Return of Zyra! God bless CertainlyT <3

Indominus Blade·Sep 3, 2015·5 votes·926 views

Zyra's plant AI have been updated Zyra's plant AI have been updated Zyra's plant AI have been updated Zyra's plant AI have been updated

Finally, now all CertainlyT wll be viable! God bless CertainlyT, god bless his awesome champions!

Full CertainlyT:

Partially CertainlyT:

CertainlyT, I love you and your work man, you are the best riot designer in my opinion! Can't wait to pick up Zyra next patch, hope she is viable, I tried her but she was way too clunky.

39 Comments

IxtaliKingSep 3, 20155 votes

I actually like that CertainlyT is such a risk taker with his champ designs, keeps the game fresh.

MLDzXnRRRSep 3, 20154 votes

I like Yasuo and Zyra.

TNHA BaritoneSep 3, 20153 votes

I hate every CertainlyT made champion besides Zyra. If you ask people they will say most of his champions are broken. But I think he's on of Riots best champion creators. He's my FAV despite what I said in the start.

TyroneWatermelonSep 3, 20152 votes

God doesnt exist

Indominus BladeSep 3, 20151 votes

I don't take anyone serious who claims god exists or doesn't exist without any proper evidence to back up his claim.

BhagswagSep 4, 20151 votes

Don't need to disprove what hasn't been proven so...

Indominus BladeSep 4, 20152 votes

"I don't need to disprove that god doesn't exist, because it hasn't been proven that he doesn't exist".

When your argument can be used for the opposite point you are trying to make, it shows your argument is garbage pleb tier. The most rational position on the question of a creator is neutrality. No side has evidence for their claims.

With that said, GOD BLESS CERTAINLYT <3

BhagswagSep 4, 20152 votes

Oh so, you are neutral on unicorns, tooth fairy, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl and Santa Claus?

EDIT:

Wait, did you even read my post? Fucking idiot.

Indominus BladeSep 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Oh so, you are neutral on unicorns, tooth fairy, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl and Santa Claus?

EDIT:

Wait, did you even read my post? Fucking idiot.

Those are extremely less plausible than a creator, but yes I do not deny or confirm their existence.

BhagswagSep 5, 20151 votes

You don't know that. They're equally as plausible as a creator. What gives you the right to distinguish between how fake a made up thing is?

Indominus BladeSep 5, 20151 votes

I do know that, since there is a difference between human imagination/human fairy tales and the concept of a creator.

BhagswagSep 5, 20151 votes

Similarly, anyone can say "there is a difference between gods/human fairy tales and the concept of a Unicorn."

Indominus BladeSep 6, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Similarly, anyone can say "there is a difference between gods/human fairy tales and the concept of a Unicorn."

They can, but that difference is what makes it less plausible. There is no reason or appeal to a fat man living on the north pole giving presents to good kids, or a small fairy that gives money to kids for a tooth that is under a pillow. However, there is appeal for the concept of a creator that operates outside of our understanding of reality, which has created this reality (universe/dimension) and its laws. I do not follow any of the earthly religions, but I do favor the concept of a creator. DNA is a code, a code is a product of an intelligent mind. That said, I don't think that this creator has any feelings or desires for its creations, I don't think a god can bless anything, I just say it for fun and to piss off atheists like you lol. I was an atheist myself, but after deep philosophical studies and writing my own philosophical texts, I switched over to deism, but I don't put much value in this believe because of the high percentage of uncertainties in it.

As far as I am concerned, the most important value in this reality is capability, or in other words might. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Everything else is secondary.

P.S: God bless CertainlyT <3

SEKAISep 6, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Indominus Blade,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fId530Re,comment-id=0002000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-09-06T08:43:06.550+0000)

They can, but that difference is what makes it less plausible. There is no reason or appeal to a fat man living on the north pole giving presents to good kids, or a small fairy that gives money to kids for a tooth that is under a pillow. However, there is appeal for the concept of a creator that operates outside of our understanding of reality, which has created this reality (universe/dimension) and its laws. I do not follow any of the earthly religions, but I do favor the concept of a creator. DNA is a code, a code is a product of an intelligent mind. That said, I don't think that this creator has any feelings or desires for its creations, I don't think a god can bless anything, I just say it for fun and to piss off atheists like you lol. I was an atheist myself, but after deep philosophical studies and writing my own philosophical texts, I switched over to deism, but I don't put much value in this believe because of the high percentage of uncertainties in it.

If you wanna put everything, religious and non-religious views in a nutshell together, God is simply probability.

When it happens it happens, when it doesn't then it doesn't happen.

DNA is not created intellectually by a single mind, it's a collection of experience (in the form of chemicals) over the millions of years on what works and what doesn't, as unworking models simply perish.

One may argue the fundamentals of this universe such as gravity, time, conservation of energy and whatnot is a rule set upon by someone. However as development of quantum physics advances, we are able to see gravity as particles like sand and how it affects things around them, it's only a matter of time before we can manipulate concepts and fundamentals to our will like boiling hot water (if humanity can actually last that long).

Mind you, fire was something magical to cave men first but they learned how to reproduce as well as understanding its mechanics over the years.

If there is a persona who exists that created everything but has no personality, then it simply doesn't or might as well don't exist. A flying shit that created the world is still in the end, a flying shit.

Moral of the story: CertainlyT makes mostly bullshit champs and he should learn to stop writing bad fan fictions.

There are better ways to make things fresh than ditching everything older in the mud, it just doesn't work that way.

Indominus BladeSep 6, 20152 votes

{quoted} DNA is not created intellectually by a single mind, it's a collection of experience (in the form of chemicals) over the millions of years on what works and what doesn't, as unworking models simply perish.

Stopped reading after this. No evidence at all for this claim. DNA doesn't have a consciousness, it can't collect experience. We do know that DNA is a code, it is the program that determines what kind of biological entity emerges/develops. A code is a product of an intelligence. Stay butthurt.

SEKAISep 7, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Indominus Blade,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fId530Re,comment-id=000200000000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-09-06T19:05:25.836+0000)

Stopped reading after this. No evidence at all for this claim. DNA doesn't have a consciousness, it can't collect experience. We do know that DNA is a code, it is the program that determines what kind of biological entity emerges/develops. A code is a product of an intelligence. Stay butthurt.

DNA being compared to a code is simply a metaphor of the fact DNA is a complex chemical construct (which is a better version of RNA, the single strands unlike DNA which is a double strand), nor did I say DNA has consciousness in the first place.

Chemical bonds happen at random in nature, and they either continue existing or perish. Those who can survive and not break would go on and build more complex things as time goes on, and eventually they build basic life forms and later on, complex life forms.

For this reason, intelligence is something quite new to Earth, only appeared recently in the past few million years (compare to Earth's estimated billions of years of age).

It's pretty simple to understand if you give it a thought or 2.

Just because you can summarise some of the rule sets into a set of equations to use doesn't mean it's automatically made by an intelligent mind in the first place.

Math and physics are just tools we developed to understand the patterns found in the world better. Just because you can make things with tools, it doesn't mean someone uses the same tool to create this world, it's just a silly assumption to have. Same logic here.

EDIT: If you're so happen to be one of those who doubt the validity of evolution theory, let me just give you a simple example, or proof if you will.

All animals from dogs to birds to fish have almost identical embryos when developing into infants, complete with a tail, humans included. This suggests that in fact all animals developed and branched out from the exact same ancestral life form.

So yeah.

EDIT2: If you still have trouble grasping the idea, lemme give you another example, by comparing the formation of DNA to the formation of diamonds.

Diamonds are formed when element Carbon meet extreme pressure and heat underground, which they just might condense and create diamond in its complex and impressive chemical structure.

Nowadays we know and can create replicas of diamonds using our technologies, but does that mean there was someone who created the diamonds underground using the same or better techs? No. it was formed purely by chance when conditions are met, that's why it's quite rare and valuable.

Same thing with DNAs, it wasn't something that was all over the place initially. But unlike diamonds which can't reproduce itself, animals can and thus it slowly dominated/populated the world as a result of it.

Go read and think and not just repeat what others are saying in their dumbed down version of knowledge.

Indominus BladeSep 7, 20151 votes

{quoted}

DNA being compared to a code is simply a metaphor of the fact DNA is a complex chemical construct (which is a better version of RNA, the single strands unlike DNA which is a double strand), nor did I say DNA has consciousness in the first place.

No, it isn't a metaphor. It is a reality. DNA is the code that determines what kind of biological entity will develop. You don't need to explain the difference of DNA and RNA to me, since I am the top student in my university and probably one of the elite future surgeons of Europe. You said that DNA is a collection of experience, how can there be experience without a consciousness to experience and collect it? If you meant data, then I agree, because that data is a code.

Chemical bonds happen at random in nature, and they either continue existing or perish. Those who can survive and not break would go on and build more complex things as time goes on, and eventually they build basic life forms and later on, complex life forms.

No they don't. Chemical reactions, not "bonds", happen when certain requirements are met. Chemicals do not perish, they change their forms. What survival are you talking about? Species try to survive, not chemicals.

For this reason, intelligence is something quite new to Earth, only appeared recently in the past few million years (compare to Earth's estimated billions of years of age).

Foolish statement, we don't have recorded history of the past few million years. You don't know if there were previous intelligent species on the planet or not. Your stupidity is starting to annoy me.

It's pretty simple to understand if you give it a thought or 2.

Just because you can summarise some of the rule sets into a set of equations to use doesn't mean it's automatically made by an intelligent mind in the first place.

Math and physics are just tools we developed to understand the patterns found in the world better. Just because you can make things with tools, it doesn't mean someone uses the same tool to create this world, it's just a silly assumption to have. Same logic here.

Nothing you said here is relevant to anything I said, math and physics have little to do with the concept of a creator and DNA being a code, stop derailing pseudointellectual.

EDIT: If you're so happen to be one of those who doubt the validity of evolution theory, let me just give you a simple example, or proof if you will.

All animals from dogs to birds to fish have almost identical embryos when developing into infants, complete with a tail, humans included. This suggests that in fact all animals developed and branched out from the exact same ancestral life form.

So yeah.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or this reality, it only explains (with some uncertaintity) the development of biological species over time. Evolution doesn't oppose the concept of a creator.

EDIT2: If you still have trouble grasping the idea, lemme give you another example, by comparing the formation of DNA to the formation of diamonds.

Stopped reading here. I've met garbage like you many times, pseudointellectuals that bombard people with irrelevant stuff and won't stay on topic.

SEKAISep 7, 20151 votes

I am an university student too, in the engineering and about to graduate, but you don't see me whine about it like it's some "I'm better than you so shut up" card.

All you do is dismiss and nitpicking. But okay, I'll bite 1 last time.

[{quoted}](name=Indominus Blade,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fId530Re,comment-id=00020000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-09-07T08:24:38.222+0000) No, it isn't a metaphor. It is a reality. DNA is the code that determines what kind of biological entity will develop. You don't need to explain the difference of DNA and RNA to me, since I am the top student in my university and probably one of the elite future surgeons of Europe. You said that DNA is a collection of experience, how can there be experience without a consciousness to experience and collect it? If you meant data, then I agree, because that data is a code.

You don't know what metaphor is.
I merely mentioned DNA and RNA comparison in a single sentence. And you don't need to be in some surgeon degree to understand DNA (unless we're going into somewhere really deep like genetic engineering or what not but let's be frank, none of us can understand it in detail).
DNA being a collection of experience is a metaphor I used, refer to point 1.
"Data, code and experience" because nitpicking why not? What's funny is that you also don't know what the difference between data and code is.

No they don't. Chemical reactions, not "bonds", happen when certain requirements are met. Chemicals do not perish, they change their forms. What survival are you talking about? Species try to survive, not chemicals.

Refer to my earlier statement saying that everything happens according probability (at least before intelligence was a thing) and think for 2 minutes. Chemicals simply form at random, they either get more complex or break down after some time, and a basic lifeform may just be created purely by chance after a while thus the concept of "life" started. It's as simple as that. No intelligent mind was or need to be involved.

Foolish statement, we don't have recorded history of the past few million years. You don't know if there were previous intelligent species on the planet or not. Your stupidity is starting to annoy me.

This is really cringy, you know archaeology and other things such as fossil studies are a thing right?

Even if there were intelligent species let's say 200 million years ago on Earth, so long ago we can no longer find a single trace of their existence. Would you really think that whether there were intelligence beings or not that long ago actually means anything or is anywhere relevant?

The short answer is No, because we can not prove their existence however the idea that they don't actually exist can not be disproved. That's why in this one, it's a closed case, at least until proven otherwise. It's just how things work, it is the burden of the claimer to provide evidence of their claim and not the other way around.

Same thing with creation theories. There is nothing to suggest that an intelligent mind indeed once existed to create things, even creationists like you would say that this celestial being has no personality of his own. Then it comes back to the same question just like the one above, does it actually matter if he is even there or not?

Again, the answer is No. There is no difference to whether he exists or otherwise, he might as well not be a thing and it wouldn't make a single difference. The argument that he exists can not be proven and the saying that he doesn't can not be disproved.

That's why it's more plausible to say that he doesn't exist for the time being until proven otherwise. And it would be the responsibility of the creationists to back up their claims with evidences or at least, proven theories and not just statements, otherwise it's automatically invalided.

All in all,

I am quite shocked tbh, even as an university student like you who is supposed to be among the elite surgeon students (like you said) who you'd think they at least know a good deal of the knowledge associated with DNAs like the back of their hands, but somehow you seem to have trouble fully grasping highschool biology. This is indeed pretty worrying.

Ofc, that's if I took your claim seriously. Sorry.

I doubt you'd read all this in full detail tbh, I just feel like typing in this sort of topic.

PhifeSep 6, 20151 votes

You know there's a saying that you can't think of something if not for god, so if god made you think of unicorns before they 'existed', it might be because they are real in some form or another.

Stuff like santa claus did exist, its a tale / legend of the dude giving presents to lil %%%%%s. But thats besides the point, his image is just used for marketing now a days.

SwapShadowsSep 3, 20152 votes

CertainlyT is my favorite too, literally makes the coolest and awesomest looking champs in the game.

Also as a bonus he makes low elos whine which is fun to see

CancerNoobUselesSep 3, 20151 votes

arsameus smurf

Indominus BladeSep 3, 20151 votes

No idea who you are talking about, kappa.

KoKobotoSep 3, 20151 votes

CertainlyT definitely makes the most interesting and interactive champions The numbers team however.... I've come to hate Yasuo at how he only needs 2 items no matter how far behind he is and can still kill stuff easily

A Miss FortuneSep 4, 20151 votes

CertainlyT makes interesting champions, but I wouldn't really call them good since I can give X everything in the game with 50 different passives, and of course X will be fun and possibly unique. He makes champions who have not a whole lot of weaknesses or fall offs, and when they do have those, their own kits negate them to the point they don't exist. Leaving us with an overpowered champion with minimum counterplay.

I don't think Zyra will be viable either with just her plant AIs being improved. She's outclassed hard by almost any Mid laner, and she isn't necessarily a Support. She can Support, but so can Heimerdinger with that logic. She still suffers from her extremely high mana costs, her being reliant on skill shots with poor travel times and extremely long delays, and she doesn't have a real passive. I don't see a reason for people to be hit by most of Zyra's kit simply because It's ridiculously easy to dodge and I just feel bad for going up against Zyra in a solo lane. I love Zyra and she's easily my favorite Mid, but playing her is frustrating and difficult against a competent opponent and there's not a lot that she can do. If she falls behind she won't do much damage without Liandry's, and if she gets ahead she's really easy to shutdown.

Indominus BladeSep 4, 20152 votes

I disagree, CertainlyT champions have some of the most counterplay out of all the champions in the game.

ZephyrDrakeSep 4, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Indominus Blade,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fId530Re,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2015-09-04T13:18:59.538+0000)

I disagree, CertainlyT champions have some of the most counterplay out of all the champions in the game.

Kalista Yasuo Thresh counterplay? please tell me where

Indominus BladeSep 4, 20153 votes

{quoted}

counterplay? please tell me where

Kalista : 1. Pick a Marksman with strong damage and kill her. 2. Good support roams and forces enemy support to follow, isolated Kalista lacks a passive and ult, if enemy support doesn't follow, the ADC can solo defend turret (need an adc with decent wave clear like sivir) and gain exp advantage, while your support makes other lanes win. 3. Point and click CC = easy kill on kalista.

Yasuo : 1. Side step his Q, he deals significantly less damage. 2. Avoid getting knocked up = Yasuo can't ult. 3. Yasuo is pretty squishy, a lot of champions that can burst and CC can abuse this. 4. No mobility when no minions are present.

Thresh : 1. Side step his Q, removal of 50% of his power and play making capability. 2. Thresh is pretty squishy and doesn't have any escapes, can be exploited by proper engage on thresh. 3. E can be sidestepped too (bit harder than Q).

Don't blame the champions, if you can't handle them, then it is because the enemy players are better than you, not the champion. I love playing vs Yasuo Kalista Thresh , I can negate so much of their power by playing smart.

A Miss FortuneSep 4, 20152 votes

Saying that a champion is counterplayable for dodging a skill shot, isn't actual counterplay, that's just the player themselves being bad at the champion. It can go either way, but saying "dodge X" isn't counterplay.

Kalista right now is one of the most overpowered/overloaded champions in the game with no real weaknesses. She's good at everything, does everything, and is strong no matter what part of the game she's in. She has mobility, damage, AoE, single target, a lot of CC, and she's also such a safe ADC. Saying for someone to "solo lane" as the ADC for a while is idiotic, Kalista can abuse that with her Support and in general It's idiotic since nearly anyone with a tanky Support can abuse that and get a free kill, whether they're under turret or not. Don't see how you gave legitimate advice on counters to Kalista when it seems like you just tried to give advice to feeding a Kalista.

Again, saying "dodge this" and "dodge that" isn't counterplay. So, again you listed basically no tips on counterplay aside from obvious facts like "Yasuo is squishy", HOWEVER his kit negates his squishyness considering he has a free shield and a broken wall that invalidates all projectiles. So while he is innately squishy, his kit can let him negate it.

And then Thresh, again, dodging skill shots is not counterplay. More so outplaying.

Indominus BladeSep 4, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=A Miss Fortune,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fId530Re,comment-id=00070000000000000000,timestamp=2015-09-04T18:38:38.885+0000)

Saying that a champion is counterplayable for dodging a skill shot, isn't actual counterplay, that's just the player themselves being bad at the champion.

ROFL, or you know, you being better than the enemy player and actually outplaying them with your sidesteps. Whatever, I stopped reading your comment after that sentence, there is no hope for people like you. I am just very very very happy players like you are stuck in silver elo and FAAAAAAARRRRRR away from my ranked games. Thank god I will never have to endure the torture of playing with silver players with your mentality, absolutely no understanding of competitive gaming whatsoever.

You can respond, but I won't waste my time anymore with you.

A Miss FortuneSep 4, 20151 votes

Actually I'll admit I did trashy in Ranked and was a bad player and I had about a 23% win rate in Silver. I stopped playing, came back, and SINCE I came back I have a 73% - 81% win rate, almost all of my lost games having trolls (AD Heimer Jungle isn't viable by the way).

A person missing a skill shot could either mean you are good enough to dodge it, or the other person isn't good enough to hit it. Either way, It's not counterplay. Even you admitted yourself that it wasn't counterplaying, but outplaying them.

You know, for someone who is apparently much better than Silver players, you clearly can't provide a decent argument without bringing in my elo, contradict your OWN statements, and then threaten to not reply because you know you're incorrect.

BhagswagSep 4, 20152 votes

HAHAHAHA.

LOL.

Want to give an actual response, you lazy fuck?

KONO RUBICK DASep 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

counterplay? please tell me where

thresh and yasuo have counterplay, thresh hook has a delay, you can zone him and he won't gain armor (he doesn't have armor/lvl) . his lantern width has been increased so if you have ali for example you can step on it.

KoKobotoSep 5, 20151 votes

Dodge skill shot is not counterplay, Fiora is a good example of counter play with her passive albeit her numbers are pretty high atm Yasuo counter play is win the game before he gets 2 items Kalista is hard CC (which is counterplay for any adc...) Thresh is dodge skill shots

I love Kalista and Thresh but I have to admit that when I think about it they don't have much actual counter play and you know its fine, not EVERY champion needs a distinct counterplay theres always outplay and out strategy

Indominus BladeSep 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Dodge skill shot is not counterplay

Stopped reading right there.

JonesybonesSep 6, 20151 votes

Zyra still Garabage. Bless riot.

Indominus BladeSep 6, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Zyra still Garabage. Bless riot.

We shall see :)

JonesybonesSep 6, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Indominus Blade,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fId530Re,comment-id=00090000,timestamp=2015-09-06T08:49:37.242+0000)

We shall see :)

in order for zyra to be ok, she needs a health scale buff, an armor buff and a base movement speed buff. Which will never happen.