So, anyone playing League of Legends?

[Berekän]

I think I'm having the same kind of spikes. You can still see everything happening around you but can't do shit with your char, right?

Anyway, I've got to put the game on hold until at least the 20th of March. Shame now that a EUWest Kodex team was beginning to take form.

 

[Ulminati]

Yeah. I'm, err, totallyh aving lag spikes too.

All the time. It's all due to lag! It's nothing to do with me being completely out of practice.

(Although to be fair one of my fails yesterday WAS because Steam decided to patch skyrim mid-game. FUS RO DERP!)

 

[Ulminati]

Anyway, I've got to put the game on hold until at least the 20th of March. Shame now that a EUWest Kodex team was beginning to take form.

of Berekän. You're leaving me alone with the tea-guzzling brit and the multikult omega-male swede?
Guess I'll have to start actually paying attention and playing with something resembling srs effort. At least I friended fatty-graggy from yesterday. He was pretty BRO.

Anyway I got 13k ip so I figure I might pick up a champ tonight. Champs I do't already own are:
Jizz, v0lournbear, Sejuani, Naughtylus, Ziggy and Viktor. Any of those hilariously OP/fun to play? bonus points of they jungle well.

A man jungles. A slave lanes.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Anyway I got 13k ip so I figure I might pick up a champ tonight. Champs I do't already own are:
Jizz, v0lournbear, Sejuani, Naughtylus, Ziggy and Viktor. Any of those hilariously OP/fun to play? bonus points of they jungle well.

A man jungles. A slave lanes.

As I wrote previously, I played Jizz a couple of times this week. Fun to play as HELL. Apparently he can jungle, too, but I didn't try it 'cause it looks like shit to me.

 

[Grunker]

Ziggs bro. If it's about fun-to-play, it doesn't get better than Ziggs.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Jizz, v0lournbear, Sejuani, Naughtylus, Ziggy and Viktor.

And now you reminded me that all almost all recent releases have been shit Only ziggs is kinda cool.

 

[Ulminati]

Can Ziggs jungle/top? I prefer champs that can do more than one position. If ziggs is junglable I'll get him fo sho.

 

[Grunker]

Ziggs is mid. Maybe top in an ultra-pinch. Put him anywhere else and your just lolling.

You should still buy him though

 

[Mystary!]

Fizz was used in the IPL finals yesterday and seemed like a good counter to Ahri, since his ultimate is on a shorter cooldown he harass her into using hers and then have a small window of opportunity to burst her down. He can jungle, two gap closer and 2 slows and a ranged knock up make pretty strong ganks. He can also be built effective both as ap assassin and on-hit-effect brusier.

 

[Phage]

Jizz, v0lournbear, Sejuani, Naughtylus, Ziggy and Viktor.

And now you reminded me that all almost all recent releases have been shit Only ziggs is kinda cool.

All of those champions are pretty decent, actually. The only problem is they fall under two categories - AP mid and Tank Jungler, when they should have a more even spread of roles.

 

[DakaSha]

I wonder if they will ever release a new support.
Also today was a terrible ranked day..

Troll jungle singed who started feeding when he noticed he blows ass
A shyv who refused to get me blue as brand because "your just gonna feed vlad anyways". I ended up crushing vlad and going something like 12/5 (she went 0/6 or something)
Another jungle shyv who refused to gank anywhere but bot and aslo had a zero/something score
A shen who ran back and forth and went 1/8
some retard that got mad when i picked kog and wanted to make me support so they could ashe instead (against mundo, renek and udyr)
etc etc etc

I know its not all about score but i really dont think I (or my friend) was doing anything wrong.. elo hell exists. believe me

[/useless whine]

 

[Lupus]

I wonder if they will ever release a new support.

There should be new support champion released in upcoming weeks if I remember correctly. Also Karma is getting remake, though I don't really follow news on that, so I can't tell if they want to make her more supporty or rather AP carry. Former options is more likely though.

Oh, and

I know its not all about score but i really dont think I (or my friend) was doing anything wrong.. elo hell exists. believe me

I'm pretty sure elo hell exist at the range from 0 to 2500.

 

[DakaSha]

yes but it doesnt matter if you are at 1400 elo

 

[Dark Matter]

They just started working on the next support so it's going to take atleast a couple of months. Good news is that it's being designed by Xypherious (the guy who made Orianna, Riven, Fizz, Nautilus).

As for ELO hell, it just seems like that term is used whenever someone in low elo loses a game because their teammates got outplayed badly. This problem persists at any elo and it little to do with "elo hell" and everything to do with LoL being a team game. Ofcourse, at high elo, you might not get people who end up with scores like 0/6 in just the laning phase but at high elo, people are also much better at getting a lead and snowballing whereas you have people throwing games all the time at noob ELO because of nonexistent teamwork and people just wandering around and getting ambushed because they don't ward and have no map awareness.

 

[DakaSha]

i seriously doubt you have as many trolls/leavers/afkers/ and general stupidity at higher elo

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I fear that with the emphasis on dominion and the blatent nerf to supports there (healing penalty) that they are steering the game away from defense and towards offense since one is "fun" and other is "anti-fun". That was there explanation for leaving "heal" the summoner spell so weak.

Makes me sad not only since I play supports preferentially, but that sort of favoritism reeks of popamole.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Grunker]

As someone who's played at everything from 970 ELO to 1650, I can say with some confidence that the problem of random matches is much, much bigger on low ELOs.

ELO hell persists, of course it does, and anyone who say otherwise is an apologetic bastard. This game is not meant to be solo-queued, it's like only playing 4v4 Random in Starcraft II or something; only 1/5, perhaps a little more than that if you play flawlessly or very bad, of your prowess at the game will be a factor in your victory or loss.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Technically it's more like 1/10th. You have to factor in the enemies too. Think of it this way: even in a 1v1, you can get shitty win/loss streaks based on being lucky/unlucky with your opponents, who deserve to be moving around on the ladder and aren't ranked properly.

You hardly need 100% correlation between skill and rank after a single match for the system to work, 50% is plenty. But 10% is... yeah. Especially when matches are going to take about an hour, when you factor in the time to find a game, pick characters, and false starts. You're looking at an insane amount of time required to get an accurate picture, so much time in fact, that it's likely your actual skill will have changed long before your rank could be reliably used to predict it even if you (and the rest of the population) never changed at all.

You might as well try gauging how good a player in a professional sport is by how frequently he's won the world championship when his team consists of 5+ other people.

Edit: A more concrete example is the simple math of it. Suppose you're trying to set a world record for long jumping. Your score is your score. The end. Now suppose instead of recording the results, it's some sort of tournament where 2 people are tested at a time and their results only compared against eachother in a binary way- you either gain or lose rank points for every match. If say, every X amount of distance earned you 1 point for your rank, the world record method is a perfect test, but the 1v1 method is more like you get 1 point +/- a point at random for every X amount of distance. Your score can be wildly inflated or deflated based on who you're matched against. And if it were a 5v5 team format? 1 point +/- 9 points for every X amount of distance you contribute to your team's score in the match.

 

[Grunker]

Nope, that ain't even it. It's not a problem that your own skill is only a small factor if you're on a team you chose and that you train with, because it comes a discipline in itself - of team-work, of communication and all that stuff. Solo queue is, a lot of the time, a discipline in luck, nothing else, and that's how it is.

 

[Mystary!]

If you read the article I posted earlier, maybe you can answer one of its questions. The top teir players have started numerous alts, each one of them starts at 1200 elo, elo hell, yet they always manage to raise their elo to their former top elo in solo queue. How then can you say its based on luck? Are they just lucky over and over again? Seems to me they might just be doing something right, and people stuck in elo hell are doing something wrong.

 

[DakaSha]

As Ive said before: Its not that you cant get out of elo hell. Its that you have to be MUCH BETTER then the Elo you "belong" in.
If I'm in 800 ELO I have to play like a 1400+ player to get out (because as mentioned above I only count as 1/5 - 1/10 of the total) yet I am probably only a 1100-1300 player (if even).

All I know is that me (and my friend) are NOT typical 800 Elo players. Anymore anyways. (We ended upt here for a reason but have gotten much better)

 

[Grunker]

I've answered that several times in this thread already actually. It's about relative skills. The level of ELO you can reliably pull yourself to is unproportional to what your skill-level actually is. I.e., someone insanely good (like the pros and solo-queue gods) play so well they can dominate their lane in every single game on a wide range of ELOs, meaning they will almost never face "someone like them" in ELO hells and will therefore be able to dominate and carry the game on their lonesome. However, the level of skill needed to do that is extremely high. As such, mere amateurs such as ourselves can't hope to do that.

I ackknowledge in my opening post on the subject that of course it isn't just about luck. It's just mostly about luck. My all to simple counterquestion to your all to simple question is: How else do your explain the fact that I've personally played on everything to 970 ELO to 1650 with little difference my level of play?

 

[Dim]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/18/league-of-legends-now-bigger-than-world-of-warcraft/
LoL > WoW
also Hawken next lol?

 

[Jim Cojones]

Well, to have an active account in WoW, you generally have to pay for the monthly subscriptions which mean you don't just create a new account to troll new players or get rewards from referals. The comparison isn't particularly fair.

 

[DakaSha]

actually wow is now free up to level 20 or something