Highest Payout Binary Options Brokers – Top10BinaryOptions.net

Free Forex Trading Signals Specifically for Binary Options

Providing Free Forex Trading Signals Specifically for Binary Option Traders
Hello Guys,
I have started providing free forex trading signals specifically for Binary Options Traders since today.
My hit rate is over 65%
These trades will be superbly profitable if the payout is over 100%. Some brokers do offer payouts over 100%
The next question that would come to anyone’s mind who reads this is, why are you giving free signals away if they are so profitable? Well, to be honest, I have a problem. The system I have made for giving me signals is superb, but I just cannot control myself and end up over trading. I over trade and end up blowing my account every single time. This system would be superb for someone who can control their emotions and not over trade. So today I have had enough, and I have decided to offer free trading signals.
So what’s in it for me? The idea is to offer free trading signals to build a large following and then I will move on to a limited number of signals for free and all the signals for paid users. That’s how I plan to make money.
Well, now you must be wondering that I have ranted enough so where’s the proof?
I am attaching the link to my twitter profile where I have posted 5 trades along with the entry and proof that they hit targets. Please note that the expiry of 4 minutes works out best for binary options on my trading signals.
Let me know what you guys think. If you truly feel it’s legit then please spread the word.
Thank YouTwitter Posts
submitted by ThreeD710 to options [link] [comments]

Binary Options: A Sickening Scam

The Art of a Binary Options Scam

Binary options, fraudulent “trading products” that are designed to part prospective investors from their money are very different from real options. In essence, they are simply a bet that the price of a particular asset will rise in a given time frame. If you win the gamble, the company is supposed to pay a fixed payout, within the 70%-95% range. If you lose, however, you not only lose the “payout” but the initial investment as well.
If this was merely the case this would fall under the category of gambling, something that millions upon millions of individuals do recreationally. However, that is primarily not the case. With almost all binary options brokers you are “trading” against the broker and not the market. The broker wants you to lose, or else the company would not make a profit. Even if the broker pays out your winnings he can easily govern your profit with payout conditions. This means that even if you have a winning formula, the company will just decrease the payout, ensuring you ultimately lose in the long term.

There is more to the scam

That, unfortunately, is not where it ends. Numerous “brokers” are notorious for spreading fictitious stories about their clientele making gigantic profits with trading robots. Almost all of them manipulate their price curves to prevent you from winning. What’s worse is even if you do win, many of them refuse to pay out, and ultimately drop off the face of the earth (with your money).
Now clients are left in with a major dilemma. To whom do they turn? To the police? To regulators? The answer to these questions is that it depends. Most of these binary options brokers are not regulated and are located offshore, allowing them to do what they want. Often in their terms and conditions, they concoct various rules that ensure they keep your money once they have it. When it comes to regulators such as ASIC or the FCA they are relatively useless as they cannot shut down the actual binary options websites and to make it even worse search engines such as Google allow these websites to appear in their search content.

Shouldn’t the banks put a stop to this?

Yes, they should. However, the banks, which should be the number one line of defense against these scams either do not know the extent of the problem or are turning a blind eye to their nefarious activities. Additionally, in order to process credit card, debit card payments most of the binary options brokers have registered a small company in an E.U. country.

Recovery scams

Unfortunately, fraud encourages more fraud. Various individuals targeted U.S. citizens who were swindled by the now-defunct brokerage, Banc de Binary, and a few other binary options companies that were being sued by the SEC or the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). They impersonated SEC officials as part of an advanced-fee fraud scheme in which they deceived victims into forwarding them money. Approximately 95 individuals were targeted by this despicable scheme and 25 of them sent 235 thousand dollars in total to these swindlers.
What to Do if You Have Been Scammed
If you have fallen victim to a cryptocurrency scam, send a complaint to at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), and we will do our very best to get into contact with you as soon as we can to initiate your funds recovery process.
submitted by asaston to u/asaston [link] [comments]

AJ ALMENDINGER

glimpse into the future of Roblox

Our vision to bring the world together through play has never been more relevant than it is now. As our founder and CEO, David Baszucki (a.k.a. Builderman), mentioned in his keynote, more and more people are using Roblox to stay connected with their friends and loved ones. He hinted at a future where, with our automatic machine translation technology, Roblox will one day act as a universal translator, enabling people from different cultures and backgrounds to connect and learn from each other.
During his keynote, Builderman also elaborated upon our vision to build the Metaverse; the future of avatar creation on the platform (infinitely customizable avatars that allow any body, any clothing, and any animation to come together seamlessly); more personalized game discovery; and simulating large social gatherings (like concerts, graduations, conferences, etc.) with tens of thousands of participants all in one server. We’re still very early on in this journey, but if these past five months have shown us anything, it’s clear that there is a growing need for human co-experience platforms like Roblox that allow people to play, create, learn, work, and share experiences together in a safe, civil 3D immersive space.
Up next, our VP of Developer Relations, Matt Curtis (a.k.a. m4rrh3w), shared an update on all the things we’re doing to continue empowering developers to create innovative and exciting content through collaboration, support, and expertise. He also highlighted some of the impressive milestones our creator community has achieved since last year’s RDC. Here are a few key takeaways:
And lastly, our VP of Engineering, Technology, Adam Miller (a.k.a. rbadam), unveiled a myriad of cool and upcoming features developers will someday be able to sink their teeth into. We saw a glimpse of procedural skies, skinned meshes, more high-quality materials, new terrain types, more fonts in Studio, a new asset type for in-game videos, haptic feedback on mobile, real-time CSG operations, and many more awesome tools that will unlock the potential for even bigger, more immersive experiences on Roblox.

Vibin’

Despite the virtual setting, RDC just wouldn’t have been the same without any fun party activities and networking opportunities. So, we invited special guests DJ Hyper Potions and cyber mentalist Colin Cloud for some truly awesome, truly mind-bending entertainment. Yoga instructor Erin Gilmore also swung by to inspire attendees to get out of their chair and get their body moving. And of course, we even had virtual rooms dedicated to karaoke and head-to-head social games, like trivia and Pictionary.
Over on the networking side, Team Adopt Me, Red Manta, StyLiS Studios, and Summit Studios hosted a virtual booth for attendees to ask questions, submit resumes, and more. We also had a networking session where three participants would be randomly grouped together to get to know each other.

What does Roblox mean to you?

We all know how talented the Roblox community is from your creations. We’ve heard plenty of stories over the years about how Roblox has touched your lives, how you’ve made friendships, learned new skills, or simply found a place where you can be yourself. We wanted to hear more. So, we asked attendees: What does Roblox mean to you? How has Roblox connected you? How has Roblox changed your life? Then, over the course of RDC, we incorporated your responses into this awesome mural.
📷
Created by Alece Birnbach at Graphic Recording Studio

Knowledge is power

This year’s breakout sessions included presentations from Roblox developers and staff members on the latest game development strategies, a deep dive into the Roblox engine, learning how to animate with Blender, tools for working together in teams, building performant game worlds, and the new Creator Dashboard. Dr. Michael Rich, Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School and Physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, also led attendees through a discussion on mental health and how to best take care of you and your friends’ emotional well-being, especially now during these challenging times.
📷
Making the Dream Work with Teamwork (presented by Roblox developer Myzta)
In addition to our traditional Q&A panel with top product and engineering leaders at Roblox, we also held a special session with Builderman himself to answer the community’s biggest questions.
📷
Roblox Product and Engineering Q&A Panel

2020 Game Jam

The Game Jam is always one of our favorite events of RDC. It’s a chance for folks to come together, flex their development skills, and come up with wildly inventive game ideas that really push the boundaries of what’s possible on Roblox. We had over 60 submissions this year—a new RDC record.
Once again, teams of up to six people from around the world had less than 24 hours to conceptualize, design, and publish a game based on the theme “2020 Vision,” all while working remotely no less! To achieve such a feat is nothing short of awe-inspiring, but as always, our dev community was more than up for the challenge. I’ve got to say, these were some of the finest creations we’ve seen.
WINNERS
Best in Show: Shapescape Created By: GhettoMilkMan, dayzeedog, maplestick, theloudscream, Brick_man, ilyannna You awaken in a strange laboratory, seemingly with no way out. Using a pair of special glasses, players must solve a series of anamorphic puzzles and optical illusions to make their escape.
Excellence in Visual Art: agn●sia Created By: boatbomber, thisfall, Elttob An obby experience unlike any other, this game is all about seeing the world through a different lens. Reveal platforms by switching between different colored lenses and make your way to the end.
Most Creative Gameplay: Visions of a perspective reality Created By: Noble_Draconian and Spathi Sometimes all it takes is a change in perspective to solve challenges. By switching between 2D and 3D perspectives, players can maneuver around obstacles or find new ways to reach the end of each level.
Outstanding Use of Tech: The Eyes of Providence Created By: Quenty, Arch_Mage, AlgyLacey, xJennyBeanx, Zomebody, Crykee This action/strategy game comes with a unique VR twist. While teams fight to construct the superior monument, two VR players can support their minions by collecting resources and manipulating the map.
Best Use of Theme: Sticker Situation Created By: dragonfrosting and Yozoh Set in a mysterious art gallery, players must solve puzzles by manipulating the environment using a magic camera and stickers. Snap a photograph, place down a sticker, and see how it changes the world.
OTHER TOP PICKS
HONORABLE MENTIONS
For the rest of the 2020 Game Jam submissions, check out the list below:
20-20 Vision | 20/20 Vision | 2020 Vision, A Crazy Perspective | 2020 Vision: Nyon | A Wild Trip! | Acuity | Best Year Ever | Better Half | Bloxlabs | Climb Stairs to 2021 | Double Vision (Team hey apple) | Eyebrawl | Eyeworm Exam | FIRE 2020 | HACKED | Hyperspective | Lucid Scream | Mystery Mansion | New Years at the Museum | New Year’s Bash | Poor Vision | Predict 2020 | RBC News | Retrovertigo | Second Wave | see no evil | Sight Fight | Sight Stealers | Spectacles Struggle | Specter Spectrum | Survive 2020 | The Lost Chicken Leg | The Outbreak | The Spyglass | Time Heist | Tunnel Vision | Virtual RDC – The Story | Vision (Team Freepunk) | Vision (Team VIP People ####) | Vision Developers Conference 2020 | Vision Is Key | Vision Perspective | Vision Racer | Visions | Zepto
And last but not least, we wanted to give a special shout out to Starboard Studios. Though they didn’t quite make it on time for our judges, we just had to include Dave’s Vision for good measure. 📷
Thanks to everyone who participated in the Game Jam, and congrats to all those who took home the dub in each of our categories this year. As the winners of Best in Show, the developers of Shapescape will have their names forever engraved on the RDC Game Jam trophy back at Roblox HQ. Great work!

‘Til next year

And that about wraps up our coverage of the first-ever digital RDC. Thanks to all who attended! Before we go, we wanted to share a special “behind the scenes” video from the 2020 RDC photoshoot.
Check it out:
It was absolutely bonkers. Getting 350 of us all in one server was so much fun and really brought back the feeling of being together with everyone again. That being said, we can’t wait to see you all—for real this time—at RDC next year. It’s going to be well worth the wait. ‘Til we meet again, my friends.
© 2020 Roblox Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Improving Simulation and Performance with an Advanced Physics Solver

August

05, 2020

by chefdeletat
PRODUCT & TECH
📷In mid-2015, Roblox unveiled a major upgrade to its physics engine: the Projected Gauss-Seidel (PGS) physics solver. For the first year, the new solver was optional and provided improved fidelity and greater performance compared to the previously used spring solver.
In 2016, we added support for a diverse set of new physics constraints, incentivizing developers to migrate to the new solver and extending the creative capabilities of the physics engine. Any new places used the PGS solver by default, with the option of reverting back to the classic solver.
We ironed out some stability issues associated with high mass differences and complex mechanisms by the introduction of the hybrid LDL-PGS solver in mid-2018. This made the old solver obsolete, and it was completely disabled in 2019, automatically migrating all places to the PGS.
In 2019, the performance was further improved using multi-threading that splits the simulation into jobs consisting of connected islands of simulating parts. We still had performance issues related to the LDL that we finally resolved in early 2020.
The physics engine is still being improved and optimized for performance, and we plan on adding new features for the foreseeable future.

Implementing the Laws of Physics

📷
The main objective of a physics engine is to simulate the motion of bodies in a virtual environment. In our physics engine, we care about bodies that are rigid, that collide and have constraints with each other.
A physics engine is organized into two phases: collision detection and solving. Collision detection finds intersections between geometries associated with the rigid bodies, generating appropriate collision information such as collision points, normals and penetration depths. Then a solver updates the motion of rigid bodies under the influence of the collisions that were detected and constraints that were provided by the user.
📷
The motion is the result of the solver interpreting the laws of physics, such as conservation of energy and momentum. But doing this 100% accurately is prohibitively expensive, and the trick to simulating it in real-time is to approximate to increase performance, as long as the result is physically realistic. As long as the basic laws of motion are maintained within a reasonable tolerance, this tradeoff is completely acceptable for a computer game simulation.

Taking Small Steps

The main idea of the physics engine is to discretize the motion using time-stepping. The equations of motion of constrained and unconstrained rigid bodies are very difficult to integrate directly and accurately. The discretization subdivides the motion into small time increments, where the equations are simplified and linearized making it possible to solve them approximately. This means that during each time step the motion of the relevant parts of rigid bodies that are involved in a constraint is linearly approximated.
📷📷
Although a linearized problem is easier to solve, it produces drift in a simulation containing non-linear behaviors, like rotational motion. Later we’ll see mitigation methods that help reduce the drift and make the simulation more plausible.

Solving

📷
Having linearized the equations of motion for a time step, we end up needing to solve a linear system or linear complementarity problem (LCP). These systems can be arbitrarily large and can still be quite expensive to solve exactly. Again the trick is to find an approximate solution using a faster method. A modern method to approximately solve an LCP with good convergence properties is the Projected Gauss-Seidel (PGS). It is an iterative method, meaning that with each iteration the approximate solution is brought closer to the true solution, and its final accuracy depends on the number of iterations.
📷
This animation shows how a PGS solver changes the positions of the bodies at each step of the iteration process, the objective being to find the positions that respect the ball and socket constraints while preserving the center of mass at each step (this is a type of positional solver used by the IK dragger). Although this example has a simple analytical solution, it’s a good demonstration of the idea behind the PGS. At each step, the solver fixes one of the constraints and lets the other be violated. After a few iterations, the bodies are very close to their correct positions. A characteristic of this method is how some rigid bodies seem to vibrate around their final position, especially when coupling interactions with heavier bodies. If we don’t do enough iterations, the yellow part might be left in a visibly invalid state where one of its two constraints is dramatically violated. This is called the high mass ratio problem, and it has been the bane of physics engines as it causes instabilities and explosions. If we do too many iterations, the solver becomes too slow, if we don’t it becomes unstable. Balancing the two sides has been a painful and long process.

Mitigation Strategies

📷A solver has two major sources of inaccuracies: time-stepping and iterative solving (there is also floating point drift but it’s minor compared to the first two). These inaccuracies introduce errors in the simulation causing it to drift from the correct path. Some of this drift is tolerable like slightly different velocities or energy loss, but some are not like instabilities, large energy gains or dislocated constraints.
Therefore a lot of the complexity in the solver comes from the implementation of methods to minimize the impact of computational inaccuracies. Our final implementation uses some traditional and some novel mitigation strategies:
  1. Warm starting: starting with the solution from a previous time-step to increase the convergence rate of the iterative solver
  2. Post-stabilization: reprojecting the system back to the constraint manifold to prevent constraint drift
  3. Regularization: adding compliance to the constraints ensuring a solution exists and is unique
  4. Pre-conditioning: using an exact solution to a linear subsystem, improving the stability of complex mechanisms
Strategies 1, 2 and 3 are pretty traditional, but 3 has been improved and perfected by us. Also, although 4 is not unheard of, we haven’t seen any practical implementation of it. We use an original factorization method for large sparse constraint matrices and a new efficient way of combining it with the PGS. The resulting implementation is only slightly slower compared to pure PGS but ensures that the linear system coming from equality constraints is solved exactly. Consequently, the equality constraints suffer only from drift coming from the time discretization. Details on our methods are contained in my GDC 2020 presentation. Currently, we are investigating direct methods applied to inequality constraints and collisions.

Getting More Details

Traditionally there are two mathematical models for articulated mechanisms: there are reduced coordinate methods spearheaded by Featherstone, that parametrize the degrees of freedom at each joint, and there are full coordinate methods that use a Lagrangian formulation.
We use the second formulation as it is less restrictive and requires much simpler mathematics and implementation.
The Roblox engine uses analytical methods to compute the dynamic response of constraints, as opposed to penalty methods that were used before. Analytics methods were initially introduced in Baraff 1989, where they are used to treat both equality and non-equality constraints in a consistent manner. Baraff observed that the contact model can be formulated using quadratic programming, and he provided a heuristic solution method (which is not the method we use in our solver).
Instead of using force-based formulation, we use an impulse-based formulation in velocity space, originally introduced by Mirtich-Canny 1995 and further improved by Stewart-Trinkle 1996, which unifies the treatment of different contact types and guarantees the existence of a solution for contacts with friction. At each timestep, the constraints and collisions are maintained by applying instantaneous changes in velocities due to constraint impulses. An excellent explanation of why impulse-based simulation is superior is contained in the GDC presentation of Catto 2014.
The frictionless contacts are modeled using a linear complementarity problem (LCP) as described in Baraff 1994. Friction is added as a non-linear projection onto the friction cone, interleaved with the iterations of the Projected Gauss-Seidel.
The numerical drift that introduces positional errors in the constraints is resolved using a post-stabilization technique using pseudo-velocities introduced by Cline-Pai 2003. It involves solving a second LCP in the position space, which projects the system back to the constraint manifold.
The LCPs are solved using a PGS / Impulse Solver popularized by Catto 2005 (also see Catto 2009). This method is iterative and considers each individual constraints in sequence and resolves it independently. Over many iterations, and in ideal conditions, the system converges to a global solution.
Additionally, high mass ratio issues in equality constraints are ironed out by preconditioning the PGS using the sparse LDL decomposition of the constraint matrix of equality constraints. Dense submatrices of the constraint matrix are sparsified using a method we call Body Splitting. This is similar to the LDL decomposition used in Baraff 1996, but allows more general mechanical systems, and solves the system in constraint space. For more information, you can see my GDC 2020 presentation.
The architecture of our solver follows the idea of Guendelman-Bridson-Fedkiw, where the velocity and position stepping are separated by the constraint resolution. Our time sequencing is:
  1. Advance velocities
  2. Constraint resolution in velocity space and position space
  3. Advance positions
This scheme has the advantage of integrating only valid velocities, and limiting latency in external force application but allowing a small amount of perceived constraint violation due to numerical drift.
An excellent reference for rigid body simulation is the book Erleben 2005 that was recently made freely available. You can find online lectures about physics-based animation, a blog by Nilson Souto on building a physics engine, a very good GDC presentation by Erin Catto on modern solver methods, and forums like the Bullet Physics Forum and GameDev which are excellent places to ask questions.

In Conclusion

The field of game physics simulation presents many interesting problems that are both exciting and challenging. There are opportunities to learn a substantial amount of cool mathematics and physics and to use modern optimizations techniques. It’s an area of game development that tightly marries mathematics, physics and software engineering.
Even if Roblox has a good rigid body physics engine, there are areas where it can be improved and optimized. Also, we are working on exciting new projects like fracturing, deformation, softbody, cloth, aerodynamics and water simulation.
Neither Roblox Corporation nor this blog endorses or supports any company or service. Also, no guarantees or promises are made regarding the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information contained in this blog.
This blog post was originally published on the Roblox Tech Blog.
© 2020 Roblox Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Using Clang to Minimize Global Variable Use

July

23, 2020

by RandomTruffle
PRODUCT & TECH
Every non-trivial program has at least some amount of global state, but too much can be a bad thing. In C++ (which constitutes close to 100% of Roblox’s engine code) this global state is initialized before main() and destroyed after returning from main(), and this happens in a mostly non-deterministic order. In addition to leading to confusing startup and shutdown semantics that are difficult to reason about (or change), it can also lead to severe instability.
Roblox code also creates a lot of long-running detached threads (threads which are never joined and just run until they decide to stop, which might be never). These two things together have a very serious negative interaction on shutdown, because long-running threads continue accessing the global state that is being destroyed. This can lead to elevated crash rates, test suite flakiness, and just general instability.
The first step to digging yourself out of a mess like this is to understand the extent of the problem, so in this post I’m going to talk about one technique you can use to gain visibility into your global startup flow. I’m also going to discuss how we are using this to improve stability across the entire Roblox game engine platform by decreasing our use of global variables.

Introducing -finstrument-functions

Nothing excites me more than learning about a new obscure compiler option that I’ve never had a use for before, so I was pretty happy when a colleague pointed me to this option in the Clang Command Line Reference. I’d never used it before, but it sounded very cool. The idea being that if we could get the compiler to tell us every time it entered and exited a function, we could filter this information through a symbolizer of some kind and generate a report of functions that a) occur before main(), and b) are the very first function in the call-stack (indicating it’s a global).
Unfortunately, the documentation basically just tells you that the option exists with no mention of how to use it or if it even actually does what it sounds like it does. There’s also two different options that sound similar to each other (-finstrument-functions and -finstrument-functions-after-inlining), and I still wasn’t entirely sure what the difference was. So I decided to throw up a quick sample on godbolt to see what happened, which you can see here. Note there are two assembly outputs for the same source listing. One uses the first option and the other uses the second option, and we can compare the assembly output to understand the differences. We can gather a few takeaways from this sample:
  1. The compiler is injecting calls to __cyg_profile_func_enter and __cyg_profile_func_exit inside of every function, inline or not.
  2. The only difference between the two options occurs at the call-site of an inline function.
  3. With -finstrument-functions, the instrumentation for the inlined function is inserted at the call-site, whereas with -finstrument-functions-after-inlining we only have instrumentation for the outer function. This means that when using-finstrument-functions-after-inlining you won’t be able to determine which functions are inlined and where.
Of course, this sounds exactly like what the documentation said it did, but sometimes you just need to look under the hood to convince yourself.
To put all of this another way, if we want to know about calls to inline functions in this trace we need to use -finstrument-functions because otherwise their instrumentation is silently removed by the compiler. Sadly, I was never able to get -finstrument-functions to work on a real example. I would always end up with linker errors deep in the Standard C++ Library which I was unable to figure out. My best guess is that inlining is often a heuristic, and this can somehow lead to subtle ODR (one-definition rule) violations when the optimizer makes different inlining decisions from different translation units. Luckily global constructors (which is what we care about) cannot possibly be inlined anyway, so this wasn’t a problem.
I suppose I should also mention that I still got tons of linker errors with -finstrument-functions-after-inlining as well, but I did figure those out. As best as I can tell, this option seems to imply –whole-archive linker semantics. Discussion of –whole-archive is outside the scope of this blog post, but suffice it to say that I fixed it by using linker groups (e.g. -Wl,–start-group and -Wl,–end-group) on the compiler command line. I was a bit surprised that we didn’t get these same linker errors without this option and still don’t totally understand why. If you happen to know why this option would change linker semantics, please let me know in the comments!

Implementing the Callback Hooks

If you’re astute, you may be wondering what in the world __cyg_profile_func_enter and __cyg_profile_func_exit are and why the program is even successfully linking in the first without giving undefined symbol reference errors, since the compiler is apparently trying to call some function we’ve never defined. Luckily, there are some options that allow us to see inside the linker’s algorithm so we can find out where it’s getting this symbol from to begin with. Specifically, -y should tell us how the linker is resolving . We’ll try it with a dummy program first and a symbol that we’ve defined ourselves, then we’ll try it with __cyg_profile_func_enter .
[email protected]:~/src/sandbox$ cat instr.cpp int main() {} [email protected]:~/src/sandbox$ clang++-9 -fuse-ld=lld -Wl,-y -Wl,main instr.cpp /usbin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/crt1.o: reference to main /tmp/instr-5b6c60.o: definition of main
No surprises here. The C Runtime Library references main(), and our object file defines it. Now let’s see what happens with __cyg_profile_func_enter and -finstrument-functions-after-inlining.
[email protected]:~/src/sandbox$ clang++-9 -fuse-ld=lld -finstrument-functions-after-inlining -Wl,-y -Wl,__cyg_profile_func_enter instr.cpp /tmp/instr-8157b3.o: reference to __cyg_profile_func_enter /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: shared definition of __cyg_profile_func_enter
Now, we see that libc provides the definition, and our object file references it. Linking works a bit differently on Unix-y platforms than it does on Windows, but basically this means that if we define this function ourselves in our cpp file, the linker will just automatically prefer it over the shared library version. Working godbolt link without runtime output is here. So now you can kind of see where this is going, however there are still a couple of problems left to solve.
  1. We don’t want to do this for a full run of the program. We want to stop as soon as we reach main.
  2. We need a way to symbolize this trace.
The first problem is easy to solve. All we need to do is compare the address of the function being called to the address of main, and set a flag indicating we should stop tracing henceforth. (Note that taking the address of main is undefined behavior[1], but for our purposes it gets the job done, and we aren’t shipping this code, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). The second problem probably deserves a little more discussion though.

Symbolizing the Traces

In order to symbolize these traces, we need two things. First, we need to store the trace somewhere on persistent storage. We can’t expect to symbolize in real time with any kind of reasonable performance. You can write some C code to save the trace to some magic filename, or you can do what I did and just write it to stderr (this way you can pipe stderr to some file when you run it).
Second, and perhaps more importantly, for every address we need to write out the full path to the module the address belongs to. Your program loads many shared libraries, and in order to translate an address into a symbol, we have to know which shared library or executable the address actually belongs to. In addition, we have to be careful to write out the address of the symbol in the file on disk. When your program is running, the operating system could have loaded it anywhere in memory. And if we’re going to symbolize it after the fact we need to make sure we can still reference it after the information about where it was loaded in memory is lost. The linux function dladdr() gives us both pieces of information we need. A working godbolt sample with the exact implementation of our instrumentation hooks as they appear in our codebase can be found here.

Putting it All Together

Now that we have a file in this format saved on disk, all we need to do is symbolize the addresses. addr2line is one option, but I went with llvm-symbolizer as I find it more robust. I wrote a Python script to parse the file and symbolize each address, then print it in the same “visual” hierarchical format that the original output file is in. There are various options for filtering the resulting symbol list so that you can clean up the output to include only things that are interesting for your case. For example, I filtered out any globals that have boost:: in their name, because I can’t exactly go rewrite boost to not use global variables.
The script isn’t as simple as you would think, because simply crawling each line and symbolizing it would be unacceptably slow (when I tried this, it took over 2 hours before I finally killed the process). This is because the same address might appear thousands of times, and there’s no reason to run llvm-symbolizer against the same address multiple times. So there’s a lot of smarts in there to pre-process the address list and eliminate duplicates. I won’t discuss the implementation in more detail because it isn’t super interesting. But I’ll do even better and provide the source!
So after all of this, we can run any one of our internal targets to get the call tree, run it through the script, and then get output like this (actual output from a Roblox process, source file information removed):
excluded_symbols = [‘.\boost.*’]* excluded_modules = [‘/usr.\’]* /uslib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libLLVM-9.so.1: 140 unique addresses InterestingRobloxProcess: 38928 unique addresses /uslib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6: 1 unique addresses /uslib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc++.so.1: 3 unique addresses Printing call tree with depth 2 for 29276 global variables. __cxx_global_var_init.5 (InterestingFile1.cpp:418:22) RBX::InterestingRobloxClass2::InterestingRobloxClass2() (InterestingFile2.cpp.:415:0) __cxx_global_var_init.19 (InterestingFile2.cpp:183:34) (anonymous namespace)::InterestingRobloxClass2::InterestingRobloxClass2() (InterestingFile2.cpp:171:0) __cxx_global_var_init.274 (InterestingFile3.cpp:2364:33) RBX::InterestingRobloxClass3::InterestingRobloxClass3()
So there you have it: the first half of the battle is over. I can run this script on every platform, compare results to understand what order our globals are actually initialized in in practice, then slowly migrate this code out of global initializers and into main where it can be deterministic and explicit.

Future Work

It occurred to me sometime after implementing this that we could make a general purpose profiling hook that exposed some public symbols (dllexport’ed if you speak Windows), and allowed a plugin module to hook into this dynamically. This plugin module could filter addresses using whatever arbitrary logic that it was interested in. One interesting use case I came up for this is that it could look up the debug information, check if the current address maps to the constructor of a function local static, and write out the address if so. This effectively allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the order in which our lazy statics are initialized. The possibilities are endless here.

Further Reading

If you’re interested in this kind of thing, I’ve collected a couple of my favorite references for this kind of topic.
  1. Various: The C++ Language Standard
  2. Matt Godbolt: The Bits Between the Bits: How We Get to main()
  3. Ryan O’Neill: Learning Linux Binary Analysis
  4. Linkers and Loaders: John R. Levine
  5. https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.exec#basic.start.main-3
Neither Roblox Corporation nor this blog endorses or supports any company or service. Also, no guarantees or promises are made regarding the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information contained in this blog.
submitted by jaydenweez to u/jaydenweez [link] [comments]

Binary Options Review; Best Binary Options Brokers

Binary Options Review; Best Binary Options Brokers

Binary Options Review; Best Binary Options Brokers
We have compared the best regulated binary options brokers and platforms in May 2020 and created this top list. Every binary options company here has been personally reviewed by us to help you find the best binary options platform for both beginners and experts. The broker comparison list below shows which binary trading sites came out on top based on different criteria.
You can put different trading signals into consideration such as using payout (maximum returns), minimum deposit, bonus offers, or if the operator is regulated or not. You can also read full reviews of each broker, helping you make the best choice. This review is to ensure traders don't lose money in their trading account.
How to Compare Brokers and Platforms
In order to trade binary options, you need to engage the services of a binary options broker that accepts clients from your country e.g. check US trade requirements if you are in the United States. Here at bitcoinbinaryoptionsreview.com, we have provided all the best comparison factors that will help you select which trading broker to open an account with. We have also looked at our most popular or frequently asked questions, and have noted that these are important factors when traders are comparing different brokers:
  1. What is the Minimum Deposit? (These range from $5 or $10 up to $250)
  2. Are they regulated or licensed, and with which regulator?
  3. Can I open a Demo Account?
  4. Is there a signals service, and is it free?
  5. Can I trade on my mobile phone and is there a mobile app?
  6. Is there a Bonus available for new trader accounts? What are the Terms and
  7. conditions?
  8. Who has the best binary trading platform? Do you need high detail charts with technical analysis indicators?
  9. Which broker has the best asset lists? Do they offer forex, cryptocurrency, commodities, indices, and stocks – and how many of each?
  10. Which broker has the largest range of expiry times (30 seconds, 60 seconds, end of the day, long term, etc?)
  11. How much is the minimum trade size or amount?
  12. What types of options are available? (Touch, Ladder, Boundary, Pairs, etc)
  13. Additional Tools – Like Early closure or Metatrader 4 (Mt4) plugin or integration
  14. Do they operate a Robot or offer automated trading software?
  15. What is Customer Service like? Do they offer telephone, email and live chat customer support – and in which countries? Do they list direct contact details?
  16. Who has the best payouts or maximum returns? Check the markets you will trade.
The Regulated Binary Brokers
Regulation and licensing is a key factor when judging the best broker. Unregulated brokers are not always scams, or untrustworthy, but it does mean a trader must do more ‘due diligence’ before trading with them. A regulated broker is the safest option.
Regulators - Leading regulatory bodies include:
  • CySec – The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (Cyprus and the EU)
  • FCA – Financial Conduct Authority (UK)
  • CFTC – Commodity Futures Trading Commission (US)
  • FSB – Financial Services Board (South Africa)
  • ASIC – Australia Securities and Investment Commission
There are other regulators in addition to the above, and in some cases, brokers will be regulated by more than one organization. This is becoming more common in Europe where binary options are coming under increased scrutiny. Reputable, premier brands will have regulation of some sort.
Regulation is there to protect traders, to ensure their money is correctly held and to give them a path to take in the event of a dispute. It should therefore be an important consideration when choosing a trading partner.
Bonuses - Both sign up bonuses and demo accounts are used to attract new clients. Bonuses are often a deposit match, a one-off payment, or risk-free trade. Whatever the form of a bonus, there are terms and conditions that need to be read.
It is worth taking the time to understand those terms before signing up or clicking accept on a bonus offer. If the terms are not to your liking then the bonus loses any attraction and that broker may not be the best choice. Some bonus terms tie in your initial deposit too. It is worth reading T&Cs before agreeing to any bonus, and worth noting that many brokers will give you the option to ‘opt-out’ of taking a bonus.
Using a bonus effectively is harder than it sounds. If considering taking up one of these offers, think about whether, and how, it might affect your trading. One common issue is that turnover requirements within the terms, often cause traders to ‘over-trade’. If the bonus does not suit you, turn it down.
How to Find the Right Broker
But how do you find a good broker? Well, that’s where BitcoinBinaryOptionsReview.com comes in. We assess and evaluate binary options brokers so that traders know exactly what to expect when signing up with them. Our financial experts have more than 20 years of experience in the financial business and have reviewed dozens of brokers.
Being former traders ourselves, we know precisely what you need. That’s why we’ll do our best to provide our readers with the most accurate information. We are one of the leading websites in this area of expertise, with very detailed and thorough analyses of every broker we encounter. You will notice that each aspect of any broker’s offer has a separate article about it, which just goes to show you how seriously we approach each company. This website is your best source of information about binary options brokers and one of your best tools in determining which one of them you want as your link to the binary options market.
Why Use a Binary Options Trading Review?
So, why is all this relevant? As you may already know, it is difficult to fully control things that take place online. There are people who only pose as binary options brokers in order to scam you and disappear with your money. True, most of the brokers we encounter turn out to be legit, but why take unnecessary risks?
Just let us do our job and then check out the results before making any major decisions. All our investigations regarding brokers’ reliability can be seen if you click on our Scam Tab, so give it a go and see how we operate. More detailed scam reports than these are simply impossible to find. However, the most important part of this website can be found if you go to our Brokers Tab.
There you can find extensive analyses of numerous binary options brokers irrespective of your trading strategy. Each company is represented with an all-encompassing review and several other articles dealing with various aspects of their offer. A list containing the very best choices will appear on your screen as you enter our website whose intuitive design will allow you to access all the most important information in real-time.
We will explain minimum deposits, money withdrawals, bonuses, trading platforms, and many more topics down to the smallest detail. Rest assured, this amount of high-quality content dedicated exclusively to trading cannot be found anywhere else. Therefore, visiting us before making any important decisions regarding this type of trading is the best thing to do.
CONCLUSION: Stay ahead of the market, and recover from all kinds of binary options trading loss, including market losses in bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and forex markets too. Send your request via email to - [email protected]
submitted by Babyelijah to u/Babyelijah [link] [comments]

Analysis: Why Kayle is Failing | The legacy of the 9.17 mini-rework

Four months have passed, now I have data to back up what I was saying before.
My arguments then though are still my arguments now. Though, this time I hope to be able to make my points much more clearly understood but I'm afraid it appears I'm unable to deviate from my verbose style of posting.
So what's wrong with Kayle? It's pretty simple. There's nothing about her kit or play-style that defines Kayle as Kayle.
I said it months ago and I'll say it again. The direction they took with Kayle when they capitulated to the people complaining about not getting ranged earlier on 9.17 was straddling the fence. This was a grave mistake. Riot should have invested the time to either make her kit fun when melee and embraced the evolving form of Kayle (my personal preference) or they should have fully embraced the ranged aspect of kit, making her fully ranged at level one and balancing her appropriately around that.
Riot August has said it himself, after the 9.17 changes had settled and her play-rate started to rise. As it turns out, people like to be able to play the game for the first ten minutes of the game...Shocking... Well guess what that hasn't changed? We still want to play the game. We want to be able to farm/trade comparably to at least the weakest early game solo-lane-late-game champions, or barring that to be able to have some interaction with our champion that is completely unique to that champion.
So since Kayle is primarily regarded as a top laner, let's start with the basics.
As top-laners, we need to, in some form, fulfill the role that we have chosen with our chosen champion. We approach this with the expectation that any given top lane champion will excel in some fashion in at least one aspect integral to the position itself. Those criteria in their most basic forms being as follows:
To work in top lane, you don't have to have the capacity to complete all of those functions but, at the very least, you should be able to do one. Barring that, you should bring something extraordinarily unique to the table.
An example of specialized to me would be Quinn, whose kit includes mobility so excessive that she is exempt from taking Teleport to lane and can use combative summoner spells to dominate the laning phase and later use her hyper-mobility to pressure side lanes. But this comes at the expense that if you do not perform well early… well sucks to be you (and your team) come mid/late game.
From what I can tell, Kayle is supposed to fit into this "specialized" section. The most important thing here is that, when you pick a champion who does not fit the normal criteria of the role, they excel MASSIVELY in some aspect to make up for it.
To support my claim that Kayle is intended to fit this group, the 9.5 version of the Kayle rework at least had that uniqueness. We couldn't do anything early whatsoever BUT in exchange for that Kayle's builds were completely fluid. You could build either AD or AP or both. Unlike any other damage focused champion, you were not required to purchase an armor penetration item to maintain your damage output, which further enhanced the versatility of her kit and also allowed her to scale into the game stronger than any other champion in the game.
The big issue people seemed to have with the 9.5 version was that it took until between 15 and 17 minutes for Kayle to be able to play the game and then they’d play catch-up for 2-3 minutes then actually get to have an impact.... That was hardly any fun.
The advantages with the 9.17 Kayle changes are that you now are capable of farming and light harassment/trades at roughly 7 minutes. But the issue still persists: you still don't really get to play the game until you get 2 items… or roughly 15-17 minutes. These changes were paid at the expense of all the aspects of Kayle that made her new kit unique and cool. What is worse is that the aspects of the champion that made her innately function as a unique late game top-laner were removed or significantly nerfed to appeal to a vocal group of bandwagoners. The second they got what they wanted, these same people… surprise, surprise... ditched left us one tricks and enthusiasts with a champion that is a “okay” at everything while the aspects which made her excel in a fashion unique to Kayle, necessary for specialists to be fun to play, were abandoned.
The worst part is that changes performed to her kit changed nothing from the outcome perspective. Her power spikes still align with the same minutes of the game, her win-rate has settled into roughly the same percentile (within 1%) each time she has been altered, once balanced, but she just feels less satisfying to play.
"Well... who cares? Why is that an issue? Why can't you just suck it up or play another champion Justifier? Kayle is at a 51.33% win-rate she's perfectly balanced. Fun is subjective. Just because you don't have fun with her any more doesn't mean other people don't."
Well that's just the thing. It's not just me who holds this opinion. Need proof?
Here's some data of Kayle's in game presence from u.gg a few weeks after the 9.17 changes, taken 9/27/2019 Plenty of time for people to get used to her being ranged at 6. She's at a 52.46% win-rate, 4.6% pick-rate, 1.6% ban-rate.
Those numbers are roughly equal to her game presence statistics before her changes from 9.16 going to 9.17. Here’s Kayle now that she’s been balanced properly after her ranged at 6 changes, 51.33% win-rate 2.7% play-rate, 0.9% ban-rate.
FEWER people enjoy playing Kayle with her ranged at 6 form than when they did with her 9.5-9.16 form, if both iterations are balanced and her win-rate remains stable throughout. We can conclude in my opinion, since her win-rate remains stable throughout all of these changes and nerfs, that it's not because she's "less op" but because people think she's not fun to play.
The next numbers I'd like to look at were taken at her "peak" when she was being recognized as busted due to her abusive playstyle when paired with Kleptomancy and various successful appearances on the Worlds Stage. It took an extraordinary excess of time for her numbers to climb towards their pinnacle having reached a ≈+30% combined play/ban rate nearly whole three whole months after the 9.17 changes having been recognized as busted and picked up and abused by various higher elo players. She still maintained her disgusting presence through nerfs until the season rolled over Craptomancy was finally removed from the game. Why? Because even though Kayle was busted she didn't feel fun to play. The feelgood rewards for playing Kayle didn't match the results of playing Kayle even when she was absolutely busted.
Now here’s the kicker: literally the day that the aspect of her kit that was "abusable" was addressed (finally), what happened to her game presence?
It halved.
At the end of Patch 9.22 Kayle had an 52.76% win-rate, 8.2% pick-rate and a 14.4% ban-rate for a combined 22.6% game presence, the day after? Patch 9.23, preseason patch, Klepomancy removal. A 51.4% win-rate, 4.8% pick-rate, 6.9% ban-rate for a combined 11.7% game presence which further deteriorated to the present.
Patch 10.1, 51.33% win-rate, 2.7% pick-rate and 0.9% ban-rate for a whopping 3.6% presence
Again, her win-rate stayed within a single percent of the win-rate she had before Kleptomancy and that percentile change could more easily be attributed to the change in the games meta on the turn of the season than on Kayle's reliance on Kleptomancy.
We can conclude from this that these people were NOT playing Kayle because she was busted, they were NOT playing Kayle to get free elo. They were playing her because they could finally tolerate her playstyle enough via kleptomancy proxy to validate trading over +50% of their game to have an impact on the last portion of it.
The second that proxy was removed, despite her win-rate maintaining its level even through nerfs, her game presence tanked.
Another interesting observation to point out is that when you look at her play-rates and ban-rates, her ban-rates when she is fun to play with this version of Kayle are always higher than her play-rates.
From this we can determine that when Kayle is even slightly fun to play with this form of a kit for the player piloting Kayle, she's EXTREMELY unfun to play against. Contrast this to 9.5-16 versions of Kayle where I've heard many people describe her kit as being "surprisingly balanced and fun to play against." In my estimation, this is caused because her kit is designed to NOT interact with your opponent. A Kayle playing at their best minimizes interaction with the opposing player. This is frustrating and unfun for Kayle players when she's balanced, frustrating and unfun for her opponents if she even has a perceived (not real) advantage (say kleptomancy stacks)
So here’s an issue:
As it stands, essentially what we have now is Kayle as she was before her initial (9.5) rework, stripped completely of every single thing that made Kayle Kayle. Every point of the game feels worse even when it's better than her pre-9.5 version in a state where when she's actually balanced she's unfun to play as and if even perceived as overtuned extremely unfun to play against
I think because of this it’s fair to ask once again: Were the stated design goals of her rework met?
Stated goals for Kayle's rework:
  1. Make Kayle more fun
  2. Make her auto attacks feel really good
  3. Variance in her pattern
  4. High moments outside of her ultimate
  5. Deliver on the “ranged to melee thing”
1: I have already addressed #1, when balanced no one appears to want to play her and when perceived as strong no one wants to play against her. So, the answer is no.
2: Kayle’s auto attacks excluding her E reset do not feel “really good” or “satisfying” when you smack someone it just feels like you’re hitting them with a wet noodle. This is particularly annoying when every single spell that you cast interrupts your auto attacks and while her E feels good it doesn't feel so good as to make up for the disruptive nature of her other abilities in the flow of her kit. So, #2 is No.
3: Variance in her play pattern.
I’m not sure exactly what this means but I presume this means she is capable of a fluid build style which can adapt to what the opponent is doing in the game by building uniquely. She had this with her 9.5-16 versions but her build style now is completely binary. If you deviate from the standard Gunblade > Nashors > dcap/rageblade, you’ll usually regret it. So, no.
4: High moments outside of her ultimate:
I think that again Kayle had this on her 9.5-16 versions through her late game power spike. Her true damage waves were extremely satisfying to experience when you hit that point in the game. However beyond that I cannot think of (m)any high moments that exclude her ultimate. So, no.
5: Deliver on the “ranged to melee thing”:
Maybe?
I mean the thing with this is that it feels like this rework goal was doggedly pursued at the expense of the other four. Riot chose to preserve this stated goal for some reason at the cost of the other goals. In exchange for “making her auto attacks feel really good” (via her true damage, and early wave attacks/AoE spells[meaning the ability to quickly push lanes early in the game]), we got earlier range.
The issue with this is that Range is regarded as so powerful as to require that she also lose her pattern variance (build fluidity) and extreme late game power spike in exchange for these changes… and the consequence of the loss of those four goals to meet the one is that… well she’s simply not fun. But the worst part is that I think this was a game design that should have never been a goal in the first place... Kayle was never a "melee champion who became ranged" Kayle was a ranged champion, whose attacks were processed as melee. This was an aspect unique to Kayle and demonstrated in her old interaction with Yauso's windwall.
Kayle was a Ranged&Melee champion not a Rangedmelee champion.
But even if you put all of that aside, changing it to range → melee was fine. What is not fine is that I feel most of this last stated goal was ceded when they made Kayle ranged at 6. By removing the struggle of the transition by giving it to players earlier you remove the last vestige of the stated goals of the initial Kayle rework.
Let me ask you this: when someone asks you what exactly makes Kayle Kayle, what do you respond with?
(pre-9.5 Kayle)
To me, what defined Kayle before her rework was "not a single champion in the top lane can match your pushing power early game, late game you were one of the top tier splitters/duelists who can build any item in the game."
Hell, her pushing power was so strong that it was actually her weakness. You couldn't control waves if you even last-hit or traded.
So her identity:
Shover. Versatility. Scaling. Split pusheduelist. Melee&ranged
(9.5-9.16 Kayle)
After her rework, (9.5) it was "not a single champion in the game can outscale you. Not a one. Better beat Kayle before she gets level 3 evolution." or "wait for Kayle to hit 16 guys we've got this!". This unique trait appeared to stem from her true damage wave abilities -- or in short she was unique because of her “purifying waves” which in turn still unlocked her previous identity of being able to build any item in the game. She could run either AP or AD each carrying its own perks and downsides
So her identity:
Versatility. Scaling. SplitpusheTeamfigher. Meleeranged
9.17 Kayle and onward iterations
She's not technically terrible at anything but Laning phase...I guess... But she's good at nothing as well. There is no longer anything about her that stands out in any way whatsoever. She is terrible early and okayish mid game okay late. She’s a decent source of dps and a decent laner when the game starts for her... But that's it. There’s little discernible feeling of payout for the terrible early game you’re still subject to. Sure, her win-rate hits top 3 if the game goes on for 35 minutes. She scales into the game like a monster… but she sure as hell doesn’t feel like it, and it means little to nothing in a meta where the average game time is sub 30 minutes even for unranked players. Kayle’s “unique trait” as a Champion of League of Legends now is “I do a tiny bit of everything at the expense that you will have absolutely no agency and be absolutely miserable for about 10-15 minutes of your game” or in other terms,
So her identity:
Scaling. early grouper.
Jack of all trades and master of none?
She still scales like a monster of course, so I guess you can still say that's part of her unique traits now. But there’s little to no build fluidity (variance), few if any high moments, no great feeling auto attacks.
There appeared to be one single saving grace for this iteration of Kayle’s kit for the general population though... Kleptomancy. Kleptomancy meant so much in my opinion, not because it was simply broken on her (it was certainly perceived as such), but because Kleptomancy was only integral for Kayle’s design to click with the average League player in my estimation because it gave the player the feeling that they were interacting with their opponent during the laning phase enough that people didn't get overwhelmed by the dismal feelings inherently ingrained into her kit
Now that the placebo of interaction of doing something for the first 15 minutes of the game is gone. People have apparently decided, voted if you will, with their time and choices that the design Kayle bring to the table is simply not palatable for the general player.
As a consequence, we can say with some degree of certainty that even if this kind of champion design is perceived as bat-shit busted...People don't touch it. Something HAS to feel satisfying for a significant portion of the game even if it does literally nothing in the grand scheme for players to pick her up.
Those of us left either play because it's what we've always done, or for the "angel" theme which is one of the few aspects of Kayle that remains intact and unique at this point...
This is one of the most iconic Champions in League of Legends. She’s one of the original 17 for crying out loud and it feels terrible to be in a game with her.
It wouldn’t be all that difficult to make her have an extremely satisfying kit even as is.
One example of relatively simple changes that could bring more life to her kit suggested to me in Kayle Mains Discord was changing her E: when you “cast” it, it unlocks the next tier of her ascension for 5-6 seconds. So levels 1-5, you have access to range for 5-6 seconds and range unlocking permanently at level 6; levels 6-10, you have access to your waves for 5-6 seconds and Level 11 your gain full access you your waves when your passive is fully stacked; levels 11-16, your waves could have a % chance to crit for say 25% for 5-6 seconds and level 16 your crit waves chance is doubled (25% → 50%) and when your E is active if your waves crt they deal true damage.
An integration of a small part of her old kit which we know works into the new or the waves AoE is widened/enhanced, remove the true damage and keep the rest if it's too much, or any other plethora of options.
Imagine how satisfying anything like that would be compared to currently when I press E. A high cost high cd low consequence spell, which I can throw one spell at either a minion and get a last hit, or I can throw it at the opponent and deal 50 dmg and then I'm back to the waiting game for my more favorable forms every 8 seconds.
Now I'm not suggesting Riot reverts Kayle's kit, or implements any change suggested above. (That would be super cool but let's be real it's unlikely to happen)
This post's purpose is to serve as a potential source of information for Riot addressing the opinions of people most passionate, regarding the direction pursued to make Kayle a great champion for everyone.
And to cause Riot to take a good hard look at Kayle and make sure that what they're doing and have done is matching their expectations... because it's not matching ours.
TLDR
So why is Kayle failing?
She's failing because the features that made her unique and quirky as a champion were stripped away from her in an attempt to appeal to a larger audience by making her easier to play; without something unique, potentially difficult, cool and quirky ingrained into their kits, champions with extreme trade-offs make people lose interest very quickly.
Addition: Upon suggestion I also posted this on the main League Reddit Thread, Here's a link to that if you want to check out how conversation is going there.
submitted by Justifierna to Kaylemains [link] [comments]

Music Access Moral Continuum (Please rank yours!)

(How) Should we judge people who access music from different sources than we do?
How long concerts, a major source of income for less famous artists, will be too dangerous remains to be seen, but if the financial incentive for musicians to make music is as strong as economists think, we could be in for a long and worsening dry spell. A hungry musical genius might not create the next masterpiece if the link to putting food on the table is severed. No better time to consider the payout-tied morality of different ways to access music. I hope you’ll share your opinions using the following framework or your own.
“Music” refers to an “indie” artist w/ all songs under a million views on YouTube (arbitrary cut-off point). I’m not talking about the “winners” in the “winner-take-all market” that is the music industry (and so many others).
u/classiscot , u/soulcoal , and other veterans of this forum employ a moral dichotomy of “paying artists” (good) Vs. “not paying artists” (bad). Or possibly a trichotomy w/ eMusic even worse than average pirates b/c subscribers are paying the company to steal from artists and record labels. There’s utility in this simplicity, but like most binary views it leaves out gray areas and the more complicated, inclusive reality of music access as a whole. I’ll leave out the likelihood, in my view, that eMu is still paying some artists/labels or they’d all abandon ship and/or file a class action lawsuit b/c I’ve harped on it a lot elsewhere.
Here’s a series of other, systematic ways of contextualizing the morality of remaining subscribed to eMusic in these difficult, uncertain times. I obviously prefer the more complex one.
DICHOTOMOUS: Paying artists (Bandcamp, streaming services, etc.) Vs. Not paying artists (Pirate sites, file sharers, much of eMusic, etc.)
“TRICHOTOMOUS”: Paying artists Vs. Not paying artists Vs. Charging a subscription fee to steal from artists
EXCESSIVELY COMPLICATED IN PURSUIT OF NUANCED OPINIONS:
To avoid going wildly out of control, I’ll limit myself to the 26 letters of the alphabet in my opinionated moral ranking, w/ A being “most moral/best” and Z being “least moral/worst.” Rather than drawing a line between moral and immoral, I'll punt and call letters K-Q “morally ambiguous” even to my all-judging self. I hope others will rearrange the alphabet (selectively…I’m not asking for hours of anyone’s time) with their own rankings. i.e. I guess/approximate u/classiscot’s as C, B, M, W (b/c it hurts eMu), T, P, V, X, Z, J (all helping eMu at the bottom of the scale) but solicit his actual input. Anyone else who’d like to weigh in, especially anyone who’s a musician or themselves in the industry, please do! Judge now lest ye not be judged thyself.
I’ve probably missed several obvious options and don’t know how to add more letters to the alphabet. A1, Z1, etc.? Maybe use my letters as reference points and insert what I’ve missed between them?
Note that D, J, L, & W directly involve eMusic. I gather most who do so disparage any financial support or interaction w/ eMu at all uniformly for simplicity’s sake, but given several ways to get music from the site, they’re worth parsing individually.
MOST MORAL
A. Get access for “free” b/c your job (or volunteer position) is to promote the artist (Clearly it’s the music industry’s loss if anyone commenting here is not actively working in it.)
B. Attending an artist’s concerts religiously, buying physical media from their merch table, direct GoFundme campaigns (As u/Soulcoal and others duly point out, this is THE major source of income for less popular artists who’ll never be able to support themselves any other way)
C. Use of Bandcamp to maximally subscribe to one’s favorite artist’s output (including full-priced purchases of full discographies).
D. Use of eMu tokens to purchase MP3s from eMusic (Blockchain. I still haven’t heard of any accounts of anyone actually doing this, but it should at least address accusations of non-payment of artists b/c it’s transparent)
E. Buy a new vinyl record or new CD at one of the dwindling brick & mortar stores that still sell them.
F. Listen to an independent radio station (i.e. community/college-based)
G. Listen to an old-fashioned commercial radio station (I’d say it’s morally ambiguous to listen to Top40 radio, though, but that my inner curmudgeon typing. I’m not even sure indie artists, new jazz, etc. even get played on any commercial radio stations.)
H. Borrow or otherwise listen to someone else’s copy (i.e. friend or family member’s) of an album they bought new, then buy more of it oneself. Burning a copy of it to CD-R rather than buying it would be worse, but does anyone still do that?
I. Buy a used CD or used Record online or at a used music store (Recent years show how dependent this means is upon people buying albums new in the first place. I welcome someone else to speculate how much buying a used CD helps the artist.)
J. Annual or monthly eMusic subscription (in hopes that it sustains eMu and will one day result in it being a viable business, doing its part to compensate artists, assuming it is still paying some artists/labels or they’d ALL leave the site)
MORALLY AMBIGUOUS
K. Innocently purchase a promotional copy of an album (i.e. as often happens in used CD stores that purchased stock from a radio station…only the disc itself or the interior of the liner notes, invisible at time of purchase, may be stamped with “for promotional use only”)
L. Purchase of discounted eMusic booster packs (a concession to Soulcoal’s distaste for them)
M. Paid subscription to the highest compensation-per-stream, non-gigantic service (currently Napster, or correct me if I’m wrong)
N. Paid subscription to a middling compensation-per-stream service (i.e. Tidal, Spotify, etc.). As I rant in a blog post, even if compensation improved, streaming services contribute to single-fication of music consumption and the death of the album, which I see as a moral injury. http://www.omnifoo.info/pages/Streaming%20Mad.html
O. Paid subscription to one of the huge corporations’ streaming services (Giving more money to Amazon, Google, and Apple, even if they pay more per stream than some, is morally ambiguous at best given things like their carbon footprints, enabling of crass consumerism, using market share to squeeze artists/labels, crowd out small businesses, and the possibility that unless anti-trust enforcement increases a lot they’ll someday own everything that people can purchase).
P. 7% of people (the same as the % who buy physical media or download from iTunes or elsewhere) surveyed in the link say they “don’t really listen to music,” which I think is evil and wrong, but I won’t force them to change their evil ways. Am I saying people should buy music even if they don’t listen to music? Kinda. To abstain or take the option of exit seems to be denied many Asian citizens (and probably elsewhere, too), where music is blasted in public over loudspeakers. I’m glad Skinny Puppy got paid for their songs being used at Guantánamo, but I’m sure detainees and other captive audiences aren’t much concerned about artist compensation. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/online-music-listening-preferences
Q. Free streaming service accounts supported by ads (i.e. Spotify. Even if you’re not bothered by your music being interrupted and financially supported by ads, I think it’s morally questionable, especially in the long term.) Kids I’ve talked to (some of whom equate music w/ Spotify or YouTube…scary!) who can’t afford a paid subscription need to talk to their parents about a family plan or listen to the radio, I say!
PROBABLY IMMORAL
R. Repeatedly doing free, 1-month trials of streaming sites and canceling before payment.
S. Streaming music on YouTube or other sites while using AdBlock on your browser (on the assumption that artists aren’t getting paid if ads aren’t being played) as one’s sole source of music.
T. Streaming music on YouTube from accounts not connected to artists themselves or their record labels (YouTube polices this but is pretty lax, especially for more obscure artists, songs, etc.)
U. Download all of a friend or family member’s albums that you like w/out buying any of it oneself (assuming they were originally purchased properly).
V. Knowingly buy counterfeit physical media. (In developing countries, one can still buy counterfeit CDs of surprising quality and selection, and around the turn of the 21st century, this seemed to be the primary means of people there getting to own music. Maybe it still put food on street vendor families’ tables? And as w/ pirated DVDs, there are upsides to spreading culture to poor people. This phenomenon mainly affected the most famous, I assume, who were losing the most revenue. I do know a ton of stores were shut down in China.)
W. Repeatedly signing up for eMusic’s 1-month new subscriber bonus under different email addresses (I read someone’s account of doing this and it struck me as entirely too clever, maybe a way to ensure that eMu’s non-payment of artists worsens, possibly an active contribution to sinking the site once and for all?)
X. Use of (Russian or other) pirate downloading sites
Y. Stealing records or CDs from a college radio station (this one is personally irksome, having managed one and been a DJ)
Z. Stealing one’s way into a concert, making a bootleg recording (to be sold for personal profit), robbing the merch table, hacking into a label’s website to steal its music. Then maybe stealing a backstage pass and sucker-punching the lead singer or bandleader, slashing the band’s van tires afterwards.
LEAST MORAL
Note that this is still a trichotomy. Placement in any of the three moral categories is just my opinion, and specific rankings are something you’re very welcome to argue for and change my mind. I hope the letters can be used as shorthand when doing so (i.e. One could argue X is worse than Z b/c it’s so easy and can be done on such a large scale.)
Perhaps some less moral options and certainly many morally ambiguous ones, IMO, can be offset by promoting the artist. You may tell me I’m deluding myself, but even if eMu is as horrible as some say for artists still on the site, I do believe that posting about them here, on FB, my website, etc. does a small but morally absolving bit of good to spread the word about what we all agree is mostly unknown music at this point.
My main contention remains that standard, dominant means of music access (via YouTube as on most of Reddit or other streaming services whether paid or free) categorized as “good” in a dichotomy b/c they do pay artists pay so little (literal pennies per month) as to be morally worse than an eMu subscription. Or at very least, getting on a high horse with a megaphone about how terrible eMu is compared to streaming is vastly overstated.
A streaming service subscriber who hopes artist compensation will get better somehow is, IMO, morally no better than an eMusic subscriber who is ignorant of its spotty record on compensation or who also hopes that it can become a viable business again and do right by artists.
In sum, yes, I’m still an apologist, maybe naive in optimism that eMu can still be a positive influence in a deeply unfair industry, whether or not it currently is.
submitted by chartreuseeye to eMusicofficial [link] [comments]

Analysis | Why Kayle is failing

Four months have passed, now I have data to back up what I was saying before.
My arguments then though are still my arguments now. Though, this time I hope to be able to make my points much more clearly understood but I'm afraid it appears I'm unable to deviate from my verbose style of posting.
So what's wrong with Kayle? It's pretty simple. There's nothing about her kit or play-style that defines Kayle as Kayle.
I said it months ago and I'll say it again. The direction they took with Kayle when they capitulated to the people complaining about not getting ranged earlier on 9.17 was straddling the fence. This was a grave mistake. Riot should have invested the time to either make her kit fun when melee and embraced the evolving form of Kayle (my personal preference) or they should have fully embraced the ranged aspect of kit, making her fully ranged at level one and balancing her appropriately around that.
Riot August has said it himself, after the 9.17 changes had settled and her play-rate started to rise. As it turns out, people like to be able to play the game for the first ten minutes of the game...Shocking... Well guess what that hasn't changed? We still want to play the game. We want to be able to farm/trade comparably to at least the weakest early game solo-lane-late-game champions, or barring that to be able to have some interaction with our champion that is completely unique to that champion.
So since Kayle is primarily regarded as a top laner, let's start with the basics.
As top-laners, we need to, in some form, fulfill the role that we have chosen with our chosen champion. We approach this with the expectation that any given top lane champion will excel in some fashion in at least one aspect integral to the position itself. Those criteria in their most basic forms being as follows:
To work in top lane, you don't have to have the capacity to complete all of those functions but, at the very least, you should be able to do one. Barring that, you should bring something extraordinarily unique to the table.
An example of specialized to me would be Quinn, whose kit includes mobility so excessive that she is exempt from taking Teleport to lane and can use combative summoner spells to dominate the laning phase and later use her hyper-mobility to pressure side lanes. But this comes at the expense that if you do not perform well early… well sucks to be you (and your team) come mid/late game.
From what I can tell, Kayle is supposed to fit into this "specialized" section. The most important thing here is that, when you pick a champion who does not fit the normal criteria of the role, they excel MASSIVELY in some aspect to make up for it.
To support my claim that Kayle is intended to fit this group, the 9.5 version of the Kayle rework at least had that uniqueness. We couldn't do anything early whatsoever BUT in exchange for that Kayle's builds were completely fluid. You could build either AD or AP or both. Unlike any other damage focused champion, you were not required to purchase an armor penetration item to maintain your damage output, which further enhanced the versatility of her kit and also allowed her to scale into the game stronger than any other champion in the game.
The big issue people seemed to have with the 9.5 version was that it took until between 15 and 17 minutes for Kayle to be able to play the game and then they’d play catch-up for 2-3 minutes then actually get to have an impact.... That was hardly any fun.
The advantages with the 9.17 Kayle changes are that you now are capable of farming and light harassment/trades at roughly 7 minutes. But the issue still persists: you still don't really get to play the game until you get 2 items… or roughly 15-17 minutes. These changes were paid at the expense of all the aspects of Kayle that made her new kit unique and cool. What is worse is that the aspects of the champion that made her innately function as a unique late game top-laner were removed or significantly nerfed to appeal to a vocal group of bandwagoners. The second they got what they wanted, these same people… surprise, surprise... ditched left us one tricks and enthusiasts with a champion that is a “okay” at everything, while the aspects which made her excel in a fashion unique to Kayle necessary for a specialist to be fun to play were abandoned.
The worst part is that changes performed to her kit changed nothing from the outcome perspective. Her power spikes still align with the same minutes of the game, her win-rate has settled into roughly the same percentile (within 1%) each time she has been altered, once balanced, but she just feels less satisfying to play.
"Well... who cares? Why is that an issue? Why can't you just suck it up or play another champion Justifier? Kayle is at a 51.33% win-rate she's perfectly balanced. Fun is subjective. Just because you don't have fun with her any more doesn't mean other people don't."
Well that's just the thing. It's not just me who holds this opinion. Need proof?
Here's some data of Kayle's in game presence from u.gg a few weeks after the 9.17 changes, taken 9/27/2019 Plenty of time for people to get used to her being ranged at 6. She's at a 52.46% win-rate, 4.6% pick-rate, 1.6% ban-rate.
Those numbers are roughly equal to her game presence statistics before her changes from 9.16 going to 9.17. Here’s Kayle now that she’s been balanced properly after her ranged at 6 changes, 51.33% win-rate 2.7% play-rate, 0.9% ban-rate.
FEWER people enjoy playing Kayle with her ranged at 6 form than when they did with her 9.5-9.16 form, if both iterations are balanced and her win-rate remains stable throughout. We can conclude in my opinion, since her win-rate remains stable throughout all of these changes and nerfs, that it's not because she's "less op" but because people think she's not fun to play.
The next numbers I'd like to look at were taken at her "peak" when she was being recognized as busted due to her abusive playstyle when paired with Kleptomancy and various successful appearances on the Worlds Stage. It took an extraordinary excess of time for her numbers to climb towards their pinnacle having reached a ≈+30% combined play/ban rate nearly whole three whole months after the 9.17 changes having been recognized as busted and picked up and abused by various higher elo players. She still maintained her disgusting presence through nerfs until the season rolled over Craptomancy was finally removed from the game. Why? Because even though Kayle was busted she didn't feel fun to play. The feelgood rewards for playing Kayle didn't match the results of playing Kayle even when she was absolutely busted.
Now here’s the kicker: literally the day that the aspect of her kit that was "abusable" was addressed (finally), what happened to her game presence?
It halved.
At the end of Patch 9.22 Kayle had an 52.76% win-rate, 8.2% pick-rate and a 14.4% ban-rate for a combined 22.6% game presence, the day after? Patch 9.23, preseason patch, Klepomancy removal. A 51.4% win-rate, 4.8% pick-rate, 6.9% ban-rate for a combined 11.7% game presence which further deteriorated to the present.
Patch 10.1, 51.33% win-rate, 2.7% pick-rate and 0.9% ban-rate for a whopping 3.6% presence
Again, her win-rate stayed within a single percent of the win-rate she had before Kleptomancy and that percentile change could more easily be attributed to the change in the games meta on the turn of the season than on Kayle's reliance on Kleptomancy.
We can conclude from this that these people were NOT playing Kayle because she was busted, they were NOT playing Kayle to get free elo. They were playing her because they could finally tolerate her playstyle enough via kleptomancy proxy to validate trading over +50% of their game to have an impact on the last portion of it.
The second that proxy was removed, despite her win-rate maintaining its level even through nerfs, her game presence tanked.
Another interesting observation to point out is that when you look at her play-rates and ban-rates, her ban-rates when she is fun to play with this version of Kayle are always higher than her play-rates.
From this we can determine that when Kayle is even slightly fun to play with this form of a kit for the player piloting Kayle, she's EXTREMELY unfun to play against. Contrast this to 9.5-16 versions of Kayle where I've heard many people describe her kit as being "surprisingly balanced and fun to play against." In my estimation, this is caused because her kit is designed to NOT interact with your opponent. A Kayle playing at their best minimizes interaction with the opposing player. This is frustrating and unfun for Kayle players when she's balanced, frustrating and unfun for her opponents if she even has a perceived (not real) advantage (say kleptomancy stacks)
So here’s an issue:
As it stands, essentially what we have now is Kayle as she was before her initial (9.5) rework, stripped completely of every single thing that made Kayle Kayle. Every point of the game feels worse even when it's better than her pre-9.5 version in a state where when she's actually balanced she's unfun to play as and if even perceived as overtuned extremely unfun to play against
I think because of this it’s fair to ask once again: Were the stated design goals of her rework met?
Stated goals for Kayle's rework:
  1. Make Kayle more fun
  2. Make her auto attacks feel really good
  3. Variance in her pattern
  4. High moments outside of her ultimate
  5. Deliver on the “ranged to melee thing”
1: I have already addressed #1, when balanced no one appears to want to play her and when perceived as strong no one wants to play against her. So, the answer is no.
2: Kayle’s auto attacks excluding her E reset do not feel “really good” or “satisfying” when you smack someone it just feels like you’re hitting them with a wet noodle. This is particularly annoying when every single spell that you cast interrupts your auto attacks and while her E feels good it doesn't feel so good as to make up for the disruptive nature of her other abilities in the flow of her kit. So, #2 is No.
3: Variance in her play pattern.
I’m not sure exactly what this means but I presume this means she is capable of a fluid build style which can adapt to what the opponent is doing in the game by building uniquely. She had this with her 9.5-16 versions but her build style now is completely binary. If you deviate from the standard Gunblade > Nashors > dcap/rageblade, you’ll usually regret it. So, no.
4: High moments outside of her ultimate:
I think that again Kayle had this on her 9.5-16 versions through her late game power spike. Her true damage waves were extremely satisfying to experience when you hit that point in the game. However beyond that I cannot think of (m)any high moments that exclude her ultimate. So, no.
5: Deliver on the “ranged to melee thing”:
Maybe?
I mean the thing with this is that it feels like this rework goal was doggedly pursued at the expense of the other four. Riot chose to preserve this stated goal for some reason at the cost of the other goals. In exchange for “making her auto attacks feel really good” (via her true damage, and early wave attacks/AoE spells[meaning the ability to quickly push lanes early in the game]), we got earlier range.
The issue with this is that Range is regarded as so powerful as to require that she also lose her pattern variance (build fluidity) and extreme late game power spike in exchange for these changes… and the consequence of the loss of those four goals to meet the one is that… well she’s simply not fun. But the worst part is that I think this was a game design that should have never been a goal in the first place... Kayle was never a "melee champion who became ranged" Kayle was a ranged champion, whose attacks were processed as melee. This was an aspect unique to Kayle and demonstrated in her old interaction with Yauso's windwall.
Kayle was a Ranged&Melee champion not a Rangedmelee champion.
But even if you put all of that aside, changing it to range → melee was fine. What is not fine is that I feel most of this last stated goal was ceded when they made Kayle ranged at 6. By removing the struggle of the transition by giving it to players earlier you remove the last vestige of the stated goals of the initial Kayle rework.
Let me ask you this: when someone asks you what exactly makes Kayle Kayle, what do you respond with?
(pre-9.5 Kayle)
To me, what defined Kayle before her rework was "not a single champion in the top lane can match your pushing power early game, late game you were one of the top tier splitters/duelists who can build any item in the game."
Hell, her pushing power was so strong that it was actually her weakness. You couldn't control waves if you even last-hit or traded.
So her identity:
Shover. Versatility. Scaling. Split pusheduelist. Melee&ranged
(9.5-9.16 Kayle)
After her rework, (9.5) it was "not a single champion in the game can outscale you. Not a one. Better beat Kayle before she gets level 3 evolution." or "wait for Kayle to hit 16 guys we've got this!". This unique trait appeared to stem from her true damage wave abilities -- or in short she was unique because of her “purifying waves” which in turn still unlocked her previous identity of being able to build any item in the game. She could run either AP or AD each carrying its own perks and downsides
So her identity:
Versatility. Scaling. SplitpusheTeamfigher. Meleeranged
9.17 Kayle and onward iterations
She's not technically terrible at anything but Laning phase...I guess... But she's good at nothing as well. There is no longer anything about her that stands out in any way whatsoever. She is terrible early and okayish mid game okay late. She’s a decent source of dps and a decent laner when the game starts for her... But that's it. There’s little discernible feeling of payout for the terrible early game you’re still subject to. Sure, her win-rate hits top 3 if the game goes on for 35 minutes. She scales into the game like a monster… but she sure as hell doesn’t feel like it, and it means little to nothing in a meta where the average game time is sub 30 minutes even for unranked players. Kayle’s “unique trait” as a Champion of League of Legends now is “I do a tiny bit of everything at the expense that you will have absolutely no agency and be absolutely miserable for about 10-15 minutes of your game” or in other terms,
So her identity:
Scaling. early grouper.
Jack of all trades and master of none?
She still scales like a monster of course, so I guess you can still say that's part of her unique traits now. But there’s little to no build fluidity (variance), few if any high moments, no great feeling auto attacks.
There appeared to be one single saving grace for this iteration of Kayle’s kit for the general population though... Kleptomancy. Kleptomancy meant so much in my opinion, not because it was simply broken on her (it was certainly perceived as such), but because Kleptomancy was only integral for Kayle’s design to click with the average League player in my estimation because it gave the player the feeling that they were interacting with their opponent during the laning phase enough that people didn't get overwhelmed by the dismal feelings inherently ingrained into her kit
Now that the placebo of interaction of doing something for the first 15 minutes of the game is gone. People have apparently decided, voted if you will, with their time and choices that the design Kayle bring to the table is simply not palatable for the general player.
As a consequence, we can say with some degree of certainty that even if this kind of champion design is perceived as bat-shit busted...People don't touch it. Something HAS to feel satisfying for a significant portion of the game even if it does literally nothing in the grand scheme for players to pick her up.
Those of us left either play because it's what we've always done, or for the "angel" theme which is one of the few aspects of Kayle that remains intact and unique at this point...
This is one of the most iconic Champions in League of Legends. She’s one of the original 17 for crying out loud and it feels terrible to be in a game with her.
It wouldn’t be all that difficult to make her have an extremely satisfying kit even as is.
One example of relatively simple changes that could bring more life to her kit suggested to me in Kayle Mains Discord was changing her E: when you “cast” it, it unlocks the next tier of her ascension for 5-6 seconds. So levels 1-5, you have access to range for 5-6 seconds and range unlocking permanently at level 6; levels 6-10, you have access to your waves for 5-6 seconds and Level 11 your gain full access you your waves when your passive is fully stacked; levels 11-16, your waves could have a % chance to crit for say 25% for 5-6 seconds and level 16 your crit waves chance is doubled (25% → 50%) and when your E is active if your waves crt they deal true damage.
An integration of a small part of her old kit which we know works into the new or the waves AoE is widened/enhanced, remove the true damage and keep the rest if it's too much, or any other plethora of options.
Imagine how satisfying anything like that would be compared to currently when I press E. A high cost high cd low consequence spell, which I can throw one spell at either a minion and get a last hit, or I can throw it at the opponent and deal 50 dmg and then I'm back to the waiting game for my more favorable forms every 8 seconds.
Now I'm not suggesting Riot reverts Kayle's kit, or implements any change suggested above. (That would be super cool but let's be real it's unlikely to happen)
This post's purpose is to serve as a potential source of information for Riot addressing the opinions of people most passionate, regarding the direction pursued to make Kayle a great champion for everyone.
And to cause Riot to take a good hard look at Kayle and make sure that what they're doing and have done is matching their expectations... because it's not matching ours.
TLDR
So why is Kayle failing?
She's failing because the features that made her unique and quirky as a champion were stripped away from her in an attempt to appeal to a larger audience by making her easier to play; without something unique, potentially difficult, cool and quirky ingrained into their kits, champions with extreme trade-offs make people lose interest very quickly.
Check out what other Kayle Mains are saying about this
submitted by Justifierna to leagueoflegends [link] [comments]

Tips to Find the Best Binary Options Brokers

With the potential of earning big money, binary options trading has removed in a big way all around the globe. From a number of binary options brokers in 2008, we have about hundreds of these available currently. You will be entrusting your cash to a broker to keep on the trade. Hence, it is very important that you identify the best binary options brokers from the other small and unreliable ones.
The trading of Binary Options first commenced in 2008 at the Chicago Board of Exchange. Such as the name suggests, Binary Options, are derivative contracts with only two possible outcomes at the expiry of the contract i.e. you receive cash/ asset if the contract is'in the amount of money'or nothing otherwise. For instance, suppose you buy a phone option of ABC Ltd.' s share at a strike price of $30 and a binary payoff of $300 binary options brokers. If the stock price is above $30, your contract is'in the amount of money '. By'in the amount of money'contract, we mean that you are in a gain situation as you can buy the stock for the strike price of $30 and sell it at an increased price (the current price) and produce a profit. In this scenario, in a binary option contract, you receive a fixed binary payoff of $300. In most other scenario, you receive nothing and lose the purchase price of the contract. The underlying asset can be stocks, indices, commodities and currencies. Making consistent profits out of trading in binary options depends upon the accuracy with which you may predict asset movements over the word of the contract.
Following are some important strategies for narrowing down your search to the best binary options brokers:
• Choose a controlled broker: A regulated broker is the one which has obtained a license and is governed by the concerned regulatory authority. Picking a regulated binary options broker will benefit you in many ways such as, payment protection in case of the broker's insolvency, proper usage of funds and authenticity of the contracts.
• Access: There are some brokers who prohibit US investors from trading in binary option contracts. If you should be a US investor, you would want to check this first before proceeding to evaluate the broker on other parameters.
• Track Record: Pick a broker with a minumum of one year of reputable dealings. Avoid deciding on new brokers. The more experienced the broker, the higher will be its credibility as it has had the oppertunity to survive in this industry.
• Reputation: Before selecting any broker, ensure that you check the user reviews/ complaints which will give a fair idea of the trustworthiness of the broker. Find the broker who has good reviews and fewer complaints.
• User Interface: Since your entire transactions will be online, become familiar with the interface of the broker's website. User friendly and navigate interface will simplify things and assist you to take investment decisions easily.
• Number of Options: You can find a number of option variants including 60 seconds options by which the option expires after very one minute or One Touch binary option in that you simply need certainly to predict whether the asset price will at least one time cross a pre-determined price during the life span of the option. Brokers supplying a higher number of option variants are beneficial as it opens up more earning opportunities.
• High Payouts: Higher payout means lower commission to the brokers and obviously higher share of profits to you. Most brokers generally offer 80-85% payout in case the option is'in the amount of money '. Some brokers offer 10-15% payout even when the option is out from the money. Choose brokers with favorable payouts.
• Banking options: Since derivative contracts are about'timing'it is essential that the broker offers you fast and a range of deposit and withdrawal options.
• Customer Service: Fast and prompt customer support is just a big advantage for a newcomer trader. Test the broker's customer care with certain pre-account opening queries. Also, a demonstration account made available from a broker reflects its emphasis on superior customer experience.
• Terms and Conditions: More frequently than not, unfavorable terms such as higher withdrawal limit are hidden in the fine print of the terms and conditions. Read them in more detail before commencing trading with the broker.
It's important that you spend time in choosing your broker. The above checklist will help you choose the best binary options brokers in the market currently.
submitted by abelrichard to u/abelrichard [link] [comments]

Why Is EVE So Easy To Bot?

This is a copy of my article on INN, as links to the site can't be posted on Reddit.
It’s an unfortunate fact that bots are a loathed part of every multiplayer game I’ve played. From idlebots in Team Fortess 2 farming items and ruining team balance, through leveling bots in League of Legends gumming up the 3v3 queue, to mining macros in Runescape. But it seems botting is something that uniquely effects EVE Online, and as a result of that it’s something that is rallied against at every turn, as we saw with the relentless finger-pointing over who harbors the most bots over the past few weeks.
This comes down to the fact that not only do bots generate an advantage for their user, they also serve to lessen the advantage other players get for the same amount of work, as both bots and players produce by and large the same thing. This means players have to deal with bots devaluing the work they themselves put effort into doing, which is understandably a frustrating thing to feel, as it can mean the difference between being able to play as an Omega instead of as an Alpha for players with limited time availability.
Something I’ve noticed in those other games about the bots however is that they were significantly worse than players. Idlebots were easy to kill after the game was over, LoL bots were free wins to the point it was boring, even Runescape bots could be tripped up if they were hogging one specific spot. This contrasts with EVE, where players typically complain that bots are nearly impossible to catch, which is something that clearly contributes to the perception of bots being a problem within the community.
Given that other bots perform so poorly vs players, and bots in EVE seem to perform so well, I am going to dive into a little bit about why I think this is the case. But to give a brief overview of my main conclusion – EVE doesn’t have a botting problem. It has a game design problem.
HOW DO BOTS MAKE ISK?
There are a lot of bots for different purposes in EVE, and whilst Intel bots and DPlex bots are problems, they aren’t nearly as widespread or as economically impactful as the big four;
Mining bots Market bots Mission bots Ratting bots Unfortunately I don’t have a great deal of experience with the first three, and I hope other people can pitch in with their own expertise on those subjects, but for now I’m going to focus in on ratting as an income source. Ratting is also the main way in which bots add raw ISK to the game directly, which causes everyone else’s ISK to be worth less, so it’s also one which impacts every single player by effectively raising the price of PLEX.
Ratting bots are also a lot easier to find, as they have to spread over a wider range of systems than the other three, which can be centralised in one particular location. In fact I’d wager most people who have even simply roamed Nullsec believes that they’ve encountered one, regardless as to whether or not that is what happened, which is symptomatic of the overall problem.
Bot accounts can be trained on a large scale as alpha clones, or injected up to being at what the person running these bot accounts believe is an optimal skillset. These fresh accounts can then be applied to corps with access to Nullsec, either by purchasing rental space, or simply joining a corp/alliance that has existing access to Nullsec that’s good to rat in and an open doors policy.
These bot accounts are then placed in a ship such as a VNI or a Gila, as those are the most cost effective ways to make ISK in the game currently, especially considering that they can be piloted by Alphas and still rat using the same strategies as an Omega pilot. This is done by simply warping from site to site, dropping drones, and killing ships in a pre-determined order that matches the known spawnlists of said anomalies.
If an unknown pilot enters local – or a local that the bot has access to via a relay – it will immediately pull its drones in and warp off, then wait for a set amount of time, before warping back to the site and continuing.
WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM?
I don’t know about you – But that doesn’t sound any different to how I fly a VNI or Gila myself.
Bots are able to do everything that a player does in order to maximise their efficiency and safety whilst ratting, because almost all of it simply relies on the ability to press buttons in the right order, as fast as possible. Due to the mismatch in optimisation between PvE fits and PvP fits, there’s no reason for the PvE ship to engage a PvP ship (as it will lose), and there’s no reason for a PvP ship to engage in PvE (it will suck at it).
The static spawn lists that contain no tackle that can’t be easily dealt with or avoided means that there’s absolutely no thought required in running the content either, which means running anomalies boils down to a simple binary operation of ratting when local is clear, and getting safe as soon as possible when it is not. Money is even transferred directly into your wallet for every single rat you kill, meaning that even if you are caught, you retain all of the money you made so far. The cherry on top of this is that bots are always paying perfect attention to local, unlike players who can focus in on watching Netflix in their other screen for half a minute too long and end up getting caught, they’re able to warp off the tick you enter local every time.
Currently one of the few ways to deal with bots that exposes the sheer lack of decision making that it was necessary to program the bots with is using log-off bubble traps in their safespots, which I demonstrated in a video tutorial last year. As you can see, once you’re able to lay your hands on a ratting bot, it’s almost trivial to take out.
The way in which I was able to do it also demonstrates how poor bots can be when compared to players in terms of decision making. In that particular video I had logged my Sabre off in front of those same VNIs as they sat in the PoS, then simply waited for the NPC/h deaths to go back up on Dotlan, logged in and killed the one I was able to catch. A player would almost certainly never do that, and would at the very least consider changing systems/safespots.
This shows the main advantage players should be able to leverage over bots, their ability to adapt and make better decisions based on the information they’ve been given. However, as we explained above, the best way to keep yourself safe whilst ratting is simply to not get caught in the first place.
WHAT CAN CCP DO ABOUT IT?
Not as much as I’d like. I doubt CCP is going to entirely strip and replace the anomaly system in the foreseeable future, so I wanted to take a look at a fix that I think could be done with CCP’s existing structure and technical limitations. I also think it’s something that would be of benefit to the health of the game in general, regardless of it’s impact on bots, which I think is an important thing to consider—Penalising regular players to own the bots isn’t a good strategy long-term in my opinion.
But that’s only one option. There are others, and they have their downsides as well.
ELIMINATING RENTING This has been bandied about, but there’s a problem: it’s basically impossible. There are just too many ways to transfer value in EVE. Eliminating rental fees just means you move the payout to market fees and fees to join the ‘rental’ group. Or to get onto the ACL. Or any one of a number of other ways to pay. Yes, all of these things can be tracked, but at the same time, they can take enough forms that anything that includes ‘you do X and we don’t kill you’ can be the de facto rental agreement.
To give a recent example of just how hard it can be to draw the line on renting, many reading this article will remember how Sort Dragon was mocked as a ‘renter’ after paying the Imperium for an end to his last war with them. Whilst that was not entirely serious, can we expect Team Security to understand the nuance of a large amount of ISK being transferred not as rent, but as part of diplomatic tribute – Or conversely, that the pomp of something like this wouldn’t merely be used to cover up the now ‘banned’ renting practice.
MAKE THE ALLIANCES DO IT This runs into problems, too. For this, we’ll just go through some points:
As recently noted by Elo Knight, for many years the leader of Black Legion’s various forms, Alliance leaders do not have tools to monitor for botting activity that Team Security has. In addition, most bots do not rat 23/7. They’re not that obvious. As such, all accusations will have to be done based on hearsay and suspicion. So rather than reporting this to CCP, Alliance leaders are now forced to immediately kick upon suspicion. This is because, as CCP Peligo’s reddit post indicates, the wallet impacted is the main Alliance bill wallet. If the wallet is empty when a bill become due, all Sov will drop.
This, in turn, means an end to open door recruiting policies, realistically. People who wish to rent will set up alternate ‘client’ alliances (ala B0T/PIBC) which are not run by the same people as the parent alliance to protect their sov. And that means that this actually achieves nothing: the ‘alliance leaders’ being given the responsibility aren’t actually anything of the sort. As such, this mainly impacts large alliances, without impacting alliances which contribute more bots overall to the ecosystem.
And then there’s the metagame: weaponised botting. Using VPN, groups can put ‘rental’ corps into their enemies renters, then bot up a storm. CCP then punishes the targets of the meta-scam. CCP gets meta’d. The initial community reaction from the masses will be great—most players only look at immediate intentions and don’t think of the bigger picture. But in the wake of the Brisc Rubal episode, does CCP really want to step into that pitfall when organized groups use Team Security to wage their wars for them?
ANOTHER IDEA:
The TL;DR is simple – Remove a significant percentage of bounty payouts from all NS anomalies, but add a guaranteed spawn at the end of each anomaly, which holds the equivalent ISK in Overseer Effects.
I’m always hesitant to add numbers to ideas this early on, so let me know what you think the breakpoint of percentage would be there, but adding a physical component to the rewards that ratting provides would have a number of positive effects;
Firstly, it will give an immediate option of a reward for players who are able to push a PvE player off of a site, regardless of their ability to catch the player. As someone who has hunted nullsec ratters (both botting and not), there’s nothing more frustrating than seeing a VNI enter warp just as you land, knowing your work has been for nothing. Adding a potential reward for the intruding pilot if the site is near completion, by allowing them to get a reward that the PvE pilot helped them work towards. Currently the total reward for a Sanctum is only 40m, so this reward is unlikely to be a huge motivating factor for older players, but it will provide a way for players who specialise in hunting bots to gain an income even if they fail to secure a kill.
This also has a number of knock on effects to the way PvE plays out. It adds an effective “upper limit” to how fast you can clear sites whilst still making sure that you have 100% ISK retention, as you’ll need to stop to collect the Overseer’s Effect in each anomaly unless you wish to use MTUs or alts to pick it up. This in turn then makes defending these systems and stopping hostiles from getting inside them more valuable, as it allows you to better make ISK if there’s an active defence force keeping hostiles away from your system, as them entering the system will leave any MTUs or unlooted Overseer wrecks easy to be probed and looted, taking a percentage of your hard earned ratting ISK for themselves—If they can get it back to Hisec!
I’m curious to see what you think of this suggestion, and with a wider lens the problems more generally outlined, as I want to be able to give CCP direction and feedback on how they can let us – EVE players – do what we do best;
Exploit predictable behaviour for our own gain.
submitted by Jintaan to Eve [link] [comments]

MAME 0.211

MAME 0.211

As we pass the half-way point of 2019, it’s time for MAME 0.211, with all the excitement that brings. In this release, SGI Indy and MIPS RC2030 workstations have been promoted to working. This is a major milestone in RISC workstation emulation. If you’re feeling nostalgic, why not try one of them out, and install IRIX or RISC/os, respectively? This release also includes better support for the China Education Computer Apple II derivatives, along with a preliminary software list. This opens a window to Chinese classroom technology in the late ’80s and early ’90s. Speaking of software lists, we’ve added over five hundred cleanly cracked Apple II software titles, and imported a whole lot of ZX Spectrum cassette images.
Looking away from computer emulation for a moment, Game & Watch preservation keeps progressing, with the addition of Ball (the earliest Game & Watch release) and the panorama screen version of Donkey Kong Jr. The Gaelco/Salter Pro Cycle Tele Cardioline exercise system has been promoted to working, and the Pro Stepper system has been added. System 573 MP3 audio has been greatly improved in this release, and support has been added for more Bally pinball sound boards. ClawGrip added example programs from the V.R. Technologies VT03 software development kit. Gemcrush, a rare brick breaking arcade game, has been added in this release.
There are lots of other improvements, including a fix for the fatal error when switching away from MAME in Direct3D full-screen mode. You can get the source and Windows binary packages from the download page.

MAMETesters Bugs Fixed

New working machines

New working clones

Machines promoted to working

Clones promoted to working

New machines marked as NOT_WORKING

New clones marked as NOT_WORKING

New working software list additions

Software list items promoted to working

New NOT_WORKING software list additions

Source Changes

submitted by cuavas to emulation [link] [comments]

The Facts About Binary options payouts - Why finding the ... Best BINARY OPTIONS Trading Platform 2019 (FREE DEMO ... Best binary options broker - Ayrex Review Best binary options trading in india 90 payout - Best ... BEST BINARY OPTIONS STRATEGY - Binary Options Trading Binary Option Strategy: Won $510 payout See Live Video The Best Strategy To Use For Binary options payouts - Why ...

20 Best Binary Options Brokers 2020: This is a review of some of the best binary options brokers. The review is essentially a binary options brokers list 2020. The review will give you a deeper understanding of how they operate. The review seeks to arm you with relevant information before you get involved with binary options. Binary options payouts or returns are clearly vital to the success or otherwise of any aspiring binary options trader. So the comparison of payouts before joining a particular broker is also important. That comparison though, may not be as straight forward as it seems. What are binary options payouts? Why getting the best binary payout matters Binary Options Highest Payout Online. One thing that must be initially understood is that different options contracts will have different payout rates. You need to make sure that you get the best binary options education before you pick your assets and instruments. So, getting an above average payout in one trade does not mean that this will be repeated in the next trade. For the most part ... As you know, the payout for the trades vary across different binary options brokers. The standard payout is about 75% - 85% but there are many brokers that also offer a payout of above 90%. The following is a list of the top 5 binary options brokers that offer the highest payout returns. When choosing the best binary options provider, make sure to take into consideration which assets are available to trade. Most brokers list their asset index on their websites for everyone to see. The bigger their list of assets, the more opportunities you have to make a profit. Most binary options brokers have at least 30-70 different markets that you can trade including Forex, commodities ... Binary Options Highest Payout. As trading Binary Options is very simple and it is created to be traded by everybody, basically the only thing you need to do is to choose your preferred Binary Options Broker. If you do not have any special requests than the logical deciding factor for you, when deciding for Binary Options Broker, is, of course, the amount of the payout. Obviously, the higher ... Binary Options Brokers with the Best Payouts Rates. If you have read everything above, then by now you’ll know everything about payout rates in binary options trading. Now it’s time to find out everything about the binary options brokers that offer the best payout rates. You should only register at a broker that offers very high Return ratios.

[index] [1718] [16015] [14289] [28330] [24096] [21692] [5309] [31] [11823] [28186]

The Facts About Binary options payouts - Why finding the ...

👉™SPECTRE.AI (FREE DEMO): https://www.binaryoptionsarmy.com/Spectre-FREE-Official-ACCESS BEST AUTOTRADERS ONLINE: 👉#1 ™BinBotPro (FREE DEMO): https://www.b... Binary options tend to be considered a type of gambling rather then expenditure due to their damaging cumulative payout (the brokers have an edge over the Trader) and since they are marketed as ... You can choose to trade Short Term, High/Low and One Touch binary options. The expiry time ranges from 30 seconds to one hour, and payouts start at 70% and reach 85%. The best payout we saw was on ... Visit Our Website: https://bit.ly/3kwPOO7 - Best binary options trading in india 90 payout - Best Binary Things To Know Before You Get This You are much bett... See Page Here: https://bit.ly/3ke2skZ - The Facts About Binary options payouts - Why finding the best is key Uncovered Next we examine that the trading envir... 96% payout binary options strategy $1 every 5 seconds - Duration: 15:32. ... BEST BINARY OPTIONS TUTORIAL 2016 - Duration: 10:02. BINARY ALPHA 25,421 views. 10:02. Day Trading Strategies for ... Visit This Site: https://bit.ly/31tEUjc - The Best Strategy To Use For Binary options payouts - Why finding the best is key Todays Top Traders Trader Broker ...

https://arab-binary-option.hookupstub.ml