. The same question is asked of junglers when Elise is up. The same is true of bot lane - if you can keep even cs against Cait/Karma with a tank support and no jungle support, you should be well positioned to destroy the mid game. That's what those players like Zven who top the csd@15 stats are capable of (relative to those at the bottom).

When you have passive lanes outcomes with little trading and harassment outcomes tend to be pretty equal. And the nature of most tank supports is that they don't get the chance to trade much in the 2v2 due to lack of range. And for all that people mock champions like Karma for being so easy, it's amazing how often people paid to play this game professionally overextend and get ganked when playing up on them.
 

drawkcaB

Member
Only think I see is more gambling inspired bullshittery from the gaming industry. Even if it comes out to be the same for 90% of players, they're going after the 10% that can't help themselves. As usual, "fuck you got mine" attitude is going to shield Riot, as it does every other company that uses these corrosive practices.
 
Only think I see is more gambling inspired bullshittery from the gaming industry. Even if it comes out to be the same for 90% of players, they're going after the 10% that can't help themselves. As usual, "fuck you got mine" attitude is going to shield Riot, as it does every other company that uses these corrosive practices.

The reality is that the lucre is too hard for most companies to avoid chasing at some point. But it's not even 10% - it's more like 90% hardly engage with it or only rarely, 8% engage it with it fairly often, 1-1.5% very often, and 0.5% go whale. Like that guy who made a Reddit thread about how he dropped $200 on epic capsules. And 1 in 200 of the LoL playerbase is a big number.
 

pigeon

Banned
The reality is that the lucre is too hard for most companies to avoid chasing at some point.

I would go so far as to say that all companies, and even most non-profits, tend to come up with some kind of plan for producing income at some point during their lives.
 
Why are we comparing it to overwatch

We Heroes of the Storm now

Shards for buying champs and/or skin
Champ shards
Earn chests by levelling heroes/account level

All we need now is gold to reroll chests
 
I would go so far as to say that all companies, and even most non-profits, tend to come up with some kind of plan for producing income at some point during their lives.

But there's surely a qualitative difference between drawing income from across your playerbase and targeting a small slice who seem to be compulsively drawn to paying for uncertain outcomes (not saying Riot does this; indeed for years they explicity didn't)? It's why we don't respect gambling companies who make vast profits by targetting addicts, or charity workers who target lonely old people with endless phone calls. The psychology behind all this is fascinating, and frankly rather troubling.
 

pigeon

Banned
But there's surely a qualitative difference between drawing income from across your playerbase and targeting a small slice who seem to be compulsively drawn to paying for uncertain outcomes (not saying Riot does this; indeed for years they explicity didn't)? It's why we don't respect gambling companies who make vast profits by targetting addicts, or charity workers who target lonely old people with endless phone calls. The psychology behind all this is fascinating, and frankly rather troubling.

How do you feel about companies that make most of their money selling expensive comestibles? Or cosmetics? Or tourism? Or aspiration lifestyle goods like snowboarding equipment?

Lots of people spend lots of money on essentially unnecessary and unproductive purchases. It doesn't necessarily mean they're being psychologically abused. I'm a little leery of the framing that makes a victim out of people who are typically quite affluent and well-educated (according to customer profiles) and choose to spend money in a free video game. Contrary to the popular perspective, it is not really clear to me that these people are necessarily acting purely compulsively or making expenditures they later regret or cannot afford to make. The game purchases I've most regretted, personally, were the times I dropped $60 on a box copy of a game I later realized wasn't actually worth it despite the marketing and reviews, which for some reason is considered totally ethical and reasonable. To me, having the opportunity to play the entire game for free and not ever being exposed to monetization until you're interested enough in the game to delve into it seems a lot more consumer-friendly.

In fairness, I used to work on free-to-play monetization, so obviously I would think that. But I'd also say that if League is trying to make an addictive lockbox they're missing about a hundred obvious steps (like, for example, letting you buy a whole bunch of them rather than rationing you to three a day), so I really wouldn't sweat it. The entire point of the Overwatch model is that, amazingly, you can give people a huge quantity of free lockboxes without necessarily changing the spending behavior of the people who buy them.
 

zkylon

zkylewd
finally had some time to read through it and since they seem to say champion unlock rates will be similar, i don't think it's a big deal

do i prefer the simpler non-gambling system we had years ago? hell yea, but this new system doesn't seem worse than the one we have now

i don't like the idea of "more involved daily missions" tho, missions are so fucking bad...

In fairness, I used to work on free-to-play monetization, so obviously I would think that. But I'd also say that if League is trying to make an addictive lockbox they're missing about a hundred obvious steps (like, for example, letting you buy a whole bunch of them rather than rationing you to three a day), so I really wouldn't sweat it. The entire point of the Overwatch model is that, amazingly, you can give people a huge quantity of free lockboxes without necessarily changing the spending behavior of the people who buy them.
there's still things there meant to confuse, manipulate and deceive you into make low satisfaction rate purchases. that's not cool, it sucks, even if it's not as blatant as it could be

Luckily all the loot box exclusive skins blow.
yeah it almost feels like riot purposely makes them shit so that people won't complain much

like their guilt takes over and tries to scare people away of interacting with their terrible systems
 

drawkcaB

Member
In fairness, I used to work on free-to-play monetization, so obviously I would think that.

Yeah, I gathered from the false equivalency.

The game purchases I've most regretted, personally, were the times I dropped $60 on a box copy of a game I later realized wasn't actually worth it

Right, so you don't get why this is a problem.

That bolded part - that's what this is all about. You bought a known item, at a known price, and you were, in time, able to evaluate whether that purchase was worthwhile or not. Marketing, etc. had an effect both on the original purchase, and even on the amount of time it took for you to come around to your eventual conclusion that the purchase wasn't worthwhile. But, at the end, you were able to make an evaluation.

Some people are very good at that sort of introspection and self critical evaluation following a transaction and will be quick to form their final conclusion and adapt in the future. Others are not good at this, but with the exception of an extreme minority, even these people will reach the final conclusion of how they think and feel about their purchase; it'll just take longer.

Gambling throws a wrench into this whole mechanism. Because the value is randomized, it completely fucks with an individual's ability to evaluate the transaction. So for those people who are slow to make those sorts evaluations, gambling essentially makes it near impossible. Add in chemical responses in the brain that are nearly identical to drug use, and you have a recipe for disaster (even drug addicts now what they're buying and are generally vaguely aware that they're becoming addicts). Over time, the source of pleasure shifts from what was [potentially] purchased to the transaction itself - "winning", or the value, becomes irrelevant.

And I don't want to sound like I'm shitting on you (although in all honesty this is like the 4th version of this post. The others were...not so kind). I'm an oil & gas engineer so I have my own "fuck you I got mine" crisis gnawing at me constantly, so I'm hardly a saint that should be shitting on you for having helped make these sort of systems.

As far as Riot goes, I'm not willing to give them any positive credit here. I've now seen, many times, near-praise that they've benevolently capped the quantity of per day random crate purchases (or weekly cap, monthly cap, whatever it happens to be).

I suppose my follow-up comment would be why apply a cap at all if Riot thinks this system is totally benign? The most sensible answer is that they don't think it is - Riot is fully aware that they've implemented a gambling system. Only thing I can do about is stop giving them money.

I used to be one of the "whales" and I was happy to be one. I had no issues paying full price for skins and supporting Riot. LoL is probably 80% of my gaming time going back to 2011. In that context I have zero issues with the $500+ I've put down on the game over the years. Since loot was introduced I've only bought about $20 of RP, and I don't plan on buying anymore ever again.
 

pigeon

Banned
That bolded part - that's what this is all about. You bought a known item, at a known price, and you were, in time, able to evaluate whether that purchase was worthwhile or not. Marketing, etc. had an effect both on the original purchase, and even on the amount of time it took for you to come around to your eventual conclusion that the purchase wasn't worthwhile. But, at the end, you were able to make an evaluation.

It was by no means a known item. Like I said, I wouldn't have purchased it if I had known the value I would receive from it. But I did, and regretted it, because it was too late for me to get my money back. It's basically a scam, but a legitimized one.

One of the things I see a lot in free-to-play discussions is exactly this comparison, to an idealized perfect transaction with perfect knowledge for both parties and carefully considered rational thought before action. That would be great! But in reality that's not how very many purchases of anything work, much less purchases of things like computer games. Consumers act without meaningful knowledge (often in the belief that they possess knowledge, when they actually have misinformation deliberately fomented by the seller) and in environments deliberately designed to reduce the friction of the purchase and increase the perceived value. I understand that this is traditionally considered ethical, but I really don't think it is! Capitalism is actually all about fucking with your mind to get your money while providing you as little as possible. That's the foundation of the system.

Gambling throws a wrench into this whole mechanism. Because the value is randomized, it completely fucks with an individual's ability to evaluate the transaction. So for those people who are slow to make those sorts evaluations, gambling essentially makes it near impossible. Add in chemical responses in the brain that are nearly identical to drug use, and you have a recipe for disaster (even drug addicts now what they're buying and are generally vaguely aware that they're becoming addicts). Over time, the source of pleasure shifts from what was [potentially] purchased to the transaction itself - "winning", or the value, becomes irrelevant.

I'm not unfamiliar with the idea of gambling addiction. But I can tell you with firsthand knowledge that the idea that all free-to-play games are primarily designed to prey on people with gambling addictions is simply false. If you wanted to design a free-to-play game to do that, it would look a lot more like Las Vegas and a lot less like a high-skill, long-loop-time MOBA. And those games do exist! I would not work on one, but people do. And, frankly, they are not that successful, because there aren't that many people with pure gambling addictions, and those that exist have plenty of other attractive nuisances in their lives.

The games that are successful in America mostly work very hard on refining their core gameplay to ensure players want to play a lot, and then give them opportunities to spend money to express their satisfaction with the game, ideally with a lot of price segmentation. As hard as it may be to believe, lockboxes are often intended primarily to provide that segmentation.

And I don't want to sound like I'm shitting on you (although in all honesty this is like the 4th version of this post. The others were...not so kind). I'm an oil & gas engineer so I have my own "fuck you I got mine" crisis gnawing at me constantly, so I'm hardly a saint that should be shitting on you for having helped make these sort of systems.

I mean, I don't really mind. I know people tend to hate free-to-play monetization and think the people who work on it are unethical. I just think, with respect, that they're wrong. The reason I defend it is that I genuinely believe it's a much better system which makes games much cheaper to play, and that it tends to ensure that games work much harder to engage and interest the player, since they simply won't pay if they're not having fun.. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it. "Isn't this basically evil?" was pretty much my first question when I started my first job in F2P. I was convinced that it mostly wasn't, if you do it with the right intentions in mind.

As far as Riot goes, I'm not willing to give them any positive credit here. I've now seen, many times, near-praise that they've benevolently capped the quantity of per day random crate purchases (or weekly cap, monthly cap, whatever it happens to be).

I suppose my follow-up comment would be why apply a cap at all if Riot thinks this system is totally benign? The most sensible answer is that they don't think it is - Riot is fully aware that they've implemented a gambling system. Only thing I can do about is stop giving them money.

I mean, maybe. You might similarly ask why we have laws against drunk driving, but not against drinking. If drinking is benign, why have any limits? Obviously the answer is that there are responsible and irresponsible ways to engage with alcohol. As much as possible, we try to limit the irresponsible ones and allow the responsible ones. Personally, I don't think this choice is really necessary, for a couple reasons, but I know that Riot is really squeamish with free-to-play monetization. Which they can get away with since they have 100 million monthly users.
 

zkylon

zkylewd
idk i see the whole hey i give you a billion free boxes that you can't open unless you spend money to be pretty manipulative and shit

i have like 12 unopened boxes and i've hovered on the buy keys button more than once, and i have literally like all the skins for my favorite champions

why does it have to be so complicated, with a billion different types of boxes, requierements for drops, different currencies, events, etc.? why can't it be simple?

and for ur argument about like $60 stuff, well, when you buy a game you can refund it. heck, when you buy a skin in league you can refund it, at least 3 times cos riot is stupid. you have some protection, and on steam i've made full use of that protection and refunded a bunch of games that didn't click with me. i also play demos of games so i know if i'll like em

you don't have any of that for gambling, you just roll the dice and it's never what you want

I suppose my follow-up comment would be why apply a cap at all if Riot thinks this system is totally benign? The most sensible answer is that they don't think it is - Riot is fully aware that they've implemented a gambling system. Only thing I can do about is stop giving them money.

they restrict it to prevent fraud/abuse, nothing to do with the system being benign or not
 
and for ur argument about like $60 stuff, well, when you buy a game you can refund it.

You can't get a refund on opened physical copies of games that you don't like unless you bought them used from GameStop. 99.9% of the time, if you buy a $60 game and realize it's not for you, you either sell it, give it away, or trade it in.
 

zkylon

zkylewd
You can't get a refund on opened physical copies of games that you don't like unless you bought them used from GameStop or buy them from Costco.
i was of the idea that you could since i've done so a few times with my games over my life (no gamestop tho)

you can on steam and i value that a lot, i really wish that was the case with league skins too

edit: pigeon's point that $60 aren't perfect unaffected buys is totally fair, but it's no justification for gambling, which makes no one happy but riot
 

Quonny

Member
A lot of people get joy from gambling. Vegas, gacha, and games like Overwatch are successful because it feels good to beat the odds.

I just did a two pull in Fate/Grand Order and got a character that is limited and only has a 0.6% chance to be pulled. Felt real good.
 

pigeon

Banned
idk i see the whole hey i give you a billion free boxes that you can't open unless you spend money to be pretty manipulative and shit

I mean, I'm not saying we don't try to encourage you to spend money. Obviously we do, we would like to feed our families. But I don't think giving you lockboxes you can't open without a key is any more unethical than putting a bunch of sweets next to the supermarket checkout so that they can take advantage of your weakened impulse control after making a bunch of shopping decisions. There's a big difference between doing some marketing and actively trying to take advantage of people with addictive disorders.

i have like 12 unopened boxes and i've hovered on the buy keys button more than once, and i have literally like all the skins for my favorite champions

(Also, this is not personally a big issue for me because I have way more keys than boxes. You might just be too good at the game.)

A lot of people get joy from gambling. Vegas, gacha, and games like Overwatch are successful because it feels good to beat the odds.

I just did a two pull in Fate/Grand Order and got a character that is limited and only has a 0.6% chance to be pulled. Felt real good.

I mean, I'll push back a little bit here. Las Vegas is not ethical, because the pitch for Las Vegas, or lottery tickets, or whatever kind of gambling, is that you can spend a certain amount of money to get more money back, covering the money you spent in the first place. The promise is that you might get something for nothing, which is just a lie -- you almost certainly won't. That is pretty dishonest and dangerous.

Lockboxes aren't gambling, because lockboxes don't make that promise -- you might get a skin, or in-game currency, or whatever, but you can't get the money out of the game again. When you buy a lockbox you know 100% that the money spent is permanently sunk. This is actually quite important for legal reasons, but I genuinely think it's an important distinction in terms of the consumer's thought process as well. Nobody's going to put the rent money on lockboxes because they imagine hitting the jackpot and buying a car. You know right up front that all you're going to get, at best, is a mount skin. It's a less exciting promise than becoming a millionaire, but it's a promise that we can at least keep.
 

Quonny

Member
II mean, I'll push back a little bit here. Las Vegas is not ethical, because the pitch for Las Vegas, or lottery tickets, or whatever kind of gambling, is that you can spend a certain amount of money to get more money back, covering the money you spent in the first place. The promise is that you might get something for nothing, which is just a lie -- you almost certainly won't. That is pretty dishonest and dangerous.

Lockboxes aren't gambling, because lockboxes don't make that promise -- you might get a skin, or in-game currency, or whatever, but you can't get the money out of the game again. When you buy a lockbox you know 100% that the money spent is permanently sunk. This is actually quite important for legal reasons, but I genuinely think it's an important distinction in terms of the consumer's thought process as well. Nobody's going to put the rent money on lockboxes because they imagine hitting the jackpot and buying a car. You know right up front that all you're going to get, at best, is a mount skin. It's a less exciting promise than becoming a millionaire, but it's a promise that we can at least keep.

Okay? Not sure what it has to do with being fun or not fun.
 

zkylon

zkylewd
miss_fortune_by_miacat7-dbm4gej.jpg


i really like this one, lovely colors

A lot of people get joy from gambling. Vegas, gacha, and games like Overwatch are successful because it feels good to beat the odds.

I just did a two pull in Fate/Grand Order and got a character that is limited and only has a 0.6% chance to be pulled. Felt real good.
idk about "joy", you can find gambling entertaining, i've gone to a casino and felt the adrenaline of having all my money be gone in surprisingly short time, but that joy is kind of like the pleasure you get from smoking

smoking is nice, i like the crispy fealing on my throat and lungs, feeling like a badass breathing fire and smoke and being all too casual about it

thing is, smoking is also cancer, so you know, maybe people shouldn't do it :>

I mean, I'm not saying we don't try to encourage you to spend money. Obviously we do, we would like to feed our families. But I don't think giving you lockboxes you can't open without a key is any more unethical than putting a bunch of sweets next to the supermarket checkout so that they can take advantage of your weakened impulse control after making a bunch of shopping decisions. There's a big difference between doing some marketing and actively trying to take advantage of people with addictive disorders.
this is different from that analogy on a few levels, but i'm generally against all kinds of deceiving marketing tactics including the one you listed

what's the same tho, is that i was a normal person until i was injected a need i didn't have or want. i don't like having 12 closed lootboxes, i'm a curious person, i want to know what's inside. after interacting with the system for months (or years? can't remember when they added lootboxes), it's pretty clear that i'll never get the keys i need to open those boxes. in fact, as the years go by and i get the chance to do orianna, syndra, etc. again, i'll end up with even more lootboxes. i've also noticed that i think i've gotten 1 skin for syndra and the rest have been for champions i barely play, so the odds of lootboxes actually containing something that makes me happy are real slim. i got project ashe off a chest and i was like hey that's cool, but i never play ashe, so who gives a fuck. in the past i've considered buying like 10 keys since it's cheap, but then that would exactly mean that the system is working in altering my behaviour, and this is me knowing that the odds are shit and they're double shit because i literally own almost every skin for ori, ahri, lux, syndra, lissandra, etc.

this makes me uncomfortable and it makes the game worse for me, it's something annoying me every time i open the loot menu and it won't go away unless i give riot money like an addict looking for a fix. i wouldn't say i'm the most responsible person (with money or otherwise lol), imagine what these systems do to people with actual problems controlling themselves

and i'm not here to argue against lootboxes in general cos it varies a lot with implementation and whatnot (in fact, league's is one of the most harmless, thanks to that daily limit), but i'll argue specifically about league's, cos league was awesome without them and riot built an insanely big company, with a huge esports scenes, their own literal second internet for america, the best skins out of any game ever, etc. and they did all of that without having gambling in their game.

this was not needed and i really dislike it and all the legendary brand skins in the world won't change that one bit. that skin might be 1820 rp but to me it's worth 0, as are 95% of the skins i've gotten

(Also, this is not personally a big issue for me because I have way more keys than boxes. You might just be too good at the game.)
this can't be it, i'm garbage

I mean, I'll push back a little bit here. Las Vegas is not ethical, because the pitch for Las Vegas, or lottery tickets, or whatever kind of gambling, is that you can spend a certain amount of money to get more money back, covering the money you spent in the first place. The promise is that you might get something for nothing, which is just a lie -- you almost certainly won't. That is pretty dishonest and dangerous.

Lockboxes aren't gambling, because lockboxes don't make that promise -- you might get a skin, or in-game currency, or whatever, but you can't get the money out of the game again. When you buy a lockbox you know 100% that the money spent is permanently sunk. This is actually quite important for legal reasons, but I genuinely think it's an important distinction in terms of the consumer's thought process as well. Nobody's going to put the rent money on lockboxes because they imagine hitting the jackpot and buying a car. You know right up front that all you're going to get, at best, is a mount skin. It's a less exciting promise than becoming a millionaire, but it's a promise that we can at least keep.
there's not one lootbox i didn't open without secretly wishing it was dj sona

these things play with your expectations and is gambling in that you expect to get more in return than what you've invested, it's easy as that
 

jon bones

hot hot hanuman-on-man action
just got back from vaca and played a game

went 16/7/12 with Darius for a win... i clearly remember the mistakes that gave me some deaths and i really want to keep getting better with him

someone convince me not to main this dude & buy that sweet basketball skin
 
just got back from vaca and played a game

went 16/7/12 with Darius for a win... i clearly remember the mistakes that gave me some deaths and i really want to keep getting better with him

someone convince me not to main this dude & buy that sweet basketball skin
Do it. Let the bloodlust begin.
 

Artdayne

Member
do you guys disagree or agree

I definitely agree about Blizzard, probably Valve too, not sure about Riot. I definitely got the impression while playing WoW for years that Blizzard wasn't that interested in balance, more so having classes taking turns for months at a time for being overpowered.
 

zkylon

zkylewd
do you guys disagree or agree
hmm for starters that's a really old comic

i would say that's a vision of riot's balance that was definitely more on point before than it is now

nowadays it's a lot about nerfing champions to carve out weaknesses where previously there was none, so idk

i feel like riot balancing is alright in a general sense, and mistakes are usually specific cases
 
"Your recent report of an unsportsmanlike player was verified and a penalty was issued."

This is the first time I've ever gotten this. It's amazing how one time is all it takes to make me feel a lot better about the reporting system. I've reported so many pieces of shit and never heard anything. This recent guy was flaming a teammate in after-game lobby, throwing out all kinds of homophobic slurs. Fuck him.
 

Newt

Member
"Your recent report of an unsportsmanlike player was verified and a penalty was issued."

This is the first time I've ever gotten this. It's amazing how one time is all it takes to make me feel a lot better about the reporting system. I've reported so many pieces of shit and never heard anything. This recent guy was flaming a teammate in after-game lobby, throwing out all kinds of homophobic slurs. Fuck him.
I'm not sure how the report system works, but basically ever report I put on someone gets the message. I don't report frequently though.
 

Leezard

Member
do you guys disagree or agree

I agree with zkylon. This was kinda true once upon a time, especially around season 2. Champs would get weaknesses buffed and strengths nerfed. Nowadays it's not even remotely true, since Riot is trying to let champs have strengths and weaknesses.

The image gets reposted so much but I don't think it's relevant except for Blizzard.
 
I agree with zkylon. This was kinda true once upon a time, especially around season 2. Champs would get weaknesses buffed and strengths nerfed. Nowadays it's not even remotely true, since Riot is trying to let champs have strengths and weaknesses.

The image gets reposted so much but I don't think it's relevant except for Blizzard.

idk I just saw this for the first time like yesterday
 
Oh, I guess you've lucked out then. It gets reposted in random threads on reddit all the time. The comic is like 4 years old at this point.

lol yeah that sounds about right

4 years ago I was complaining how every champion was becoming homogeneous and about muh movement creep
 
Top Bottom