|
Heed these two simple warnings. It will help make our GD a better place. Consider this fair notice to all users. Warning will be dished out this patch. Thanks. Neo, 31.01.12 |
Baron, short of a cataclysmic teamfight directly after acquiring it, is almost always a guaranteed multiple towers/inhib.
A bullet kills someone, a gun is the tool used to fire it. Baron also gives a lot of gold which leads to more gold in a game about snowballing. Inhibs give you a positional advantage in that it allows you to push other lanes while your opponent's need to defend the supers, but the snowball effect can actually end up negative sometimes because that's one lane's worth of CS you're not getting. This isn't to say getting an inhib is bad, but I wager there's more games won on taking a single baron than taking a single inhib. I definitely believe this is true about mid inhib, as it's easier to defend the side lanes while clearing supers if you lose mid inhib. Maybe the inhib in your opponent's dragon side (So they have to defend the lane further away from baron) is better, as that inhib gives you a much higher chance of securing baron itself,
good ol round and round in circle theorycrafting
|
On February 06 2012 15:46 DURRHURRDERP wrote:
twodown i think you're missing the point here........ofc having an inhib down in a vacuum is better, but 90% of the time ur not going to be able to get a "free inhib" (having the enemy team aced or near aced is a requirement for this, as well as a lane that is naturally pushing)
those kinds of situations come along pretty rarely...more often what happens is someone gets caught and dies instantly, then a team picks up free baron since it's a 4v5 and the other team can't/won't contest it.
Actually, 90% of the time it is actually safer&easier to coordinate a push than it is to try to get baron. Baron is much more risky than pushing is, and the payoff is considerably less.
Now, dont read what I have said as "never get baron, it isnt worth it." There are times when getting baron is the smart play. Its just that most of the time the risk you take trying to baron FAR exceeds the risk you take by trying to do something else.
Unless, of course, you are losing, which is really the only time you should ever attempt a 5v5 baron.
But in the event of a fight and considerable personnel advantage to your team- baring being right next to baron when the fight ends (which, by all means, take baron) your mental objectives list should ALWAYS be 1- inhib, 2 Towers and Baron.
|
On February 06 2012 15:03 whatwhatanut wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 14:58 gtrsrs wrote:On February 06 2012 14:49 tobi9999 wrote:On February 06 2012 14:42 gtrsrs wrote:
But again, the hp regen not gonna save your ad carry from getting instagibbed and the ad not gonna do anything for your ap carry so consider it 18k in free stats is misleading - in the same way that getting 3 kills and then buying manamune on leesin is not really a valuable stat Right, having baron makes it more likely that your AD carry is gonna get instagibbed! and AD doesn't scale with APs, I never knew! Seriously though, pushing with baron, and pushing without baron are 2 completely different things. Which is why it's worthwhile to get baron always unless you're losing inhibs. ............... shikyo alt? I never said that baron makes it more likely to get dived but it also doesn't make it less likely... Herp. And in the event that a teamfight breaks out, the ap is not going to help cait nor is the hp or mana regen most likely. So my original point stands: considering baron to be 15000 gold advantage is fallacious because few champs really utilize every stat It's obviously good in sieges but a smart team won't try to poke trade with a baron team. They'll commit or back off. I'm just saying baron isn't as good as you guys are making it out to be. It's nowhere Near instawin No one ever said baron was instawin.
that's weird because i could have sworn i read that somewh-
On February 06 2012 12:40 Qualm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 11:08 0123456789 wrote:
Every1 knows that you control wraiths, you control game. Which is why morde is always picked/banned in Brasil.
FYI, if you didn't know I'm just kidding. Since the dawn of time, whoever got baron won game. I think this is still prevelant today(get baron, win game), just that baron isn't as strong as it once was, but still really strong. Right now it feels like 1 baron nullifies any lead the enemy team had, and a second one wins the game. If you were already ahed, a baron is instawin.Pretty dumb considering how close barons often end up being about who's jungler is the "best" at smiting, when truly a good smite is about as "skillful" as a cross-map ashe arrow.
ah, yep. there it is. thx 4 playing
|
Basically the crux of my argument is that bad players overvalue baron and undervalue inhibitors.
|
Good players turn Baron into inhibitors so it's all moot and situational. Woop.
I think it's a relatively even comparison of worth. Like if two teams are playing and one gets Baron while the other backdoors an inhib and no one dies, I think barring other negative circumstances, both teams are okay with the situation. No one ever goes "God dammit, we only got Baron," or "God dammit, we only got an inhib"
|
???...
how is it safer and easier to coordinate a push without baron? these days everyone runs massive spellvamp and wriggles on almost everyone, it's infinitely easier to pick up baron (especially if u can pick someone off) than it is to siege towers w/o baron..........
and why would you attempt a 5v5 baron when you're losing??? if the enemy team isn't retarded they will just ace you while you're trying to do it
its not a question of under or over valuing an objective, it's a question of realistically which objective CAN YOU GET. it's often difficult enough pushing an inhib 5v5 even with baron assuming the score is relatively even, while getting baron is usually a piece of cake if you gain the slightest advantage over the enemy team (ie: 4v5)
|
Although Qualm removed me, I think everything he says is pretty obvious, not sure what we're arguing about here. If the enemy cant defend inhib then obv go inhib, but most of the time after winning a fight, baron is the only realistic objective. In games where two teams are relatively equal, which is whenever the game is not decided in 20min, a baron will completely change team fights around, and whoever win a fight at that stage of the game will have a huge advantage barring some ridiculous eli manning like throw.
I've played maybe 5 games or so in the past couple days when our bot lane won, the AD rushes IE, we rush baron at around 15-20min regardless of what happens in other lanes as their bot will still be bot. The first baron is then enough to basically win us the game in 30min max whereas if we didnt push the IE advantage, the game would be pretty much even if any one of the two solo lanes lost.
|
On February 06 2012 16:02 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Although Qualm removed me, I think everything he says is pretty obvious, not sure what we're arguing about here. If the enemy cant defend inhib then obv go inhib, but most of the time after winning a fight, baron is the only realistic objective. In games where two teams are relatively equal, which is whenever the game is not decided in 20min, a baron will completely change team fights around, and whoever win a fight at that stage of the game will have a huge advantage barring some ridiculous eli manning like throw.
manningham gonna dunk on you bro
|
On February 06 2012 15:54 Two_DoWn wrote:
Basically the crux of my argument is that bad players overvalue baron and undervalue inhibitors.
yeah this is what i'm getting at too
unless your team really CAN make use of all the stats (skarner, kayle, irelia, people that scale significantly off both AP and AD, AND are tanky enough to make use of the hp regen), then calling it 18k worth of stats is just stupid. it's like 2k worth of stats and highly HIGHLY overvalued. it's soooo risky to do baron unless you're 100% sure the enemy team doesn't know you're there (aka shaco yorick baron cheese at 15 mins) or you're so far ahead that taking the baron isn't going to win the game for you (aka you just killed 3 of them and lost no one. if you just killed 3 for 0, you obviously don't need baron to win, you're already winning -_-)
but i do love the shikyo logic. IT GIVES YOU MANA REGEN, MANA REGEN IS WORTH 5K GOLD, IT'S AN INSTANT WINNNNNNN HOW CAN YOU LOSE WITH THAT KIND OF GOLD ADVANTAAAAAAAAAAGE???
and i love the attempts to defend it. BRO HE NEVER EXPLICITLY SAID WARMOG'S IS GOOD ON VEIGAR - WHY ARE YOU COMPARING USELESS STATS? IT'S IRRELEVANT IF YOU CAN USE ALL DA STATS U GET ALL DA STATS SO U GOTTA COUNT DEM!!!
lolz
|
|
|
That was a really nice rant but it all kind of evaded the point just comparing the two intrinsically. The risk isn't questioned, Baron is a very fast explicit risk, inhibs are slow steady goals that are hard to pull off in less than a minute. That's all well and good, but the point was just, which would you rather have, Baron buff + gold or any of the 3 inhibs (all 3 of which have intrinsically different value given the game state!), and i say it's pretty much a wash.
edit oh gosh you got rid of it all oh noes 
|
On February 06 2012 15:06 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 15:05 Shikyo wrote:On February 06 2012 15:04 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:On February 06 2012 15:01 TwoToneTerran wrote:
It's the single most important thing on the map besides the Nexus. I consider inhibitors worth more than baron. It depends. With baron you're almost guaranteed to get that same inhibitor in numerous cases and it's an extra 1.5k gold too. It doesnt depend. Inhibs are worth more. Always.
zzz
This isn't even remotely true.
Killing an inhib is useless if you can't do anything with the pressure it creates. Killing Baron still makes your team stronger, even when you can't use it to immediately push an inhib tower. Between two even teams, the one with Baron can always push outer towers and almost always push inner towers unless someone goes full retard. Whether or not someone does decide to go full retard is unrelated to what objective you choose to take when faced with the option.
|
Any advantage is only an advantage when you do something usefull with it.
Can we just leave it at that?
|
United States37500 Posts
Don't make blanket statements about Baron or Inhibitors.
We won't have to spend so many pages on semantics.
@bly: don't post pics here in GD. That was a subtle brag, carrying the heavy Marcou is what you're trying to say.
|
Some high-elo players regard The Nexus as the most valuable objective in the game.
|
people in this thread seem to get off on arguing about highly dependent situations while keeping their assumptions implicit. Sorry I didn't read the warnings, I try not to legit brag unless it's something truly impressive.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Any team with an inhib down can only reliable push that very lane where the inhib is down, severely limiting their strategical options. Whenever they remove pressure on that lane (it's especially good if it's mid) it goes back limiting their map control and threatening to push other lanes (whenever your minions reach nexus turrets they start skirmishing with their minions from other lanes) and even kill the inhib once it respawns. I'd say that getting a mid inhib in exchange for baron is a fair trade and can even be better in some cases when they don't have good split pushers. Mid tower is alot of global gold as well, the only thing you don't get is the stats, but you get the opportunity to force fights with your super minions which are by no means weak.
|
On February 06 2012 16:35 rwrzr wrote:
Some high-elo players regard The Nexus as the most valuable objective in the game.
Aren't you clever. This was already said as a disclaimer before the whole baron vs inhib part.
|
5s is really harsh. I didn't feel comfortable at all playing it, and I usually enjoy the communication that happens (in other team games). It feels a lot more fast-paced, whereas in solo queue there's a bit of delay on people's reactions due to having to type for clear communication.
Doesn't help that I played really poorly both games.
|
On February 06 2012 17:11 Ryrk wrote:5s is really harsh. I didn't feel comfortable at all playing it, and I usually enjoy the communication that happens (in other team games). It feels a lot more fast-paced, whereas in solo queue there's a bit of delay on people's reactions due to having to type for clear communication. Doesn't help that I played really poorly both games.
5 men premade is where this game is at.
Just make sure to strictly seperate your premade mentality from your solo q mentality, or you'll end up being horribly frustrated. =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
