welp i can't play proxy singed for ****
It would be nice if I could get to play a role I actually singed up for one of these days though. Top is kinda boring and I'm bad at it, the only top champ I actually enjoy and play okay is Vlad and even then I prefer to play him mid. I realize this is because there are about 9000 people signing up to play AD now but that and AP are pretty much the only roles I really like. Hell at this point I think I'd even rather support than top lol.
It would be nice if I could get to play a role I actually singed up for one of these days though. Top is kinda boring and I'm bad at it, the only top champ I actually enjoy and play okay is Vlad and even then I prefer to play him mid. I realize this is because there are about 9000 people signing up to play AD now but that and AP are pretty much the only roles I really like. Hell at this point I think I'd even rather support than top lol.
Luther3000 wrote:
welp i can't play proxy singed for ****
It would be nice if I could get to play a role I actually singed up for one of these days though. Top is kinda boring and I'm bad at it, the only top champ I actually enjoy and play okay is Vlad and even then I prefer to play him mid. I realize this is because there are about 9000 people signing up to play AD now but that and AP are pretty much the only roles I really like. Hell at this point I think I'd even rather support than top lol.
You were first pick that game. None of us forced you to go top because like 3 of us were like 'I don't really care what role I play'.
Luther3000 wrote:
It would be nice if I could get to play a role I actually singed up for one of these days though. Top is kinda boring
god, the agony you must feel
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
Mowen wrote:
We do have the problem of not wanting to tell people exactly where to go and what to play. Part of inhouses is people want to practice certain things or try something out, and we want to keep that.
That being said I've suggested before, that if we have a diamond / plat player and the other team has a really low skill player, then we could decide what lane the highest skill players for each team is going to and try to avoid having that lane being a complete stomp by putting a gold there or whatnots. If you guys like this idea we can try to start doing it more often!
Game 3, yeah, we actually would've probably forced the game to end sooner but I was actually dc'd for the 2nd half of the game and could do nothing but sit in base. I can see your frustration about surrendering but if 2 people want to keep playing well that's kinda the point of the surrender system.
Also, thanks for the Aqua Prison praise. ;)
I like the idea of trying to sort out lanes before the games begin to avoid the problem. The only problem is that you'll then get the issue of the same people facing each other in lane over and over again - which is something Vynertje has voiced annoyances over.
The alternative (if there's enough people, which there might be if you ask in the chatroom) is to split the inhouses into tiers - one for bronze to low gold, the other for gold up to diamond?
Game 3 my main grievance was that two players seemed to think that not surrendering was somehow more noble and made them "better" than the three players that wouldn't have minded. It was discussed in teamspeak and it was made clear by the tone of people's responses that this was their view.
Maybe I'm just being touchy, but that's how it felt to me.
I would like to discuss something else. Icecreamy once mentioned that he would like people giving and receiving constructive criticism, and I think this is something all of us could benefit from.
How about we, after a game, sit down for a few minutes, and discuss what went wrong and what all could have gone better, so anybody can learn from the mistakes they make?
It is hard to give feedback during a game because you have to stay focused but after the game has ended, people just simply leave instead of discussing things like this.
How about we, after a game, sit down for a few minutes, and discuss what went wrong and what all could have gone better, so anybody can learn from the mistakes they make?
It is hard to give feedback during a game because you have to stay focused but after the game has ended, people just simply leave instead of discussing things like this.
<Editor>
Show more awards
Mazuran wrote:
I like the idea of trying to sort out lanes before the games begin to avoid the problem. The only problem is that you'll then get the issue of the same people facing each other in lane over and over again - which is something Vynertje has voiced annoyances over.
The alternative (if there's enough people, which there might be if you ask in the chatroom) is to split the inhouses into tiers - one for bronze to low gold, the other for gold up to diamond?
Game 3 my main grievance was that two players seemed to think that not surrendering was somehow more noble and made them "better" than the three players that wouldn't have minded. It was discussed in teamspeak and it was made clear by the tone of people's responses that this was their view.
Maybe I'm just being touchy, but that's how it felt to me.
We don't have enough people for the split
London is one hour ahead of the rest of England -Luther3000
The thing is, do people even bother staying to get criticism or give criticism.
Also most pointers would be obvious for example:
"You should've positioned better in that fight. Just stay in the back."
"You should've warded."
"Last hit better."
It's extremly vague and it won't help much for the more experienced players that don't have apparent mistakes like being infront of the team as adc. You also can't see the action your enemy laner is doing in the fog of war, like taking wolves or wraiths or dragon at weird times.
So to give the best advice would be, to watch the replay to be able to see the perspective of the player you are criticizing. So you can see the map, when he saw cooldowns being blown and when he was able to pressure an objective.
Now would people who signed up watch those replays of about 30 mins just to give criticism? Most likely not. But what if there were people. How good of a player are they? How long will they take until they deliver the criticism?
Would people who signed up for ask for criticism?
Until now, no one ever asked during the inhouses. Of course they would appreciate it but if they don't ask then we don't have to give. Since they would either not take the criticism into consideration when they didn't ask or have the drive to improve. Most players freak out when there is a pause during a game. Some even, get impatient at the balancing phase. So we can't give criticism during inhouses. So they must be held after they are done.
But I am not against giving criticism, I'm actually for it. But getting people wanting to receive some and of course the hardest would be people giving criticism that are GOOD.
Believe it or not. This forum wasn't called "Inhouses" it was seperated into the one for fun(ARAM,3v3 etc...) and the other one was CnC, but sadly no one ever gave criticism or asked any.
Also most pointers would be obvious for example:
"You should've positioned better in that fight. Just stay in the back."
"You should've warded."
"Last hit better."
It's extremly vague and it won't help much for the more experienced players that don't have apparent mistakes like being infront of the team as adc. You also can't see the action your enemy laner is doing in the fog of war, like taking wolves or wraiths or dragon at weird times.
So to give the best advice would be, to watch the replay to be able to see the perspective of the player you are criticizing. So you can see the map, when he saw cooldowns being blown and when he was able to pressure an objective.
Now would people who signed up watch those replays of about 30 mins just to give criticism? Most likely not. But what if there were people. How good of a player are they? How long will they take until they deliver the criticism?
Would people who signed up for ask for criticism?
Until now, no one ever asked during the inhouses. Of course they would appreciate it but if they don't ask then we don't have to give. Since they would either not take the criticism into consideration when they didn't ask or have the drive to improve. Most players freak out when there is a pause during a game. Some even, get impatient at the balancing phase. So we can't give criticism during inhouses. So they must be held after they are done.
But I am not against giving criticism, I'm actually for it. But getting people wanting to receive some and of course the hardest would be people giving criticism that are GOOD.
Believe it or not. This forum wasn't called "Inhouses" it was seperated into the one for fun(ARAM,3v3 etc...) and the other one was CnC, but sadly no one ever gave criticism or asked any.
You need to log in before commenting.
That being said I've suggested before, that if we have a diamond / plat player and the other team has a really low skill player, then we could decide what lane the highest skill players for each team is going to and try to avoid having that lane being a complete stomp by putting a gold there or whatnots. If you guys like this idea we can try to start doing it more often!
Game 3, yeah, we actually would've probably forced the game to end sooner but I was actually dc'd for the 2nd half of the game and could do nothing but sit in base. I can see your frustration about surrendering but if 2 people want to keep playing well that's kinda the point of the surrender system.
Also, thanks for the Aqua Prison praise. ;)