: MMR system
> [{quoted}](name=NoGloryFound,realm=EUW,application-id=Mpd1UjGe,discussion-id=K7iGHxw0,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-27T12:29:07.935+0000) > > BUT, in the league ranked system he/she is still IN GOLD 3. This aspect doesn't seem right. Incorrect. Everything else is more or less accurate, but you're missing a key point. When you win a game you gain LP and your MMR likely increases. When you lose it's the other way around. So far so good. The difference is you gain more or less LP based on the MMR you played in **compared to your rank**. To give a simple example: - Suppose you are Gold 3 0 LP with Platinum 5 MMR - You win a game, so you earn 27 LP and your MMR increases a little. You're at Gold 3, 27 LP - You lose a game, so you lose 10 LP and your MMR goes down. Gold 3, 17 LP - Keep winning and losing in that pattern. Because you're not going for winstreaks, your MMR stays somewhat the same - After less than 50 games (starting from 0 LP) you'd be Platinum 5 with 50% winrate - Even if you go on a losing streak, for example 5 games, the most that you'd lose would be about 70 LP That's the difference. You win more LP if your MMR is higher than your current rank, so you should be happy to be matched with higher rated players, on average. That means you can climb fast. That's how match making works. It places you into a game based on your MMR, not your rank. ######All this mumbo jumbo loses its meaning when you approach really high MMR, like Diamond 2+.
SaltGawd (EUNE)
: **To those that make threads after getting offended in an online game.** Are you unaware that your thread has no impact on anything, just makes you look like a whiner ?
: Riot pls take my rp away
There's only one solution: **buy more RP**. But in all seriousness, you may contact [Riot Support](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests) and see what they can do for you. That's a odd request though.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: ^ Quality answer right here! For the less awake people: Imagine you have a dice and you want to find out if it's slightly weighted, i.e. a cheating dice that rolls some numbers slightly more often than others. How do you find out just by rolling the dice? Well, you roll it a lot! For a 6-sided dice, how often do you need to roll it to be sure? Is 6 times enough? Definitely not, because even a perfect dice will not roll each number the same number of times, obviously. You have to roll it a lot more. Depending on how sure you want to be and how subtly the dice is weighted, we are easily talking about a few hundred times here. So if you had 6 champs and if there would be no free champions, you would have to play a few hundred ARAMs to be sure if there is a pattern or not. Now imagine you have a dice with not just 6 sides, but 140. I don't think you I have to tell you that you need to roll this dice A LOT to be sure if any of the sides is weighted or not. If we want to be sure, we are easily talking about ten or hundred thousands of rolls, more likely even millions if we want to be sure. Now did you play that many ARAMs? And did you actually write down all the results? And did you always avoid the reroll function? Because only if you did all that you can be sure if there is a pattern. If you did NOT do that, there is a much easier explanation for what you are experiencing: Clustering illusion. Clustering illusion is the name of a specific cognitive bias. Cognitive biases are basically mistakes our mind makes, although the word "mistake" makes it sound like it's an exclusively bad thing, which it is not. It's more like shortcuts, methods that allow our limited mind to quickly and effectively understand the world. The clustering illusion is our natural tendency to perceive patterns in random data. This is not actually a bad thing, because our natural focus on doing that helps us to find actual patterns in nature, which made us such a successful species. We pay for this ability by clearly overdoing it, we see patterns where there are none. It's not a mental illness or something like that, it's simply the way the human brain works. For all of us, not just you. In other words: We all suck at intuitive statistics. If you want to know for sure, you can not trust your intuitive feeling. You will have to use actual math. And if you do that, you will notice that you have not even remotely played enough ARAMs to be sure about any pattern and that the data you have tells you absolutely nothing.
> [{quoted}](name=Zyzyx,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=QF66XfyE,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-05-27T07:30:08.741+0000) > > ^ Quality answer right here! I double that. *** > [{quoted}](name=Zyzyx,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=QF66XfyE,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-05-27T07:30:08.741+0000) > > In other words: We all suck at intuitive statistics. If you want to know for sure, you can not trust your intuitive feeling. You will have to use actual math. > And if you do that, you will notice that you have not even remotely played enough ARAMs to be sure about any pattern and that the data you have tells you absolutely nothing. To check for that specific pattern (same champion 3 times in 4 games) we'd need at least 633500 games. That's **a lot** of games. We would probably need x100 times that ammount (law of big numbers) to confirm or disprove the pattern. This is the beauty of random; unexpected things can happen. Just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it's impossible. We humans have the tendecy to see patterns where they don't exist. ######I'm one to speak.
: ARAM isn't random enough
> [{quoted}](name=AcrobaticHamster,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=QF66XfyE,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-27T04:48:33.737+0000) > > Now tell me, what are the odds of receiving the same champion 3 times in 4 games? P = (((1/(N-X))^3)\*((N-X-1)/(N-X)))\*4. N is the number of champions avaiable to you; X is the number of champions you have from your team's picks (maximum 4). Doesn't include rerolls. For your case, let me assume you have every champion, exactly 140 like you said. If you have every champion, then X = 4 by default. Plug in the numbers: P = (((1/(140-4))^3)\*((140-4-1)/(140-4)))\*4 P = 1,5785e-6 That's about 1,5785e-4 % or **0,00015785%** if you don't like scientific notation. In other words, it's a **very, very small chance**. Suppose you only had 14 champions and the same for each of your team mates. In that case: N = 14 and X = 4. P = 0,0036 -> 0,36% Much higher chance since your champion pool is smaller. Makes sense. ######I need to give some clarification for that X. It's based on a ratio. If you only have 14 champions avaiable (free rotation) and your team mates each has 140, then X would be equal to 0.46 (16/140\*4). Basically, that X is defined in the interval [0.46, 4]. However, it doesn't make sense to use X as a fraction, so instead you should round it. If you round down, then the probability (P) is lower and vice-versa. *** If you'd want to include rerolls then I would need to think about it some more. Not in the mood for it though :/
: How do you permanently move the replays folder from Documents?
You can change that in your client setttings. Here's an image: https://i.imgur.com/DIjxWVp.png You're welcome. {{sticker:sg-ahri-2}}
Sefiroz (EUW)
: There was a lot of variety! Sure, about 2-4 of the top tier were picked fairly often, although Malzahar, Urgot and Evelynn(even pre-reworks) do not belong in there and you can also add about two to three times the amount of other champions into the pool and it would be a bit more accurate to the actual top tier in regular URF. In the end the truth comes down to the majority of players wanting URF over ARURF (which can be seen through game mode polls across the internet) with ARURF being fairly low among all the modes and regular URF pretty much always at the very least amongst the top 3. That, and also leaving a strategy game to RNG at all in any way whatsoever defeats it's purpose in the first place.
> [{quoted}](name=Sefiroz,realm=EUW,application-id=slFBEUB8,discussion-id=9uJ0ZlEK,comment-id=00090000000000000001,timestamp=2018-05-26T21:28:46.701+0000) > > In the end the truth comes down to the majority of players wanting URF over ARURF (which can be seen through game mode polls across the internet) You need to show some statistics if you are going to make that claim. Bare in mind, any pool with less than 1000 votes is worthless. Ideally it would be 100000, but that's too much to ask. Something in between 5000 and 10000 is acceptable. *** > [{quoted}](name=Sefiroz,realm=EUW,application-id=slFBEUB8,discussion-id=9uJ0ZlEK,comment-id=00090000000000000001,timestamp=2018-05-26T21:28:46.701+0000) > > That, and also leaving a strategy game to RNG at all in any way whatsoever defeats it's purpose in the first place. Here is where you shot yourself in the foot. URF isn't supposed to be about strategy; URF is supposed to be about **fun**. You said it yourself. > [{quoted}](name=Sefiroz,realm=EUW,application-id=slFBEUB8,discussion-id=9uJ0ZlEK,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-05-26T10:50:10.540+0000) > > fun game mode instead of an RNG-based one? Where's the fun in that if you **need** to pick what's best to "win" ? ######FYI: losing and winning didn't actually exist. You'd get the same ammount of IP/XP regardless of the outcome. *** Pointless to argue this. We are not getting URF anytime soon and Riot made that decision based on the statistics they have. You don't have those numbers, so you can't say if their decision is correct or not. You only have your own experience, which is worthless in this context.
: Im sure they are aware of that and still - they disabled/removed regular URF from custom games because it would probably be more played than ARURF. Pretty sure they didnt remove it because people were complaining theyd see the same champs over and over again. URF is one of the IMO unfunniest gamemodes of all time. The only fun part of it is creating teamcomps that work well together (only buff champs, only tanks, only adc, etc.) Riot took that away so URF kinda died for me
> [{quoted}](name=Bunny Valentine,realm=EUW,application-id=slFBEUB8,discussion-id=9uJ0ZlEK,comment-id=00090000000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-26T21:13:13.072+0000) > > Im sure they are aware of that and still - they disabled/removed regular URF from custom games because it would probably be more played than ARURF. No, that's not the reason. For starters, they started disabling every gamemode from custom games a while ago. ARURF isn't the first one. Second, the reason why they disabled it has nothing to do with it being played more or not. Think for a second. Assume URF is as popular as ARURF. What would happen if every party of, for example, 4 players decided to play a custom game? I'll scale it up to make it easier to understand. You have 80 players. Half play URF in a custom, with 4 players, and the other half plays regular ARURF. You have 10 custom games and 4 ARURF games. What is physically happening here? You're stressing the servers with more than twice the ammount of regular 5v5 games. Change a few variables around, for example by changing the proportion (60/40) or the number of players per custom game (2) and suddenly the problem explodes. *** You never wondered why the Practice Tool games have a limite of 1 hour per game? The reason is the same: to not stress the servers. Can they run URF, in custom games, alongside ARURF? Yes, I believe they can. The problem stems from the how much stress it would cause in the servers. There's also the risk that URF isn't as popular as you think. Suppose the proportion is 20/80 (URF/ARURF). 2 players per custom game and 100 players. 8 ARURF games and 10 URF games. Can you see the problem here?
: > [{quoted}](name=Febos,realm=EUW,application-id=slFBEUB8,discussion-id=9uJ0ZlEK,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-26T11:29:27.963+0000) > > You're behaving like one though. Oh, the usual "Rito no fault" fanboy ... you especially appear everytime :) I didn't even participate in Clash, dude ... I am talking about what is FAIR ... if you want to be distracted by ARURF, here : https://moms.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/fs1341.jpg
Did I ever say "It isn't Riot's fault" ? Go ahead, show me the quote where I said that. Instead, I'm appreciative of their efforts to make emends and at least try to compensate us. Trust me, Riot wants Clash to work more than you can even imagine. Do you really thing they are rubbing their hands and thinking "hehehe, we gottem boiiiis" ? *** Clash is a good source of money for Riot (tickets and all that). It also encourages current players to keep playing and bring back those that left. Clash is the literal definition of what this game wants to be: League of Legends. We, players, are the "legends" and Clash is the "league". A competitive game played by two teams, on against the other, each trying to reach the top. Play as a team, win as one. This is League of Legends. Now I ask: do you really think Riot doesn't care at all? Mate, you're asking for compensation, but right now they have something else in their hands, in case you didn't notice. Compensation will come. ######Especially because of this outrage. ARURF ain't it.
Sefiroz (EUW)
: Ah, but the RNG involved in this case-scenario is objective, however.
Correct. I played every iteration of URF, ever since it's inception (where bans weren't a thing). In URF you'd **always** see **at least** one of the following: {{champion:17}} {{champion:35}} {{champion:76}} {{champion:99}} {{champion:28}} {{champion:6}} {{champion:57}} {{champion:37}} {{champion:90}} {{champion:81}} That's a list of 10 champions. I repeat, you'd always see **at least** of them. More often than not it was 4 of those. There was almost no variety in URF because everyone picked the same exact thing game, after game, after game. You want to know why? Because we like to win, so we pick what's "meta". However, URF is supposed to be a "fun" gamemode. Where's the fun in always seeing the same thing? With ARURF at least you see some variety. *** My suggestion: an hybrid. Each player bans 1 champion **they don't want** in the game, for whatever reason. Maybe they don't want to play it or play against it. Then the Random Selection happens it can follow the rules it has now; two rerolls per player (1 reroll resets every game). All champions unlocked.
: > [{quoted}](name=Riot Eambo,realm=EUW,application-id=slFBEUB8,discussion-id=9uJ0ZlEK,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2018-05-26T10:25:03.377+0000) > > We wanted to give you guys an alternative game mode to play, as we know plans were made specifically around Clash as a mode. While we can't provide Clash, we wanted to do something that the community will hopefully find enjoyable, as ARURF is one of our more requested game modes. Alternative or not, the playerbase needs some **compensation** for the trouble Riot put them through, not an effort to pull the wool over their eyes and make them shut up by giving them something to keep them busy ... in that regard I think that the image I posted is exactly what you treated the playerbase with ARURF ... you know that the trick is going to be successful, but it s a blow below the waist regardless of that. I was here when LoL was a growing game and every time a major EU server problem occured Riot gave meaningful compensation to players whose weekends were inconvenienced ... now .?. Now you are swimming in cash and nothing trickles down back to the playerbase. I didn't participate in Clash and I didn't even bother to get the free ticket with most of my accounts, but I think that **it is fair** for Riot to compensate every player that managed to form a team and officially participate in the failed CLASH attempt. COMPENSATE, not PLACATE ... two different words ... > Regardless of whether we enabled this or not, Clash remains canceled for the weekend, but a priority for us to get working as soon as possible. Good for you ... now stop treating your playerbase like toddlers ... it is not much to ask ...
> [{quoted}](name=Skouriasmenos,realm=EUW,application-id=slFBEUB8,discussion-id=9uJ0ZlEK,comment-id=000600000000,timestamp=2018-05-26T10:40:20.798+0000) > > Good for you ... now stop treating your playerbase like toddlers ... it is not much to ask ... You're behaving like one though.
Sefiroz (EUW)
: Could we not have received a fun game mode instead of an RNG-based one?
Fun is subjective. I find ARURF much better than URF.
: it should be every 2 weeks http://www.surrenderat20.net/2018/05/clash-begins-may-25th.html
Correct. Here is the current schedule (Demacia Cup 1 cancelled right now): |Cup|#|Date| |:---|:---:|:---| |Demacia Cup|1|25th-27th May| |Demacia Cup|2|8th-10th June| |Theme 2 Tournament|1|22nd -24th June| |Theme 2 Tournament|2|6th-8th July| ||--------------------|| [Source](https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/help-support-en/jn5jF5uj-clash-updated-faq-and-known-issues).
Hydnoras (EUW)
: >What happens if they catch someone smurfing? Will they ban the account or some other restriction? It was pretty vague but they said that they will punish everyone in that team (even if those teammates aren't smurfing) because they allowed a smurf to play with them. And one of the punishments was that they might prevent you from playing clash ever again. So do you want to get a smurfing friend in your team with that kind of risk? I don't think so unless you are all smurfing but that's takes so much time and effort that losing 5 accounts for it is simply not worth it.
Yeah, I read that too. In fact, they, supposedly, have a system in place to detect smurfs in Clash. The punishments will be happen if someone can "split through" the detection. Honestly, they should just be harsher with this kind of stuff. Just temporary ban the accounts caught smurfing and remove the rewards from the rest of the team. The rest of the team shouldn't be punished as hard as the smurf because, for all I know, those guys could be oblivious about the smurf. Just removing any reward they earn should be enough. There's no reason to smurf in Clash, other than cheating the system. All the other "excuses", or reasons, don't work for this case. ######Such as "playing with a new player" and "practicing a new role/champion".
Icepaw (EUNE)
: If they can prohibit smurfing in clash, they can do it in ranked. Its just a question of will.
> [{quoted}](name=Icepaw,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=00000000000000000003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-25T21:31:19.823+0000) > > If they can prohibit smurfing in clash, they can do it in ranked. Its just a question of will. That's the thing: they can't. The 2FA is nice tool that will dimish the ammount of smurfing, but they can't remove them altogether. Now the question is, can they detect smurfing in Clash like they do for the other cases? Probably. What happens if they catch someone smurfing? Will they ban the account or some other restriction? Just a side note. I'm not against the idea of 2FA for ranked. Just want to make that clear. This is their way of saying "we don't want smurfs in Clash". Actually, they technically don't want smurfing at all, since they have detection mechanisms for it. However, they can't say "we don't allow smurfing" because they don't ban them. To loop back to the questions above. What will happen if someone is caught smurfing in Clash? If the answer isn't something like "permanent ban" then we can't say "they don't allow smurfing in Clash".
ˉˉsorry (EUW)
: Well first of all, you say this: > The term Riot uses is "allowed... for now". So basically, Riot have explicitly said that smurfing will not result in a ban or other punishment and therefore permitted it. Making the rest of your point moot. Second of all, I don't know what the laws are around booby trapping your own home. There may be health and safety/building regulations that prevent it and make it illegal. But IF NOT then you cannot be punished for doing so, even if someone that breaks in harms themselves. When it becomes a grey area is if, for example, the law said "you may take defensive measures to guard your home and install devices for the purpose of defence" some might interpret that to be a burglar alarm, others more extreme measures (mouse traps in the cookie jar). **That scenario does not apply to this discussion**, because as above, Riot have explicitly said that creating smurf accounts is not forbidden. Just like if the law said "you may take defensive measures and cannot be prosecuted if someone injures themselves on mousetraps you place in your cookie jar". Now even if that scenario did apply, and the law only said "you may take defensive measures to guard your home and install devices for the purpose of defence" - it would be very difficult to bring a case against someone that put mousetraps in their cookie jar.
> [{quoted}](name=ˉˉsorry,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=000000000000000000020000000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-25T19:48:34.896+0000) > > So basically, Riot have explicitly said that smurfing will not result in a ban or other punishment and therefore permitted it. Stop mixing stuff up. First and foremost, I never said they ban smurfs, did I? I never said "they don't allow smurfing" either, did I? What I said was they don't endorse nor condone smurfing. That doesn't mean they allow it, but they don't prohibit it either. It's just semantic, but you need to be precise with your words. They never specicfically said "We allow smurfing". They just don't say anything about it, so it's a grey area. The reason why, I already explained. *** [Let's Talk Smurfs](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/community/q/lets-talk-smurfs-snow-and-bans-ask-riot) > ##Is smurfing okay? Why don’t you have better solutions in place for this? > It’s complicated. > > **WookieeCookie:** We don’t endorse smurfing, but tackling it is a very difficult issue because of our player population size and the ease of account creation. > > **Ghostcrawler:** That said, taken on the whole, I’m not a fan of smurfing and worry the potential harm to other players outweighs the benefits to those players with unmet needs. > > **WookieeCookie:** Agreed! That’s why we can’t endorse it. Instead of trying to restrict or prevent smurfs, various teams across Riot try to minimize issues caused by smurfing. Where do you see them saying "We allow smurfs" ? This is what I've been saying. They neither allow nor forbid it. As I said before, not prohibiting doesn't mean they allow it. That's not how logic works. A: Allowed B: not forbidden If A then B (A -> B) : Allowed then not forbidden. So far so good. If B then A (B -> A) : Not forbidden then allowed ? No, you can't do that in logic. B doesn't implie A, so you can't infer anything about A if you only know B. You'd have to negate both to change direction. ~B -> ~A : Forbidden then not allowed. Here's the table of operations: |A||B||A -> B| |:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:| |1||1||1| |1||0||0| |0||1||1| |0||0||1| ||----------||----------|| We are in the 3rd case and that result is "true". ######What you are saying is that "allowing" is equivalent to "not forbidding" (A <-> B), but what I'm saying is that the problem is more complex than that. I already gave you the proof for my claim. Riot never said "we allow", so you can't assume (A <-> B) just because they said "we don't forbid".
jerrycorp (EUW)
: > To give a real life example is harder. What I&#x27;m about to say is a case that can be argued both ways: > > - Suppose you break into someone&#x27;s house and try to steal their cookies. When you place your hand in the cookie jar, your fingers get snapped in a mouse trap. > Were you committing a crime because you broke into someone else&#x27;s house? > > - Let&#x27;s flip the table in the example above. Suppose you place a mouse trap in **your** cookie jar, in **your** house. Someone breaks into your home, tries to steal your cookies and his fingers get snapped in the trap. > Were you committing a crime because you booby trapped your cookie jar? I don't quite understand the gray zone though. I mean if you break into someone's house you kind of could be killed for all I care. The only reason I would see you having some sort of reason to be there if you had some mental illness that stopped you from understanding that you are not supposed to break into other people's houses. And even then if you ended up getting killed because some's mouse trap that's kind of your fault not the person's whose house you are attacking? I do know some countries actually have laws that would make you the guilty one if you have that mouse trap, but that's just %%%%ing idiotic. Like sure this guy is beating me to death but if i hit him i get charged with assault better just die here.
> [{quoted}](name=jerrycorp,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=0000000000000000000300000001,timestamp=2018-05-25T18:16:53.657+0000) > > I don&#x27;t quite understand the gray zone though. I mean if you break into someone&#x27;s house you kind of could be killed for all I care. But that's the tricky part about law. The intruder could claim "ill intent" on the owner's part and sue him for it. I'm not talking out of my arse: [5 cases where Burglar sued homeowner](https://www.protectamerica.com/home-security-blog/spotlight/5-cases-where-the-burglar-sued-homeowner_14222) Your mind was blown? So was mine when I learned of this. This isn't to say the thief will win every case, but it can happen. This is why it's a grey area, regarding law. Just google around. You'll find plenty of stories, most of them fake, and I can't even be sure if those I gave you are real. However, there's no doubt in my mind that this can happen to some unfortunate soul. Here's a good explanation: [When is a property owner liable](http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/when-property-owner-liable-trespassers-injuries.html) *** Another example of when you are committing a crime, even though common sense tells you otherwise. Suppose someone attacks you with a knife with the intent to rob you. You defend yourself and break his neck. He dies. You want to know what will happen to you? You'll be charged with second degree murder. Your sentence may vary, but you'll definitely be punished for it. That is why my sensei always teached us to **only defend with non lethal means**. I mean, you could defend yourself and just put him to sleep, or break his hand, but in the heat of the moment you killed him instead. This is understandable, since you were defending your own life, but the law doesn't care.
ˉˉsorry (EUW)
: And the answer you gave is wrong.
Instead of saying "your answer is wrong" why don't you quote **what** is wrong, so i can ram it into your brain?
: Why is everyone acting all entitled? Mistakes happen, clash cancelled is not the end of the world.
This is what I see http://ipwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Crying-Baby.jpg This is why we can't have nice things. As soon as the toy breaks, everything goes to shit real fast. *** But I'm curious, what error could have happen that they didn't detect sooner? I mean, they tested this very recently. My guess it has something to do with that phone number thing.
Icepaw (EUNE)
: and u can pay a random teenager 10 bucks to borrow his for 3 secs. Smurfs are like bad drugs. You cant eliminate it, but you can reduce its damaging effects.
There're websites that can provide you with fake phone numbers, but it's much easier (and safer) to get a real phone number from your favourite phone company. I don't know what is the extent of Riot's capability in detecting false numbers, but I can tell you I have 4 different numbers right in from of me and they are all legal with no owners yet. Where I'm from, they are distributed for free from time to time. My dad has had a few laying around and gave me some (those 4 I mentioned above). *** So yes, it's really easy to bypass this type of security, especially when you do it with malicious intent.
: > [{quoted}](name=Febos,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=00000000000000000003000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-25T15:52:20.625+0000) > > That&#x27;s not how it works. They could write it in the rules, but how do they **enforce** that rule? Thats not what you were talking about. You were talking about prohibiting it, not enforcing. Dont get me wrong: i read those line from WC and Ghostcrawler before. Yet they are not realy convincing. If Riot would actually not like to have smurfs in their game, they would write this into their rules. Its a statement, an act of will. Yet they dont do that. That weights actually waaaaayy stronger than some Q&A answer.
I'm not wasting more time with this. I already explained why they can't prohibit it. I even gave you a statement from Riot. Do whatever you want with that information.
: > [{quoted}](name=Febos,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=000000000000000000030000,timestamp=2018-05-25T15:21:00.806+0000) > > The term Riot uses is &quot;allowed... for now&quot;. > Like I said, they can&#x27;t prohibit people from making new accounts. > Yes they can? They could just write in into the rules. Very easy solution. Yet they dont do it cause they allow it. TOS are not made by allowing every single thing. There does not need to be a passage with: - You are allowed to use the following words: A: Aatrox, Albania, Apple, ... They just say : dobt offend others and its fine. Everything else is allowed, also smurfing. ;-)
> [{quoted}](name=XxD4Rk5L4SH0RxX,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=0000000000000000000300000000,timestamp=2018-05-25T15:35:05.838+0000) > > Yes they can? They could just write in into the rules. Very easy solution. That's not how it works. They could write it in the rules, but how do they **enforce** that rule? For example, if you are 13 years or younger (they changed this rule recently) you are legally forbidden from playing this game. How can they enforce this rule though? They can't, unless they ask for my ID number. They can't prohibit because they can't enforce it. Don't take my word for it though. Read from Riot themselves: [Let's Talk Smurfs](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/community/q/lets-talk-smurfs-snow-and-bans-ask-riot) > ##Is smurfing okay? Why don’t you have better solutions in place for this? > > **WookieeCookie:** We don’t endorse smurfing, but tackling it is a very difficult issue because of our player population size and the ease of account creation. > > **Ghostcrawler:** That said, taken on the whole, I’m not a fan of smurfing and worry the potential harm to other players outweighs the benefits to those players with unmet needs. > > **WookieeCookie:** Agreed! That’s why we can’t endorse it. Instead of trying to restrict or prevent smurfs, various teams across Riot try to minimize issues caused by smurfing. This is what I've been saying.
Mada (EUW)
: If animals don't want to be killed, then why are they delicious?
Especially a good filet mignon or anything to do with beef. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t6m0k_Ki9g ^Good enough for my taste.
xTigax3 (EUW)
: For something being allowed it does not mean that a majority of people needs to be in favour of it. It is allowed to rush into a shop past an old lady who can barely walk to take away the last bottle of milk the store has to offer if you are faster than her even tho you saw her heading for it from outside the shop already. It's allowed but most people would dislike you for doing it(and rightly so). Same with smurf, riot is not against it or in favour of them, they ALLOW them to exist. It's neutral. Also for persons who think that smurfs are completly unnecessary, ever got that friend who just started playing League as his first moba and think it would be really motivating if he played against gold+ ppl from the first game? Ye me neither. And the reasoning for destroying low elo ranked is also not given, if all higher elo player can carry through silver and bronze so can the silver and bronze if they just improve, in fact giving them higher skill games enhances their learning process, profiting them in the long run. As for trolls, you are more likely to have trolls in the enemy team unless you are one yourself. For myself my smurf was ranked higher than my main for 2 seasons, because I got lucky placements on my smurf and very unlucky on main for 2 seasons and decided to play more rankeds on my smurf then.
> [{quoted}](name=xTigax3,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=00000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-05-25T08:39:18.982+0000) > > Same with smurf, riot is not against it or in favour of them, they ALLOW them to exist. It&#x27;s neutral. I gave an answer to this here https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-en/JQnJJfGd-bring-sms-verification-to-soloq-asap?comment=000000000000000000030000 *** > [{quoted}](name=xTigax3,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=00000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-05-25T08:39:18.982+0000) > > Also for persons who think that smurfs are completly unnecessary? I do think smurfing is unnecessary in most cases. I've talked about this before, but the tl;dr is players smurf for multiple reasons. Some reasons are more "nouble" than others, like the example you gave. I'm against smurfing when it comes down to "trying new roles" and, obviously, consciously griefing other players games. Anyway, smurfs are a minority so they don't impact the system that much, but it's annoying when you have one. ######[Look at this](https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/team-recruitment-en/aq3hhOu8-how-to-in-clash-for-silver-teams). Is this acceptable to you?
ˉˉsorry (EUW)
: If something is not explicitly forbidden, then it is implicitly permitted. For example, you can't be arrested for something which there is no law against.
I gave an answer here https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-en/JQnJJfGd-bring-sms-verification-to-soloq-asap?comment=000000000000000000030000
: > [{quoted}](name=Febos,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-24T22:59:53.793+0000) > > There&#x27;s nothing in the ToS that says &quot;we allow smurfing&quot;. Not saying &quot;we are against&quot; isn&#x27;t the same as saying &quot;we are in favour&quot;. > In Riot&#x27;s words, they don&#x27;t condone neither encourage that behaviour. > > So don&#x27;t say &quot;smurfing is allowed&quot;. It is neither allowed nor forbidden. It&#x27;s a grey area. > They can&#x27;t prohibit people from making new accounts, because it&#x27;s a free game. > They could enforce the 2FA upon creating a new account, but that could detour new players from making an account. > > We can&#x27;t have both. > *** > > You know what else is a common thing? The killing of animals. Doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;s the right thing. > ######I could have picked something more extreme, like poverty in 3rd world countries. I hope you get the point. Well if something is not prohibited, its allowed.
The term Riot uses is "allowed... for now". Like I said, they can't prohibit people from making new accounts. For example, Client Modifications, such as custom skins (when it was possible), wasn't allowed, but it wasn't forbidden either. It is in the "use at your own risk" category. To give a real life example is harder. What I'm about to say is a case that can be argued both ways: - Suppose you break into someone's house and try to steal their cookies. When you place your hand in the cookie jar, your fingers get snapped in a mouse trap. Were you committing a crime because you broke into someone else's house? - Let's flip the table in the example above. Suppose you place a mouse trap in **your** cookie jar, in **your** house. Someone breaks into your home, tries to steal your cookies and his fingers get snapped in the trap. Were you committing a crime because you booby trapped your cookie jar? This is the sort of thing that can be argued both ways, so this is a grey area. Actually, many things in law are grey area, simply because you can argue both ways. Now to answer the questions: are you allowed to break into someone's house? Obviously not (unless written consent); are you allowed to booby trap your own property? Hmmmmm.
: > ######Actually, I know someone who lost his job, his position in a organization and his marriage, because of a FALSE rape allegation. The accuser was deemed &quot;mentality unstable&quot; after the investigation. In other words, the women that accused him is literally crazy. The investigation took many months and, in that time, his reputation was ruined. What happened to the women that accused him? Not a single thing, but my friend was left in the gutter... This is the sad truth. He can open a civil suit against her for defamation in these circumstances.. As well as a criminal case if he wanted to press charges. There are definitely consequences for false claims.
The last I've heard of this case, 2 years ago, this is how things stayed. I can't find more information on the internet, so my only chance would be to ask him directly. I'm not so sure there would be consequences for that woman. Like I said, she was diagnosed mentally unstable. Don't know if that can be used in her favour, but if it could then the worst that would happen would be a few years, maybe months, in a mental instituion.
: RIP Morgan Freeman
This is all I have to say about it: > Additionally, the women whom Freeman allegedly harassed on film sets said they didn’t report his behavior at the time in fear of losing their jobs. Also this: > the accuser, who chose to remain anonymous Do you smell the stinky smell? > but it is our starting point to believe the courageous voices who come forward to report incidents of harassment. Given Mr. Freeman recently received one of our union’s most prestigious honors recognizing his body of work, we are therefore reviewing what corrective actions may be warranted at this time. Just another dude being targeted by jealous people. A shame the "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a thing anymore. ######Actually, I know someone who lost his job, his position in a organization and his marriage, because of a FALSE rape allegation. The accuser was deemed "mentality unstable" after the investigation. In other words, the women that accused him is literally crazy. The investigation took many months and, in that time, his reputation was ruined. What happened to the women that accused him? Not a single thing, but my friend was left in the gutter... This is the sad truth.
: search for a silver team
Check here: [Play.OP.GG](https://play.op.gg)
Skrilux (EUNE)
: Where would i place?
It doesn't matter what your rank was. All it matters is your MMR. By looking at your Flex queue games, this is what I can tell you: - Your first game was in Silver MMR (Silver 3) - In your 5th game you were already in Gold MMR (Gold 3). This is game were you "dropped" your premade party and played alone and the average MMR in that game increased considerably. - The last game I can see, picked Vi 10/10/9, was in Silver MMR (Silver 2) - The game before that was in Gold MMR (Gold 3) That last game really throws me off. The average MMR shouldn't have decreased that much, especially because you won the game before it. Maybe it was just a fluke on the system. You're from EUNE and I don't know the time of day affects your match making, so it could be it. Maybe the other unranked/silver players have an high enough MMR. Anyway, my educated guess is: at least Gold 4 and likely not higher than Gold 2.
: A Couple of Things new League Players should be Thankful for
Amazing work. Wasn't expecting that. When you started with "Welcome back motherquack" I thought to myself "here we go". But you proved me wrong. You got me at 1:46. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}}
Killy (EUNE)
: But smurfing is allowed in TOS, and even pro players smurf. Everybody in league has more than one account, its a common thing in league.
> [{quoted}](name=Killy,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-24T21:55:09.329+0000) > > But smurfing is allowed in TOS, and even pro players smurf. There's nothing in the ToS that says "we allow smurfing". Not saying "we are against" isn't the same as saying "we are in favour". In Riot's words, they don't condone neither encourage that behaviour. So don't say "smurfing is allowed". It is neither allowed nor forbidden. It's a grey area. They can't prohibit people from making new accounts, because it's a free game. They could enforce the 2FA upon creating a new account, but that could detour new players from making an account. We can't have both. *** > [{quoted}](name=Killy,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JQnJJfGd,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-24T21:55:09.329+0000) > > Everybody in league has more than one account, its a common thing in league. You know what else is a common thing? The killing of animals. Doesn't mean it's the right thing. ######I could have picked something more extreme, like poverty in 3rd world countries. I hope you get the point.
: I'll just keep playing then, and try to have consistent behavior. I'm just sad i won't be able to play clash but it's every two weeks i think so i'll probably be able to play some time this year. Thanks for the detailed info! :)
You'll have more chances down the road. This is the current schedule: |Cup|#|Date| |:---|:---:|:---| |Demacia Cup|1|25th-27th May| |Demacia Cup|2|8th-10th June| |Theme 2 Tournament|1|22nd -24th June| |Theme 2 Tournament|2|6th-8th July| ||--------------------||
: How do i get honor 2 from honor 1 with 3 checkpoints.
#TL;DR: It's unlikely that you'll get honour 2 by tomorrow. *** *** > [{quoted}](name=Spoopy Poo,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=RJgWc2q1,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-24T16:12:06.915+0000) > > So, I want to play clash tomorrow or the next time it's available with my friends but i've been honor 1 3 checkpoints for a while If you're looking for a shortcut, I'm afraid there isn't one. Honour goes up very slowly and **you can't grind it**. It doesn't matter if you play 1 or 20 games every day. It doesn't matter if you are honoured 4 times every game or just 1 time every 10 games. All that matters is how consistent your behaviour is. In other words, **if you are consistently positive or neutral**, you'll be go up in that system. You don't even need to receive honours for that to happen: [Honour FAQ](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/115008474148-Honor-FAQ) > ##Do I need to do anything special to progress? > You level up just by playing to win in your games. Show up, don’t intentionally work against team, and you’ll progress in the coming weeks and months. If your teammates honor you a lot, you’ll get a slight bonus in progression and rewards like loading screen flairs. *** *** > [{quoted}](name=Spoopy Poo,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=RJgWc2q1,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-24T16:12:06.915+0000) > > i've only been playing games with full team premade or almost full team maybe that affects honor somehow. Playing with or without premades is the same, but playing with 4 has an advantage. What I'm about to say next is just pure speculation. I believe the "bonus honour" is independent of premade party size. > A whole team gets a slight bonus to their honor level if every teammate votes. I believe playing with 4 premades doesn't dimish that bonus, like it does when receiving honours from them. > ##Can I game the system and boost to level 5 by constantly playing with a premade and honoring each other every game? > Nice idea. We had it too. So we specifically built Honor so potential exploits like this give you (and your friend) literally no benefit. Playing with 4 premades gives you 100% control on receiving that bonus. So, if my assumption is correct and that bonus is independent of party size, then you can "cheat" the system by consistently playing in a party of 5. ######I say "cheat" becuase you're not actually cheating anything. As I said before, you'll gain levels regardless if you get those bonuses or not, but the slight progression does help. *** I'm only level 3 checkpoint 1, but I've not played League as regularly as my friends. They're all at level 4 right now. Just play everyday and eventually you'll advance.
: Suspension / cant make a request on the support page
[Click here](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests). That should force the synchronization.
QancerClown (EUNE)
: Can we get a Shaco skin that has some visible changes?
As Smerk said, Shaco won't be receiving any skin until his rework roles out. We need to wait quite a bit. I'm hoping for 2019, but more likely 2020. When they do make a new skin for him, I hope they make something like this: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/skin-champion-concepts/OxXMX1EV-skin-idea-demon-shaco
: btw, it is. Riot themselves said you get rougly 700 BE worth per level. which means 9 levels to get 6300 be. You also have enough to buy a 6300 at lvl 9 (i tested myself multiple times). But lvl 9 is faster to achieve than lvl doing lvl 30 to lvl 39 for example
> [{quoted}](name=Btr Lk Nxt Time,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=00060001,timestamp=2018-05-21T15:37:35.854+0000) > > btw, it is. Riot themselves said you get rougly 700 BE worth per level. which means 9 levels to get 6300 be. No, it isn't. First and foremost, accounts up to level 30 have a different loot table: https://i.imgur.com/SLoCB0f.png At level 9 you'll have exactly one of this: 5490, 6050 or 6380 BE; on average 6278 BE. No more, no less. After level 30, the loot table changes to, on average, 930 BE every level. This is not including the First Win (FW) bonus and you only unlock that at level 15. ######1049 BE if you include every 10th level; 10490 BE every 10 levels. At level 30, you should have at least 21000 BE. That's the same as ~20 levels after 30; depends on how many games you play per FW. To reach level 30 you need 40560 XP. After level 30, 40560 XP will be enough to reach level 44 (actually level 43 and 93%). As you can see, it's almost the same.
ZhaoYhun (EUW)
: 4.3 is essentially a scam isn't it? I pay for something I won't own and the other side can terminate at whim? They can create their little personal laws but if it goes against the constitution it can be dragged to court. They least they would end up doing is pay you back for what you spent on "nothing".
> [{quoted}](name=ZhaoYhun,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2018-05-21T14:46:25.332+0000) > > 4.3 is essentially a scam isn&#x27;t it? I pay for something I won&#x27;t own and the other side can terminate at whim? It isn't a scam because you signed the contract. You can't make an account unless you accept those terms. Those clausules exist to protect Riot. Put yourself in their shoes. One day League will no longer be as popular as it is today. As more and more players start leaving they'd all demand their money Riot. Then what? Think about it like this. Whatever you invest in League is like a donation. You're giving away your money because you want to support Riot. They don't force you to pay for anything and you don't need any of their products to play an already free game. You pay because you want to. Besides, it's not in Riot's interest to terminate accounts. Like I said, those clausules exist to protect them from abuse. It doesn't mean they'll terminate your account just because they feel like it. ######It does mean, however, if one day they go bankruptcy, you wouldn't be entitled to any of those items. *** > [{quoted}](name=ZhaoYhun,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2018-05-21T14:46:25.332+0000) > > They can create their little personal laws but if it goes against the constitution it can be dragged to court. It doesn't go against the law. Their game is private property, so whatever you leave in their "house" it's theirs. I don't know if you are familiar, but most, if not all, gaming companies have a similar contract. You should start reading Terms of Use more often. Riot actually has a short and straight to the point contract, unlike many I've read so far.
: I dont have any stats, neither do you. Anecdotal until someone invests time in looking into this. But it needs to be pointed out as anecdote first for that to happen, doesnt it?
> [{quoted}](name=Btr Lk Nxt Time,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2018-05-21T14:35:18.210+0000) > > But it needs to be pointed out as anecdote first for that to happen, doesnt it? Maybe there aren't enough cases to grant an investigation. I, for one, I'm not exposed to it at all. For me, it's even more rare than toxic behaviour in general. Also, you were the one to make the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
: "You can't change me, or a lot of others like me." They **did **change me. I went from a nice guy to a toxic prick and ruin about every game. The despair and floods of cursing aswell as begging, the schizophrenia they display in 30 minutes, I enjoy it now. I was like you, spent money and then got perma I should have sued them but I was too lazy, life was smiling on me so I didn't bother. I recommend you find other games, there are many cool ones. Play League once in a blue moon like me.
> [{quoted}](name=Adolƒ Hìtler,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:57:53.513+0000) > > I should have sued them but I was too lazy Good thing you were lazy. If you did go to court, you'd end up wasting **your** time and **your** money and gain nothing from it. There's a really nice clausule in the contract that protects Riot: [Terms of Use](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse) > ##15.10. Who’s gonna pay for the arbitration? > If you initiate the arbitration, you must pay the JAMS filing fee required for consumer arbitrations. Payment of all other fees will be governed by JAMS’ rules and procedures governing consumer arbitrations. Besides, everything you payed for in the game isn't really yours: > ##4.3. Do I “own” the Virtual Goods I unlock? (No. What you “unlock” is not the virtual good itself, but rather, a qualified right to access it in the Game.) > You have no ownership or other property interest in any of the Virtual Goods you unlock, regardless of whether you acquired access to those Virtual Goods using Riot Points, Blue Essence or Hextech Crafting. > We have the right to delete, alter, move, remove, or transfer any and all Game Content—including Virtual Goods—in whole or in part, at any time and for any reason or no reason, with or without notice to you, and with no liability of any kind to you. In other words, if you initiated a dispute then only you would lose.
: Current toxicity policy discussion: I'm toxic, but reasonable
> [{quoted}](name=Btr Lk Nxt Time,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:35:11.576+0000) > > something deeply rooted into who I am as an individual. Been this way since I was a child. A game won&amp;#039;t change that. Just not possible, Riot, you can&amp;#039;t do it. Face it, and find better solutions. Wait a minute. Why is Riot responsible for your actions? Why should Riot find better solutions when the solutions we have work just fine? Shouldn't you be the one to find a solution for your case? While I sympathize with your "condition", I don't approve of toxic behaviour. I also have anger management issues, but that doesn't stop me from being in control; both inside and outside of the game. Actually, I lose control far easier **outside** of the game. This is why I never believe someone that says "I can't control my actions" or "I am who I am". You can definitely control how you interact with other players, regardless of your genetic conditioning. *** > [{quoted}](name=Btr Lk Nxt Time,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:35:11.576+0000) > > can&amp;#039;t change me, or a lot of others like me. But maybe there is a better way. Here is my suggestion: > - people forget to mute flamers like myself > - suggest to them &amp;quot;would you like to mute this player?&amp;quot; It is a reminder because a lot of people forget mute exists. They don't want to change you. They want you to act like a decent human being. We all do. Nothing else is required and the bar is pretty low. Dude, if you know are flamer why should every other player need to mute you instead of **you** taking some responsibility for yourself? The mute button exists, but that doesn't mean it's part of the gameplay. I usually use this analogy: "Fire extinguishers exist, but that doesn't mean you should start a fire." Same thing here. The mute button exists to stop **further** abuse, but it doesn't erase what as been said before. This is why it must be **you** the one to "mute" yourself, by controling your emotions. If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? *** > [{quoted}](name=Btr Lk Nxt Time,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:35:11.576+0000) > > - stop banning toxicity. Everyone loses. Free up customer support resources to focus on worse game breaking experiences like afk-ers, inters and trolls. Many people complain about this. Customer support is automated. You'll either receive a scripted message or it will be Blitzcrank talking to you. ######I believe their bot is called that. They only reply with a more personal message when you ask for more feedback. That said, they aren't wasting many resources on that. Permanent suspensions are rare, relatively to the number of players. When it happens it is just a small grain of sand in the beach. *** > [{quoted}](name=Btr Lk Nxt Time,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:35:11.576+0000) > > Btw it&amp;#039;s easier to get a 6300 BE champion on a new account than on an old account. It really isn't. It's almost the same. *** > [{quoted}](name=Btr Lk Nxt Time,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=MFbgkTcn,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:35:11.576+0000) > > Btw you making toxicity a perma-bannable offence actually makes the playerbase more toxic. People bait out the bad reactions out of players just to get them banned. Citation needed. Where are the statistics on that? So far, from what I've seen in the PB boards, whenever someone tries to bait a reaction they'll usually end up being punished themselves. My side of the argument is as good as yours, but at least I do have some cases to show.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: If you buy a new care and drunkenly drive it into a wall, will you get the money back? No, of course not. It's the same here. If you ruin your account by breaking the rules you agreed to, why would you get your money back? It's your own fault, you violated a contract. You should have thought about the money before it was too late and you decided to just ignore the rules. Not even players who play by the rules get their money back, so why would you, someone who even violated his contract with Riot?
> [{quoted}](name=Zyzyx,realm=EUW,application-id=eZuvYsEr,discussion-id=XaVexnNl,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:09:31.530+0000) > > If you ruin your account by breaking the rules you agreed to > Not even players who play by the rules get their money back, so why would you, someone who even violated his contract with Riot? Just poiting this out. > [{quoted}](name=KrystalOw,realm=EUNE,application-id=eZuvYsEr,discussion-id=XaVexnNl,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T13:05:26.526+0000) > > I didn't get banned
: Phishing scam
> [{quoted}](name=Jax Is Gay,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=srQsXnbF,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T12:07:23.079+0000) > > Maybe im blind but i cant find a button to report players in private chat, would be nice to have We don't have that option because, in Riot's words, private chat is an opt-in function. In other words, it was your choice to accept his friend request. That said, Riot takes this stuff seriously, so be sure to contact [Riot Support](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests).
Atillaoi (EUW)
: Single hand champion
Champions that don't require you to use skills that often: {{champion:11}} {{champion:51}} {{champion:222}} {{champion:17}} {{champion:23}} An argument could be made for Udyr too, since you don't need to switch stances to play him. If you have a gaming mouse with extra keys, you can bind the few abilities you need on those. ######For example, with Trynda you only really need his R and E.
: A Warning to Players: you are NOT allowed now to say anything
> [{quoted}](name=SafeSpaceWarrior,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=%%%U1JdT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T09:26:13.967+0000) > > I merely wish to warn any and all players that you can no longer use the chat unless you want to get restricted. Let me tell you I actually use the chat quite a lot, but not as much as you though. Ever crossed your mind that maybe the problem is on you? Anyway, you can use the chat as long as you're not being an ass to your team. *** > [{quoted}](name=SafeSpaceWarrior,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=%%%U1JdT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T09:26:13.967+0000) > > Game 1 > SafeSpaceWarrior: just saying little feeder :) > SafeSpaceWarrior: little silver :) > SafeSpaceWarrior: good players :) > SafeSpaceWarrior: feed more :) > SafeSpaceWarrior: 8 deaths > SafeSpaceWarrior: bravo > SafeSpaceWarrior: talent .) > SafeSpaceWarrior: go and die > SafeSpaceWarrior: it works for you > SafeSpaceWarrior: silvers *** > [{quoted}](name=SafeSpaceWarrior,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=%%%U1JdT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T09:26:13.967+0000) > > Game 2 > SafeSpaceWarrior: bot lane lost the game > SafeSpaceWarrior: veigar is garbage > SafeSpaceWarrior: I dont care anymore > SafeSpaceWarrior: this is how I dont give a %%%% Sivir > SafeSpaceWarrior: I dont want to play with garbage all the time > SafeSpaceWarrior: 4v3 I got ult and you guys run like the gold little %%%%%esd > SafeSpaceWarrior: you deserve this loss *** > Game 3 > SafeSpaceWarrior: useless shit > SafeSpaceWarrior: losing turrets left and right > SafeSpaceWarrior: stay bot you idiot > SafeSpaceWarrior: so funny you lose bot turrets > SafeSpaceWarrior: and roam without a brain > SafeSpaceWarrior: nice farm dude > SafeSpaceWarrior: is that silver 5? Your behaviour escalated from Game 1 to Game 3. Why are you surprised of having a chat restriction? Just act like an adult and accept the punishment of your deeds. Takes this chance to improve your behaviour, or keep the negative attitude and escalate to harsher punishments. Your choice. When in doubt "/mute all". *** > [{quoted}](name=SafeSpaceWarrior,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=%%%U1JdT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T09:26:13.967+0000) > > calling real silver players &amp;quot;silvers&amp;quot;. Pointing out FACTS that bot lane is 1/7 or that they lose the turret 2v2 before 10 minutes is now an OFFENSE. How does poiting out "facts" improve the situation? If I call you an asshole and leave it at that, am I improving the situation? No, I'm just contributing to the problem. In your case, you could **not** call someone by their rank and **not** point out their scores. Why does it matter? Everyone can see the score in the game and everyone can just as easily check everyone else's rank. Why do you feel entitled to that job? Nobody asked you to do it. Pointing out scores can, sometimes, be useful. For example "We can't engage that fight because they are 10/2 and you are 0/6". This is fine. What isn't fine is "You quacking suck, 0/6 garbage". See the difference? *** > [{quoted}](name=SafeSpaceWarrior,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=%%%U1JdT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T09:26:13.967+0000) > > If you want to avoid being chat-restricted play like a robot...don&amp;#039;t say anything because this new generation is so fragile. No. If you want to avoid being chat restricted play, and act, like a decent human being. It's that simple. *** > [{quoted}](name=SafeSpaceWarrior,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=%%%U1JdT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T09:26:13.967+0000) > > Wonder if they ever played sports in real life.....when they %%%%ed up, what did their teammates or the enemy tell them? Point out my mistake and tell me how to improve next time. That's what a coach's job. My team mates can also give me valuable feedback. What you did is very short of "valuable". Like I said previously, pointing out those "facts" doesn't help at anything, so you should rather be quiet about it. I find it funny when people like you always bring up the "in real life" argument. In real life, if you acted like that, no one would play with you again and/or you'd be kicked out of the team. You would also risk having your head punched in, but that's an extreme scenario. *** > [{quoted}](name=SafeSpaceWarrior,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=%%%U1JdT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-21T09:26:13.967+0000) > > GG Riot..hope you lose more and more players. You created a community of snowflakes. Bravo! :) Yet, here you are... making a discussion about said "snowflakes". That surely says something about yourself. {{sticker:sg-ezreal}}
: 85!!! Most kills in normal aram ever?
Likely not: [Records, Ranked Games](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/rankings/records) Max kills stacked on 1 player: Vladimir with 103. That was a ranked game and the ranked population isn't as high as other queues. That record is relatively recent, from 2017, so it's very likely that, sometime in the past, someone had more than 100 kills in a ARAM game. Unfortunately there's no way to prove that, so the "Wolrd Record" is yours... for now.
: Clash - why can't I play as an unranked player?
You can just play the 10 provisional matches too. Think about it. Clash will take up a big portion of your time (because you need to be online for the queue), so time surely isn't an issue. To get a free ticket you must play 2 Flex games, so you're only missing 8 to get a rating. Grab your friends and play Flex for a few games. Heck, you can even get it done in 3 hours, if you surrender every game at 15 minutes. I'm sure you can muster 3 hours over the week.
Enjutsu (EUNE)
: Get fit
Imagine: Instalocks Teemo, gives first blood, blames the jungler insulting him in polish, says "GG" and goes AFK. Everyone reports Teemo and the jungler because they lost the game. Likely you wouldn't play another match after that. {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}
: Put chat restriction on all ADC mains.
Then we can do the same to jungler mains, followed by mid mains and finally support mains. https://i.imgur.com/2qKOhX5.png
GreyfellD (EUW)
: STOP putting me against 4 man premades when I solo
So I ask, how do you make with 4 premades if not with the 5th member being a solo player? This is pure logic and not up for debate.
Show more

Febos

Level 52 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion