|
Want to rage about your latest loss? Use the QQ thread. If you whine in GD, you'll get warned. |
On December 10 2011 06:23 Juicyfruit wrote:
I dunno... how often is a lane ACTUALLY won on 1 crit alone? I feel like that's retardedly exaggerated and you'd have to have an engagement that would end ridiculously close one way or another for it to really matter.
In soloQ, that might happen once every 100 game per person, but that just adds flavor.
In tournament games, that would never happen in the first place because how often do you see people commit on each other without having a large margin of confidence in themselves?
"Prepare to be boarded!"
How many times did you get your first shot off on a champ with ashe and won the lane just because of that?
|
On December 10 2011 06:29 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:23 Juicyfruit wrote:
I dunno... how often is a lane ACTUALLY won on 1 crit alone? I feel like that's retardedly exaggerated and you'd have to have an engagement that would end ridiculously close one way or another for it to really matter.
In soloQ, that might happen once every 100 game per person, but that just adds flavor.
In tournament games, that would never happen in the first place because how often do you see people commit on each other without having a large margin of confidence in themselves? Its not committing though. A single harassing shot that normally does 60~ damage at level 1 suddenly does 120. At low levels, thats a quarter of someone's health. That basically sets up the lane from that point on. And people throw autos at each other fairly consistently. That isnt commiting, its just harassing as they last hit.
While this is true, it's really just them getting 1 extra autoattack in. I understand that being 1 autoattack ahead makes a difference but that's all it is; 1 lucky crit = equivalent of getting 1 unanswered autoattack harass. Should just have a contigency plan for when that happens (be it potions or whatever else)
On December 10 2011 06:38 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:23 Juicyfruit wrote:
I dunno... how often is a lane ACTUALLY won on 1 crit alone? I feel like that's retardedly exaggerated and you'd have to have an engagement that would end ridiculously close one way or another for it to really matter.
In soloQ, that might happen once every 100 game per person, but that just adds flavor.
In tournament games, that would never happen in the first place because how often do you see people commit on each other without having a large margin of confidence in themselves? "Prepare to be boarded!" How many times did you get your first shot off on a champ with ashe and won the lane just because of that?
Never. I have, however, won my lane when I crit the other guy, volleyed, and them not doing anything back to me during that entire time.
|
On December 10 2011 06:19 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:01 Mogwai wrote:On December 10 2011 05:56 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 05:06 Mufaa wrote:On December 10 2011 04:39 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 04:15 Mufaa wrote:
Glad to see morello considers the crit mastery a problem also. Does their engine allow them to do level restricted stuff? Like you get the 4% crit at level 6 when a poke that crits will be 1/3 of your hp? I think the offensive tree could use a rework in general but until that happens it'd be nice to still have the crit on certain champs since I'm sure everyone would still take a new skill if it was a prereq for 10%crit dmg if they went IE anyway. Source? If it was already posted: must have missed it. I guess the engine should allow stuff like that. What point is there in removing the crit mastery (or making it weak at the beginning) without removing crit runes? It was posted a page or 2 back. And the point is because any AD is going to get the 4% crit for the 10% crit damage because there is nothing else worth taking. So what happens is lanes break early because 2 evenly skilled players who would normally just farm with minor harass/skirmishes are doing the same but now one of them will get a lucky crit and often win the lane because of it. People aren't complaining about crit runes/ashes passive and other crit abilities because they can be counterplayed and with runes you have to give something up for the crit (ad, arpen, etc). Here's what I conclude from your post: Random rare crits are unwanted earlygame because they can decide the game. 1 crit glyph (0.28%) either can't produce said unwanted crits (AT ALL, or else it would still be an issue, just in fewer games) or can be counterplayed or the has too high of an opportunity cost. Doesn't work out. As long as you have more than 0 crit during early game and lucky crits are considered a bad thing, nothing's solved. Whether you have 4% or 0.28%, there will always be a game with lucky crits. How about this: make crit damage scale. Currently, every champ has 200% base crit damage, 210/250/260/ect with mastery/IE/runes. If you started out with 150% and it would increase up to 200% at level 9 or w/e, early crits would be less of an issue. Or a scaling factor on top of your total crit damage, to also reduce the strength of +crit damage at early levels. I personally wouldn't like that btw. It increases the complexity of the basic game mechanics, which imo is bad design (just like the new jungle exp pool system). As long as there is ANY crit in the game, I don't really care if there is a free 4% for a bunch of champs agree with this post 100% I know slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy or w/e, but when I read the crit complaints, I just can't see what would be the difference if suddenly everyone just randomly put a crit seal on their rune page to gain that random lane win every once in awhile when they luck out. or opening brawlers glove and getting 2 (WTF! HAX!) crits to win the lane via RNG. I just don't see why the points making sense to get in the mastery tree impacts the argument that early game crit ruins laning. I think the clear difference in each of the cases you mention (runes and items) is the trade off. There are better (ie more consistent AND mathematically better) choices than crit runes and opening brawlers gloves. You actively chose to take risk, and that can backfire horribly on you. The mastery is free though. You have no reason NOT to get it. There are no other options remotely close to comparison. In fact, the optimal page for an ad carry DEMANDS that you grab the 4% chance. So in order to optimize your character, you buy into a mastery that can straight up win you a lane based purely on RNG, with absolutely no downside. Thats the difference.
Cool, but who cares? What matters is this:
Is it bad if lanes are decided by lucky crits?
If yes: Removing one out of many sources of crit isn't gonna fix it.
If no: Crit can stay, everyone can get it for free.
|
On December 10 2011 06:41 Juicyfruit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:29 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:23 Juicyfruit wrote:
I dunno... how often is a lane ACTUALLY won on 1 crit alone? I feel like that's retardedly exaggerated and you'd have to have an engagement that would end ridiculously close one way or another for it to really matter.
In soloQ, that might happen once every 100 game per person, but that just adds flavor.
In tournament games, that would never happen in the first place because how often do you see people commit on each other without having a large margin of confidence in themselves? Its not committing though. A single harassing shot that normally does 60~ damage at level 1 suddenly does 120. At low levels, thats a quarter of someone's health. That basically sets up the lane from that point on. And people throw autos at each other fairly consistently. That isnt commiting, its just harassing as they last hit. While this is true, it's really just them getting 1 extra autoattack in. I understand that being 1 autoattack ahead makes a difference but that's all it is; 1 lucky crit = equivalent of getting 1 unanswered autoattack harass. Should just have a contigency plan for when that happens.
1 crit = net +1 auto attack (assuming you attacked each other at the same time). At low levels, this really is a huge difference.
|
On December 10 2011 06:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:41 Juicyfruit wrote:On December 10 2011 06:29 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:23 Juicyfruit wrote:
I dunno... how often is a lane ACTUALLY won on 1 crit alone? I feel like that's retardedly exaggerated and you'd have to have an engagement that would end ridiculously close one way or another for it to really matter.
In soloQ, that might happen once every 100 game per person, but that just adds flavor.
In tournament games, that would never happen in the first place because how often do you see people commit on each other without having a large margin of confidence in themselves? Its not committing though. A single harassing shot that normally does 60~ damage at level 1 suddenly does 120. At low levels, thats a quarter of someone's health. That basically sets up the lane from that point on. And people throw autos at each other fairly consistently. That isnt commiting, its just harassing as they last hit. While this is true, it's really just them getting 1 extra autoattack in. I understand that being 1 autoattack ahead makes a difference but that's all it is; 1 lucky crit = equivalent of getting 1 unanswered autoattack harass. Should just have a contigency plan for when that happens. 1 crit = net +1 auto attack (assuming you attacked each other at the same time). At low levels, this really is a huge difference.
Yeah I get that, but it's a 1:25 chance of it happening and it isn't exactly the autowin most people make it out to be. It's sort of a wild-card factor that you have to consider when laning ... something of a "it CAN happen, so I should be aware of it". If you have potions then the advantage gets negated somewhat as well. Also, as I said, that 1 autoattack advantage is ultimately relevant if and only if a fight between the two of you would have came down to 1 autoattack difference in the end.
Plus I like the idea of rewarding people with good enough reflexes to take immediate advantage when a crit happens (both the AD and the support). Likewise, it punishes people who aren't even aware that they got critted until that tristana follows it up with a rocket jump and gg. (incidentally, there's no high-horsing here; I'm the type who wouldn't even realize he got critted on).
|
On December 10 2011 06:43 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:19 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:01 Mogwai wrote:On December 10 2011 05:56 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 05:06 Mufaa wrote:On December 10 2011 04:39 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 04:15 Mufaa wrote:
Glad to see morello considers the crit mastery a problem also. Does their engine allow them to do level restricted stuff? Like you get the 4% crit at level 6 when a poke that crits will be 1/3 of your hp? I think the offensive tree could use a rework in general but until that happens it'd be nice to still have the crit on certain champs since I'm sure everyone would still take a new skill if it was a prereq for 10%crit dmg if they went IE anyway. Source? If it was already posted: must have missed it. I guess the engine should allow stuff like that. What point is there in removing the crit mastery (or making it weak at the beginning) without removing crit runes? It was posted a page or 2 back. And the point is because any AD is going to get the 4% crit for the 10% crit damage because there is nothing else worth taking. So what happens is lanes break early because 2 evenly skilled players who would normally just farm with minor harass/skirmishes are doing the same but now one of them will get a lucky crit and often win the lane because of it. People aren't complaining about crit runes/ashes passive and other crit abilities because they can be counterplayed and with runes you have to give something up for the crit (ad, arpen, etc). Here's what I conclude from your post: Random rare crits are unwanted earlygame because they can decide the game. 1 crit glyph (0.28%) either can't produce said unwanted crits (AT ALL, or else it would still be an issue, just in fewer games) or can be counterplayed or the has too high of an opportunity cost. Doesn't work out. As long as you have more than 0 crit during early game and lucky crits are considered a bad thing, nothing's solved. Whether you have 4% or 0.28%, there will always be a game with lucky crits. How about this: make crit damage scale. Currently, every champ has 200% base crit damage, 210/250/260/ect with mastery/IE/runes. If you started out with 150% and it would increase up to 200% at level 9 or w/e, early crits would be less of an issue. Or a scaling factor on top of your total crit damage, to also reduce the strength of +crit damage at early levels. I personally wouldn't like that btw. It increases the complexity of the basic game mechanics, which imo is bad design (just like the new jungle exp pool system). As long as there is ANY crit in the game, I don't really care if there is a free 4% for a bunch of champs agree with this post 100% I know slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy or w/e, but when I read the crit complaints, I just can't see what would be the difference if suddenly everyone just randomly put a crit seal on their rune page to gain that random lane win every once in awhile when they luck out. or opening brawlers glove and getting 2 (WTF! HAX!) crits to win the lane via RNG. I just don't see why the points making sense to get in the mastery tree impacts the argument that early game crit ruins laning. I think the clear difference in each of the cases you mention (runes and items) is the trade off. There are better (ie more consistent AND mathematically better) choices than crit runes and opening brawlers gloves. You actively chose to take risk, and that can backfire horribly on you. The mastery is free though. You have no reason NOT to get it. There are no other options remotely close to comparison. In fact, the optimal page for an ad carry DEMANDS that you grab the 4% chance. So in order to optimize your character, you buy into a mastery that can straight up win you a lane based purely on RNG, with absolutely no downside. Thats the difference. Cool, but who cares? What matters is this: Is it bad if lanes are decided by lucky crits? If yes: Removing one out of many sources of crit isn't gonna fix it. If no: Crit can stay, everyone can get it for free.
I think you are oversimplifying. I think early crit is fine if there is a trade off. If someone wants to take a risk and run pure crit runes, that is fine. If they get the crit, then they probably win. If they dont get the crit, they are probably going to lose. But you can see the trade off there- if it works, then they look like a genius, if it fails, they look like a moron.
But the mastery is optimal for an ad carry. There is no trade off there. You just get it. And if you get a crit instead of your opponent, then you are probably going to win that lane. Nothing I did made me more or less likely to win that lane besides get lucky.
Now, in the hypothetical case where on the other side of the mastery tree there were, say, 4 points leading to 10% crit damage where each of the 4 points gave me an additional 4% armor pen or something like that, then I would be perfectly fine with the crit mastery staying. Why? Because there is a trade off. I can either be safe and go with what will work 100% of the time or be risky and go for a 4% chance to get a free lane win. So no, in my mind it DOES matter where the crit% comes from, because it determines if there was an actual choice made. If there is, then you deserve credit. If there is not, then it should be removed as a factor of pure rng.
|
On December 10 2011 06:51 Juicyfruit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2011 06:41 Juicyfruit wrote:On December 10 2011 06:29 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:23 Juicyfruit wrote:
I dunno... how often is a lane ACTUALLY won on 1 crit alone? I feel like that's retardedly exaggerated and you'd have to have an engagement that would end ridiculously close one way or another for it to really matter.
In soloQ, that might happen once every 100 game per person, but that just adds flavor.
In tournament games, that would never happen in the first place because how often do you see people commit on each other without having a large margin of confidence in themselves? Its not committing though. A single harassing shot that normally does 60~ damage at level 1 suddenly does 120. At low levels, thats a quarter of someone's health. That basically sets up the lane from that point on. And people throw autos at each other fairly consistently. That isnt commiting, its just harassing as they last hit. While this is true, it's really just them getting 1 extra autoattack in. I understand that being 1 autoattack ahead makes a difference but that's all it is; 1 lucky crit = equivalent of getting 1 unanswered autoattack harass. Should just have a contigency plan for when that happens. 1 crit = net +1 auto attack (assuming you attacked each other at the same time). At low levels, this really is a huge difference. Yeah I get that, but it's a 1:25 chance of it happening and it isn't exactly the autowin most people make it out to be. It's sort of a wild-card factor that you have to consider when laning ... something of a "it CAN happen, so I should be aware of it". If you have potions then the advantage gets negated somewhat as well. Plus I like the idea of rewarding people with good enough reflexes to take immediate advantage when a crit happens (both the AD and the support). Likewise, it punishes people who aren't even aware that they got critted until that tristana follows it up with a rocket jump and gg.
usually a random crit doesn't matter too much when they just poke you when you're farming, but sometimes it happens that you're trading hits, you see that you're outdamaging the other guy so you decide to stay in and fight it out, and then suddenly a random crit makes you lose.
|
On December 10 2011 06:53 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:43 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 06:19 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:01 Mogwai wrote:On December 10 2011 05:56 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 05:06 Mufaa wrote:On December 10 2011 04:39 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 04:15 Mufaa wrote:
Glad to see morello considers the crit mastery a problem also. Does their engine allow them to do level restricted stuff? Like you get the 4% crit at level 6 when a poke that crits will be 1/3 of your hp? I think the offensive tree could use a rework in general but until that happens it'd be nice to still have the crit on certain champs since I'm sure everyone would still take a new skill if it was a prereq for 10%crit dmg if they went IE anyway. Source? If it was already posted: must have missed it. I guess the engine should allow stuff like that. What point is there in removing the crit mastery (or making it weak at the beginning) without removing crit runes? It was posted a page or 2 back. And the point is because any AD is going to get the 4% crit for the 10% crit damage because there is nothing else worth taking. So what happens is lanes break early because 2 evenly skilled players who would normally just farm with minor harass/skirmishes are doing the same but now one of them will get a lucky crit and often win the lane because of it. People aren't complaining about crit runes/ashes passive and other crit abilities because they can be counterplayed and with runes you have to give something up for the crit (ad, arpen, etc). Here's what I conclude from your post: Random rare crits are unwanted earlygame because they can decide the game. 1 crit glyph (0.28%) either can't produce said unwanted crits (AT ALL, or else it would still be an issue, just in fewer games) or can be counterplayed or the has too high of an opportunity cost. Doesn't work out. As long as you have more than 0 crit during early game and lucky crits are considered a bad thing, nothing's solved. Whether you have 4% or 0.28%, there will always be a game with lucky crits. How about this: make crit damage scale. Currently, every champ has 200% base crit damage, 210/250/260/ect with mastery/IE/runes. If you started out with 150% and it would increase up to 200% at level 9 or w/e, early crits would be less of an issue. Or a scaling factor on top of your total crit damage, to also reduce the strength of +crit damage at early levels. I personally wouldn't like that btw. It increases the complexity of the basic game mechanics, which imo is bad design (just like the new jungle exp pool system). As long as there is ANY crit in the game, I don't really care if there is a free 4% for a bunch of champs agree with this post 100% I know slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy or w/e, but when I read the crit complaints, I just can't see what would be the difference if suddenly everyone just randomly put a crit seal on their rune page to gain that random lane win every once in awhile when they luck out. or opening brawlers glove and getting 2 (WTF! HAX!) crits to win the lane via RNG. I just don't see why the points making sense to get in the mastery tree impacts the argument that early game crit ruins laning. I think the clear difference in each of the cases you mention (runes and items) is the trade off. There are better (ie more consistent AND mathematically better) choices than crit runes and opening brawlers gloves. You actively chose to take risk, and that can backfire horribly on you. The mastery is free though. You have no reason NOT to get it. There are no other options remotely close to comparison. In fact, the optimal page for an ad carry DEMANDS that you grab the 4% chance. So in order to optimize your character, you buy into a mastery that can straight up win you a lane based purely on RNG, with absolutely no downside. Thats the difference. Cool, but who cares? What matters is this: Is it bad if lanes are decided by lucky crits? If yes: Removing one out of many sources of crit isn't gonna fix it. If no: Crit can stay, everyone can get it for free. I think you are oversimplifying. I think early crit is fine if there is a trade off. If someone wants to take a risk and run pure crit runes, that is fine. If they get the crit, then they probably win. If they dont get the crit, they are probably going to lose. But you can see the trade off there- if it works, then they look like a genius, if it fails, they look like a moron. But the mastery is optimal for an ad carry. There is no trade off there. You just get it. And if you get a crit instead of your opponent, then you are probably going to win that lane. Nothing I did made me more or less likely to win that lane besides get lucky. Now, in the hypothetical case where on the other side of the mastery tree there were, say, 4 points leading to 10% crit damage where each of the 4 points gave me an additional 4% armor pen or something like that, then I would be perfectly fine with the crit mastery staying. Why? Because there is a trade off. I can either be safe and go with what will work 100% of the time or be risky and go for a 4% chance to get a free lane win. So no, in my mind it DOES matter where the crit% comes from, because it determines if there was an actual choice made. If there is, then you deserve credit. If there is not, then it should be removed as a factor of pure rng.
so what? where was all this hate with the old tree where 2% crit was optimal for every carry too? people blow single crit winning a lane waaayyyyyyy out of proportion.
|
On December 10 2011 06:53 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:43 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 06:19 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:01 Mogwai wrote:On December 10 2011 05:56 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 05:06 Mufaa wrote:On December 10 2011 04:39 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 04:15 Mufaa wrote:
Glad to see morello considers the crit mastery a problem also. Does their engine allow them to do level restricted stuff? Like you get the 4% crit at level 6 when a poke that crits will be 1/3 of your hp? I think the offensive tree could use a rework in general but until that happens it'd be nice to still have the crit on certain champs since I'm sure everyone would still take a new skill if it was a prereq for 10%crit dmg if they went IE anyway. Source? If it was already posted: must have missed it. I guess the engine should allow stuff like that. What point is there in removing the crit mastery (or making it weak at the beginning) without removing crit runes? It was posted a page or 2 back. And the point is because any AD is going to get the 4% crit for the 10% crit damage because there is nothing else worth taking. So what happens is lanes break early because 2 evenly skilled players who would normally just farm with minor harass/skirmishes are doing the same but now one of them will get a lucky crit and often win the lane because of it. People aren't complaining about crit runes/ashes passive and other crit abilities because they can be counterplayed and with runes you have to give something up for the crit (ad, arpen, etc). Here's what I conclude from your post: Random rare crits are unwanted earlygame because they can decide the game. 1 crit glyph (0.28%) either can't produce said unwanted crits (AT ALL, or else it would still be an issue, just in fewer games) or can be counterplayed or the has too high of an opportunity cost. Doesn't work out. As long as you have more than 0 crit during early game and lucky crits are considered a bad thing, nothing's solved. Whether you have 4% or 0.28%, there will always be a game with lucky crits. How about this: make crit damage scale. Currently, every champ has 200% base crit damage, 210/250/260/ect with mastery/IE/runes. If you started out with 150% and it would increase up to 200% at level 9 or w/e, early crits would be less of an issue. Or a scaling factor on top of your total crit damage, to also reduce the strength of +crit damage at early levels. I personally wouldn't like that btw. It increases the complexity of the basic game mechanics, which imo is bad design (just like the new jungle exp pool system). As long as there is ANY crit in the game, I don't really care if there is a free 4% for a bunch of champs agree with this post 100% I know slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy or w/e, but when I read the crit complaints, I just can't see what would be the difference if suddenly everyone just randomly put a crit seal on their rune page to gain that random lane win every once in awhile when they luck out. or opening brawlers glove and getting 2 (WTF! HAX!) crits to win the lane via RNG. I just don't see why the points making sense to get in the mastery tree impacts the argument that early game crit ruins laning. I think the clear difference in each of the cases you mention (runes and items) is the trade off. There are better (ie more consistent AND mathematically better) choices than crit runes and opening brawlers gloves. You actively chose to take risk, and that can backfire horribly on you. The mastery is free though. You have no reason NOT to get it. There are no other options remotely close to comparison. In fact, the optimal page for an ad carry DEMANDS that you grab the 4% chance. So in order to optimize your character, you buy into a mastery that can straight up win you a lane based purely on RNG, with absolutely no downside. Thats the difference. Cool, but who cares? What matters is this: Is it bad if lanes are decided by lucky crits? If yes: Removing one out of many sources of crit isn't gonna fix it. If no: Crit can stay, everyone can get it for free. I think you are oversimplifying. I think early crit is fine if there is a trade off. If someone wants to take a risk and run pure crit runes, that is fine. If they get the crit, then they probably win. If they dont get the crit, they are probably going to lose. But you can see the trade off there- if it works, then they look like a genius, if it fails, they look like a moron. But the mastery is optimal for an ad carry. There is no trade off there. You just get it. And if you get a crit instead of your opponent, then you are probably going to win that lane. Nothing I did made me more or less likely to win that lane besides get lucky. Now, in the hypothetical case where on the other side of the mastery tree there were, say, 4 points leading to 10% crit damage where each of the 4 points gave me an additional 4% armor pen or something like that, then I would be perfectly fine with the crit mastery staying. Why? Because there is a trade off. I can either be safe and go with what will work 100% of the time or be risky and go for a 4% chance to get a free lane win. So no, in my mind it DOES matter where the crit% comes from, because it determines if there was an actual choice made. If there is, then you deserve credit. If there is not, then it should be removed as a factor of pure rng.
But how is that better?
Right now, at least you have somewhat of a 100% confidence that the enemy has 4% crit chance. If you make it optional, not only is "whether they have crit chance at all", up to luck, but it makes it also way more annoying when you DO get critted because you just lost to essentially a "cheeser" of some sort.
|
And what about removing the randomness and making crit an AD multiplier? So if you have 20% crit and 100 AD your autos hit for 120.
Because that is what crit does right? It makes your average hit increase by its %.
|
The value of crit goes beyond raw DPS. The randomization of the damage is to an extent, an asset since it's much easier to avoid dying when your health is dropping consistently.
On December 10 2011 06:56 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:51 Juicyfruit wrote:On December 10 2011 06:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2011 06:41 Juicyfruit wrote:On December 10 2011 06:29 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:23 Juicyfruit wrote:
I dunno... how often is a lane ACTUALLY won on 1 crit alone? I feel like that's retardedly exaggerated and you'd have to have an engagement that would end ridiculously close one way or another for it to really matter.
In soloQ, that might happen once every 100 game per person, but that just adds flavor.
In tournament games, that would never happen in the first place because how often do you see people commit on each other without having a large margin of confidence in themselves? Its not committing though. A single harassing shot that normally does 60~ damage at level 1 suddenly does 120. At low levels, thats a quarter of someone's health. That basically sets up the lane from that point on. And people throw autos at each other fairly consistently. That isnt commiting, its just harassing as they last hit. While this is true, it's really just them getting 1 extra autoattack in. I understand that being 1 autoattack ahead makes a difference but that's all it is; 1 lucky crit = equivalent of getting 1 unanswered autoattack harass. Should just have a contigency plan for when that happens. 1 crit = net +1 auto attack (assuming you attacked each other at the same time). At low levels, this really is a huge difference. Yeah I get that, but it's a 1:25 chance of it happening and it isn't exactly the autowin most people make it out to be. It's sort of a wild-card factor that you have to consider when laning ... something of a "it CAN happen, so I should be aware of it". If you have potions then the advantage gets negated somewhat as well. Plus I like the idea of rewarding people with good enough reflexes to take immediate advantage when a crit happens (both the AD and the support). Likewise, it punishes people who aren't even aware that they got critted until that tristana follows it up with a rocket jump and gg. usually a random crit doesn't matter too much when they just poke you when you're farming, but sometimes it happens that you're trading hits, you see that you're outdamaging the other guy so you decide to stay in and fight it out, and then suddenly a random crit makes you lose.
Yeah, that sucks. Tough luck, but it would have came down to less than 50HP either way.
|
On December 10 2011 06:53 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:43 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 06:19 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:01 Mogwai wrote:On December 10 2011 05:56 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 05:06 Mufaa wrote:On December 10 2011 04:39 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 04:15 Mufaa wrote:
Glad to see morello considers the crit mastery a problem also. Does their engine allow them to do level restricted stuff? Like you get the 4% crit at level 6 when a poke that crits will be 1/3 of your hp? I think the offensive tree could use a rework in general but until that happens it'd be nice to still have the crit on certain champs since I'm sure everyone would still take a new skill if it was a prereq for 10%crit dmg if they went IE anyway. Source? If it was already posted: must have missed it. I guess the engine should allow stuff like that. What point is there in removing the crit mastery (or making it weak at the beginning) without removing crit runes? It was posted a page or 2 back. And the point is because any AD is going to get the 4% crit for the 10% crit damage because there is nothing else worth taking. So what happens is lanes break early because 2 evenly skilled players who would normally just farm with minor harass/skirmishes are doing the same but now one of them will get a lucky crit and often win the lane because of it. People aren't complaining about crit runes/ashes passive and other crit abilities because they can be counterplayed and with runes you have to give something up for the crit (ad, arpen, etc). Here's what I conclude from your post: Random rare crits are unwanted earlygame because they can decide the game. 1 crit glyph (0.28%) either can't produce said unwanted crits (AT ALL, or else it would still be an issue, just in fewer games) or can be counterplayed or the has too high of an opportunity cost. Doesn't work out. As long as you have more than 0 crit during early game and lucky crits are considered a bad thing, nothing's solved. Whether you have 4% or 0.28%, there will always be a game with lucky crits. How about this: make crit damage scale. Currently, every champ has 200% base crit damage, 210/250/260/ect with mastery/IE/runes. If you started out with 150% and it would increase up to 200% at level 9 or w/e, early crits would be less of an issue. Or a scaling factor on top of your total crit damage, to also reduce the strength of +crit damage at early levels. I personally wouldn't like that btw. It increases the complexity of the basic game mechanics, which imo is bad design (just like the new jungle exp pool system). As long as there is ANY crit in the game, I don't really care if there is a free 4% for a bunch of champs agree with this post 100% I know slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy or w/e, but when I read the crit complaints, I just can't see what would be the difference if suddenly everyone just randomly put a crit seal on their rune page to gain that random lane win every once in awhile when they luck out. or opening brawlers glove and getting 2 (WTF! HAX!) crits to win the lane via RNG. I just don't see why the points making sense to get in the mastery tree impacts the argument that early game crit ruins laning. I think the clear difference in each of the cases you mention (runes and items) is the trade off. There are better (ie more consistent AND mathematically better) choices than crit runes and opening brawlers gloves. You actively chose to take risk, and that can backfire horribly on you. The mastery is free though. You have no reason NOT to get it. There are no other options remotely close to comparison. In fact, the optimal page for an ad carry DEMANDS that you grab the 4% chance. So in order to optimize your character, you buy into a mastery that can straight up win you a lane based purely on RNG, with absolutely no downside. Thats the difference. Cool, but who cares? What matters is this: Is it bad if lanes are decided by lucky crits? If yes: Removing one out of many sources of crit isn't gonna fix it. If no: Crit can stay, everyone can get it for free. I think you are oversimplifying. I think early crit is fine if there is a trade off. If someone wants to take a risk and run pure crit runes, that is fine. If they get the crit, then they probably win. If they dont get the crit, they are probably going to lose. But you can see the trade off there- if it works, then they look like a genius, if it fails, they look like a moron. But the mastery is optimal for an ad carry. There is no trade off there. You just get it. And if you get a crit instead of your opponent, then you are probably going to win that lane. Nothing I did made me more or less likely to win that lane besides get lucky. Now, in the hypothetical case where on the other side of the mastery tree there were, say, 4 points leading to 10% crit damage where each of the 4 points gave me an additional 4% armor pen or something like that, then I would be perfectly fine with the crit mastery staying. Why? Because there is a trade off. I can either be safe and go with what will work 100% of the time or be risky and go for a 4% chance to get a free lane win. So no, in my mind it DOES matter where the crit% comes from, because it determines if there was an actual choice made. If there is, then you deserve credit. If there is not, then it should be removed as a factor of pure rng.
You make a lot of sense on the problem with the crit mastery. I disagree with you about the value of crit runes. Suppose they did work as you describe - ie if you take crit runes then you are basically gambling; if you get crits in laning then you win your lane and if you don't then you lose. Then your giving a weaker player, who would expect to lose lanethe great majority of the time, the choice to take crit runes and make winning/losing his lane no longer dependant on skill (which he knows he would lose on) but on luck (which would give him better odds).
I don't know that this is how it is, whether getting crits makes the difference between winning and losing, but I certainly think this should not be how it is. I straight-up dislike any element of luck in a game (which I've mentioned before). The problem is that crit fills a really cool niche in the later game.
Its like, as has been mentioned, how in BW there was a percentage miss chance when shooting up to higher ground (or under features like fans I believe). It was mentioned a while back how a bunch of people were unhappy about its removal in sc2. But I am sure that noone was saying, "hey, we need more RNG and luck in the game" but rather that the BW high ground mechanic filled an interesting role (ie allowed an advantage when defending high ground). Does anyone actually disagree that it would be simply better if we could find mechanics that fill the same role but don't rely on luck in both LoL and starcraft? (Yes, you can make an argument that the high ground mechanic is worse in sc2 than in BW but that argument would be based on the difference in the role the mechanic plays, NOT on luck-basedness.)
|
|
|
On December 10 2011 05:56 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 05:06 Mufaa wrote:On December 10 2011 04:39 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 04:15 Mufaa wrote:
Glad to see morello considers the crit mastery a problem also. Does their engine allow them to do level restricted stuff? Like you get the 4% crit at level 6 when a poke that crits will be 1/3 of your hp? I think the offensive tree could use a rework in general but until that happens it'd be nice to still have the crit on certain champs since I'm sure everyone would still take a new skill if it was a prereq for 10%crit dmg if they went IE anyway. Source? If it was already posted: must have missed it. I guess the engine should allow stuff like that. What point is there in removing the crit mastery (or making it weak at the beginning) without removing crit runes? It was posted a page or 2 back. And the point is because any AD is going to get the 4% crit for the 10% crit damage because there is nothing else worth taking. So what happens is lanes break early because 2 evenly skilled players who would normally just farm with minor harass/skirmishes are doing the same but now one of them will get a lucky crit and often win the lane because of it. People aren't complaining about crit runes/ashes passive and other crit abilities because they can be counterplayed and with runes you have to give something up for the crit (ad, arpen, etc). Here's what I conclude from your post: Random rare crits are unwanted earlygame because they can decide the game. 1 crit glyph (0.28%) either can't produce said unwanted crits (AT ALL, or else it would still be an issue, just in fewer games) or can be counterplayed or the has too high of an opportunity cost. Doesn't work out. As long as you have more than 0 crit during early game and lucky crits are considered a bad thing, nothing's solved. Whether you have 4% or 0.28%, there will always be a game with lucky crits. How about this: make crit damage scale. Currently, every champ has 200% base crit damage, 210/250/260/ect with mastery/IE/runes. If you started out with 150% and it would increase up to 200% at level 9 or w/e, early crits would be less of an issue. Or a scaling factor on top of your total crit damage, to also reduce the strength of +crit damage at early levels. I personally wouldn't like that btw. It increases the complexity of the basic game mechanics, which imo is bad design (just like the new jungle exp pool system). As long as there is ANY crit in the game, I don't really care if there is a free 4% for a bunch of champs. Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 05:53 Mogwai wrote:
1 point in Weapon Expertise outperforms 3 points in brute force even at just 100 AD vs. 50 armor. also, 1 point vs. 3 points is not something to shrug off unless the pre-reqs for the 1 pointer are legitimately a drawback. Since they aren't, it's a silly comparison at best. Then again you have to spend 4 points on the rank 1 offense masteries to reach any better ones, so you can't really trade those 3 points for something else either.
A .28% crit chance would be fine. Yes, someone might get a crit once during laning once every 15-20 games but they gave up another stat to get it that is better mathematically (guaranteed dmg every shot). Every AD runs +4% crit because it's the only thing worth the points. None of the alternatives (2 minion damage, 10 tower damage) are even close to it's level. Because of this you'll see stuff like Doublelift(I believe it was him) lose to a vayne in lane while playing cait because Vayne tumbles, crits and does ridiculous damage, then crits again while only running +4% from masteries.
That RNG is too high of a percent to write off as insignificant and too low to actually account for in your opening which is why it's so problematic.
Edit: I feel everyone saying "well then crit makes a bad player having a chance at taking a lane due to RNG" are missing the point. Yes there is that chance but as an example say 10%crit costs you 15 damage after mitigation. A laner with 10 crit will on average do 670 damage. The guy who went AD/ArPen will do 750. The odds are not in the crit players favor (~16% chance of getting 3+ crits) of getting the advantage in a lane like this. Most importantly he had to give up a guaranteed 150 dmg to get a small chance of RNG winning. 4% doesn't require any sacrifice.
Those numbers are just rough ideas of low level laning numbers, but if you want to apply real numbers go ahead because if crit is better in laning I think it should be balanced out also. Id do it but I'm at work.
|
On December 10 2011 06:53 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:43 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 06:19 Two_DoWn wrote:On December 10 2011 06:01 Mogwai wrote:On December 10 2011 05:56 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 05:06 Mufaa wrote:On December 10 2011 04:39 spinesheath wrote:On December 10 2011 04:15 Mufaa wrote:
Glad to see morello considers the crit mastery a problem also. Does their engine allow them to do level restricted stuff? Like you get the 4% crit at level 6 when a poke that crits will be 1/3 of your hp? I think the offensive tree could use a rework in general but until that happens it'd be nice to still have the crit on certain champs since I'm sure everyone would still take a new skill if it was a prereq for 10%crit dmg if they went IE anyway. Source? If it was already posted: must have missed it. I guess the engine should allow stuff like that. What point is there in removing the crit mastery (or making it weak at the beginning) without removing crit runes? It was posted a page or 2 back. And the point is because any AD is going to get the 4% crit for the 10% crit damage because there is nothing else worth taking. So what happens is lanes break early because 2 evenly skilled players who would normally just farm with minor harass/skirmishes are doing the same but now one of them will get a lucky crit and often win the lane because of it. People aren't complaining about crit runes/ashes passive and other crit abilities because they can be counterplayed and with runes you have to give something up for the crit (ad, arpen, etc). Here's what I conclude from your post: Random rare crits are unwanted earlygame because they can decide the game. 1 crit glyph (0.28%) either can't produce said unwanted crits (AT ALL, or else it would still be an issue, just in fewer games) or can be counterplayed or the has too high of an opportunity cost. Doesn't work out. As long as you have more than 0 crit during early game and lucky crits are considered a bad thing, nothing's solved. Whether you have 4% or 0.28%, there will always be a game with lucky crits. How about this: make crit damage scale. Currently, every champ has 200% base crit damage, 210/250/260/ect with mastery/IE/runes. If you started out with 150% and it would increase up to 200% at level 9 or w/e, early crits would be less of an issue. Or a scaling factor on top of your total crit damage, to also reduce the strength of +crit damage at early levels. I personally wouldn't like that btw. It increases the complexity of the basic game mechanics, which imo is bad design (just like the new jungle exp pool system). As long as there is ANY crit in the game, I don't really care if there is a free 4% for a bunch of champs agree with this post 100% I know slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy or w/e, but when I read the crit complaints, I just can't see what would be the difference if suddenly everyone just randomly put a crit seal on their rune page to gain that random lane win every once in awhile when they luck out. or opening brawlers glove and getting 2 (WTF! HAX!) crits to win the lane via RNG. I just don't see why the points making sense to get in the mastery tree impacts the argument that early game crit ruins laning. I think the clear difference in each of the cases you mention (runes and items) is the trade off. There are better (ie more consistent AND mathematically better) choices than crit runes and opening brawlers gloves. You actively chose to take risk, and that can backfire horribly on you. The mastery is free though. You have no reason NOT to get it. There are no other options remotely close to comparison. In fact, the optimal page for an ad carry DEMANDS that you grab the 4% chance. So in order to optimize your character, you buy into a mastery that can straight up win you a lane based purely on RNG, with absolutely no downside. Thats the difference. Cool, but who cares? What matters is this: Is it bad if lanes are decided by lucky crits? If yes: Removing one out of many sources of crit isn't gonna fix it. If no: Crit can stay, everyone can get it for free. I think you are oversimplifying. I think early crit is fine if there is a trade off. If someone wants to take a risk and run pure crit runes, that is fine. If they get the crit, then they probably win. If they dont get the crit, they are probably going to lose. But you can see the trade off there- if it works, then they look like a genius, if it fails, they look like a moron. But the mastery is optimal for an ad carry. There is no trade off there. You just get it. And if you get a crit instead of your opponent, then you are probably going to win that lane. Nothing I did made me more or less likely to win that lane besides get lucky. Now, in the hypothetical case where on the other side of the mastery tree there were, say, 4 points leading to 10% crit damage where each of the 4 points gave me an additional 4% armor pen or something like that, then I would be perfectly fine with the crit mastery staying. Why? Because there is a trade off. I can either be safe and go with what will work 100% of the time or be risky and go for a 4% chance to get a free lane win. So no, in my mind it DOES matter where the crit% comes from, because it determines if there was an actual choice made. If there is, then you deserve credit. If there is not, then it should be removed as a factor of pure rng.
As long as you don't address the point that you can get 0.28% crit for nearly no tradeoff which can lead to the exact same issue, just less frequently, it's not worth arguing.
1.4 MR less isn't going to lose you the lane. A lucky crit can still happen with 0.28%. And if that lucky crit is an issue, it doesn't matter where it came from.
By the way, you CAN put those 5 points from crit into something reliable and useful for laning: +4 damage to minions and +3% lifesteal. It's not spectacular (the gold value of lifesteal is pretty high though), but is the tradeoff significantly different from the case where you take 1 crit glyph?
On December 10 2011 07:27 Mufaa wrote:
A .28% crit chance would be fine. Yes, someone might get a crit once during laning once every 15-20 games but they gave up another stat to get it that is better mathematically (guaranteed dmg every shot). Every AD runs +4% crit because it's the only thing worth the points. None of the alternatives (2 minion damage, 10 tower damage) are even close to it's level. Because of this you'll see stuff like Doublelift(I believe it was him) lose to a vayne in lane while playing cait because Vayne tumbles, crits and does ridiculous damage, then crits again while only running +4% from masteries.
That RNG is too high of a percent to write off as insignificant and too low to actually account for in your opening which is why it's so problematic.
No. Either ANY lucky crit is an issue, or it isn't an issue at all.
What would you say if Amumu's ult had a 0.1% chance of doing nothing? Amumu's ult not doing anything is a bad thing. If it only happens once in 1000 games, it's still a bad thing. If lucky crits are a bad thing, they still are a bad thing if they only happen once in 357 games.
|
Tank Fiddles viable or not?
|
Even with that argument spines, you still give something up. 1.4 mr can be the difference between life or death late game with a tibbers dropping on your head. Just because the trade off doesnt occur in lane doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.
As for masteries, Well, it could be just me, but I grab lifesteal and minion damage already (1 on minion, 2 on lifesteal). The tradeoff also differs because by not getting the 4% crit you also lose out on the 10% crit damage, so you have to include that cost with the cost of picking up an extra point in each. Not to mention what are you going to put the other 3 points in?
|
On December 10 2011 07:29 spinesheath wrote:
No. Either ANY lucky crit is an issue, or it isn't an issue at all.
What would you say if Amumu's ult had a 0.1% chance of doing nothing? Amumu's ult not doing anything is a bad thing. If it only happens once in 1000 games, it's still a bad thing. If lucky crits are a bad thing, they still are a bad thing if they only happen once in 357 games.
This 100%, thank you.
|
On December 10 2011 07:46 Treadmill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:29 spinesheath wrote:
No. Either ANY lucky crit is an issue, or it isn't an issue at all.
What would you say if Amumu's ult had a 0.1% chance of doing nothing? Amumu's ult not doing anything is a bad thing. If it only happens once in 1000 games, it's still a bad thing. If lucky crits are a bad thing, they still are a bad thing if they only happen once in 357 games. This 100%, thank you.
Check my edit a few posts up. No one is saying "omg crit ruins league. " I'm saying that free crit can ruin games because you start with it before there is a chance to defend against it. If riot decided to ruin mummys ult like that or if MR gave you a % chance to resist spells entirely I'd be 100% against that also. But when the great majority of the time excluding the 4% the better player wins, I don't see an issue with RNG. crit scales fine into the late game but when you have all the benefits of doing a crit opening and still keep all your Ad/ArPen the low levels can become unpredictable and don't promote intelligent play.
|
Personally I've never had the experience where I was 100% sure that it was the 2 crits opponent x had that made me lose the engagement. In general I don't get into engagements I'm not fairly sure i'll win, and should I be wrong it's rarely because of crit's, and more because I underestimated the other champs situation. Part of me says just remove crits from the game, it's rng and as such undesireable, but then again it leads to some more interesting builds and dynamics on it's own. On that merrit and the aforementioned idea that it rarely wins/loses battles that you chose to engage anyway, I dont really see what the big problem is. If we all played the game absolutely perfectly standing at the exact range where minions wouldn't switch over to attacking us, comming in at perfect angles at all times etc then this might become a point of discussion but seeing pro-games we arent there yet, so I'm not sure if this is entirely relevant ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
