337 replies to this topic

[Shumabot]

Klaus, on 10 April 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Win rate under 40%,
YET USED EVERY SINGLE GAME CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Gets a 30 dollar skin → magically has the highest burst damage of all AD carries.

You're either blind or stupid to not see what a big scam Riot is. I'm not going to list off every champion that got a skin right after they got buffed, or got one and then got nerfed after everyone bought it.

YET LOST TWO THIRDS OF THOSE GAMES

Gets a 30 dollar skin and magically has the same burst damage the skin wasn't accompanied with a buff in the patch

That's also one out of FIVE HUNDRED SKINS. If you're not knowingly lying to everyone you're unknowingly lying to yourself. Either way you're lying.

Edited by Shumabot, 10 April 2013 - 08:12 AM.

[Klaus]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

YET LOST TWO THIRDS OF THOSE GAMES

Gets a 30 dollar skin and magically has the same burst damage the skin wasn't accompanied with a buff in the patch

That's also one out of FIVE HUNDRED SKINS. If you're not knowingly lying to everyone you're unknowingly lying to yourself. Either way you're lying.

Pulsefire Ezreal was released on 5/29/2012. Less than a week later he was buffed. You're the liar here.

v1.0.0.140b - 2012-06-05

• Essence Flux Mana cost reduced to 50/60/70/80/90 from 60/70/80/90/100
  
• Trueshot Barrage Mana cost reduced to 100 from 150

From: http://lol-patch.com/ezreal.html

It's co cute how angry you get. LoL is a scam.

With that many champions it is impossible to ever balance the game.

People like you will continue to eat whatever crap Riot feeds you and play in your bronze elo games.

I'm not going to waste my time with you after this.

Ninja Rammus, Glacial Malphite, Infernal Alistar.

If you think Ezreal wasn't buffed to sell that skin, you're lost.

There is a reason they don't IP ban people. So you'll come right back and spend more money on EXP and IP boosts.

There is a reason they poop out a new champion every month. So they'll make more money.

There is a reason they constantly buff and nerf everything, only to put it back months later. To keep you switching champions so you buy more skins.

Sooner or later they'll run themselves into the ground because all they care about is money.

Just like every other 'mainstream' game in the world, it's bad and full of little kids and immature adults who are nothing but blind sheep.

What ever trash Riot does needs to stay as far as possible away from Mechwarrior.

Edited by Klaus, 10 April 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[tenderloving]

Klaus, on 10 April 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Just like every other 'mainstream' game in the world, it's bad and full of little kids and immature adults who are nothing but blind sheep.

You have a pink pony in your signature. Even as ironic humor that's not a mature concept. Sounds like LoL is right up your alley.

[Ghogiel]

tenderloving, on 10 April 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

You have a pink pony in your signature. Even as ironic humor that's not a mature concept. Sounds like LoL is right up your alley.

ZING!

[Belorion]

Isn't LoL not balanced on purpose?

[Shumabot]

Quote

Pulsefire Ezreal was released on 5/29/2012. Less than a week later he was buffed. You're the liar here.

Separate patches, you have no proof that he was powered up to sell the skin and you have precisely one bad example out of hundreds of skins, new champion releases, and champion reworks. This is pathetic. You sound like a whiny nerdraging kid who got kicked out of his LoL clan and is scraping the bottom of the barrel for any nonsense criticism you can puke up.

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Isn't LoL not balanced on purpose?

Don't bring "imperfect balance" into this, that involves a meta discussion that most of you, frankly, couldn't understand.

Edited by Shumabot, 10 April 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[tenderloving]

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Isn't LoL not balanced on purpose?

You're misconstruing something called "imperfect balance" that one of the LoL devs talked about.

A perfectly balanced game is "flip a coin." Nobody wants that.

[Klaus]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Separate patches, you have no proof

A PATCH THAT GIVES A CHAMPION A 30 DOLLAR SKIN, THEN ONE A WEEK LATER THEY BUFF HIM!

HOW IS THAT NOT PROOF?

You're just trolling now. They obviously wouldn't add a skin and buff him at the same time. They do it before or after so little kids like you don't cry.

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Don't bring "imperfect balance" into this, that involves a meta discussion that most of you, frankly, couldn't understand.

Oh here it comes.

Seriously you're nothing but a troll. You're probably not even bronze.

Edited by Klaus, 10 April 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[Shumabot]

tenderloving, on 10 April 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

You're misconstruing something called "imperfect balance" that one of the LoL devs talked about.

A perfectly balanced game is "flip a coin." Nobody wants that.

There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced game, what you're talking about is just mechanical equality and in that case a winner is decided by player skill and randomized events, rather than differences in mechanical capability. Mirror matches aren't inherently unbalanced or "flip a coin" in RTS or fighting games.

Klaus, on 10 April 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

A PATCH THAT GIVES A CHAMPION A 30 DOLLAR SKIN, THEN ONE A WEEK LATER THEY BUFF HIM!

HOW IS THAT NOT PROOF?

You're just trolling now. They obviously wouldn't add a skin and buff him at the same time. They do it before or after so little kids like you don't cry.



Oh here it comes.

Seriously you're nothing but a troll. You're probably not even bronze.

http://en.wikipedia....imply_causation

If you can read (which I doubt) read this. It's one of the most basic logical fallacies in existence. You're swimming in it and it's clear that you can't think yourself out of a paper bag.

Edited by Shumabot, 10 April 2013 - 08:43 AM.

[Roland]

Separation of correlation and causation is more about statistical analysis rather than the case you guys are arguing over, which includes things like profit motivation on the part of those involved.

Certainly, offering something for sale and then improving that commodity is something which would, at a minimum, be quite a coincidence. And believing that it is simply a coincidence seems to require some non-trivial degree of naivete.

[tenderloving]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced game, what you're talking about is just mechanical equality and in that case a winner is decided by player skill and randomized events, rather than differences in mechanical capability. Mirror matches aren't inherently unbalanced or "flip a coin" in RTS or fighting games.

You must be an engineer or in a technical field. I said almost exactly what you did, but you still felt the need to correct me because I used a simple analogy.

Roland, on 10 April 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Separation of correlation and causation is more about statistical analysis rather than the case you guys are arguing over, which includes things like profit motivation on the part of those involved.

Certainly, offering something for sale and then improving that commodity is something which would, at a minimum, be quite a coincidence. And believing that it is simply a coincidence seems to require some non-trivial degree of naivete.

I'm not sure if you know much about LoL, but the content and style of Klaus's posts vs. Shuma's should be enough to let you know who is off his rocker and who has a grasp on reality.

[Shumabot]

Roland, on 10 April 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Separation of correlation and causation is more about statistical analysis rather than the case you guys are arguing over, which includes things like profit motivation on the part of those involved.

Certainly, offering something for sale and then improving that commodity is something which would, at a minimum, be quite a coincidence. And believing that it is simply a coincidence seems to require some non-trivial degree of naivete.

And the games dozens of counter examples? What do they imply? The fact that the last 3 legendaries went to champions that don't see competitive play at all? The fact that several legendaries were introduced within a week of a nerf to the same character?

Corelation does not imply causation and when you don't have numerous cases of correlation you're left with motivational suspicion which is tenuous and in the case of LoL a giant mountain of counter evidence.

Quote

You must be an engineer or in a technical field. I said almost exactly what you did, but you still felt the need to correct me because I used a simple analogy.

I apologize, "perfect balance" and balance definitions are one of those pissy nomenclature fights in game design theory.

Edited by Shumabot, 10 April 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[Klaus]

Roland, on 10 April 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

believing that it is simply a coincidence seems to require some non-trivial degree of naivete.

Yup. Not feeding this troll anymore.

Edited by Klaus, 10 April 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[Roland]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

And the games dozens of counter examples? What do they imply? The fact that the last 3 legendaries went to champions that don't see competitive play at all? The fact that several legendaries were introduced within a week of a nerf to the same character?

Well, technically it wouldn't imply anything.
A company could choose to make some balance changes based on at attempt to increase income channels, without making ALL of their balance changes based on such things.

What I suspect is that, given their company is seemingly run with a competent business model, they do both.

[Roland]

Also, just so folks know.. I have only a trivial level of experience with LoL, so I'm not speaking as some authority. You guys all seem to play it much more than I do. I'm just speaking as an impartial observer from the sidelines in terms of what could be reasonably inferred by what you guys are slapfighting over.

[Belorion]

tenderloving, on 10 April 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

You're misconstruing something called "imperfect balance" that one of the LoL devs talked about.

A perfectly balanced game is "flip a coin." Nobody wants that.

How am I misconstruing it? If they designed it to not be balanced then its not balanced, at least not in a 1 to 1 fashion.

That's where the people crying for balance is this game are so...

well crying for the wrong thing. As long as each element can be counteracted by something else then there is a balance. Right now the only thing that I can see that may need to be looked at are lrms.

Other than that everything has pluses and minuses that collectively feel about where they need to imo.

[Deathlike]

Found it:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2103035

Only Garth has "creative" math.

[Kraven Kor]

Yes, because no other successful online games have problems with, or flamewars over, proposed or enacted changes to balance...

It's almost like nothing remotely similar has ever happened before. We are entering uncharted territory, gentlemen, and here there be dragons.

[tenderloving]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

I apologize, "perfect balance" and balance definitions are one of those pissy nomenclature fights in game design theory.

No worries, my brother is an engineer and and I more sales/purchasing oriented and I'm constantly saying "Dude, I agree with you, chill out."

Edited by tenderloving, 10 April 2013 - 09:05 AM.

[Belorion]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced game, what you're talking about is just mechanical equality and in that case a winner is decided by player skill and randomized events, rather than differences in mechanical capability. Mirror matches aren't inherently unbalanced or "flip a coin" in RTS or fighting games.

Someone *could* make a perfectly balanced game, by taking the damage, heat rate... etc and making them the same, and only varying things like damage per shot, heat per shot, and rate of fire so that they always equaled out to the same dps hps, and dps/ton. Then the selection of different weapons would be based more on choice. It also wouldn't be MechWarrior.

People just need to deal. Play the game and meta game before them and let things run their course. If ever one started only playing with a certain weapon then its obviously unbalanced and needs a tweak. As it is I see people using a good variety of weapons. As time goes on and the data grows pgi will be able to better tell which weapons are not being used.

I still see a lot of flamer, and MG usage despite the prevailing forum thought that they are useless. If they really are that bad, eventually no one will use them, and they will get buffed.

Play, adapt, learn, change... etc.

Edited by Belorion, 10 April 2013 - 09:24 AM.