Caenen_

Fixed because Shakarez pinged you, or fixed because the fix was coincidentally underway already?

Edit: I just read up on the comment chain. I assume you caught the part where the 'cast' trigger for spellbinder and co was in the wrapper, not the actual spell, too?

I fixed this one earlier this week coincidentally, and I should have the spellbinder bit sorted out for 10.5 since 10.4 is already locked.

Caenen_

Alright this is a pretty old one, and afaik happens to all allied shields spells that use 'spell wrappers', ever since Guardian was introduced. Targeting an ally with Rakan's E2 puts some allied buff on them which allows Guardian to trigger, even if the 'actual spell' never actually started casting on them.

It appears to be decently well known for Rakan mains, so the Rakan in this clip probably used the bug deliberately. +1 for soloQ map awareness!

The fix here would be to stop Guardian from using the engine level targeting thing it uses right now, and have it be managed on script level like literally any other effect does.

Fixed for 10.4! Lots of our older wrapper spells aren't very precise about what you can target with them, since afterward the script interprets the command and actually triggers the spell correctly (and sometimes we still want to allow you to target someone out of range, so that we can then let you know that you're out of range or display a range circle or similar). The real culprit here was that Guardian never cared whether you cast something tagged as a buff or helpful effect—it triggered when you targeted an ally with anything, including totally untagged "spells" that have no gameplay effect, like wrapper spells. So, Guardian now correctly only triggers on helpful ally-targeted effects, similar to Summon: Aery.

haji1823

wait no stop. ive been using this for months to save people D:

edit: also it works with spellbinder. rakan can stack a spellbinder in 2-3 e, if you e1 to an ally and spam e2 to someone far away. (if you are gonna mention one might as well mention it all)

Oh ffs

AzuBK

Oh ffs

/u/RiotKingCobra make me fix this please

haji1823

is that a ffs for “thats a different bug that shouldnt exist” or a “why does that also work?” lmao

I want to say I can't believe it triggers Spellbinder...but I can believe it

and I'm not happy

Thanks for sharing your story. It's always great to get reminders like this of why positive representation is so important, and I'm super happy that you found your acceptance right away. Hold those friends close!

I'm also gay, and, when I first started at Riot, this was shown during our orientation as a sneak peek of cool upcoming stuff. That was definitely a reaffirming moment for my decision to work here and made me more comfortable with my identity in the workplace.

srukta

now its "i guess we are glued together with a demon. welp im angry man now."

A classic trope, really.

Caenen_

Alright, that explains everything left I was still wondering about (although, pretty sure at least on 9.24 when I shot the video for my bug report he just kept shooting crits, not 4th shots)! Thanks for tackling the initial thing and this follow-up, in any case. Next patch, another classic bug will officially be history.

...please do make sure to put it in the patch notes this time, though! :^)

^{Edit: typo}

Kinda late, but we put bugs in the patch notes in a pretty ad-hoc fashion. Like, if we think it's either a big bug that's important to let players know about or if we think it'll make players happy to know it was fixed, we'll let Shio Shoujo know so she can include it. We fix a lot more bugs every patch than make it into the patch notes, which is why things like "When Jhin runs his very suboptimal keystone, he will no longer very occasionally become unable to 4th shot" didn't make the grade for me.

Thanks for everything you do, btw. I always appreciate finding your repro steps when I'm trying to stomp a bug.

Caenen_

For a bit of information on this - Jhin's 'infinite ammo bug' was a thing for a long time already, likely since Jhin's launch. Riot tried to fix it in this patch or last one (and maybe some other stuff too while at it), undocumented, by forcing him to reload when he attacks while under effect of this.

But turns out, as long as he sucessfully rolls a crit, he still gets to shoot and keep the bug active.

And now since the 'fix', all of those shots are 4th shots (which they weren't before)!

And you can also manage to get other spells into the spell slot of his crit attack while under effect of this, such as E!

Ooops?

Big oops. Last patch I fixed a bug with Hail of Blades which caused Jhin to sometimes become unable to 4th shot at all. I fixed this by removing a seemingly superfluous check somewhere that reset that spell slot to his crit auto attack. That change exposed a separate issue that already existed—Jhin can be prevented from reloading sometimes, which places him into a state where he has zero ammo and whatever is placed in his spell slot becomes his crit basic attack until he reloads (defaults to his 4th shot, but can also be his Q or E). Before last patch, this would lead to perma 4th shot. Now, it leads to perma 4th shot or perma Q/E (whichever he cast last). This is now fixed for next patch by allowing Jhin's reload to be castable under all conditions.

And no, you can't get his ultimate to replace his basic attack, sadly.

HULLcity

We have the data, take Aery on Yuumi, not comet

I seriously hate when whoever does the patch notes tells us what to build. I remember when they changed Stormrazor to the second iteration and they said on the patch notes to stop building Stormrazor on Kai’Sa. Meanwhile after that very patch Stormrazor was the most efficient item on Kai’Sa.

edit: refer to patch 9.4 notes.

Normally not a fan of this sort of thing on principle, but in this case it was so extreme that I elected to include it. I don't think I've ever seen an example where a choice like this is wrong by so much (between 3% and 4% winrate depending on MMR) and made so frequently (between 45% and 70% take Comet depending on MMR, with most of the remainder taking Aery). A ton of people are making a choice that loses them a ton of winrate, so the practical value of helping players view Yuumi as a viable champion by increasing her average winrate by ~2% purely through spreading information seemed to outweigh the negatives of being prescriptive about a rune.

MemoryStay

Some champs never appear picked in these competitives(for a very long time)though, any goal to make them appear? For the worlds ofc.

Not specifically. It would be awesome to live in a world where every champion was pro-viable without being grossly imbalanced in solo queue. A lot of champs are pretty far off from that, though, and we usually have more pressing problems.

EcoleBuissonniere

Due to the nature of League and how it's designed, we probably won't ever see a situation in which all or nearly all champions are picked in one tournament. Heroes aren't niche enough, counterpicks aren't important enough, etc. We're probably never going to see a situation like in Dota 2.

And yet despite that, 81 out of 145 champions - more than half the roster - were picked over the course of a week. That's honestly really impressive.

This game is much, much more well balanced than people give it credit for. There are always balance issues, but nearly all games have balance issues, and League mitigates them much better than most.

hey thanks

n9ner

Just faced a neeko who was permanently shown from 5 minutes on at 100hp when she could be any health truly. Lost the ranked game because people kept taking bad fights. Apparently it looked normal for her team but all of my team saw the same thing.

Passed it along, thanks

Rimikokorone

ctrl + f , Neeko

Wtf riot how is that game breaking bug allowed to still be in the game

It's fixed! Must have missed it in our patch note documentation, sorry about that.

ToTheNintieth

Is the intent for Sylas to have sub-45% solo queue WR and zero pick/ban at Worlds?

No. We aren't looking to completely remove any champions from the meta going into worlds. There's always a bit of guesswork here, but we don't want to make teams play an entirely different meta from the one they qualified on. We're lightening up on the Sylas nerf a bit toward that end (and walking back the Aatrox/Akali nerfs slightly as well).

ToTheNintieth

Which nerfs are you walking back on? There's been quite a few iterations this past PBE cycle, including compensatory AS buffs and removal of the Q monster damage reduction, both which appear to be removed. Is the current iteration the final one?

Not certain, I haven't been particularly involved in these sets of changes. You should see a trimmed down final version tomorrow, though.

ProfDrWest

Question regarding the Riven changes for 9.19:

The first set of changes had a pretty different scope (ult damage changed, W ratio up). Why did those changes not work out?

Author of both sets of changes here. While I think that the previous set of changes were solid (I expected them to be a lower MMR/teamfighting buff specifically), they were also a bit more speculative and might have required followup. Given that we've changed riven several times in the last ~10 patches, we instead went for a simpler, more understood change.

As for why this was the change: In 9.10, we agreed that Riven was too powerful and needed a nerf. The change we made ended up increasing her win-rate disparity by MMR, so for this patch I chose to essentially revert to 9.9 (understood OP version of Riven) and do a simpler nerf of 2 seconds CD on E.

TheeOmegaPi

Yes, I am referring to that statement, but I think maybe some clarity on the intentions of the changes might add to the impact of relying on the players being happy. Something along the lines of:

We were considering changes to Teemo's kit that would make him more fun/accessible/unique/[insert goal here], which meant that we needed players to be on board with our ideas in this case. In the end, it seemed like we couldn’t make a change to meet our goals for Teemo without being deeply divisive—and we weren’t comfortable shipping something unless the majority of his playbase was on board with the changes.

The addition of the first sentence (that I bolded) emphasizes the goal of the rework, the importance of player feedback at meeting that particular goal, and allows for the final sentence to use player feedback & happiness as the metrics for the success of those changes. Does that make sense?

Sure, makes sense.

TheeOmegaPi

Basically, my question was if there was a better way to phrase the statement to begin with, given that there were other serious considerations to be made along with the community reaction.

If you're referring to this statement:

We tried a few variations of the changes, but in the end, it seemed like we couldn’t make a change without being deeply divisive—and we weren’t comfortable shipping something unless the majority of his playbase was on board.

Then no, I think it was phrased accurately. This set of changes was meant to make Teemo players happier (to my understanding), and it didn't seem to be doing that, so we weren't comfortable shipping them.

TheeOmegaPi

Thank you for the response.

I think I should clarify for a moment, because I don't want to a.) antagonize you, b.) belittle Riot (and their employees), as well as c.) minimize the gravity of your work.

I understand that the player-focused bit isn't exclusive to the online forums. Y'all have one of the largest sets of continuously growing data in the industry (be it from player behavior feedback, realtime statistics related to players and champions, as well as a population that you can directly interact with for surveys), so I'm sure that there's probably a lot that goes into the decision-making regarding champions and such. I respect what y'all do to the extent of me wanting to work at Riot once I'm finished with my degree, but I digress.

I think my concern is one related to the wording of the Teemo changes portion. If what you're saying is, the changes being made aren't being made because his kit is unhealthy, it's just slightly dated, then wouldn't saying something along the lines of wanting to ship changes that stay true to the champion, make them interesting, and keep the community whole? Like, it seems off (at least to me, but I might be a minority here) to focus exclusively on shipping changes unless the majority of the playerbase was on board given the other major influences keeping them from shipping.

Does that make sense?

I appreciate you replying. I really really really hope that you didn't find my comment to be in any way negative. Thank you for replying and keeping this game great! :)

I'm not sure I fully follow your question. It sounds like we're on the same page. When the goal of shipping a change is to give something great to the community of people that play that champ, then those changes shouldn't run contrary to what a considerable portion of those players want. I believe this is the goal for the current round of Teemo changes, which is why they were pulled upon the community liking them less than was forecast.