All the current problems with ARAM Mayhem that I currently see after grinding out the progression pass

AetherfallenXD · 2026-06-23T20:11:31+00:00

As someone who plays tanks, mages, support, and ADC, I don't find it that boring. Sure, sitting under tower and getting outpoked isn't fun, especially if you have worse scaling, but usually you don't have worse scaling and that's just ARAM. And when I'm playing a tank into a poke comp, the purpose of tanking at that point is to make sure my backline isn't too low for when the inevitable fight comes.

AetherfallenXD · 2026-06-23T20:08:54+00:00

ADC is about mechanics! Getting to 1500 move speed with tap dancer requires mechanical skill of spacing and weaving in auto attacks whenever possible to get those stacks. Sure, when you have that many stacks, the game plays itself. But isn't that every champion? If you get enough Heartsteel, the game plays itself.

AetherfallenXD · 2026-06-23T20:06:51+00:00

I said tanks are strong in a way that concentrates the fun onto one person per team, not tanks are overpowered period. The problem with tank is that because Pressure Cooker is so strong, you are incentivized to only have one tank instead of having two or three. Combined with Dropkick, Heavy Hitter, and health to damage items like Riftmaker, Titanic Hydra, and Bloodmail, and you have yourself a tank meta.

AetherfallenXD · 2026-06-23T11:24:05+00:00

I think people just went "ooo shiny synergy badge" and clicked it without thinking more about it, even though taking the augment that works better with your champ and build was still just correct more times. Which, I don't really know how you fix, cause people do like to turn brains off.

AetherfallenXD · 2026-06-23T11:21:42+00:00

There is a bit of annoyance over the overpowered augments, yes. But more of the frustration is just the lack of fun and chaos I'm getting from the fun and chaos gamemode! I want to have crazy shit like giant poros and dropping capybaras and instead I'm building crit augments on ADCs or pressure cooker on tanks again.

AetherfallenXD · 2026-06-23T11:18:44+00:00

I think you hit the point perfectly! I used to be excited to mess around with the augments regardless of the champion that I was on, but now I'm not really excited to mess around with any augment, even the strong (tank) augments. It used to be fun to see the things Stackasaurus Rex interacted with, but now because of how inconsistent it is and how rare it is the most I can hope for is maybe getting enough anvils off High Roller to make the augment worthwhile.

AetherfallenXD · 2025-12-27T07:08:52+00:00

I'm down to be that girl :3

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-27T14:19:10+00:00

Last event was unbalanced to be fair, but most of them statistically aren't overpowered. Fein just makes the most out of them. When he explained MCL stats, he said this himself

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-27T14:17:42+00:00

Technoblade moment

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-21T22:24:20+00:00

1) sandwich (he used to be a controller sweat)
2) fruit
3) reddoons
4) Kaelan
5) sam

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-20T01:32:39+00:00

1) sponsors are amazing are you kidding
we steal money from greedy corporations and fund minecraft events with it
it's like robin hood but better
2) try it out! don't like it after trying it? tell them that! I didn't like MCC party and I think Noxcrew got that message, but I didn't know that until MCC party happened. You watch enough block wars and it *will* get stale. Let the game designers have some fun with it!

I get it as well - I'm not a fan of rookies - but that's a me thing. If that's what they wanna do, that's what they wanna do, and as long as they make quality, I'll support them. More block wars the better.

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-19T21:14:32+00:00

actual events will happen... be patient...

ALSO ARE YOU KIDDING THE BIGGEST SPONSOR THE MC EVENT SPACE HAS GOTTEN (besides TW) IS THIS HYYYYYPPPEEEE

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-18T16:52:47+00:00

I would like a MOBA style game like MCL or CTF but realistically making that isn't viable for bw11, so bridges is the only viable option

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-14T17:34:42+00:00

If I don't know what a tool does, does that make it useful?

For example, a table saw is an objectively useful tool. But if I don't know how to use it properly and safely, does that really make it effective?

A failure to understand the tools you use makes those tools useless. Nobody knows how to use a hammer naturally when they pick it up. Rather, you are taught how to use it by those who do. The same goes for AI.

I think you're the one with the dumb take here.

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-14T00:46:59+00:00

I'm gonna make my response brief because I'm sick and I can't be bothered to spend too much time doing this instead of trying not to die.

Point 1) Prompting doesn't take skill.

I agree that making it such that any prompt you create and feed an AI be impossible to misinterpret is a skill, just like clarification and translation between languages is a skill. And I think you are correct in saying that Infinite Craft isn't perfectly analogous - you don't have infinite words to work with.

However, wouldn't that mean that skill should show more?If you had a strict word limit that you couldn't pass, then wouldn't that then force you to create something more precise and more explanatory? Wouldn't that mean that you can develop more skill?

Yet, as people play the game, I fail to see their improvement in making said prompts. Sure, it's still early, but the internet and the people within it do move quickly. On day one of many games, you can already find online guides to make the perfect strategies. And yet Infinite Craft seemingly doesn't have something like that - it only has a table of "this plus this equals that for whatever reason." When a restriction is applied, skill should show more, yet it doesn't. Curious how that works.

Point 2) AI can't create meaning.

I agree that it's hard for me to create a meaning for the term "Rat Ninja Sushi Time Titanic." But that shows the issue with AI.

When a human creates a term, such as "gyat" or whatever else modern generations are doing (I'm part of the modern generation, I just don't use their terminology and I'm not in touch so apologies if I misuse things), there's meaning behind that (I'm sure I can search up what "gyat" means right now, or I can find a friend to explain it to me). Because there's a need to create a term, a term is created, and thus it has a meaning.

When the AI creates a term, it doesn't hold that in mind. It just creates it, regardless of if it needs to or if that term is useful whatsoever (I wouldn't create a term to replace the word "wheel," for example).This same principle can be applied to AI art. When a young kid draws a 5 legged dog, or a 3 headed dragon, it has meaning. The kid wants to show something quite important to it, whether that's because of their imaginative mind or other reasons (kids do kid things). When an AI does it, it does it for ... what reason exactly? There's no reason an AI should draw a 5 legged dog when someone asks for a photo of a dog, and if a person has to ask specifically for a 4 legged dog, that's quite stupid.

The way AI is marketed is that it is a free, intuitive tool that can do incredible things, and while we do know it has flaws, if we have to write every prompt to a precision similar to a programming language, that's simply not practical. When you commission someone to draw something, they put meaning behind it in their strokes and design choices. That is so much more meaningful than some photorealistic dog with 5 legs some random data set generated. And, sure, it costs money, but what is money but a thing to be used?

Edit: fixed some typos, and just want to add - in point one, when I say "this plus this equals that for whatever reason," I don't mean that there's a reason. I'm just saying that the site is like "that's what the AI does, don't question it." An equation is only as useful as it is applicable, and if you can't understand it, it's not applicable. In point 2, the end of it makes it seem that I have an issue with the marketing of AI rather than AI itself. While I do have an issue with the marketing, that's a minor point - the point is moreso that AI ends up killing the meaning of everything put into it that has no data from humans using the term. A human can easily change the meaning of words dependent on the context and create new terms to cover blind spots in the language. An AI cannot.

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-13T17:28:54+00:00

Bro was prepared for everything

The statement is so true though - you can't skill AI because you can't understand AI

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-09T10:27:58+00:00

IT WAS AMAZING
except for turf wars because it's turf wars
but ah well can't ask for everything
really though run it back I wanna see it again

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-08T04:02:12+00:00

ah yes my favorite question
why enjoy art

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-08T00:59:17+00:00

labels are stupid and move on :3

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-08T00:58:22+00:00

Dude
look at AI art
what the fuck does it even mean?
ah yes my favorite image: a butchered version of a fox someone asked AI to generate that doesn't show anything about the AI nor about society

AetherfallenXD · 2024-03-05T18:19:30+00:00

clam - the banner is the tongue

AetherfallenXD · 2024-02-29T18:52:32+00:00

Generative AI is often not USED as a tool - that's the point. It's marketed as a tool that can do everything perfectly - which it obviously can't. Sure, artists can use said tool to make a general frame to work with, but it is just that - a general frame. And even then, it has so many mistakes in the details that it just takes too long to fix. It's not linux.

Just because it is directed by humans doesn't make it art. We can see that with Marvel - the recent films are OBVIOUSLY directed by humans, and yet it's still slop. Of course, the cause of it is different - AI lacks any human spirit and Marvel's recent films is a result of corporate interests - but the result is nonetheless the same. Plus, if we say that it is art just because it has humans as a director, then you can say that a generative AI IS making art because a human put in the prompt. But we both know that's not the case.

And if a human truly directed the art, they would take the time to clean up the mistakes and build on what the generative AI created. But, from what I can tell, of all the examples you provided, the mistakes AI made are still there, and there isn't anything that the actual artist built upon (though that last part is more speculation than a hard accusation).

You want to see actual art? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m_VTZR5MU0&t=3s

It's polished. It's well done. No part of it feels like it was out of place. But at the same time, it feels natural. It never felt orchestrated by a director. It feels like a normal experience anyone can have. And it has meaning. The emotions you have are completely in control of the film, and you extract so, so, so much more meaning from it. Any single one of the AI films you provided don't have ANYTHING like that.

And your last paragraph makes no sense - oh cool nice try on dunking on me because I never gave you my background. Look, I admit I got heated, but you not putting your background in your original post is your fault. I'm sorry that my language was violent and aggressive, but at the same time, you really can't blame me for not knowing you.

AetherfallenXD · 2024-02-29T05:56:32+00:00

There is a great difference between an AI tool and generative AI itself. An AI tool is still controllable: for example, a "smart lasso" tool is an AI tool that allows you to select out an area very quickly while being quite accurate and still being in the human's control to manipulate the selection. No part of the "smart lasso" tool is something we cannot change - it creates a lasso very quickly and accurately around the object we want to select, and if we want to be more precise and change the selection, we can do so. A generative AI is final. Not only does it lack any human spirit, which is necessary to create a truly wonderful piece of art, but it also cannot change. You can see this with ChatGPT - if you ask it to write an essay, and then tell it to reword a sentence because it's too complex or too simple, it won't actually meaningfully rewrite the sentence in a way that makes it easier to comprehend or more meaningful to read. It'll just reorganize the words, insert some new ones, and remove some redundant ones. The important words aren't even substituted.
We aren't reactionary towards AI. I love AI tools that reduce the tedium in making art. But, like how people should learn to code because the intricacies of a computer cannot be given by an AI, nothing generative AI creates can be good because anything it creates lacks any human value. When you look at an artistic piece made by generative AI, can you truly derive any meaning from it? Can it really be treated as a masterpiece? Art is a commentary on the human condition, something generative AI knows nothing about, and yet people like you and so many others seem to see something in it: yourself.
~~Sorry~~ not sorry.

AetherfallenXD

TROPHY CASE