EPT
Like vlad/kennen mid/top, udyr jungle/top
[Patch 1.0.0.136: Lulu] General Discussion - Page 299
| Forum Index > LoL General |
Remember guys, this is the general discussion thread. Keep whine/QQ posts in the appropriate QQ memorial thread! Thanks! | ||
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
Like vlad/kennen mid/top, udyr jungle/top | ||
|
BlueSpace
Germany2182 Posts
On April 14 2012 19:53 Slayer91 wrote: This isn't true there are plenty of players who play only maybe 1 or 2 champions per role at their top level including me and do just fine in solo queue. There's no reason you weaken your game understanding and skill by playing less champions. Similar champions in similar roles do similar things and teamfight understanding comes from understanding what happens in teamfights which isn't necessarily going to be helped by playing more champs it's going to be helped by keen observation. Sometimes you won't know what to do say playing a cc bruiser in some situations when you're used to playing a dps bruiser but that comes from not playing them that much. There are plenty of versatile players who aren't actually that godo and don't understand either. Better to understand how to play 1 champ then understand how to play none. If your champion that you play gets banned you will play a few hundred elo weaker but you won't be completely useless. IF Wesrice was a 2.4k akali player it doesn't mean he has to start from 1400 at everything else. Fuck no, he starts at like 2k elo with any champ he picks up because he has all the knowledge of a 2.4k player but just needs knowledge of the next individual champions and he has all the reference base from other good palyers at his elo so he has a reasonable idea what to do. Learning more champions is good? Sure. Trying to get to 2k by playing 4 champs per role e.g 20 champs total is a good idea? Hell no. Pick 1 champion and learn from the game from that perspective. It's much easier to learn a champ when you have all the fundementals of a 2k player and just need to bring a specific champion up to a similar level. When you only play 1 champ you know that champ and focus on everything else. When you learn another champ you focus only on that champ when you know everything else. (In general terms, of course, nobody has perfect game knowledge of even close to it). People like chauster have been playing the game for years at the top level so that's why they know so many champions. Someone starting later needs to get to that level before learning all the champions. I almost never play AD and AP carry but in teamfights I always pay attention to the enemy AD and AP carry and try to make decisions based on what they are doing and their positioning. It's just a matter of being observant so you don't need to play 100 vayne games to know you can't let her just auto hit you without any pressure. All the best players in their role typically play ONLY that role also. The problem with playing many different champions in different roles is to survive the laning phase. You might develop a better understanding of the overall game, but that doesn't help you in those first 10 minutes. On top of that you need to be aware of the counterpicks in all lanes and not only your lane including some of the odd match ups where you need to adapt your playstyle to a particular enemy that forces you to play "non-standard" in lane. It doesn't really matter how much you know about teamfighting, positioning, objectives and so on if you get stomped in lane. That is also in my opinion why pros stick to certain roles although it might be viable to let people reserve champions instead of roles. Don't know any pros who do that though and that probably has a reason. If you want to add roles, just spam draft games or make a smurf. Switching into a new role and spamming ranked is a really quick way to drop your elo. People will take advantage of you and you will most likely feed. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
| ||
|
BlueSpace
Germany2182 Posts
On April 14 2012 20:15 Slayer91 wrote: Why would you have more understanding of the game for playing more champions? Your focus is split between individual champion mechanics and overall game understanding which makes it harder in my opinion. Doing something that works on 1 champion might not work on another champion but it only didn't work because of what happened in the teamfight but you don't know that for sure since you played a different champ so it might just be that champ being different. You gain a better overall understanding because you have seen problems from different angles. A top has usually a different opinion on the strategic importance of the blue buff than an AP mid. A jungler has a different understanding about ganking and so on... You will of course be not as good in the individual champion mechanics as people that focus on certain champions. That was the point I was trying to make. You don't learn faster, you learn different stuff. And in my opinion the stuff you learn is relevant for the game overall, it makes you in no way a better player. It rather makes you weaker, because you need those individual champion mechanics to get through the laning phase. | ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
Looking at myself, and I think many people are like this, sometimes you just want to play 1 champion. Sure you can play others too, but this one has taken up your fancy now, and you just want to play him/her. At one time this was Karthus mid for me, and I got to play him a good 80% of the time in ranked, just by stating I wanted to play Karthus mid when the game started. Then it was Graves or Vayne, same thing. Then I came in the mood for playing supports (janna, sona, soraka), and well - those I got to play almost every game  . Nowadays I'll for the most part only play jungler, support or AD carry bot. I can play 2-4 champions in those roles at a good level for me. Sure I can play others champions there aswell, or I can play mid or top but it will not be optimal (except for Karthus or Heimer mid, the only mids I can play, but I rather play the other roles). And I really don't like playing top for some reason, but that is fine, I can count the times I HAD to play top in a ranked game on one hand: never. My point is, you mostly want to play champions that you find fun right? And it takes quite a number of games to really master a champion, so make sure you can play a few (I recommend atleast 3) roles with 2 or more champions, and then just play the champion(s) you have fun playing. EDIT: the most extreme case I can remember was a friend (not irl friend), I added him through another friend after a game. He only played skarner (mind you this is many months ago, before his nerf, meta was different as to what champions were best, etc) and he got to 1700-1800 ELO doing so. There is also a post on the LoL forums of a guy playing only poppy and no other champion to over 2k elo. He showed a screenshot, you could see his ELO and that Poppy was 100% played and no other champions. Also I have to say, some of the other posts on the matter make very good points also! | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On April 14 2012 20:25 BlueSpace wrote: You gain a better overall understanding because you have seen problems from different angles. A top has usually a different opinion on the strategic importance of the blue buff than an AP mid. A jungler has a different understanding about ganking and so on... You will of course be not as good in the individual champion mechanics as people that focus on certain champions. That was the point I was trying to make. You don't learn faster, you learn different stuff. And in my opinion the stuff you learn is relevant for the game overall, it makes you in no way a better player. It rather makes you weaker, because you need those individual champion mechanics to get through the laning phase. I don't think the argument was about 1 role only but more about playing 4 champions per role at least. Also I don't know why learning more champions increases how much you learn about the rest of the game, by logic it decreases it because you spend most of your time figuring out your champions limits and strengths. If you know your champions limits and strengths you can take into account external factors more easily. | ||
|
Lancer723
United States486 Posts
On April 14 2012 20:29 wintergt wrote: Note that this was in response to a guy that wants to start playing ranked. If you want to learn 3-4 champions per role, that is fine, but it is not a *necessity* to play ranked, I hope people can agree on that. And there are plenty of examples of this aswell. Looking at myself, and I think many people are like this, sometimes you just want to play 1 champion. Sure you can play others too, but this one has taken up your fancy now, and you just want to play him/her. At one time this was Karthus mid for me, and I got to play him a good 80% of the time in ranked, just by stating I wanted to play Karthus mid when the game started. Then it was Graves or Vayne, same thing. Then I came in the mood for playing supports (janna, sona, soraka), and well - those I got to play almost every game . Nowadays I'll for the most part only play jungler, support or AD carry bot. I can play 2-4 champions in those roles at a good level for me. Sure I can play others champions there aswell, or I can play mid or top but it will not be optimal (except for Karthus or Heimer mid, the only mids I can play, but I rather play the other roles). And I really don't like playing top for some reason, but that is fine, I can count the times I HAD to play top in a ranked game on one hand: never. My point is, you mostly want to play champions that you find fun right? And it takes quite a number of games to really master a champion, so make sure you can play a few (I recommend atleast 3) roles with 2 or more champions, and then just play the champion(s) you have fun playing. EDIT: the most extreme case I can remember was a friend (not irl friend), I added him through another friend after a game. He only played skarner (mind you this is many months ago, before his nerf, meta was different as to what champions were best, etc) and he got to 1700-1800 ELO doing so. There is also a post (+stream) of a guy playing only poppy and no other champion to over 2k elo. He showed a screenshot, you could see his ELO and that Poppy was 100% played and no other champions. Also I have to say, some of the other posts on the matter make very good points also! Oh I would completely agree that it's ok to main only a few champions if you're an experienced ranked player. Once you've played a few hundred ranked games, I'd say you get a good feel for what you personally want to play. However for a player coming into ranked for the first time this is different because you are most likely going to have a lot less experience to fall back on in your picks. Not only are new players unfamiliar with certain roles, but they are also unfamiliar with the psychology of other ranked players, which often leads to miss-communications a conflicts before the game even starts. As an experienced player who is capable of competently playing any role, it is completely ok so specialize in a small pool of champions because you have a knowledge base much larger than that of newer players, earned over a huge amount of games. Newer players lack that experience and the best way for them to get that is to be as diverse as possible in order to experience a multitude of match-ups and situations. Knowledge that they can then use to specialize in the role(s) of their choosing. It's also good to learn every role just to get an appreciation for what goes into that role, anyone who has ever jungled and been blamed for his lanes losing can attest to this. | ||
|
anmolsinghmzn2009
India1783 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
The reasoning being: You shouldn't be mentally locked to a single champ. If you still play that champ 90% of the time it's fine anyways. But there's no point in playing 1k games to get yourself to know all roles equally well with a wide range of champs. You're gonna fail a lot, you're gonna learn a lot. You just shouldn't fear playing unfamiliar champs. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On April 14 2012 21:19 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote: the question is, if you're so new to the game that you can't play 3-4 champs competently for all the roles, why are you playing ranked? Why can't you just play normals till you get proficient with a respectable number of roles and champions? How if you new to the game are you even high enough level to play ranked. | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
On April 14 2012 21:30 Numy wrote: How if you new to the game are you even high enough level to play ranked. "New" is at the perception of the person. I would consider myself new, im 1500 Elo with ~100 games ranked and 140 normal wins. I main support and 2nd jungle, I can play all the supports minus ali and keep it varied depending on the team (for example if i have first pick and nobody will pick for me i will not choose an aggressive lane or nunu as janna makes his ult useless, im more likely to go soraka etc) As jungle i can play a few champs, Maokai, Warwick, Gangplank, Udyr well enough to play in ranked. In other roles i consider myself shit, due to my poor last-hitting ability, but i can play a few in each role, Ashe / graves ad, Cassio/veigar/annie mid, and udyr / warwick transfer to toplane. If i have to i can, but not very well. I dont see where this perception of "having only one role" comes from, people have their roles, but im sure they can do others reasonably well ? | ||
|
Chaos
United States772 Posts
On April 14 2012 21:30 Numy wrote: How if you new to the game are you even high enough level to play ranked. I think when most people first reach level 30 they still understand close to nothing about how the game actually works. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On April 14 2012 21:19 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote: the question is, if you're so new to the game that you can't play 3-4 champs competently for all the roles, why are you playing ranked? Why can't you just play normals till you get proficient with a respectable number of roles and champions? That's a bit like saying if you're not a very fast runner you should just walk a lot until you are. In ranked at least everyones trying to win and it's probably a higher skill level (teammates feeding just means the other team is better) which means you get real practice. And it completely depends on your definition of competent. Most people who can "only play 1 champ" could play at like 1800 level with like 40 champs and still carry easily. If you want to improve in my opinion you should only played ranked as soon as you hit 30. It's a competitive environment and if you get flamed a lot it's a learning experience because there's usually some truth in a guy flaming you. Usually you both failed in some way or another. There's losing wrong with being bad and playing ranked if you're low elo so what. People seem to take ranked play so seriously but the way to improve is to play to improve not to play to win elo. The best way to improve is playing against the best players you can in a game where are players are trying to win and not randomly trolling around. | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
An ACTUAL analogy would be don't attempt competitive running until you've practiced it at on your own / with friends or amongst your school's track team, which is precisely what you should be doing, just as you should be practicing a variety of champs and roles before doing ranked. | ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On April 14 2012 22:27 Craton wrote: Where did you go to school that they taught you to use analogies with gigantic holes in logic? Your whole walking into running would be at BEST a comparison of doing bots before doing normals because they're similar but still tremendously different. An ACTUAL analogy would be don't attempt competitive running until you've practiced it at on your own / with friends or amongst your school's track team, which is precisely what you should be doing, just as you should be practicing a variety of champs and roles before doing ranked. I went instantly into ranked as soon as I hit level 30 and I almost only played annie (first champ I bought) to get there and I improved a lot over all. Just because ranked is competitive running to you doesn't it has to be. To me ranked is just like ladder in sc2. Competitive running would for me would be ranked 5's with an arranged team and playing go4lols etc. I wouldnt advise doing it unless you're at least a 2k player in solo queue (which would be practicing on your own). And nobody taught me to use analogies wtf lol. It's just a way of transmitting the way I view it and obviously since you seem to think ranked is srs buisness you don't see the comparision. Like I don't even see your argument. If you want to play all the roles a lot in normals before going to ranked sure. But saying you SHOULD do this. Why should you? Will you improve more in normals then in ranked? I don't think so. Will you lose ranked games more if you don't play 1k normals before starting ranked at the same elo? Sure you will, but there's nothing wrong with losing. Why should there be? Nobodies going to come back crying because they lost a lot of ranked games because they didn't practice enough before. It's just a good way to improve since people actually care about winning so you don't have to deal with some guy building 5 zeals and backdooring on Yi. | ||
|
anmolsinghmzn2009
India1783 Posts
On April 14 2012 21:54 Slayer91 wrote: That's a bit like saying if you're not a very fast runner you should just walk a lot until you are. In ranked at least everyones trying to win and it's probably a higher skill level (teammates feeding just means the other team is better) which means you get real practice. And it completely depends on your definition of competent. Most people who can "only play 1 champ" could play at like 1800 level with like 40 champs and still carry easily. If you want to improve in my opinion you should only played ranked as soon as you hit 30. It's a competitive environment and if you get flamed a lot it's a learning experience because there's usually some truth in a guy flaming you. Usually you both failed in some way or another. There's losing wrong with being bad and playing ranked if you're low elo so what. People seem to take ranked play so seriously but the way to improve is to play to improve not to play to win elo. The best way to improve is playing against the best players you can in a game where are players are trying to win and not randomly trolling around. I'm not saying be really good with all those 15 or so champions. That's stupid. But there are plenty people who like only played 2-3 champions till they hit 30 and then start playing ranked. You should've played 3-4 champions of each role a few times and should have 2-3 champions in two of your preferred roles that you are comfortable with. That's really not asking much. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
I mean, I played ranked when I had only played 2-3 champions mostly I don't see what the problem is. People seem to hold these high standards for ranked and I have no idea why. I mean, I'm not saying you SHOULDNT play more than 3 champions ever but you guys are the ones with artifical standards and I don't know why. My advice would be just to do what you want and have fun, I don't see why you guys put in all these pre-requistites. | ||
|
MooMooMugi
United States10531 Posts
On April 14 2012 22:43 Slayer91 wrote: I went instantly into ranked as soon as I hit level 30 and I almost only played annie (first champ I bought) to get there and I improved a lot over all. Just because ranked is competitive running to you doesn't it has to be. To me ranked is just like ladder in sc2. Competitive running would for me would be ranked 5's with an arranged team and playing go4lols etc. I wouldnt advise doing it unless you're at least a 2k player in solo queue (which would be practicing on your own). And nobody taught me to use analogies wtf lol. It's just a way of transmitting the way I view it and obviously since you seem to think ranked is srs buisness you don't see the comparision. Like I don't even see your argument. If you want to play all the roles a lot in normals before going to ranked sure. But saying you SHOULD do this. Why should you? Will you improve more in normals then in ranked? I don't think so. Will you lose ranked games more if you don't play 1k normals before starting ranked at the same elo? Sure you will, but there's nothing wrong with losing. Why should there be? Nobodies going to come back crying because they lost a lot of ranked games because they didn't practice enough before. It's just a good way to improve since people actually care about winning so you don't have to deal with some guy building 5 zeals and backdooring on Yi. Your argument is that: The quicker you jump into ranked, the quicker you learn, even if you only know one champion or one single role. Sadly the reality is, if you are a fresh level 30 player and you wanted to start ranked, you have an EXTREMELY high chance of getting stuck in "elo hell" more specifically the <1000 elo range or lower without optimal practice in normal games. You might ask: So what? If you start in the sub 1000 ELO range you just spam games, get better and eventually rise. If that wasn't easier said than done we would stop seeing so many people despaired because they can't get over this hurdle which they could've prevented by practicing in normals in the first place. I have to agree with Craton here, especially in elo hell, if you only know one champion/role, amongst all the trolls/griefers, its going to be desperately hard for you to gain ELO because you're so narrow minded. To put it in perspective, I myself was in "elo hell" in season 1, I only played about 100 ranked games yes but I was seriously discouraged from playing ranked because I only knew how to play a select few champions like Leblanc or Xin Zhao. I only resumed in season 2 because of the fresh start and after spamming hundreds of games in normals practicing other roles, jungle specifically(which I have to credit for most of my ELO climbing) to get to where I am today. And the 1 champion per role thing? You want to diversify your champion pool, say for top lane, because 9/10 if you see a champion that is easily counter-picked you want to be able to play champions that can shut them down or if you're being the one counter-picked you want to have the possibility of switching champions with another player. This is even more so as you go deeper and deeper in the ELO bracket. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
If you played hundreds of games in the mindset of practice to "get out of elo hell" then that's great. The reason you got out was because you played hundreds of games with the mindset of improving. But you should have this mindset going into ranked. The problem is you didn't want to play ranked because you were playing only to win elo and didn't use your games in the practice mindset. I think when I first started playing ranked I jumped to near 1400 but when I started queueing with the mindset that I wanted to get 1400 I started losing and it wasn't until 1270 I started to not give a fuck about winning and just picked some champ to practice and effortlessly rose in elo while doingthat. And most of what I know about top lane came from a foundation of picking Nasus all the time and everyone taking their best shot to shut me down or counter me. Once you learn how to play passive it means that you have most of the skill required to play top lane because there's always going to be periods where you can't trade with this guy or the jungler could gank you and playing when you're countered means you can play normal top lanes knowing what to do if you fall behind or are behind for a period of time or are getting ganked a lot. Getting counterpicked is great practice I guess counterpicking is too but it gives you an easier time against bad players although it's good for practicing against junglers who are trying to gank you a lot. | ||
| ||
