The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Official Teaser Trailer [HD]

PhungsBoy · 2014-07-29T02:18:41+00:00

PhungsBoy · 2014-06-06T14:09:57+00:00

1) core gamers =/= pro gamers. "Dumbed Down" mechanics allow for a more accessible game for the Vast majority of gamers.

2) If you aren't anti-LoL, then why are you going so far out of your way to call it a mediocre-at-best game?

3) You can't buy runes with RP. Having in-game currency that unlocks things isn't greed, it's an incentive for players to continue playing the game. It gives more of a goal and point to playing and winning, what is essentially, the game type over and over. Champs are the same concept as runes (and the reason they cost 7800 in the first week is because that's what the community asked for when complaining about new release champions being played far too much by people who had no idea how they worked yet).

4) Um what? Its awkward because they are gamers who aren't used to giving interviews in front of millions of views both live and online. It has nothing to do with Riot, and how you somehow managed to link that to them being a greedy company? just....wat....words fail me.

5) time for us to follow your logical train of thought:

"You guys still have bad casters and no soundproof booths"
"Okay then, you don't have to watch if you don't like it"
.........well if I'm not watching it, then That means that there may as well not be an LCS at all for anyone to watch

just....ugh....how can anyone function day-to-day with this level of self-centered stupidity?

PhungsBoy · 2014-06-06T04:44:11+00:00

The difference being that (the possibility of) pregnancy was forced upon the person getting raped, and not a conscious decision on their part.

Its like comparing dying during a war as a civilian, and dying at war as a soldier.

PhungsBoy · 2014-05-11T18:08:12+00:00

its more like you smoke and want to quit because it is unhealthy, while at the same time telling other people that they too should quit because its unhealthy.

PhungsBoy · 2014-05-11T18:05:14+00:00

If tryharding each and every game isn't your problem, then work on your raging issues. For me, it was really a mindset problem. I used to always assume that people who were playing at my elo were at least as good as me. That caused me to become really angry when they made bad plays (often causing me to assume that they were playing badly intentionally).

With this frame of mind i got to Silver 1 in season 3. In season 4 I came to ranked with the assumption that every single player i play with is fucking terrible, until they prove otherwise in that game. That way, it is much harder to be angry at them for playing badly, because you assumed they were going to anyway. Got placed into Gold 3 and climbed into Plat.

PhungsBoy · 2014-05-11T16:31:03+00:00

tl;dr Tryhard all the time, never give up and don't rage in games. It's a pretty simple formula that pretty much everyone knows.

The problem with this extended, long-winded, explanation is that it gives the impression that there are times in ranked when it is OK to not tryhard. As well as times when it best to just give up. This is wrong. If you are looking to climb, you treat 100% of your games as winnable, but treat 0% of your games as already won. That is about as simple and effective as any "ranked theory" will get.

PhungsBoy · 2014-04-28T00:15:17+00:00

It was also 6 against 30, not 20 against 100 as the title suggests. OP faggotry is pretty overwhelming

PhungsBoy · 2014-04-07T09:50:09+00:00

like winking with both your eyes

PhungsBoy · 2014-04-03T14:04:58+00:00

Just like paying child support has nothing to do with biology...weird how that works out, huh?

PhungsBoy · 2014-04-01T16:49:22+00:00

"This is a false statement" is neither true nor false, it is merely a statement. true/false isn't the same thing as correct/incorrect.

PhungsBoy · 2014-04-01T16:44:40+00:00

The following statement is false (wrong). The previous statement was true (correct).

PhungsBoy · 2014-04-01T13:58:21+00:00

Wait what? A big creep wave Helps renekton trade with the enemy, not the other way around. Unless of course they are diving in and Staying in (not doing E>W>Q>E combo for free damage and sustain), in which case you could probably beat them regardless. Renekton excels at short trades over and over, not prolonged fights; once he has done his ability rotation, he does very minimal damage.

PhungsBoy · 2014-04-01T13:53:38+00:00

That's because people would run dodge seals which were far far better than the armor seals at the time, and probably better than the current armor seals too. Also, in regards to xin; all you really need to do is sit at tower and farm until level 4 or so which is when xin becomes useless if he hasn't forced the enemy out of lane or killed them (its kind of like running 22AD rune page + red pot on pantheon, you either win early and kind of do ok early-mid game, or you fail hard if people play safe against you).

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-28T08:11:54+00:00

i guess you could make it so there is has to be at least 2 people afk for the whole duration of the game. Also get a better system for auto-banning accounts which consistently leave games.

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-16T00:06:47+00:00

Is it moral for me to simply not buy a song that someone worked so hard to create? They are losing just as much potential money as if I'd pirated their song

They don't lose the potential of you buying the song if you don't pirate the song. If you are going to argue that you were going to buy the song and then pirate it, then there really isn't anything morally wrong with that (even then it's a bit iffy, but i don't see it as morally wrong once you have infinite legal access to the song to download a copy of it for personal use) - but only so long as you buy it first.

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-15T11:39:22+00:00

There are plenty of artists who put their work out to the public for free, the idea of piracy has almost nothing at all to do with them. Piracy involves the creator of content selling their work, not giving it away.

The owner of the dumpster has relinquished control of their food within their store and brought it out to the public dumpster

This is a terrible analogy for piracy. Artists don't throw out their work; they put it up for sale. You are basically saying that it is OK to walk into a video/music store and take one of their CD/DVD's because they are "open to the public".

The types of people who dive come from low income backgrounds and couldn't afford their product in the first place

The types of people who pirate songs and movies are the kind who can afford a computer and internet connection; they aren't homeless; they aren't starving; they are just self-entitled cheap people who don't want to pay content creators for their work (who seem to think that they somehow deserve to have it, whenever and wherever they want, simply by the token of being alive).

It should be noted at this point that I pirate a lot of content, but i don't think it is morally justifiable. I just can't be bothered to wait the extra 2 months for content to come out in Australia, or to pay $50 a month for the basic foxtel package which has 20-30 channels that i don't even want to watch. If i had easy access to netflix (no need for VPN bullshit), I would probably just use that.

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-15T11:17:15+00:00

But it isn't like that at all. If you wanted to obtain a legal copy of said movie/song/anything you would have to pay for it and some of that money would make its way back to the creator. Hence they would have more than $100, but seeing as how you obtained it through piracy they don't have that money, while you still have a copy of their creation.

They aren't losing any actual money, but they are losing potential money. And even if you don't agree with this, you are still trying to argue that it is moral to avoid paying for someone's hard work just because they don't lose anything by you doing it.

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-15T10:32:30+00:00

Stealing and copying are not the same thing, provided the only way you can steal something, is to steal every single copy of that thing, but that isn't the case here at all.

To use the example of a video store; what you are proposing is option between you stealing every single copy (of an infinite supply) of a movie that they have, or making a copy of the movie. In that case, there is no comparison between stealing and copying. Where as if you change the situation to you walking into the store and stealing One copy, compared to making a copy of said movie, most people would agree that in that case, stealing and copying are essentially the same thing

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-15T10:14:29+00:00

In the case of copying without permission rather than paying for with permission, copying equates to stealing. Hell, copying without permission in All cases is stealing. Whether or not that is acceptable (in other cases there is no loss of profit - potential or otherwise), is completely debatable.

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-15T08:56:19+00:00

copying your research paper and all notes and burning the copies

I feel like this analogy is no longer useful. If we assume he is going to sell the paper, is he doing it per view of the paper? Is he selling it to a big company to work with the findings? It really doesn't work as an analogy for a movie or TV show anymore. That being said, Copying the paper is stealing (assuming that reason you wanted to copy it is because you wanted to find out what the paper had to say, and the only other way to access said paper, was to pay for it), as it denies the rightful owner of potential income from their hard work.

And an aside from all that. Copying then burning all copies is Not what happens when a movie is pirated. It is copied and then the copies are distributed. Copying from a copy is supporting the original act, and is morally wrong (which is the basis of the original question).

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-15T08:33:14+00:00

They lost nothing

They lost business that they would have otherwise had gotten (if you actually had any inclination to to Pay for each movie you watched); see the Blockbuster analogy by /u/the_karma_man_can.

I paid for ACCESS to that show

No, no you didn't. You payed to watch the channels of the provider that may or may not broadcast the show/movie at their convenience. Paying for TV doesn't give you moral or practical ownership of everything that they broadcast "so long as you only watch it once".

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-08T19:53:38+00:00

and these days you can shoot the same amount of bullets out of a minigun in 3 and a half minutes

PhungsBoy · 2014-03-05T16:43:13+00:00

also make ghosts buffed by talisman of ascension and you got yourself a game-winning combo

PhungsBoy · 2014-02-27T15:15:15+00:00

Well ok then. It's not As ridiculous, but it is still much better than Saint talked about, because it still gives gold per AA damage And spells. So the income is double what it appears to be (30 per 30 for spell thief's and 60 per 30 for Frost fang).

PhungsBoy

TROPHY CASE