I wonder if this change in the max length of CC only CCs will have any effect on the power economy of CC's with damage or other bonus effects. Or maybe they've just changed the power worth of being targetable.
I think they finally realized that long lasting point and click CC is really god damn dumb and needs to not exist.
I'd be pretty happy with all point and click hard CC suddenly not existing.
Looking at you, Taric, if and/or when Riot get around to reworking you for a fourth time.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
+2
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
qtpie has been suffering at 99lp all week
finally he wins a game at 99lp
+0lp rrekt
0
cptruggedI think it has something to do with free will.Registered Userregular
It's interesting when you compare the point and click stuns in the game. Taric has one which can be .1 seconds longer than Sion. Yet Sion gets a .9 AP ratio. Fiddlesticks will get just over an extra second maximum, but with 0 damage. And Rammus gets to taunt which will makes him cause and take damage. It's hard to tell what the balancing value of these things is in just their parts. But I guess how it fits into the whole kit is very important as well.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
I just saw that too. Poor qtpie. It was only made better by the fact that "That's that shit i don't like" was playing on the post game screen. He's about to start a game where his team has him, kiwikid, wildturtle, and balls on it. He has to believe this is the one that gets him the promo, haha.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
Kespa eventually got theirs because they didn't control the game. Riot is in a much different position. They are the judge, the jury and the executioner. Don't like their rules? Don't play their game, kiss your livelihood goodbye.
Only two things will stop this kind of trash from Riot: The players/teams unionizing, or the players/teams going to another game. The former is more likely than the latter, at least while LoL is an esports money cow.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
I mean, it's hard to judge reactions from internet flames...but if you want to judge reactions from that, then Reddit is on fire about it. We'll see how much staying power the rage has. Usually when Riot does something shitty it blows up for a day or two, then just goes away. We'll see if this is the bridge too far.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
They can also just refuse the money and the contract. Its not like Riot is going to ban him from league of legends if he doesn't sign. Bargain for exchange.
It'll interesting to see how they respond to this. Are they going to say nothing about it, try and justify it, or cave in to the firestorm that's currently on Reddit?
IMO, this is a litmus test on where Riot is as a company. I've had this feeling they're slowly moving away from their roots as a progressive, player focused company. Riot's a friggin huge corporation at this point, so it won't be surprising if they become less player friendly as time goes on.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
They can also just refuse the money and the contract. Its not like Riot is going to ban him from league of legends if he doesn't sign. Bargain for exchange.
i dunno, signing a contract that limits the way you make money isn't exactly koher mang.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
This is why league players need to think about unionizing. Even then though, they would still have to make concessions. NFL players have a powerful union, but NFL contracts STILL prohibit players from basically doing anything that represents physical risk to them because the NFL team doesn't want to risk paying a guy who then breaks his leg playing pick up basketball.
You like skiiing in the offseason? Nope. You want to play pickup hoops with your buddies? You better hope you don't snap your leg because if you do you're probably paying back some of that signing bonus since you broke the contract.
What happens in sports leagues is that your likeness becomes a tool for the league. Just like the NFL can use a player's likeness to market their sport without giving a fuck, Riot can say if you're going to work for us, we don't want you advertising competitor's games on your streams.
This isn't a "what you do on your free time outside of working hours" situation. These are contracted employees getting paid a salary to be a face of league of legends. It's just a non-compete clause basically. You work for coca-cola you get the same thing. You post videos on your youtube channel of you chugging pepsi and talking about how great it is, you'd be fired there too.
The players just need to decide as a group if they're going to not be okay with these rules, because their only real recourse will be to unionize if so.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
This is why league players need to think about unionizing. Even then though, they would still have to make concessions. NFL players have a powerful union, but NFL contracts STILL prohibit players from basically doing anything that represents physical risk to them because the NFL team doesn't want to risk paying a guy who then breaks his leg playing pick up basketball.
You like skiiing in the offseason? Nope. You want to play pickup hoops with your buddies? You better hope you don't snap your leg because if you do you're probably paying back some of that signing bonus since you broke the contract.
What happens in sports leagues is that your likeness becomes a tool for the league. Just like the NFL can use a player's likeness to market their sport without giving a fuck, Riot can say if you're going to work for us, we don't want you advertising competitor's games on your streams.
This isn't a "what you do on your free time outside of working hours" situation. These are contracted employees getting paid a salary to be a face of league of legends. The players just need to decide as a group if they're going to not be okay with these rules, because their only real recourse will be to unionize if so.
this is going wildly off topic, but putting up the NFLPA as a strong union is a mistake, they're clearly the weakest sports union in the gold old US, hell, their contracts arent even guaranteed, like every other sport.
as for likeness rights, that part of the cba and you'll notice nflpa on all merch that has likeness.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
They can also just refuse the money and the contract. Its not like Riot is going to ban him from league of legends if he doesn't sign. Bargain for exchange.
i dunno, signing a contract that limits the way you make money isn't exactly koher mang.
Not really. I mean, I'm pretty sure Jordan's contract with Nike had something in it about him not sporting those sweet Adidas on the court.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Let's not say why.
Let's also not say what we think about the policy.
That way, we can talk about things that matter, like getting Yasuo day 1 nerfed and preventing CertainlyT from ever creating another champion.
Fiddle will be fine, but Rammus' is short range and he's largely reliant on people attacking him in DBC, I don't think mana cost reductions will make up for it.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
If the lowest paid member covered by this contract is paid sufficiently by Riot alone that it covers all living expenses, medical/dental, vacation, short/medium/long term/retirement savings, and a reasonable quality of life, then this is not completely unacceptable.
However, I highly doubt that's the case, which makes this wildly unacceptable. It should be a criminal act to de facto or de jure prevent an employee not employed at a living wage from being able to find additional work, to the extent we allow people to be paid non-living wages at all.
The thing is, he is right. Chocobo might've worded it a little angrily, but he's just saying people are getting worked up over what amounts to a non-compete clause that's in the contract of basically everybody who is employed and under a contract.
That being said, the players are definitely angry about it. QTPie said Riot could suck his dick and went back to playing FFX while waiting on queue. =P
Fine, did the players have an opportunity to negotiate this contract? Did they have any input, or was it presented as take it or leave it?
What is given to the players in exchange for this curtailing of their income? How much of that guaranteed money is eaten by the teams? And remember, these players have 0 job security.
The thing is, he is right. Chocobo might've worded it a little angrily, but he's just saying people are getting worked up over what amounts to a non-compete clause that's in the contract of basically everybody who is employed and under a contract.
That being said, the players are definitely angry about it. QTPie said Riot could suck his dick and went back to playing FFX while waiting on queue. =P
it isnt a non-compete clause, it's a reserve clause.
There's a bit of a difference between non-compete meaning: Don't be actively playing DOTA/our actual competitors and don't play other games on stream (which is what it's sounding more like).
I'm completely fine with Riot not wanting the people they're paying showing off their competition. I don't view Hearthstone as competition for League in any sort of way that really justifies restricting it. It's like if David Beckham was banned from mentioning he occasionally plays poker with friends after practice. Sure both poker and football are 'games' but it's hard to justify, from my point of view, them being close enough that they're in competition.
However, I highly doubt that's the case, which makes this wildly unacceptable. It should be a criminal act to de facto or de jure prevent an employee not employed at a living wage from being able to find additional work, to the extent we allow people to be paid non-living wages at all.
They're not preventing them from finding additional work, they're just limiting the additional work they are allowed to do to stuff that doesn't compete with them- basically all salary contracts anyone has ever signed has that in it.
I mean if I come up with an idea after work, and then implement it using my own time, resources, funding, and never touch it even once during work hours, if it competes with my company, then they own it. That's not weird, and it's not wrong, it's what my company pays me to do.
I'm also allowed to do contract work for other companies, of course- as long as they don't compete with my company. That's not allowed.
Basically, do whatever the hell I want as long as I'm not helping my company's competition in doing so. It sounds to me like that's what the contract states, and that's pretty reasonable.
They are only barred from streaming other games at the same time as League of Legends.
Actually the people who wrote the original post on OGN or whatever have confirmed that another section of the contract says they're just not allowed to publicly stream those listed games at any time, not just concurrent with league.
"...the reserve clause was part of a player contract that stated upon the contract's expiration, the rights to the player were to be retained by the team. This meant the player was not free to enter into another contract with another team. The player was bound to either negotiate a new contract to play another year for the same team, or ask to be released or traded."
The reserve clause is about different teams in the same sport, not about different sports.
They are only barred from streaming other games at the same time as League of Legends.
Actually the people who wrote the original post on OGN or whatever have confirmed that another section of the contract says they're just not allowed to publicly stream those listed games at any time, not just concurrent with league.
I mean if I come up with an idea after work, and then implement it using my own time, resources, funding, and never touch it even once during work hours, if it competes with my company, then they own it. That's not weird, and it's not wrong, it's what my company pays me to do.
I disagree, but that sounds more like a political argument than anything else, which may be where the lines on this contract are drawn.
There's a bit of a difference between non-compete meaning: Don't be actively playing DOTA/our actual competitors and don't play other games on stream (which is what it's sounding more like).
I'm completely fine with Riot not wanting the people they're paying showing off their competition. I don't view Hearthstone as competition for League in any sort of way that really justifies restricting it. It's like if David Beckham was banned from mentioning he occasionally plays poker with friends after practice. Sure both poker and football are 'games' but it's hard to justify, from my point of view, them being close enough that they're in competition.
Well, think of it like this. When you go to twitch, you click the League of Legends button, meaning all the streams you're looking at are branded as League of Legends. Then you click on qtpie's stream, and you don't see League, you see some other game. That doesn't reflect extremely well. It may or may not reflect badly, per se, but each and every stream under twitch's League of Legends category is branded under Riot's brand. The difference between pro players and amateurs is that with pro players, Riot is capable of controlling the quality of streams they have branded.
They are only barred from streaming other games at the same time as League of Legends.
The original article that broke this story has been updated to say, no really, they can't stream those games at all:
onGamers has confirmed with the team representatives that LCS players are disallowed from streaming the games listed below outright, not just when adjacent to a League of Legends stream.
The best part about all of this is the list of games has "Fat Princess" and "Demigod" as games they can't stream.
There's a bit of a difference between non-compete meaning: Don't be actively playing DOTA/our actual competitors and don't play other games on stream (which is what it's sounding more like).
I'm completely fine with Riot not wanting the people they're paying showing off their competition. I don't view Hearthstone as competition for League in any sort of way that really justifies restricting it. It's like if David Beckham was banned from mentioning he occasionally plays poker with friends after practice. Sure both poker and football are 'games' but it's hard to justify, from my point of view, them being close enough that they're in competition.
Well, think of it like this. When you go to twitch, you click the League of Legends button, meaning all the streams you're looking at are branded as League of Legends. Then you click on qtpie's stream, and you don't see League, you see some other game. That doesn't reflect extremely well. It may or may not reflect badly, per se, but each and every stream under twitch's League of Legends category is branded under Riot's brand. The difference between pro players and amateurs is that with pro players, Riot is capable of controlling the quality of streams they have branded.
I'm sure looking forward to the 'quality streams' that will occur while players have nothing to show during que time.
There's a bit of a difference between non-compete meaning: Don't be actively playing DOTA/our actual competitors and don't play other games on stream (which is what it's sounding more like).
I'm completely fine with Riot not wanting the people they're paying showing off their competition. I don't view Hearthstone as competition for League in any sort of way that really justifies restricting it. It's like if David Beckham was banned from mentioning he occasionally plays poker with friends after practice. Sure both poker and football are 'games' but it's hard to justify, from my point of view, them being close enough that they're in competition.
Well, think of it like this. When you go to twitch, you click the League of Legends button, meaning all the streams you're looking at are branded as League of Legends. Then you click on qtpie's stream, and you don't see League, you see some other game. That doesn't reflect extremely well. It may or may not reflect badly, per se, but each and every stream under twitch's League of Legends category is branded under Riot's brand. The difference between pro players and amateurs is that with pro players, Riot is capable of controlling the quality of streams they have branded.
But when you clicked on those streams you wouldn't see League of Legends anyway, because the issue is that players play other games while in queue for League of Legends. It is impossible for them to be playing LoL at that time because they are busy attempting to play LoL. But LoL won't let them play LoL just yet!
Posts
Joe's Stream.
This is pretty standard stuff. Obviously it just sounds like omg Riot why you doing this, but LCS contracts make players basically Riot employees, and it's smart business to disallow your employees to make money for your competitors. Streaming Hearthstone while waiting on diamond 1 queue pops seems harmless, but if you're a contracted employee for Riot, even your personal streaming time is you representing them, and giving free advertisement to their competitors is no bueno.
It doesn't really mean anything for streamers, they can just put the hearthstone window or whatever on their second monitor where their viewers can't see it. And if they really don't like it, now is the time to learn about why organized sports has player's unions and negotiates CBAs instead of individual contracts with their league.
finally he wins a game at 99lp
+0lp rrekt
Yeah considering the sleeze that we've seen come out of these contracts so far, the players need to unionize and get a CBA in ASAP.
I just saw that too. Poor qtpie. It was only made better by the fact that "That's that shit i don't like" was playing on the post game screen. He's about to start a game where his team has him, kiwikid, wildturtle, and balls on it. He has to believe this is the one that gets him the promo, haha.
These would be the drawbacks of being paid by the company who make the game to play the game.
Kespa has clearly shown some of the more... underhanded things you can do as well though, so it ain't just riot. Fairly dick, but smart move from their part.
these aren't "drawbacks", taking a salary doesn't make you chattel.
Joe's Stream.
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you a companys employee, if they choose to interpret it that way, and they can implement special policys for their employees.
This will hopefully explode into riots face, as it is a terrible assholish move though. Not letting players do other things while waiting for long queue timers is kinda... overbearing. I have no idea about the legal precedents, but I would not be surprised if it is *technically* legal. Should be a pr suicide though, hopefully people react as badly as they should.
Kespa eventually got theirs because they didn't control the game. Riot is in a much different position. They are the judge, the jury and the executioner. Don't like their rules? Don't play their game, kiss your livelihood goodbye.
Only two things will stop this kind of trash from Riot: The players/teams unionizing, or the players/teams going to another game. The former is more likely than the latter, at least while LoL is an esports money cow.
goobies pls
I mean, it's hard to judge reactions from internet flames...but if you want to judge reactions from that, then Reddit is on fire about it. We'll see how much staying power the rage has. Usually when Riot does something shitty it blows up for a day or two, then just goes away. We'll see if this is the bridge too far.
Wait... is it that they arent allowed to stream other things, or do other things? The former is fine, the latter silly.
Hello, handhelds!
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
They aren't allowed to stream it. They could theoretically be playing whatever they want off stream. It's still not fine. Riot does not own these streams, these are players personal streams. Take someone like Dyrus: He makes far, FAR more from his personal stream than Riot pays him. Why should Riot be allowed to tell him what he can and can't stream, on his time, on a stream they don't own?
Working for someone does not mean they own you, and this kind of blanket ban on streaming on your personal stream is Riot effectively saying "We own you".
They can also just refuse the money and the contract. Its not like Riot is going to ban him from league of legends if he doesn't sign. Bargain for exchange.
IMO, this is a litmus test on where Riot is as a company. I've had this feeling they're slowly moving away from their roots as a progressive, player focused company. Riot's a friggin huge corporation at this point, so it won't be surprising if they become less player friendly as time goes on.
i dunno, signing a contract that limits the way you make money isn't exactly koher mang.
Joe's Stream.
This is why league players need to think about unionizing. Even then though, they would still have to make concessions. NFL players have a powerful union, but NFL contracts STILL prohibit players from basically doing anything that represents physical risk to them because the NFL team doesn't want to risk paying a guy who then breaks his leg playing pick up basketball.
You like skiiing in the offseason? Nope. You want to play pickup hoops with your buddies? You better hope you don't snap your leg because if you do you're probably paying back some of that signing bonus since you broke the contract.
What happens in sports leagues is that your likeness becomes a tool for the league. Just like the NFL can use a player's likeness to market their sport without giving a fuck, Riot can say if you're going to work for us, we don't want you advertising competitor's games on your streams.
This isn't a "what you do on your free time outside of working hours" situation. These are contracted employees getting paid a salary to be a face of league of legends. It's just a non-compete clause basically. You work for coca-cola you get the same thing. You post videos on your youtube channel of you chugging pepsi and talking about how great it is, you'd be fired there too.
The players just need to decide as a group if they're going to not be okay with these rules, because their only real recourse will be to unionize if so.
this is going wildly off topic, but putting up the NFLPA as a strong union is a mistake, they're clearly the weakest sports union in the gold old US, hell, their contracts arent even guaranteed, like every other sport.
as for likeness rights, that part of the cba and you'll notice nflpa on all merch that has likeness.
Joe's Stream.
Oh yes, people who sign a contract that allows them to play professionally shouldn't be advertising other esports.
Hot damn that's such a travesty.
Watch twitch and just see the difference between pro streams and just "popular" people. Even Zekent got like 5k+ more then usual after joining a team.
They "make more money then Riot pays them" because of Riot.
Those sponsors and many twitch viewers wouldn't stick around if the players dropped from the tournaments.
But hey, they should totally be allowed to freely advertise competing products and sports because... feelings?
People are astoundingly dumb about how business and money actually work. Proof is right here.
yes, this post is full of goosery.
Joe's Stream.
You say that, but then you don't say why.
Not really. I mean, I'm pretty sure Jordan's contract with Nike had something in it about him not sporting those sweet Adidas on the court.
Let's also not say what we think about the policy.
That way, we can talk about things that matter, like getting Yasuo day 1 nerfed and preventing CertainlyT from ever creating another champion.
If the lowest paid member covered by this contract is paid sufficiently by Riot alone that it covers all living expenses, medical/dental, vacation, short/medium/long term/retirement savings, and a reasonable quality of life, then this is not completely unacceptable.
However, I highly doubt that's the case, which makes this wildly unacceptable. It should be a criminal act to de facto or de jure prevent an employee not employed at a living wage from being able to find additional work, to the extent we allow people to be paid non-living wages at all.
That being said, the players are definitely angry about it. QTPie said Riot could suck his dick and went back to playing FFX while waiting on queue. =P
Fine, did the players have an opportunity to negotiate this contract? Did they have any input, or was it presented as take it or leave it?
What is given to the players in exchange for this curtailing of their income? How much of that guaranteed money is eaten by the teams? And remember, these players have 0 job security.
Joe's Stream.
They are only barred from streaming other games at the same time as League of Legends.
it isnt a non-compete clause, it's a reserve clause.
Joe's Stream.
I'm completely fine with Riot not wanting the people they're paying showing off their competition. I don't view Hearthstone as competition for League in any sort of way that really justifies restricting it. It's like if David Beckham was banned from mentioning he occasionally plays poker with friends after practice. Sure both poker and football are 'games' but it's hard to justify, from my point of view, them being close enough that they're in competition.
They're not preventing them from finding additional work, they're just limiting the additional work they are allowed to do to stuff that doesn't compete with them- basically all salary contracts anyone has ever signed has that in it.
I mean if I come up with an idea after work, and then implement it using my own time, resources, funding, and never touch it even once during work hours, if it competes with my company, then they own it. That's not weird, and it's not wrong, it's what my company pays me to do.
I'm also allowed to do contract work for other companies, of course- as long as they don't compete with my company. That's not allowed.
Basically, do whatever the hell I want as long as I'm not helping my company's competition in doing so. It sounds to me like that's what the contract states, and that's pretty reasonable.
Actually the people who wrote the original post on OGN or whatever have confirmed that another section of the contract says they're just not allowed to publicly stream those listed games at any time, not just concurrent with league.
I'm not sure it is...? How is it a reserve clause?
The reserve clause is about different teams in the same sport, not about different sports.
If you ask players, they'll also confirm that.
I mean none of us can personally ask players but
I disagree, but that sounds more like a political argument than anything else, which may be where the lines on this contract are drawn.
Well, think of it like this. When you go to twitch, you click the League of Legends button, meaning all the streams you're looking at are branded as League of Legends. Then you click on qtpie's stream, and you don't see League, you see some other game. That doesn't reflect extremely well. It may or may not reflect badly, per se, but each and every stream under twitch's League of Legends category is branded under Riot's brand. The difference between pro players and amateurs is that with pro players, Riot is capable of controlling the quality of streams they have branded.
The original article that broke this story has been updated to say, no really, they can't stream those games at all:
The best part about all of this is the list of games has "Fat Princess" and "Demigod" as games they can't stream.
I'm sure looking forward to the 'quality streams' that will occur while players have nothing to show during que time.
But when you clicked on those streams you wouldn't see League of Legends anyway, because the issue is that players play other games while in queue for League of Legends. It is impossible for them to be playing LoL at that time because they are busy attempting to play LoL. But LoL won't let them play LoL just yet!
Joe's Stream.