|
On December 14 2010 14:07 myopia wrote:Omen CDR nerf NooOOOoooOoooOOOo Sunfire nerfed pretty hard... and I haven't even been buying it as it is Show nested quote +Runes
* Flat energy, energy per level, and energy regen per level runes increased 10%
* Flat energy regen runes increased 5% YES. VINDICATED also the Malz buffs are pretty sweet. Ez buffs and finally Kat's scaling makes sense... there's so much going on in this patch. Some good and some bad. I wish Gragas had been nerfed harder :| They removed locket, leave the jolly fat man alone. Then they also directly nerfed him (ultimate nerf is huge, specially with cdr from locket + sv combo gone.)
Maybe I'm just bi-est since I like playing Gragas.
|
Gragas was massively imbalanced. The nerfs were definitely necessary.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 14 2010 14:30 r33k wrote:
You could bait people with wards into dumb spots and gank them while they were wardsweeping. At least I think that's why they nerfed them, I see no other reason for them to have done so. Especially since if you plant a ward within enemy autoattack range now you've automatically lost its money.
So people playing stupidly requires a nerf to an item that causes drastic repercussions elsewhere (e.g. vision ward trades at Dragon are no longer a gank opportunity)?
I guess that logic has gotten champions nerfed before, so I really shouldn't be surprised.
|
According to Phreak...
Wards contributed too much to passive gameplay. I suppose we could have lowered the cost as well, you're right, but that ward on Dragon lasting 4.5 minutes... Yeah bottom lane's not getting ganked. You're right that this change was aimed more at top players who actually buy wards, but let's face it, if you're good enough to buy wards, you're good enough to know you'll still keep buying wards. Now it's just more of a trade-off than "obvious."
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 14 2010 15:49 iaeuy wrote:According to Phreak... Show nested quote +Wards contributed too much to passive gameplay. I suppose we could have lowered the cost as well, you're right, but that ward on Dragon lasting 4.5 minutes... Yeah bottom lane's not getting ganked. You're right that this change was aimed more at top players who actually buy wards, but let's face it, if you're good enough to buy wards, you're good enough to know you'll still keep buying wards. Now it's just more of a trade-off than "obvious."
I don't see how totally removing the dynamic of trading vision wards at Dragon makes the game less passive.
Before you could actually gank a jungler while he's killing that Dragon ward. Now he just hits it once and runs off.
|
On December 14 2010 15:52 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 15:49 iaeuy wrote:According to Phreak... Wards contributed too much to passive gameplay. I suppose we could have lowered the cost as well, you're right, but that ward on Dragon lasting 4.5 minutes... Yeah bottom lane's not getting ganked. You're right that this change was aimed more at top players who actually buy wards, but let's face it, if you're good enough to buy wards, you're good enough to know you'll still keep buying wards. Now it's just more of a trade-off than "obvious."
I don't see how totally removing the dynamic of trading vision wards at Dragon makes the game less passive. Before you could actually gank a jungler while he's killing that Dragon ward. Now he just hits it once and runs off.
But why are you going to be at neodragon now anyway? Just kill baron at level 6 instead.
|
On December 14 2010 15:42 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 14:30 r33k wrote:
You could bait people with wards into dumb spots and gank them while they were wardsweeping. At least I think that's why they nerfed them, I see no other reason for them to have done so. Especially since if you plant a ward within enemy autoattack range now you've automatically lost its money. So people playing stupidly requires a nerf to an item that causes drastic repercussions elsewhere (e.g. vision ward trades at Dragon are no longer a gank opportunity)? I guess that logic has gotten champions nerfed before, so I really shouldn't be surprised.
I am not agreeing with their decision being smart. Check my last 10 posts, I could have typed all of them using only the letter Q.
|
The change that confuses me the most is dragon no longer giving global XP. Are they just trying to encourage your whole team to go to dragon when you want to do it?
|
Well, guess what, I am gonna play a helluva lot of evelynn / shaco / poppy /ashe / tigerudyr solely now in ranked.
Because they didnt nerf triforce (that thing is gonna be SO popular now! Especially on those heroes, but I foresee that I am gonna suckass if I cant get a solo lane or jungle spot now).
Goddarn it Riot, the ward change was SO UNNESECCARY! geez.
Atleast they left Shaco and poppy alone, so I can still do my thing
wow and Nidalee / kat / warwick is gonna become super popular now, are you crazy theyll be played alot.
AND WHY REMOVE CREEPTRACKING!?! IT WAS SUCH A GOOD SKILL TO LEARN SINCE IT ADDED COMPLEXITY TO THE GAME! Sigh...
Repseccing your masteries no longer saves an empty mastery page to the server. This means you’ll never accidentally enter the game with no masterie
HALLELUJA!
|
They really nerfed jungling this patch...
|
is awesome32274 Posts
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
worst patch ive ever seen
kat nerf(its not a buff, not even close)
cho'gath nerf(LOL)
twitch nerf when he was already basically irrelevant, havent seen him in a high elo game in a really long time. your team loses by the time his farm matters since his laning blows.
malzahar nerf(no minimum damage on null zone is huge)
etc... i could go on but these are some of the more ridiculous
|
On December 14 2010 16:34 Iplaythings wrote:
AND WHY REMOVE CREEPTRACKING!?! IT WAS SUCH A GOOD SKILL TO LEARN SINCE IT ADDED COMPLEXITY TO THE GAME! Sigh...
It didn't add complexity. Shaco's creep score hasn't gone up, he's hiding in a bush trying to gank. The creep score indirectly told you where the person was. Now junglers can gank even more.
Also I'm trying to do the math for the Udyr change. Now my numbers aren't perfect, but I'm trying to account for everything.
Base attack 56.
Pheonix gives 8 AD, 16 ap, plus an aoe that does 70 (14(10 +.25ap)x5) damage total, with the breath for 50. So assuming 10 attacks, at blue he will do 62adx10 + 70x3 + 50x3 = 980
(I am ignoring the 3% AS increase from a stance, and his base attack speed so I'm only calculating attacks and damage, not attacks over time, or if his pheonix AD buff will run out for one attack. I am also assuming that both pheonix aoe's will hit the little mobs, which doesn't always happen).
Tiger gives a 150%ad+40 over 2 seconds dot, and 30% AS. Assuming 13 attacks, 56x13 + 124x2=976.
(this assumes that the AS increase doesn't run out before you use your next attack, which I know is wrong.)
Tiger seems to be viable for jungling now. Also note that the tiger damage is all to the blue golem, while the pheonix damage is to all 3, meaning blue should die faster, and you should end up taking less damage because of it.
Now I'm not sure if I care enough to actually measure exact damage, based on udyrs attack speed, and blue hp etc. but I might. I also gave you my assumptions so you can know what I'm not considering and why the number will be flawed.
|
I´m really suprised at people claiming that CS counting is a skill and even good. All it did was making jungling and thus ganking predictable, turning Jungling into a pure pve effort.
Dragon nerf is supposed to make solo vs two lanes less effective. They already benefit from faster leveling up than their opposition, Dragon XP simply made that worse - thus having a 2v1 lane (aka no jungler) was plain stupid. Together with the other Junglenerfs it won´t be as necessary now - and IF it´s used it will rely more on ganking (which was buffed).
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 14 2010 17:18 Unentschieden wrote:
I´m really suprised at people claiming that CS counting is a skill and even good. All it did was making jungling and thus ganking predictable, turning Jungling into a pure pve effort.
Dragon nerf is supposed to make solo vs two lanes less effective. They already benefit from faster leveling up than their opposition, Dragon XP simply made that worse - thus having a 2v1 lane (aka no jungler) was plain stupid. Together with the other Junglenerfs it won´t be as necessary now - and IF it´s used it will rely more on ganking (which was buffed).
So they want jungling to be more about ganking rather than objective/map control?
Personally I find counterjungling and posturing for dragon control more interesting than ganking.
Counting CS isn't just about laners avoiding ganks. It's a way for counterjunglers to be able to more consistently track their targets, and stuck CS can mean lots of things--they could be doing dragon, waiting for a gank in a lane, or waiting to buff-jack your jungler.
|
What they want is for dragon to be less of an instant win. Probably 80% of games at top level seem to end (for all intents and purposes) after the first dragon - the team that wins the teamfight and takes dragon tends to have an insurmountable lead unless they start royally screwing up.
They also obviously want a faster-paced game; at the moment the game is way too passive, as it doesn't reward kills enough. I don't think the Flash/CS change will affect it much (mid still ungankable) but it's a step.
|
On December 14 2010 17:16 Brees wrote:...
malzahar nerf(no minimum damage on null zone is huge)
...
It's huge if you were trying to Jungle with him maybe, but I don't see how the minimum damage is "huge" when all champions, superminions, and golem/lizard/dragon/Baron have enough health to take more than the minimum.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 14 2010 17:29 Southlight wrote:
They also obviously want a faster-paced game; at the moment the game is way too passive, as it doesn't reward kills enough. I don't think the Flash/CS change will affect it much (mid still ungankable) but it's a step.
The issue for me is that they want to accomplish this while also maintaining low baseline champion power--abilities, items, and champion attacks in general are less explosive than they are in similar games in the genre, and mechanics that punish misplays quickly and harshly are quick to be seen as overpowered by the community.
You get fast-paced gameplay if abilities hit hard, things do a lot of damage, and mistakes are punished harshly (as a Starcraft community, anyone here should know how well this "everything is imba" approach works out when properly implemented). Anything else is just beating around the bush.
|
On December 14 2010 17:36 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:29 Southlight wrote:
They also obviously want a faster-paced game; at the moment the game is way too passive, as it doesn't reward kills enough. I don't think the Flash/CS change will affect it much (mid still ungankable) but it's a step. The issue for me is that they want to accomplish this while also maintaining low baseline champion power--abilities, items, and champion attacks in general are less explosive than they are in similar games in the genre, and mechanics that punish misplays quickly and harshly are quick to be seen as overpowered by the community. You get fast-paced gameplay if abilities hit hard, things do a lot of damage, and mistakes are punished harshly (as a Starcraft community, anyone here should know how well this "everything is imba" approach works out when properly implemented). Anything else is just beating around the bush.
I agree *shrugs* I'm not defending Riot, I was just explaining what I perceive to be their wish.
|
These patch notes sound real dumb. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
