If Riot is going to ban all supports who roam to support instead of babysitting the adc...

MontethePython·Feb 28, 2017·156 votes·8,621 views

Then why hasn't been removed from the game? If being a roaming support, and maybe counterjungling to support your jg and screw theirs is poor communication, then why don't you remove bard from the game? His whole mechanic is to leave some health pots bot lane and then roam most of the game. Would they ban a smite bard support for roaming? I doubt it, because riot designed him to be a roaming support who rarely, if at all goes to bot lane other than to check up and leave some pots. If players use other champions like Nunu and Singed to effectively do the same thing as Bard does then how is it different? Why would they get banned without a removal announcement for Bard when he's almost as off meta a roaming support as they are, and plays to a similar set strategy and fantasy? It's Riot games, not MontethePython's games, so i respect how they want to run their company and i'll continue playing so long as i enjoy it, but atleast give us clarification of how your system works, because you claim not to punish for off-meta picks, and yet you seem to only mean you won't ban for certain off-meta picks.

"Poor communication" is not an excuse for banning someone who's communicating fine but playing an off meta pick successfully. I see a lot more Meta picks who never type all game, Hell, most players rarely type to communicate game strategy or explain themselves anyway. Why are these generic silent Viktor mids not banned for Poor communication while a pick rioters don't like who communicates in game is? Seems like the banning for playing off meta system is mostly based of the rioter's bias who handles the report. Instead of operating off blind bias please let us know what is acceptable and outline some guidelines for what off meta picks and roles you find acceptable and unacceptable, because it's obvious that previous statements saying Riot does not punish or discourage off meta roles and picks is no longer true.

Also, WookieCookie said: "I will be working with the team to clarify an escalation process that emphasizes clearer feedback and opens the door for ban reductions if we believe that someone can make changes to their play style allowing them to continue crushing the meta but not at the expense of their teammates." Well isn't any off meta choice going to have it's own pros and cons? Either way if you play any off meta pick it will be somehow at a certain expense to your teamates, as well as a certain advantage to your teammates. Only banning certain off meta playstyles' but not others because they have different downsides seems biased and hypocritical. Why is the MF support who takes some farm and builds Frost Queen's claim not banned while the nunu smite support who roams and counterjungles is? It simply doesn't seem fair for someone to get punished for something there are no guidelines on.

Tldr: Why does Bard get a pass for leaving his adc alone all game while others get banned for it. Why are only certain roaming supports ok? Atleast give us some guidlines Riot

258 Comments

LostFr0stFeb 28, 201747 votes

They did give guidelines; it's actually pretty clear. The person needs to actually communicate instead of talking at his/her team.

If you go read the recent Nunu case's twitch faq under his stream it's clear he doesn't GAF about his teammates' in-game experience. The report frequency reflects that.

MontethePythonFeb 28, 20177 votes

They said they would try to give guidelines, and yes i read it. Look at the bottom of the post before the tldr, i addressed WookieCookie's post. It also seems like being banned for "Poor Communication" only applies to cases rioters are biased against. Most players rarely communicate much strategy in game anyway. Why aren't they punished while off meta picks riot doesn't approve are? The in game experience of other players is not something you can control, and if someone doesn't like your pick you don't have to switch from what riot has said in the past. There will always be downsides to different meta picks and off meta choices regardless. Why are some of those downsides and player experiences valid for play while some are not?

LostFr0stFeb 28, 201713 votes

No, the problem is when the person goes not off meta, but new meta and doesn't give clues about 'the plan' to their team.

Even if they all accept it and want to help, the teammates are just stuck there like "Uhhh but how do we help?" and they feel useless and confused, so if anything goes even slightly wrong they don't know what the fallbacks in the hidden plan are, and get frustrated.

Being frustrated/agitated for the entire game, even if you win isn't fun. The closest comparison I can think of is basically the same feeling as if 4 of the members got autofilled, and the Nunu didn't, but there's no mobafire, champ.gg or quickguide to their roles available.

Tenth LeperFeb 28, 201718 votes

It isn't about what riot approves of. It's about what the other players approve of. If someone didn't dodge or ask for some other pick when you select Bard, they know and accept what they are getting.

In these nunu and singed cases it is not like bard at all. It is making a strategic (not tactical) choice that no one on the team is OK with and can massively force them all (4 people) to play differently than they would like so that you (1 person) can do what you would like.

I should add that if you do something crazy from a solo lane you are much less likely to be reported than from a duo lane. There are champions that perform extremely badly in solo lanes, and in many cases more so in solo side lanes; if you leave such a champ alone bot (or top or whatever) then their entire game is ruined, especially if your mid is one that cannot swap them because they do badly in long lanes too.

I feel like the people making these threads do not care about counter jungling as much as they just hate playing support.

AhristocatsFeb 28, 201720 votes

"hey guys, i'm playing adc jhin in this game, and i'm telling you this because else riot will ban me"

did it help you to see the bs?

LostFr0stFeb 28, 201714 votes

No... ty for sarcasm though.

He's playing double jungle roaming Nunu. You know when the last time his teammates saw a double jungle or a duo top or whatever else was?... probably season 1 or 2 or when leveling to 30. Maybe. Know how much they remember about it? Zippo/0/Nada.

He needs to help them. They encounter him enough that even if he included the strategy outline in his twitch Faq eventually some people would know wtf is going on and could join in on the strategy if they get him on their team.

AhristocatsFeb 28, 201715 votes

{quoted}

He needs to help them.

well nice manipulation from riot, because the dude told everything to his team, and answered to every questions they asked him

NarasimhaFeb 28, 201714 votes

You actually said it right on the money. He TOLD everything to his team. He didn't ask. He didn't listen. He said "I'm doing this, end of story."

AhristocatsFeb 28, 201714 votes

you still didn't understand that you don't have to do this?

do you ask your team if they agree with adc jhin? do you ask your team if they agree with support malz? did you before when it wasn't meta? do you ask your team if they agree with jungle twitch? i can go on for a long time

riot is biased towards what isn't meta

NarasimhaFeb 28, 201711 votes

Again, you're being perfectly correct. In every scenario you said, someone picked an off-meta and sometimes even strange choice.

But here's the kicker. They did their roles. The Malz supported. The Twitch jungled. In this case, however, the Nunu did not support. Didn't even try.

Twitch jungle is fine. Twitch getting queued as jungle then saying "I'm going to go top lane." and doing it is not. Especially when the team is almost certainly not expecting something like counter-jungle Nunu 'support', you can't expect them to simply play along.

MorticianjohnFeb 28, 20173 votes

If you climbed to diamond using the counter jungle strategy then which role would you select to counter jungle. The only options are

Mid Top Bot Sup Jg Fill

Now tell me which role he should select to run a counter jungle strategy.

NarasimhaFeb 28, 20175 votes

I mean, I'm no diamond certainly, but wouldn't jungle. be the logical choice? You'd be giving up lane pressure to presumably keep the enemy jungler down as well.

MorticianjohnFeb 28, 20175 votes

From what I gather he played jg/sup or sup/jg.

JethzkMar 1, 20174 votes

But support is a different role than jungle, and it needs to be treated as such. if support and jungle were the same, we could just have 1 selection button. AMIRITE?

MorticianjohnMar 2, 20172 votes

He plays either jg or counterjg depending on if he get's sup or jg. There isn't a role for counterjg so Support is the only one who doesn't have a responsibility to clear camps/minions. It's the only role that can counter jungle effectively from lvl 1. My point is simply that he can't pick "roam support" or "counter jungle" because that isn't an option. This gives Bot lane the assumption that whomever queued up as SUP will remain with him in bot lane.

This is the main reason why he gets reported, because he doesn't stay and ensure the bot lane gets fed but instead focuses on other winning lanes and map control knowing bot will suffer. If bot lane knew ahead of time that there was a possibility that his SUP could be "counter jungle" or roaming most of the game then at least he wouldn't have an expectation for nunu to live up to.

BaltharaazMar 1, 20174 votes

Implying support is explicitly restricted to the bot lane. While it is implied, if more pressure and results can be gained from moving elsewhere, especially in a meta where the ADC is considered gold if it isn't Jhin, Varus, or MF, is it wrong for him to assist elsewhere, support elsewhere?

Glory ln DeathFeb 28, 201731 votes

The problem is, even though in most games (he was reported in just under 50% of his games, so his teams were ok with it more often than not) his teams compromised and even tried to change to fit his strategy (asked questions on who to pick and how to play with it, by his own account) he refused to show his teams the same courtesy if they had an issue with his plan.

In essence, his games probably went something like this:

Scenario 1 - The Good Game

Nunu: "I'm going to play support, counter-jungle Nunu!"
Team: "I don't know, are you sure about that?"
Nunu: "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. Here's how it works..."
Team: "Well, alright. Let's go for it, then. What do we need to do?"

Scenario 2 - The Bad Game:

Nunu: "I'm going to play support, counterjungle Nunu!"
Team: "I don't know, we'd be more comfortable with a traditional support. Can you play someone else?"
Nunu: "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. Here's how it works..."
Team: "Yeah, still not really comfortable with that. It would be better if we played a normal strat, please."
Nunu: "Nope."
Team: "But-"
Nunu: "Nope."
Team: "... Ok, screw you, too."

When his teams are willing to accommodate him and change to his strategy, he also needs to be willing to accommodate his teams and change his strategy when they have an issue with it. To expect them to change for him every game when he is never willing to change for them is hypocrisy. And that is why he was punished, not for playing off-meta.

SwainLaneWinGameFeb 28, 20174 votes

[{quoted}](name=Glory ln Death,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0XPVox5Q,comment-id=00010001000000000001,timestamp=2017-02-28T20:30:05.107+0000)

The problem is, even though in most games (he was reported in just under 50% of his games, so his teams were ok with it more often than not) his teams compromised and even tried to change to fit his strategy (asked questions on who to pick and how to play with it, by his own account) he refused to show his teams the same courtesy if they had an issue with his plan.

In essence, his games probably went something like this:

Scenario 1 - The Good Game

Nunu: "I'm going to play support, counter-jungle Nunu!"

Team: "I don't know, are you sure about that?"

Nunu: "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. Here's how it works..."

Team: "Well, alright. Let's go for it, then. What do we need to do?"

Scenario 2 - The Bad Game:

Nunu: "I'm going to play support, counterjungle Nunu!"

Team: "I don't know, we'd be more comfortable with a traditional support. Can you play someone else?"

Nunu: "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. Here's how it works..."

Team: "Yeah, still not really comfortable with that. It would be better if we played a normal strat, please."

Nunu: "Nope."

When his teams are willing to accommodate him and change to his strategy, he also needs to be willing to accommodate his teams and change his strategy when they have an issue with it. To expect them to change for him every game when he is never willing to change for them is hypocrisy. And that is why he was punished, not for playing off-meta.

Don't forget according to riots support portal page, you cannot be punished for tactical disagreements or going off meta or not using chat.

The problem here is Riot is trying too hard to be non comittal and appease everyone, and all they're accomplishing is punishing those that are innovating or playing the game that makes it most fun (and successful) for them. By saying the "community" (which in the nunu case is only less than 50% of all his games, could be as low as just 1 player out of 4 of those >50% games reporting) has final control over what is and isn't allowed, you're essentially condemning anything outside of the current meta; unless of course some Korean or lcs team or high elo player decides to do it. Then it's "OK". But not this guy in high diamond with over 53% win rate. Not him.

It's just a bullying hive mind mentality tactic that lets riot seem like they're open minded, and absolves them of any responsibility for when players adhere to riot's own rules but then somehow get punished because "community (bully) rules", which is actually bullshit because it's actually a small percentage of players that reported him, not 9x reports every single fucking game. OF COURSE some people are more comfortable in their matches playing only the known meta overall, because its fucking comfortable and humans in general hate change or the unknown. The community in fact supports off meta, as evidenced by the overwhelming support for this nunu player here on the forums. You guys with the conformity to meta issues are the vocal minority. Not to mention you're falsely reporting and punishing someone for adhering to riot's own rulings about off meta, tactical disagreements not being punishable.

SwainLaneWinGameFeb 28, 20179 votes

[{quoted}](name=Glory ln Death,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0XPVox5Q,comment-id=00010001000000000001,timestamp=2017-02-28T20:30:05.107+0000)

The problem is, even though in most games (he was reported in just under 50% of his games, so his teams were ok with it more often than not) his teams compromised and even tried to change to fit his strategy (asked questions on who to pick and how to play with it, by his own account) he refused to show his teams the same courtesy if they had an issue with his plan.

In essence, his games probably went something like this:

Scenario 1 - The Good Game

Nunu: "I'm going to play support, counter-jungle Nunu!"

Team: "I don't know, are you sure about that?"

Nunu: "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. Here's how it works..."

Team: "Well, alright. Let's go for it, then. What do we need to do?"

Scenario 2 - The Bad Game:

Nunu: "I'm going to play support, counterjungle Nunu!"

Team: "I don't know, we'd be more comfortable with a traditional support. Can you play someone else?"

Nunu: "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. Here's how it works..."

Team: "Yeah, still not really comfortable with that. It would be better if we played a normal strat, please."

Nunu: "Nope."

Team: "But-"

Nunu: "Nope."

Team: "... Ok, screw you, too."

When his teams are willing to accommodate him and change to his strategy, he also needs to be willing to accommodate his teams and change his strategy when they have an issue with it. To expect them to change for him every game when he is never willing to change for them is hypocrisy. And that is why he was punished, not for playing off-meta.

Except real life isn't like this scenario the majority of the time. You're creating a utopic scene where every dissenting player against this off meta strat either A. questions the other player in a thoughtful and kind manner, and/or B. graciously asks them not to play their off meta strat.

Reality is, Most of the time IF they bother to even use th4 lobby chat to revoke the off meta strat, they're more likely to go about it in a selfish or toxic manner, I.e. 'Fuck no I don't want you playing nunu support". Or they might not even say anything but still report post game because of vindictiveness or salt.

AeroWaffleFeb 28, 20174 votes

Reality is, Most of the time IF they bother to even use th4 lobby chat to revoke the off meta strat, they're more likely to go about it in a selfish or toxic manner, I.e. 'Fuck no I don't want you playing nunu support". Or they might not even say anything but still report post game because of vindictiveness or salt.

So because they gave a rude response... you believe that's giving the green light to go ahead with the strat for the sake of spite?

SwainLaneWinGameFeb 28, 20176 votes

{quoted}

So because they gave a rude response... you believe that's giving the green light to go ahead with the strat for the sake of spite?

No that's not what was said or implied. Do you have something wrong with your reading comprehension or are you just purposefully being obtuse? Read my comment again and come back with a real counter argument.

AeroWaffleFeb 28, 20173 votes

Except real life isn't like this scenario the majority of the time. You're creating a utopic scene where every dissenting player against this off meta strat either A. questions the other player in a thoughtful and kind manner, and/or B. graciously asks them not to play their off meta strat.

You imply here that people are not likely to be polite, and that somehow changes the acceptable response.

Unless you had no counter argument to Glory ln Death's argument at all, because otherwise I see none.

SwainLaneWinGameFeb 28, 20173 votes

{quoted}

You imply here that people are not likely to be polite, and that somehow changes the acceptable response.

Unless you had no counter argument to Glory ln Death's argument at all, because otherwise I see none.

It means that people are most likely to do as they please because we're all human and we play this game for fun and to beat other people at it. Therefore sometimes you have those individuals that will rage and burst s blood vessel when anything that is different or feels "contrary" to their specific idea of what is the best course of action to win. I.e. A "tactical disagreement", if you will. Meaning, In the majority of ranked games played, there will usually always be that somebody who will either flip out if you want to go off-meta, or at the very least disagree with off-meta because they don't think it will win, or someone that won't say anything but then if you lose the game they'll report you and grief that way. Basically, kids that are whiny and pout because others aren't conforming to the game they want. Either you have open-ness and allow off meta (as it's currently "supposed to be"), or you come down hard and restrict off-meta in ranked or whatever, and set specific guidelines for each role, etc and essentially enforce the current meta. Any changes to the meta then should be examined only by riot specialists or a selected group of players before given the green light to exist in all elo's, and then players know that during ranked games. They need to conform to whatever the current meta-game is currently being played, or risk punishment.

AeroWaffleFeb 28, 20173 votes

I just want to get this straight then;

You feel like it's fine for people to impose their personal strategies on other people, no matter how much it dislodges them from what they are comfortable in, so long as the person doing the dislodging believes that it is a viable strategy?

Because I don't.

I believe that both sides should attempt to come to an agreement if someone wants to play something that isn't common knowledge. If an agreement can't be reached, both parties should default to the standard meta since, collectively, both parties are much more likely to know the standard meta more than both parties are to know the weird off-meta strategy that was only really known by one person and never even thought of by the other.

Does this make me a meta-slave in your eyes? Sure, whatever floats your boat. But I usually say I'm fine with these types of weird plays, and I have been left alone in bot lane as ADC. But I also respect the wishes of players that don't want or wouldn't be as comfortable doing the same.

SwainLaneWinGameFeb 28, 20176 votes

{quoted}

I just want to get this straight then;

You feel like it's fine for people to impose their personal strategies on other people, no matter how much it dislodges them from what they are comfortable in, so long as the person doing the dislodging believes that it is a viable strategy?

Because I don't.

I believe that both sides should attempt to come to an agreement if someone wants to play something that isn't common knowledge. If an agreement can't be reached, both parties should default to the standard meta since, collectively, both parties are much more likely to know the standard meta than both parties are to know the weird off-meta strategy that was only really known by one person and never even thought of by the other.

Except you're still stifling the player that wants to be creative and play off-meta; why should only these types of players cave in to others' demands and conform to the "status quo" meta? Simply because someone else isn't comfortable enough with it? That's not a valid enough reason. Get in a queue with me and pick something, anything, for your role. Then let me disagree with your pick and tell you I'm not comfortable with it, because it doesn't mesh with my concept of the best pick for your role. Then tell me you disagree and you want to play what you want to play. Now what? Do I get to force you to conform, or do you get the freedom to decide what you get to play?

Do you see now how that kind of "logic" doesn't work ?

I would be the actual one at fault for assuming I have the right to tell you not to play this or do that; especially since riots support site says I can't report you for going off meta or for disagreeing with your tactical decisions". Hence my saltiness or griefing is actually the one causing the negative environment, not the other way around.

Glory ln DeathMar 1, 20175 votes

I will tell you from personal experience - in about 75% of games, your team will either be interested in your idea, apathetic to it, or can be talked into going along with it. Only about 25% of your games will you run into "hard" opposition that won't even consider it.

And I will tell you right now, you should not force your champion or strategy on your team in those games. There are 2 reasons for this:

It will make for a bad game. They may be the ones getting upset, but you are able to stop that. Be nice, go along with the team, and try to win a different way. Don't add fuel to their fire.
You will make it harder for the next person who tries your idea out. The more you antagonize people in your games, the less open they'll be to the idea in the future - whether you win or lose. If you lose in the 75% of games, no big deal, it was just a bad game - they'll still be willing to try it again (unless it was just really, really bad). If you lose in the 25% of games while forcing your idea on your team, it will turn them against the idea in the future. And even a victory will leave a sour taste in their mouth.

So, again, most games you can convince your team to go along with you, but some games you just need to back off. And as I said, this is from personal experience.

3TWarriorMar 1, 20172 votes

this only happens to bottom lane actually. Heck, a top laner could come mid, crowd control the mid to death, get their mid fed and proceed to steamroll the game

the top would have a mild disadvantage, but if the gesture was returned in kind, things work

the problem is, thanks to riot enforcing the ADC/support system (even mordekaiser...yuck), most ADC actually have the misbelief that a support is necessary to them in bottom lane because they constantly risk dangerous plays while the support does the damage and crowd control the ADC needs whereas actually, the player should focus more on farming and not on engages

AryoxMar 1, 20172 votes

I do agree that an ADC doesn't need to be babysat in lane, heck I've told various supports to go and roam at one point or another in a multitude of games. The problem that comes from roaming as a support is not necessarily that the ADC will start making aggressive plays, it's that the ADC (with the roaming support) can potentially be zoned off entirely from farming. Sure they can farm under tower a bit, but even that can become a dangerous prospect should the enemy lane dive or even be pushed in long enough to take the tower. And as this goes on, the ADC will become more and more starved and fall further and further behind.

ADC's NEED a gold income, farming is the most dependable way to achieve this. Take that away but losing lane presence and the ADC is essentially useless, sure they can roam for kills, but we all know that farm matters a lot. So the ADC is being handicapped without ever really having a say in it or even being able to do a whole lot about it.

The risk/reward of having the support roam depends on almost too many variables to even debate... who the solo ADC is, who the enemy bot lane is, will the roaming support get any benefit from roaming (kill, vision, counter jungle, or an objective), what the state of the game is.

arghilostFeb 28, 20176 votes

I main jungle nasus in diamond 1. I shouldn't have to write an essay every time I play a game just because im playing off meta.

And trust me I get reported in at least 50% of my games just like him purely due to my pick.

MontethePythonFeb 28, 20178 votes

The bs in riot not explaining their system, yes. This needs guidelines. People who never communicate that pick more acceptable meta champions are never penalized for muting all and being silent all game. Yet when a person says "imma take smite support and steal the enemy junglers camps now and then and roam, maybe play safe adc," in comparison is apparently banned for his poor communcation, meaning riot didn't like his pick, it seems a little wonkey and nonsense. I'm not arguing that people should be able to play however they want, it's riot's game. But they need to have guidelines on what riot will be negatively biased against, or else they're getting punished for something that didn't break the current rules.

Glory ln DeathFeb 28, 20178 votes

They aren't banned because "Riot didn't like their pick". And the other players don't go unpunished because "they were playing an acceptable champion".

The second group goes unpunished because they don't get reported. The players' teammates might get a little annoyed if the Viktor mid never says anything all game, but that doesn't usually create a negative game experience.

The first group gets punished because they do create a negative game experience - not because of who they play as or how they play them, but because they refuse to ever compromise on it. The issues with the Singed and Nunu players are that they consistently did this, even when there were objections (Singed every time he was forced into support, Nunu every game). If this were something they only did half the time and were willing to compromise on with their teams, we would never have heard about it, because the bans would have never happened.

MorticianjohnFeb 28, 20173 votes

Basically this is a tactical disagreement which of course is not bannable. In ranked games what should matter is that each member is trying equally hard to win. What should not matter is how some ADC got annoyed because he fell behind when his support roamed (or was never there to begin with).

SuperLuigiLXIVFeb 28, 20177 votes

Actually, it's not. Tactics are what you do DURING a situation.

These disagreements start in the pre-game lobby, BEFORE the situation. That's a strategic disagreement, which you are not protected from.

and frankly, this wouldn't be an issue to me if he didn't have an ego the size of a goddamn planet. If you want to play like this and your team okays it, great. When his teams shifted to this style for his sake and he won games, fine.

But you do NOT have the right to constantly ask FOUR PEOPLE to do things differently if you yourself are NOT willing to do things differently as well. That's worse than a disagreement, and it's a level of self-importance that nobody on the planet has earned.

If the dude was willing to play his way when his team was willing, but then ALSO was willing to play their way if they weren't, there would be no problem here.

3TWarriorMar 1, 20171 votes

you get one minute and thirty seconds in champion select and ban phase...

this is not enough time to even begin a discussion with teammates as most responses unless they are hastily thought out, take at least one minute

each player agrees to play with 4 random others and to make the best of it, not to conform or enforce a meta. Meta is most efficient tactic available, not Metta (most efficient tactic to anyone)

SuperLuigiLXIVMar 1, 20174 votes

Listen to yourself.

You're saying that a meta shouldn't be enforced on anyone.

To defend a guy who FORCED HIS PLAYSTYLE ON AN ENTIRE TEAM.

By your own argument how is the one guy forcing his non-meta style onto four other people, whether they like it or not, the moral victor over four guys who just want to play what they know and would like the fifth person to get on board too?

Also, the short prep time is grounds to argue IN FAVOR OF THE META. Again, using your own words, that's not enough time to have a real discussion with teammates.

And you're using that to argue IN FAVOR OF A GUY FORCING AN UNUSUAL AND LARGELY UNKNOWN STYLE OF PLAY.

Seriously, guy? You're going to sit here and claim that because there's NO TIME TO CREATE A STRATEGY, that's good enough reason to THROW AWAY THE MOST WELL-KNOWN STRATEGY IN FAVOR OF WHAT ONE GUY IS SAYING?

Come on, you cannot actually be serious here.

3TWarriorMar 1, 20171 votes

I've actually played nunu support before and it was quite fun

I wouldn't recommend it, but it has its perks including a free stat check for the ADC, who rely primarily on stats to win their bouts

of course the counter-jungling is more advanced than typical support duo bottom, but the most efficient tactic for him is to play Nunu, a champion that he loves, will never be banned and he has been playing for years even to challenger

here is the definition of efficient, courtesy of google

ef·fi·cient əˈfiSHənt/ adjective (especially of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.

meta is "most efficient tactic available" for him, nunu is his meta

the bigger issue here is that riot no longer allows players to focus on a single role and instead enforces the dual-role system

put it this way, if I were an ADC and forced to play this way, of course it would be upsetting, but then again, whenever I play adc, it is because I am playing to win(exclusively) and not particularly having fun, which his results clearly show he is capable and positive within diamond.

supports during the laning phase actually have minimal effects against the other lanes, meanwhile, nunu can turn the game into a 5 v 4 by eliminating the opposing jungler's source of income, provided the ADC has not played too aggressively

there is also the fact that riot seems to have no interest in eliminating the meta, so, why does it matter that a player does not play what is currently considered overpowered ?

this ADC and support duo bottom only started to really kick in in season three where before then, any team composition except for multiple junglers was acceptable simply by the unpredictable income and outcome of jungle champs

He queues for jungle, ends up support, he plays support with his champion in an efficient manner and explains it.

Apparently his method of explaining his strategy could be better, but there is no rule that states a player must play within the confines of a predefined scenario except for the player to enter the game with the intention to win

SuperLuigiLXIVMar 1, 20172 votes

Yeah, no:

-There is no HIS meta in a TEAM. BASED. GAME.

-If there's no rule requiring a player to play within the confines of a predefined scenario, WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING A GUY WHO CONSISTENTLY FORCES FOUR PLAYERS TO PLAY WITHIN A PREDEFINED SCENARIO? Particularly one they likely have zero prior experience with instead of the most widely accepted one that they at least know how to handle?

Seriously guy. Seriously. Every argument you make to defend this lone wolf condemns him even more.

BTW, nothing wrong with Nunu support at all. Lots wrong with double jungle Nunu, though, if the team doesn't want that.

3TWarriorMar 1, 20171 votes

I know that he has video posts somewhere showing what he actually says, but just specifically playing the champion that way is not against the rules

if he "demands" that players play certain champions, that can be a punishable offense, but that is not the issue here. He was banned for "stealing roles" which is clearly not the case

how many of the games has he actually DEMANDED that players play a certain champ? The playerbase still has the right to play any champion how they see fit so long as the intention is to win and not clearly troll or toxic behavior

address the issue, does he actually DEMAND that players play certain champions or does he suggest that they play certain champions?

if he DEMANDS that players play certain champions, I can not defend hijacking, but I can and will defend a player playing a non-meta champion with the intent to win

SuperLuigiLXIVMar 1, 20174 votes

He did steal a role.

Pay attention. He's not supporting. He's double jungling.

When he's not the jungler.

That is stealing a role.

Just because he says "I am going to support by going double jungle" does not magically make what he's doing support instead of double jungle.

And people have been banned in the past for passive-aggressiveness. Does he DEMAND people do what he wants? No. But he very calmly suggests that he's going to do what he wants anyway, so you don't HAVE to work with it, but if you don't.......

That's actually worse than being direct. Passive-aggressiveness is not a shield against punishment. It does not change what is being done or why. It does not magically make everyone else the bad guy. And anyone who pays attention can see that.

Royal BardMar 1, 20171 votes

{quoted}

He did steal a role.

Pay attention. He's not supporting. He's double jungling.

When he's not the jungler.

That is stealing a role.

Just because he says "I am going to support by going double jungle" does not magically make what he's doing support instead of double jungle.

And people have been banned in the past for passive-aggressiveness. Does he DEMAND people do what he wants? No. But he very calmly suggests that he's going to do what he wants anyway, so you don't HAVE to work with it, but if you don't.......

That's actually worse than being direct. Passive-aggressiveness is not a shield against punishment. It does not change what is being done or why. It does not magically make everyone else the bad guy. And anyone who pays attention can see that.

He is supporting the team, support is the only role not tied to lane and he is not even touching his own jungle. If Riot wants to be taken seriously they have to come out with a list of stuff that is in meta and a list of stuff that is outside it with clear examples and not ad hoc cases.

SuperLuigiLXIVMar 1, 20174 votes

He is supporting the team INDIRECTLY.

Wanna know who else supports the team indirectly?

Top lane, mid lane, jungle, and ADC.

Pressure and denial of resources are EVERYONE'S job.

The support's job is very specific: provide direct aid to teammates. Peel, heal, shield, harass, cover, protect, disengage or engage.

DIRECT. SUPPORT.

Doesn't have to be the ADC. But that role is meant specifically to go to other champions and prop them up when they need it.

Golden Tager XFeb 28, 20175 votes

The report frequency is because adcs are a bunch of whiny titty babies and we all know that.

LostFr0stFeb 28, 20173 votes

No, it was stated to be 50% of his total teammates even in the winning games. Not just the Adcs.

BeatzBoyFTWFeb 28, 201727 votes

Bard has better roaming potential due to him getting bonus movement speed from collecting chimes & portal.
Bard only requires 0.0001 seconds to gain experience & mana each time he collects chimes, unlike the Singed guy who requires about 15 seconds to kill a single camp.
Bard can bring along mid, jungler or both together for a sneaky gank with his E.

My points from your previous deleted thread still stands.

LostFr0stFeb 28, 20172 votes

Yo Beatz you read the Nunu case yet?

BeatzBoyFTWFeb 28, 201716 votes

I roughly did, and tbh, it's literally almost the same situation as what the Support Singed case was. It's still one of those "Despite you're actually trying, you're still giving a shitty experience for your teammates" moment, whilst also yet another "ditch the adc while I'm doing the jungler's job despite being the support" scenario.

I'm expecting his suspension to be overturned like the previous case, so I'm a tad bummed that it didn't. These words imo seems like a strong quote to live by for those making the same scene:

Telling your team what you’re going to do and then ignoring them isn’t really working with them it’s holding them hostage.

MontethePythonFeb 28, 201710 votes

Isn't any pick your teammates don't want you to choose "holding them hostage" then? By that logic if i don't want my midlaner to pick yasuo, and he doesn't change his pick, he should be banned, and i'll report him. Which members of the team get to decide what everyone else picks then? Because apparently if you say "hey team, i'm playing zed jungle with tp, trust" and then your adc says "No switch off and play Warwick or we'll report you," that is valid, and you have to play warwick. Sounds more like the person who wants to play off meta choice is really being held hostage by another individual on those grounds.

BeatzBoyFTWFeb 28, 201715 votes

There's a difference between picking someone aside from who you're thinking of in a single lane against a guy picking a role, ditches it & fulfills another person's role instead. Besides, who would actually report someone for picking Galio mid if he either wasn't intentionally feeding or wasn't ditching the lane just to farm his own jungler's camp?

The example you've placed up there is asking as if out of meta champions is bannable, such as picking Tank Karma top instead of Yasuo top, and the case is definitely no.

If someone were to pick a Zed Support & stays bot the whole time, he fulfills a few things:

Range pokes.
Shares gold & exp with support item.
Shares an even lane pressure against the enemy bot lane.

However, if he were to pick Zed Support & starts ditching bot lane and runs around the ally & enemy jungle, he's making things worse:

He's stealing experience from his own jungler.
His ADC has 0 lane pressure & lack of gold gains (of course, he would feel like shit for straight 10 minutes of the game).
This is a typical "role stealing" as he's doing exactly what a jungler would.

ColorfulNarwhalMar 1, 20171 votes

Roles aren't locked to one lane, so when you pick support who said you were supporting the guy bot who just happened to be a marksman. Maybe i want to go support the guy in top who just happens to be a tank because he struggles a lot.

BeatzBoyFTWMar 1, 20172 votes

There will be times where your top lane says "I'm fine, go back bot" and then you will refuse to listen to what he says, especially when even mid, jungle & ADC also tells you to. Respect other people's choice of whether they want you up there or not.