Now this... this is a refreshing piece of honesty, I hate seeing all the "riot plz" comments on this subreddit and the fact of the matter is that you need to juggle demand for a fix as well as the type of issue and who it's affecting. Keep up the good work
I like you. You can stay. 😁
TFT lost more than half of it's players and is dying fast
It’s actually holding remarkably steady. We’ll release some specific data for it sometime next week
Thanks for that info. Any plans for the client? I'm not a programmer and I imagine it's all very complicated, but I also imagine riot has the budget to hire people capable of solving those problems. Are you able to speak on whether there's any real push to fix the myriad of problems from poor performance to losing LP from forced dodges that the clitent has suffered from since it was released?
Team's working on it—has been for a number of months. I'm hesitant to make promises because when we think we're going to get massive improvements and then they underperform for a lot of players it stings everybody worse. It's something we're working on, though
Ok, I'll ask you in a polite manner.
Why do you think that the league website hasn't been in the best of shape for a while? Multiple features of the website seem to be abandoned (i.e. they haven't been updated in a while).
The biggest offenders are probably the champion ability / bio pages which don't get updated even months after changes to champions and the web-based match history that seems more like a tech demo for your API than anything else as it is buggy (doesn't work at times).
Does Riot have any plans to update these pages / features, or perhaps simply discontinue them (I'm assuming they're still supported officially by you guys since I see it linked through the official website as well as through new articles published there within)
I think the simplest answer is that it just hasn't been prioritized versus other issues we're working on. That's changing soon, though.
Which is 100% a good thing.
Great to see a Dev not bend over backwards for every toxic person in the community.
Good on you, Cactopus.
I won’t call anyone toxic. I want less name calling, not more. And I actually agree with u/texanapocalypse33 that we need to fix the website (plans are in place to do so for before the end of this year). I just don’t think it’s cool to call me or my coworkers clowns. If we could all avoid the name calling, that’d be great.
You don't have to respond, and it wasn't phrased respectfully at all, but he does have a point. How's the artists-to-programmers ratio at Riot these days? The client is higher on my priority list than the website, but a major company really shouldn't be letting customer-facing content be so janky. Especially not the website that might be first contact for a new fan.
I actually agree with the point. We need to fix the website and soon. Plans are in place for before the end of this year.
I could understand your reasoning if you actually made the logo somewhat unique, as it stands it just looks like... text? Nothing about it stands out and it’s rather boring and bland. Has no substance to it.
I personally disagree (I think the details on the gold texturing are pretty unique), but your opinion is no less valid than mine.
Speaking on behalf of the company: we expected people to react this way to having the old logo replaced and we wanna see how people’s feeling change about the new one given time.
Serious question - why not just disable him from pro play? Say, just for Worlds?
If you want to remove him from pro, just do so, without affecting solo queue.
because we don't want to remove him from pro?
Are you saying maxing E first on Veigar is statistically better than Q? Bc outside of support that aint right lol
Unless you mean max second in which case yeah
In mid, Q>E >W is best, and in support I'm pretty sure E>W>Q is best. But people tend to max Q first on support, and W second in mid, with lower elo (unsurprisingly) making this mistake a lot more than high elo.
Are you still monitoring Aatrox/Akali in case their nerfs were overkill, or was the goal to gut them so they wouldn't see Worlds play?
nerfs on them hit a bit harder than expected. goal was to drop them to moderately picked champs, not remove them entirely. This is the same with sylas. We don't want to completely upturn the meta teams have been playing on going into worlds. Believe they are getting minor buffs this patch in response.
Thank you for your response Beluga!
I can agree, in theory he seems to be a 'monster' late-game on paper. But given how things have change around him. He doesn't provide anything that much better than other scaling champions, while being hindered early-game.
Is it possible you can say that there will be follow-up if these changes don't hit the mark for Veigar down the line?
Unlikely in the near future, this patch is almost entirely about worlds - and veigar buffs are included in that (we think there's chance he shows up as a cool fringe pick and are putting in a bit of encouragement)
Which nerfs are you walking back on? There's been quite a few iterations this past PBE cycle, including compensatory AS buffs and removal of the Q monster damage reduction, both which appear to be removed. Is the current iteration the final one?
Not certain, I haven't been particularly involved in these sets of changes. You should see a trimmed down final version tomorrow, though.
Is the intent for Sylas to have sub-45% solo queue WR and zero pick/ban at Worlds?
No. We aren't looking to completely remove any champions from the meta going into worlds. There's always a bit of guesswork here, but we don't want to make teams play an entirely different meta from the one they qualified on. We're lightening up on the Sylas nerf a bit toward that end (and walking back the Aatrox/Akali nerfs slightly as well).
Hey Beluga,
I advocated for Veigar buffs for a while now. Is it possible on why the balance team chose to go for another scaling option (which isn't his issue) and in the form of his E?
Thought Q could've used some tinkering over his E.
looking for high elo buff, and high elo is more likely to max E than low elo (its just better, but low elo doesn't do it). Also tbh his late game really isn't particularly good.
lol you didn't have to do em' like that bruh
He does if he wants upvotes. This sub’s community doesn’t reward phrasing questions to devs respectfully. I’m making it a policy not to respond to disrespectful sh*t though.
The new icon is really beautiful, but I do believe losing the "WoW plate" (no idea how to call that) aesthetic on the full logo is a loss. It's too…bland.
it was so iconic for League that it reminded everyone of another specific game made by our competitor
Calling it right now LoL website will have the old logo for several months before being updated
maybe just for one month...
quote me on it
I'm
gonna
Question regarding the Riven changes for 9.19:
The first set of changes had a pretty different scope (ult damage changed, W ratio up). Why did those changes not work out?
Author of both sets of changes here. While I think that the previous set of changes were solid (I expected them to be a lower MMR/teamfighting buff specifically), they were also a bit more speculative and might have required followup. Given that we've changed riven several times in the last ~10 patches, we instead went for a simpler, more understood change.
As for why this was the change: In 9.10, we agreed that Riven was too powerful and needed a nerf. The change we made ended up increasing her win-rate disparity by MMR, so for this patch I chose to essentially revert to 9.9 (understood OP version of Riven) and do a simpler nerf of 2 seconds CD on E.
hey,
I'm
devtrackers.gg