• Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Profile Information

  • Location
    AZ for now

Additional Information

  • LoL Name

Recent Profile Visitors

415 profile views
  1. I grew up in Indy, so if anyone is going and wants recommendations on places to go/eat and/or things to do just let me know - I'd be more than happy to give suggestions!
  2. I felt League of Learning went much better this week (11/8)! In the upper ELO group we played 2 pretty close games, and communication was much better and more positive. I think a quick reminder that this is a friendly, semi-competitive event helps reset mental states and prepare everyone for the games. Thanks for the responsiveness to feedback!
  3. On a totally different note, I've been really disappointed with a few of the attitudes I've seen in the past few weeks of League of Learning, and last week (11/1) was especially bad. I've noticed a trend that when a game is going poorly someone will say "Let's ff, there's nothing to learn from getting smashed" (or something along those lines). While I have certainly felt this way and understand the sentiment I think it runs counter to the spirit of the event. Given our skill levels (especially in the lower elo game I play in) wins are almost never guaranteed and comebacks are possible. This sentiment appeared in both games last week when an enemy assassin got fed, and a (squishy) carry decided that the game was therefore over. A friend of mine participated in the event and when I asked him about joining MadCast he said "If that's what my Thursdays would be like then hell no. [The team attitude] was miserable." There's several factors here to examine: first, I never want to hear that participating in a MadCast event was "miserable" for anyone - member or associate. There's been a lot of discussion around applicants and what it takes to be a member here, but none of that matters if associates have bad experiences with us and never apply or just leave. We should be just as fun and welcoming in-game as we are outside of it. The second and third factors relate more closely to the event's goal: playing from behind and dealing with a fed opponent (esp. assassins). I think playing from behind is just as important a skill as any other and should be treated as such - even though it's less fun. Forfeiting early not only prevents learning to play from behind it also keeps the team that's ahead from practicing building their lead, playing around fed teammate(s), and closing out the game. Dealing with an enemy that got fed early is also an important skill that feels underrated. Both games last week featured a fed assassin and 2 winning lanes (kha'zix, top/mid in game 1, leblanc, top/bot in game 2) and a strong lead for the other team (viktor/ezreal game 1, graves/galio game 2). There were opportunities to play around the winning lane(s) and mitigate the assassin's control of the game, but these weren't taken because we disagreed on the best way to do so. This series of events (assassin gets fed, takes control, opponents don't/can't play around it, game spirals out of control) is a trend I've noticed pretty often in the lower elo games, and I think it could make a decent topic. Other improvements to the event are hard to make if participants don't enjoy it, and learning certainly won't happen in such an environment. I think there should be emphasis on having the correct mindset for a (semi-)competitive game of learning and improvement as well as on playing the game and the week's topic. That way we can all learn, improve, and enjoy ourselves - win or lose. Edit: I think a contributing factor (last week) was the rush to get into game quickly. Several people had expressed feeling there was too much time between games, but last week it got in the way of proper team balance as the prevailing sentiment was 'it'll be fine, just start the game.' I think we can balance teams and still get into game quickly without sacrificing participant experience.
  4. You make a good point about drills, and I think the idea of splitting large subjects into smaller topics to cover one topic each week is a great solution to this. Small subjects (like a-move) only being covered for a week also makes sense to me.
  5. I'd like to throw out some (very rough) ideas that I have had recently after seeing comments others have made about weekly topics and feedback. Regarding this past topic (orbwalking/kiting/a-move): I really liked this topic when it was introduced, and it's a nice divergence from the macro-focused set of topics we had previously. However, playing a full summoner's rift game makes it hard to truly focus on the topic and give meaningful feedback regarding it, because there's so much else going on and I haven't been able to comment on anyone else's a-moving except for my lane opponent. I think that there are probably better ways to focus on and practice attack moving. In my head this is like LoL versions of drills one might run on a soccer or basketball team. If a coach wants their team to practice making short, accurate passes they don't play a full game; instead they might run small-sided (ie. 3v3) drills in a small zone so that players must make those short passes. However, League of Learning is a voluntary activity that we all take time out of our days to attend and playing full games is certainly more appealing than running "drills." But I felt some dissonance between efforts to encourage players to use champions that a-move more than others and pushback from players who didn't want to. Personally I think this could be improved by either running "drills" on micro-intensive topics or playing full games focused on macro topics.
  6. Had some pretty great tank games today!
  7. I love those books! Welcome and I hope to see you around
  8. This is rolling off of what @MadCast: Simaniac said: I think the following champs should be banned in this mode because they don't have any "off" builds (unless you go full tank): Kai'Sa, Kog'Maw, Kennen, Varus, Ezreal. Teemo, MF, Kayle, Lulu, and even Malphite don't quite make that list, but I think they're close . Whether or not purely defensive items should be banned may depend on the goal of the game mode. If the point is simply off-meta (even off-ARAM) builds then I see nothing wrong with someone choosing to play full tank quinn, for example; however, if it's supposed to be faster-paced then maybe those items get banned. I think we need to better define "off-builds." You probably won't see AD/on-hit Lulu or Thresh in norms, but they are definitely go-to builds in ARAM. Are these builds allowed or are they insufficiently "off?"
  9. Thanks again for putting this together and sharing it Sim!