Boards›Gameplay

Kalista Changes

TheLastBaron88··1 votes·565 views

FOR FUCK'S SAKE RIOT PLS LET BLACK SPEAR CHANGE OATHSWORN. When my goddamn Thresh support afks at level 2 because he knowingly queued up with a broken mouse and refuses to play on his trackpad, I shouldn't have to suffer having to play a 4v5, having to 1v2 in lane, AND having literally half of my kit being completely useless, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. What in the hell is balanced about that? AT LEAST allow it to detect when your Oathsworn has completely left the game and let you assign a new one then.

Also pls fix kalista's ultimate so that if I MUST be stuck with my oathsworn in fountain, I can at least throw that bastard down the lane for the enemy to kill repeatedly. Currently they are like invulnerable after being tossed out of fountain, which is hard enough to do with the limited range. If my KDA has to suffer for that asshole's selfish decisions, then so should his. Better still, if Oathsworn is afk in fountain, make Kalista Ult a global so I can toss him across the map in one go. That kind of bullshit deserves a death everytime my ult is off cooldown.

/EndRant

10 Comments

Critmaster Garen3 votes

step 1: keep oathsworn through the lane phase.

step 2: have your support leave the game for a couple seconds, and bind it to your fed tank.

step 3: ???

step 4: profit.

riot should rather look into finding a solution to 4v5's altogether.

TheLastBaron882 votes

Right, I totally get the abuse cases. But you're already at a HUGE disadvantage being in a 4v5. Having it REQUIRE that they be AFK ensures that you're just making it LESS of a disadvantage. You're still most likely going to lose the match, as you are stuck alone in bot lane with only half your kit.

That said, I totally agree that Riot should be looking at a 4v5 solution. Like doesn't DOTA let you leave games without penalty when you are missing teammates? Sure would be nice not having to waste the time knowing you have no hope of winning. I just can't wait for Tribunal to make it's triumphant return. I think I would honestly spend more time punishing afks, ragequitters, and general toxicity than actually playing the game.

stuartk111 votes

{quoted}

Right, I totally get the abuse cases. But you're already at a HUGE disadvantage being in a 4v5. Having it REQUIRE that they be AFK ensures that you're just making it LESS of a disadvantage. You're still most likely going to lose the match, as you are stuck alone in bot lane with only half your kit.

That said, I totally agree that Riot should be looking at a 4v5 solution. Like doesn't DOTA let you leave games without penalty when you are missing teammates? Sure would be nice not having to waste the time knowing you have no hope of winning. I just can't wait for Tribunal to make it's triumphant return. I think I would honestly spend more time punishing afks, ragequitters, and general toxicity than actually playing the game.

Being able to leave games without penalty would probably make a lot of games either mostly unwinnable or complete stomps. If one person AFKs (which they do. A lot), then everyone would just leave, and make a lot games actually non-games because a lot of players had left.

TheLastBaron881 votes

Aren't they kind of already not games, where you just spend 40 minutes trying to lose valiantly? I mean, I've won 4v5s before, even a 3v5 or two, but it's definitely not the norm. I just kind of like the idea of not having to wait that long to start a new game. At least in normals, where winning isn't actually as important as having fun, which I typically am not in a 4v5.

stuartk111 votes

{quoted}

Aren't they kind of already not games, where you just spend 40 minutes trying to lose valiantly? I mean, I've won 4v5s before, even a 3v5 or two, but it's definitely not the norm. I just kind of like the idea of not having to wait that long to start a new game. At least in normals, where winning isn't actually as important as having fun, which I typically am not in a 4v5.

If you feel that a 4v5 is a non-game, then there is some truth there. But consider that if this is a non-game, then what about a 2v5? Wouldn't that even be lacking entertainment? Wouldn't is also make people less inclined to actually try and play the game properly, rather than have most of the team leave in the first 10 minutes when the mid-laner AFKs from the enemy team getting first blood.

TheLastBaron881 votes

I would say the difference is, if those two players are still there playing, it's their choice to do so, they aren't locked into the match any more than you are; whereas currently, you're stuck in the match for the duration whether you have any chance of winning or not, especially if you have two players who won't even surrender at the 20 minute mark.

I just don't feel like it's in any way justified for 4 other players to suffer because of one ragey prepubescent mid-laner.

stuartk112 votes

{quoted}

I would say the difference is, if those two players are still there playing, it's their choice to do so, they aren't locked into the match any more than you are; whereas currently, you're stuck in the match for the duration whether you have any chance of winning or not, especially if you have two players who won't even surrender at the 20 minute mark.

I just don't feel like it's in any way justified for 4 other players to suffer because of one ragey prepubescent mid-laner.

It doesn't solve the problems in Ranked with AFKs. They just need to increase the punishment for AFKing in ranked. What if winning the game actually matters, such as in Ranked promos. What if you want to re-connect to the game after leaving for 5 minutes? Would you be able to? If so, doesn't that mean that you can't start a new game anyways? I just doesn't seem to solve any problems, and if players no longer feel inclined to try and win after a single player leaves from your team giving the enemy team first blood, or the enemy bot lane getting a double kill. Suddenly everyone else just leaves. How would you determine the difference between a connection issue, and an actual leaver? Could you instantly leave without punishment if a player has left for only 1 minute?

TheLastBaron881 votes

Hmmm... valid. Honestly I was thinking more in terms of normals, when there isn't anything to lose except time.

I definitely feel you on increasing punishments for afks in ranked. Ranked afk is more prevalent in my mmr range than in any other queue, and that's saying something. There's almost one in every game. That alone should indicate how lenient the current system is.

Critmaster Garen2 votes

i think a system that would be most suitable for lol, to avoid any abuse cases would be a fill que.

basically people could que up to jump in to fill for other people in their games. with appropriate rewards, like ip boosts and full ip for the game (even if they just played the last 10 minutes) as an incentive.

similar to the surrender vote system, a team could vote to search for a replacement player who takes over the champion of someone who disconnected from the game for more than 2 minutes.

TheLastBaron881 votes

Actually that sounds pretty cool. Dunno if it would work, but it's a pretty cool idea.

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 TheLastBaron88

You know who really needs help?
Gameplay123 comments
46
votes
Taric Rework Incoming
Gameplay59 comments
20
votes
Lucian's Problem
Gameplay56 comments
14
votes
Zyra in season 5
Gameplay32 comments
12
votes
So why is Butcher's Bridge being called a new map...
Maps & Modes17 comments
11
votes
Am I the only one who thinks new zyra looks worse in every conceivable way?
Gameplay9 comments
8
votes