: 1) - quote or it didn't happen. 2) - I don't think you realize the meaning of "using absolutes". In case you mean generalization - then again - quote or it didn't happen, if you mean me using hyperboles - then I am sorry but you'll have to learn to live with that - it still doesn't change the logical meaning behind arguments anyways. 3) - "You continue to argue the points about high/low ELO even after I said" - then stop using "optimizing nasus for lower leagues" as an argument - I mean it's you yourself using ELO as an argument - you can't very well expect me not to do it when you do it, right? 4) -" I am not victimising myself.": "I can be offended by anything you do or say but that doesn't mean you should be held accountable, but if you cause offence by how carelessly you do or say these things then it is your issue." - ok princess, I am sorry my very offensive words hurt your frail feelings. - "You acted like an ass and I called you out on it." : *me "acting like an ass" - "Deny nasus stacks in lane = nonexistent nasus. Kite nasus - he doesn't get to teamfight." - damn these sentences are so offensive I cannot believe I wrote them! *you not acting like an ass - "do you have short-term memory loss" - disregarding what I wrote and just getting away with ridicule are we? And before you say some bs - no your post didn't address the points I made - at least not with actual arguments - you never even mentioned anything about denying nasus's stacks early(I dare you to find some argument of the sort in your post) - the only thing remotely relevant is - "Nasus can pretty much do the job after 15 minutes anyway" - but then comes the question - are you and your team afk for 15 minutes during mid game or something(hence either not an argument or not elaborate enough)? And the only "argument" you gave against his obvious weakness to kiting and cc was this: "Sure, with coordinated CC he becomes only a nuisance but the lower you get in the leagues the less likely you are to find it." - basically appealing to lower leagues being unable to cc (which is still not true) - basically using elo as an argument (which you said I shouldn't do) - even more - what lower leagues can and can't do shouldn't have anything to do with champion balance design decisions - that's what game design and game theory dictates at the very least. Try to at least take into consideration the statements somebody's presenting before jumping on the "ridicule your opponent's mental capability rather than address his points then victimize yourself for maximum efficiency" way out. Nice hypocrisy though +1 for you. Wait, or is it that you got hurt by this? - ""Also, 'dem several points and arguments' sounds like ridicule to me." - but it is - because I am ridiculing you - you've noted this well young padawan." - sorry but that's not acting like an ass, that's just me refusing to indulge your victimization scenarios. Your several points were not points but actually what I just discussed up there. And if you feel offended by this: "Deny nasus stacks in lane = nonexistent nasus. Kite nasus - he doesn't get to teamfight." - then I've got some really bad news for you... 90% of the sane people would tell you there's not a shred of offence in this quote. It is simply 2 ways to deal with nasus - the sentence doesn't even imply anything about you to begin with - I don't get how you can be offended by somebody stating objective truths about nasus's playstyle. Like stop being paranoid or something idk - the world is not revolving around you - you're basically trying to find something offensive in a perfectly normal statement. 5,6) - "You definitely still do not understand what an absolute is" - you seem to either not know the meaning of using an absolute, or... Using an absolute is typically regarded as generalizing or using hyperboles - the second one not being an issue - as it does not alter the meaning of logical statements when it's obvious it's a hyperbole. If you're accusing me of generalizing - I'd suppose you're referring to this - "If you and your team are incompetent enough to not finish a game in a 5v4, with an advantage(considering the person denying nasus should have tons of farm and maybe even a kill) then honestly you do not deserve to win", even though I already explained it, you keep coming back to it for whatever reasons. So I'll make extra sure there are no loopholes through which your dodgy logic can escape this time around. As I already said - in silver elo any half-decent plat+ player can easily carry a 5v4, especially if he has an advantage. And before you say that's a generalization - go and check out some plat+ smurfs in silver - they usually pass this league in a matter of games with minimal losses, if you still don't believe me I can easily show you how I win a 5v4 in silver easily - and I am not even half-decent. But please feel free to dispute this point, rather than just spam absolutes - I mean at least try to back up the idea that I am generalizing - because I gave you some pretty concrete stuff to work with. 7) - "You mention my 'lack of substance' but have so far provided none yourself. I offered, in the first place (if you recall this was a post about reducing the inevitable impact Nasus has on every game he appears in by fixing his Q) several suggestions that might bring his Q in line" - the issue is you didn't provide a **solid** argument why nasus Q should be brought in line - which is actually the main issue here. Lower leagues not being able to kite, is not a solid argument imo - you can of course try to prove me wrong, but please do start with a proof that lower leagues aren't able to kite and cc - because that's a pretty big generalization imo - if you can't even prove this, then you should acknowledge that this "argument" actually has not substance whatsoever if it's based on wrong premises. "you responded with a single line of text that offered (please feel free to argue otherwise) a complete lack of substance." - I'll be your guest and fell free to argue otherwise. That single line of text contained the main issues nasus has - weak early game and susceptible to even soft cc. Both are true statements (you can try to argue of course). Both of these statements present weaknesses that can be heavily abused making nasus have tons of counterplay and actually a little UP if counterpicked properly. So these arguments are actually disputing the issue whether nasus actually needs a nerf. I am sure you'll agree that an underpowered champion shouldn't recieve nerfs(you can of course try to argue) - however your'e advocating such nerfs. There are 3 points imo you can try to argue - 1)my basis premise that nasus has a weak early game and is susceptible to even soft cc, 2) the proposition that these weaknesses actually give a large enough room for counterplay making nasus UP, 3) a champion that is UP shouldn't be nerfed. I can defend any of these - just pick one(or more) and I'll defend it. " Or perhaps you thought your pithy one-liner was enough to make me change my mind, despite the fact that I'd clearly thought much longer about my points than yours?" - thinking longer about something doesn't make a conclusion right. And that's actually if we overlook the fact that I've played nasus a lot more than you and at a higher level of play - basically knowing his weaknesses and strengths better than you could hope to - having thought a lot more over his kit, weaknesses, how strong he is, does he deserve a win etc. 8) - "You admit to ridiculing me but conveniently forgot that you yourself told me that that is the basis for concealing logical fallacies in one's argument. But it's okay, because you used some lame Star Wars sarcasm instead. Why face up to your own hypocrisy when you can make an attempt at humour?" - no I am not conveniently forgetting that it is a logical fallacy - a person may try to get away with ridicule when he has no arguments to present against his opponent's arguments - but in this case, you just had no arguments whatsoever - so why do you expect me to present any arguments against nothing - your "argument" was that a one liner that didn't even imply anything about you was offensive - if I show anybody the one-liner I wrote - I am pretty sure nobody would say there's anything personally offensive. But you are free to argue it's offensive by dissecting the sentence and finding the offensive bit(good luck with that one). 9) - "You haven't engaged with the point I was making about the smurfs at all. You have ignored me when I tried to explain to you that losing to someone who is better than you does not mean you deserved to lose, and instead brought up a completely irrelevant point about how facing two platinum smurfs in low ELO is not always an unwinnable situation. When did I say it wasn't? I said that if I lost to them then that doesn't mean I deserved to lose. You need to stop 'digressing' and actually engage with the points that I am making." First of all, would you mind telling me what does 2 smurfs in silver have to do wihh nasus requiring a nerf? If it has nothing to do with that, then we can agree that this is just a digression you came up with. But I guess since you put the effort to write this and it seems to be bothering you, I'll try to discuss it. Let's set things straight - you believe that you deserve to win vs someone who is better than you - did I get that right? Because that's what this sentence is implying: "losing to someone who is better than you does not mean you deserved to lose". Explain to me by what kind of logic are you going to reach the conclusion that you deserve to win vs better players than you - I didn't get that one trivial part. " instead brought up a completely irrelevant point about how facing two platinum smurfs in low ELO is not always an unwinnable situation" - Uh wut? Seriously wut? Can you quote me pls?
I replied to my own comment by mistake. See above.
: It's like painting by numbers. 1) You take my words out of context (something I specifically didn't do to you) and apply them to points I made elsewhere then discuss them together as if I said them that way. 2) You continue to ignore my point about you using absolutes that back you into a corner (three times and counting) 3) You continue to argue the points about high/low ELO even after I said, in the least uncertain terms imaginable, that _there is absolutely, 100% no point in continuing that discussion_ because we are clearly at polar opposites. I mean, honestly, I don't know how much clearer I could have made it. It's like banging my head against a brick wall. And just to pre-empt you, no I am not refusing to engage on this matter any more because I know you are right, as I say, you are set on your side of the argument and I am set on mine. I do not know how else to say it. Literally, there is no way to say _stop bringing it up because I'm not changing my mind_ in any way that is clearer. 4) I am not victimising myself. I never asked for an apology or some sort of revenge. You acted like an ass and I called you out on it. You refused to see how you acted like an ass so I showed you, and you responded, aptly, by behaving like an ass. 5) You definitely still do not understand what an absolute is (I'm saying it again in the hope that it will get into your head) 6) You definitely still do not understand what an absolute is (I'm saying it again, again, in the hope that it will get into your head) 7) You mention my 'lack of substance' but have so far provided none yourself. I offered, in the first place (if you recall this was a post about reducing the inevitable impact Nasus has on every game he appears in by fixing his Q) several suggestions that might bring his Q in line and you responded with a single line of text that offered (please feel free to argue otherwise) a complete lack of substance. Or perhaps you thought your pithy one-liner was enough to make me change my mind, despite the fact that I'd clearly thought much longer about my points than yours? 8) You admit to ridiculing me but conveniently forgot that you yourself told me that that is the basis for concealing logical fallacies in one's argument. But it's okay, because you used some lame Star Wars sarcasm instead. Why face up to your own hypocrisy when you can make an attempt at humour? 9) You haven't engaged with the point I was making about the smurfs at all. You have ignored me when I tried to explain to you that losing to someone who is better than you does not mean you deserved to lose, and instead brought up a completely irrelevant point about how facing two platinum smurfs in low ELO is not always an unwinnable situation. When did I say it wasn't? I said that if I lost to them then that doesn't mean I deserved to lose. You need to stop 'digressing' and actually engage with the points that I am making. 10) Which brings us onto my apparent 'digressing' away from the main purpose of this post So I am supposed to ignore every comment you make that isn't relevant to the original post? Would it not be considered 'digressing' if I failed to address the points that you make? You keep trying to put me on the back foot by suggesting that I am going off-topic. The topic is all there at the top. You have added one argument and the rest is an attempt to patronise and ridicule me. Note that I said 'attempt'. Sorry, was that digressing? Sorry, was that a red herring? Are my words so powerful that they are distracting you from making any relevant points? Working so far. 11) I never said I got rekt by a Nasus smurf. Please quote me where I said that. Or are you just making things up to fit your argument? Now that you've reached this part of the reply you should go back to the previous one and read my predictions for your next reply, because I have a strong suspicion they'll be exactly the same.
I can't be bothered anymore. If you can't keep up with the conversation then don't blame me for it. Everything you needed to make a reasonable judgement was there for you, so if we've gotten to the point where you're not even reading what's written and just saying 'I don't remember why you brought that up, so I'm going to make an assumption' then we're done. Also, you still, _still_, **_STILL_** argued the ELO point even after I told you for what must have been 1 billion times **_DO NOT BRING IT UP AGAIN BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE EACH OTHER_**. You are so keen to get the last word that you would keep bringing up something that is completely dead in the water. Well now's your chance to prove you're a bigger man than I: don't reply to this. I won't reply to your next comment (no reneging this time), just walk away and calm down. I've given you an out: enjoy :)
Sasogwa (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Of Carthage,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=8luu1pEc,comment-id=000a000000010000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-07-11T20:00:16.952+0000) > > Why have you done nothing except attack me? You started out by accusing me of making an assumption about you in your _very first comment_ before I even knew you existed, and since then you've been jumping down my throat every time I ask why you keep thinking I'm making assumptions about you. I don't know who you are! How can I make assumptions about someone I didn't know existed? Can we talk about Nasus and stop changing subjects?
I don't want to talk about Nasus with someone who jumps down my throat before I've even been introduced to them. What is wrong with you?
: "snip boo hoo I feel so hurt boo hoo snip" - I was impressed by your victimization abilities...not - try harder next time. "You have confused 'digressing' with 'talking about other things that I don't want to talk about'. " - digressing is just that - digressing - you are digressing from the main point of you wanting to nerf nasus's q because you lost a game vs him, and then had the enlightenment that he's the bane of low elo(good thing you haven't seen my panth smurf - the qq will be too strong when no counterplay 16min loss gg afk). "Any idiot knows (not talking about you (red herring)) that a counterpick isn't a guaranteed win, but you have said that if I counterpick Nasus (say, with Teemo) but then don't win even if Nasus sticks to top lane making team fights a 4 v 5 affair regardless of any other factors (as is the case with the absolute you have used) then I didn't deserve to win. " - here's the question - can a person without much practice and game knowledge - win a ranked match 5v4 in silver elo? The answer is 90% of the time - he can - if he tries hard enough - if he didn't win he was probably not trying hard enough. And before you say that's not true - as I said get a semi-decent plat and he'll do just that if he picks the right champion (btw teemo is not a viable counterpick to nasus, even less so in silver). "There could be a myriad of reasons why my team was unable to win, but apparently because we had the advantage and because it was a 4 v 5 none of that matters." - myriad of reasons = you not being able to carry? Why? Because a plat would be able to carry(maybe even gold). So is it carriable? Yes. Do you need any exceeding knowledge or mechanics? No. Sorry dude - but you not being able to win a game in silver when playing vs a champ that's not even OP (while there are a number of OP champs issued by riot at your disposal), and actually lets you have an easy 5v4 game is all on you. It is simple - even if you have the most retarded teammates - at this elo you should be able to carry - and if you don't win - sure your team may have been a factor - but all of that could have been fixed by you just being better at the game. But let me guess, then you'll say they had this smurf and that smurf. Ok, let's say they have smurfs - so w8, what does that have to do with nasus's Q then? I am pretty sure a smurf would wreck you even without using nasus, I'd go further and say that they'll wreck you even harder using an actually strong pick. "since you weren't able to win - of course you don't deserve to win" - I should add "in silver" - now it's totally correct, then only a smurf would be an issue right - but you won't meet a smurf in 90% of your games, you still have an issue? If you still ahve an issue then it's still with smufs and nasus's q. When you get outplayed nd outwitted by a better player it doesn't matter what champ he played. "Instead of replying to my complaint you have attempted to remove it's credibility through humour, a device that people employ when they do not have an actual defence." - I actually replied to your main points like 5 posts up there, the points still stand valid and uncontested, but since I saw you either lacked the reading capability or comprehensive one, I decided to humor you - makes me able to stay calm when I am trying to give a logical answer and then I receive a retort of the sort: "Basically I do want to nerf a champion because lower ELOs can't kite, exactly." "Also, 'dem several points and arguments' sounds like ridicule to me." - but it is - because I am ridiculing you - you've noted this well young padawan. I am making fun of your victimization tactics and actual lack of any substance to 90% of the stuff you talk about. "do not attempt to bring up the high/low ELO argument again." - Why? You seem to be using it as a basis yourself. I mean you are the one that said: "if. Nasus. Is. Not. Played. In. Higher. ELO's. Then. Why. Is. It. A. Problem. If. He. Is. Optimised. For. Lower. ELO's?" - like you know, I wanted to be all neutral about elo and not balance nasus around it, but objectively check his stats and abilities, his scaling, strengths, weaknesses and decide whether he needs a nerf based on that. But based on all that nasus is pretty weak - weak early game, can't do shit if kited/soft ccd, so you decided to pull out the elo card, then I don't get why you have an issue with me using it too. "As I have said, we are clearly stoically set on our own opinions here" - let's note the difference however - you got rekt in a game vs a supposed nasus "smurf" and came to qq on the forum about how "op" he was and needed a nerf - that's the basis of your opinion. While all the people here, having half a brain told you he doesn't need a nerf, based on just stats alone and counterplay (see objective stuff actually taken into account in game design). And on the other hand there's my opinion - nasus doesn't need a nerf based on his weaknesses and weak early game. Let's note that I've played the shit out of this champ and know his weaknesses, his stats, his counterplay - so I am pretty sure I am more competent than you when it comes to this whole nasus business.
It's like painting by numbers. 1) You take my words out of context (something I specifically didn't do to you) and apply them to points I made elsewhere then discuss them together as if I said them that way. 2) You continue to ignore my point about you using absolutes that back you into a corner (three times and counting) 3) You continue to argue the points about high/low ELO even after I said, in the least uncertain terms imaginable, that _there is absolutely, 100% no point in continuing that discussion_ because we are clearly at polar opposites. I mean, honestly, I don't know how much clearer I could have made it. It's like banging my head against a brick wall. And just to pre-empt you, no I am not refusing to engage on this matter any more because I know you are right, as I say, you are set on your side of the argument and I am set on mine. I do not know how else to say it. Literally, there is no way to say _stop bringing it up because I'm not changing my mind_ in any way that is clearer. 4) I am not victimising myself. I never asked for an apology or some sort of revenge. You acted like an ass and I called you out on it. You refused to see how you acted like an ass so I showed you, and you responded, aptly, by behaving like an ass. 5) You definitely still do not understand what an absolute is (I'm saying it again in the hope that it will get into your head) 6) You definitely still do not understand what an absolute is (I'm saying it again, again, in the hope that it will get into your head) 7) You mention my 'lack of substance' but have so far provided none yourself. I offered, in the first place (if you recall this was a post about reducing the inevitable impact Nasus has on every game he appears in by fixing his Q) several suggestions that might bring his Q in line and you responded with a single line of text that offered (please feel free to argue otherwise) a complete lack of substance. Or perhaps you thought your pithy one-liner was enough to make me change my mind, despite the fact that I'd clearly thought much longer about my points than yours? 8) You admit to ridiculing me but conveniently forgot that you yourself told me that that is the basis for concealing logical fallacies in one's argument. But it's okay, because you used some lame Star Wars sarcasm instead. Why face up to your own hypocrisy when you can make an attempt at humour? 9) You haven't engaged with the point I was making about the smurfs at all. You have ignored me when I tried to explain to you that losing to someone who is better than you does not mean you deserved to lose, and instead brought up a completely irrelevant point about how facing two platinum smurfs in low ELO is not always an unwinnable situation. When did I say it wasn't? I said that if I lost to them then that doesn't mean I deserved to lose. You need to stop 'digressing' and actually engage with the points that I am making. 10) Which brings us onto my apparent 'digressing' away from the main purpose of this post So I am supposed to ignore every comment you make that isn't relevant to the original post? Would it not be considered 'digressing' if I failed to address the points that you make? You keep trying to put me on the back foot by suggesting that I am going off-topic. The topic is all there at the top. You have added one argument and the rest is an attempt to patronise and ridicule me. Note that I said 'attempt'. Sorry, was that digressing? Sorry, was that a red herring? Are my words so powerful that they are distracting you from making any relevant points? Working so far. 11) I never said I got rekt by a Nasus smurf. Please quote me where I said that. Or are you just making things up to fit your argument? Now that you've reached this part of the reply you should go back to the previous one and read my predictions for your next reply, because I have a strong suspicion they'll be exactly the same.
Sasogwa (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Of Carthage,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=8luu1pEc,comment-id=000a0000000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2015-07-11T15:26:53.586+0000) > > You've made a connection to yourself via degrees of relevance. I am talking about the champ, not the people who play as him. And I wouldn't call someone for whom the game revolves around as 'carrying' necessarily. To carry the game you have to be contributing more for your team than the rest combined, which isn't always the case for a top-lane Nasus. I would say in that instance that being the centre of attention is different to being a carry. And you'd be wrong. This game is about taking the ennemies nexus. To do that, you have to take the inhibitors and push out for the win. But there are ennemies to face. To beat them, you must become stronger via buying items and gaining levels (farming/killing) and objectives. If you put pressure on the map, ergo if nobody comes you take an advantage, you're doing a job. If several people need to come, it relieves pressure for you team to take advantages elsewhere, leading to an "impossible situation" for the enemy team. That is how splitpushing carries. Carry does not specifically mean flashy plays. But that... is an ideal case of Nasus splitpushing. The Nasus "dream". In reality, he can be quite denied early, people can collapse very fast on where he is splitting if his team doesn't put pressure too; but if they do they might get caught out by hard engage and killed, leaving the enemy team to fastpush/ get a bunch of objectives and gold. It's not as simple as it seems.
Why have you done nothing except attack me? You started out by accusing me of making an assumption about you in your _very first comment_ before I even knew you existed, and since then you've been jumping down my throat every time I ask why you keep thinking I'm making assumptions about you. I don't know who you are! How can I make assumptions about someone I didn't know existed?
: You want consistency? Are you consistently losing to nasus?
No. Nasus is consistently dictating the flow of the match, which is my point.
Sasogwa (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Of Carthage,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=8luu1pEc,comment-id=000a00000001000000010000,timestamp=2015-07-11T13:33:41.028+0000) > > I never insinuated anything about you, because, as I said, I have never met you before. What is this? What I meant is you insinuated Nasus in general was a problem because game revolved too much around him, so basically he was carrying. because having the game revolve around you means you put a lot of pressure, which is somehow carrying. And since I'm a Nasus player it implies me. Well yea it wasn't obvious.
You've made a connection to yourself via degrees of relevance. I am talking about the champ, not the people who play as him. And I wouldn't call someone for whom the game revolves around as 'carrying' necessarily. To carry the game you have to be contributing more for your team than the rest combined, which isn't always the case for a top-lane Nasus. I would say in that instance that being the centre of attention is different to being a carry.
Sasogwa (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Of Carthage,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=8luu1pEc,comment-id=000a000000010000,timestamp=2015-07-11T00:15:08.037+0000) > > Good for you mate. I have never met you before so had never insinuated that you didn't. > > We have all lost games when we clearly had the upper hand. It happens. But you can't counter my argument with 'sometimes you lose with 1000 stacks' because 'sometimes' isn't the basis for reform. You have to consider consistency. > > (Edit: formatting) Well I consistently play Nasus, and I consistently don't carry that much as you insinuate no matter what the stacks are. Nasus is fine. If you want to 'reform him' to some nerf I suggest that you do some buff otherwise. If you have problems with Nasus 6 items lategame, well you don't play well enough/ your comp sucks. Cause Nasus is fairly manageable when you have 6 items too. Ofc he is the best duellist in the game, but not the best champion/ he can according to comps be actually pretty useless. If you have problems with Nasus always reaching his powerspike, you could suggest him losing a bunch of power early-midgame, and have scaling stacks (+2/+4 until 200 stacks, +3/+6 until 500 stacks, +4/+8 after) You can also consider a mana increase on his Q, possibly decreasing on level (40/35/30/25/20) or 30/30/30/30/30 or like it was before 20/25/30/35/40. Nasus actually did have some manaproblems at the time (long time ago) and he needed either chalice or philostone. Forcing him into buying manaregen/mana pots would be a nerf to his laning. You could consider a straight nerf to his Q (+2/+4) but you would have to buff something like his utility instead (for instance the attack speed slow, if you remember some years ago it was the same as movespeed slow : at max rank, 35 to 95% for an average of 65%). And at the time, {{item:3139}} {{item:3222}} {{item:3172}} didn't exist. For some reason, from one patch to another everyone forgot that Nasus was a heavy autoattack-counter champion and great against hypercarry adcs and no it's the other way around (- -') There needs to be some compensation, because Nasus is overall balanced right now. And well, if you are coordinated you can really fuck him up. If you do a great freeze with a champion that can already harass him a lot whenever he comes to lasthit, without pushing the wave too much, he will have trouble stacking. If on top of that, once the wave becomes huge and crushes to his turret, you can dive him (with or without the help of your jungler) and get him killed, even if it's a tradekill, he's fucked. Like, he loses 1 or 2 levels in terms of experience, a lot of farm, etc. But that's general game knowledge. It's a bit sad but right now freezing is one of the most efficient strategies to lane, and if you do that Nasus is put into danger and can't stack as much. If you just push and Nasus manages to freeze just out of tower range, you're giving him free stacks, you're basically offering him a free lane. Well, also, he gets quite fucked up if you are organized to the point you are ready to swap your botlane top. If you do that, he'll have no earlygame, no midgame, and lategame he will be average stack nasus, destroyed in fights and not much of a menace at all. Nasus is barely viable in competitive. And it's a bit because Riot oriented him into a splitpush-all-game kind of champion and killed his utility in teamfights (he used to be a great teamfight pickup because of his slow denying carries) PS : if you think that Nasus is more viable high elo than lower, you're extremely wrong. It's just the Nasus that were good enough to carry themselves out of there already did. Because -well sorry for that- but silver is a joke for a half decent Nasus, nobody teamfights properly, nobody knows how to deny or put pressure properly, deal with splitpush properly. Pretty much free elo. That said, it goes the same for any other champion in the game. Because a decent player can easily abuse the mistakes done there to snowball a lead and destroy. Thinking about it, it might be even easier with other champions that are likely to snowball from early game, which Nasus can't really.
I never insinuated anything about you, because, as I said, I have never met you before. What is this?
: I'll just skip the ridiculous parts in your post representative of a red herring. "'never stated it was enough - I just said that if you cannot close the game then you don't deserve to win it - pretty simple. As when I cannot close out a game because I am playing bad - I do not deserve to win it - even if I get carried.' You did state it was enough. Here, let me quote you back at yourself seeing as you love doing that:" - read the quote you quoted - it doesn't say it is enough - it says that if you and your team are incompetent enough to lose with an advantage you deserve to lose. If you really need me to spell it out -** it is not enough to have an advantage - you should know how to use it - but if you and your team can't that is your own issue.** So what now - quoting me then not even understanding what's written? "Perhaps they have two smurfs other than their Nasus who is sticking to top lane? Your statement says that in this situation I do not deserve to win even though the advantage is clearly with the enemy team, just because it is 4 v 5." - you do not - the enemy team has the advantage and supposedly smurfs - them having nasus won't change things - swap him for yi/trynd/jax/fio/riven/udyr and it is still the same - actually in "lower leagues" - these champs are better than nasus. "if I lose then I didn't deserve to win in the first place, regardless of the circumstances." - 90% of the times you deserve to lose when you do in "lower leagues". You're missing the catch here - in bronze and silver you can carry hard - like 90%+ win ratio, just because people lack the mechanics and knowledge to pose a threat when carrying. Pick a strong hypercarry - destroy the laner vs you -> destroy everybody(or just splitpush) = win. And before you go and say that's impossible - ask any half decent plat+ - if he does a silver smurf, he's going to breeze through the bronze/silver league with a 90%+ win ratio if he picks the right champions. So yeah if your mechanics and game knowledge were better you'd be able to win most games in "lower leagues" regardless of the circumstances. "seeing as he isn't played competitively then it wouldn't be a problem." - **a champion being or not being played competitively shouldn't have anything to do with balancing in the first place.** "And again, I am not proposing that we balance the game based on the lowest common denominator but if the people at the top don't actually want to play as Nasus then why is it a problem to optimise him for the people who do? Why would someone care so much about something that they aren't even going to use?" -** you are proposing balancing the game around the lowest common denominator("Basically I do want to nerf a champion because lower ELOs can't kite, exactly." )**- when you say you want to change it based on the "fact" that supposedly "lower leagues" don't know how to deal with him. "but if the people at the top don't actually want to play as Nasus then why is it a problem to optimise him for the people who do?" - because your "optimizing" is a nerf you want on an objectively pretty balanced champion, I may say even a little under powered if people actually tried to counter him for real. That part cracked me up though: "I put up several points of argument and your 'response' is to summarise all of it with a statement that is dismissive, unconstructive and insulting" - and let me remind you the part I answered to: "If you had read the post, as you said, then you wouldn't need to validate yourself. Does it make you feel big, using 'measly' like it's 1999? I 'ridiculed' you, as you say, because while I attempted to make a constructive argument on an issue I believe exists you countered that with an attempt at patronising me. Don't talk down to me." - dem several points and arguments... "if. Nasus. Is. Not. Played. In. Higher. ELO's. " - **Nasus is played in higher elos **- only not often in lcs - and let's be frank - lcs is not an elo. "Then. Why. Is. It. A. Problem. If. He. Is. Optimised. For. Lower. ELO's?" - **because "optimizing" is not nerfing for no reason. And there is no actual reason indicating that he needs nerf - compared to to other champions - nasus has a weak early game, is weak the whole game if denied, his bane is cc/slows/kiting and poke teamcomps, another bane is good teamfighting teams. So now explain objectively why would he need a nerf?** Because he beat your team when you let him free stack and you couldn't coordinate? **Tell me honestly, do you really believe that a champion should be balanced depending on whether you and the people at your elo can do well against him?** And just so you don't digress, I'll bold the main points. And if you can't really argue vs them there's nothing really left to say is there?
This is fantastic. I'm going to renege on not replying because this is a work of art. First of all, I'm only going to talk about the bits of your reply that I want to, because that's what you did. Patronising, isn't it? Except you don't think it is. And then you probably won't talk about me being offended by your patronising attitude because it's a 'red herring'. Presumably you meant that I was distracting you from the 'fact' that my argument lacked logic because I was ridiculing you? No, as I said, quite clearly, I was ridiculing you because you decided I shouldn't have taken offence to your dismissive contribution that was not requested. I'm going to quote myself (again, something you like to do) because you seem to have trouble reading what I've written (or you read it all and only remember the bits that help your argument): > I put up several points of argument and your 'response' is to summarise all of it with a statement that is dismissive, unconstructive and insulting. And then when I take offence to that you delve into 'psychology 101' to tell me that my offence is the basis for a lack of logic in my argument. If you have nothing helpful to say then don't say anything at all. No one asked you to 'put down' my argument in 14 words or less. I specifically asked for a reasoned debate on the subject, not the musings of some random guy who walked past and thought we'd be interested to hear the first few words that came to mind. If you can't see how your dismissive comment was offensive then you need to stop what you're doing and maybe look up the word 'empathy'. I can be offended by anything you do or say but that doesn't mean you should be held accountable, but if you cause offence by how carelessly you do or say these things then it _is_ your issue. And while we're on 'patronising': > And just so you don't digress, I'll bold the main points. And if you can't really argue vs them there's nothing really left to say is there? You have confused 'digressing' with 'talking about other things that I don't want to talk about'. Just because you don't want to reply to everything I've written doesn't mean I am digressing, it means you can't be bothered. The onus is on you mate. And you've made the egotistical assumption that my saying I won't be replying is an admittance of defeat. Of course you will reply that this insinuation is incorrect. And in case you missed it, I suggested that we agree to disagree, thereby allowing both of us to part with the knowledge that neither of us thinks the other is right. I do not think that you are correct, and you repeating yourself in a patronising manner will not convince me. Yet you still retorted to all the points you previously retorted to with the same retorts. Do you have any idea how an argument works? If we are at an impasse then we cannot possibly hope to convince the other by repeating ourselves. 'Agree to disagree'. I have said it three times now so hopefully you will get the message. But I will go back to the absolutes you keep using and my replies about them that you ignored (red herrings, distracting you from the fact that you are using absolutes). On the first point I'd just like to say three words: 'with an advantage'. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this subject unless I came to your house and painted those words in big letters on the side. But I don't want to be accused of taking your words out of context (red herrings) so here's the full quote, again: > If you and your team are incompetent enough to not finish a game in a 5v4, with an advantage(considering the person denying nasus should have tons of farm and maybe even a kill) then honestly you do not deserve to win Any idiot knows (not talking about you (red herring)) that a counterpick isn't a guaranteed win, but you have said that if I counterpick Nasus (say, with Teemo) but then don't win even if Nasus sticks to top lane making team fights a 4 v 5 affair _regardless of any other factors_ (as is the case with the absolute you have used) then I didn't deserve to win. There could be a myriad of reasons why my team was unable to win, but apparently because we had the advantage and because it was a 4 v 5 none of that matters. You need to stop using absolutes because they bite you in the ass. I've said that before haven't I? Strange because you never talked about that in your reply, almost as if you were confusing a salient point with a red herring. And speaking of 'a myriad of reasons' are you seriously telling me that if I, a lower ELO, went up against a team with two high ELO smurfs in it (and none in my team) and lost even though they were effectively a 4-man team thanks to a top-lane Nasus that it is still my fault for losing? Are you completely insane? Do you understand how skill works? That's why they have handicaps in golf, to try and level the playing field when facing someone better than you. > You're missing the catch here No, you're missing the catch here. You used an absolute (red herring) and I replied saying that your absolute means that if I lose then I didn't deserve to win, regardless. You can't use an absolute then say 'oh but I meant that with a caveat'. The absolute in question: > since you weren't able to win - of course you don't deserve to win That's the end of the sentence by the way, in case you accuse me of taking your words out of context (red herring). If you attempt to argue against that then I don't know what else to say. > That part cracked me up though: "I put up several points of argument and your 'response' is to summarise all of it with a statement that is dismissive, unconstructive and insulting" - and let me remind you the part I answered to: "If you had read the post, as you said, then you wouldn't need to validate yourself. Does it make you feel big, using 'measly' like it's 1999? I 'ridiculed' you, as you say, because while I attempted to make a constructive argument on an issue I believe exists you countered that with an attempt at patronising me. Don't talk down to me." - dem several points and arguments... Your attempt to belittle me by mocking my very valid upset makes you look so mature. Instead of replying to my complaint you have attempted to remove it's credibility through humour, a device that people employ when they do not have an actual defence. Also, 'dem several points and arguments' sounds like ridicule to me. Logical fallacies? Red herrings? Sound familiar? You may reply however you wish to the above but for the love of God **do not attempt to bring up the high/low ELO argument again**. As I have said, we are clearly stoically set on our own opinions here so trying to argue that you are correct again will serve no purpose other than to waste your time. Other than that enjoy the smorgasbord of your hypocrisy and idiocy I have pointed out to you. Pick apart what I have said and then come back to me once you have filtered out all the bits you don't like or have nothing to reply with and then tell me that I can't read a sentence that I have had to quote back to you _three times_ because you do not understand how absolutes work (red herrings). Because that is clearly your field of expertise. Or you could just give up and, by your own logic, submit defeat. Your choice.
Sasogwa (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Of Carthage,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=8luu1pEc,comment-id=000a0000,timestamp=2015-07-10T12:13:11.639+0000) > > Here's a good example of a Nasus who has been 'counter-picked' still dominating his lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IQp_CBLyQk > > I understand that good players can overcome a counter-pick but this is showing you what happens when a Nasus keeps stacking (every game he's in, btw) even when the lane phase ends to become a concrete cannon (as opposed to glass cannon, which is a balanced concept). This nasus stacking is terrible. I have better stacks when I'm 0/5 and zoned out of lane, literally. Is that silver or something? Nasus is a concrete cannon and that is all what he is. A bulldozer that destroys what's in front of him. But he's kiteable, playable around and spikes at midgame to fall off late as I already said before because he will get melted. I probably know Nasus better than you do, mate. I have hundreds of games with the champ. I have lost games where I had 1000 stacks and carried hard. Because Nasus is not as unstoppable as people think he is. In 6 items lategame, he sometimes can't even 1v2 no matter the stacks.
> I probably know Nasus better than you do, mate. I have hundreds of games with the champ. Good for you mate. I have never met you before so had never insinuated that you didn't. We have all lost games when we clearly had the upper hand. It happens. But you can't counter my argument with 'sometimes you lose with 1000 stacks' because 'sometimes' isn't the basis for reform. You have to consider consistency. (Edit: formatting)
: ***
That seems like an extreme take on what I'm saying. I am arguing for an, in my opinion, overpowered ability to be toned down, not for Nasus to become a support.
: ***
That can all be argued but I have not made those arguments. I have made a different argument and backed it up with evidence.
: Countering "patronizing attitude" is not countering the main argument. It is painfully simple - you cannot win a 5v4 for a long period = well deserved loss.
So I should ignore his patronising attitude because it wasn't directly referencing the main argument?
: ***
Please read the _entire_ post before commenting. I discussed all the points you just made in the main body.
TeiX (EUW)
: the devs have shown intent to limit the stat stackers they just cannot figure a way that is fair for all parties involved at this time(honestly effed if i know either)
Exactly why I made this post. I wanted to help people think about it, but some seem to think that stacking mechanics are sacred cows.
: "You've clearly never played a game where all the odds were stacked in your favour, yet were still unable to win." - nice assumptions, still doesn't make them true. I've lost games even in plat elo that were so free that it's not even funny. "simply having an advantage isn't always enough for victory. " - never stated it was enough - I just said that if you cannot close the game then you don't deserve to win it - pretty simple. As when I cannot close out a game because I am playing bad - I do not deserve to win it - even if I get carried. "Let's say, for instance, you are facing a Diamond smurf who is able to fend off your attacks on mid tower 1 v 4 by using their defences expertly. Are you saying that because we are facing someone of a much higher skill level who is able to carry their team that we don't deserve to win?" - since you weren't able to win - of course you don't deserve to win. I've beaten and been beaten by diamond and challenger players - the only difference is I don't go to QQ on the fourms after I get rekt in lane, get outplayed and outwitted. Then I just realize I suck, and that I should either improve - or lose games and play at a lower elo. "Absolutes are a pain when you use them in constructive arguments." - wishing to be right doesn't make you right on the other hand. There are good design decisions and there are bad design decisions - yours is the later, only because your whole argument is based not on how the champion objectively fares, but rather on your desire to lower the champion's power so it would be at your skill level. "Basically I do want to nerf a champion because lower ELOs can't kite, exactly. " - that's the biggest flaw in your argument - game rules are not designed around the lowest common denominator - in a perfect world they are designed to achieve a balanced game. Balanced != adjusted to some elo. Imagine if we adjusted chess rules based on the elo. "Track Nasus' playtime in professional tournaments and you'll notice that he is hardly played at all. So if he isn't represented in the leagues where he can be kited, why is it an issue to nerf him where he can't be kited?" - he can be kited in all elos - from bronze to challenger - it just depends on the people playing - kiting is not a mind-boggling tactic or a mechanical feat only Faze clan members are capable of - it's extremely simple - I've seen bronze players do it. "If you had read the post, as you said, then you wouldn't need to validate yourself. Does it make you feel big, using 'measly' like it's 1999? I 'ridiculed' you, as you say, because while I attempted to make a constructive argument on an issue I believe exists you countered that with an attempt at patronising me. Don't talk down to me." - ridiculing the person you're having an argument with is the basis of logical fallacies. Nitpicking my choice of words is just digressing - why did I say "measly" etc. I mean we all know using such words is forbidden - it's 2015 for god's sake - we need to adopt that slang! On a serious note - I never tried to be patronizing - I just told you the 2 basic mechanics that counter nasus - you seeing something offensive in that is your own issue. You feeling insecure and feeling as if I am "talking down to you" is still your own issue - I never pulled any of your match history up or anything - didn't even check your elo - tried to be as objective as possible. "So, in summary, and to counter the same point that you made several times in various sentences, Nasus isn't represented in higher leagues so why is it an issue to help him fit in better in the lower leagues?" - I feel like am repeating myself, but let me reiterate - adjusting any rule/champion/mechanic to "fit in better in the lower leagues" is not a sane design decision - you can ask anybody, read any half-decent text on design - it simply is not, your ideas would result in a horribly imbalanced game, possibly balanced only for "lower leagues". Heck even your common sense should tell you that "balancing" something around a specific skill level, would obviously make it imbalanced on another skill level. See arguments - every sentence I write has arguments - if you think some is flawed - ask away - you never did before. The issue with your discourse is that there are scarcely any arguments. Even the gist of your argument: "Nasus isn't represented in higher leagues so why is it an issue to help him fit in better in the lower leagues?" - I shouldn't even need to be explaining it - the burden of proof falls on the one that wants something to change - you need to give a good enough argument. Nasus not being represented in higher leagues is not even an argument - heck it doesn't even have anything to do with design - it's simply whether people play him or not - and you're stating people don't - while that's not true. They don't play him often at lcs which is not higher leagues - that is competitive play - and they don't play him because people will destroy him in lane, and the game will be a 5v4, there are simply better picks than him. Even if we suppose your argument is true, on that premise I can easily make other arguments of the same type - then what's the issue with balancing any champion that's not played in the lcs around "lower leagues"? See how ridiculous it sounds? Champion buff/nerf = design decision = logic, mathematics, balance premises, coherent integral system of rules != wishful thinking, balancing something around something else - that's called bad design.
'nice assumptions, still doesn't make them true. I've lost games even in plat elo that were so free that it's not even funny.' You have literally used my point as an argument against...my point. Congratulations on hosting the roundabout of idiocy 2015. And with regards to the point you are referring to, if you can't read sarcasm then I suggest you don't go on internet forums. 'never stated it was enough - I just said that if you cannot close the game then you don't deserve to win it - pretty simple. As when I cannot close out a game because I am playing bad - I do not deserve to win it - even if I get carried.' You did state it was enough. Here, let me quote you back at yourself seeing as you love doing that: > If you and your team are incompetent enough to not finish a game in a 5v4, with an advantage(considering the person denying nasus should have tons of farm and maybe even a kill) then honestly you do not deserve to win That sounds like another absolute to me. They really do come back to bite you in the ass, don't they? You are applying a single statement to all the infinite situations. Perhaps they have two smurfs other than their Nasus who is sticking to top lane? Your statement says that in this situation I do not deserve to win even though the advantage is clearly with the enemy team, just because it is 4 v 5. 'since you weren't able to win - of course you don't deserve to win. I've beaten and been beaten by diamond and challenger players - the only difference is I don't go to QQ on the fourms after I get rekt in lane, get outplayed and outwitted. Then I just realize I suck, and that I should either improve - or lose games and play at a lower elo' Again, I refer you to my previous point. Losing a match does not equate to deserving to lose. As another example, say someone on my team goes AFK or intentionally feeds. I lose, but I did all I could to prevent it. According to you that's not enough: if I lose then I didn't deserve to win in the first place, regardless of the circumstances. We've all beaten players of a higher rank than ourselves, but most of us don't go onto a post discussing methods to tone down a champion that someone thinks is a 'little' OP afterwards and shoot ourselves repeatedly in the foot while trying to belittle that person by insinuating that by losing a single game it means you suck. That sounds a lot like the 'uninstall plz' insult that people think is somehow appropriate after watching someone play for the first time. You may think that losing a single game is enough to decide that 'you suck' but I prefer to work on the rule of 'proof'. 'wishing to be right doesn't make you right on the other hand. There are good design decisions and there are bad design decisions - yours is the later, only because your whole argument is based not on how the champion objectively fares, but rather on your desire to lower the champion's power so it would be at your skill level' Two wrongs don't make a left. Look, we can all have a go at spoonerisms. Isn't it fun? There _are_ good design decisions and bad design decisions. My argument is that Nasus' Q is the latter, as evidenced by the fact that I wrote a lengthy post about it at the top of this page. Did you see it? It's quite noticeable. And no, my whole argument is not based on my desire to lower the champion's power, I say that because people seem to worry that by altering a key facet of Nasus' character you are somehow corrupting his ability to compete, (which it isn't in my opinion but that does not seem to be the view of many others) but seeing as he isn't played competitively then it wouldn't be a problem. It is an argument for approving these changes, not an argument in and of itself. 'that's the biggest flaw in your argument - game rules are not designed around the lowest common denominator - in a perfect world they are designed to achieve a balanced game. Balanced != adjusted to some elo. Imagine if we adjusted chess rules based on the elo' Yes, let's imagine taking one facet of someone's argument and applying that to a ridiculous proportion to something only vaguely related. Ever heard of a straw man argument? I never said anything about chess, which is an ancient game streamlined over hundreds of years to be perfectly competitive and balanced to both sides, I'm talking about a computer game that was born out of an initially inexperienced company that still bares those scars today. There are still hangovers from those early days when nothing was as refined as new content is now. And again, I am not proposing that we balance the game based on the lowest common denominator but if the people at the top don't actually want to play as Nasus then why is it a problem to optimise him for the people who do? Why would someone care so much about something that they aren't even going to use? 'he can be kited in all elos - from bronze to challenger - it just depends on the people playing - kiting is not a mind-boggling tactic or a mechanical feat only Faze clan members are capable of - it's extremely simple - I've seen bronze players do it' Really? This happens? Hang on, what is kiting? Wait, sorry, I forgot you don't understand sarcasm. Let me back it up a little bit. You're right, it is extremely simple. And yes, you're right, bronze players _can_ do it. Would you like a link to a Captain Obvious meme? 'ridiculing the person you're having an argument with is the basis of logical fallacies. Nitpicking my choice of words is just digressing - why did I say "measly" etc. I mean we all know using such words is forbidden - it's 2015 for god's sake - we need to adopt that slang! On a serious note - I never tried to be patronizing - I just told you the 2 basic mechanics that counter nasus - you seeing something offensive in that is your own issue. You feeling insecure and feeling as if I am "talking down to you" is still your own issue - I never pulled any of your match history up or anything - didn't even check your elo - tried to be as objective as possible' > Deny nasus stacks in lane = nonexistent nasus. Kite nasus - he doesn't get to teamfight. I put up several points of argument and your 'response' is to summarise all of it with a statement that is dismissive, unconstructive and insulting. And then when I take offence to that you delve into 'psychology 101' to tell me that my offence is the basis for a lack of logic in my argument. If you have nothing helpful to say then don't say anything at all. No one asked you to 'put down' my argument in 14 words or less. I specifically asked for a reasoned debate on the subject, not the musings of some random guy who walked past and thought we'd be interested to hear the first few words that came to mind. 'I feel like am repeating myself, but let me reiterate - adjusting any rule/champion/mechanic to "fit in better in the lower leagues" is not a sane design decision - you can ask anybody, read any half-decent text on design - it simply is not, your ideas would result in a horribly imbalanced game, possibly balanced only for "lower leagues". Heck even your common sense should tell you that "balancing" something around a specific skill level, would obviously make it imbalanced on another skill level' No, no, allow me to reiterate, slower, if you'd like: if. Nasus. Is. Not. Played. In. Higher. ELO's. Then. Why. Is. It. A. Problem. If. He. Is. Optimised. For. Lower. ELO's? My common sense tells me that if two groups of people have a thing but only one of them uses it then the group who do use it should be able to decide how it's used. And then your closing statement is a summary of the above points. Fair enough. We have both been repeating ourselves quite a lot, mainly because you decided to just dump a brain fart on me like I was supposed to care (sorry, shouldn't take offence to that should I?). So let's just agree to disagree. But I do not appreciate being insulted and then told that my finding insult in that is my own issue. You have the luxury of being able to choose your words carefully and you wasted that. If I do not have anything constructive to say on a matter then I do not say anything. I suggest you learn to do the same. I won't be replying to any further comments because this thread immediately diverted from the idea of it being a discussion (again, thanks for that) and I don't care to continue trying to restore its course. I sincerely wish you all the best. (Edit: formatting)
: ***
I don't see the relevance to the quote.
TeiX (EUW)
: my confusion stems from you calling nasus a lane bully, some thing he certainly is not.
Not in the first few minutes perhaps but once his Q is stacked sufficiently to proc his lifesteal into giving him back a quarter of his health at a time by taking a quarter of your health, then you have a land bully. Edit: *lane
TeiX (EUW)
: counterpicking means fuck all if you do not know how to play the matchup and ignore thep layer, jsut because uyou "countered" someone doesmt mean you win by default, this isnt pokemon :P. the naususp layer isnt just gonna sit there and take it on a bad matchup if they can play around you they should be rewarded even if by a lesser extent.
Yeah...and I said all that in my post. Why didn't you read it before replying?
: "if you had actually read my post you would know that lane counters mean nothing because Nasus stays in lane after the lane phase to keep building stacks." - he did read your post - you did not read his answer - here's the dude's answer to your nasus stacking top after laning phase: "most of the time you are first of all playing 5v4" - let's be fair he's right - if you cannot end a game 5v4 for more than 10mins you do not deserve to win.
I did read his answer, and in case you didn't notice I wrote three paragraphs countering his patronising attitude. You do not seem to have read mine.
: Let's be objective here - champions shouldn't be changed based on how bad lower leagues do with them - it is simply a poor design suggestion. "I don't see why bringing him into line with a hobbyist's skill level is such a bad idea." - because what you're suggesting is that riot should adjust champions kits/power based around some league/division and not objectively - which is simply wrong. And let's be frank - lower leagues gameplay is the furthest away from the objective power of a certain champion. In lower elos you only need to pick a champion that scales off the enemy team's mistakes and it's gg.
> Yes, but as I said in the post (which everyone in the comments seems to have not read) coordination does not come easily in the lower leagues, and seeing as he isn't played in the higher leagues then I don't see why bringing him into line with a hobbyist's skill level is such a bad idea.
Sasogwa (EUW)
: But Nasus is actually fine and he falls off lategame -because damage wise, no matter how tanky he is, carries melt him- Splitpush is not at its strongest in the current metagame. But you can't change what makes Nasus annoying without breaking Nasus. Because what makes Nasus annoying makes Nasus Nasus. Nerfing his scaling would break him. And to be fully honest, the linear kind of scaling isn't so much dangerous. It's dangerous in midgame (20-25 min) if he freefarmed and 'all right' in late game. Sure Nasus is the best duellist in the game.. But that's pretty much the only thing he is. Ban him if you don't like to play against him. PS : Nasus is an average , if not quite meh, late game teamfighter, even with 700+ stacks. In a teamfights where everyone is very good at positioning and kiting, Nasus is inferior to a CC frontline (because he'll never reach the carries and tanks less)
Here's a good example of a Nasus who has been 'counter-picked' still dominating his lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IQp_CBLyQk I understand that good players can overcome a counter-pick but this is showing you what happens when a Nasus keeps stacking (every game he's in, btw) even when the lane phase ends to become a concrete cannon (as opposed to glass cannon, which is a balanced concept).
TeiX (EUW)
: "I suggest limiting the power of his Q to stem his **lane-bullying nature**(...)" excuse me what?
It's all there.
: "Deny Nasus stacks in lane = Nasus stays after lane phase and gets stacks." - If you and your team are incompetent enough to not finish a game in a 5v4, with an advantage(considering the person denying nasus should have tons of farm and maybe even a kill) then honestly you do not deserve to win - you either learn to close out won games or you don't - nasus has nothing to do with it - any scaling champion would be a pain if you can't close a game - for all you care it could be trynd or yi or jax top and if keeps staying there and farming he'll get up ahead in levels and gold, and considering their scaling - will wreck your towers. The fact that there's no coordination in lower elos doesn't mean the champion doesn't have a weakness - the fact that you cannot use this weakness because you or your team doesn't have the knowledge/skill to doesn't remove it - basically you want to nerf a champion because people in lower elos can't kite - see how ridiculous this sounds? "You did read the post you are commenting on, didn't you? Or do you have short-term memory loss? I talked about all of that in the post." - I did read the post and my point still stands, even though your measly attempts at ridiculing me seeing as you have no real arguments. Nerfing a champion because you or your team doesn't know how to play against him is not a reasonable design decision - you can open any semi-decent game design book and read it - and you'll never find such bs. What is it gonna be next - player X and bronze league doesn't know how to counter champion X, so let's nerf him? There are champions that are weak early game and strong late game - should we nerf them because bronze league cannot close a game and can't capitalize on early game weakness? #rekt
> If you and your team are incompetent enough to not finish a game in a 5v4, with an advantage(considering the person denying nasus should have tons of farm and maybe even a kill) then honestly you do not deserve to win You've clearly never played a game where all the odds were stacked in your favour, yet were still unable to win. That happens by the way, your godliness. I understand if you are of such a high skill that you've never lost a game that was yours to win but for everyone else (who aren't using hyperboles instead of actual concise arguments) simply having an advantage isn't always enough for victory. Let's say, for instance, you are facing a Diamond smurf who is able to fend off your attacks on mid tower 1 v 4 by using their defences expertly. Are you saying that because we are facing someone of a much higher skill level who is able to carry their team that we don't deserve to win? Absolutes are a pain when you use them in constructive arguments. Basically I do want to nerf a champion because lower ELOs can't kite, exactly. Track Nasus' playtime in professional tournaments and you'll notice that he is hardly played at all. So if he isn't represented in the leagues where he _can_ be kited, why is it an issue to nerf him where he _can't_ be kited? Doesn't sound ridiculous to me to represent him better in the only areas where he is represented. If you had read the post, as you said, then you wouldn't need to validate yourself. Does it make you feel big, using 'measly' like it's 1999? I 'ridiculed' you, as you say, because while I attempted to make a constructive argument on an issue I believe exists you countered that with an attempt at patronising me. Don't talk down to me. So, in summary, and to counter the same point that you made several times in various sentences, Nasus isn't represented in higher leagues so why is it an issue to help him fit in better in the lower leagues? Madam.
Söraka (EUNE)
: one of my games: enemy team had a nasus with 800 stacks min. 50. We won easy, he could't face our CC (specially slows, he was 90% of time slowed so he couldn't hit more than 2 Q's in one TF)
Yes, but as I said (101 times now and counting) you don't easily get CC in the lower leagues where he is played (as he isn't played in higher ELO) so there shouldn't be a problem with decreasing the potential on his Q.
: > [{quoted}](name=Of Carthage,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=8luu1pEc,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2015-07-09T15:00:26.435+0000) > > Care to elaborate? Otherwise you've wasted 2 minutes of your time typing four words. You've wasted quite more time trying to put him into a broken spot, most of the time you are first of all playing 5v4, second, what does he bring into a team fight except a one-target-slow as his only "gap-closer" if you can even call it that? Everthing he has is tankyness with no damage except his Q-stacks since he goes full tank most of the time. If you want ridiculous Q-damage with Nasus, go full AD with at least one crit item, enjoy, never seen one in a game ever though. Oh and this fucker here {{champion:17}} loves to counter Nasus very much for example and there are a few others.
I haven't wasted my time, I've spent it thinking about an issue that Nasus has in that he can dish out potentially one-shot kills while also being incredibly tanky thanks to his passive, ultimate and general stats. I have suggested ideas to lower the snowballing on his Q that gets out of hand in the late game where he can engage on the entire team to take out a high priority target with little to no drawbacks. And why wouldn't you call his W a 'gap-closer'? What else is it? A 'slow them down while you stand still and watch' ability? Because if that's how you are using him I think you're doing it wrong. > If you want ridiculous Q-damage with Nasus, go full AD with at least one crit item Are you seriously saying that a stacked Nasus isn't already ridiculous Q damage? I'm not trying to work out how to do the most damage with him, I'm discussing the fact that his Q scales to insane levels _without_ crit damage items. And please don't patronise me, I know that Teemo counters him in lane. But, and I think I'm saying this for the twentieth time, if you had _actually read_ my post you would know that lane counters mean nothing because Nasus stays in lane after the lane phase to keep building stacks. And besides, a good Nasus player will build magic resist versus Teemo to stay in lane longer then eventually all he has to do is time his W right and Teemo, the squishy little bastard that he is, can't escape.
Róót (EUW)
: i don't think nasus is a proplem at all .. a team with just slows can handle him and the fact that he actually need to farm to be usefull is good . not like some one {{champion:31}} and u can delay his scaling pretty hard in lane and u can stop his splitpushing by sending your top laner there with tp some thing like {{champion:150}} with {{item:3153}} {{item:3071}} will be able to handle him
Yes, but as I said in the post (which everyone in the comments seems to have not read) coordination does not come easily in the lower leagues, and seeing as he isn't played in the higher leagues then I don't see why bringing him into line with a hobbyist's skill level is such a bad idea.
TeiX (EUW)
: then you deserve it for not taking advantage of the void you cause by messing with his early game, theway otgo about nasus is not ot sit in lane with him trynig ot deny him all game HE WILL GET HIS STACKS EVENTUALLY. the goal is create a lead early while denying off gold, and use that early lead to win the rest of the map
My point that he will get his stacks eventually is exactly the issue I have with him. In the end it doesn't matter what goes on elsewhere in the game because he will always end up with a ridiculously overpowered Q.
Neonchan (EUW)
: You couldn't play much lower than I :D I really don't care for ranked at all and lack both time and determination to be successfull anyway. Still sure that he is perfectly fine and just "his farmplaystyle beeing boring" is not enough to call for completel destruction nerfs
They're not destruction nerfs, just ideas to limit the overkill on his Q.
: > Riot doesn't nerf Nasus Q,because that would be basically theft to all of us who have spent time to learn Nasus and have bought his skins,since the champion would be useless Nice how you make a point without actually explaining yourself. I made the time to outline how Riot could alter his Q while still retaining it's potential and all you can retort with is a hypothetical. I specifically described ideas that would not render him useless, so while it's cute that you admitted to not reading after the first two sentences (or 'some more of your QQ thread') maybe you should actually try reading past the first two sentences if you want to comment.
If you want to do a post about Riven then go ahead. This is a post about Nasus though.
Sasogwa (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=iHeyt,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=8luu1pEc,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2015-07-09T11:04:04.639+0000) > > Make it like Thresh. Each stack after 100 grants 0,75 stack, later 0,5, later 0,25, later 0,125 and so on It's been quite some time that this has been changed. Thresh souls grant 0.75 no matter how much souls you already have.
Good idea though.
: Deny nasus stacks in lane = nonexistent nasus. Kite nasus - he doesn't get to teamfight.
Deny Nasus stacks in lane = Nasus stays after lane phase and gets stacks. Kite Nasus = requires coordination, something which is missing from the lower leagues. You did read the post you are commenting on, didn't you? Or do you have short-term memory loss? I talked about all of that in the post.
: No need to fix.
Care to elaborate? Otherwise you've wasted 2 minutes of your time typing four words.
: Nasus is fine. The infinite stacking has become a trademark of himself and will NEVER get removed. The same goes for losing stacks on death, this will never happen because it will completely break the concept of this champion (and make him useless). Nasus is a champion that requires team coordination to play against. You're handing in early game and objective control for a scary lategame. If you can't finish the game in time then maybe you deserve to lose. One thing that people forget is that Nasus can be kited like the b*tch (or dog) he is. You're not supposed to try and duel him, you should KNOW that due to his kit - a strong (single target) slow, an armor reducing ability and the high single target damage from his Q basically scream that that's the case. If you fight against him in a team though, you can keep him at bay, root him, slow him and make it so that he can't get to your squishies. I believe his damage versus towers already got reduced and isn't nearly as oppressive as it used to be. It doesn't require nerfs either. It is just a perfect example of a champion you properly need to play around, otherwise you're most likely going to lose the game.
The problem I have with Nasus is that he demands attention and it's always the same attention. Most of the other champs offer a different challenge depending on where they are and how they're played but Nasus just sits in top and pokes away at your top lane, diverting your attention. And this happens in every game he appears in. And, again, I don't like repeating myself but I did talk about the methods of dealing with him in the post. Please don't discuss the post if you haven't read it.
: nasus useless. end of story
Great story. Your opinion ins't a fact though, sorry.
Neonchan (EUW)
: So basically you say a champion that's rarely played and overall balanced should get like 4-5 nerfs? Do you aim for lowest winrate ever?
No, I didn't say that at all. I said that because the issues with Nasus are felt by the regular players and not the higher leagues then why shouldn't it be an issue to bring his abilities in line with the skill levels of the lower leagues. I spent the time to make some observations about a champion I felt was too domineering in the league I play in. If you feel like he's not a threat where you play well then good for you.
: The only thing there needs to be is a reduced lifesteal on his passive.
I forgot to touch on that. I hate that he can heal up in two Q's with enough stacks. Makes trading with him pointless.
Róót (EUW)
: > No champion should be able to get so tanky and deal so much damage by themselves do u mean every god damn tank ? {{champion:58}} {{champion:86}} {{champion:79}} {{champion:32}} {{champion:31}} {{champion:122}} {{champion:102}} {{champion:106}}
It is a prevailing problem, but this is a thread about one champ in particular. If you want to do threads for all of them be my guest.
: ***
Why can't his stacks fall off after a certain amount? Thresh can't one-shot, Nasus can. Once Nasus reaches a certain number of stacks the rest just becomes overkill. A tanky Thresh is still just a tank, whereas a stacked Nasus is a tanky one-shot-killing Nasus.
Perilum (EUW)
: Played Nasus. Faced a Vayne. GG no stacks. There are plenty of champs who can deny Nasus his stacks without a problem. Nothing to do here.
Sure, denying him stacks in early game is easy, but the problem is that a good Nasus player will stick to top lane like glue, so eventually he will get his stacks or if he doesn't it's because the other team is dedicating too much time to prevent him doing it which means the other lanes suffer.
: ***
> Riot doesn't nerf Nasus Q,because that would be basically theft to all of us who have spent time to learn Nasus and have bought his skins,since the champion would be useless Nice how you make a point without actually explaining yourself. I made the time to outline how Riot could alter his Q while still retaining it's potential and all you can retort with is a hypothetical. I specifically described ideas that would not render him useless, so while it's cute that you admitted to not reading after the first two sentences (or 'some more of your QQ thread') maybe you should actually try reading past the first two sentences if you want to comment.
Rioter Comments
: Riot have many different servers where games run and sometimes few games crash because Error happens in them it doesn't mean that all the servers will crash when one game crash.
I don't mean all at the same time... -_-
Arsene (EUNE)
: You cant just say "fix your pc" it THE FUCKING SERVERS HAVE PROBLEMS
If 'the fucking servers' were the problem then we'd all have the same issue. Clearly, we don't.
Bydand (EUW)
: 'Attempting to reconnect' .... Black Screen...
Same. Halfway through match, get disconnected then black screen and 'firewall' message. If I get AFk match ban for this I will be pissed.
: Low Priority Queue Punishment
*bump* Would really like help with this one. I accepted my punishment before but would like at least an acknowledgement of my plight.
: Yes, get a thicker skin. Its someone spamming emotes in a game. Your example is stupid.
My example describes how giving someone advice by diluting it down into something as vague as 'in a rocket ship'/'get a thicker skin' is not helpful in the slightest. There is a thing called 'sportsmanlike conduct' and it isn't unheard of to enforce it to improve a game/sport. For instance, as I said in the main body at the top of this article, Smash Bros. limits the number of taunts you can perform per life so that you can't purposefully spam them to aggravate your opponent, which would otherwise be considered unsportsmanlike. Might I also imply by your comments that you have thick skin such that no one has ever aggravated you in League of Legends? Bravo sir, I take my hat off to you for remaining so calm while playing, though might I suggest you take that calm attitude to the forums as well?
: An option like this would imply Riot gives a damn about their playerbase.
Wise words from 'Your Cancermum'
Rioter Comments
Wukongz (EUNE)
: ***
That's a straw man argument. I was only suggesting limiting taunting because it can be exploited. So no, that's not 'next'. What I mean by 'no right to taunt' is when a champion who has contributed nothing to their team taunts you from a safe position. It's like the ass-kissers leaning round from behind the bully to say 'yeah, we got you good!' Also I did not know that. That is so helpful it might actually cancel out the rest of what you replied with.
Show more

Of Carthage

Level 30 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion