Rioter Comments
: Please give me opinion. My comment removed by Riot for 'Wrong Language'
Totally understood, but why are you on EUW if you know what i mean ;) ?
Rioter Comments
Leonheart (EUNE)
: who wants a friend like this?
Nakoruru (EUNE)
: I'm a newbie artist, but I created some cool pictures (started drawing a year ago). |Picture name||Picture| |- |Senna||http://imgur.com/5bo9kat| |Prestigious LeBlanc||http://imgur.com/LlVD875| |Snowman||http://imgur.com/QRclYL0| |Riot, please T_T||http://imgur.com/a8sjh5g| |Ashen Princess Syndra||http://imgur.com/s1gyf9z| |Welcome to Arcade||http://imgur.com/zpuREoE| |Spring||http://imgur.com/54dyXQl| |Chibi Syndra||http://imgur.com/d74Fcux| |Creations & Concepts||http://imgur.com/a/eH7n6| |Torpedosheep :b||https://robin-sky.deviantart.com/art/Torpedosheep-653487758|
: Im kinda confused
Basically, i feel like we should do stuff for this game without getting the reward. I am sure there are people ready to draw anything positive and post it, the act of kindness i guess.. I don't see it much often so i decided to make a "contest" :)
Rioter Comments
: Maybe he was salty because Nami comes from the see. get it? because sea water is salty.... I'm gonna see myself out now
That was too fast 7/8.
Voldymort (EUNE)
: what i meant to say is that a person who is ....inspired enoough to pick a nickname that is related to negative attitude is more often than not negative him/herself. i'm talking from personal experience
How is my in - game username negative? People these days would use anything as an excuse for flame.
: i honestly can't handle the flame anymore
maybe i should just mute them all so i wouldn't deal with this anymore, although i would be sad to do so because i wouldn't know who is being toxic, as a player i want to make a difference and with muting other players it won't give me than opportunity but maybe i should still mute them all, maybe that is the greater good idk
Rioter Comments
Mada (EUW)
: could be two icons, though
I think that the number of icons should depend on the level of honor. Honor 2 : One or two icons. Honor 3 : Three icons. Honor 4 : Four icons. You get the point.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=00000000000000030001000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-16T18:08:14.478+0000) > > How is stating facts about three countries generalizing? It's just stating facts. > > China, Japan, North Korea. Facts. Deal with it. Stating something and claiming that it is a "fact" does not make it a fact ... I provided valid sources for my claims/facts and so should you, if you want your numbers to be deemed as facts. > It's still not being "immune" how you described it. The immunity itself has to do with the bacteria, not the body. There's a difference. being pedantic about such details is a nice tactic of kicking the ball out of the field and avoiding the point, which is that when something doesn't work for you alone, that doesn't mean that it should be abolished overall.
> [{quoted}](name=Skouriasmenos,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=000000000000000300010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-16T19:06:15.835+0000) > > Stating something and claiming that it is a "fact" does not make it a fact ... I provided valid sources for my claims/facts and so should you, if you want your numbers to be deemed as facts. It is a fact. Someone just needs to write one sentence on Google to get the needed information on Wikipedia. This is not a debate. If i wanted to, i would have provided the links. I don't want to. What's the point? It wasn't even directed at you, it was meant to defend facts. Still, i will provide some evidence. **Japan** : Death penalty for multiple homicides. Murder rate, 0,31% . http://imgur.com/a/Y8hN5 **China** : Death penalty for almost anything. Murder rate, 0,74%. http://imgur.com/a/2SO2v **South Korea** : Death penalty for almost anything. Murder rate, 0,74%. http://imgur.com/a/Nmv1z (my bad for saying "North Korea"). There are countries with death penalty and countries without it. Depending on the outside and inside factors affecting the country, death penalty might or might be not useful, especially if we look at the factors such as mentality, religion, history etc.. My point wasn't that the death penalty works everywhere. Just that there are countries whose laws that support death penalty have a significantly low murder rate in comparison with _some_ countries which do not. Meaning, that the action of a harsher punishment **COULD** influence the game positively, since without it the results aren't very satisfying for now. That is all i am defending. A probability. A chance. And, well, a fact that someone attacked by generalizing all of the countries which hold a death penalty in law and described it as "not effective". "Shiwah" : "A stricter punishment system doesn't help. Look at the countries with death penalty for murder: murders still happen." There. > > being pedantic about such details is a nice tactic of kicking the ball out of the field and avoiding the point, which is that when something doesn't work for you alone, that doesn't mean that it should be abolished overall. Details? Not sure if we are on the same page. Those are basics, not details. You can't just define something, get corrected and blame the correction on something ridiculous as "details". Want to make a point? Make sure you understand the concept first. I very much understood your perspective on the point, i just didn't and still don't agree with it. Let us quote your statement : >well, not everything works for everyone ... it didn't help you, but it most definitely helped others to reform Those "others" you are speaking about are a vast minority. In these situations, we are looking for a solution if the majority is being affected by something, not minority. What is helping of a few in comparison with not helping the majority? And about the correction, you don't need to be irritated by it. You should be grateful that you learned something out of it. Who knows, maybe it will help you one day. Knowledge is power. Throwing incorrect information to make a point isn't.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=000000000000000300010000,timestamp=2017-08-16T17:34:05.354+0000) > > That information contains collection of all the countries which have a death penalty installed. **You can't generalize.** China, Japam, North Korea.. he said while generalizing ... :D > These cases represent a highly efficient law they practice. It doesn't work everywhere, but saying how it's worse than non - death penalty is very incorrect. yet I do not see your links and facts ... :) > They do, actually. And they would. so far we have seen nothing of the sort ... > You can't be immune to penicillin, the medication itself is immune to the bacteria. drugs do not work on everyone ... you can even be alergic to cortisone (which is the main drug against allergies :p )
> [{quoted}](name=Skouriasmenos,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=0000000000000003000100000000,timestamp=2017-08-16T17:50:55.606+0000) > > he said while generalizing ... :D How is stating facts about three countries generalizing? It's just stating facts. > > yet I do not see your links and facts ... :) China, Japan, North Korea. Facts. Deal with it. > > so far we have seen nothing of the sort ... Which is one more reason to why it should be created. > > drugs do not work on everyone ... you can even be alergic to cortisone (which is the main drug against allergies :p ) It's still not being "immune" how you described it. The immunity itself has to do with the bacteria, not the body. There's a difference. Being allergic to a particular drug means that after using the drug for a period of time, your body became over -sensitive, to be more precise, the drug itself is creating immunological changes in your body (creation of anti - bodies), which creates an allergy to a particular drug once you are in contact with it.
BooDenny2 (EUNE)
: The best way how to get out of bronze is using brain. I got it out of there under week following this strategy
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=0000000000000003,timestamp=2017-08-15T23:53:31.677+0000) > > Not correct. Technically, they do still happen, but much less. Look at China. Only has 0.74% of Murder rate. Why? Because they have death penalties eligible for almost anything. > that conclusion is utter BS and here is some proof : https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates so, no ... > It does help. A lot. Stricter punishments, Shiwah. I never opened my heart but i am tired of seeing flame every single game. Literally. The League of Legends community is growing rapidly and these present punishments for flame are very interesting and organized, but are lacking the strictness. ... it does NOT help "a lot" and whether it is of any use of not is a matter of a very serious and ongoing debate, but certainly not something that you can come off saying that "it is de facto" helping, especially when the actual facts do not agree with your statements. > I haven't been given any chat restriction punishments in about two years already. In fact, i am completely the opposite of what i was. But even so, those punishments didn't teach me any lessons, they only made me continue. well, not everything works for everyone ... it didn't help you, but it most definitely helped others to reform ... let us say that I am immune to penicillin, should I request for that medicin to be abolished for everyone else, just because it doesn't help ME .?. :p Obviously not. Get out of your self-centered bubble, for your own sake, dude.
> [{quoted}](name=Skouriasmenos,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=00000000000000030001,timestamp=2017-08-16T11:03:50.378+0000) > > that conclusion is utter BS and here is some proof : > > https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates > > so, no ... That information contains collection of all the countries which have a death penalty installed. You can't generalize. China, Japam, North Korea.. These cases represent a highly efficient law they practice. It doesn't work everywhere, but saying how it's worse than non - death penalty is very incorrect. Each case on their own, this game is one of them. > > ... it does NOT help "a lot" and whether it is of any use of not is a matter of a very serious and ongoing debate, but certainly not something that you can come off saying that "it is de facto" helping, especially when the actual facts do not agree with your statements. They do, actually. And they would. > > well, not everything works for everyone ... it didn't help you, but it most definitely helped others to reform ... let us say that I am immune to penicillin, should I request for that medicin to be abolished for everyone else, just because it doesn't help ME .?. :p You can't be immune to penicillin, the medication itself is immune to the bacteria. > > Get out of your self-centered bubble, for your own sake, dude. Not sure which one of us is in the bubble.. dude.
Rioter Comments
: M8 please. Punishments have nothing to do with crimes in this case. Capital punishment exists in Saudi Arabia, and their murder rates are higher than japan, or china, or for example Norway, which has no capital punishment. Correlation does not equal causation. Instead of focusing on banning toxic players, Riot should implement selective bans. For example, if you get reported for trolling or inting too many times in ranked, you get ranked restriction for X number of games, increasing over time, until you are banned from playing ranked until the next season starts. Regardless if you were really trolling or not. If you get reported too much for flame, or abuse, you get X games of chat restriction, or you get completely banned from using chat. You don't need it honestly, you even have "ENEMY HAS VISION HERE" ping now, what do you need chat for? If you cheat on the other hand, your account gets banned, the same way they do it now. It will remove trolls from rankeds. Let them troll in normals, its what normals are for. It will stop toxic behaviours, because people cant flame when they cant chat at all. And it will save a lot of people a lot of time and money by not perma banning them for raging in an online game. You can avoid any punishments for flame by not using keywords. For example, two equal statements, one gets you banned, other does not, both piss off the guy: 1. You are so dumb. 2. If you had any lower IQ, someone would have to water you two times a day. (not directed at you, just an example) It only takes a little creativity, and you will never get banned for being toxic. The point here is that riot should rely on reports, and statistics, not dumb robot systems without ability to learn, since the tribunal is never coming back. Restrict more chats. Stop frequently reported people from playing ranked for a while. When people can't talk: they can't flame. When people can't play ranked, their trolling means nothing. And the bottom line is everybody gets to keep playing, and everyone is happy. Cheers
> [{quoted}](name=A Peace of Mind,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=00000000000000030000,timestamp=2017-08-16T02:07:41.740+0000) > > M8 please. Punishments have nothing to do with crimes in this case. I was literally answering to another person about his comparisons between the current game punishments and the death penalty for murders, so i decided to bring some facts into it and point out the possible positive outcome for harsher punishments. > Capital punishment exists in Saudi Arabia, and their murder rates are higher than japan, or china, or for example Norway, which has no capital punishment. Depends on a lot of factors. Religion and mentality are just one of them. But we are talking about a game and a possiblr positive outcome from the idea of harsher punishments. > > Instead of focusing on banning toxic players, Riot should implement selective bans. I'll be straight - forward with what i think. That is absolutely a horrible idea. With the current situation we and Riot have under our sleeves, the "selective" punishments are just poor guesses and would not bring the best in its efficiency. > For example, if you get reported for trolling or inting too many times in ranked, you get ranked restriction for X number of games, increasing over time, until you are banned from playing ranked until the next season starts. Regardless if you were really trolling or not. Because that is totally fair, right? Being reported by someone for no reason happens every day. Players constantly misbehaving, writing complains in the game about reporting someone for having a bad game or not a perfect KDA. Even one bad decision making is considered as "trolling" or "intentionally feeding" by those same ignorant people. If you want to start an unnecessary and entirely negative World War lll, then your idea would fit perfectly. > > If you get reported too much for flame, or abuse, you get X games of chat restriction, or you get completely banned from using chat. You don't need it honestly, you even have "ENEMY HAS VISION HERE" ping now, what do you need chat for? That is a very, very bad idea. It wouldn't be accurate and the majority of players would be getting punished for no reason at all. > > > It will remove trolls from rankeds. Let them troll in normals, its what normals are for. > It will stop toxic behaviours, because people cant flame when they cant chat at all. With the suspension system you suggested, none of the productiveness would happen at all. It would actually seriously harm the game. > > > You can avoid any punishments for flame by not using keywords. Obviously. > > For example, two equal statements, one gets you banned, other does not, both piss off the guy: > > 1. You are so dumb. > 2. If you had any lower IQ, someone would have to water you two times a day. {{sticker:zombie-nunu-bummed}} > > (not directed at you, just an example) > > > The point here is that riot should rely on reports, and statistics, not dumb robot systems without ability to learn, since the tribunal is never coming back. You can say that for intentionally feeding on purpose. The ban system against this offense is not as efficient as the flaming one is. But don't insult the ban system against flaming. It's extremely accurate and it needs to even be harsher. > > > When people can't talk: they can't flame. > When people can't play ranked, their trolling means nothing. > And the bottom line is everybody gets to keep playing, and everyone is happy. {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}}
Rioter Comments
marcus85 (EUW)
: Getting banned for abusive behaviour (but not really) Update
I think that the context of saying should definitely matter. At this point in game, it doesn't, and i am really sad about it. One more imperfection Riot, one more..
Denle (EUNE)
: I'm done with this game - Is Riot on the right path? Wrong champions?
You didn't give us any explanation behind your reasons. I mean, if you quit this game because you personally don\t like the champion ,i don't know, it just seems a bit over- sensitive. I don't like a lot of champions as champions, but if they are not overpowered i have no reason to complain. Fair is fair. It's still your right, i am just trying to lessen my ignorance of understanding you, because i currently can't.
Shiwah (EUW)
: A stricter punishment system doesn't help. Look at the countries with death penalty for murder: murders still happen.
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Ur8iirMP,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-15T17:03:55.434+0000) > > A stricter punishment system doesn't help. Look at the countries with death penalty for murder: murders still happen. Not correct. Technically, they do still happen, but much less. Look at China. Only has 0.74% of Murder rate. Why? Because they have death penalties eligible for almost anything. Still not convinced? Alright, let us take a look at Japan. It has only 0.31% of murder rate. The law for murders? No problem : "Capital punishment is a legal penalty in Japan. It is applied in practice only for murder, and executions are carried out by hanging." It does help. A lot. Stricter punishments, Shiwah. I never opened my heart but i am tired of seeing flame every single game. Literally. The League of Legends community is growing rapidly and these present punishments for flame are very interesting and organized, but are lacking the strictness. I remember when i first started playing and hit Bronze. I flamed, got chat restrictions.. Didn't stop me from flaming until i made peace with this game and accepted the reality of its imperfections. I haven't been given any chat restriction punishments in about two years already. In fact, i am completely the opposite of what i was. But even so, those punishments didn't teach me any lessons, they only made me continue. What changed me is looking at the majority of players who flame every single game and realizing how sad it is. Especially at the higher ELO. Players just flame, even when they don't have to. They don't get punished as much as they should be. Hell, a lot of them go unnoticed.
Rioter Comments
: I'm an atheist
I don't like this joke. Not funny
Meriipu (EUW)
: I used to be low-mid plat
: Same here, used to be high plat but now hardstuck mid gold. To be fair though, I stopped caring about getting high rank after s4, the game isn't as fun anymore imo.
I live for your comment. Was asking myself why i stopped caring. Now i realize it's just not fun anymore
bra1n1ess (EUW)
: Explaining myself.
Up - voted. I see you are an open minded person and i am gladly appreciative of it. I think that what Riot is doing is preventing players from all type of offensive language that is used in the game for the sake of players. It seems like they just don't want to keep those players around as it could affect negatively the game itself. My advice to them is to either make punishments harsher or do a bit of changes around the system. I am a victim of a constant blaming, flaming, offensive language etc.. There is not a game gone without someone typing in chat to report me for allegedly "trolling" or "feeding" in the game. Last game, which was a bit different but still at the same level of negativeness, i had a Cailtyn that called me Autistic multiple times and was complaining about my farm for no reason at all. I was legendary in that game and i didn't do anything to her. Absolutely anything. It still amazes me how the flaming is still persistent throughout the majority of my games. Out of 100% games i have, at least 85% uses some kind of negative form of offensive language and is cursing in chat and telling other players to report "champion name" . I am sorry, but i am already used to being flamed. It's upsetting to see that their system has done nothing noticeable on that matter. I literally get flamed every single game. Maybe i am just not used to being flamed all that often, but this game is being around for years and i don't think that any type of change regarding the offensive language will be made in favor of a flamer, mainly because it became a tradition and those changes would completely change the mindset of the game and negatively affect it as well. I hope you understand. CS : GO was always without the ruling over language. League was. We can't just change the concept just like that, it wouldn't make any sense.. It would become a totally different game. **EDIT** : Probably impossible, but i think that cursing, like saying "F*CK" and stuff like that without involving harassment should somehow be permitted and not punishable.
Aezander (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ybo8VdcE,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2017-08-14T09:20:27.381+0000) > > That is absolutely disgusting to say. You are dividing players into two groups and trying to diminish players who flamed with a preposterous guess that they will "continue trolling" and "feeding" on purpose. Which is why I was not absolute in my theorizing/assumption (or guessing by your standards). And because I've been here when Riot implemented the '*gather CR till you are a billionaire*' idea. The end result was an increase in posts here of my '*preposterous guess*', my *assumptions*. > This is so, so, so wrong. It's just not correct. Muting pings and chat has nothing to do with actually being unable to chat. They would still be playing like they used to, only without an option to chat with someone. Yes it has. The first one is limiting the amount of steam one can puff out, the second one is completely cutting it off. There are differences, but there are similarities. The difference is that they are not tilting you in the same amount if you are a flamer, the similarities are a) they are both tilting solutions to the average flamer, b) you are completely "forcing" him to resort to different ways of puffing out steam. > If they troll, just like EVERYONE else, they will get reported and most probably punished, but that is something totally different. And no, with your suggestion of Perman-Chat-**Ban** you are effectively elongating their presence in this game, since it's far easier for the system to detect Flaming that it is Trolling. > Oh, yes, let's justify the deletion of an account by saying how they had warnings, as if it justifies the PERMANENT BAN of your account? Please be open minded and think with your own head. Yes it does actually. Think of it like this. You go to a shop,or a bar, and you start making a fuss, being offensive to other clients, again and again. What happens ? Usually the first time you get a warning. Second time you probably are thrown out of the premises by the security, and if you keep it up, you can be banned from ever entering that shop or bar. > Teamwork, again, has nothing to do with chat or flaming itself. Flaming can worsen it, but if there is no option for a flamer to chat, teamwork will remain the same. It hasn't ? Will it? Oh, my. Are you certain ? ... If you don't have the chance to even write "Guys! Don't chase." because you were stupid enough to get a perma-chat-*ban* (a ban, no a restriction that allows you to at least have limited messages per X minutes), what will you do ? Will it not tilt you ? Do you believe that all flamers will keep playing and not throw the towel and start trolling or Int-ing ? > Let's quit this nonsense of targeting these players and having prejudice on them that they will "troll" if they have no option to chat. It's wrong and incorrect. I am not prejudiced towards the flamers, in fact I could say that you are being narrow-minded on their potential reactions when you serve them with a perma-chat-ban "solution". I have merely stated some factual assumptions about a) what has been observed here in the forums when something close to your idea was implemented by Riot and b) my own observation of flamers in my games. What I mean with b) ? Simple. I rarely talk in my games (I am what Riot might call a Neutral player, I don't flame, I don't troll, but I rarely write too ...usually I am like "damn me" when I %%%% up, or "nice" when my team does sth good or the normal game jargon "care, drake?, back" etc) and I also, in my 7 years of play LoL, muted a player only twice. Thus, I can observe Flamers in their natural habitat. If they get muted by their target they still illuminate the Chat, much to the chagrin of the rest of the team (I find it extremely amusing, but then again, I am just a spectator). During the "*Infinite* CR Era" when they couldn't write more, they spammed pings (the care or back pings, usually the latter, as it is a little more high pitched, ergo more annoying if repeatedly used), when that failed (some play the game with no sound) they tended to fall into trolling or Int-ing causing the loss of the game (they didn't come with the team, afk farmed lanes, etc). Not all, thankfully, showed that behaviourial patern, but I found it was the most common one. > What? Are you for real now? Talking about the rules of the game? Are you by any accident a Blitz Bot Rioter? I was talking about fixing things in game (in this situation punishments) as i had a GOOD idea of an actual fair punishment. Everything has to start from sth, and in this case it start by understanding that there are rules, and breaking them has repercussions. And you agreed to said rules. Which is what the average flamer does not understand. > If you don't get creative and try to make ideas, nothing will be changed. I, as i said, advise you to think with your own self and maybe question a few things. > Pointing out the rules of the game is a bit narrow minded. I am talking about the solution to a potential problem, not a problem itself. I don't want to go around circles like that, none of us will get something out of it. Is it narrow minded ? I am not so sure. I call it having a base to start talking from. Your *solution* has been proposed before. We have talked about it again and again in these fora and back in my own language's forum. It's issues remain, and mainly that it's not promoting any kind of reform and it keeps a player who is exhibiting consistent toxic behaviour longer in the game, giving him more time to destroy more games, just in another way. > This game is open to evolving. It is egoistical by all means. It is. It will always be if left unchanged. But i guess it's easier to sit with your hand crossed and do nothing about the problems in the game or even finding solutions to solve them. The game is open to evolving. True. The punitive system has also gone through several stages before reaching this system. I still remember the old Tribunal (a player voted if another player was punish-worthy), I still remember that the punishments between a first Warning and permaban included a 30-day ban -that was almost repeatable, or was it the 15-ban that was repeatable (?). > What does "breaking the rules" have to do with anything which i have said? It doesn't change my opinion that the punishment is egoistical and not well thought through. Everything. If you can't understand that this game has rules that you have to abide by, why should you keep playing it, ruining the game for your teams consistently ? (\*) > I was made to be fair and reasonable. That is why i chose this job (nursing). Then why do you want to keep terminal players alive in the game ? People that would reach permaban, will always reach it. You are just giving flamers yet another chance, a chance that gives nothing to the people playing with them, because you can't guarantee reform in a higher percentage from what it already is. You don't seem to understand that the permaban is not a solution, was never a solution. Perma ban was simply Riot's admition that "*You can't be reformed, we think You don't want to reform, and Your behaviour is unwanted in this game by Us and the "Community". So you are out.*" > This game is nothing like the real world. I guess it's just easier for things to slip through hands, just like that. Life has ZERO things in common with this game. Mmm ... Not exactly. In rl you have to interact, and work, with strangers before they become friends or acquaintances, if you can't do it in the "simple" environment of an online game, shouldn't it ring some bells that you need to work on that ? If you are venting towards complete strangers because someone or sth tilted you in real life, doesn't it mean that you are doing sth wrong ? > Flaming is a factor, an active one. A category of the game. It's not the game itself. Your account shouldn't be permanently punished just because of your flame. Oh, no. It's not just a category of the game. It's one of the important variables that It is directly responsible for a win or a loss in a team-based game. > Oh my, you keep on defending this game and saying how i was about to write the reason for not punishing players permanently, which is "money spent on the account". > > I wasn't. It was a preemptive argument, cause most people that get permaban actually use that as a reason that should not get them perma-banned. > And there you go again, repeating the rules of the game as if i don't know them. I will ask again, what does rules have to do with ANYTHING which i have said? (\*) > The game is open to suggestions and changes, it's my right to provide one. Why are you getting so defensive? Why are you so defencive ? ... You seem to think that this is the best solution from the get-go. Didn't you come here to discuss your idea ? Wheren't you prepared to be open-minded about the pros and cons of your idea as seen by other people ? [Continued to another post because I hit the Character limit]
> [{quoted}](name=Aezander,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ybo8VdcE,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2017-08-14T11:21:48.310+0000) > > Which is why I was not absolute in my theorizing/assumption (or guessing by your standards). And because I've been here when Riot implemented the '*gather CR till you are a billionaire*' idea. The end result was an increase in posts here of my '*preposterous guess*', my *assumptions*. Can i have more information about that experiment of Riot? > > And no, with your suggestion of Perman-Chat-**Ban** you are effectively elongating their presence in this game, since it's far easier for the system to detect Flaming that it is Trolling. I'd say that punishing intentional feeders is probably the hardest and most consequential thing. There was just a thread around these days explaining how a lot of trollers just get away with it.. Sometimes even those trolling 0:30 every game. > > Yes it does actually. Think of it like this. You go to a shop,or a bar, and you start making a fuss, being offensive to other clients, again and again. What happens ? Usually the first time you get a warning. Second time you probably are thrown out of the premises by the security, and if you keep it up, you can be banned from ever entering that shop or bar. That is life, this is game. The difference is very clear. Similarities are present, but we simply can't entirely compare two different realities like that. Surely, the rules apply in both cases. Although in this one, the game case, there is no possibility of causing crimes except from flaming. The influence of flaming could contribute to the crime scenes, but the direct physical contact is not possible. So i agree and disagree. I think that the life examples are only useful if a point is being misunderstood. In this case, i understand everything. Both sides. > > > I am not prejudiced towards the flamers, in fact I could say that you are being narrow-minded on their potential reactions when you serve them with a perma-chat-ban "solution". I have merely stated some factual assumptions about a) what has been observed here in the forums when something close to your idea was implemented by Riot and b) my own observation of flamers in my games. I have my own observations, that is the reason of why i am defending my point. I guess everyone's is different. > > > Everything has to start from sth, and in this case it start by understanding that there are rules, and breaking them has repercussions. And you agreed to said rules. Which is what the average flamer does not understand. Except the fact that i wasn't talking about breaking the rules, more like changing the rules because they do not contribute enough in preventing and stopping flamers from their further activity in a productive manner. Actually, flamers can understand anything. Very ignorant to say how the "average" flamer doesn't understand the rules, maybe he just doesn't want to acknowledge them because of the negative opinion he has about them? You could obey the rules and agree to their terms, it doesn't mean that you necessarily need to agree with them internally. Maybe they stopped being productive, maybe you are seeing the negative outcome with time and therefore you get the right and a chance to voice out the opinion of yours? > > Everything. If you can't understand that this game has rules that you have to abide by, why should you keep playing it, ruining the game for your teams consistently ? (\*) By your term, not agreeing to the rules is equal to ruining the game for others? In which world, exactly? You could not agree with the rules and still play the game accordingly. Quite easy to understand. But on a serious note, since i don't want to be the one correcting your sentences and knowing that you wanted to imply something about flamers, not people who don't flame, i am all up for the punishments of the players who flame. My idea was there to just maybe take a turn on a positive side, i didn't know that they actually implemented this idea. Although that reasonably changes my opinion slightly, without any evidence or experience to having gone through it, i simply cannot state my final opinion. > > Then why do you want to keep terminal players alive in the game ? People that would reach permaban, will always reach it. You are just giving flamers yet another chance, a chance that gives nothing to the people playing with them, because you can't guarantee reform in a higher percentage from what it already is. You don't seem to understand that the permaban is not a solution, was never a solution. Perma ban was simply Riot's admition that "*You can't be reformed, we think You don't want to reform, and Your behaviour is unwanted in this game by Us and the "Community". So you are out.*" What if there is a chance in the future for the productive punishments and a proper help for flamers? > > Mmm ... Not exactly. In rl you have to interact, and work, with strangers before they become friends or acquaintances, if you can't do it in the "simple" environment of an online game, shouldn't it ring some bells that you need to work on that ? If you are venting towards complete strangers because someone or sth tilted you in real life, doesn't it mean that you are doing sth wrong ? No, it doesn't. Because this is game, real life is different, as i said before. > > Oh, no. It's not just a category of the game. It's one of the important variables that It is directly responsible for a win or a loss in a team-based game. No, it's not. Not entirely, maybe even not slightly. There are thousands of players with muted chat and they don't even write anything and win games and have a high rank. You can communicate with pings quite effectively without using chat. #FACT > > It was a preemptive argument, cause most people that get permaban actually use that as a reason that should not get them perma-banned. I don't think that's correct. They don't use it as a reason, more like a failed justification for their actions and grieving as well. It surely must suck to lose an account worth quite a lot of money. >
The Febos (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=zJ80GAsv,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-08-13T14:17:01.796+0000) > > Please don't try to "correct" my runes since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not trying to correct you. I'm presenting you with FACTS, not opinions. Your setup is sub-optimal. > are picked from the highest win percentage runes, not to mention that literally everyone is using them. Are you sure about that? [Sona Support, Champion.GG](http://champion.gg/champion/Sona/Support?) [Sona Support, OP.GG](https://euw.op.gg/champion/sona/statistics/support) Both show the same setup which is different from yours; very different. Also, those statistics are from the MAJORITY of the ranked playerbase. Your setup is simply wrong. > The majority of which i was speaking about exists, you don't really need the evidence of it, playing the game and recalling thousands of players with wrong runes should be enough, and please don't tell me that i am "the only one" seeing this, because i am not. You are delusional. I just showed you statistics collect globally and you are still claiming "majority"? Your own experience counts for jack shit. Even if "thousands of players" is true, do you realize how little that is? League has over 32 MILLION players (and that's a number from 2014 which is likely to be higher now). Even with 100.000 players with "the wrong" setup that would only be 0.3% of the entire ranked population. That's not a majority. Buddy, I'm not wasting more time with you. Stay ignorant if you want.
You are not right. Out of all which i have written you only have one argument against the runes i have for Sona? Wow, "buddy", congratulations, you achieved so much!! What about other runes? I am right. What about the AP Rune page you failed to mention changed long before the thread? I am right. Majority in my experience. My experience matters. It might not in some someone else's, but in mine, the majority affects my game. It's still a majority of players that i encounter. Does it change anything? As if i am so worried and concerned about the global majority. Not. YOU stay ignorant. Or better, don't reply to my comments if you have zero sense to what you are talking about.
KerberosFi (EUNE)
: There was system of giving perma banned players one last chance. It ultimately failled as these players got banned again in no time. There was also test for permanent chat restriction. Again it failled too as players would find another way to indicate their frustration (inting,not co-operating with team,spam pinging and so on). Another thing is that such system ultimately punishes more players around rather than the restricted player because of the communication problems and the forementioned reasons. Also it's like saying straight "Go ahead and flame,you won't get banned,only get your chat restricted". Ideal of the current system is that players will turn the directipn before they get any harsher punishment. And if that fails usually perma will at least make them bother to come here on boards.
: Seems you and another guy called Woozî both opened threads within hours of each other, writing roughly the same number of badly written, rambling words, all basically saying the same thing..... you both don't want anyone to get banned for flaming or being toxic, you think the best solution is just to perma-mute them and let them carry on playing with their own accounts forever. There are consequences to being unpleasant. Getting banned is that consequence. The majority of players do not want a waiver for people to be offensive, racist, homophobic or negative. They want them to be punished, they want them to lose their RP, their skins and their stuff, they want them banned and they want them gone from the game. It is not a single player game. Communication is important and chat restrictions are a last resort, not a shiny new officially endorsed playstyle for the uber selfish. Riot are very interested in pushing the team aspect of it, especially with regard to having the game seen more and more as a proper sport. This means there really isn't room in it for acid tongued idiots who can't keep their fingers from dancing across the keyboard.
> [{quoted}](name=revengingangel,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ybo8VdcE,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-08-14T00:31:47.134+0000) > > Seems you and another guy called Woozî both opened threads within hours of each other, writing roughly the same number of badly written, rambling words, all basically saying the same thing..... you both don't want anyone to get banned for flaming or being toxic, you think the best solution is just to perma-mute them and let them carry on playing with their own accounts forever. "Badly written, rambling words" is a seriously offensive sentence that provides zero to none evidence of it actually being correct. Maybe you just like writing offensive things to other people, or even worse, being passive - aggressive. > > There are consequences to being unpleasant. Getting banned is that consequence. The majority of players do not want a waiver for people to be offensive, racist, homophobic or negative. They want them to be punished, they want them to lose their RP, their skins and their stuff, they want them banned and they want them gone from the game. Yes, yes, yes.. "They want them this", "They want them that".. Gosh, no wonder people and their ego never change. It almost reminds me of the trial in which a woman loses her right to live by being acclaimed as a witch and then everyone (so morally right, so intelligent, so good) start screaming " BURN THE WITCH, BURN THE WITCH" .. Totally resolvable. Let's just add more fuel to the fire, i am sure it would bring the best of us. Not. > > It is not a single player game. Communication is important and chat restrictions are a last resort, not a shiny new officially endorsed playstyle for the uber selfish. Riot are very interested in pushing the team aspect of it, especially with regard to having the game seen more and more as a proper sport. This means there really isn't room in it for acid tongued idiots who can't keep their fingers from dancing across the keyboard. Seems like you are one of those same people you continuously bash about. Sad to see.
Aezander (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ybo8VdcE,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-08-13T23:46:09.107+0000) > > **Just because there is a current system that has been here for years doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one. This game is open to evolving, so why not change something from being meh to being good? Let's forget about the game, i don't think that flamers should be treated as some extremely bad people and therefore look inferior in comparison with others, and i certainly don't think that banning someone completely from the game is an appropriate punishment for their bad behavior (flaming). I think that disabling the option for them to chat in the game (forever) is a fair and appropriate punishment, as i also feel it's coming out as natural, fair and not over - the - top exaggerated as this current system for banning toxic players is like.** A couple (iirc) of years ago, the CRs received by some players could rise to 4-digits, effectively muting then permanently. Did they pause to think "Wait, maybe I shouldn't flame" before reaching those 4-digit CRs ? Nope. If you completely mute a flamer, they are left with pings which they will use to vent their "frustration". If their teamates cut off pings, mute them (there is the option), what do you think their reaction will be next ? Shut up and play ? Not in all cases, unfortunately. Most likely they will either feed intentionally or make sure you lose the game in more subtle ways. Taking away the flamer's ability to *spam chat* is akin to locking airtightly the cap of a steaming pot. Sure it will prevent steam from coming out ... for a time ... and then it will explode (trolling, afking, intentiontally feeding). Getting permabanned for flaming is a 3 stage affair, you get 2 prior warnings. A CR and a 14-day ban. ((Unless your typing is more dirty than a politician's wardrobe, and you manage to skip right into the Permaban)). Do you honestly believe, that a person that had 2 prior chances to think about his/her behaviour and threw them away, should remain playing in a game that requires teamwork ? And teamwork isn't helped built by flaming (or trolling, or **intentionally** feeding), especially when you fire it against a complete stranger. ((I should point out, that once upon a time, the steps before Permanban were far more, and the results were the same; people that thought about their behaviour, reformed, the rest found their way into Permaban-land)) >I feel like only then will there be some justice in the game and not a harsh egoistical "I'll permanently ban you" type of punishment, i just don't think it's right and people lose their right to play the game, they get disappointed and anxious, as if that's what is going to correct their flaming or make them respect you more or even learn from it. For starters. You, me, and everyone else here are playing Riot's game. They set the rules (even if they say that the "community" decides what is toxic/bad, the original Summoner's Code was set by them, based on some common sense), and **we** **agreed** to abide by them, when we created an account, installed the game, and virtually every time the client patches. So, an "I'll permanently band you" type of punshiment would have been egotistical, **if** it was in one go, and without any reason what so ever. In this case, you have rules, you break them, you pay the price. Simple. If people can't take a hint, can't stop and think when they are faced with the repercussions of their actions in a game, how will they survive out in the real world ? If you consistently destroy the game for 9 other people, despite the warnings, despite the initial light punishments, why should you keep play this game ? And before you spring up the "but the time and money spend on my account" argument. a) Your account was never yours (it is stated in the ToU) and any money you spent was for *services rendered* on that account, which were done, and b) if you, yourself did not value and respect your own time and money by stomping your "ego" over complete strangers, how and why do you expect them to be valued and respected by those strangers you stomped with your behaviour ?
> [{quoted}](name=Aezander,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ybo8VdcE,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2017-08-14T01:10:10.415+0000) > > A couple (iirc) of years ago, the CRs received by some players could rise to 4-digits, effectively muting then permanently. Did they pause to think "Wait, maybe I shouldn't flame" before reaching those 4-digit CRs ? Nope. If you completely mute a flamer, they are left with pings which they will use to vent their "frustration". If their teamates cut off pings, mute them (there is the option), what do you think their reaction will be next ? Shut up and play ? Not in all cases, unfortunately. Most likely they will either feed intentionally or make sure you lose the game in more subtle ways. Taking away the flamer's ability to *spam chat* is akin to locking airtightly the cap of a steaming pot. Sure it will prevent steam from coming out ... for a time ... and then it will explode (trolling, afking, intentiontally feeding). That is absolutely disgusting to say. You are dividing players into two groups and trying to diminish players who flamed with a preposterous guess that they will "continue trolling" and "feeding" on purpose. This is so, so, so wrong. It's just not correct. Muting pings and chat has nothing to do with actually being unable to chat. They would still be playing like they used to, only without an option to chat with someone. If they troll, just like EVERYONE else, they will get reported and most probably punished, but that is something totally different. > > Getting permabanned for flaming is a 3 stage affair, you get 2 prior warnings. A CR and a 14-day ban. ((Unless your typing is more dirty than a politician's wardrobe, and you manage to skip right into the Permaban)). Do you honestly believe, that a person that had 2 prior chances to think about his/her behaviour and threw them away, should remain playing in a game that requires teamwork ? And teamwork isn't helped built by flaming (or trolling, or **intentionally** feeding), especially when you fire it against a complete stranger. ((I should point out, that once upon a time, the steps before Permanban were far more, and the results were the same; people that thought about their behaviour, reformed, the rest found their way into Permaban-land)) Oh, yes, let's justify the deletion of an account by saying how they had warnings, as if it justifies the PERMANENT BAN of your account? Please be open minded and think with your own head. Teamwork, again, has nothing to do with chat or flaming itself. Flaming can worsen it, but if there is no option for a flamer to chat, teamwork will remain the same. Let's quit this nonsense of targeting these players and having prejudice on them that they will "troll" if they have no option to chat. It's wrong and incorrect. > > For starters. You, me, and everyone else here are playing Riot's game. They set the rules (even if they say that the "community" decides what is toxic/bad, the original Summoner's Code was set by them, based on some common sense), and **we** **agreed** to abide by them, when we created an account, installed the game, and virtually every time the client patches. What? Are you for real now? Talking about the rules of the game? Are you by any accident a Blitz Bot Rioter? I was talking about fixing things in game (in this situation punishments) as i had a GOOD idea of an actual fair punishment. If you don't get creative and try to make ideas, nothing will be changed. I, as i said, advise you to think with your own self and maybe question a few things. Pointing out the rules of the game is a bit narrow minded. I am talking about the solution to a potential problem, not a problem itself. I don't want to go around circles like that, none of us will get something out of it. > > So, an "I'll permanently band you" type of punshiment would have been egotistical, **if** it was in one go, and without any reason what so ever. In this case, you have rules, you break them, you pay the price. Simple. This game is open to evolving. It is egoistical by all means. It is. It will always be if left unchanged. But i guess it's easier to sit with your hand crossed and do nothing about the problems in the game or even finding solutions to solve them. What does "breaking the rules" have to do with anything which i have said? It doesn't change my opinion that the punishment is egoistical and not well thought through. I was made to be fair and reasonable. That is why i chose this job (nursing). > > If people can't take a hint, can't stop and think when they are faced with the repercussions of their actions in a game, how will they survive out in the real world ? If you consistently destroy the game for 9 other people, despite the warnings, despite the initial light punishments, why should you keep play this game ? And before you spring up the "but the time and money spend on my account" argument. a) Your account was never yours (it is stated in the ToU) and any money you spent was for *services rendered* on that account, which were done, and b) if you, yourself did not value and respect your own time and money by stomping your "ego" over complete strangers, how and why do you expect them to be valued and respected by those strangers you stomped with your behaviour ? This game is nothing like the real world. I guess it's just easier for things to slip through hands, just like that. Life has ZERO things in common with this game. Flaming is a factor, an active one. A category of the game. It's not the game itself. Your account shouldn't be permanently punished just because of your flame. Oh my, you keep on defending this game and saying how i was about to write the reason for not punishing players permanently, which is "money spent on the account". I wasn't. And there you go again, repeating the rules of the game as if i don't know them. I will ask again, what does rules have to do with ANYTHING which i have said? The game is open to suggestions and changes, it's my right to provide one. Why are you getting so defensive? Talking about "Ego", as that is a deciding factor for flaming. It's not. Should i even mention your sentence about "earning respect" by the strangers? Like, you would have the same punishments as before, only that instead of a permanent ban you would get a permanent chat disabled. Earning respect from strangers, again, has nothing to do with what i have said. Permanent ban is wrong for flaming. It's not right and it will never be.
: I don't. I can read but i don't respond. I just don't pay attention to chat at all. I play to carry. If i see an idea being good, i'll go for it. Chat can help but it's not that important at all.
And i've said disabling an option for an individual to chat, not disabling the whole concept of chat.
: I would not want to play ranked with a person who can't read what other people write.
I don't. I can read but i don't respond. I just don't pay attention to chat at all. I play to carry. If i see an idea being good, i'll go for it. Chat can help but it's not that important at all.
Fajerk (EUW)
: There is strong belief that in team based game team communication is important part, and completely removing it equals to removing ability to play the game. That being said permanently removing chat and permanently suspending account is equal penalty as both remove ability to play the game, but the latter is better for community as having people in game who aren't allowed to play is worse than not having them at all. Also it is considered as option of last resort, and Riot indeed tries to more promote opposite side of being nice, rather than rely on punishing players, that's what new honor is here for. To that end, the number of actually permabanned accounts is so small it is hard to consider them not being "extremes" and thus hard to justify use of "non-extreme" methods. In addition there is small chance that they will actually reconsider and reform after, permanently removing chat does not offer any reform option.
You have no idea how many people would actually want their accounts without typing anything in the chat. Since there is a mute option anyways, the opinion of the damaged individuals is more important than a generalized opinion of how the game should work. We don't know if it would reflect negatively, i don't think that communication is the most essential part of this game, some people just don't want to even write anything in the game. I still think that the idea i brought should be implemented right away.
Koroth (EUW)
: Hey as this account here is permanently banned i can say. Somehow you are right i mean i changed a lot since my perma ban i created a new acc after and don't write much more than "gj" in Chat anymore and try to be nice to other like i would be in real life. I also think ppl shouldn't lose their money and time they wasted in their Account only for saying something bad thats %%%%ed up IMO. A permanent Chat would really be better. But for people that use Scripts Hacks and INT ingame they should still get a perma ban.
I agree. The one reason i haven't mentioned yet as well is that there is always a solution for those flamers to calm down and change the way they treat others in game and even in real life as well. Serving them a harsh "There is no place for people like you in the game" kind of thing truly hits the fan and is just plain morally wrong. Flaming isn't a disease, therefore it could be changed in time, no need for people to treat them as some kind of inferiors.
Rioter Comments
The Febos (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=zJ80GAsv,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-08-13T00:42:15.033+0000) > > Hey. As in the past and as in now, something just went unnoticed that i think should get a bit of attention. Most people, a vast majority, don't seem to have their runes or masteries configured correctly. > > Masteries are a bit fishy, and they often need to be adjusted depending on the enemy champion picks. Not really. You don't adjust masteries depending on the enemy picks. If you do, you don't know what you are doing. Most champions have a specific mastery setup that doesn't change. In cases like Riven, you may change your masteries depending on how you want to play the lane, but she's on of the few champions that actually does that. You don't adjust your masteries on champions like {{champion:266}} {{champion:23}} {{champion:24}} . Either you have the correct setup or you don't. The enemy pick has no weight on that decision. > Most players don't put enough value into these things, but they do matter, very much, Especially in the early game. Runes only matter during the early game. +9 armour at 20 minutes is nothing, but at 2 minutes can be a lot. > Literally in any division (except the high ones) majority has the wrong runes and / or masteries. Majority? Where did you get that information from? Based on your own experience? That's called "anecdotal evidence". *** You want facts? Here are facts. I picked the [top 5 popular champions on EUW](https://euw.op.gg/statistics/champion/) across all divisions. Let's us compare Bronze to Plat+: [Bronze](http://champion.gg/champion/Thresh/Support?league=bronze) vs [Plat+](http://champion.gg/champion/Thresh/Support?league=platinum+) Thresh. Same masteries and similar runes. [Bronze](http://champion.gg/champion/Tristana/ADC?league=bronze) vs [Plat+](http://champion.gg/champion/Tristana/ADC?league=platinum+) Tristana. Same masteries and runes. [Bronze](http://champion.gg/champion/Jhin/ADC?league=bronze) vs[ Plat+](http://champion.gg/champion/Jhin/ADC?league=platinum+) Jhin. Same masteries and runes. [Bronze](http://champion.gg/champion/Janna/Support?league=bronze) vs [Plat+](http://champion.gg/champion/Janna/Support?league=platinum+) Janna. Same masteries and runes. [Bronze](http://champion.gg/champion/Kayn/Top?league=bronze) vs [Plat+](http://champion.gg/champion/Kayn/Top?league=platinum+) Kayn. Even the most recent champion is played with the exactly same setup in opposite sides of the spectrum. Obviously, this is just a small sample size, but I picked the most popular champions to balance that issue. I'm not going to do this for all the other 130+ champions. If you want to disprove me, feel free to do so, but 1 counter-example isn't enough. If you claim "majority" you must prove majority, so at least 60% of the champions (that's 80). *** You know what's funny? You say that "majority" of players have the wrong setup, yet you are no different. I looked at your runes and the 4 that I saw are completely wrong. I can't link each one, so I'm just going to link the [entire page](https://eune.op.gg/summoner/rune/userName=Fast%20Finish%20PLS). "AD Carry" -> wrong Seals and Glyphs. You don't need AD on those. Armour and Magic Resist are better, respectively. "AP Carry" -> wrong Marks, Seals and Quintessence. AP on Seals is terrible, even mana regen is better. Magic pen on Quint should be on Marks and AP on Marks should be on Quint. "Sona" -> lethality on Marks? Just Magic pen is better. HP on Seals in pointless since you'd never want to take damage in the first place. Either Armour or Mana Regen are better. "Soraka" -> Again, AP on Marks is just bad. Magic pen is better. HP on Quint is terrible, since Soraka scales negatively with HP and the Quint slot is very valuable for other things. *** Regardless, all this rambling is pointless since both systems will be reworked into one in the pre-season.
Please don't try to "correct" my runes since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. All of the runes i have (except maybe Soraka) are correct and are picked from the highest win percentage runes, not to mention that literally everyone is using them. The "Standard" runes might be slightly more open to different kinds of situations, but the highest win percentage ones do me wonders and i am VERY satisfied with them. I don't play AD carries that much at all, in fact, i don't recall the last time i played an AD carry anyways. If i need to, going full AD with runes is usually what gives me an advantage in the early game. You are pretty wrong about my Sona's runes, i main her as support and i don't think she should be left without any HP. Going by the logic of "She shouldn't take damage in the first place" is very wrong and i usually consider the division i am in and everything else of that matter. But even so, i don't have the "AP Carry" rune page, i changed it long before i posted this thread, so there's that as well. I can't agree with you on Sona, but i will consider what you've said about Soraka, which makes it potentially two wrong rune sets, although as i said, i don't use the AD Carry rune page, i main the mid lane and support with Sona, second variety is Soraka, that's all. Doesn't change the point of my thread and everything that i have written. I have a pretty good knowledge about champions, especially junglers, and when you see the majority of players with the wrong runes and 200 HP in jungle, it's an alarming signal. The majority of which i was speaking about exists, you don't really need the evidence of it, playing the game and recalling thousands of players with wrong runes should be enough, and please don't tell me that i am "the only one" seeing this, because i am not. There.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Smerk (EUW)
: The thing is that those guys cannot win, they cannot finish the game normally with this tactic, they either mess up and lose or enemy surrender to not waste their time. What it is if not trolling?
Yes, those guys can't normally win (although i've got some speculations on that topic, the enemy could have done a few things to MAYBE even win a game), but they weren't trolling as well. It was something in between. The reason to why they weren't trolling was because they were always trying to prevent the enemy team from capturing relics, no one was standing there doing nothing. It's neutral, it's unusual, at a first glance it looks like "trolling", but it really isn't. The enemy could have tried to focus only one target at a time or maybe even try to go as a team and capture relics, we haven't seen any of this occurring in the game so we don't know whether a team could win or not, but probably yes.
Shiwah (EUW)
: Their deaths are, in fact, the entire reason why I thought Feederbuster was fired on their asses, being an automated system. The reason they gave kills was just so they could go back to base and get their items, while giving the enemy team gold that would ultimately be useless because they were denied death.
If there is a game mode in which you have to die, that's something that any Rioter should have been concerned about in the first place and not let all of this happen. Using what it's in the game to gain advantage isn't against the rules, especially not considering that there were no bugs involved or anything like that.
Shiwah (EUW)
: No apologies due, but my comment is on a very general scope, not this incident specifically. For example: if you start justifying you dying intentionally to the enemy as "being careless on purpose", it would create a dangerous precedent wherein any splitpushing or jungle-invading player could be potentially seen as "being careless on purpose" if their strat doesn't pay off as intended. Aka, accused and reported as an intentional feeder. It also would practically invalidate the proxy Singed strategy, which is already seen as borderline trolling by a good chunk of the community. Hence why changing the wording for "intentional feeding" means blurring the line so much, it would become a can of worms.
Excuse me, but i specifically explained to why the "being careless on purpose" is justifiable and should not be considered as trolling in **this situation in particular**. Maybe you took a south road but i don't think that anyone here is here because of other game modes or what does this definition mean in another game mode.. I made a thread about the situation itself and the game mode. No one cares about what "being careless on purpose" means in another situations or game modes, i specifically oriented my comment to be associated with relevance to this situation, and this situation only. Therefore, talking about things that don't have anything in common with my thread is a simple irrelevance. Although i can't see a reason to why you even replied to my comment and tried to "correct" me if you knew i was talking about this situation only, kinda doesn't make any sense at all.
Shiwah (EUW)
: **My comment had nothing to do with this incident specifically, and I also stated that very clearly.** It was a point that "being careless on purpose" is a definition that's the start of a very, very dangerous slippery slope. I cannot watch the replay from a 3g connection, currently.
Being careless on purpose to gain a positive advantage to your own team as a strategic game play isn't intentional feeding nor trolling. I think that i was also clear when discussing this topic in my thread and comments as well. I am not talking about any other game mode but this one, which is an entirely different situation and we haven't yet fully set the rules to which is what, but from what i have seen and perceived, the definition above perfectly explains a rare situation and why it's justifiable, if you can't relate, that is fine, considering that it's something totally different. But it happened, and we shouldn't mistake rules of other game modes and treat them all the same together. Each on their own.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fast Finish PLS,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LjWwyARR,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2017-08-09T01:36:32.624+0000) > > They weren't really "intentionally" dying, just being careless on purpose Isn't that another way to call "intentional feeding"? **Not related to the incident**, but I could be very well start intentionally feeding and call it "being careless on purpose" - I'm pretty sure it would make zero difference for my teammates. So, in short, people dying on purpose are _dying on purpose_. Changing the wording around opens a different can of worms that's best left alone.
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LjWwyARR,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2017-08-09T07:13:57.547+0000) > > Isn't that another way to call "intentional feeding"? > > **Not related to the incident**, but I could be very well start intentionally feeding and call it "being careless on purpose" - I'm pretty sure it would make zero difference for my teammates. > > So, in short, people dying on purpose are _dying on purpose_. Changing the wording around opens a different can of worms that's best left alone. Technically, yes, they were. I didn't want to get into political correctness since i thought that it wouldn't matter, but it does, apparently. As i said, technically. But they had a win tactic in their minds so it's definitely justifiable. And this is one of those cases that never happened before, you can't just rely on the fact that they gave a few kills to the enemy team, sure, it happened, but for what reason exactly? Not to mention that they stopped, showing one more proof to their strategic play style. EDIT : Just re-watched the video, they weren't trolling, just trying to prevent the capturing of relics.
Smerk (EUW)
: Normal win in most modes = destroyed Nexus, as long as you try to do that you're playing as you should. In Ascension you win by killing enemies and capturing relics. When you're not doing any of those, then you're clearly doing something wrong. And when you also not allow your enemies to do that, then this is clear trolling.
I will kindly agree to disagree. Surrendering isn't something unusual and therefore should not be punishable immediately. Even if we look at it as a "forced surrender vote", the enemy could have done a few things to perhaps even with the game, just a reminder. Just because you are not doing something that you are "supposed" to do doesn't make you a troller, it makes you a strategic player. As long as it has a reason, of course, even those few deaths had a reason to "why" and it's definitely justifiable. Considering the reason was a WIN.
voflasnik (EUW)
: dude less text Im sure ur point is good but u lost me after first 3 paragraphs :D even ur replies to comments are fcking chapters
I am sorry. I was just trying to put everything on the table, for the purpose of not being on anyone's side but really wanting to figure things out and observe the decisions made. I even have a few of ideas of what the red team could have done to surpass the waiting or make it shorter in some way. Thank you for reading {{sticker:zombie-nunu-hearts}}
: >Just because they would've been able to pull of the same strategy doesn't mean it is not cheating. It does. If you have an item that says "you're immortal", you're not cheating because enemy didn't think of buying it. >Like as if I would play cards with you, I shuffle them intentionally bad so I get good cards. No, that's an analogy that makes 0 sense. They didn't influence random factor. They just played a game with a different strategy. I'm not a CHEATER because I went ad Ahri while enemy took mres against me. >Do you see the issue? Once the game started the enemy team already did everything they needed to do to pull this strategy off. Yes, they made the mistake themselves, and that's why they lost. How's that cheating? > Just like me giving myself good cards. No. Unless the rules of the game allow you to pick cards non-randomly. They did NOT break the rules. They abused the rules in place, which is a perfectly viable tactic. LoL game mechanics allow you to die. You can use it if it's profitable. If you want to play by card examples, it's comaprable to Magic: The Gathering and Manaless Dredge type of deck. In general, you need mana to cast spells but can put just one land each turn. But someone very clever thought of a genius deck that used a "punishment rule" for overdrawing to his advantage. He used mechanic in place that stated that if you have more than 7 card in hand at the end of the turn, you discard the excess. He discarded a card that could have been casted from graveyard if he discarded more cards from hand, and so on, you get the drill - you basically ignore the costs of the cards by "milling" cards through graveyard to use their additional effects. Now is that annoying? Yes, if you pull a proper hand you basically win the game on first turn, leaving enemy with no response. Is that cheating though? In no way. You're just using something that is already there for you, perfectly legal. They didn't manipulate the result. They didn't use external software. They didn't use glitches. They didn't have any beginning advantage. They just thought of a clever way to use mechanics of Ascension. >The advantage the team gets from using this steategy is unfair, thus by definition it is cheating. Strategy is NOT cheating. Under any circumstances. Especially "by definition". >Shopping is essential to get items, get stronger and thus kill enemies. However if you cannot shop, then you are havily disadvantaged and in this case you can't do anything against that. Because of this, this is an unfair strategy. BUT THIS IS A DISADVANTAGE CREATED BY GAMEPLAY. It's like saying that the game is unfair because that 5/0 zed had one more item and you can't do anything against him. They lost the game by constantly killing the enemies. It's their mistake. Now that this strategy is known you can easily counterplay it. It's just as legal as any other. Is it healthy to the gameplay? Certainly not. But is it unfair? No. Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be a fan of a 50-minute ascension game where no team can progress. But it's a game mechanic failure, not people's for applying it. Riot simply needs to 1. Alter game mechanics (eg. add a laser turret, you could commit suicide to return to shop, that's how it's solved on ARAM) or 2. Change ToU to encompass actions that deviate from mainstream strategies to be illegal. I'd go for 1, cause in case of 2. a large portion of playerbase may get kinda pissed off. In either case, banhammering people for something they didn't even have a way of knowing is not permitted is just not the way to go. But we didn't have any official information yet, so we don't even know if that's the actual reason.
I feel like the enemy team could have just be together and focus the same target, this way, the blue team which had an advantage wouldn't keep it for long as people would start dying, and even if they bought new items, i think that as a team, five of them would kill anyone if they had focused the same target. I also believe the same in terms of relics, the enemy could have been together when capturing so there would be less chance of interrupting the capturing. I just feel like the enemy team could have done so much and at the end of the day, they weren't really "forced" to surrender, more like were impatient, it's kind of their fault, if i were them, i would have literally taken a nap or watched videos, no way would the blue team stood a chance in time for that long.
Smerk (EUW)
: Well, maybe it is not intentional feeding, but they weren't trying to kill enemies or win by normal means. And forcing your opponents to surrender by not letting them do anything in game is pure trolling and hence is bannable offense
I don't see under which circumstances the "normal" win means? I feel like it's like saying that non - meta champions are considered as a troll pick most of the time, or even as trolling. A lot of times, some players even all pick teleport to push on a particular lane, giving them advantage. A lot of other times, i have seen some strategies such as intentionally feeding an enemy for about 1-2 times so the enemy thinks you are "unskilled" or weak as an opponent. I have also seen players who want to put a disadvantage on their own team (ex. Anivia's wall when recalling). This is just a few examples of many, many more, and these people don't even get the warning message nor do they get punished. I don't think that a seriously strange strategy should be considered as "trolling", as it truly wasn't. I wrote in my thread why it was wrong to do so, but "trolling" as a word kind of doesn't fit in here. Maybe using the given resources for an advantage, but even then, even if you put the blame on these players for doing so, i think that it was kind of a Riot's mistake, and even if it wasn't (let's just imagine), giving someone a 14 - days ban as a punishment is harsh if it happens without any warnings whatsoever. While these guys were banned for using a strategy of their own and literally INDIRECTLY using it for their own advantage, it was their free choice, as the game itself provided that option. When you implement a game mode and fully create it, you have two ways to go. Either win or lose. I don't think that in any other given game mode was ever a possibility to win like this, without purposefully using cheating as some people do or rushing down the lanes for a faster game end. This game mode had its own bad side, it wasn't created carefully. It gave players an option, an available one to win "indirectly", even then, the enemy team had to surrender due to the fact that they couldn't die. If only there had been some thinking put into this, a way to die so all of this wouldn't have happened.. But it did happen, and i simply can't put the blame on the guys entirely under an excuse of "trolling", when in fact, they were just being strategic, that's all. If the enemy team had some way to die, all of this wouldn't have happened. Simple as that. And i am aware that there is a given rule, that any person who uses some bugs or what not that comes from the in - game to their own advantage will get punished (or has a chance of being punished), it's really hard to imagine someone **not** using it, it kind of sucks how the blame is all on players and Riot's mistakes almost always go undercover. I think that the right choice that should have been made is a warning message, that's all. Both parties would be fine with it and it would most definitely bring more peace than this outcome.
Show more

Fast Finish PLS

Level 30 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion