: They have also stopped using their flash and dodging as well as before :(
Yeah, overall, at some point between them getting "upgraded" and now, they are just really bad. They literally don't do any of the things the "new" bots claimed to do. Before they said they would account for CD's, dodge abilities, ward brushes, flash, etc... now they don't seem to do any of those things. Intermediate bots seemed significantly better before they were "upgraded" now...
Rioter Comments
: Unpopoular opinion (probably) and downvotes (definitely) incoming, but honestly, I don't think I'll be playing this mode very much once it makes it to live. Perhaps it's just me, but a game mode where players are bound to get stuck on champions that they either don't know how to play or don't enjoy playing just doesn't seem fun. Ultimately, I fear that most pick/ban phases for this mode will just end in someone dodging the queue.
But that's how both teams will be. The main point here I think is that it forces you away from playing a competitive game and allows you to try to have fun with the hand you're dealt. I'm just glad this isn't an ARAM game mode.
: Summoners Rift Gates
The whole point of the gates is to actually give a home base advantage. They SHOULD have an advantage fighting in their own base and that's been a bit lacking for a while in League. The towers tickle most champions late game, once they are down, you have no advantage at all besides maybe homeguard, most of the base isn't protected by towers. If you are in their base, you should expect them to have an advantage in a fight. If you went in deep inside their base, you should know the risks.
Rioter Comments
: In most cases when I am in a game with a leaver, I report them and move on, it sucks and I like the new LeaverBuster just for those cases. However, there are some, mainly games with friends, where I can know for a fact, that it isn't their fault for leaving, and that they didn't have the intention of being done with the game. Maybe there could be a pardon option as well as a report at the end of the game, so if a player shows a a leaver, but receives a lot of pardons, Riot can know that the player wasn't leaving because of rage, but other extenuating circumstances that his team understands. It sucks having a leaver, but the people that I, and i would bet that most of the community wants out as well, are the rage-leavers. I can be pretty forgiving to someone who never connects or just DCs out of the blue.
In the case of ranked, the reason for leaving shouldn't really matter. You made a commitment and broke it. Nobody on your team really cares why you AFK'd can caused your team to lose, they just care that you AFK'd. If it's rare, the penalty shouldn't be severe, if it's common, you shouldn't be playing ranked without a secure connection.
: While, I do like the system, anything can happen in life. There have been times where I have been playing and the fire alarm has gone off in our dorm, or there has been storms where the electric goes off, or the internet just straight cuts out. Is there any sort of forgiveness, because things do happen, like if we play 20 games in a row without afking there is 1 game forgiven that you afked? etc.
Most likely, if it happens only once in a while, the penalty will likely not be severe (if any) and its duration of effect will probably be significantly lower. Even in case of emergencies, you have to assume you will receive a penalty because they have to assume that you are just an AFKer with no context. So long as it doesn't happen often, it shouldn't be a problem.
: sometimes i would quit the game and try to reconnect again due to ping issues. does that count as going afks as well?
Leavebuster existed before this. When you see someone's name in red at the end of the game, it means Leavebuster has automatically detected that player was AFK. Leavebuster only kicks in if you: 1) have left the game and not returned in an acceptable amount of time (~15 min) 2) have been in the game, but have not been generating any gold for an abnormal amount of time. 3) you have not moved for an extended period of time.
: What if we exit the game and reconnect right away? Will that count as an afk? Lately the automatic attempt to reconnect seems to do nothing, and doing it manually tends to be much faster.
Leavebuster existed before this. When you see someone's name in red at the end of the game, it means Leavebuster has automatically detected that player was AFK. Leavebuster only kicks in if you: 1) have left the game and not returned in an acceptable amount of time (~15 min) 2) have been in the game, but have not been generating any gold for an abnormal amount of time. 3) you have not moved for an extended period of time.
: If this system is implemented, supposed player X is now in low priority for Y number of games. Can player X just play Y amount of BOT games to remove the penalty? {{summoner:4}} Or does it have to be normals/draft/ARAM/ranked? Also as a suggestion: Player X in low priorty should NOT be able to queue up for Ranked games until out of low priority.
Well, BOT games can just be run with a script with no issue... It's hardly a good example of improvement in your ability to not leave a game.
: Introducing the new LeaverBuster -- a new system for aggressively tackling Leavers and AFKs
Hey Lyte, Does the Leavebuster system account for influxes of DC's at any given time? If there were bugs on a patch day or the servers go down, would the system automatically account for that and forgive the offense? Can it also account for localized issues? Lets say if a certain city's/regions ISP went down, would it be able to detect the influx in the region and account for that as well?
: > Plus, to a point, it's very annoying for a game to be turned around by a baron steal when the winning team was doing everything right the entire game and that's all gone to waste because a jungler got lucky in a smite war. If the enemy jungler can attempt a Baron Steal - I would argue you haven't done everything right, because you haven't secured vision of the area behind Baron. (Yes, I know certain champions can break this paradigm - but that's their champion strengths and the mechanic to Smite wouldn't help resolve those issues either.)
Even with vision behind baron, that still doesn't guarantee you won't get stolen from. Many junglers have enough mobility to come in last second and get the steal... And it's hard to say it's fair... Sure, it should be easier to do baron without the other jungler around, but it shouldn't be 50:50 just because they are... A SLIGHT advantage to the team doing the baron doesn't seem that out of line. It's just far too often that even competitively with teams like Samsung Blue/White, that they can't even guarantee a Baron even with great vision control and all the precautions you can do. I just think it's slightly too easy to steal right now...
: Fair point, but I think they should start with the comeback mechanics and only THEN tune smite, when they see the need to do so. Remember smite wars are not always decided by whose smite does more damage, but by who smites quicker (or slower, in some cases). So even by changing the damage it would remain at about 50:50.
Well by increasing the damage, you get to smite slightly earlier.
: Aka give the winning team more advantages and promote the methodical objective based style over all-in-catch compositions? What problem are you trying to fix with that?
I like the comeback mechanics of smite wars, that's why I would like this to be a very minimal buff... I feel the comeback mechanics should come from more damage coming from the buffs themselves... Make the losing team fight a weakened team... not by getting lucky on a 50-50 smite war. I feel smite wars are by far the most luck based way to come back in a game... And I don't like seeing games turned around simply due to a 50-50 gamble. Maybe it was impressive a few seasons ago, but not now. There are plenty of ways for losing teams to punish for dragon / baron's... by having there team doing that, it enables them to push lanes, poke them down and force a fight, get warding advantages, etc... I don't see a need for a 50:50 smite war mechanic. Plus, to a point, it's very annoying for a game to be turned around by a baron steal when the winning team was doing everything right the entire game and that's all gone to waste because a jungler got lucky in a smite war.
: Experimental preseason 2015 changes hitting the PBE over the next few days
: Experimental preseason 2015 changes hitting the PBE over the next few days
I think one idea would be to make {{summoner:11}} Smite do **slightly** more damage the more teammates you have around you. No so much that it makes all buffs incontestable, but enough to make smites slightly less 50-50 if you have your team around and the other jungler just jumps in for the steal... Perhaps a 55-45 or a 60-40 would be better.
: Gnar Bug thread
When using active items on Mega Gnar, I'm pretty sure his hitbox is still that of his normal form. I'll be spamming my blade on him and it not working unless it's really close to the center.
Rioter Comments
: Gnar gameplay and balance feedback
I made a post about this too, but I think Gnar's skillcap could really be increased if you guys [let Gnar's second jump go in the direction of your mouse, but limited to 120° in front of him](http://boards.pbe.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-feedback/VVG0rqry-please-let-gnars-second-jump-go-in-the-direction-of-your-mouse-but-limited-to-120-in-front-of-him) I explain in the post exactly how I feel it would improve his gameplay and how he could use it and why I think it should be limited to 120° in front of him.
: Gnar Q feedback
I could agree with that too. Also, I think the arrow should exist while it's still moving forward as well and have the arrow following Gnar (in a fainter color, getting less faint as it reaches max range) until it begins heading back towards him, giving a better indicator as to when it's heading back in a fixed direction.
Rioter Comments

KiIIua

Level 30 (PBE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion