ZioSerpe wrote:
with force, the bank system risk is to make it so that leaving the jungle is like leaving a turret unattended.
Yes, lanes are allowed to play more aggressive
Jungle is forced to play defensive.
That's exactly what they're supposedly trying to accomplish.
Trojan995 wrote:
the bank system sounds perfect. Theoretically, it should balance counter jungling, ganking, and farming, all of which were considered broken.
The problem is that power junglers are getting an inherent buff with this system, so Udyr and Cho and Shyvanna etc will be better than ever.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
Xenasis wrote:
It would still be better to revert it.
Imagine this scenario.
You're at a hotel which you paid for.
The manager thinks the tiled roof (which has had no faults at all) is faulty
He removes the tiled roof, replaces it with some newspaper
You complain
They put another layer of newspaper on top rather than putting the tiles back on
Problem here: You got never forced to pay.
@Yukimaru:
Thats not an argument you should pick, else Riot will **** sth up YOU are really happy about...
@Xenasis:
Maybe the manager knew that those tiles were old/frail and a risk.
And he didnt replace it with paper but some new sort of synethic tile.
Srsly, Riot announced that they'll encourage an aggressive play.
The idea behind jungle rework mustnt be perfect, but at least the idea was right.
Thats not an argument you should pick, else Riot will **** sth up YOU are really happy about...
@Xenasis:
Maybe the manager knew that those tiles were old/frail and a risk.
And he didnt replace it with paper but some new sort of synethic tile.
Srsly, Riot announced that they'll encourage an aggressive play.
The idea behind jungle rework mustnt be perfect, but at least the idea was right.
@Yuki
Nevertheless, even if the hotel also housed a youth club which was run for free, it doesn't change the fact that there's no reason in doing so - and it's going to be worse than before.
@Xenasis:
Maybe the manager knew that those tiles were old/frail and a risk.
But the manager was mistaken - those tiles were fine as they were.
As for aggression, they've (greatly) reduced it, if anything. If they truly wanted to increase it (rather than just saying that), then I have no hope for them if they did the extreme opposite of what they wanted to.
Nevertheless, even if the hotel also housed a youth club which was run for free, it doesn't change the fact that there's no reason in doing so - and it's going to be worse than before.
Darcurse wrote:
@Xenasis:
Maybe the manager knew that those tiles were old/frail and a risk.
But the manager was mistaken - those tiles were fine as they were.
As for aggression, they've (greatly) reduced it, if anything. If they truly wanted to increase it (rather than just saying that), then I have no hope for them if they did the extreme opposite of what they wanted to.
You need to log in before commenting.
Imagine this scenario.
You're at a hotel which you paid for.
The manager thinks the tiled roof (which has had no faults at all) is faulty
He removes the tiled roof, replaces it with some newspaper
You complain
They put another layer of newspaper on top rather than putting the tiles back on