Vlad and Rumble are going to be autowin after the AP item changes
As if they weren't already
98 Comments
Silents4298 votes
is a champion Riot has apologized for releasing, I don't really care about him.
though? Eh? He really isn't a freelo kind of champion, he will get buffed but I mean it's not like were going to see a release Xin Zhao come from him.
Edit- Quiet down Vlad mains look it up yourself.
Only Play Darius4 votesWhy would Riot apologize for releasing Vlad? I don't feel he was poorly designed, although he is a bit frustrating to lane against once he gets his 
. And if they really did regret releasing him, why don't they just remove him from the game?
Silents4295 votes[{quoted}](name=Jelly Mac,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Z6cHlUqU,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2015-06-21T07:02:20.886+0000)
Why would Riot apologize for releasing Vlad? I don't feel he was poorly designed, although he is a bit frustrating to lane against once he gets his
He was terribly designed??
He is resourceless, has an escape, high damage, and heals off of everything.
They can't remove him they would have gotten massive backlash and lawsuits.
What Is Smite5 votesLawsuits from who exactly? Riot Games as a company own the champion Vladmir as per their copyrights to the game which they created. If the majority of the G&B team decided to remove Vlad then there would be no feasible ground to place lawsuits under the fact that it was voted upon and the end result was Vlad being removed. Now the backlash I can understand, every champion has a place in someone's top spot for their favorite so that's a risk of loss for Riot Games (if you factor in the amount of Vlad mains/players who actually spend money on his skins though).
Silents4291 votes[{quoted}](name=What Is Smite,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Z6cHlUqU,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2015-06-21T09:10:53.766+0000)
Lawsuits from who exactly? Riot Games as a company own the champion Vladmir as per their copyrights to the game which they created. If the majority of the G&B team decided to remove Vlad then there would be no feasible ground to place lawsuits under the fact that it was voted upon and the end result was Vlad being removed. Now the backlash I can understand, every champion has a place in someone's top spot for their favorite so that's a risk of loss for Riot Games (if you factor in the amount of Vlad mains/players who actually spend money on his skins though).
People have sued over less, people spend money on the game and all sorts of stupid excuses can arise.
Not to mention the amount of effort it takes to make a champion that would be wasted.
ElJanitorFrank3 votesYou can't sue someone for using their own property in their own way.
straight4free2 votesYou can't sue someone for using their own property in their own way.
EULAs have never stood up in court. Just because it says something in the EULA does not mean that the court cares.
ElJanitorFrank1 votesI didn't say anything about EULAs. I said that you cannot sue someone for using their own property how they want to use it.
If Riot gave everybody a full refund for deleting a champion, there is absolutely no harm done to anybody, and no illegal action was taken.
Riot simply changed their property how they saw fit; you cannot sue someone for that.
straight4free1 votesI didn't say anything about EULAs. I said that you cannot sue someone for using their own property how they want to use it.
If Riot gave everybody a full refund for deleting a champion, there is absolutely no harm done to anybody, and no illegal action was taken.
Riot simply changed their property how they saw fit; you cannot sue someone for that.
Except it is not their property. You're treating it as a foregone conclusion that Riot owns your account, this is stated in the EULA and would not stand up in a court of law.
Sachabot1 votesYour account isn't their property, Vladimir and the game is. That's what he's saying.
straight4free1 votesYour account isn't their property, Vladimir and the game is. That's what he's saying.
But something of yours is taken from you without permission. Not saying I would sue but I'm sure someone could.
Sachabot1 votesBut it's not yours. You don't own Vladimir as a player, even if you pay real money for him. You pay for access to someone else's property.
straight4free1 votesBut it's not yours. You don't own Vladimir as a player, even if you pay real money for him. You pay for access to someone else's property.
You're still thinking the EULA is binding. Once a transaction occurs, you own that which you purchased. It doesn't matter what gloss Riot puts it under, you own your account and everything within it.
BluePolarizer1 votesYou'd be very surprised as to what you don't actually own.
straight4free1 votesYou'd be very surprised as to what you don't actually own.
Sachabot1 votesIt's not about the EULA. It's about intellectual property laws. Vladimir is governed by such and that property is owned by Riot. You don't own Vladimir, and cannot contest anything Riot does with regards to Vladimir, or any champion.
straight4free1 votesIt's not about the EULA. It's about intellectual property laws. Vladimir is governed by such and that property is owned by Riot. You don't own Vladimir, and cannot contest anything Riot does with regards to Vladimir, or any champion.
You're conflating two separate issues. You can't do anything with Vladimir on your own, you can't use him for profit, but that doesn't give Riot the right to remove something you paid for from your account.
Narasimha1 votesFun fact, they actually have. It just varies based on the EULA. If it's necessary to sign the EULA to use the product, then it IS legally binding and can be used in court. It means you have (hopefully) willingly given your consent to the terms stated to use the product. Otherwise it doesn't count. Though mostly, it simply depends on who's hearing the case.
straight4free1 votesFun fact, they actually have. It just varies based on the EULA. If it's necessary to sign the EULA to use the product, then it IS legally binding and can be used in court. It means you have (hopefully) willingly given your consent to the terms stated to use the product. Otherwise it doesn't count. Though mostly, it simply depends on who's hearing the case.
Narasimha1 votesThat... what? That doesn't apply here at all. Unless you're arguing that the contract itself is unfair, which is an entirely separate matter. The player has a clear choice, equal knowledge, the ability to read the contract in its entirety, and they have no obligations towards Riot merely for playing the game (to my knowledge). If Riot isn't misleading, witholding information, or forcing the player to sign the contract, then this doesn't come into play at all.
straight4free1 votesThat... what? That doesn't apply here at all. Unless you're arguing that the contract itself is unfair, which is an entirely separate matter. The player has a clear choice, equal knowledge, the ability to read the contract in its entirety, and they have no obligations towards Riot merely for playing the game (to my knowledge). If Riot isn't misleading, witholding information, or forcing the player to sign the contract, then this doesn't come into play at all.
Because there is no chance for the end user to negotiate the terms, and because they are so one-sided, I am sure you could make the argument that it is an unconscionable contract and have it become null in the court of law.
Narasimha1 votesI highly doubt it. For it to be unconscionable (and I DID do my research), it has to essentially be exploitation. The seller has to either withhold or lie about information, or the seller has to be put into a position where they have no other option but to take the terms at their own expense. In this case, Riot isn't exploiting or forcing anyone. They're simply stating "If you want to play our game, you have to listen to our rules, and here they are." Kind of like playground rules.
straight4free1 votesI highly doubt it. For it to be unconscionable (and I DID do my research), it has to essentially be exploitation. The seller has to either withhold or lie about information, or the seller has to be put into a position where they have no other option but to take the terms at their own expense. In this case, Riot isn't exploiting or forcing anyone. They're simply stating "If you want to play our game, you have to listen to our rules, and here they are." Kind of like playground rules.
I disagree, I believe that it could be viewed as exploitation to take what somebody paid for and believed they owned.
Narasimha1 votesUnlikely, since the ToS specifically covers that. As long as you've signed it willingly, then its not 'exploitation', since it is entirely by the player's will that it happened. If the player didn't want to play, they didn't have to. Simple as that. With the player holding the cards, theres really nothing for Riot to exploit. They aren't forcing you to buy skins or champions with real money, after all.
straight4free1 votesUnlikely, since the ToS specifically covers that. As long as you've signed it willingly, then its not 'exploitation', since it is entirely by the player's will that it happened. If the player didn't want to play, they didn't have to. Simple as that. With the player holding the cards, theres really nothing for Riot to exploit. They aren't forcing you to buy skins or champions with real money, after all.
The ToS is another thing which is often viewed as non-binding in the court of law.
This brings us back to the unconscionable fact of the contract. There is no negotiating power, you either take it or leave it and it leaves you at undue risk to be preyed upon.
It has nothing to do with them forcing anything upon you. Imagine in real life if you were about to enter a store, they gave you a 500 page long document to sign. You cannot negotiate the terms and sign it. Later, as you exit the store, they confiscate all of your purchased items and tell you it was in the contract.
^^ this would not be acceptable, regardless of how absurd the example seems.
Narasimha1 votesActually, ToS have been accepted as binding in just as many cases as not. It really depends on the judge/justices.
And again, that doesn't make it unconscionable. Otherwise, to use my earlier example, you may as well sue any institute that forces you to obey its rules. That's how it is. You either follow their standards, or you have nothing to do with it. Nothing illegal about that.
It has nothing to do with them forcing anything upon you. Imagine in real life if you were about to enter a store, they gave you a 500 page long document to sign. You cannot negotiate the terms and sign it. Later, as you exit the store, they confiscate all of your purchased items and tell you it was in the contract.
Am I forced to go into the store? No. Is it the only store around? Probably not. Does the store hide anything from me? Technically not.
So yes, it would actually be acceptable. The store wouldn't stay in business, or probably even start in business, but it would actually be valid. You had a choice. You accepted it. You reap what you sow.
straight4free1 votesActually, ToS have been accepted as binding in just as many cases as not. It really depends on the judge/justices.
And again, that doesn't make it unconscionable. Otherwise, to use my earlier example, you may as well sue any institute that forces you to obey its rules. That's how it is. You either follow their standards, or you have nothing to do with it. Nothing illegal about that.
Am I forced to go into the store? No. Is it the only store around? Probably not. Does the store hide anything from me? Technically not.
So yes, it would actually be acceptable. The store wouldn't stay in business, or probably even start in business, but it would actually be valid. You had a choice. You accepted it. You reap what you sow.
I'm sorry to say but where I'm from, not once has the EULA or ToS stood up in the court of law. I'm not exactly a lawyer but I did study law for a semester,
Silents4291 votesWell you can actually.
ElJanitorFrank2 votesWell, see how well that goes. I'm sure a big corporation with multiple lawyers cannot defend themselves for somebody suing them for... what, exactly? What would you categorize this as?
Silents4291 votesThis would fall under false advertising.
Buying a champion then having it removed.
Marinaras Trench1 votesThats like saying if you pay for a game, and the online stops working you sue....
Silents4292 votesNo, That isn't the same thing at all.
ElJanitorFrank1 votesI don't understand, how is it false advertising? Riot never said that every champion would be available 100% of the time, or else people would sue when a champion is disabled. When you buy a champion there is no "Thank you for your purchase, you will not be able to access this champion for ever and always no matter what, guaranteed."
Silents4291 votesIt's people buying champions with real money only to have it taken away and refunded.
They have sued for far less, Swain had his E shown differently in his spotlight and people sued them over that.
You severely underestimate what you can sue for.
ElJanitorFrank1 votesI have no doubt SOMEONE would sue, but it wouldn't work in a million years.
Silents4291 votesYou are missing the point, Riot wouldn't lose the lawsuits I am sure, but it would be costing them a bunch of money to constantly fight them.
Narasimha1 votesFun fact, read the ToS. They specifically state they have the right to change the content of their game. So as long as someone keeps playing the game, they're fine.
Silents4291 votesNot a matter of losing a lawsuit it's the amount of money it costs to defend from one.
Narasimha1 votesThis is true, lawsuits are painful. On the other hand, if Riot is determined enough, they could easily turn around and open a case of slander and libel. Though those are pretty tricky. Still, they could if they were so inclined.
FuzziestPickle1 votesMake a new champ, release it and delete vlad at the same time. Call it a vlad rework.
Silents4291 votesIt takes months to make champions.
Solaxo15 votes[{quoted}](name=Jelly Mac,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Z6cHlUqU,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2015-06-21T07:02:20.886+0000)
Why would Riot apologize for releasing Vlad? I don't feel he was poorly designed, although he is a bit frustrating to lane against once he gets his
LOL even Riot themselves admitted that Vlad is poorly designed and very problematic
Only Play Darius1 votesYou fail to explain WHY Riot apologized for Vlad and what exactly about him was poor design. I did some googling and couldn't find anything about them apologizing for releasing Vlad.
Narasimha1 votesHis Q. It is literally the worst defined ability in the game because there isn't a shred of thought that goes behind it's use. Is it off cooldown? Then hit it. You even get sustain for doing so.
Only Play Darius1 votesI could think of many other Q's that don't really have much thought in using them.
Narasimha1 votesAll of which have mana costs. If you spam them, you WILL go oom, especially in the cases of Sona, GP, Skarner, and J4.
Troy2426212 votesLOL even Riot themselves admitted that Vlad is poorly designed and very problematic
No word yet on Ekko/Kalista >_>.
BeerOfRoot48435 votesThen they're going to go "Oh crap we better gut the champs that are good with these items!" instead or reverting the changes...
Twitch Chat10 votesThen they're going to go "Oh crap we better gut the champs that are good with these items!" instead or reverting the changes...
if vlad got gutted or reworked into a totally different champ that isnt a goddamn pain to play against would anyone care?
rumble always flies under the radar so he'll win every game but avoid bans somehow
BeerOfRoot48435 votesSorry, DongLord420. Didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. ;)
More from Gameplay
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes
More by FalconPawwwwnch
Instead of an ! icon for when an enemy Rengar ults just open up the shop automatically
Gameplay135 comments
315
votes
Can we change Veteran's Scars back to 3% max HP instead of the useless 45 HP
Gameplay142 comments
302
votes
The flat true damage on Vayne's W should be removed
Gameplay157 comments
275
votes
Graves is a better drain tank than Aatrox, Olaf, and Warwick
Gameplay128 comments
230
votes
If Nidalee and Elise got their melee bonus resists removed, Jayce doesn't need them either
Gameplay188 comments
215
votes
So over the last few years, Riot has been trying to give counterplay to all new champs and reworks
Gameplay179 comments
200
votes