: Its actually a buff. As a support, you had to quickly rush to purchase the ward item, leaving you terribly behind on purchasing the actual support items and tank items. With the new items, now you don't have to focus on that anymore, you can go right away on building your core items resulting in a mid game spike for most supports. Rich damage supports such as Zyra and Brand benefit the most as they get their power spike items much more earlier now
> [{quoted}](name=xXx Kish xXx,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=fkkwVl4e,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-11-21T12:36:54.827+0000) > > Its actually a buff. > As a support, you had to quickly rush to purchase the ward item, leaving you terribly behind on purchasing the actual support items and tank items. > With the new items, now you don't have to focus on that anymore, you can go right away on building your core items resulting in a mid game spike for most supports. > Rich damage supports such as Zyra and Brand benefit the most as they get their power spike items much more earlier now 1 no mana regen early game 2 less income for a longer period going from 11 to 15 and 22 faster that staying at 15 for longer -.- 3 no income but 3 gold per second at mid game so now you need to take minion waves or objectives or hope you got enough stats by then to actually manage to kill -.- 4 less stats and less cdr early, mid and late.... no one needs to rush support item, and even if you did, it paid off by increase of income, and gave decent stats to keep up, as it is currently, it does NOT {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}} i noticed how often i ping my mana bar now, and how i need to recall after every engage -.-, i get less lane time, less gold, less stats, less damage done, in what possible way is that a buff?
: Nerf windwall duration. common 4 seconds...
nah, just delete him no one will miss him {{sticker:sg-syndra}} (i'll make sure of that) {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}
: > you still don't get it... tanks have the approximate damage like any other champion, the only difference is that tanks don't build atk speed, therefor even though they do the same damage, they simply don't apply this damage in the same amount of time, is why other champions are picked, that and preference, since bruisers/skirmishers/assassins and juggernauts can function as tanks, and apply the damage faster, and are generally more appealing than the actual tank champions by looks, Tanks don’t have aproximate damage, nor is it to do with attack speed the vast majority of damage champions don’t use attack speed. Tanks can only work off base damage, early game they can match the damage of others but later on they’ve got no damage... other champions use scaling to keep their damage going and therefore don’t fall off. But champions building damage are as tanky as actual tanks so what’s the point of playing tanks. And don’t give me the garbage of preference most of the player pool don’t give two shits about that. Most follow the meta, what is strong and what is not... and even otps May move onto new champions if their current ones are unviable, like tanks currently are > besides the most picked champions lists have tanks in them, rakan/gragas/leona/elise/nautilus and pyke..... The more you speak the less I’m certain you actually understand what a tank is... Rakan, Elise and pyke aren’t tanks, rakan is a support and is very squishy, Elise is a mage, pyke is an assasin. More so gragas is built full damage at the moment so he might as well be a mage Leona and Naut are only played as support. So yes top lane tanks are dead... and if 2/14 true tanks are actually seeing any play as actual tanks then something is very wrong. > most mages die in split seconds O.o, a tank's job is to absorb damage..... Actually it’s not. Absorbing damage is only a secondary benefit, the true role of a tank is either initiation/combo set up, or peeling. Being tanky help with this as being the first one into s fight makes you take a lot of retaliation damage, surviving this damage is a massive help. And as a peeler if your squishy and gotta be in harms way to protect an adc then your gonna do your job better if you don’t die immediately. Right now tanks aren’t that durable so die while attempting to do their jobs. Mages can do these jobs without being in harms way... so why pick a tank that will die immediately when you can pick kennen with hourglass and do all of that, while invulnerable, while dealing a lot of damage. > whom said anything about overnerfing? just nerfing them to be balanced instead of continueing this buffing nonsense. Because you don’t understand nerfing, how delicate it can actually be especially for assasins... a tiniest of changes can outright kill a champion off. Don’t forget that riot attempted to use mainly nerfing for years, it’s only recently that buffs have been more common. If it didn’t work then what makes you think it will work now. > no one bothers with void staff because you don't need much MR to counter Ap damage....., most players cap at 80 to 100 MR, and go for over 200 armor..... so whats the point in a expensive item? especially when you can go and which are way more effective than voidstaff..... and give better stats. It’s capped at that because itemisation is so shit. And 80-100 magic resist is no where near enough to protect against a mage they can still kill tanks with that. And of course people don’t build anti tank, nobody plays tanks why would they. > lol no, the reason they don't go full tank is simply because, those 2 or 3 defense items are sufficient, they don't need more, and most offensive items give defensive stats like armor/mr/cdr or AND hp, so why go for full defensive items? Because that’s what they are designed to do... think about it if the tanks are building damage then damage gets increased in the game... that’s not rocket science. You are arguing for the exact same thing your wanting to nerf. And 2-3 defencive items aren’t sufficient, they still die extremly quickly vs anyone who’s got enough of a brain to build anti tank. And like I’ve said before tanks aren’t even doing this... they are building full damage without any defencive or hybrid items... like I said it’s outright better to build full damage and an hourglass than try to go tanky. > only and are used alot ingame atm..... akali and kata aren't played often and are the only ones using , only ryze uses , and is only used by mobile ap champions LB/vladimir/kennen/ahri and fizz and no one is using any other activatable items...... Do you just not pay attention to the game... hourglass alone is brought on every champion with ap scalings... bot just mobile champions everyone at leas has a stop watch. Maybe in low elo where peoplecarent skilled enough to use actives properly but once a player is half decen at the game they will have at least 1 active per game. > oneshots are toxic, they can still kill without oneshtiing by pressing a button, its called TEAMWORK and KILL SECURE, they just need to learn to use their head is all.... don't blow your ult on a 100% full health champion, weaken them first, trap them, bait them, use your teammates, right now so many players think they are god and good at the game, but all they do is kill by pressing a button and destroying their own team by taking ALL the kills whilst they go off solo and feed hard simultaneously..... But that’s not the point of assasins... they don’t have the capacity to weaken champions first they aren’t poke mages. They are squishy champions who have to 100-0 someone and get out before they are killed... reducing their damage so they can’t kill someone outright removes them from the game. Like I’ve already said if you make assasins unable to kill why pick them when a mage can still 100-0 without ever putting themselves at risk. > except bruisers/skirmishers/juggernauts and assassins will abuse the defensive items, adc will be tankier which is wrong sincet hey are supposed to be squishy, this empowers kaisa even more..... and tanks are already unkillable as is, your way will make tanks invincible you are asking for base stat increases... It’s like your not even listening to what I’m saying I’m not asking for base stat increases, I’ve said that multiple times. I’m asking for strong actives so that tank’s can do their job without being unkillable by windowing their defencive power... think like gargoyle stone plate periods of high survivability and periods with low. Bruisers/skirmisher/juggernauts and assasins won’t abuse the items, because they will be geared towards tanks... lowering damage during their duration, having cc conditions, ect... or windowing armour pen so that tanks can cc an overeager adc and a tank who’s overextended can’t and therefore dies easily... where as other classes can’t do that. And adcs wont be tankier... just have ways of surviving... tools that allow them to counter their opponents while still letting them be mortal. Right now they’ve already got GA and QSS, more items along these lines won’t make them tanky. And it will weaken kaisa... think about it the main reason she’s so strong is that she’s the only adc with a strong defencive option in hourglsss... if every adc has a strong defencive option she loses that advantage and becomes weaker. > O.o nonsense armor pen is armor pen, so not using armor vs using armor pen...... in the end it ignores flat armor and INCREASES damage dealt, its not useless.... any champ rushing duskblade does a shit ton of damage, i've seen high defense champions getting oneshotted by full lethality champions...... > lethality depends on their level, so the faster you level as assassin the stronger you are. It’s like you don’t know what your arguing for... one moment tank’s are unkillable, next moment they are killsble by assasins. Also duskblade has up to 21 lethality, so 21 armour ignored st level 18... chain vest gives 40 armour. So for 800 gold I’ve completely removed the advantage you get from lethality (as you aren’t doing more damage on your powerspike) and still decreased your damage. So at that point flat armour pen isn’t that useful, because anyone whose brought armour becomes tankier vs you rather than less tanky. You will still do more than if you didn’t have it but it’s a lot of gold used for very little outcome. That’s why assasins vs armour targets go black cleaver instead of 3 lethality options... you get more out of it. whom are you kidding? assassins squishy? they are quite tanky..... > they need to learn to play and apply strategy, why do you want assassins so badly to jump in, oneshot, and jump out unscathed? its braindead gameplay that requires no thinking whatsoever..... > assassins class doesn't mean they need to 100-0 in a split second.... it just means they are capable of FINISHING someone off, there are so many ways of doing this on low hp targets: traps/curses/magic/poisons etc. Because you don’t understand game balance. High burst is a counter to sustained dps... the way that adcs and such are kept in check are with things like assasins. If it takes a while for an assasin to wear down an adc before killing them then they are useless at their job, that adc has already killed multiple members of your team while you mess aroun, not to mention life steal whittling an adc down isn’t actually that viable. That’s why they are explosive, cause anything less and they become incapable of doing their very important job, That’s why it’s a skill check... an assasin can jump in and kill, but must outplay to do that, where as the adc and support can outplay the assasin to kill them... for example it’s pretty easy to stop a zed as flashing his shurikans will reduce his damage to very low numbers unless he’s fed. By giving strong defencive options to adcs you give them better tools to outplay assasins, and therefore allow them not not be braindead one shot without forcing the assasin to be incapable of one shooting them
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=kwmqYmaV,comment-id=000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-08T21:46:36.282+0000) > > Tanks don’t have aproximate damage, nor is it to do with attack speed the vast majority of damage champions don’t use attack speed. > they do..... > Tanks can only work off base damage, early game they can match the damage of others but later on they’ve got no damage... other champions use scaling to keep their damage going and therefore don’t fall off. But champions building damage are as tanky as actual tanks so what’s the point of playing tanks. > > And don’t give me the garbage of preference most of the player pool don’t give two shits about that. Most follow the meta, what is strong and what is not... and even otps May move onto new champions if their current ones are unviable, like tanks currently are > just because there is no point doesn't make tanks weak.... tanks are certainly viable. > Rakan, Elise and pyke aren’t tanks, rakan is a support and is very squishy, Elise is a mage, pyke is an assasin. > More so gragas is built full damage at the moment so he might as well be a mage > Leona and Naut are only played as support. > So yes top lane tanks are dead... and if 2/14 true tanks are actually seeing any play as actual tanks then something is very wrong. > support isn't a class but a role O.o rakan SQUISHY!!!! best joke 2019 {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}}, elise is a sustain tank, pyke is actually an sub tank, might as well be...... {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} doesn't take away gragas is a tank, support is a ROLE, their class is still tank, doesn't matter what lane they are at, and both of them are often played as junglers as well, top lane tank isn't dead at all....., the mobility of tanks is lower than that of other champs, which is why they are not preferred on top.... > Actually it’s not. Absorbing damage is only a secondary benefit, the true role of a tank is either initiation/combo set up, or peeling. Being tanky help with this as being the first one into s fight makes you take a lot of retaliation damage, surviving this damage is a massive help. And as a peeler if your squishy and gotta be in harms way to protect an adc then your gonna do your job better if you don’t die immediately. Right now tanks aren’t that durable so die while attempting to do their jobs. > > Mages can do these jobs without being in harms way... so why pick a tank that will die immediately when you can pick kennen with hourglass and do all of that, while invulnerable, while dealing a lot of damage. > the whole definition of tank is to prevent damage to their teammates by absorbing it, thus their main role is absorbing damage, hence they have high DEFENSE, being invulnerable while dealing damage is not a tank role, kennen doesn't function as a tank, those would be called CONTROL champions...... but riot doesn't know how to classify kennen, taking control of the battlefield doesn't make one a tank O.o > Because you don’t understand nerfing, how delicate it can actually be especially for assasins... a tiniest of changes can outright kill a champion off. > > Don’t forget that riot attempted to use mainly nerfing for years, it’s only recently that buffs have been more common. If it didn’t work then what makes you think it will work now. > maybe start with lithium, denialism is actually an mental illness..... riot has nerfed some champions to death yes, but the main thing they have been doing is buffing constantly, and coming up with ''alleged'' nerfs that made no difference. the term nerf stands for toning down that which is too strong, and guess what so many champions are just too strong, damage AND defense are way too strong atm, so the only thing left is nerfing, not buffing one more, to end up buffing the other afterwards again.... which is how we got to this point. > It’s capped at that because itemisation is so shit. And 80-100 magic resist is no where near enough to protect against a mage they can still kill tanks with that. > you aren't playing the game are you? > And of course people don’t build anti tank, nobody plays tanks why would they. > players do build anti tank alot, the most effective items are {{item:3071}} and {{item:3165}}, every match has at least one or two, and assassins don't care about it they just go full letha and still kill tanks.... and players do play tanks. > Because that’s what they are designed to do... think about it if the tanks are building damage then damage gets increased in the game... that’s not rocket science. You are arguing for the exact same thing your wanting to nerf. > > And 2-3 defencive items aren’t sufficient, they still die extremly quickly vs anyone who’s got enough of a brain to build anti tank. > > And like I’ve said before tanks aren’t even doing this... they are building full damage without any defencive or hybrid items... like I said it’s outright better to build full damage and an hourglass than try to go tanky. > lel no, no one builds full damage with tanks, there is no reason to, champions only require about 2 or 3 offensive items to gain enough damage, and 2-3 defensive items are certainly sufficient, unless you are facing very broken champions, which alot of them are in the game atm, which is why damage needs to be nerfed. lol you build full tank on braum and alistar and full assassin on pyke {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} tanks should go for {{item:3025}} in the least. > Do you just not pay attention to the game... hourglass alone is brought on every champion with ap scalings... bot just mobile champions everyone at leas has a stop watch. > no one builds this, with some exceptions to 1 or 2 per 5 matches O.o the moment you become vulerable again is the moment you die. > Maybe in low elo where peoplecarent skilled enough to use actives properly but once a player is half decen at the game they will have at least 1 active per game. > nah activatable items are generally useless atm > But that’s not the point of assasins... they don’t have the capacity to weaken champions first they aren’t poke mages. They are squishy champions who have to 100-0 someone and get out before they are killed... reducing their damage so they can’t kill someone outright removes them from the game. > > Like I’ve already said if you make assasins unable to kill why pick them when a mage can still 100-0 without ever putting themselves at risk. > you behave like an assassin main O.o, you do realize this is a TEAM game right? i never said assassins should poke, i said they should finish champions with low enough hp that thought they got away, its not hard to do, and its what assassins are for, this could turn the tide of a team battle, mages don't oneshot so easily..... its assassins/bruisers/skirmishers and juggernauts that do, with the exception of lux..... artillery mages are disgusting, but still not as disgusting as assassins/bruisers/skirmishers and juggernauts V.V > I’m not asking for base stat increases, I’ve said that multiple times. I’m asking for strong actives so that tank’s can do their job without being unkillable by windowing their defencive power... think like gargoyle stone plate periods of high survivability and periods with low. > > It’s like you don’t know what your arguing for... one moment tank’s are unkillable, next moment they are killsble by assasins. > there shouldn't be more activatables, they won't change a thing, and its both yes, tanks and even non tanks are often unkillable. > Also duskblade has up to 21 lethality, so 21 armour ignored st level 18... chain vest gives 40 armour. So for 800 gold I’ve completely removed the advantage you get from lethality (as you aren’t doing more damage on your powerspike) and still decreased your damage. > So at that point flat armour pen isn’t that useful, because anyone whose brought armour becomes tankier vs you rather than less tanky. You will still do more than if you didn’t have it but it’s a lot of gold used for very little outcome. > > That’s why assasins vs armour targets go black cleaver instead of 3 lethality options... you get more out of it. > false, all assasins go full letha, it stacks to max 81, and damage depends on ad as well, you are also forgetting the damage formula. > whom are you kidding? assassins squishy? they are quite tanky..... > > Because you don’t understand game balance. > more than you and riot so it appears {{sticker:sg-kiko}} > High burst is a counter to sustained dps... the way that adcs and such are kept in check are with things like assasins. > high burst was there before dps was even implemented, so there goes your nonsense argument {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} > If it takes a while for an assasin to wear down an adc before killing them then they are useless at their job, that adc has already killed multiple members of your team while you mess aroun, not to mention life steal whittling an adc down isn’t actually that viable. > > That’s why they are explosive, cause anything less and they become incapable of doing their very important job, > > That’s why it’s a skill check... an assasin can jump in and kill, but must outplay to do that, where as the adc and support can outplay the assasin to kill them... for example it’s pretty easy to stop a zed as flashing his shurikans will reduce his damage to very low numbers unless he’s fed. > 1 ability chunks 80% to 100% hp atm, thats too much, and i've said it before, you have TEAM mates, adc are meant to be anti tank, hence why they are called ATTACK DAMAGE CARRIES, if they couldn't handle tanks they couldn't handle towers, are you crazy? how can you outplay a split second 100-0 ability? do you think we are all asian? > By giving strong defencive options to adcs you give them better tools to outplay assasins, and therefore allow them not not be braindead one shot without forcing the assasin to be incapable of one shooting them you know nothing jon snow {{sticker:sg-ahri-3}} WINTER is coming {{sticker:sg-ahri-1}} yeah lets bring back adc meta!!! {{sticker:sg-shisa}} {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}}
Dasajan (EUNE)
: OMG YOU WROTE A %%%%ING NOVEL
> [{quoted}](name=Dasajan,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=kwmqYmaV,comment-id=0000000100000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-11-07T21:14:01.437+0000) > > OMG YOU WROTE A %%%%ING NOVEL i wrote a second one ~~below ~~ above this comment {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}}
: Oh I actually feel like I’m gonna bruise my forehead have palming so hard > i did say that they don't get picked often but that doesn't mean they are weak .o., when they are picked they are definitely strong. But they are weak that’s why they aren’t picked... there’s no point picking them over anything else > lol no you misunderstand, i agree damage is overal too high, but tanks aren't weak by any means, the ones i listed are more than capable ging 1vs5 getting kills and walking away alive, its just that bruisers/assassins/skirmishers and juggernauts have more damage and mobility, you are forgetting that players have favorites, it doesn't mean tanks aren't viable, they are almost on par with them just not damage wise, there are champions that lose too all those, mainly mages and rangers. Except tanks are weak... they die too fast, they aren’t able to do their jobs. Again if an asssasin is doing a tank’s job better than a tank is then tanks are going to be shit. And rangers and mages aren’t innocent either, they’ve also done a lot to kill off tanks. Adcs completely ruin their late game and mages get o do a tank’s job without ever putting themselves in danger. > not so much, many champs have mobility but alot of mages lack just that, lb will thrive in this meta, but anivia won't for instance, mages are generally squishy and thus get oneshotted alot, burst mages are the strongest of the mage classes especially the artillery mages, with the exception of vadimir. You don’t need mobility to be strong... this year has been dominated by mages even immobile ones > but that doesn't take away the damage issue, we don't need more buffs, so many champions are already overbuffed, more buffing isn't going to fix that, riot has been doing that from the get go -.-, we need nerfs and hard ones too. But overnerfing champions is worse. > barely anyone builds void staff, thats an anti tank item btw, most would rush morello, the issue isn't armor or mr at itself, the issue is healing/sustain in combination with armor and mr with mobility and utility, its too much to handle, and the only counter to that, are high damage champions, which actually exist and thats how you create a confusing problem...... You really aren’t listening are you. Yes it’s an anti tank item, it’s one of the reasons why tanks are dead... and why do you think it’s not brought much maybe because nobody is nothing to buy resistances because they are shit. Doesn’t change the fact that a mage can buy it second item to ignore almost half of a tank’s magic resist for no consequence or counter play > well % pen is a counter for tank, the problem is that it doesn't just give pen, and no tanks don't buy full armor, no wonder you see tanks lose..... in my games they buy 2 or 3 offense items and rest is tank items..... and osme don't even need tank items to be tanky O.o That. Is. The. Problem. Think about it. If tanks are buying more damage items than tank items then they are gonna deal damage... if the damage controls are building damage then your adding more damage than tanking away, increasing the overall damage in the game. That’s why the game is so damaging atm, because it’s not viable to go full tank... because defencive items are too weak, because it’s actually better to not go any defencive items and just go full damage because you will do way more. That’s what I’m trying to get through to you, defencive options are too weak to be viable so everyone is building damage, if 5 players per team are all going damage guess what damage is going to be too high. > lol nope riot did riot failed, and for the umptheent time, its not just a damage nerf, the non tank champions need a defense nerf, and items need an overhaul. But if you nerf dencences your increasing damage... so if your trying to lower the damage in the game the last thing you want is to make damage more effective. > lol no, you do realize all riot has been doing is buffing right? and it has never worked, riots answer to op = make something else op, this is why the buffing needs to stop, and the nerfing needs to start, so everything gets balanced to normal levels, or do you want champions with 100000 base health causing 99999 damage with each ability, final fantasy is that you? > i don't want champions to be like FF bosses thx..... > adc should get a nerf in damage as well, and they won't be getting more sustain so we won't see another adc meta again .-. > tristana still gives me shivers ~.~ Except it wouldn’t be like that... Firstly these defensive options wouldn’t be stat balls, no champion would get 10000000 base health because it wouldn’t be adding health. It’d be adding windows of power such as guardian angel or hourglass, strong passives and actives that can be played around rather than just stat balling. Damage also won’t be increased, so it will will stay where it is. If everything has better options for survival then damage is effectively lowered, while still being strong enough to do its job. It won’t be FF bosses or raid bosses, just using kaisa as an example of what an adc can get done if their defencive options where actually good like mage options, while still keeping her killable and not gutting anyone in the process. give other adcs similsr options and that makes more of them viable, as well as better tank options so that tanks actually have a reason to not build damage items... Now we’ve lowered damage, increased survivability, not added stat balls, increased skill reliance, and not killed anyone in the process... > i meant i don't like em atm, they are generally useless, back then you could use zhonya and walk away, now you get instakilled or chased instanly, active items have become somewhat insignificant, and overly expensive, the only good item for active use is for mobility and damage simulteanously, but its meant for once again ap melee assassins/skirmishers and bruisers..... Hardly... there’s a ton of extremly strong active items... {{item:3153}} {{item:3814}} {{item:3193}} {{item:3030}} {{item:3146}} {{item:3152}} {{item:3109}} {{item:3140}} {{item:3143}} {{item:3074}} {{item:3800}} {{item:3048}} {{item:2065}} {{item:3142}} {{item:3050}} {{item:3157}} are all very strong items who’s power comes from their actives not their stats If you don’t like stat balls this is the alternative... if you don’t like either ten your kinda stuffed. > no it becomes high risk, high reward, atm its no risk high reward, just press R to oneshot..... No it doesn’t... if you just outright lower their damage they will loose their ability to do their job... then you’ve made them high risk no reward because they will be incapable of killing. > will prevent that...... so unless they remove that buffing defense won't do much..., assassins/bruisers and skirmishers could already oneshot prior to that, heck most of them don't even use it...... Except those items are only strong vs champions with no defencive options... a single cloth armour counters a serrated dirk entirely. So if champions start getting good defencive options lethality gets weaker as it’s countered more heavily. > and how will that improve gameplay? you still die just a little later -.- in the meanwhile the assassin is long gone just waiting for your death like zed...... that won't change a thing. Because that’s not how it works. Assasins don’t have long to do their jobs, they are squishy and if they don’t get back out before they get caught they die. If you’ve got the tools to prolong a fight with them so that they can’t kill instantly a get out then they’ve gotta stay in longer to do their jobs opening themselves up to risk. If you decrease their damage then they won’t be able to do their jobs or punish players for being out of position or not buying defencive itemd, if you give better defencive options like hourglass then they can’t jump in kill and get out cause you’ve not got a way to counter that.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=kwmqYmaV,comment-id=0000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-07T17:04:47.455+0000) > > But they are weak that’s why they aren’t picked... there’s no point picking them over anything else > > Except tanks are weak... they die too fast, they aren’t able to do their jobs. Again if an asssasin is doing a tank’s job better than a tank is then tanks are going to be shit. > you still don't get it... tanks have the approximate damage like any other champion, the only difference is that tanks don't build atk speed, therefor even though they do the same damage, they simply don't apply this damage in the same amount of time, is why other champions are picked, that and preference, since bruisers/skirmishers/assassins and juggernauts can function as tanks, and apply the damage faster, and are generally more appealing than the actual tank champions by looks, besides the most picked champions lists have tanks in them, rakan/gragas/leona/elise/nautilus and pyke..... > And rangers and mages aren’t innocent either, they’ve also done a lot to kill off tanks. Adcs completely ruin their late game and mages get o do a tank’s job without ever putting themselves in danger. > most mages die in split seconds O.o, a tank's job is to absorb damage..... > You don’t need mobility to be strong... this year has been dominated by mages even immobile ones > like whom? games are definitely dominated by mobile champs. > But overnerfing champions is worse. > whom said anything about overnerfing? just nerfing them to be balanced instead of continueing this buffing nonsense. > You really aren’t listening are you. > > Yes it’s an anti tank item, it’s one of the reasons why tanks are dead... and why do you think it’s not brought much maybe because nobody is nothing to buy resistances because they are shit. Doesn’t change the fact that a mage can buy it second item to ignore almost half of a tank’s magic resist for no consequence or counter play > no one bothers with void staff because you don't need much MR to counter Ap damage....., most players cap at 80 to 100 MR, and go for over 200 armor..... so whats the point in a expensive item? especially when you can go {{item:3151}} {{item:3116}} and {{item:3165}} which are way more effective than voidstaff..... and give better stats. > That. Is. The. Problem. > > Think about it. If tanks are buying more damage items than tank items then they are gonna deal damage... if the damage controls are building damage then your adding more damage than tanking away, increasing the overall damage in the game. > > That’s why the game is so damaging atm, because it’s not viable to go full tank... because defencive items are too weak, because it’s actually better to not go any defencive items and just go full damage because you will do way more. > > That’s what I’m trying to get through to you, defencive options are too weak to be viable so everyone is building damage, if 5 players per team are all going damage guess what damage is going to be too high. > lol no, the reason they don't go full tank is simply because, those 2 or 3 defense items are sufficient, they don't need more, and most offensive items give defensive stats like armor/mr/cdr or AND hp, so why go for full defensive items? > But if you nerf dencences your increasing damage... so if your trying to lower the damage in the game the last thing you want is to make damage more effective. > ok one more time, nerf overall defense on NON TANKS that are tanky like a tank, tweak items that give too many stats so players would have to make more strategical choises, and simply put, NERF the overal damage on champions that require that nerf, so that damage is toned down to a healthy level, where NO ONE is capable of and being oneshotted, do you comprehend it now? > Except it wouldn’t be like that... > > Firstly these defensive options wouldn’t be stat balls, no champion would get 10000000 base health because it wouldn’t be adding health. It’d be adding windows of power such as guardian angel or hourglass, strong passives and actives that can be played around rather than just stat balling. > > Damage also won’t be increased, so it will will stay where it is. If everything has better options for survival then damage is effectively lowered, while still being strong enough to do its job. > > It won’t be FF bosses or raid bosses, just using kaisa as an example of what an adc can get done if their defencive options where actually good like mage options, while still keeping her killable and not gutting anyone in the process. give other adcs similsr options and that makes more of them viable, as well as better tank options so that tanks actually have a reason to not build damage items... > > Now we’ve lowered damage, increased survivability, not added stat balls, increased skill reliance, and not killed anyone in the process... > except bruisers/skirmishers/juggernauts and assassins will abuse the defensive items, adc will be tankier which is wrong sincet hey are supposed to be squishy, this empowers kaisa even more..... and tanks are already unkillable as is, your way will make tanks invincible {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} you are asking for base stat increases... > Hardly... there’s a ton of extremly strong active items... {{item:3153}} {{item:3814}} {{item:3193}} {{item:3030}} {{item:3146}} {{item:3152}} {{item:3109}} {{item:3140}} {{item:3143}} {{item:3074}} {{item:3800}} {{item:3048}} {{item:2065}} {{item:3142}} {{item:3050}} {{item:3157}} are all very strong items who’s power comes from their actives not their stats > > If you don’t like stat balls this is the alternative... if you don’t like either ten your kinda stuffed. > only {{item:3142}} and {{item:3152}} are used alot ingame atm..... akali and kata aren't played often and are the only ones using {{item:3146}}, only ryze uses {{item:3040}}, and {{item:3157}} is only used by mobile ap champions LB/vladimir/kennen/ahri and fizz and no one is using any other activatable items...... > No it doesn’t... if you just outright lower their damage they will loose their ability to do their job... then you’ve made them high risk no reward because they will be incapable of killing. > oneshots are toxic, they can still kill without oneshtiing by pressing a button, its called TEAMWORK and KILL SECURE, they just need to learn to use their head is all.... don't blow your ult on a 100% full health champion, weaken them first, trap them, bait them, use your teammates, right now so many players think they are god and good at the game, but all they do is kill by pressing a button and destroying their own team by taking ALL the kills whilst they go off solo and feed hard simultaneously..... high risk high reward, the game needs more strategy, and less damage. > Except those items are only strong vs champions with no defencive options... a single cloth armour counters a serrated dirk entirely. So if champions start getting good defencive options lethality gets weaker as it’s countered more heavily. > O.o nonsense armor pen is armor pen, so not using armor vs using armor pen...... in the end it ignores flat armor and INCREASES damage dealt, its not useless.... any champ rushing duskblade does a shit ton of damage, i've seen high defense champions getting oneshotted by full lethality champions...... lethality depends on their level, so the faster you level as assassin the stronger you are. damage reduction due to armor formula = armor divided through (100 + armor) X a hundred damage done formula = damage - (divided through hundred X armor reduction) lethality (armor ignore) formula = 0.4 X leth + (0.6 X leth X opponent level divided by 18) lets say lvl 18 with 200 armor lets say you are lvl 18 too with 81 lethality and 275 ad autoattack damage without lethality is: 200 divided through (100 + 200) x hundred = 66.66% reduction (275 divided by 100) X 66.66% = 183.32 damage reduction damage caused is 275 - 183.32 = 91.86 damage with lethality is: 0.4 X 81 + (0.6 X 81 X 18 divided by 18) = 81 armor ignore 200 - 81 = 119 armor 119 divided through (100 + 119) X hundred = 54.34% reduction (275 divided by 100) X 54.34% = 149.44 damage reduction damage caused is 275 - 149.44 = 125.56 difference = 125.56 - 91.86 = 33.7 damage per auto attack, just imagine ability damage..... the autoattack does about 30% more damage wit lethality and i didn't even calculate the bonus damage...... so we can assume you'd do about 50% more damage with a lethality build. increasing armor doesn't decrease its effectiveness significantly, unless one goes for a full tank build, which no one does these days, because damage is off the charts, so its pointless, whether you get oneshotted due to {{item:3147}} {{item:3142}} {{item:3814}} or {{item:3036}} or {{item:3071}}, like i said items are an issue atm, they need to drop some stats. > Because that’s not how it works. > > Assasins don’t have long to do their jobs, they are squishy and if they don’t get back out before they get caught they die. If you’ve got the tools to prolong a fight with them so that they can’t kill instantly a get out then they’ve gotta stay in longer to do their jobs opening themselves up to risk. > If you decrease their damage then they won’t be able to do their jobs or punish players for being out of position or not buying defencive itemd, if you give better defencive options like hourglass then they can’t jump in kill and get out cause you’ve not got a way to counter that. whom are you kidding? assassins squishy? they are quite tanky..... they need to learn to play and apply strategy, why do you want assassins so badly to jump in, oneshot, and jump out unscathed? its braindead gameplay that requires no thinking whatsoever..... assassins class doesn't mean they need to 100-0 in a split second.... it just means they are capable of FINISHING someone off, there are so many ways of doing this on low hp targets: traps/curses/magic/poisons etc.
: > utter nonsense, i listed the op tanks, tanks are not dead None of the tanks you listed ever get played... seriously you listed a bunch of low pick rate champions who struggle to do their jobs and get outcompeted by everyone else. Why play a tank when you can build full damage, do more in a fight, and probably survive for just as long. > yes tanks can get melted, but only by bruisers/skirmishers and assassins And mages, and adcs... so everyone. And if assasins are melting tanks who are supposed to counter them then there’s something extremly wrong at the moment. > the match has no bruiser/skirmisher and assassin, which can happen, than tanks dominate, which is the issue with too much damage, the issue with defense is that bruisers/skirmishers and assassins have either too much base defense or are building 1 or 2 offensive items and for the rest tank items, they become as defensive as a tank but with way more offense, its true that you'd see more bruisers/skirmishers and assasins since they still have more damage than a tank, and are just as tanky as a tank......, So now your agreeing that tanks are weak... think about it if fighters and assasins get to deal more damage and be just as tanky then why the hell would you ever pick a tank. Tanks are getting outcompeted heavily. > there are players playing mages and rangers as well, they are more or less out of the equation with some exceptions, most of them are squishy and can't afford to build defensive items, right now out of all rangers only xayah and kaisa are op, as for the mages, vladimir/lux/velkoz/zoe/taliyah/brand/leblanc/neeko/sylas and zoe are the exceptions, mostly because too much damage or too much cc + damage + range.... no risk but massive reward. Mages are actually very strong in the current meta, remember tanks aren’t being played and it’s high damage and short fights... perfect for them And kaisa and xayah are the only strong adcs because they get better defensive options, xayah has her ult and kaisa gets to build hourglass... if you increase the defensive options for adcs then suddenly more adcs become viable. That’s what I’m trying to say, I’m not saying just buff tank options but give better defence itemisation across the board. > no need for pen, all of them contain either mr/armor or health..... there is a problem with items, both ad and ap champions can build tank whilst building damage, and they don't even need penetration -.- But these aren’t what those champions are buying... seriously you got one of them right and that’s hourglsss. These champions are going pure damage, exact same as mage builds... because like previously said why build tank if you can build full damage and do way more in fights. > they do get played, and cho is nigh unkillable like mega gnar......, no it won't, if they come with overal nerfs, they will become balanced, there really isn't a clear classification anymore. Nope, none of these champions are played... and often when they are it’s ful damage. Again why play something like zac when lee can do his job better and offer even more. > i'm main support, i'm not struggeling i just get oneshotted by everything, and i do notice that alot of players have issues with tanks/bruisers/skirmishers and assassins being way too tanky, with way too much sustain and way too much defensive mehcanisms and way too much damage, stats too high, items too much and kits too overloaded. Because they don’t build correctly. A single black cleaver knocks out almost 1/4 of a tanks armour, last whisper knocks out 1/3, void staff 2/5... black cleaver is a first purchase and a shred so benefits the whole team so all armour a tank ever buys is only worth 3/4 of the gold... its like buying mana on riven. Void staff can be purchased second item so you loose almost half of your magic resist by mid game, then late game you loose another 1/3 of your armour. All in all a tank can loose 3000 gold worth of stats from just armour alone, in the grand scheme of things your looking at 1-2 items worth of stats being useless... which means a top lane tank will have less gold and item slots than a support, let that sink in. % pen is broken. > but they will have to choose either damage or defense, right now they just buy and have everything they need already, whatever they pick after that is extra...... There are champions having to be reworked because a lack of bruiser itemisation for them have left them unable to be balanced. The fact that we can see how unhealthy a lack of bruiser itemisation is with the ap bruisers just goes to show how wrong you are. > eh no thanks they did that years ago, and it was horrible, it failed hard, unkillable rangers :(, besides upping defense won't make them kill you less, you forget that they will survive longer as well, and nothing changes O.o Except it will make them kill you less you have longer windows of fighting, allowing supports and tanks to better defend you, you also increase the margins of error with kiting as a mistake won’t instantky kill you. And in the end your idea is worse... decreasing damage will cause unkillable adcs just the same, only this time you’ve got nothing you can do about it and it will feel worse because burst is now too ineffective. > doesnt work that way unfortunatly, they did that already, i never said to lower damage and defense for every champ, just for the ones that need it to balance them, meaning less sustain for akali for instance, and less damage on jax, less defense on garen etc, boxing champions more into clear classes with a rule such as, 1 advantage has 2 disadvantages, meaning for example : high damage and medium movement speed but low defense and soft cc, or hard cc and high defense but low movement speed and low damage, or high movement speed and high damage, but low defense and no cc. So hard nerf the balance levers for squishy damage dealers without doing anything to the champions you just gave a massive indirect buff to.... yeah great idea adc meta here we come. Burst damage is important, tankiness is important, bruisers are important... if you nerf them too much you kill them off, and as they keep squishy dps champions under control killing them off means that adcs become unthreatened making them rule the game. Your not decreasing damage, your increasing it... while reducing the answers to it. > i'm not fond of activatble items, and with me alot of players, activating an item doesn't require skill O.o just a press of a button.... So your not a fan of actives, and your not a fan of stats... I’m getting the feeling you just don’t like items in general Actives allow you to create windows of weakness... like with hourglass a string defencive tool but only when off cooldown... used at the wrong time it kills you, and the attacker can use knowledge of its cooldown to target you while you are weak. It’s less skill of pressing a button, but skill of playing around cooldowns. > right now there are champions that have low risk and high reward, like assassins, they oneshot someone and can dash/jump/shadow/flash out of harms way -.- by lowering their damage they can't oneshot, its either that or removing their getaway, so they would have to use their head for a change. . But lowering damage you prevent them from killing, it wouldn’t be high risk high reward it’s high risk no reward. That kills these champions and therefore removes the counterplay to adcs. By increasing the defencive options of their targets (particularly in actives for their cooldowns) an assasin can still kill a target but that target will have the ability to stall or prevent their deaths therefore decreasing the effectiveness of the assasin and increasing their risk without risking making them incapable of doing their jobs.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=kwmqYmaV,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-07T15:37:08.594+0000) > > None of the tanks you listed ever get played... seriously you listed a bunch of low pick rate champions who struggle to do their jobs and get outcompeted by everyone else. Why play a tank when you can build full damage, do more in a fight, and probably survive for just as long. > i did say that they don't get picked often but that doesn't mean they are weak .o., when they are picked they are definitely strong. > And mages, and adcs... so everyone. And if assasins are melting tanks who are supposed to counter them then there’s something extremly wrong at the moment. > yeah agree. > So now your agreeing that tanks are weak... think about it if fighters and assasins get to deal more damage and be just as tanky then why the hell would you ever pick a tank. Tanks are getting outcompeted heavily. > lol no you misunderstand, i agree damage is overal too high, but tanks aren't weak by any means, the ones i listed are more than capable ging 1vs5 getting kills and walking away alive, its just that bruisers/assassins/skirmishers and juggernauts have more damage and mobility, you are forgetting that players have favorites, it doesn't mean tanks aren't viable, they are almost on par with them just not damage wise, there are champions that lose too all those, mainly mages and rangers. > Mages are actually very strong in the current meta, remember tanks aren’t being played and it’s high damage and short fights... perfect for them > not so much, many champs have mobility but alot of mages lack just that, lb will thrive in this meta, but anivia won't for instance, mages are generally squishy and thus get oneshotted alot, burst mages are the strongest of the mage classes especially the artillery mages, with the exception of vadimir. > And kaisa and xayah are the only strong adcs because they get better defensive options, xayah has her ult and kaisa gets to build hourglass... if you increase the defensive options for adcs then suddenly more adcs become viable. That’s what I’m trying to say, I’m not saying just buff tank options but give better defence itemisation across the board. > but that doesn't take away the damage issue, we don't need more buffs, so many champions are already overbuffed, more buffing isn't going to fix that, riot has been doing that from the get go -.-, we need nerfs and hard ones too. > But these aren’t what those champions are buying... seriously you got one of them right and that’s hourglsss. > > These champions are going pure damage, exact same as mage builds... because like previously said why build tank if you can build full damage and do way more in fights. > nope lol, these are what players are buying, i'm not saying that's an actual build, i'm just saying these items are used alot because they benefit from mixed stats offense and defense, they don't go full damage, only mages do, most go 2 or 3 offense items and rest tank items and why not? > Nope, none of these champions are played... and often when they are it’s ful damage. Again why play something like zac when lee can do his job better and offer even more. > because people have preferences? > Because they don’t build correctly. > > A single black cleaver knocks out almost 1/4 of a tanks armour, last whisper knocks out 1/3, void staff 2/5... black cleaver is a first purchase and a shred so benefits the whole team so all armour a tank ever buys is only worth 3/4 of the gold... its like buying mana on riven. Void staff can be purchased second item so you loose almost half of your magic resist by mid game, then late game you loose another 1/3 of your armour. > barely anyone builds void staff, thats an anti tank item btw, most would rush morello, the issue isn't armor or mr at itself, the issue is healing/sustain in combination with armor and mr with mobility and utility, its too much to handle, and the only counter to that, are high damage champions, which actually exist and thats how you create a confusing problem...... > All in all a tank can loose 3000 gold worth of stats from just armour alone, in the grand scheme of things your looking at 1-2 items worth of stats being useless... which means a top lane tank will have less gold and item slots than a support, let that sink in. > > % pen is broken. > well % pen is a counter for tank, the problem is that it doesn't just give pen, and no tanks don't buy full armor, no wonder you see tanks lose..... in my games they buy 2 or 3 offense items and rest is tank items..... and osme don't even need tank items to be tanky O.o > There are champions having to be reworked because a lack of bruiser itemisation for them have left them unable to be balanced. The fact that we can see how unhealthy a lack of bruiser itemisation is with the ap bruisers just goes to show how wrong you are. > nope, its not lack of items is overbuffing, there is a clear lack of ap/ad combine items for all the mixed champions, items are way overtuned giving too many stats they shouldn't at the moment, which is why bruisers are op, and than add their base defense which is pretty high..... > Except it will make them kill you less you have longer windows of fighting, allowing supports and tanks to better defend you, you also increase the margins of error with kiting as a mistake won’t instantky kill you. > > And in the end your idea is worse... decreasing damage will cause unkillable adcs just the same, only this time you’ve got nothing you can do about it and it will feel worse because burst is now too ineffective. > lol nope riot did riot failed, and for the umptheent time, its not just a damage nerf, the non tank champions need a defense nerf, and items need an overhaul. > So hard nerf the balance levers for squishy damage dealers without doing anything to the champions you just gave a massive indirect buff to.... yeah great idea adc meta here we come. > > Burst damage is important, tankiness is important, bruisers are important... if you nerf them too much you kill them off, and as they keep squishy dps champions under control killing them off means that adcs become unthreatened making them rule the game. > > Your not decreasing damage, your increasing it... while reducing the answers to it. > lol no, you do realize all riot has been doing is buffing right? and it has never worked, riots answer to op = make something else op, this is why the buffing needs to stop, and the nerfing needs to start, so everything gets balanced to normal levels, or do you want champions with 100000 base health causing 99999 damage with each ability, final fantasy is that you? i don't want champions to be like FF bosses thx..... adc should get a nerf in damage as well, and they won't be getting more sustain so we won't see another adc meta again .-. tristana still gives me shivers ~.~ > So your not a fan of actives, and your not a fan of stats... I’m getting the feeling you just don’t like items in general > Actives allow you to create windows of weakness... like with hourglass a string defencive tool but only when off cooldown... used at the wrong time it kills you, and the attacker can use knowledge of its cooldown to target you while you are weak. > > It’s less skill of pressing a button, but skill of playing around cooldowns. > . > i meant i don't like em atm, they are generally useless, back then you could use zhonya and walk away, now you get instakilled or chased instanly, active items have become somewhat insignificant, and overly expensive, the only good item for active use is {{item:3152}} for mobility and damage simulteanously, but its meant for once again ap melee assassins/skirmishers and bruisers..... > But lowering damage you prevent them from killing, it wouldn’t be high risk high reward it’s high risk no reward. That kills these champions and therefore removes the counterplay to adcs. > no it becomes high risk, high reward, atm its no risk high reward, just press R to oneshot..... > By increasing the defencive options of their targets (particularly in actives for their cooldowns) an assasin can still kill a target but that target will have the ability to stall or prevent their deaths therefore decreasing the effectiveness of the assasin and increasing their risk without risking making them incapable of doing their jobs. {{item:3134}} {{item:3147}} will prevent that...... so unless they remove that buffing defense won't do much..., assassins/bruisers and skirmishers could already oneshot prior to that, heck most of them don't even use it...... and how will that improve gameplay? you still die just a little later -.- in the meanwhile the assassin is long gone just waiting for your death like zed......{{sticker:sg-ahri-3}} that won't change a thing.
: > no way in hell, damage needs reduced, items need tweaking where they don't give hp/def AND damage, or crit AND atk speed for instance, tanks do not need a buff, most of them are capable of 1vs5 atm......, gnar/gragas/leona/malphite/nautilus/nunu/sejuani/sion/braum and poppy need a damage nerf, amumu/zac/rammus/chogath/shen and tahm kench need a defense nerf, riot needs to start boxing champions properly again, ever since they dropped ''roles'' they are trying to make ALL champions viable in ALL lanes -.- they failed obviously, only tanks that are balanced are: alistar/maokai/ornn/galio and taric. Tanks are dead at the moment... nobody plays them especially top lane. Defensive items are too weak and anti tank is too strong, hence why most go damage now. So gnar, gragus, malphite, Naut all only deal damage if they are built with damage... if they’ve built damage they are gonna do damage. And if they are building damage as a meta build then there’s a problem with defensive items. Amumu and zac never get played, cho isn’t a tank, shen got %%%%ed up by pro play, and tahm lost the only reason to ever play him... nerfing them would remove them from the game. If your struggling vs them chances are you don’t build correctly. Also if you remove all bruiser items your gonna cause even more issues... bruiserscwill just go full damage and you’d get even more damage in the game. > are you out of your mind? bruisers/tanks/assasins already survive hard by healing themselves alot, and don't forget vladimir..... we don't need more survivability, we need damage and defense reductions and proper kits, unlike yasuo and riven -.-, or do you simply overlook mundo/darius/camille/chogath/kayn/ekko/elise/evelynn/akali/swain/trundle/ and warwick?, and lets just ignore shield champions as well no? its not like lux/karma/janna/morgana/yuumi/orianna/rakan/shen/tresh/lee sin/garen/diana/blitzcrank/j4/kaisa/kled/malphite/morde/naut/neeko/nunu/poppy/riven/sion/sylas/udyr/urgot/vi and yasuo will gain more survivability? heck majority of them are physical melee -.-, so you want them to survive better? But your overlooking something. These champions survive by dealing damage, but if you increase survivability across the board (so not just fighters and tanks but every single class) you decrease their effectiveness as well, they’ll be as comparatively tanky compared to everyone else as they currently are but they’d find it harder to kill stuff, therefore lowering their damage. If you decreased damage and survivability you’ve not done anything, everyone would die just as fast as currently... but if you don’t touch damage but increase survivability for everyone then damage gets lowered without causing issues with full damage adcs surviving because assasins got nerfed to the ground. And these aren’t just stats increases, but having items with skill based survivability increases, that way the better player wins fights and the option to go full glass canon still exists
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=kwmqYmaV,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-11-06T22:41:15.328+0000) > > Tanks are dead at the moment... nobody plays them especially top lane. Defensive items are too weak and anti tank is too strong, hence why most go damage now. > utter nonsense, i listed the op tanks, tanks are not dead, there are four issues in the game, defense, damage, items with too man stats and overtuned kits, yes tanks can get melted, but only by bruisers/skirmishers and assassins, if the match has no bruiser/skirmisher and assassin, which can happen, than tanks dominate, which is the issue with too much damage, the issue with defense is that bruisers/skirmishers and assassins have either too much base defense or are building 1 or 2 offensive items and for the rest tank items, they become as defensive as a tank but with way more offense, its true that you'd see more bruisers/skirmishers and assasins since they still have more damage than a tank, and are just as tanky as a tank......, there are players playing mages and rangers as well, they are more or less out of the equation with some exceptions, most of them are squishy and can't afford to build defensive items, right now out of all rangers only xayah and kaisa are op, as for the mages, vladimir/lux/velkoz/zoe/taliyah/brand/leblanc/neeko/sylas and zoe are the exceptions, mostly because too much damage or too much cc + damage + range.... no risk but massive reward. > So gnar, gragus, malphite, Naut all only deal damage if they are built with damage... if they’ve built damage they are gonna do damage. And if they are building damage as a meta build then there’s a problem with defensive items. > {{item:3025}} {{item:3001}} {{item:3102}} {{item:3111}} {{item:3116}} {{item:3157}} no need for pen, all of them contain either mr/armor or health..... there is a problem with items, both ad and ap champions can build tank whilst building damage, and they don't even need penetration -.- > Amumu and zac never get played, cho isn’t a tank, shen got %%%%ed up by pro play, and tahm lost the only reason to ever play him... nerfing them would remove them from the game. > they do get played, and cho is nigh unkillable like mega gnar......, no it won't, if they come with overal nerfs, they will become balanced, there really isn't a clear classification anymore. > If your struggling vs them chances are you don’t build correctly. > i'm main support, i'm not struggeling i just get oneshotted by everything, and i do notice that alot of players have issues with tanks/bruisers/skirmishers and assassins being way too tanky, with way too much sustain and way too much defensive mehcanisms and way too much damage, stats too high, items too much and kits too overloaded. > Also if you remove all bruiser items your gonna cause even more issues... bruiserscwill just go full damage and you’d get even more damage in the game. > but they will have to choose either damage or defense, right now they just buy {{item:3078}} and have everything they need already, whatever they pick after that is extra...... > But your overlooking something. > > These champions survive by dealing damage, but if you increase survivability across the board (so not just fighters and tanks but every single class) you decrease their effectiveness as well, they’ll be as comparatively tanky compared to everyone else as they currently are but they’d find it harder to kill stuff, therefore lowering their damage. > eh no thanks they did that years ago, and it was horrible, it failed hard, unkillable rangers :(, besides upping defense won't make them kill you less, you forget that they will survive longer as well, and nothing changes O.o > If you decreased damage and survivability you’ve not done anything, everyone would die just as fast as currently... but if you don’t touch damage but increase survivability for everyone then damage gets lowered without causing issues with full damage adcs surviving because assasins got nerfed to the ground. > doesnt work that way unfortunatly, they did that already, i never said to lower damage and defense for every champ, just for the ones that need it to balance them, meaning less sustain for akali for instance, and less damage on jax, less defense on garen etc, boxing champions more into clear classes with a rule such as, 1 advantage has 2 disadvantages, meaning for example : high damage and medium movement speed but low defense and soft cc, or hard cc and high defense but low movement speed and low damage, or high movement speed and high damage, but low defense and no cc. > And these aren’t just stats increases, but having items with skill based survivability increases, that way the better player wins fights and the option to go full glass canon still exists i'm not fond of activatble items, and with me alot of players, activating an item doesn't require skill O.o just a press of a button.... right now there are champions that have low risk and high reward, like assassins, they oneshot someone and can dash/jump/shadow/flash out of harms way -.- by lowering their damage they can't oneshot, its either that or removing their getaway, so they would have to use their head for a change.
: It’s not so much less damage that’s needed, as in the end damage is a very useful too for controlling certain champions. Instead damage control needs to be improved... defensive itemisation for most classes needs to be improved, and anti tank needs to be windowed or better controlled... tanks also need several buffs in order to reclaim their position, cause in the end the main reason fights are so fast and so messy is because every role is being taken by squishy damage dealers, bringing back tanky low damage champions will help. So damage doesn’t need to be nerfed, but survivability needs to be buffed
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=kwmqYmaV,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-11-06T14:20:38.316+0000) > > It’s not so much less damage that’s needed, as in the end damage is a very useful too for controlling certain champions. > Instead damage control needs to be improved... defensive itemisation for most classes needs to be improved, and anti tank needs to be windowed or better controlled... tanks also need several buffs in order to reclaim their position, cause in the end the main reason fights are so fast and so messy is because every role is being taken by squishy damage dealers, bringing back tanky low damage champions will help. > no way in hell, damage needs reduced, items need tweaking where they don't give hp/def AND damage, or crit AND atk speed for instance, tanks do not need a buff, most of them are capable of 1vs5 atm......, gnar/gragas/leona/malphite/nautilus/nunu/sejuani/sion/braum and poppy need a damage nerf, amumu/zac/rammus/chogath/shen and tahm kench need a defense nerf, riot needs to start boxing champions properly again, ever since they dropped ''roles'' they are trying to make ALL champions viable in ALL lanes -.- they failed obviously, only tanks that are balanced are: alistar/maokai/ornn/galio and taric. > So damage doesn’t need to be nerfed, but survivability needs to be buffed are you out of your mind? bruisers/tanks/assasins already survive hard by healing themselves alot, and don't forget vladimir..... we don't need more survivability, we need damage and defense reductions and proper kits, unlike yasuo and riven -.-, or do you simply overlook mundo/darius/camille/chogath/kayn/ekko/elise/evelynn/akali/swain/trundle/ and warwick?, and lets just ignore shield champions as well no? its not like lux/karma/janna/morgana/yuumi/orianna/rakan/shen/tresh/lee sin/garen/diana/blitzcrank/j4/kaisa/kled/malphite/morde/naut/neeko/nunu/poppy/riven/sion/sylas/udyr/urgot/vi and yasuo will gain more survivability? heck majority of them are physical melee -.-, so you want them to survive better?
Tsurupettan (EUNE)
: About El Nino effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o#Effects_on_the_global_climate "_besides lithium batteries are generally prohibited in airplanes, and if not, they have strict rules, if even airports consider it dangerous it all says enough, no way i want that crap anywhere near me._" lack of knowledge is the cause of fear, certain batteries are prohibited in registered luggage, due to some 1988? tragedy where poorly stored batteries in cargo caught fire, they still do transport batteries via airplanes, amazing, isn't it? Even commercial flights do! You can read IATA instruction on carrying batteries. "_these powerwalls are for the delusional and ignorant rich, not for the intelligent common folk, i don't even want to image what happens when fire breaks out at their house, when they use lithium batteries_" Maybe ready to buy Tesla Powerwall 2.0 but actually... middle class or poor people do it DIY way to save money, there are ready-made to buy systems, which cost from 200€ and up. I'd call it rather cheap for what it gives... old article about tesla powerwalls: https://moneynation.com/3-ways-tesla-powerwall-save-money/ article about DIY powerwall, roughly costing 300$: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-diy-hobbyists-building-their-own-home-battery-systems "_are you delusional? its autumn i went outside i saw my breath, and my fingers practically froze off, idk about you but the winters won't be hot like summer_" it was sarcasm. "_there aren't enough solar panels and windmills per country to switch to renewable energy at all,_" let me introduce you to hydropower renewable power source (natural steam/geysers/water falls/underwater currents/ and so on... ): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Paraguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand ...and many more ;) you can search for more with "renewable energy production globally" and similar phrases "_if anyone is a cave man its you, you even talk like one, and since you are out of arguments you start insulting me in horrible english..... _" The pot calling the kettle black :) Ok, it was fun pasting some free resources, with documented sources online, accessible to anyone. It won't reach you, because you love living under the rock, but maybe some one else will benefit from this.
> [{quoted}](name=Tsurupettan,realm=EUNE,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-05T19:07:23.860+0000) > > About El Nino effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o#Effects_on_the_global_climate > omg {{sticker:sg-kiko}} a wiki page XD full of utter nonsense, as usual, wiki is unreliable mostly. > "_besides lithium batteries are generally prohibited in airplanes, and if not, they have strict rules, if even airports consider it dangerous it all says enough, no way i want that crap anywhere near me._" > lack of knowledge is the cause of fear, certain batteries are prohibited in registered luggage, due to some 1988? tragedy where poorly stored batteries in cargo caught fire, they still do transport batteries via airplanes, amazing, isn't it? Even commercial flights do! You can read IATA instruction on carrying batteries. > only small lithium batteries are allowed and they MUST be kept near the passenger since they can explode or catch fire, why do you think phones/laptops need to be turned off?, it's not just for interference, and heck even if they are off, they can still explode or catch fire, especially if people bought a new cheap chinese battery, since the original died after a year {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} > "_these powerwalls are for the delusional and ignorant rich, not for the intelligent common folk, i don't even want to image what happens when fire breaks out at their house, when they use lithium batteries_" Maybe ready to buy Tesla Powerwall 2.0 but actually... middle class or poor people do it DIY way to save money, there are ready-made to buy systems, which cost from 200€ and up. I'd call it rather cheap for what it gives... > > old article about tesla powerwalls: https://moneynation.com/3-ways-tesla-powerwall-save-money/ > > article about DIY powerwall, roughly costing 300$: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-diy-hobbyists-building-their-own-home-battery-systems > lol still too expensive for that crap, it can't even keep a house lit half a day{{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}, and its still dangerous, so its either freeze to death, or burn to death {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}}, that and the energy still comes from the grid...., and common folk won't be buying solar panels anytime soon, so cheap my ass, its expensive, inefficient AND dangerous, they are just batteries nothing more nothing less, they may only be usefull during outages O.o, not worth it ^^ > "_are you delusional? its autumn i went outside i saw my breath, and my fingers practically froze off, idk about you but the winters won't be hot like summer_" it was sarcasm. > nah i am king of sarcasm, and this wasn't it, start using lithium, you believe that i believe im a victim of climate change, which i'm not, since global warming is nonsense, and than you say ''climate change? I want my winter to be hot like summer! LOL'' which aren't my words O.o you are trying to mock me by saying, ''if there will be climate change i'd want a hot summer during winter''...... thats not sarcasm, just plain delusion, you can't have summer and winter at the same time, winter = the coldest season of the year, lol {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} real sarcasm would be this ''yeah, cause winter is as hot as summer'' {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}} > "_there aren't enough solar panels and windmills per country to switch to renewable energy at all,_" let me introduce you to hydropower renewable power source (natural steam/geysers/water falls/underwater currents/ and so on... ): > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Paraguay > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Iceland > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand > ...and many more ;) you can search for more with "renewable energy production globally" and similar phrases > {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} low population countries, and paraguy is so poor barely a million people use electricity, sorry but not sorry, renewable enery is inefficient, situational and won't be able to keep up with demand, i live in a small country with a population of 17 million, lel these 3 countries you mentioned can't even provide us with 1/10th of the energy we use, and these countries use fossil fuel too, just saying. > "_if anyone is a cave man its you, you even talk like one, and since you are out of arguments you start insulting me in horrible english..... _" The pot calling the kettle black :) > go back to school, you are using that wrong {{sticker:sg-kiko}}, my english is fine, lol you don't know what sarcasm and hypocrisy are, or how to use them, omg .o., where did i ever insult you in horrible english? > Ok, it was fun pasting some free resources, with documented sources online, accessible to anyone. It won't reach you, because you love living under the rock, but maybe some one else will benefit from this. i'm just using my brain, you are either brainwashed by fascist politicians, or are in serious need of lithium, all you did was post some wikipages {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} talk about denialism, oh and its under A rock {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}, but nah i know reality, and reality doens't have a global warming problem, nor is fossil fuel a problem, fossil fuel provides NO pollutants, methane is burned off, and co2 is a natural coolant not a greenhouse gas, there is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels...... death is but fuel for the living O.O, so they can stick their expensive, inefficient, destructive and dangerous renewable energy up there where the sun don't shine {{sticker:sg-syndra}}
Tsurupettan (EUNE)
: I've worked on a cell production line (0.9-5kV units) and when properly cased, like any electric product, those are pretty durable. Our factory was making Li-On/ Li-Po units for underground/water mining equipment. And especially now, when new prismatic units are on the market and there are extra durable LCB batteries getting momentum, powerwalls are a matter of time actually, as many developed countries will slowly introduce those as there are already plenty of home solar panels and windmills all over the world. I understand that you are a victim of "climate change? I want my winter to be hot like summer! LOL" and general hate towards that poor child Greta who got too much attention on mainstream media. When I sad "climate change" it was obviously a note to the well documented rapid changes (El Nino, growing desert areas due to deforestation and so on) not the seasonal changes, but it looks like it's my problem for the benefit of doubt of your intelligence So, to make it short: _yah batteries bad they go boom explosion big kill many dead lol summer hot winter hot good good girls in bikini more lol xd XDDD_
> [{quoted}](name=Tsurupettan,realm=EUNE,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00070000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-30T15:27:57.698+0000) > > I've worked on a cell production line (0.9-5kV units) and when properly cased, like any electric product, those are pretty durable. Our factory was making Li-On/ Li-Po units for underground/water mining equipment. And especially now, when new prismatic units are on the market and there are extra durable LCB batteries getting momentum, powerwalls are a matter of time actually, as many developed countries will slowly introduce those as there are already plenty of home solar panels and windmills all over the world. > there aren't enough solar panels and windmills per country to switch to renewable energy at all, and its not about durability, these batteries can cause severe damage if things go wrong, they don't require a spark, they are chemical and highly reactive..... besides lithium batteries are generally prohibited in airplanes, and if not, they have strict rules, if even airports consider it dangerous it all says enough, no way i want that crap anywhere near me. these powerwalls are for the delusional and ignorant rich, not for the intelligent common folk, i don't even want to image what happens when fire breaks out at their house, when they use lithium batteries {{sticker:sg-ahri-1}}, ignorance is bliss {{sticker:sg-ahri-3}} > I understand that you are a victim of "climate change? I want my winter to be hot like summer! LOL" and general hate towards that poor child Greta who got too much attention on mainstream media. When I sad "climate change" it was obviously a note to the well documented rapid changes (El Nino, growing desert areas due to deforestation and so on) not the seasonal changes, but it looks like it's my problem for the benefit of doubt of your intelligence > are you delusional? its autumn i went outside i saw my breath, and my fingers practically froze off, idk about you but the winters won't be hot like summer, a very popular vacation destination is austria, whom have had and still have very sunny winters for decades O.o, i don't hate greta i hate nasa and the maintsream media whom are using greta for their propaganda, she is a puppet howling hollow claims to attract the mindless, what well documented rapid changes? there are non..... links please? a desert area with forests? yeah and fish fly {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}, el nino is called a DESERT, DESERTS are dry and hot, they bloom on occasion with flowers and cacti, they do not contain forests, that and even nasa's charts show a decline in GLOBAL ANNUAL AVERAGE temperature since 2017, so much for a heating trend, there is no evidence of a global warming, care to explain what's causing the alleged heating in the desert? you keep believing in alleged shifting climates from the normal climate changes like a flat earther believes in flat earth. i stick to logic^^ > So, to make it short: _yah batteries bad they go boom explosion big kill many dead lol summer hot winter hot good good girls in bikini more lol xd XDDD_ if anyone is a cave man its you, you even talk like one, and since you are out of arguments you start insulting me in horrible english..... {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-rainbows}} i suggest you take some of that lithium from the factory, you need it {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}
Tsurupettan (EUNE)
: Late reply is late. Water and renewable energy sources were 24% of global energy, nuclear 10.7% and fossil being 65.3% in 2015. I agree that solar farms and windmills aren't best, with how we waste 40-60% of all power produced. But with the rise of battery industry, mostly due to Tesla and Maibach luxurious cars being electric, people now (10-20 years ago already) began to store power in powerwalls (simplified: batteries in walls) so delta of the disproportion between production-consumption-demand will be getting smaller, and when that happens, fossil will really become a backup source. Hopefully, it will be fast enough before climate changes faster then the mankind can adapt.
> [{quoted}](name=Tsurupettan,realm=EUNE,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=000700000000,timestamp=2019-10-30T06:31:12.716+0000) > > Late reply is late. > Water and renewable energy sources were 24% of global energy, nuclear 10.7% and fossil being 65.3% in 2015. > I agree that solar farms and windmills aren't best, with how we waste 40-60% of all power produced. But with the rise of battery industry, mostly due to Tesla and Maibach luxurious cars being electric, people now (10-20 years ago already) began to store power in powerwalls (simplified: batteries in walls) so delta of the disproportion between production-consumption-demand will be getting smaller, and when that happens, fossil will really become a backup source. i meant that the energy a household taps, consists of 0.03% to 1% green energy and 99% to 99.97% of fossil/nuclear energy, even though people love to think getting green energy from the provider with a promise of 100% green energy means no fossil energy {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} , this is still true in 2019 {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}}, we will NEVER get rid of fossil energy unless we go nuclear, these batteries are worse than fossil energy itself, these lithium batteries are more dangerous than an engine blowing up, these batteries can blow up an entire car :(. lithium batteries store a huge amount of energy, if all is released simultaneously it explodes 0.0, to simplify it a fossil engine requires a spark to ignite, a tesla engine can explode without a spark, that and the production of lithium batteries emit more co2 than driving a fossil car eventually, not that co2 is bad, since it isn't even a pollutant, nor a greenhouse gas, fossil energy/fuel is still the best, renewable energy is not efficient, and nuclear energy creates toxic waste that lasts for centuries. Hopefully, it will be fast enough before climate changes faster then the mankind can adapt. hate to break it to you, but the climate changes 4 times a year, each 3 months or so {{sticker:sg-kiko}} , if you are talking about global warming with co2 as alleged cause, you have nothing to worry about, nasa is full of shit, the world isn't heating up, co2 is fluctuating normally, co2 is not a greenhouse gas but a natural coolant, and cannot ever be the cause of somthing heating up, the arctics are gaining in ice (it was never declining in ice at all), polars bears are thriving, and the sea levels are fluctuating as they have been doing for centuries, no increase of sea levels at all, nor is it turning acidic, global warming is propaganda.
TutunKamon (EUNE)
: YOU COULDN'T BEAT IT WITH A FED YASUO. Ok this is too broken....
> [{quoted}](name=TutunKamon,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=mtvP4ZkT,comment-id=00000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-10-28T17:59:39.677+0000) > > YOU COULDN'T BEAT IT WITH A FED YASUO. Ok this is too broken.... yeah darius was the last one standing in the end -.-, tank + damage + sustain is too much in the game atm.
: Tanks are tanky as hell, what are you talking about? Every single game tanks are winning so hard that it isn't even funny. Squishy noobs get punished by Jax, Voli, Mundo etc. Basically destroyed. If you pick Chogath or Garen you basically can walk free and they won't do anything to you unless you screw into 1v5 or smth.
> [{quoted}](name=galoisgroup,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=oFZRUTe7,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-10-18T13:41:54.271+0000) > > Tanks are tanky as hell, what are you talking about? Every single game tanks are winning so hard that it isn't even funny. Squishy noobs get punished by Jax, Voli, Mundo etc. Basically destroyed. If you pick Chogath or Garen you basically can walk free and they won't do anything to you unless you screw into 1v5 or smth. yeah i agree, tanks have too much damage and subtanks or non tanks like bruisers have too much defense.
Tsurupettan (EUNE)
: Modern data centers work in a different way then 30 years ago. Don't blame server/host sites, better ask how they get their energy - if it is nuclear electricity it's clean. Second best is solar/wind farms. Worse are coal and oil burned sources but that is government responsibility. And your post made some traffic... instead ask your local politicians what they can do for the safer energy instead of blaming a company for their services you are well using. {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}}
> [{quoted}](name=Tsurupettan,realm=EUNE,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-10-14T12:01:58.368+0000) > > Modern data centers work in a different way then 30 years ago. > Don't blame server/host sites, better ask how they get their energy - if it is nuclear electricity it's clean. Second best is solar/wind farms. Worse are coal and oil burned sources but that is government responsibility. > And your post made some traffic... instead ask your local politicians what they can do for the safer energy instead of blaming a company for their services you are well using. > > {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} there is nothing wrong with coal and oil, and solar and wind can't bring up enough energy, even today 99% energy is fossil, and only 1% is green energy {{sticker:sg-kiko}}, even if they build entire parks of solartiles and windmills, there still wouldn't be enough energy, so they would end up purchasing fossil fuel from other countries.....
: > for the millionth time co2 is a coolant, care to explain to me how a gas that has an heat retention of 0.00 is capable of transferring heat? Cause that’s not how greenhouse gases work how many times do I have to explain this to you... greenhouse gases trap heat into the atmosphere they themselves don’t need to get hot. It works like a greenhouse why is that so hard to understand. > thats not how it works, the ocean stays in equilibrium, the seabed adds calcium/magnesium/sodium etc, that converts carbonic acids into bicarbonates or carbonates, which in turn makes the ocean alkaline or basic, what did you think equilibrium meant? so no the ocean isn't turning acid, its litterally IMPOSSIBLE. But these are chemical reactions, therefore the reaction must be balanced... the more carbon dioxide you add the higher quantities of the other chemicals you need. Add more carbon dioxide than the sea can react and the carbonic acid doesn’t get reduced thus oceans become more acidic. This is basic chemistry. > than you of all people should know volcanoes don't emit alot of co2 at all, 0,005 per volcano per year, 0.02% per year all volcanoes combined give or take, so 1 eruption isn't going to cause a global warming -.- > the fact that co2 has no heat retention, therefor it cannot and does not trap heat in any way..... co2 gets surrounded by heat, sets up a shield of energy by vibrating, halts the momentum of radiative energy from earth, and since heat moves upwards, thats where it goes. But that’s only when small amounts of volcanos actually erupt... when there’s a very high amount of volcanic activity like in the Permian those numbers are much much higher. Did you seriously drop out of school... heat can move in any direction... so long as it has a way to travel. That means diffusion, convection, conduction, or radiation... if heat couldn’t move downwards life wouldn’t exist in the first place as the heat would go straight back into space. > lol said the cultist. I’m supplying evidence, you failed high school science > nope europe elites and govs are pro climate crap, only trump which is i believe the only gov atm that doesn't believe the climate propaganda. Most governments aren’t pro climate... most of them are tied with the rich, there’s more money being against climate than being for climate > money by taxes gov/scientists, control by cutting resources gov, and power through propaganda gov, so in the end scientists are in it for the money, i mean they gotta pay for all the research, nr 1 income is the government, therefore the gov has huge influence on nasa, and nasa has huge influence on other scientists. Ha ha ha don’t make me laugh, I %%%%ing wish there was money in this for me. Fun fact, if you want to make money in science you actually go into fossil fuel, there’s a ton of money in the petroleum industry, and nothing in green energy. So if scientists are in it to make money surely they’d actually be supporting the thing that will make them money, rather than trying to get rid of it. Plus theyre more likely to get funding going against climate change than they would going for, as petroleum companies are more than willing to pay for propaganda ___ Now for your studies > 500 scientist that go against the propaganda. Not a study, just some scientists with opinions that contradict the masses, no data attached no peer reviewed paper (also I like how you are suddenly willing to believe scientists when they support your view but any who are against are cultists)... of which they talk mostly from economic standpoint so these scientist are interested in the money. Also failing to look at the bigger picture “CO2 is good for plants” and yet we just burned down a large portion of the Amazon, not so good for your argument when corporations are burning down your argument. > and then there is this. > https://gerhard.stehlik-online.de/ > read it i mean it, hope you get it XD An study that hasn’t been published in a proper journal with no peer review. Therefore I’d be inclined to not believe it. Supply a published peeer reviewer paper on this then we will talk > scroll to 2012 and compare to 2013 you'll actually see an increase, its also funny how nasa isn't talking about how thick the ice is, But that data also shows it’s going down, yes there was an increase but since then it’s continued to decrease. These are what is known as anomalous events and why you use a line of best fit to show data clearly. If a line of best fit was to be drawn it would show a negative correlation meaning ice thickness has been going down over time > in 2015 someone at nasa published a paper that contradicted ice loss, Finally an actual paper... shame just the abstract but oh well. This doesn’t contradict ice loss... a quote “The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.” they aren’t saying ice thinning is never happened or won’t happen, they even acknowledge it... just that a recent increase in ice thickness will delay ice thinning by s few decades. So that paper supports ice thinning. > so much for sea level rise XD Good thing I never mentioned sea level rise, in fact that’s not an argument that comes up much these days precisely for this reason. Doesn’t change climate change
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=000500000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-13T20:01:50.970+0000) > > Cause that’s not how greenhouse gases work how many times do I have to explain this to you... greenhouse gases trap heat into the atmosphere they themselves don’t need to get hot. It works like a greenhouse why is that so hard to understand. > you don't understand the fact co2 is not a greenhouse gas, a greenhouse gas convects and radiates heat, co2 is incapable of doing so, so again how does co2 capture and hold heat, to heat up the environment? when it can't heat up and therefore can't hold heat? > But these are chemical reactions, therefore the reaction must be balanced... the more carbon dioxide you add the higher quantities of the other chemicals you need. Add more carbon dioxide than the sea can react and the carbonic acid doesn’t get reduced thus oceans become more acidic. This is basic chemistry. > you do realize co2 holds more than hydrogen? so no, no matter how much co2 you add it will always remain in equilibrium, its called equivalent, meaning 1 carbon counters 2 hydrogen, basic chemistry, you do realize you keep adding the same gas co2, i would agree with you if only hydrogen was added and not carbon as well, the second way of changing the equilibrium is by increasing the speed its added, meaning you would need to add co2 faster than the seabed adds said chemicals, the amount added won't change a thing, since the carbon in the water would rise and eventually overcome the hydrogen and the water would turn basic or alkaline again, this is why the Ph value of the ocean fluctuates, the Ph levels of the ocean haven't changed at all, nor is there a trend that shows the oceans becoming more acidic, and at this current day the ocean is still basic or alkaline. > But that’s only when small amounts of volcanos actually erupt... when there’s a very high amount of volcanic activity like in the Permian those numbers are much much higher. > sorry but your cultis scientists at nasa disprove this https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ nasa says highest historical co2 level is 300 PPM :P so which is it? > Did you seriously drop out of school... heat can move in any direction... so long as it has a way to travel. That means diffusion, convection, conduction, or radiation... if heat couldn’t move downwards life wouldn’t exist in the first place as the heat would go straight back into space. > yes i agree heat moves in any direction, but only tarvels upwards^^ > I’m supplying evidence, you failed high school science > you are supplying bias, what evidence? nasa scientists that continuesly contradict themselves? XD > Most governments aren’t pro climate... most of them are tied with the rich, there’s more money being against climate than being for climate > no, most govs are, only president not even gov really against it is trump, china remains neutral atm, no other gov has openly stated they are against it. > Ha ha ha don’t make me laugh, I %%%%ing wish there was money in this for me. > > Fun fact, if you want to make money in science you actually go into fossil fuel, there’s a ton of money in the petroleum industry, and nothing in green energy. > > So if scientists are in it to make money surely they’d actually be supporting the thing that will make them money, rather than trying to get rid of it. > Plus theyre more likely to get funding going against climate change than they would going for, as petroleum companies are more than willing to pay for propaganda > > ___ > whom do you think funds the scientists? sorry but not sorry, fun fact the governments own the scientists, so either the scientists do what the gov tells them, or lose money and be without a job..... you do realize that green energy doesn't even make up 1% of the net energy, so yeah, no money in there yet, but these climate cultists are trying to destroy fossil fuel, so where do you think the money will be made? sane scientists know green energy will destroy lives, so this is why the MAJORITY of scientists are against this propaganda. > Now for your studies > > Not a study, just some scientists with opinions that contradict the masses, no data attached no peer reviewed paper (also I like how you are suddenly willing to believe scientists when they support your view but any who are against are cultists)... of which they talk mostly from economic standpoint so these scientist are interested in the money. > Also failing to look at the bigger picture “CO2 is good for plants” and yet we just burned down a large portion of the Amazon, not so good for your argument when corporations are burning down your argument. > these are still scientists, and unbiased at that, who is we? i don't live near the amazon O.o, companies are expanding by destroying nature, well no offense but the arguments from the cultists tend to exist out of ''but scientists BELIEVE'' since when are ''believes'' facts? > An study that hasn’t been published in a proper journal with no peer review. Therefore I’d be inclined to not believe it. Supply a published peeer reviewer paper on this then we will talk > i tend to stay away from biased crap^^ > But that data also shows it’s going down, yes there was an increase but since then it’s continued to decrease. > > These are what is known as anomalous events and why you use a line of best fit to show data clearly. If a line of best fit was to be drawn it would show a negative correlation meaning ice thickness has been going down over time > no a nasa speaks of a trend, this kinks the trend hard, since trends need to continue no matter what, this is what we call fluctuation and like i said before 2014 has similar extent of ice as 1979, and the graph is about extent not ice thickness, it doesn't show ice thinning. > Finally an actual paper... shame just the abstract but oh well. > > This doesn’t contradict ice loss... a quote “The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.” they aren’t saying ice thinning is never happened or won’t happen, they even acknowledge it... just that a recent increase in ice thickness will delay ice thinning by s few decades. > > So that paper supports ice thinning. > it supports increase in EXTENT, believe it or not nasa removed this journal btw, only because it contradicts nasa's claims of decreasing ice extent, that team PROVED that the arctics aren't melting away in extent, so no its not supporting ice loss, they state that ice is actually increasing at another point, they state there is an ice SHIFT, meaning the ice thins at point A but thickens at point B, nasa claims all ice is melting, which is untrue, even the title says ''Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses'' so arctic ice is actually increasing not decreasing liek nasa claims. > Good thing I never mentioned sea level rise, in fact that’s not an argument that comes up much these days precisely for this reason. Doesn’t change climate change 1 lie down, the rest will follow, the climate change from nasa will crumble since its hollow^^
: it says 2006 = 381 PPM which is 0.0381% now the bottom graph shows 1950 over 380 PPM which is 0.0380% > can you please explain to me how co2 increased to 0.0380% till 1950 and lowered untill 2006 just to rise again? > cause from what i can tell by these graphs is that co2 levels are fluctuating throughout the ages, therefor there is no significant co2 increase, the bottom graph shows indirect measurements and thus not accurate ones, nasa didn't even exist untill 1958 and the first real measurement of co2 was done at 1957 which was 0.0316% or 316 PPM, so anything below 1957 is inaccurate but still shows fluctuations and never a straight line. Are... we looking at the same data 2006 = 381 PPM 2019 = 412 That’s a clear positive correlation... CO2 is steadily going up. And the bottom graph isn’t inaccurate... you forget that CO2 can be trapped in ice which allows scientists to look at historical emission levels as the ice gives a snapshot at the atmosphere at the time of freezing And yeah over thousands of years that the study is looking at (note the scale at the bottom, first measurement is 400 thousand years ago, this is palaeontology not someone going outside to measure it) it fluctuates, all of that are natural releases and sinks doing their job... as soon as humans start buring fossil fuels it shoots up massively. That data proves what I’m saying... > heat ALWAYS travels upwards not downwards, Well the last shred of respect I had for you is gone. Heat doesn’t always travel upwards you moron, if it did that then the earth would be frozen as the heat would never reach the surface. Heat goes in all directions, your thinking of hot air which does indeed travel upwards as it’s less dense than cold air... but heat itself can travel in any direction. > then you can't use co2 in fire extinguishers, Wait do you actually think CO2 cools fires down... fire extinguishers work by firing CO2 at the source, replacing the oxygen in that area with CO2... no oxygen no fire. It smothers the fire it doesn’t cool it down. > greenhouse gasses convect heat by absorbing it and become hotter than the environment and at the same time radiates heat since every object can only retain heat for a limited amount of time, co2 cannot hold heat so it does not convect nor does it radiate nor does it reflect. That’s not how green house gases work... if you don’t even know the fundamentals then it’s no wonder you think it’s a lie. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere by preventing it from leaving, hence the earth heats up. That’s why it’s called the greenhouse effect... this is exactly how a greenhouse works. > evolution, plants adapt and lots of plants thrive in cold climates, and vice versa. Evolution happens over millions of years, climate change happens over decades. Species can’t adapt faster than the climate can change > adaptations, just look at asutralia. Australia has nothing to do with adaptions... that’s island isolation causing speciation. And that’s because the island split apart slowly allowing for species to survive... climate change is too fast. > yeah cause alot of animals live on sea ice > and sea ice is fluctuating not dissapearing. Doesn’t matter if sea ice is fluctuating... even if it goes too low to sustain its populations for just a year then makes a full recovery too many species will die And not a lot but enough that entire ecosystems go under. It just takes one species to go for others to follow. Polar bears die, this increases seal populations as they’ve lost a major population buffer, this decreases the population of seal’s prey as they are being overhunted... ecosystems are delicate. > the oceans are 8 PH thats basic not acidic, the PH near landside are 7.7 which is still basic and not acidic, the ocean is not and will not be acidic. Except it can and will, explained in the other comment. > release heat through windows or doors, and if thats not enough use other ways of decreasing the heat, and eventually people adapt. You realise they’d have to do that to every house in England... and even that won’t help... the whole building is designed to preserve as much heat as possible you’d have to rebuild every building to survive... we can’t do that faster than climate is changing. > so no mass extinction has never happened due to temperature, no volcano has ever caused continental extinction whatsoever. And yet in your other comment you tried to explain why it has caused extinctions... ___ You show no understanding of this... seriously this is high school science. Perhaps you should listen to those that have dedicated their lives to learn this stuff
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=000600000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-13T16:36:16.463+0000) > > it says 2006 = 381 PPM which is 0.0381% > now the bottom graph shows 1950 over 380 PPM which is 0.0380% > > Are... we looking at the same data > > 2006 = 381 PPM > 2019 = 412 > That’s a clear positive correlation... CO2 is steadily going up. > it shows 1950 well over 380 PPM, the difference on that graph between 340 and 380 is 40 PPM, at 1950 the PPM is at half over 380 PPM, meaning its 400 PPM at 1950, so like i said, can you explain the decrease from 1950 to 2006? all the graph shows is fluctuation, and why can't we see 1950-2006 in the graph? why in the world does it start at 2006? > And the bottom graph isn’t inaccurate... you forget that CO2 can be trapped in ice which allows scientists to look at historical emission levels as the ice gives a snapshot at the atmosphere at the time of freezing > > And yeah over thousands of years that the study is looking at (note the scale at the bottom, first measurement is 400 thousand years ago, this is palaeontology not someone going outside to measure it) it fluctuates, all of that are natural releases and sinks doing their job... as soon as humans start buring fossil fuels it shoots up massively. > > That data proves what I’m saying... > nope, co2 measured from ice is inaccurate, ice melts and freezes again, so the level of co2 in ice is meaningless, you can't go back in time and rule out factors, on top of that they don't state what ice it is, from which water, not only that, but these measurements disprove your claim of end permian mass extinction due to global warming, since that graph shows levels under 300 PPM at all times, so which is it? > Well the last shred of respect I had for you is gone. > > Heat doesn’t always travel upwards you moron, if it did that then the earth would be frozen as the heat would never reach the surface. > Heat goes in all directions, your thinking of hot air which does indeed travel upwards as it’s less dense than cold air... but heat itself can travel in any direction. > heat ALWAYS travels upwards, lel you call me a moron and than state heat travels towards the earth, which is not true, radiation travels to the earth which is energy with momentum, heat merely takes a ride, aka TRANSFERS using the radiation, once the energy halts, the heat just moves away, because the energy is gone, and what you are talking about is EXPANSION, heat can indeed expand, but in the end all heat travels upward, unless it is overruled by a stronger energy, if we are in a room and i shove you, would you say you just traveled or moved? there is a distinct difference between TRAVEL and MOVE, heat can indeed MOVE in any direction, but it does not travel in ANY direction. > Wait do you actually think CO2 cools fires down... fire extinguishers work by firing CO2 at the source, replacing the oxygen in that area with CO2... no oxygen no fire. It smothers the fire it doesn’t cool it down. > my point was, if co2 was a greenhouse gas it would regardless of the source retain the exact same heat from the source in the space, continueing heating the space up, however this is not true and therefore proves co2 is a coolant, and can't be a greenhouse gas. > That’s not how green house gases work... if you don’t even know the fundamentals then it’s no wonder you think it’s a lie. > > Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere by preventing it from leaving, hence the earth heats up. That’s why it’s called the greenhouse effect... this is exactly how a greenhouse works. > that is called CONVECTION, convection uses gases, and guess what, gases that are hot travel UPWARDS, at the same time the gas radiates heat, you see the problem? co2 does not convect or radiate heat since it has a heat retention of 0.00, how is co2 trapping heat? take a mirror into sunlight and wait a little, than place your hand upon the mirror, you'll feel heat on your palm since the mirror heats up, EVERYTHING that reflects heat, heats up, co2 does not heat up thus it cannot reflect. > Evolution happens over millions of years, climate change happens over decades. Species can’t adapt faster than the climate can change > http://listden.com/10-animals-that-can-survive-in-extremely-cold-weather/ these animals disagree, it didn't take THAT long for them to adapt, https://www.livescience.com/10956-polar-bears-evolved-150-000-years.html > Australia has nothing to do with adaptions... that’s island isolation causing speciation. And that’s because the island split apart slowly allowing for species to survive... climate change is too fast. > lel, no matter what, animals can adapt in any environment. > Doesn’t matter if sea ice is fluctuating... even if it goes too low to sustain its populations for just a year then makes a full recovery too many species will die > And not a lot but enough that entire ecosystems go under. It just takes one species to go for others to follow. > Polar bears die, this increases seal populations as they’ve lost a major population buffer, this decreases the population of seal’s prey as they are being overhunted... ecosystems are delicate. > not that delicate, and polar bears aren't the only hunters around, hunting seals, 2012-2013 showed an increase of extent, so its not a trend, nor is it as severe as nasa claims it to be. > Except it can and will, explained in the other comment. > nope nature creates equilibriums at all times, or earth will perish. > You realise they’d have to do that to every house in England... and even that won’t help... the whole building is designed to preserve as much heat as possible you’d have to rebuild every building to survive... we can’t do that faster than climate is changing. > you pretend like we can't? we aren't getting 24/7 heated like we are in an oven..... there is no global warming, just some hot spring and summer days. > And yet in your other comment you tried to explain why it has caused extinctions... > > ___ > yeah extinctions tend to happen with chain reactions, volcanoes don't end continents. > You show no understanding of this... seriously this is high school science. Perhaps you should listen to those that have dedicated their lives to learn this stuff you mean students that got filled with leftwing propaganda, and try to shape everything to their will regardless of facts? no thank you, i prefer to use my own head, and stop with the assumptions please.
: > lel you don't even know how volcanoes work..... the only way for a volcano to release 10000PPM or 10% co2 to cause depreviation of oxygen is during an eruption, and that amount is insane and has NEVER been documented, in turn the volcano emits hydrogen and methane as well, both of them are greenhouse gasses since they have a long heat retention, these gasses cause corrosive damage and are flammable, heck hydrogen can ignite due to mixing with oxygen, so no there was no global warming end permian, co2 did nothng back then, it was mostly methane and hydrogen, and some of it sulfur, and ofcourse a pyroglastic cloud due to the eruption, and guess wha,t an eruption releases ashes that block heat, volcanoes tend to cause ice ages not global warming Please do some research before trying to sound smart. At no point did I say that volcanos poisoned the atmosphere with CO2... what is believed to have happened was CO2 release became too high, this increased global temperatures killing a lot of terrestrial creatures, and caused ocean acidification (it is a thing) which killed most of the marine organisms. Here’s a paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534703000934 Hydrogen and methane where also released and contributed, but CO2 is the main cause of the Permian extinction... > you can show me a million of it, its false, co2 has an ph value of 6 or 10, what causes acidity is hydrogen that takes out hydroxic, when co2 hits water the hydrogen detaches, and carbon isn't acidic, the ocean can take down acid naturally using carbonate, the ocean has an ph value of 8, and coastal lines have an ph value of around 7.7, both are basic and not acid, its not enough to kill reefs, here is how the ocean regulates PH value Did you just try to disprove ocean acidification by saying how it works When carbon reacts with water the hydrogen detached... forming carbonic acid And yes in normal situations the ocean can regulate it... normal situations. When you increase the input of CO2 without increasing the output of carbon (or even decrease the output of carbon, we are burning the other major carbon sink and a lot of calcareous creatures are going extinct) you acidify the water. So yes ocean acidification is a thing, it’s scientifically proven. > what link? co2 is a coolant as shown in this link learn to read https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/, co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas, my god, you claim to be a palaeontologist and know nothing about gasses or volcanoes, all you do is research fossils and cells, stick to what you know or learn to know the truth instead of blindly believing fake scientists and a kid that never finished basic school claiming I explained this in the other comment, CO2 diffuses heat back into space but it also diffuses heat escaping earth back onto earth... greenhouse gases don’t increase heat going into the earth it traps heat in. CO2 being a coolant is the very reason it’s a greenhouse gas. Also I study environment... you forget that palaeontology is a part of geology not biology, I’ve studied way more about volcanos than cells (seriously why cells of all things, you realise they are pretty much never preserved)... in fact most of palaeontology hasn’t got much to do with fossils as they are too rare. > there is plenty data and facts disproving such claims. Then show me... I’ve supplied scientific papers, give me up to date scientific papers disproving all of this that have been peer reviewed. > well what else would you call people that blindly believe and follow propaganda spread by mouthpieces of the goverment and a kid that didn't finish school, without ever applying logic or a will to learn? You sound like such a conspiracy theorist right now. NASA is at odds with the government... you realise the government is currentky trying to shut them up about climate change. Your arguing with scientists not politicians, we’ve got nothing to gain from lying about this... seriously what do you think we are gaining, lies have to have reason.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-13T16:10:58.933+0000) > > Please do some research before trying to sound smart. > > At no point did I say that volcanos poisoned the atmosphere with CO2... what is believed to have happened was CO2 release became too high, this increased global temperatures killing a lot of terrestrial creatures, and caused ocean acidification (it is a thing) which killed most of the marine organisms. > > Here’s a paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534703000934 > > Hydrogen and methane where also released and contributed, but CO2 is the main cause of the Permian extinction... > for the millionth time co2 is a coolant, care to explain to me how a gas that has an heat retention of 0.00 is capable of transferring heat? > Did you just try to disprove ocean acidification by saying how it works > > When carbon reacts with water the hydrogen detached... forming carbonic acid > > And yes in normal situations the ocean can regulate it... normal situations. When you increase the input of CO2 without increasing the output of carbon (or even decrease the output of carbon, we are burning the other major carbon sink and a lot of calcareous creatures are going extinct) you acidify the water. > > So yes ocean acidification is a thing, it’s scientifically proven. > thats not how it works, the ocean stays in equilibrium, the seabed adds calcium/magnesium/sodium etc, that converts carbonic acids into bicarbonates or carbonates, which in turn makes the ocean alkaline or basic, what did you think equilibrium meant? so no the ocean isn't turning acid, its litterally IMPOSSIBLE. > I explained this in the other comment, CO2 diffuses heat back into space but it also diffuses heat escaping earth back onto earth... greenhouse gases don’t increase heat going into the earth it traps heat in. > > CO2 being a coolant is the very reason it’s a greenhouse gas. > > Also I study environment... you forget that palaeontology is a part of geology not biology, I’ve studied way more about volcanos than cells (seriously why cells of all things, you realise they are pretty much never preserved)... in fact most of palaeontology hasn’t got much to do with fossils as they are too rare. > than you of all people should know volcanoes don't emit alot of co2 at all, 0,005 per volcano per year, 0.02% per year all volcanoes combined give or take, so 1 eruption isn't going to cause a global warming -.- the fact that co2 has no heat retention, therefor it cannot and does not trap heat in any way..... co2 gets surrounded by heat, sets up a shield of energy by vibrating, halts the momentum of radiative energy from earth, and since heat moves upwards, thats where it goes. https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/lesson-plans/global-energy-budget true energybudget display https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows propaganda really, suddenly they added greenhouse gases to the energy budget display -.- > Then show me... I’ve supplied scientific papers, give me up to date scientific papers disproving all of this that have been peer reviewed. > 500 scientist that go against the propaganda. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/ and then there is this. https://gerhard.stehlik-online.de/ read it i mean it, hope you get it XD https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ scroll to 2012 and compare to 2013 you'll actually see an increase, its also funny how nasa isn't talking about how thick the ice is, in 2015 someone at nasa published a paper that contradicted ice loss, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/983F196E23C3A6E7908E5FB32EB42268 https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/SeaLevelRiseCCRII.pdf https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/sea-level-rise-not-accelerating-new-study-shows so much for sea level rise XD > You sound like such a conspiracy theorist right now. > lol said the cultist. > NASA is at odds with the government... you realise the government is currentky trying to shut them up about climate change. nope europe elites and govs are pro climate crap, only trump which is i believe the only gov atm that doesn't believe the climate propaganda. and im dutch btw. > Your arguing with scientists not politicians, we’ve got nothing to gain from lying about this... seriously what do you think we are gaining, lies have to have reason. money by taxes gov/scientists, control by cutting resources gov, and power through propaganda gov, so in the end scientists are in it for the money, i mean they gotta pay for all the research, nr 1 income is the government, therefore the gov has huge influence on nasa, and nasa has huge influence on other scientists.
: You know I was gonna to explain it properly but you showed clearly how little you know > actually there is no evidence of mass extinction by anything else but effecst from an meteor impact, the effects were : impact, volcano eruptions, earhquakes and tsunamis, disease/hunger/thirst/ice age due to flora dying from ashes and dust and plain and simple evolution, and no not all dinosaurs went extinct, so unless a meteor comes our way we are not in danger. You realise that’s only 1 mass extinction out of the 5 that have happened... and it’s not even the biggest, it was pretty mediocre. The biggest was the Permian mass extinction killing 90% of all life, which was caused by global warming, no meteor involved. Volcanoes increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere too much resulting in most life dying out. At this point there’s not even any point responding to the rest of what you’ve said, cause most of it is sea level that I don’t even mention... the fact that earth nearly died off because of global warming before is proof of what can happen, and the fact that you thought I was talking about the dinosaurs shows you’ve got no place trying to descuss this with a palaeontologist who has actually seen the evidence. ___ Temperatures are increasing, not all at once and yes 2018 did go down but the general correlation is still it increasing so one year doesn’t mean we are in the clear CO2 does cause acidicy in water https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=carbon+dioxide+causing+ocean+acidification&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart here’s plenty of papers showing this. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, your source actually shows this, as proven earlier Don’t try to say people’s data aren’t real without actually supplying your own data And don’t call people cults while trying to deny clear evidence without anything to back yourself up with
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00050000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-12T22:24:55.067+0000) > > You know I was gonna to explain it properly but you showed clearly how little you know > > You realise that’s only 1 mass extinction out of the 5 that have happened... and it’s not even the biggest, it was pretty mediocre. The biggest was the Permian mass extinction killing 90% of all life, which was caused by global warming, no meteor involved. Volcanoes increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere too much resulting in most life dying out. > > At this point there’s not even any point responding to the rest of what you’ve said, cause most of it is sea level that I don’t even mention... the fact that earth nearly died off because of global warming before is proof of what can happen, and the fact that you thought I was talking about the dinosaurs shows you’ve got no place trying to descuss this with a palaeontologist who has actually seen the evidence. > > ___ > lel you don't even know how volcanoes work..... the only way for a volcano to release 10000PPM or 10% co2 to cause depreviation of oxygen is during an eruption, and that amount is insane and has NEVER been documented, in turn the volcano emits hydrogen and methane as well, both of them are greenhouse gasses since they have a long heat retention, these gasses cause corrosive damage and are flammable, heck hydrogen can ignite due to mixing with oxygen, so no there was no global warming end permian, co2 did nothng back then, it was mostly methane and hydrogen, and some of it sulfur, and ofcourse a pyroglastic cloud due to the eruption, and guess wha,t an eruption releases ashes that block heat, volcanoes tend to cause ice ages not global warming {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} > Temperatures are increasing, not all at once and yes 2018 did go down but the general correlation is still it increasing so one year doesn’t mean we are in the clear > it started decreasing since 2017 so thats 2 years, and 1 degrees celcius in 58 years is insignificant. > CO2 does cause acidicy in water https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=carbon+dioxide+causing+ocean+acidification&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart here’s plenty of papers showing this. > you can show me a million of it, its false, co2 has an ph value of 6 or 10, what causes acidity is hydrogen that takes out hydroxic, when co2 hits water the hydrogen detaches, and carbon isn't acidic, the ocean can take down acid naturally using carbonate, the ocean has an ph value of 8, and coastal lines have an ph value of around 7.7, both are basic and not acid, its not enough to kill reefs, here is how the ocean regulates PH value https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/ carbon from the co2 keeps the ocean basic^^ > CO2 is a greenhouse gas, your source actually shows this, as proven earlier > what link? co2 is a coolant as shown in this link learn to read https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/, co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas, my god, you claim to be a palaeontologist and know nothing about gasses or volcanoes, all you do is research fossils and cells, stick to what you know or learn to know the truth instead of blindly believing fake scientists and a kid that never finished basic school claiming BS > Don’t try to say people’s data aren’t real without actually supplying your own data > there is plenty data and facts disproving such claims. > And don’t call people cults while trying to deny clear evidence without anything to back yourself up with well what else would you call people that blindly believe and follow propaganda spread by mouthpieces of the goverment and a kid that didn't finish school, without ever applying logic or a will to learn?
: > co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ > the only relevant greenhouse gas is watervapor, its easy to tell if temperatures are increasing or declining when its humid, and so far temperatures are normal. Temperatures are not normal... have you not noticed that every single year is the hottest year on record. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ you fail to realise what carbon dioxide does... a quote from your source > “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That works both ways, carbon dioxide helps shed heat back into space but it also will shed heat back onto earth... any heat that gets to earth’s surface usually is radiated back into space, but increased CO2 in the atmosphere reflects this back onto earth increasing temperature as heat can’t escape. Hence the term greenhouse gas. So carbon dioxide being is coolant is also the reason it’s a greenhouse gas. > there won't be a mass extinction because of weather -.- Actually yes there can be... serveral reasons for this... and not weather, temperature... there’s a difference Plants rely on particular temperature to germinate and grow, hence why gardeners plant in certain months... by changing global temperature you mess this up and potentially kill off plants who no longer have the right conditions. If plants go the ecosystem goes, every time. Animals who can no longer survive the temperature of their environment will likely die off or move, and invasive species moving to different ecosystems can mess them up Icecaps are melting so any species that rely on them are screwed... CO2 turns water acidic, anything with a calcareous body is dead. That’s what is happening to reefs atm and if corals die off that’s an entire ecosystem gone Even humans are effected... England for instance is built for cold weather, we are used to -5 to 10 degrees... summers up to 26 degrees while in houses designed to keep heat in can be lethal to babies and older people. So yeah mass extinctions do happen due to temperature, in fact if you look at a chart of global temperature over the fossil record and plot on mass extinctions you will clearly see that. The Permian extinction (killing 90% of life) is currently believed to be due to volcanic activity doing exactly what we are doing right now.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-12T22:05:50.259+0000) > > Temperatures are not normal... have you not noticed that every single year is the hottest year on record. > lol dude i guess you still don't get it :( ok last time this time i'll explain so you can't go around it anymore https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ you see this graph? it says 2006 = 381 PPM which is 0.0381% now the bottom graph shows 1950 over 380 PPM which is 0.0380% can you please explain to me how co2 increased to 0.0380% till 1950 and lowered untill 2006 just to rise again? cause from what i can tell by these graphs is that co2 levels are fluctuating throughout the ages, therefor there is no significant co2 increase, the bottom graph shows indirect measurements and thus not accurate ones, nasa didn't even exist untill 1958 and the first real measurement of co2 was done at 1957 which was 0.0316% or 316 PPM, so anything below 1957 is inaccurate but still shows fluctuations and never a straight line. now lets take a look at this graph^^ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ now the fact is that nasa didn't exist prior to 1958 so we can dismiss all before 1958, the average temperature at 1958 deviating from the norm was 0.07 degrees celcius, the norm is 0.00 degrees celcius, let me tell you we are talking environmental temperature here on average globally annually, so throughout the year of 1958 the average temperature has deviated from 0.00 with 0.07 degrees C........ the highest anomaly measured was 0.98 degrees C in 2016, its in decline since 2017 already, not only that, don't you realize that the average global temperature hasn't even risen with 1 degrees C in 58 years? completely insignificant, what that graph shows is this : lets take riotland, now riotland has a minimum average temperature of 10 degrees C and a maximum of 20 degrees C pretty cold though, now according to nasa we will all die because the average temperature of riotland went to 11 degrees C minimum and 21 degrees C maximum average over 58 years time {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} average calculations are inaccurate and mean nothing, the raw data shows something else, the raw data shows fluctuations of temperatures throuhgout the year per country going from under 0 degrees C to above 25 degrees C, which is normal -.- if what nasa said is true we won't be getting temperatures the same as prior to 1958, which we did actually..... another problem is this, according to nasa the average temperature is 0.0 degrees, meaning the environmental temperature globally and anually on average has been 0.0 degrees since the dawn of earth... {{sticker:sg-kiko}} > And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ you fail to realise what carbon dioxide does... a quote from your source > > That works both ways, carbon dioxide helps shed heat back into space but it also will shed heat back onto earth... any heat that gets to earth’s surface usually is radiated back into space, but increased CO2 in the atmosphere reflects this back onto earth increasing temperature as heat can’t escape. Hence the term greenhouse gas. > > So carbon dioxide being is coolant is also the reason it’s a greenhouse gas. > no it doesn't work both ways, when co2 gets in contact with heat it starts to vibrate and move away from any heat shedding the heat from itself by creating heat around itself, co2 has an heat retention of 0.0 it does not absorb heat whatsoever, heat ALWAYS travels upwards not downwards, so co2 ALWAYS sheds it upwards never in any other direction, if what you state is true and co2 sends heat downwards, then you can't use co2 in fire extinguishers, co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}}, and for the love of god stop using that propaganda site to come with arguments, they themselves know co2 is a coolant and not a greenhouse gas as i showed you with this link : https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ , greenhouse gasses convect heat by absorbing it and become hotter than the environment and at the same time radiates heat since every object can only retain heat for a limited amount of time, co2 cannot hold heat so it does not convect nor does it radiate nor does it reflect. > Actually yes there can be... serveral reasons for this... and not weather, temperature... there’s a difference > > Plants rely on particular temperature to germinate and grow, hence why gardeners plant in certain months... by changing global temperature you mess this up and potentially kill off plants who no longer have the right conditions. If plants go the ecosystem goes, every time. > evolution, plants adapt and lots of plants thrive in cold climates, and vice versa. > Animals who can no longer survive the temperature of their environment will likely die off or move, and invasive species moving to different ecosystems can mess them up > adaptations, just look at asutralia. > Icecaps are melting so any species that rely on them are screwed... > yeah cause alot of animals live on sea ice {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} and sea ice is fluctuating not dissapearing. > CO2 turns water acidic, anything with a calcareous body is dead. That’s what is happening to reefs atm and if corals die off that’s an entire ecosystem gone > the oceans are 8 PH thats basic not acidic, the PH near landside are 7.7 which is still basic and not acidic, the ocean is not and will not be acidic. > Even humans are effected... England for instance is built for cold weather, we are used to -5 to 10 degrees... summers up to 26 degrees while in houses designed to keep heat in can be lethal to babies and older people. > release heat through windows or doors, and if thats not enough use other ways of decreasing the heat, and eventually people adapt. > So yeah mass extinctions do happen due to temperature, in fact if you look at a chart of global temperature over the fossil record and plot on mass extinctions you will clearly see that. > The Permian extinction (killing 90% of life) is currently believed to be due to volcanic activity doing exactly what we are doing right now. so no mass extinction has never happened due to temperature, no volcano has ever caused continental extinction whatsoever.
: yeah but i picked first in that match :\ also, i can't use teemo (despite being teemo 5) i have no idea how to use him XD
> [{quoted}](name=MirirLightHammer,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=Nik23dAG,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-10-13T10:05:09.518+0000) > > yeah but i picked first in that match :\ also, i can't use teemo (despite being teemo 5) i have no idea how to use him XD build liandry, sorc shoes, lichbane and nashor and choose whatever you want for the rest^^ just keep poking him with blind, level blind first, toxic second and speedboost third than blind again than toxic lvl 6 shrooms etc level your W only after you cant level the rest anymore, and use shrooms to block off paths they can use to flank you^^
: Theres a lot of greenhouse gases... H2O, CO2, methane to name a few. Obviously we can’t really stop H2O as that’s 70% of our planet but the water cycle typically keeps things in check. But we can cut CO2 and methane... by cutting down on fossil fuels and factory farming (biggest source of methane is cows), as well as increasing the natural sinks that exist such as forests. We can’t stop climate change, we can see in the fossil record the planet fluctuates between greenhouse earth and snowball earth naturally... but we can lower our impact on climate change to at least prolong the next mass extinction perhaps until we can find a solution to it.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-10-11T22:01:17.269+0000) > > Theres a lot of greenhouse gases... H2O, CO2, methane to name a few. Obviously we can’t really stop H2O as that’s 70% of our planet but the water cycle typically keeps things in check. > But we can cut CO2 and methane... by cutting down on fossil fuels and factory farming (biggest source of methane is cows), as well as increasing the natural sinks that exist such as forests. > co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ the only relevant greenhouse gas is watervapor, its easy to tell if temperatures are increasing or declining when its humid, and so far temperatures are normal. > We can’t stop climate change, we can see in the fossil record the planet fluctuates between greenhouse earth and snowball earth naturally... but we can lower our impact on climate change to at least prolong the next mass extinction perhaps until we can find a solution to it. there won't be a mass extinction because of weather -.-
: I really hope your joking right. Temperature is at an all time high right now, seasons are completely off, it’s sunny in September, every summer heat wave is the biggest on record... it doesn’t take a scientist to know something wrong. And it’s worse than that... allow me to come at this from a palaeontological perspective... every time the planet experiences temperature changes like this there’s been a mass extinction event... that’s not even an exaggeration we keep going the way we are going good chance 75-100% of life is wiped out, and every time there’s a mass extinction the dominant race dies off, that’s us. So yeah we are in a ton of danger. And we don’t need CO2, it’s poisonous to us (it can also turn water acidic, we need water)... plants need CO2 which in turn gives us oxygen but we are also cutting down most of the trees... the Amazon is responsible for most of our oxygen and cooperates are burning it down. So we are increasing CO2 and decreasing the thing getting rid of CO2. This isn’t a cult, this is reality.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-10-11T21:50:22.252+0000) > > I really hope your joking right. > truth and logic, there is no climate issue with co2 or temperature. > Temperature is at an all time high right now, seasons are completely off, it’s sunny in September, every summer heat wave is the biggest on record... it doesn’t take a scientist to know something wrong. > its autumn, i go outside and my fingers freeze off like its winter, so no, temperatures aren't at an all time high at all, have you ever been to austria? for CENTURIES they have snow/ice AND sun simultaneously in winter, which is why it is a very popular vacation destination..... so sun in september isn't odd at all, climates change constantly, its normal, not caused by co2, what heatwaves? they aren't longer than normal, in the meanwhile they got hail in florida in 2019! wake up! there is no climate problem .o. its all propaganda and here is the proof : 1 real nasa site with at least 60% real scientists https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ i honestly advice you to read it, although the graphs show false information, since it contradicts their explanation of sea ice -.- scroll all the way down to the conclusion and read this ''Comparing conditions at only two points in time or examining trends over a short period is not sufficient to understand the impact of long-term climate change on sea ice. Scientists can only understand how sea ice is changing by comparing current conditions to long-term averages.'' , they state that they compare raw data with averages they calculated from non measured data from the past (coughtheysuckeddataoutoftheirthumbscough-.-), they also admit that global warming is bs, and ice declines and comes back depending on the weather ''Antarctic sea ice trends are smaller and more complex. Relative to the average from 1981 to 2010, the Antarctic sea ice extent increased about 1 percent per decade, but the trends were not consistent for all areas or all seasons. The variability in Antarctic sea ice patterns makes it harder for scientists to explain Antarctic sea ice trends and to predict how Southern Hemisphere sea ice may change as greenhouse gases continue to warm the Earth. Climate models do predict that Antarctic sea ice will respond more slowly than Arctic sea ice to warming, but as temperatures continue to rise, a long-term decline is expected.'' {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} suddenly its more complicated, obvious BS is obvious. 2 this is the nasa propaganda site 0% real scientist https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ you can read it if you want to lose braincells {{sticker:sg-kiko}} > And it’s worse than that... allow me to come at this from a palaeontological perspective... every time the planet experiences temperature changes like this there’s been a mass extinction event... that’s not even an exaggeration we keep going the way we are going good chance 75-100% of life is wiped out, and every time there’s a mass extinction the dominant race dies off, that’s us. So yeah we are in a ton of danger. > actually there is no evidence of mass extinction by anything else but effecst from an meteor impact, the effects were : impact, volcano eruptions, earhquakes and tsunamis, disease/hunger/thirst/ice age due to flora dying from ashes and dust and plain and simple evolution, and no not all dinosaurs went extinct, so unless a meteor comes our way we are not in danger. > And we don’t need CO2, it’s poisonous to us (it can also turn water acidic, we need water)... plants need CO2 which in turn gives us oxygen but we are also cutting down most of the trees... the Amazon is responsible for most of our oxygen and cooperates are burning it down. So we are increasing CO2 and decreasing the thing getting rid of CO2. > co2 is not poisonous to us at all, unless it hits 10% get your facts straight, co2 at 10% acts similar to monodioxide, its odorless, not visible and causes death in 1 minute, you go unconsious and well run out of breath, co2 cannot be smelled, co2 has an ph value of 6, now anything over 7 ph is basic, so 7 ph itself is called neutral and isn't acidic anymore, meaning that co2 is not very acidic at all, just slightly and can be ignored, so no, it doesn't turn water acidic since there is only 0.04% co2 in the air and the oceans are buffering constantly to keep Ph values up over 7, besides, plankton and plants are filtering co2 out of the water as well..... the oceans are basic and will always remain basic unless all water plants die, dude animals might die by 10% co2 but plants won't, so in the end mankind goes before green goes, and yes deforestation is indeed an actual problem that needs to be taken care of, but the govs care more for profits, and scaring people with propaganda -.- and yes we NEED co2, its a natural coolant and provides us with oxygen, and it provides flora with sugars .-. heck we even breathe out co2, all life on earth is made up out of carbon, i mean wtf do you mean with '' And we don't need co2''? {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} > This isn’t a cult, this is reality. it is a cult.... so many people following fake scientists, the government and greta without using their heads, everything they claimed has been debunked already, so no it isn't reality, its propaganda. 1 co2 is not a problem, it isn't a greenhouse gas, its a coolant. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ 2 global warming does not exist, heck even nasa with their fake data shows a graph where temperatures aren't even deviating with 1 degrees celcius -.-, and average tempereratures are actually decreasing since 2018 again so its all normal. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 3 sea levels aren't rising. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/the-seas-arent-rising-because-the-oceans-are-sinking/news-story/36dec8e4ce06a5bbbcb767ac6af0d593 , these cultists keep coming up with bs excuses, in the meanwhile nasa keeps stating the sea levels are still rising {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} 4 the oceans aren't turning acidic, i explained why. 5 the arctics/greenland aren't melting away,
Troldrum (EUW)
: Every private Household can choose to use 100% renewable Energy, it is super easy. Ofc, you get the same Energy as everybody else, but it sets a market signal for green Energy. Litterally 0 effort, atleast in Germany, if anything it Costs a bit more (not sure About that). Else, it is really easy to build an own solar power plant. Google does so, Microsoft does, small companies like Ecosia do so, too. Riot could be on that list.
> [{quoted}](name=Troldrum,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-10-11T12:29:45.334+0000) > > Every private Household can choose to use 100% renewable Energy, it is super easy. Ofc, you get the same Energy as everybody else, but it sets a market signal for green Energy. Litterally 0 effort, atleast in Germany, if anything it Costs a bit more (not sure About that). Else, it is really easy to build an own solar power plant. Google does so, Microsoft does, small companies like Ecosia do so, too. Riot could be on that list. a bit? ^^ try in the billions^^ NON of these methods are effective either, solar energy and wind energy don't even make up 1% of the total energy net gain, there is NO such thing as green energy^^ you think remodeling your entire house with eco crap that doesn't even function is easy? {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}
: What you have to take into account there - in general when talking tech companies - is that for instance Amazon wants to become CO2 neutral. How you would ask? CO2 certificates - which means they ain't doing shit about it, buy those certs and call themselves CO2 neutral. It'll have to come a long way to get datacenters across the globe to become climate friendly - in Austria for instance there are some plans to build one powered by water - and the water will also be used as a coolant. There's a lot that can be done and I think we'll see some cool projects in the next few years for "green" datacenters and it may actually attract companies to move their hardware into these datacenters rather than coal or diesel powered ones of which you see a lot around the globe.
> [{quoted}](name=Tenchuu Khan,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-10-11T13:45:50.781+0000) > > What you have to take into account there - in general when talking tech companies - is that for instance Amazon wants to become CO2 neutral. > How you would ask? CO2 certificates - which means they ain't doing shit about it, buy those certs and call themselves CO2 neutral. > > It'll have to come a long way to get datacenters across the globe to become climate friendly - in Austria for instance there are some plans to build one powered by water - and the water will also be used as a coolant. > > There's a lot that can be done and I think we'll see some cool projects in the next few years for "green" datacenters and it may actually attract companies to move their hardware into these datacenters rather than coal or diesel powered ones of which you see a lot around the globe. they need to stop with the climate cult crap, nothing needs to be done, we are not in danger, the next billions of gens are not in danger either, we need Co2 or we die.
Troldrum (EUW)
: 1. Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect 2. Sea Ice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA 3. Sea Level rising is due to the ice currently located on Greenland and antarctica thus now on land melting into the sea 4. you can measure CO2 lvls by taking samples of ice created thousands of years ago in Greenland and Antarctica
> [{quoted}](name=Troldrum,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-11T12:45:19.092+0000) > > 1. Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect nr 1 greenhouse gas is watervapor, co2 is insignificant, your point is? no notable temperatures are measured, as in matter a fact ive SEEN ice forming/hail AND snow in summer, and co2 moves away from heat and radiation, so watervapor would be, IF the earth is raising in temperature, be the culprit, but i guess we al know that wouldn't be mankind's fault so they ignore that, and are you going to ignore their contradictions? they claim co2 causes global warming, AND co2 saved this planet from heating up at the same time {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} they also claim the sea levels are rising due to arctics melting and yet they claim sea levels can't rise because the arctics consists of no actual land, you see you choose to believe propaganda i use my brain^^ suddenly when people see through nasa BS, they claim greenland is melting which is actually land {{sticker:sg-kiko}}, but intelligent people still call BS^^ > 2. Sea Ice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA BS and fake, like i said the ice even increased in size again from 2012 and 2013, not only that, the ice thickens and shifts constantly due to changing seasons, there is NO evidence of decreasing ice levels whatsoever, heck 2004 shows the same body of ice as 1979 O.o just in a different shape going from right to left rather than left to right. > 3. Sea Level rising is due to the ice currently located on Greenland and antarctica thus now on land melting into the sea and yet funnily no sea level has risen for centuries {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} they all fluctuate as always and remain the same for centuries, ice on greenland is always melting in summer..... funny how nasa came with this bs claim again, weather happens, even in greenland V.V > 4. you can measure CO2 lvls by taking samples of ice created thousands of years ago in Greenland and Antarctica inaccurate and indirect as stated on nasa their site, therefore dismissable, besides they are comparing their data with ESTIMATES from before 1958 and after 1800 {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} and the most hilarious joke is, drums please : the same scientists that scream global warming, screamed global ice age in 1970, i wouldn't call these people scientists {{sticker:sg-ahri-3}}
Troldrum (EUW)
: Talking about "let others do the work"... While I believe that Riot has more impact that you state, everyone says "yee but others have more impact why should I change?" Maybe Riot changing to renewable energy doesn't change a thing - if all online game industry would change to CO2 neutral, it would change alot. But someone has to start, and I believe Riot is a company that knows about its social responsibility, and has the resources to do something about it.
> [{quoted}](name=Troldrum,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-10-11T08:39:07.091+0000) > > Talking about "let others do the work"... While I believe that Riot has more impact that you state, everyone says "yee but others have more impact why should I change?" Maybe Riot changing to renewable energy doesn't change a thing - if all online game industry would change to CO2 neutral, it would change alot. But someone has to start, and I believe Riot is a company that knows about its social responsibility, and has the resources to do something about it. co2 is no issue {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}} co2 = a coolant since it has no heat retention, nor is there any evidence co2 causes global warming, nor is there any evidence of global warming, please if we lower co2 any more or even manage to remove it entirely we will all die... in case you wonder why, PHOTOSYNTHESIS! co2 is broken into C and O2 by plants and flowers, the O2 is what we breathe and the C is converted into carbonhydrates (sugars), so if we lower Co2, plants will grow slower, therefore we will get slower or even less food, we get less oxygen as well, you won't hear me complain or panic unless the Co2 levels are near 10%, because 10% Co2 levels are toxic and lethal, in case you were wondering, the co2 levels are 0,04% {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}} so no co2 is not an issue~ don't believe me? read nasa's page and awe by their incompetence : 1 co2 does not trap heat, it reacts by vibrating and moving away from ANY heatsource letting heat pass through AFTER it bounces the first heat off and back into space, its being used as a coolant in refrigerators as well : https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ , and they claim this bs at the same time https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ , now lets take a look at the maps, the co2 map https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ , scroll to 2016 dec, now open another tab with this link https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ and scroll to 2016, what we see is co2 anomalies being highest on the center/lower half of the map, but when we look at the global temperature anomalies we can see them being highest at the arctic ocean {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}, on the co2 map greenland the patch of land upper left doesn't appear to have much co2, but the warming map shows half greenland in red... even better take the co2 map and scroll from beginning to end, not too fast, to see how the center/lower half turns red, now do the same with the global temperature map and see how the arctic and the upper half of russia/europe/greenland and canada truns red, and the world below south america/africa and australia are almost unaffected by temperature anomalies, these maps don't even correlate with one another. 2 when they claim the ice melts you can only hear them talk about the lenght of the ice, not the thickness.... OR DO THEY? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SeaIce , and now read this nonsese https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ , use the slide on the ice map and go from 2012 to 2013 to see an actual increase in lenght and a CLEAR contradiction, so all they established is : the amount of ice in length depends on the weather {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} 3 melting sea ice causes raise in water level {{sticker:sg-kiko}} https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ , now the arctic consists of nothing but sea ice btw, IT HAS NO LAND, now read this ''Melting sea ice won’t raise ocean levels any more than melting ice cubes will cause a glass of ice water to overflow.'' right above the topic ''The Sea Ice Life Cycle'' underneath the dolphin photo in this link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SeaIce now scroll all the way dow nto the topic ''arctic sea ice'' and read this ''Arctic sea ice occupies an ocean basin mostly enclosed by land. Because there is no landmass at the North Pole'' 4 global warming (see 1) and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration , scroll down or click on ''Ongoing measurements of atmospheric CO2'' and read ''The first reproducibly accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 were from flask sample measurements made by Dave Keeling at Caltech in the 1950s'' its funny how nasa claims to have accurate data of co2 levels prior to 1950 {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} we can rule out co2 being an culprit, so now we established co2 not being related to global warming let me tell you this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Lowest_temperatures_recorded now click on or scroll down to ''Lowest temperatures recorded'' and see how some of these continents and countries are still making coldest temperature measured/recorded EVER while the world is allegedly increasing in heat {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} and two read this https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ ''This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980'' and yet the graphs goes back to 1880, and the map to 1884 {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}, now read this https://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm ''the Congress and the President of the United States created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958'' have you guys noticed the same trend as me ? that nasa speaks in anomalies but not in actual data? what was and are the temperature of the earth? what were and are the current co2 levels in %? and no actual measuremenst of sea levels themselves either O.O, no base readings just claims from nasa, and estimates in anomalies {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} 5 https://climate.nasa.gov/ <---- is nothing but a propaganda site see all above.
: No point. EVERYONE is aware about climate change. And those who arent, wont be influenced by league skins. If you want to help, you need to talk to politicians.
> [{quoted}](name=Idgaf I am iron,realm=EUNE,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-10-11T08:38:53.714+0000) > > No point. EVERYONE is aware about climate change. And those who arent, wont be influenced by league skins. > > If you want to help, you need to talk to politicians. yes the climate changes 4 times a year .o. even a kid knows that O.O
Satip CIS (EUW)
: Problem with starting TFT game with a random champion
RealDsy (EUNE)
: Maokai
> [{quoted}](name=RealDsy,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=Vj1uMUJg,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-10-09T08:43:19.839+0000) > > {{champion:57}} > > So basicly ive bought played a few games. I just feel i dont really like him. > Compared to other tanks he is lacking of everything. > Ive realized all tanks got super buffs (i guess because of community requests) and maokai just left behind. > Think about {{champion:516}} 2 free itmes which gives tons of armor and hp on higher levelrs for free. > {{champion:14}} 1000 hp with his W later. > {{champion:78}} bonus armor magic resist > {{champion:54}} lot of armors + lot of damage buffs > > So basicly all tanky champions nowedays got super buffs, who were cc tanks. > > But this guy {{champion:57}} lacking of mobility, lacking of tankiness (you have only your passive which useful early), your cc is just not that much 1,6 sec root if you want to hit anyone with it (i mean ulti), your damage is zero (without sunfire cant even kill minion wave) > + very important if you play top you can forget about your third skill E, since you have no mana > You basicly dont have mana even for kiting minions with Q. > > I'will try play and have fun with this champ, but i think it hasnt really got any potential to contest with recent tank buffs on other champs. So i feel i just forget him. > > Ive written this down since its worst pick rate might represent other players opinion on this champ too. build {{item:3025}} and {{item:3065}} and {{item:3111}} and {{item:3068}} and {{item:3083}} you can pick the last item yourself depenindg on the situation^^ i always play maokai support though, but i did stomp a darius top once. (edit) don't use tank runes on maokai, instead use sorcery runes in combination with utility runes and i mean the debt one to get items faster, even a little ap will get him to do more % damage due to his saps, also only engage in or near brushes, since the saps are empowered when you place them in a brush^^
: > [{quoted}](name=POMŒ,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=6qE7J9de,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-06T13:29:26.502+0000) > > THE BOARD doesn't do actual bans. Only reports for cheating and appeals from already banned people are reviewed by humans. All the rest is done via automated scripts. > Now here's the comprehensive list of what can be bannable in league: > 1) Saying restristed words regarding threats, racism and other slurs. > 2) Repeatedly feeding in multiple game in a row. > 3) Leaving from multiple games (there comes another bot - leaverbuster and instead of a ban you get low priority queue) That is 100% bullshit. I don't know exactly how the "automated scripts" are working but they do NOT base on any rules or standards. I had literally hundreds of players int feeding (easily something around 0/15 to 5/25) - nothing happened. I had thousands of players insulting the holy crap out of everyone - nothing happened. I had multiple players giving their best showing off their homophobic and racist characters and guess what... NOTHING HAPPENED! I once was reported for replying in an insultive way (nothing major - just the good old "shut up", "stop blaming us for your crap" and "go give your lower regions some attention") - 2 weeks banned. That was the first and last time i acted that way. The community get's more and more toxic with every single day this crap continues. But hey! I'm sure riot will adress this issue by releasing a new Lux skin soon! I'm off playing dota.
> [{quoted}](name=XxDevilsReaperxX,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=6qE7J9de,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2019-10-06T15:31:27.669+0000) > > That is 100% bullshit. I don't know exactly how the "automated scripts" are working but they do NOT base on any rules or standards. I had literally hundreds of players int feeding (easily something around 0/15 to 5/25) - nothing happened. I had thousands of players insulting the holy crap out of everyone - nothing happened. I had multiple players giving their best showing off their homophobic and racist characters and guess what... NOTHING HAPPENED! > I once was reported for replying in an insultive way (nothing major - just the good old "shut up", "stop blaming us for your crap" and "go give your lower regions some attention") - 2 weeks banned. That was the first and last time i acted that way. > > The community get's more and more toxic with every single day this crap continues. But hey! I'm sure riot will adress this issue by releasing a new Lux skin soon! I'm off playing dota. its because the report system is automated and therefore doesn't differentiate, the system isn't punihing situationally, instead the system just punishes anyone that breaks it listed rules or speaks it listed words regardless, these trolls know what to say and how to avoid punishments by getting certain kdr and avoiding certain words that aren't blacklisted, only when the report is handviewed which happens rarely, are they actually punished O.O ps you reaping devils too {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}
JustTits (EUNE)
: Remove the True Damage from Pyke
> [{quoted}](name=JustTits,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=9FIjZear,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-10-04T07:17:17.752+0000) > > Replace it with physical, magic, mixed, doesn't matter, just don't load his already overloaded kit even more. knowing riot they give every champion true damage just to balance it out {{sticker:sg-kiko}}
Lynxmetal (EUW)
: Platinum seems to be riddled with Smurfs.
riot is keeping the majority of players in silver, so there are less players in gold+, which is why there are alot of smurfs.
Anoligarh (EUW)
: People who were bronze/silver for a long time, what changed and how did you climb?
> [{quoted}](name=Anoligarh,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=3jhKFh8V,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-29T17:14:20.677+0000) > > Generally I'm not horrible at the game but I do have moments where it shows that I definitely deserve to be where I am. Some games I'm truly awful, some games I do extremely well and yet I still can't end the game. I'm bronze/silver for a reason. > > For those who have been stuck for a long time and are doing much better, what changed? > > Please go into details. Thanks! i'm a beta player, and i can tell you there is absolutely no reason to climb further than silver..... gold+ tiers suck, less players, lots of winswaps and just as many trolls and inters..... the most intensive games are in silver, these are the reasons many smurfs exist, getting to gold+ isn't hard, my advice if you really want to, get a solid team you sync with, thisi s a team game and not a solo game, be it flex or duo, it will improve your chances.
: better 1 bird in the hand then 2 in the bush... i have no bird, i have no bush !!! RIOT STOLE MY BIRD AND MY BUSH !!! {{sticker:sg-janna}} {{sticker:sg-shisa}}
> [{quoted}](name=Wally Coyote,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=LKYERAxd,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-09-26T08:25:57.225+0000) > > better 1 bird in the hand then 2 in the bush... > > i have no bird, i have no bush !!! > > RIOT STOLE MY BIRD AND MY BUSH !!! > > {{sticker:sg-janna}} {{sticker:sg-shisa}} all thats left is the bird shit on the ground~ {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}
: Why do we have the ability to report people?
> [{quoted}](name=TheJungleLemur,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LcqhMjAf,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-25T08:15:50.537+0000) > > Ive been playing this game for a long time and each year it seems more toxic and horrible to play yet riot are doing less and less about it. I remember the days that people actually used to get banned for being toxic even me but now I know for a fact im allowed to troll and flame cause riot just doesn't care anymore. Recently I heard that RIOT didn't make as much income as intended so they are splashing out making all these new in game purchases but thats not the problem its the fact they have lost all care for the players. I know I should have been permanently banned probably for being salty and so probably 60% of the players should have been warned or banned as well so why aren't we. Even little messages to say pls stop. I would. Cause I know that im actually being watched. Instead we have a system where you can report a player at the end of the game to make ur self feel better but at no point will that be read by a human or be checked its all automated in game. I mean, "inappropriate player name" in my last couple games ive had such stupid names like BREXIT IS BEST or ****FACE but cause they use special characters or Idk if riot supports Brexit but automated AI can't catch this stuff cause there not advanced it would just be nice to know that an actual employee cares about player behaviour or reads reports. > > Thanks in what possible way is ''BREXIT IS BEST'' inapropriate O.o? those names with ''antifa'' ''isis'' ''al-qaeda'' ''sjw'' etc are highly inapropriate, they are all terrorist organizations. any name containing swear words are inapropriate. names like ''K.Y.S'' ''%%%got'' ''dourmom'' etc, that are insulting are inapropriate any names related to religion are inapropriate.
: I will like to see this Poppy in a corner of your room at 2 AM informing you that you got banned.
> [{quoted}](name=TheToysTracker,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LcqhMjAf,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-25T09:41:01.321+0000) > > I will like to see this Poppy in a corner of your room at 2 AM informing you that you got banned. {{sticker:sg-zephyr}} would be awesome :P
: trolling, inting, afk ing all fine but don't u dare to use 1 swear word of poppy come to get u with the ban hammer. {{sticker:poppy-wink}}
> [{quoted}](name=me and 4 chimps,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LcqhMjAf,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-25T08:28:09.091+0000) > > trolling, inting, afk ing all fine but don't u dare to use 1 swear word of poppy come to get u with the ban hammer. > {{sticker:poppy-wink}} here's poppy O.O https://twitter.com/KateyAnthony/status/971131782048329728
: I guess I'll be permabanning Blitz for a bit
as if blitz wasn't already a disease :/ now he can grab you wherever there is vision in the jungle, while he stands outside the fking jungle {{sticker:sg-ahri-1}}
: How is Karma OP? She has decent poke early on, and that's it. There's at least 10 more viable supports right now... Like, okay, she's not bad or anything, but she's far from broken, or the strongest supp right now. Get it? {{champion:555}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:111}} {{champion:89}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:432}}
> [{quoted}](name=Lucían Main,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=fTIIRb5G,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-24T09:21:33.106+0000) > > How is Karma OP? She has decent poke early on, and that's it. There's at least 10 more viable supports right now... > > Like, okay, she's not bad or anything, but she's far from broken, or the strongest supp right now. > > Get it? > {{champion:555}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:111}} {{champion:89}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:432}} she just needs to build tank and still does more damage than the average mage......
: Here would be a sugestion: Increase Zhonyas cost severly and nerf seekers armguard so the item isn't the most free broken item in the game anymore.
> [{quoted}](name=PaG VentusKing,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=c5X8fGnf,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-23T12:22:44.765+0000) > > Here would be a sugestion: Increase Zhonyas cost severly and nerf seekers armguard so the item isn't the most free broken item in the game anymore. only if they delete assasins, bruisers and skirmishers.
: > [{quoted}](name=ˉÐęqûńˉ,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=fTIIRb5G,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-24T07:48:37.523+0000) > > I think Riot wants Karma to be played as a Support, not as a Mid laner. I noticed there isn't even an alternative start besides Spellthief's. So I don't think they plan such a rework to make her playable in another lane, because then, why not ask this for every other support champion as well? > > You should probably play Support, otherwise, you are taking your chances with a supp in mid lane. Why all of a sudden? Karma was played professionally in mid lane for way more than 3 years, and nobody budged. RIOT themselves claim how they hate to enforce champions to move to one position, and that they support flex picks and experimenting. Just how do you plan on saying that while literally limiting everything to one lane? Karma is currently not even close to the strongest supports, and outside of her decent poke, she's practically useless lategame. And even if we move Karma to support only. Karma needs good AP ratios, as thats pretty much her core (even as a supp). Karma is much closer to Brand's playstyle, or Vel'koz (who btw are also mages with high AP ratios), than to an actual shield support (Janna for example). If you want to force her into support make Q do reduced damage to minions and crap like that. That'd actually help her in the support role even. Dont take away the only thing she was useful for as a support, which is a lot of poke harrass and decent shielding.
> [{quoted}](name=Lucían Main,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=fTIIRb5G,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-09-24T09:06:44.779+0000) > > Why all of a sudden? Karma was played professionally in mid lane for way more than 3 years, and nobody budged. RIOT themselves claim how they hate to enforce champions to move to one position, and that they support flex picks and experimenting. Just how do you plan on saying that while literally limiting everything to one lane? > > > Karma is currently not even close to the strongest supports, and outside of her decent poke, she's practically useless lategame. > > And even if we move Karma to support only. Karma needs good AP ratios, as thats pretty much her core (even as a supp). Karma is much closer to Brand's playstyle, or Vel'koz (who btw are also mages with high AP ratios), than to an actual shield support (Janna for example). > > If you want to force her into support make Q do reduced damage to minions and crap like that. That'd actually help her in the support role even. > > Dont take away the only thing she was useful for as a support, which is a lot of poke harrass and decent shielding. karma has been op since her release its time she got what she deserves, a death, now thats karma :P
: > [{quoted}](name=DarkG0d,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=r48bd0YV,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2019-09-23T14:14:47.886+0000) > > Smurfs are perfectly legal Losing intentionally to drop in MMR just to play with friends isn't tho.
> [{quoted}](name=PaG VentusKing,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=r48bd0YV,comment-id=0000000000010000,timestamp=2019-09-23T14:41:40.182+0000) > > Losing intentionally to drop in MMR just to play with friends isn't tho. high elo sucks, nothing but winswaps and boring gameplay, i still don't understand why anyone would want to be higher than silver the game only becomes worse.... riot knows this but won't fix it, they are too busy keeping the majority in silver, so the minority of players are above silver.....
: PSA: You Can't Expect The Support To Always Be There
what irritates me the most as sup main is the adc telling me i'm doing absolutely nothing but poking while they engage 24/7.... and than at the end of the game i tell them to look at the total damage done to champions, and than seeing them silently leave the post game screen, knowing the sup outdamaged them whilst having way less deaths {{sticker:sg-kiko}}
Pąìn (EUNE)
: Assassins are what they always meant to be. Early game stompers , so I don't see anything wrong, they were made to oneshot early game, that's the meaning of being assassin "u kill someone instantly before ur enemy even notice his death " have u watched assassin movies ? This is basically what assassin is. But in the game assassin type champions are weak mid to lategame , so the problem is not with the champions , the problem is the game being way too much dynamic, nowdays games end in 30-35 minutes (used to be 40 to 50 ), so instead of nerfing an entire class riot should buff tanks a bit and buff the strength of the turrets a bit more.
> [{quoted}](name=Pąìn,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=vZoJeQW5,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-09-17T09:33:59.477+0000) > > Assassins are what they always meant to be. Early game stompers , so I don't see anything wrong, they were made to oneshot early game, that's the meaning of being assassin "u kill someone instantly before ur enemy even notice his death " have u watched assassin movies ? This is basically what assassin is. > But in the game assassin type champions are weak mid to lategame , so the problem is not with the champions , the problem is the game being way too much dynamic, nowdays games end in 30-35 minutes (used to be 40 to 50 ), so instead of nerfing an entire class riot should buff tanks a bit and buff the strength of the turrets a bit more. they still oneshot you late game....... and HECK no, it is as much a tank meta as assassin meta, tanks are nigh unkillable these days unless you are an assassin.
Antenora (EUW)
: Most of the top 10-15 winrate champions for mid lane are actually Mages. Also pro play is either mages or AP Fighters mid, not assassin's.
> [{quoted}](name=Antenora,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=vZoJeQW5,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-09-16T17:45:48.000+0000) > > Most of the top 10-15 winrate champions for mid lane are actually Mages. > > Also pro play is either mages or AP Fighters mid, not assassin's. such as? most mid you'd see are zed/fizz/akali/katarina/lux/ekko/talon/leblanc etc all the crap that either bursts you to death with ap or ad in a split second and most are definitly assassins be it ad or ap.
: Did any of you team bought Grievous Wounds items? Cause in almost all my game vs Darius i buy Grievous items and he do nothing all game.
> [{quoted}](name=Kitty Girl,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=mtvP4ZkT,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-15T09:11:12.107+0000) > > Did any of you team bought Grievous Wounds items? > Cause in almost all my game vs Darius i buy Grievous items and he do nothing all game. https://matchhistory.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/EUW1/4140412015/26377710?tab=overview utter bs, and yes we had grievous wounds 2 ignites, when a champion goes 1/3/0 early game it shouldn't be able to go 15/11/15 at the end -.- i DESTROYED darius top and yet he comes out victor in the match, he NEEDS, he MUST be nerfed period. we even had 5 dragons.... almost all of our team members were fed cept for leona, lux/vel and darius were the only ones that were a threat in mid to late game, but they were deleted in late, except darius, he stood above all despite his lane being gone despite him starting 1/3, despite him being gold deprived...... please elaborate how someone is capable of doing that without being OP? he was always the one demolishing our ENTIRE team solo -.- untill some1 sweeps in and finishes with burst like lux or velkoz..... darius is way too tanky has way too much sustain and does way too much.
: If Darius get nerfed Panth too cause panth winrate is above darius
> [{quoted}](name=Kitty Girl,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=mtvP4ZkT,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-15T08:48:42.707+0000) > > If Darius get nerfed Panth too cause panth winrate is abobe darius winrates are meaningless, i agree darius needs an nerf i had the same experience where i destroyed a darius and he came back like a god .-. never had that with a panth.
: the banning system and the art of running it down without getting banned
> [{quoted}](name= I Yasuragi l,realm=EUNE,application-id=eZuvYsEr,discussion-id=AFy3Emqc,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-11T10:51:20.187+0000) > > i don't get why people flame in game to make their team mates suffer, while i see a lot of people who do worse by soft inting without typing in chat because without chat logs it can seem like bad plays something they can't ban you for, while the community thinks the banning system is great and the toxic people are getting banned, toxicity isn't even a relevant problem in that game, you probably will lose way more games because of that more than a toxic kid raging in chat, a lot of players mute all and climb high to challenger proving that communicating in chat just a waste of time, it is just as worse as the toxic player blaming others for his mistakes, really delusional to think that you are losing games because of the toxic players or the flamers in chat telling people that they are bad when there is a mute button, i really wanna see something done about soft inting and grieving for once i wanna see some one who is banned for once for this and not by some chat logs of a player blaming another player for a bad play, it is getting pathetic. welcome to a leftwing nazi world, where words hurt more than deeds...... {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-rainbows}} this has beeen addressed by players for years but to no avail....
Nolfinisko (EUNE)
: Zilean has a cooldown of 3.3 seconds on W if he has 45% CDR, making it impossible to perma stun, since bomb stun is 1.5 second. What I tried to achieve here is perma stun, where a player can't act for 6 second straight, by using Spear of Shojin Awakened Dragon effect.
> [{quoted}](name=Nolfinisko,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=4oIArIi5,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-09-11T13:08:36.049+0000) > > Zilean has a cooldown of 3.3 seconds on W if he has 45% CDR, making it impossible to perma stun, since bomb stun is 1.5 second. What I tried to achieve here is perma stun, where a player can't act for 6 second straight, by using Spear of Shojin Awakened Dragon effect. it only grants 0.66 cdr per auto attack O.o you'd have to hit at least 4 to 5 times b4 you get to stun again, hence i said he does the same thing^^
DursyArts (EUW)
: qiyana walk bug still not fixed
its proof riot needs to shoot qiyana to the moon, she is already moonwalking {{sticker:sg-kiko}}
Show more

Devilreaper XIII

Level 92 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion