Talk:Vel'Koz/@comment-9048637-20151108223258/@comment-9008617-20151122190642

Damn. I tried. But there's just so much stupidity coming out here that someone's gotta push back all that bs back before the methane gas tears our ozone a new one.

'" I told you what I meant by "free" stats in this case. I meant they were stats you don't have to spend gold on." '

And I said that runes still had a gold value attached to them. If someone runs flat AP runes at start and their opponent runs scaling runes at start then the former will start the game with a distinct advantage whether it be 15 AP (the approx AP gold value of a dorans ring) or if they start with 1% CDR from the cumulative scaling CDR runes.

I understand that you want to advocate for scaling runes but you can't argue that they're equivalent in gold value to flat runes at the start as convenient as it would be for the sake of your argument.

Your problem is that you keep looking at level 18 which is why the scaling runes always look so good to you because you don't consider the drawbacks.

Again, read what I actually said.

 " Stop banging on about support. I've told you I'm not talking about support Vel'Koz. I'm talking only about mid Vel'Koz. 

It doesn't matter if you're talking about mid or support velkoz, I've already stated that my point was that running so much scaling runes puts you at an incredible disadvantage.

Maybe stop banging your face into the keyboard and read what I actually said.

 "And yes, I know AP quints are standard at the moment, but I hold that they're less effective on Vel'Koz than on other mids. You can't just talk about what runes are "efficient", you have to look at what they're actually giving you. This is the exact problem with gold efficiency as a concept, which you claim to depise. Speaking of... " 

At the moment? LOL

AP Quints have been pretty much standard for a few years now because you get ridiculous gold value at level one which transitions into a stronger early game. THAT's why they are more or less standard on AP mids/supports. Not because they're "efficient".

But don't take my word for it. Ask Faker, Bjerg , Froggen , Incarnation , Nukeduck ,...

I get that you see yourself as this badass trendsetting theorycrafter because you think you're right and AP quints are on their way out however there comes a time to admit when you're wrong.

Sheesh, you're the first to point fingers about strawman arguments but here you go again. Maybe if you read what I actually said?

" No, I didn't. The supposedly damning quote you're bringing up was me referring to the fact that stats from runes and masteries are stats that are independent of your gold income in-game, hence when your gold income is low, they constitute a greater proportion of your overall stats. Which was tangential to my overall point, but whatever. "

Lets look at that quote again shall we?

" When I talked about "free" stats, I meant "free" purely in the sense of "free in terms of gold".  my point was that the stats you're getting from runes and masteries are relatively weightier when you don't have gold for items than when you do " 

The funny part? That was my whole point. In laning phase you don't have gold for items which is why flat runes are favoured because they are "relatively weightier". lol

Maybe if you read what I said you'd stop hitting yourself?

" Now, I try to be polite, but this point is just completely asinine... "

How is my point asinine when it's the foundation for why people choose flat runes over scaling runes? Cait's a relatively safe ADC and yet you don't see (good) players running scaling AD runes on her.

I'm saying you don't understand how this game works and all your glazed over eyes see is yourself reaching late game and not getting punished for your bad theorycrafting.

Heck, you might as well run scaling reds, yellows, blues, and quints because Vel'koz is so safe, right?

'" Now as for AP quints versus Mpen: I run Mpen because that maximises my ult damage in teamfights. It also works out as better for your basic abilities as they level and once you have AP. Yes, your rank 1 abilities take a hit. But on mid Vel'Koz, I feel that's a wortwhile trade off." '

Or phrased differently (since you clearly love different perspectives), you get mpen to help your longest CD spell (i.e. your ult) which you don't even get access to until level 6 to do a tiny bit more damage by sacrificing your early game because admittedly your spells don't do as much damage without the dun dun dunnn AP.

' "And for the last time, I am only talking about mid Vel'Koz. So you can stop banging on about "selfish choices" like it's some kind of worthwhile point. Of course I'm going to be selfish. My team wants me to be selfish, I'm their AP carry." '

Strawman.

TFW you already know and state that you already know that the use of "selfish" was in context of support Velkoz but you still go off on a tirade about mid being selfish.

Maybe read what I... oh, you wait did.. but you still made a strawman argument out of it. XD

" ' Are you going to start ragging on ADCs for buying all these 'selfish' damage items like Infinity Edge, running those 'selfish' AD reds to help with their last hitting?" '

What..? You're really trying too hard to make a connection again.

" I said it is possible in edge cases to OOM yourself with a Morello's. I'm talking about minute-long sieges where you don't have blue buff or an elixir here. It's possible, but it's not likely.  

Interesting that you banged on me about blue buff reliability but then at the same time you have no problem assuming you'll have blue buff and/or elixir (which is a really late game buy for most). Edge cases indeed.

' "I just like to recognize such possibilities when I'm making my points because it feels intellectually honest." '

If you were being intectual or honest, you probably wouldn't have made such bad points or made so made fallacies...

' " Yes, but the value is worth more relative to where you currently are. I'm not sure how I can put this any better. When you get your first 50% CDR, you can cast 50% more spells. When you get the next 50%, you cast an infinite number more spells..." '

Did you not read what I said?

100% CDR doesn't exist in this game so that argument has no grounds or merit here.

Obviously if you had a way of getting 100% CDR then that would be interesting talk. We would still have to consider the ramifications in order to achieve 100% CDR but it would be for another talk.

All you did was bring up an impossibility and change the reference in an attempt to make what you're selling more palatable.

1 second is still 1 second.

Or would you rather say at 10% CDR you get 1 second off but then at 20% CDR you get 2000 ms off?

"Your counter-example isn't actually completely wrong. It's something called diminishing returns, which affect statistics that, unlike CDR, don't scale cumulatively - such as AP. Of course, it would be wrong to conclude from this that you shouldn't buy more AP after your first point - that part's just silly. But the more AP you buy, the less you're getting relative to what you currently have. This is why Rabadon's Deathcap has its multiplier: it's an artifical cumulative scaling."

For someone who keeps spouting them big fancy words, do you even know what the word "cumulative " means?

Afterall, the definition of cumulative is simply the sum of additions.

So yeah, the result of buying more AP after buying that first amplifying tome is a cumulative AP or the sum of all the AP bought.

10% CDR gives the same amount as the next 10% CDR off the base amount.

The percentage is based off the base value just like attack speed.

10% CDR gives 1 second off, the next 10% CDR gives another 1 second off.

1 + 1 = 2 and not 3, no matter how hard your try to sell that snake oil.

"It's an extreme example to illustrate a point that is nevertheless true in less extreme examples. Appeal to extremes is only a fallacy when you can demonstrate that the extreme example is somehow breaking the rules under which the less extreme example operates. You've given me no such demonstration here. You've just thrown a fallacy at me as a substitute for an actual argument."

Please stop making up your own definitions like you did with cumulative.

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes

Your argument is that if we could achieve 100% CDR then it would be invaluable - we can't. It's an impossibility. Let me know how you managed to break the game and achieved 100% CDR in League.

Are you really trying to accuse me of using fallacies when I proved you were? Oh boy.

"You know reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy, right? It's tried and tested form of argumentation; Socrates was particularly fond of it. You accuse me of not reading my own points; you don't seem to read your own links."

My point was that you were creating ridiculous conclusions with impossible scenarios then basing your argument off that.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">Try to keep up.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">"As for who's being an "egomanical little prick": I feel that that description suits you far better."

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">Nah uh. You are!

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">*insert eye-rolling emoji*

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">"I came into this thread making putting my point across calmly and politely;"

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">So now you're taking my position when I said I only came in here to ask about mana regen and blue pots...

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">"you responded by insulting me when you took exception to me disagreeing with you. If anyone's thinking with their pride here, I don't think it's me. Yes, I've given a little back since in terms of the sarcasm. I feel I'm warranted after how you've behaved. I also feel I could have been far more rude under the circumstances."

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">Oh? So I took "exception" to you disagreeing with me? I mean, it hasn't been me debating (and destroying) your silly impossible points.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">But no, no.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">It's all about you.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">Talk about making it personal.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">'Also, if your best argument is "I'm plat, you're wrong", then personally I consider that you've already lost. Having a high rank entitles you to a certain respect, yes, but it doesn't mean you're automatically right. Come to think of it, I think there's a fallacy to describe that..."'

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">If my best argument was "I'm plat, you're wrong" then I wouldn't have destroyed all your points. Heck, this conversation would've been a lot shorter.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">However, it seems like that's all you're reading into it.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">I've indirectly asked what your experience with Velkoz is to gauge what kind of position you're coming from - whether it be from a position of strength or weakness.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">My point about bringing up my rank was that I managed to climb to plat/diamond having only 30% CDR in my build (see the very first post) from the 10% in runes and 20% items. For what it's worth, no pro has more than 15% CDR in their runes.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">So are we done "theorycrafting"? Or would you rather keep giving absurd conclusions under impossible premises?

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">Don't worry. It's not like anyone notices the cumulative mistakes you've made all this while. :P