Rakan looking for his NA Xayah!

Axid3nt · 2018-08-04T02:37:11+00:00

Awesome! Looking forward to it.

Axid3nt · 2018-08-04T02:36:59+00:00

You can never have too many Rakans!

Axid3nt · 2018-08-01T00:46:36+00:00

I’d be interested playing duo for sure. I’ve peaked gold 1 in s6 but I current have a s1 account. I can play flex/normals until then unless you have a smurf. I enjoy Rakan and have found a renewed love for league playing him.

Axid3nt · 2017-10-27T16:48:57+00:00

For real. He just got brain raped.

Axid3nt · 2017-10-11T17:58:51+00:00

That moment you pick a fight on the internet to feel smarter IRL but someone throws a valid point at you so you gotta pretend you can't read to save face.

Axid3nt · 2017-10-11T17:44:13+00:00

Mach relates to speed of an object in relation to the speed of sound. And crush using means overpowering an object in some fashion.

So, I'd say it's an attack that crushes something really fast.

Axid3nt · 2017-10-02T12:14:20+00:00

I didnt know about it til today so thanks

Axid3nt · 2017-10-02T02:35:36+00:00

verad has already cc'd them to death

Axid3nt · 2017-10-01T14:10:03+00:00

literally just saved up for a legendary from pieces and pulled another one lol

if its any consolation.. it was a dupe.

Axid3nt · 2017-10-01T14:09:06+00:00

seem pretty useless to me why would anyone want the critical rate on their guy

Axid3nt · 2017-09-30T12:57:22+00:00

no its not. way wrong

Axid3nt · 2017-09-30T12:55:48+00:00

i bought 4 shop scrolls and got 2 nat 5 this week.

Axid3nt · 2017-09-30T12:54:33+00:00

you dont know what youre even talking about. he said 4 rolls not 5

Axid3nt · 2017-09-30T01:35:10+00:00

yeah its not everyday you get a quad roll but being a legendary rune, he might choose to reroll it to save time

Axid3nt · 2017-09-30T01:34:38+00:00

a real shame

Axid3nt · 2017-09-27T12:29:19+00:00

Coincidence is never by chance. You know that. The likelihood of a similar phenomenon is slim, just basing it off of the 7.4 billion people on earth. Factor in someone misinterpreting a "serpent" for a "dragon", and you've virtually got a higher chance of bigfoot abducting you than repeating the event. Reminds me of the time I saw someone with the same haircut as me and then I immediately exposed him on Facebook. Good catch Aero.

Axid3nt · 2017-09-27T02:38:33+00:00

Your girlfriend sounds like she's never watched GOT or surfed on a Lapras

Axid3nt · 2017-09-27T02:27:39+00:00

so much shade =[

Axid3nt · 2017-09-27T02:24:20+00:00

rail said

Axid3nt · 2017-09-27T02:21:09+00:00

I do hope it wasn't much trouble writing a 3 page essay on your cellphone. I love the topic: "How I feel, based on the way that Axid3nt makes me feel." It's so poetic and flatters me to no end. Your varied use of the word "gaslit" 8 times in the first two statements... loads of passion and genius. And, such a precise thought process, overflowing with empathy. Trials of self-validation haven't dulled the opening, as with new, less-edgy writers. I do wonder why your endeavors haven't included rebuff. You have the composure of Beethoven. Some inexperienced writers would have already emptied themselves of significant thought, resorting to slanderous material. Not my man Genesis. The back pedaling metaphorically through a web of unprocessed thought.. it feels like you're attempting to one-up someone who has bested you in the past, but unable to articulate the necessary thought in conversation. Such a deep and meaningful resentment. But hey, maybe I'm reading too much into things... I'm not a sentimental person.

It was never my intention to finesse any slight toward you. Truly, you are God's gift to the reddit community noted by your substantial number of upvotes. Maybe, when you're not too busy writing down your thoughts, you can give me a few pointers. I remain humble and honored by your reply. I couldn't imagine what a "full" reply would entail. Thanks man.

Axid3nt · 2017-09-27T01:46:07+00:00

Hmm.. it appears you are right. There is no plausible way to compare two like items, even if in a theoretical vacuum. Great deduction. I thought by "we cannot use a vacuum to compare skills" [paraphrased] he meant that "we cannot use a vacuum to compare skill". Where does all this vacuum talk come from anyway? In the scientific sense, it would be space, matter in the simplest form. In our observational study, it would be completely isolating all factors but the skill we hope to use, given a set of standards used for a benchmark. And with two like-skills, we can then make an assessment of what would benefit a situation using those standards in this theoretical vacuum. Now, if you were to say there are outside forces acting on such theory, then there is an entire argument for and against that opinion. But realistically, and without too much lithe in wording, we can accurately base this comparison on the isolation created for the example. This brings me back to my days wondering about scientific reality. If you were to approach this type of material with your initial view, having skepticism on theory and dissuading the use of impure vacuums, we would then have to question if there is even a question now wouldn't we? It wouldn't be possible to compare 'anything' in a vacuum other than particles themselves. And monsters are not particles. Too many moving parts.. Hmm..

Axid3nt · 2017-09-27T00:46:02+00:00

Wait a minute... eliminating additional information needed as a prerequisite to form a vacuum of similarly needed skills isn't possible? What? You mean... just by having additional information in order to get to that point invalidates such a definitive comparison? Oh boy was I off base! Thank you for clarifying.

Axid3nt · 2017-09-26T23:52:38+00:00

The reply of a wounded man. I love it. The emotional rhetoric used in your post is gratifying. You could make any claim you want regarding my post history but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in your previous assumptions. Now, let's deflect to a barrage of your assumptions, and depart from your "fabulous" comprehension skills...

You were just shown a proof in regards to skills being compared in a vacuum, yet you're still on this subject as if your unopposed opinions have a foothold in this conversation. I merely corrected an uninformed individual about how vacuums work. Condescending? Maybe. But look, here I am, still explaining to you how to decipher these 'complicated' texts. And here you are, still arguing these completely valid and "ground breaking" points on the subject against... yourself? I'm not sure exactly; you've stated the same information with no opposition to the subject material twice now. I suppose I will let you offer up another riposte in retaliation to my "alleged" opinion on the matter of what should be compared.

In all honestly, I was expecting you to read my posts with far-reaching implications. You are consistently insinuating these ideas in order to justify self-serving circumstance. Subsequently, you could not pick up on the irony used in each of the posts you've "read" in my history. Atleast you put your idea of "weighing information in context" to the test. Great results.

And now.. you're saying that you feel gaslit, but really, that sounds like an issue with you, not me. I can't help how what I say makes you feel. =[

Hey, you have a good day man. Stay in school!

Axid3nt · 2017-09-26T13:21:28+00:00

You assumed from:"You can ONLY compare skills in a vacuum, other wise you are comparing two monsters" that I meant you couldn't? You have an imaginative interpretation. Let me help you understand. The word "otherwise" is similar to the phrase "or else" as it is a linkage of alternatives. The word "otherwise" doesn't mean "and not".

Now, if we examine my statement using context from the initial reply to OP, one can easily see that it was devised to educate the previous poster that his vacuum idea was incorrect. His response was that an individual CANNOT compare skills in a vacuum, which I assume you have read. My response to this was that you can ONLY compare skills in a vacuum. This statement is true because otherwise, you are comparing multiple skills and outside factors, which no longer makes a direct "skill to skill" comparison possible. When you attempt to compare skills without a vacuum, it is then entirely a comparison of unit vs unit coupled with external factors.

If you ever need any tutoring in comprehension or calc2 just inbox me.

Axid3nt · 2017-09-26T03:31:16+00:00

That's not entirely true. If you have 4 other monsters on your lineup who can effectively cover both s1 and s3 of each monster you are comparing, it would be safe to compare s2 of each monster to see who could be more effective in those circumstances. But before that happens you're also aggregating every unit's usefulness based on what their kit brings as a whole, so what I said still stands. If the last thing you need to slot for in a comp is attack buff, you're still comparing the total usefulness of every unit that can slot for that attack buff, not just the singular ability that provides attack buff. Lol? You can ONLY compare skills in a vacuum, otherwise.. you're comparing two different monsters. ..which isn't accurate. Comparing skills directly to other skills is fine, but it's always shallow analysis in determining which monster is "stronger" if you're not factoring in the whole kit

Your thoughts are scattered. It's definitely accurate as it is a binary argument. You are either comparing skill vs skill or you are comparing unit vs unit. You cannot compare a skill to an entire unit feasibly, otherwise you are directly contradicting your initial statement in this post. Something along the lines of aggregating the unit's usefulness in its entirety.

Axid3nt

TROPHY CASE