|
Yeah, but they've said they hate doing it, which means it's going to take ages for it to actually get implemented, if at all. And this is still only fixing a part of a larger problem of champs like Anivia who are basically impossible to push against in most scenarios.
On July 25 2012 07:16 Slusher wrote:
I think smite steal as it is currently is good for the game, although if smite did say ~250 more damage at 18 it would make those barons with a 6 item ad on your team less of a crapshoot.
Happens more often that it's just a smite-off than any real measure of skill when it comes to grabbing a baron. It's kind of annoying, but I don't see a better way of doing it, either.
|
On July 25 2012 07:42 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 07:29 Craton wrote:
Much of the time it's not just that you have good wave clearing but that you have ways to pinch the team apart or gib anything but a tank that comes close. Generally if you have long range clears you also have the latter.
You could almost certainly lower the damage dealt to minions by a lot of AoE abilities to balance these situations, but it's extremely unlikely that Riot will do this because they have a phobia of making abilities do different things to minions and champions. You can find an old quote to that effect somewhere. They do it a fair amount though. Rumble, Garen, Hecarim, Pantheon off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.
Hm, a honorary mention to Kog's ult, since "bonus damage to champions" is basically the same damn thing.
Only others I can think of right now are bonus-dmg caps àla Vayne W, etcs
|
|
|
to be fair, 2_D, you are crazy, but this guy far more so. seriously, towers not attacking champions? whatever you were smoking, i want it.
|
On July 25 2012 07:16 Slusher wrote:
I think smite steal as it is currently is good for the game, although if smite did say ~250 more damage at 18 it would make those barons with a 6 item ad on your team less of a crapshoot.
what's good about games being decided by a combination of luck and something that doesn't actually have to do with your skill at the game?
On July 25 2012 07:25 Goshawk. wrote:
Serious? So if you are ahead and get baron you just auto win? People turtling with strong wave clears isn't a problem with baron it's a problem with the game.
i never said it was a problem with baron, it's a problem with the game that this change to baron would fix. is baron not part of the game?
On July 25 2012 07:29 Craton wrote:
Much of the time it's not just that you have good wave clearing but that you have ways to pinch the team apart or gib anything but a tank that comes close. Generally if you have long range clears you also have the latter.
You could almost certainly lower the damage dealt to minions by a lot of AoE abilities to balance these situations, but it's extremely unlikely that Riot will do this because they have a phobia of making abilities do different things to minions and champions. You can find an old quote to that effect somewhere.
concept still applies, tower would still be much easier to push if it didn't attack you and you didn't have to wait for creep waves
On July 25 2012 07:27 r.Evo wrote:
The last thing we need is baron being even more stronger. Back to the drawing board it is. =P
why? there are no other objectives that make it easier to push towers. this way fights can actually be forced as apposed to endless turtling.
if you're talking about the strength of baron himself (not what you gain from doing it) it doesn't even have to be buffed, making it so the buff would only affect inhib towers would prevent early baron from being op in the same way
edit: also if there's something so insanely wrong with towers not hitting champions it could just drastically reduce the damage towers do the champs so you can dive without your team getting kited under tower and killed.
|
LoL version of Necrobook pls.
tanking towers npnp
|
On July 25 2012 07:44 Craton wrote:Yeah, but they've said they hate doing it, which means it's going to take ages for it to actually get implemented, if at all. And this is still only fixing a part of a larger problem of champs like Anivia who are basically impossible to push against in most scenarios. Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 07:16 Slusher wrote:
I think smite steal as it is currently is good for the game, although if smite did say ~250 more damage at 18 it would make those barons with a 6 item ad on your team less of a crapshoot. Happens more often that it's just a smite-off than any real measure of skill when it comes to grabbing a baron. It's kind of annoying, but I don't see a better way of doing it, either.
Smite: VS baron, the damages scales based on %HP damage your team has dealt to baron, from 80-800 capping once your team has dealt 50% of Baron Nashor's health.
A team that is currently attacking baron and has dealt 90% of barons health in damage should not be at risk for losing a crucial buff,an instant 3000 gold swing, and probably several more map objectives. Enemy jungler smite should be impotent vs baron if their team has done no damage.
Any counter arguments to this kind of change? Dragon smite steals are fun. Baron smite steals are 50/50 coin tosses often deciding games.
|
On July 25 2012 07:56 Xevious wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 07:16 Slusher wrote:
I think smite steal as it is currently is good for the game, although if smite did say ~250 more damage at 18 it would make those barons with a 6 item ad on your team less of a crapshoot. what's good about games being decided by a combination of luck and something that doesn't actually have to do with your skill at the game?
TOO is one of the best smite stealers in the game. Pretty sure it's not just luck...
|
On July 25 2012 07:59 ItsFunToLose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 07:44 Craton wrote:Yeah, but they've said they hate doing it, which means it's going to take ages for it to actually get implemented, if at all. And this is still only fixing a part of a larger problem of champs like Anivia who are basically impossible to push against in most scenarios. On July 25 2012 07:16 Slusher wrote:
I think smite steal as it is currently is good for the game, although if smite did say ~250 more damage at 18 it would make those barons with a 6 item ad on your team less of a crapshoot. Happens more often that it's just a smite-off than any real measure of skill when it comes to grabbing a baron. It's kind of annoying, but I don't see a better way of doing it, either. Smite: VS baron, the damages scales based on %HP damage your team has dealt to baron, from 80-800 capping once your team has dealt 50% of Baron Nashor's health. A team that is currently attacking baron and has dealt 90% of barons health in damage should not be at risk for losing a crucial buff,an instant 3000 gold swing, and probably several more map objectives. Enemy jungler smite should be impotent vs baron if their team has done no damage.
yes
although the damage should cap higher since some abilities late game do more damage than smite + late game ad carry right clicks and wriggles fucks it up too
|
On July 25 2012 08:03 Xevious wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 07:59 ItsFunToLose wrote:On July 25 2012 07:44 Craton wrote:Yeah, but they've said they hate doing it, which means it's going to take ages for it to actually get implemented, if at all. And this is still only fixing a part of a larger problem of champs like Anivia who are basically impossible to push against in most scenarios. On July 25 2012 07:16 Slusher wrote:
I think smite steal as it is currently is good for the game, although if smite did say ~250 more damage at 18 it would make those barons with a 6 item ad on your team less of a crapshoot. Happens more often that it's just a smite-off than any real measure of skill when it comes to grabbing a baron. It's kind of annoying, but I don't see a better way of doing it, either. Smite: VS baron, the damages scales based on %HP damage your team has dealt to baron, from 80-800 capping once your team has dealt 50% of Baron Nashor's health. A team that is currently attacking baron and has dealt 90% of barons health in damage should not be at risk for losing a crucial buff,an instant 3000 gold swing, and probably several more map objectives. Enemy jungler smite should be impotent vs baron if their team has done no damage. yes although the damage should cap higher since some abilities late game do more damage than smite + late game ad carry right clicks and wriggles fucks it up too
Wriggles no longer procs vs baron. Critical strikes do 1.5x damage to baron regardless of your current critical strike modifier. Solved.
|
I like smite stealing tbh. If a team is far ahead enough to do baron, then should be far ahead enough to do it convincingly, that means, being able to ward the entire baron region COMPLETELY, and able to fend off the enemy team, due to superior advantage. Anything short of that, is essentially a risk on the team trying to do baron, and the risk involves possibly losing baron due to a smite steal.
Not to mention, first baron's are usually the only way a team that was behind, can catch back up substantially. Most people here would probably agree, it's usually the 2nd consecutive Baron that usually puts the nail in the coffin
|
On July 25 2012 07:59 ItsFunToLose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 07:44 Craton wrote:Yeah, but they've said they hate doing it, which means it's going to take ages for it to actually get implemented, if at all. And this is still only fixing a part of a larger problem of champs like Anivia who are basically impossible to push against in most scenarios. On July 25 2012 07:16 Slusher wrote:
I think smite steal as it is currently is good for the game, although if smite did say ~250 more damage at 18 it would make those barons with a 6 item ad on your team less of a crapshoot. Happens more often that it's just a smite-off than any real measure of skill when it comes to grabbing a baron. It's kind of annoying, but I don't see a better way of doing it, either. Smite: VS baron, the damages scales based on %HP damage your team has dealt to baron, from 80-800 capping once your team has dealt 50% of Baron Nashor's health. A team that is currently attacking baron and has dealt 90% of barons health in damage should not be at risk for losing a crucial buff,an instant 3000 gold swing, and probably several more map objectives. Enemy jungler smite should be impotent vs baron if their team has done no damage. Any counter arguments to this kind of change? Dragon smite steals are fun. Baron smite steals are 50/50 coin tosses often deciding games.
It's poor design to give special cases to abilities, especially something as incredibly specific as "Do X-Y damage, but only to Z monster once it's below N% health, yada yada yada". Can you imagine the clusterfuck if you start doing that with more mobs ("but it's not faaaair that they can steal blue buff, it can decide the game for midlane!"), abilities, and whatnot? It's a bad precedent to set, and it's hellishly difficult to actually communicate within the game. (what would the tooltip look like?)
|
On July 25 2012 08:04 wei2coolman wrote:
I like smite stealing tbh. If a team is far ahead enough to do baron, then should be far ahead enough to do it convincingly, that means, being able to ward the entire baron region COMPLETELY, and able to fend off the enemy team, due to superior advantage. Anything short of that, is essentially a risk on the team trying to do baron, and the risk involves possibly losing baron due to a smite steal.
no amount of wards or the superior advantage is going to stop shyvana from ulting in and using smite
It's poor design to give special cases to abilities, especially something as incredibly specific as "Do X-Y damage, but only to Z monster once it's below N% health, yada yada yada". Can you imagine the clusterfuck if you start doing that with more mobs ("but it's not faaaair that they can steal blue buff, it can decide the game for midlane!"), abilities, and whatnot? It's a bad precedent to set, and it's hellishly difficult to actually communicate within the game. (what would the tooltip look like?)
having luck decide games is bad game design
i never said anything about other mobs, because other mobs have exponentially less effect on the outcome of the game (who exactly are you quoting/making fun of?)
there's plenty of subtle things that aren't explained on tooltips, it doesn't need to be. it's pretty clear anyway, team that does more damage has stronger smite.
Wriggles no longer procs vs baron. Critical strikes do 1.5x damage to baron regardless of your current critical strike modifier. Solved.
yeah except for everything else i said
|
On July 25 2012 08:04 wei2coolman wrote:
I like smite stealing tbh. If a team is far ahead enough to do baron, then should be far ahead enough to do it convincingly, that means, being able to ward the entire baron region COMPLETELY, and able to fend off the enemy team, due to superior advantage. Anything short of that, is essentially a risk on the team trying to do baron, and the risk involves possibly losing baron due to a smite steal.
The problem is when both teams are still neck and neck and its now 30 minutes into the game. No one can farm bottom lane, and both teams are forced to have a baron stand off. Forced. Baron is too easy to kill and gives too much of a reward; once the game hits the 25-30 minute mark, teams can take baron while the other is taking dragon. Its a global objective with too much pull.
I don't think smite steals are fun, cool, a demonstration of superior skill, or something I want to watch happen in a competitive e-sport. Flash smiting baron 1v5, even if its a suicide mission giving a kill and 4 assists, is a victory, and its not very difficult to do.
On July 25 2012 08:08 Node wrote:
It's poor design to give special cases to abilities, especially something as incredibly specific as "Do X-Y damage, but only to Z monster once it's below N% health, yada yada yada". Can you imagine the clusterfuck if you start doing that with more mobs ("but it's not faaaair that they can steal blue buff, it can decide the game for midlane!"), abilities, and whatnot? It's a bad precedent to set, and it's hellishly difficult to actually communicate within the game. (what would the tooltip look like?)
I'd argue its poor design not to.
Abiltiies with armor/mr shred components do not work vs baron/dragon. There was no clusterfuck. Its not a difficult concept for even the newest players to comprehend; Baron is special.
|
Maybe something like every ally within 400 range increases damage dealt by smite by something like 5-10 per level? Still a skill element involved, and makes the initial pull for a jungler minimally easier(one auto in best case scenario). Makes smite steals harder, but definitely not impossible.
|
If you seriously think there's no way to stop shyvanna from ulting into baron pit, and stopping her, you clearly don't ward baron right. it's pretty easy to ward the outer rim of baron, even this isn't hte issue. If you want to take baron COMPLETELY safely, then ace the enemy team, take baron. By leaving a shyvanna alive you're taking the risk, of a possible ulti+smite steal. If you engaged baron knowing full well enemy shyvanna still alive, that's the risk you take.
As far as standoffs as barons are concerned, that's not a baron problem, that's a team trying to take an advantage problem.
If you're team is equivalent to enemy team, and you try to risk baron. You're essentially do that, 'RISKING' baron. It's up to the teams to find a way to create an advantage to take baron, not to complain about how easy it is to kill.
|
On July 25 2012 08:17 wei2coolman wrote:
If you seriously think there's no way to stop shyvanna from ulting into baron pit, and stopping her, you clearly don't ward baron right. it's pretty easy to ward the outer rim of baron....
As far as standoffs as barons are concerned, that's not a baron problem, that's a team trying to take an advantage problem.
If you're team is equivalent to enemy team, and you try to risk baron. You're essentially do that, 'RISKING' baron. It's up to the teams to find a way to create an advantage to take baron, not to complain about how easy it is to kill.
My point is teams are not taking risks, they are forced to have a team fight at baron. It's too easy to kill and rewards way too much.
And the idea that its possible to stop shyvanna from ulting in tot he baron pit with wards is absurd.
You have to disengage, run around the pit, and drive her back.
|
What's wrong with forcing team fights at baron? it's the same as 3v3 skirmishes around reds/blues, and 5's in dragons.
Baron is suppose to be the key piece of a game.
There's only 2 ways to fix this, the way you want it to be done.
1) nerf buff to hell, so that it's okay for enemy team not to have baron (like clg's approach to dragon)
2) buff the shit out of baron, so that you can't take it unless you're at a massive advantage.
tbh both those moves would definitely make lol a lot more lame, unless there were counter objectives that are close to baron importance.
I've seen tsm bait enemy team to baron, then just rush their middle inhibitor, its happened quite a few times.
|
On July 25 2012 07:56 Xevious wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 07:27 r.Evo wrote:
The last thing we need is baron being even more stronger. Back to the drawing board it is. =P why? there are no other objectives that make it easier to push towers. this way fights can actually be forced as apposed to endless turtling. if you're talking about the strength of baron himself (not what you gain from doing it) it doesn't even have to be buffed, making it so the buff would only affect inhib towers would prevent early baron from being op in the same way edit: also if there's something so insanely wrong with towers not hitting champions it could just drastically reduce the damage towers do the champs so you can dive without your team getting kited under tower and killed.
Currently the entire point of League lategame is dancing around Baron and whoever gets that objective done properly wins the game. By the point you can get Baron towers aren't even a big problem anymore.
Dancing around a single objective playing "who kills wards" isn't fun to watch or fun to play, I'd rather see a weaker Baron buff or other measures to actually give the team which is behind a valid method of gaining control back of the game.
|
Just make it so you can't Smite while Stunned/Silenced/Airborne. The team with control of the pit will get the Buff 90% of the time (jungle Olafs aside).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
