Liandry's Torment is less than 2 years old - definitely within the modern era of LoL (preseason S3).
% Penetration is functionally just a multiplier on the damage you deal. Flat penetration is a specifically anti-squishy stat. I could see a hybrid pen item *if* they were going forward with more robust hybrid itemization. Are they? Any such item would instantly be a required buy on hybrid damage champs, and then they'd have to retune the hybrid damage champs around it (they would have to nerf Jax and Kayle 100%, and if the hybrid damage itemization was strong enough that you'd care about it, they'd probably have to nerf Akali as well).
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
Its not that the private charities were doing too much, it was how selective those private charities were in helping people. Private charities didnt fail per say, they just were not working in a way the government wanted at the time when the government took over and created the welfare system.
I.e. they did not achieve the goals of the social safety net (possibly because they were never intended to!), which means if the social safety net was removed, we can reasonably expect (unless something has changed) that a set of goals currently being achieved (partially or wholly) by the social safety net will be neglected.
So the question of whether charity can replace the social safety net boils down to two questions: what are those goals that will be neglected, and are they important enough to justify the social safety net?
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
Finally got to gold. Lost the first two matches of my promos, then went on to win the next 3. Phew!
That being said, Rengar is a beast right now (Literally), and his burst damage is off the charts.
I've been floating in gold 5 for a bit. I'll go 16/6, then I'll go 6/7... really up-and-down. I feel like if I get more consistent, I will cruise up a couple divisions really fast; I'm dominating half my games, I'm just a severe liability for the other half.
I'm looking forward to the Pentakill album. I was expecting it to be a laughable attempt but "Lightbringer" is actually really good, if you enjoy power metal.
My experience of working in game studios is that they tend to accumulate talented, artistic people with diverse interests. I've worked with quite a few professional musicians turned game designers over the years.
Let me know if you wanna duo sometime.
I'm almost always on, even from work - Catches Axes
Not sure about duo queue ranked, but I'm often up for a game.
Finally got to gold. Lost the first two matches of my promos, then went on to win the next 3. Phew!
That being said, Rengar is a beast right now (Literally), and his burst damage is off the charts.
I've been floating in gold 5 for a bit. I'll go 16/6, then I'll go 6/7... really up-and-down. I feel like if I get more consistent, I will cruise up a couple divisions really fast; I'm dominating half my games, I'm just a severe liability for the other half.
I'm looking forward to the Pentakill album. I was expecting it to be a laughable attempt but "Lightbringer" is actually really good, if you enjoy power metal.
My experience of working in game studios is that they tend to accumulate talented, artistic people with diverse interests. I've worked with quite a few professional musicians turned game designers over the years.
Looking for info on The Sims 4, and right now it sounds like a slightly slicker version of The Sims 3 to me, minus some large number of expansion packs. What's the difference / why is The Sims 4 attractive to you?
I mean, basically the idea that there is something wrong with you if a bad sequel/prequel turns you off to the originals is bonkers. That's just not how (most) human brains work.
I think it depends a lot on where you live. I grew up in central Massachusetts; anyone who thinks you need or will ever use a concealed firearm in central mass (outside of some urban centers like Worcester) is nuts. It will never happen. I don't know a single person who has ever been mugged or assaulted in public in that area. Oh, it happens once in a while, but you're more likely to win the lottery (intentional hyperbole).
Hanging out on my college friend's grandparents' ranch in Waco, Texas, we had to carry a shotgun because the risk of dangerous animals (wild pigs, particularly, I think) was real.
Now I live in Los Angeles and yeah, be careful out here.
One would imagine if they actually had solid proof of such infiltration or corruption in the government, then they would be all up in arms and it would be an actual major news story.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.
Well you said this:
Sending in every special ops teams the combined U.S. military has will achieve nothing if we don't have the full support and assistance of the Nigerian government.
Which seems to just assume that there's substantial Boko Haram support within the government, as opposed to some vague suspicion of Boko Haram sympathy in the government based on an article you can't find.
Except that's not real evidence that says we don't have the government's backing, especially since the international efforts to deal with this group and rescue the girls are there specifically because the government asked the international community to be there.
There's quite a bit of (relatively poor) evidence available that the Nigerian government isn't really interested in dealing with Boko Haram. They asked for help (finally!) after an extended period of time under tremendous pressure. They resisted having to try to do something about it for as long as they possibly could without actively declaring themselves for Boko Haram.
On the other hand, there's no evidence of which I'm aware that says that Boko Haram controls the Nigerian government. It seems to be more a case of a vile and corrupt government resisting the need to actually spend the money for genuine internal security (which they prefer to siphon off to line their own pockets), rather than actively siding with Boko Haram.
Of course, all we have are a few news reports; good evidence could overturn some/all of it.
...one Nidalee spear at medium range (NOT maximum range - medium range) equals TF's whole burst, on the same cooldown... he gets a stun, she gets her heal + AS buff and a whole lot more burst any time she wants to commit.
As for bruiser Eve, I've never seen anything I'd describe as a bruiser eve build in action so I don't know if that's a good teamfighting build. Every Eve I have seen in action (I've topped out at Gold 1 in ranked, for skill level reference) becomes a huge liability in that she can generally either be instantly focused down or can be ignored while doing almost no damage, usually a mix of both. So, it's plausible that there's a strong teamfighting evelynn build out there, but I rather doubt it.
And that's totally disregarding the pure win-lane-lose-game champs like Yorick and Urgot (who don't even win lane anymore).
I mean, nobody is saying Nidalee is a good teamfighter. She's a bad teamfighter. But she's not a disgracefully bad one; she's not anywhere near bad enough in a teamfight to come anywhere close to offsetting the things she does overwhelmingly well.
Xerath's poke is actually better than Nidalee's (if only by volume, he has more of it but individual spells don't do as much), but he's not gamebreaking.
The difference between the two is pretty simple. Xerath brings a serious disadvantage to offset it: he's not mobile and extremely vulnerable to being engaged on. Nidalee gets away almost automatically between her passive and pounce. She brings game-changing poke - good enough to make her a solid teamfighter via single target damage, even, so teams with a Nidalee aren't automatically vulnerable to hard engage - without offering up a weakness in exchange.
Spear should have a longer cooldown, FAR lower damage, maybe some damage throwing it from the brush, maybe be harder to dodge, and should give a bonus on damage from Nidalee's other stuff. Her play pattern should be to lead with a spear and then jump on you from the brush, not just huck spears every few seconds until someone dies.
Nidalee's teamfighting IS awful without landing spears beforehand, though. A bit less so in this meta of healstacking. Anyway there is generally very much a problem if a nidalee team gets engaged on without poking first.
I'm not going to argue with anyone who tells me she's OP or whatever because yes she definitely is, but she does have weaknesses. She doesn't need a rework, she has a solid basis in her kit already. She just needs nerfs.
Her spear should be obliterated, not just nerfed - there's no healthy middle ground for it. It's an inherently unhealthy ability and it has been for years. Whenever it's good, it's good by virtue of being something she can spam and if one hits, its game-changing. A large CD nerf, a large mana cost nerf or a large damage nerf would essentially make AP Nidalee a pointless build.
I mean, it's not uncommon to see it chunking for more than half with that one spell. She can usually burst a squishy opponent in one go round of her skills if she can land a spear with decent range and then close. She's definitely not a GOOD teamfighter, but if she lands her spear in the opening seconds, lands the next one, throws E on the ADC and pounces someone, she's done ok. She's no dedicated teamfighter, but she's not an evelynn or a teemo or a twisted fate in a teamfight either.
Braum is the new focus for all of my hatred in this game. As an ADC main, every time I see an enemy Braum, once teamfights start, all he does is follow me around with his shield up and throw out the occasional CC. Shuts down ADCs for effectively a whole teamfight unless something else happens.
I gather I can neutralize this with a BoRK/Hurricane setup, though, as he takes all 3 hits from Hurricane which apply BoRK at full strength.
If we are invited in to help with a specific problem, it would be easy enough to get right back out afterwards. Trouble is that the intervention in the first place could make things worse - there are a lot of groups who automatically latch on to anything anti-American. I don't know the specifics of the situation in Nigeria enough to know how likely that is to be a problem, but it must be considered.
% Penetration is functionally just a multiplier on the damage you deal. Flat penetration is a specifically anti-squishy stat. I could see a hybrid pen item *if* they were going forward with more robust hybrid itemization. Are they? Any such item would instantly be a required buy on hybrid damage champs, and then they'd have to retune the hybrid damage champs around it (they would have to nerf Jax and Kayle 100%, and if the hybrid damage itemization was strong enough that you'd care about it, they'd probably have to nerf Akali as well).
Would that game be better?
I.e. they did not achieve the goals of the social safety net (possibly because they were never intended to!), which means if the social safety net was removed, we can reasonably expect (unless something has changed) that a set of goals currently being achieved (partially or wholly) by the social safety net will be neglected.
So the question of whether charity can replace the social safety net boils down to two questions: what are those goals that will be neglected, and are they important enough to justify the social safety net?
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
I'm almost always on, even from work - Catches Axes
Not sure about duo queue ranked, but I'm often up for a game.
I've been floating in gold 5 for a bit. I'll go 16/6, then I'll go 6/7... really up-and-down. I feel like if I get more consistent, I will cruise up a couple divisions really fast; I'm dominating half my games, I'm just a severe liability for the other half.
My experience of working in game studios is that they tend to accumulate talented, artistic people with diverse interests. I've worked with quite a few professional musicians turned game designers over the years.
There is a LOT to be said for that.
Looking for info on The Sims 4, and right now it sounds like a slightly slicker version of The Sims 3 to me, minus some large number of expansion packs. What's the difference / why is The Sims 4 attractive to you?
Hanging out on my college friend's grandparents' ranch in Waco, Texas, we had to carry a shotgun because the risk of dangerous animals (wild pigs, particularly, I think) was real.
Now I live in Los Angeles and yeah, be careful out here.
There's quite a bit of (relatively poor) evidence available that the Nigerian government isn't really interested in dealing with Boko Haram. They asked for help (finally!) after an extended period of time under tremendous pressure. They resisted having to try to do something about it for as long as they possibly could without actively declaring themselves for Boko Haram.
On the other hand, there's no evidence of which I'm aware that says that Boko Haram controls the Nigerian government. It seems to be more a case of a vile and corrupt government resisting the need to actually spend the money for genuine internal security (which they prefer to siphon off to line their own pockets), rather than actively siding with Boko Haram.
Of course, all we have are a few news reports; good evidence could overturn some/all of it.
"The form of an argument which you didn't make and don't agree with is poor, therefore why should I listen to you?"
You were the one who used to talk about how you just couldn't help it, when your teammates sucked you had to yell, right? Hope you take the hint.
As for bruiser Eve, I've never seen anything I'd describe as a bruiser eve build in action so I don't know if that's a good teamfighting build. Every Eve I have seen in action (I've topped out at Gold 1 in ranked, for skill level reference) becomes a huge liability in that she can generally either be instantly focused down or can be ignored while doing almost no damage, usually a mix of both. So, it's plausible that there's a strong teamfighting evelynn build out there, but I rather doubt it.
And that's totally disregarding the pure win-lane-lose-game champs like Yorick and Urgot (who don't even win lane anymore).
I mean, nobody is saying Nidalee is a good teamfighter. She's a bad teamfighter. But she's not a disgracefully bad one; she's not anywhere near bad enough in a teamfight to come anywhere close to offsetting the things she does overwhelmingly well.
Her spear should be obliterated, not just nerfed - there's no healthy middle ground for it. It's an inherently unhealthy ability and it has been for years. Whenever it's good, it's good by virtue of being something she can spam and if one hits, its game-changing. A large CD nerf, a large mana cost nerf or a large damage nerf would essentially make AP Nidalee a pointless build.
I mean, it's not uncommon to see it chunking for more than half with that one spell. She can usually burst a squishy opponent in one go round of her skills if she can land a spear with decent range and then close. She's definitely not a GOOD teamfighter, but if she lands her spear in the opening seconds, lands the next one, throws E on the ADC and pounces someone, she's done ok. She's no dedicated teamfighter, but she's not an evelynn or a teemo or a twisted fate in a teamfight either.
I gather I can neutralize this with a BoRK/Hurricane setup, though, as he takes all 3 hits from Hurricane which apply BoRK at full strength.