Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Zantier (EUW)
: I mean that why you don't face check brush
I didn't enter the bush, I was turning the corner, he jumped out of the bush and killed me, but because the bush was behind a corner vision I died before seeing him.... but i can see my health go down from 100 and he is a mellee champ......
Rioter Comments
LiAuN (EUW)
: don't get me wrong i would like to have it i'm just passing along what i remember from different amas during the honor rework either way what i meant was you can'r really tell if someone was honorable just from their play and fact of the matter is most ppl don't use all chat for anything other then raging what i mean is there aren't many ppl that are actively using all chat during the game and the new honor system allows honors only before the post game lobby where i met most enemies i would consider giving an honor too but hey that's just me i would love to have it in some shape or form i'm just telling why riot won't implement it and that's it
to correct you, I can tell just from play if someone was honorable or not. amongst other methods, plainly look at what they do outside of the basic idea of the game, stuff they didn't have to do, and was it honorable. you can identify honor on both teams, because you are given the same tools to do so. all this stuff about all chat is irrelevant, because it will exists regardless the game allows you to report an enemy, but not say that they were honorable. This is not good or true.
Rioter Comments
LiAuN (EUW)
: umm in the past you could have honored your opponent but that was in the old system the reason why it's not implemented in the new one was explained in one of the AMAs where they said that they didn't see a reason to add that button since it was heavily underused in the old system and it would waste time when sometimes even the first honor screen for your teamm8s takes a long ass time to show up also from what i remamber another thing was that you mainly play against one champion (you position opponent) and you wouldn't really see that much of others to interact with since ppl don't really use all chat outside the postlobby and in lane phase
in the past there was an option right next to the report button which 'costs' no time at all and is optional. if your going to use that argument for you only see your lane opponent (which is not true) I could argue that sometimes I do not see my own toplaner until he comes to help kill nexus (which has happened) still waiting on a reason. It being heavily underused, then that should give it even more meaning for when it is used..... my point is, by allowing me to only say my opponent was negative and reportable, is not a good thing for the community, nor is it true. Sometimes i genuinely have games against someone who played outside of just mechanics, and thought it worth honoring, perhaps even more so when they still lost the game.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: > no strategic advantage can come from trying to damage kayle when she is in ult. (unless cc or damage over time after ult end, but you get assist for that) If you're in a fight and u do AoE dmg and u "do dmg" to kayle in ulti then u die an assist is not given, why banshee or edge should give it?. > but you can for example proc banshees so that karthus can use r.... that requires skill and should be allowed. Actually there are 2 generalized situation. In fight and not in a fight. In both situation u'll probably do more dmg than one spell so assist will be given. > ashe can get assist with her e for vision, Only for a few seconds after they were in no vision, so i think it's fine. > soraka can get assist for healing full hp champion An heal is an heal, wasted or not it is, it gives ahrey or procs with ardent censer ecc > so banshees proc should give assist. then actually banshee shouldn't give an assist. get rid off banshees is the preparation of a fight, if there's a pick u can always get an assist with an AA .
yes you should get an assist for 'damaging kayle during her ult' but not for healing someone who is full with no side affects of the heal (havent checked, if soraka heal give armor then its fine to give assist)
: > no strategic advantage can come from trying to damage kayle when she is in ult. (unless cc or damage over time after ult end, but you get assist for that) If you're in a fight and u do AoE dmg and u "do dmg" to kayle in ulti then u die an assist is not given, why banshee or edge should give it?. > but you can for example proc banshees so that karthus can use r.... that requires skill and should be allowed. Actually there are 2 generalized situation. In fight and not in a fight. In both situation u'll probably do more dmg than one spell so assist will be given. > ashe can get assist with her e for vision, Only for a few seconds after they were in no vision, so i think it's fine. > soraka can get assist for healing full hp champion An heal is an heal, wasted or not it is, it gives ahrey or procs with ardent censer ecc > so banshees proc should give assist. then actually banshee shouldn't give an assist. get rid off banshees is the preparation of a fight, if there's a pick u can always get an assist with an AA .
I feel like your choosing not to look at it for what it is... 1 = blue team 2 = red team 1.kayle running... 2.taric stun kayle during ult... kayle kill taric. 2 kogmaw kill kayle.... YOU SHOULD get assist for this (i don't know weather you do or don't just replying to you. a heal is not always by definition a heal in this game. you cannot heal what is not damaged or broken..... so it doesn't make sense. if you are 100hp, and your heal or mastery is not giving you shield attack speed with items etc... just straight heal. you should not get assist. makes no sense. getting rid of banshees is a tactic. it's sometimes more useful than a stun or chunking someone.
: Neither with edge, kayle's ult
no strategic advantage can come from trying to damage kayle when she is in ult. (unless cc or damage over time after ult end, but you get assist for that) but you can for example proc banshees so that karthus can use r.... that requires skill and should be allowed. ashe can get assist with her e for vision, and soraka can get assist for healing full hp champion (which unless bonus shield armor etc shouldn't happen)... so banshees proc should give assist.
Rioter Comments
: spellthiefs edge
Rioter Comments
Zanador (EUNE)
: I pointed out the complications that would arise from Sir Prepuzius' suggestion. And you apparently didn't reach the point of my post either. Look up [Prisoner's Dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) either on this wiki link or anywhere else on the net. If champ bans only affect one side, then in order to reduce the chance of a champion being picked away from me it is in my best interest to ban it. This creates a situation where i both lose a tactical ban and where the ban rate of popular champions would naturally increase by a lot. The Prisoner's Dilemma is a lose-lose scenario for everyone and it is specifically designed to punish the players. I can't support a suggestion that would end up like this and your comment of "just trade" champions does not do anything, since the damage is already done by the time if comes to trading. It is a fundamental design mistake if the game's aim is for the players to have fun.
no... i didn't ill use different words... bans STILL affect both sides. but your OWN team, cannot ban what your OWN team has declared they will play
BesniStakor (EUNE)
: Where did you get the impression? I just stated how it works and why. Give me an example of a system that will do the job and be abuse free, and I'll gladly agree with you.
i did, stop allowing your team to ban champs you have previously declared to pick. the trade system allows you to get priority picks. that's it. if the enemy team banned your pick, well thats what happened. but it wasnt your own team.
Zanador (EUNE)
: Wouldn't that just make contested picks even worse? With your suggestions, champions wouldn't be banned from the match, but rather made exclusive for one side. So in the example of the 100% pick/ban tank Ekko, the player who wants to pick Ekko will have to "ban" him, so the enemy team wouldn't be able to pick him. But the same logic applies to any Ekko player on the other team too, or just anyone who does not want to play against something completely OP. Your suggestion would create a situation where mains of contested champions would need to automatically ban their own champs to increase chance of them getting to pick it, while at large the ban rate of the few favorites would go way higher. This would create a whole "prisoner's dilemma" situation among players and that is a system explicitly created as a demonstration for a scenario where rational decision making on the individual level can ruin everything for everyone.
no.... i did not agree to this.. all im saying is stop allowing bannable DECLARED champs.... in the scenario you are talking about, its up to your own team to pick him before the other team does and trade....
BesniStakor (EUNE)
: Not everyone has every champ in the game. I'd rather have a slightly abused system than the one where you can directly abuse it. Read up on it.
you're ignoring the possibility of just fixing it... why are tyou insistent that something must not work?
: > [{quoted}](name=ImainLilSatan,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=VYvcJNmm,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-21T15:56:15.183+0000) > > The reason why we have it is really simple. > Let's say we have the OP tank Ekko again. > 100% pick or ban. > If my teammate hovers him as a last pick...guess what...I'm banning him. the solution to that is even simpler just make the ban counts only for the opposing team ?
im not against or for that, because that would change alot... it's not a simpler option. just stop them allowing you to ban champs you have declared
BesniStakor (EUNE)
: The chances of op champs getting banned or picked would drop and raise by at least 50% respectively.
you don't know what your talking about and its annoying because your posing it as fact but with nothing concrete.... on top of that removing 'op champs' from games doesnt allow games where the community would be able to record and send to riot exactly why that champ is op... it delays them getting fixed. bans are ok for now because it requires alot to balance this game. but its not a fix and should not be treated as such
BesniStakor (EUNE)
: >This should not be an option.... Well it is. >you already have it so that we are aware of when someone has declared a certain champ A basic feature. >but to be able to ban what our own team mate has declared is just toxic... Not necessarily. >I've seen summoners ban my champ just because they didn't consider it viable. >or ban botlanes pick because they got autofilled... Sucks. The reason why we have it is really simple. Let's say we have the OP tank Ekko again. 100% pick or ban. If my teammate hovers him as a last pick...guess what...I'm banning him.
well your comment is a fail, thats what the swap system is for.... you can pick him and trade
Rioter Comments
: Ban system is not only about having toxic champion or something like this. It gives you an opportunity to crrate your own strategy, like banning Thresh for picking Sona/Lux. Because who in the world would want (and why) to play against his/her counter?
your missing the point.... i say KEEP bans... but ALSO keep the option to not ban.... because the reasons stated
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments

o MokinBird o

Level 82 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion