Will there ever be more in-depth tools for people who want to collect information from the game for documentational purposes? A lot of people seem to go to the wiki to get informed, particularly since the official resources tend to be lacking, but much of our data collection requires the right person at the right time, and involves far more educated guesses than one would want from a wiki (our numbers for ranges and projectile speeds aren't always exact). Failing that, would there ever be the possibility of Riot working more closely with data collectors to make sure we're getting the right information? Anything that would let us be more accurate, and have more than just playtesting as a method of verification, would be appreciated.
If it's applying FM's slow then that's a bug, as it's an on-hit effect and should not be applied. The Black Cleaver's armor reduction, however, applies on all applications of physical damage, which includes both basic attacks and physical damage abilities, so having it apply on Judgment is normal.
Moyon wrote: Can anyone justify why picking the small items is better than picking the larger items ? Both seems as arbitrary to me.
Because those are the items players start with, and the ones most likely to build into component items that serve as the base for further stats, e.g. Aether Wisp or Vampiric Scepter. Not only are the more expensive items expressly designed to be more gold efficient (you're "paying" for them in terms of time spent not using that gold elsewhere), a great deal many of them have been turned into non-basic items over time, namely Giant's Belt, Negatron Cloak and Chain Vest, so it makes little sense to pick those as the bases for measuring gold efficiency.
It's also worth noting that the M.O. for gold value and efficiency calculations is to pick the most basic and least gold-efficient item, not necessarily the smallest, since that is what makes for the clearest gold efficiency calculations thereafter (you don't end up with as many items with deceptively crappy-looking gold efficiency when they're clearly more efficient than just filling up on Long Swords or Ruby Crystals). The fact that the least expensive components end up also being the least gold efficient is essentially just a product of that.
NeonSpotlight wrote: if these changes went through you wouldn't gain the ability to block people, you'd still stay where you are as content mod unless another rights request is brought up.
In that case, there is no issue, thank you for clarifying. I'll likely apply for mod rights sometime in the future, but for now it's good to know this move won't grant undue privileges.
Phantomofdark wrote: Really? I didn't noticed this. I assumed mod weren't able to ban users
Content/thread moderators cannot, but the wiki's all-purpose Moderator rank can. The move would basically entail giving every mod the latter title, rather than creating a new rank from scratch.
TehAnonymous wrote: we can't just disable the new moderator functions, but ignoring them does the same thing.
I understand that, but I don't think block rights are really something that can be ignored: users who currently hold the content/thread moderator ranks were perhaps not voted in with the expectation that they'd have that kind of power, and I think we've all seen at least one mod abuse it before -- it's not pretty. I trust that Tyranitar12 and I won't issue unwarranted bans, but I stress that this is a move everyone aware of this discussion needs to be on board with first.
Consolidating all mod ranks into a single one would likely make things a lot more consistent and less confusing, since the only real reason to have a separate moderator rank would be for chat (and even then, it's not that big a difference). However, this also means giving all mods block rights, which requires a very serious assessment of all the current mods who currently don't have access to that. As a content moderator myself, I feel the main decision should come from those who are out of the loop, i.e. admins, 'crats and regular users.
If you want to test for yourself, play a custom game where you lane against a Sion, let him stack tons of health, grab a BotRK and use Judgment on him: if it does interact with Judgment, it should shred his health even if he's at ridiculous values, and if it doesn't, you shouldn't be dealing much damage against him (assuming he also isn't marked as the Villain).
BlackSmith wrote: Fun fact, according to the community's guide and rules admins don't have that kind of privilege or power to overrule edits. Admin's role is something totally different than forcing his own agendas.
Then the admins have overstepped their duties. I'm sure telling them how wrong they are will make them relinquish the unchecked power they currently have.
BlackSmith wrote: Yeah, it has indeed been a year. Wonder why others haven't stepped up to write those descriptions if the wiki is so welcoming for the edits.
This was not KHO's original intention, and I think most of us can agree that this is not optimal, but this is the space that was assigned to the project by the powers that be. Perhaps now that enough time has elapsed, and that several more users have implemented successful champion-wide page updates, it might be worth looking at this project with a fresh eye and determining what can be done to get it started back up again.
Congratulations, and thank you so much for the work! This will set an excellent model for future champions articles, and make both viewing and editing those articles a lot easier.
Tylobic wrote: Those LoL specific terms are linked to their respective page on their instance of appearing on the page or on a unique ability ?
From what I understand, it's one instance per page, so in the example you mention the first "cooldown" would be linked but the one at the bottom would not. The idea behind this is that, as the reader goes through the page from top to bottom, they get links to any terms that might interest them, and afterwards they're assumed to have clicked those links, so the subsequent text can be less flashy and unnecessarily attention-grabbing. There are also a huge amount of terms that can be linked, and linking them only once prevents articles from turning half-blue.
Support — Sounds good. Standardization on champion pages always gets my vote.
I'd say in-line numbers break the flow just as badly, if not worse, as users have to constantly run through a stream of numbers even as they're trying to understand what an ability does. I imagine this is significantly worse on mobile devices, where preexisting walls of text would turn into stat soup. I'm not a fan of moving information like this to Ability Details either, because the latter is typically used for explanations on the particularities of certain mechanics or special cases, and again not for core gameplay info. Historically, Ability Details has been used to sweep unwieldy information under the rug, so to speak, and the result has been messy, difficult to read, and on occasion even ignored completely, as many users were not even aware the section existed, or didn't check when asking questions in the comments.
That tooltips do not work on mobile devices is a serious problem regardless of where range information ends up. It's central to a lot of critical information display, including the cctip template you worked on, and we can't just operate by dumping every ability-related number as is. We need a way to compress ability information in some way or another on the main section, as evidenced already by the inflated displays of some abilities (and not just range), and if we can't expect to use tooltips we're going to have a serious formatting problem. If we are to display range information in-line, I'd say specifics such as secondary ranges, missile speeds, delays, etc. should count as complex enough to be put under tooltips: a user looking up an ability on their mobile or trying to look up the wiki in-game is, in the vast majority of cases, not going to be doing much with exact knowledge of an ability's radius in in-game units, nor are they going to count the duration required to channel an effect or the like. At the very least, the cast range of an ability is meaningful as it gives an idea of how far it'll go, but in the absolute worst case, it's no major loss if every other in-line stat gets put under a tooltip, and if it is, then we'd better get back to the drawing board in displaying everything, not just range details, without tooltips.
I was one of the main advocates for shifting ranges to the top bar, and still am somewhat in favor of that, though I agree the above example is pretty egregious (it is, however, the worst case out there, along with Heimerdinger's CH-3X Lightning Grenade). My original reasoning behind that was that in-line descriptions should try to convey the core function of an ability as directly as possible, and so should try to be as free of secondary data as possible, with possible exceptions going to non-scaling effects. I also think ranges should be in a similar space: the advantage to a top bar display is that it lists the cast range, radius, etc. of a spell in a section a user can easily remember and check quickly; by contrast, an in-line description requires the user to go through a bunch of text to get to the data point they're looking for.
With that said, it might be better for both presentation and information to use tooltips for ranges in-line, and perhaps do the same for other numbers, e.g. the strength and duration of non-scaling CC, the casting delay of abilities, and the duration of buffs or debuffs. It'd be nice to de-clutter ability descriptions completely, particularly since we're getting increasingly lengthier entries, and ideally we'd want every user to be able to get a good understanding of an ability's basic workings just by skimming through, while being able to find the exact numbers on what they'd like with minimal effort. The advantage to tooltips in this situation is that they'd be more eye-catching, so a user looking for, say, the exact amount of bonus range Leona gets with Incandescence could immediately notice thetooltip.
Oppose — While perhaps more could be done to make bug fixes more distinct from balance changes, I think it might not be ideal to separate bug fixes from balance changes in the patch notes, since I feel it's likely users are going to be going to the same place to read about the same information ("Did my champion get improved?").
With that said, I think the only way we'll really get a feel of this is with a proper experiment, so I'd be up for a temporarySupport — just to see what two separate changelogs would feel to go through on the main space. As much as there might be a potential downside in splitting information that should be unified, there's a much larger potential benefit in user-friendly information delivery, so even if I disagree with the proposition, I think it's worth trying out for the next few patch cycles, or the next one at the very least.
There's a window under the "preview" and "publish" buttons where you should be able to type categories, which then appear on a list below. You should already have the "blog posts" category, which you should remove by hovering over the category in the edit window and selecting the option to delete.
Surveys like these can provide insightful and potentially tremendously useful data, and Rito's recently been very interested in showcasing data that tells more about the community, particularly since it's also impacted on their design decisions. They could absolutely help and support your research, as well as potentially even apply it to the game.
Holy crap, congratulations on the 1K+ responses within the first day of posting this! You should absolutely conduct more surveys like these, and this is a clear sign that a huge amount of people are interested in this topic.
Btw, iirc you only need to be level 10 to post on the Boards, so once you're at that level I hugely recommend you reach out to Riot, as this is clearly something that many people would like to find out more about, and something that might benefit and enlighten everyone.
I take slight issue with the MBTI, as neither personality nor most aspects of psychology tend to be categorical or dichotomous, but this study seems interesting. It would be cool to find correlations between personality types and roles, and you should probably post the above on the LoL boards, if you haven't already.
Another thing to consider, if you want to correlate roles according to personality types, would be to see how Bartle's Taxonomy affects League and its players: do all Killer types main assassins? Do Explorers always favor off-meta builds? How do Socializers fit into all this? Do specific champions consistently resonate more with specific player types? There's a ton of untapped potential in analyzing the psychology of video games and gamers, and this could potentially even lead to data that might be valuable to both Riot and the player base, as it would allow them to see their champions in a new framework and set out goals to capture all different player types as best as they can.
EDIT: One thing you might have to check for is the personality distribution here: one possible factor that might skew results is that there might be an above-average proportion of people here with certain traits, such as introversion. The boards might offer a broader spectrum of personalities, but might also still have some level of bias, so in both cases you might need to control for each specific trait. You could also try contacting Rito on the boards to see if they could potentially add a quick survey like this in-game, which would offer the most direct results.
Here's what I'd put as a replacement for "nightmare":
"... If he's able to think on his feet, however, he can win fights long before they conclude, setting up multiple enemies..."
There was a missing 6% that got taken out accidentally. Akali deals 6% AD bonus on-hit magic damage, and that percentage is increased by 1 per 6 AP.