EPTYou know professional football will die 100% if NFL pulls out and decides to do something else. That's why you shouldn't watch football and should watch soccer.
there is just this really weird veil of misinformation about lol in the dota community.
[Patch 1.0.0.145: Rengar] General Discussion - Page 104
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Sermokala
United States14094 Posts
You know professional football will die 100% if NFL pulls out and decides to do something else. That's why you shouldn't watch football and should watch soccer. there is just this really weird veil of misinformation about lol in the dota community. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:15 EquilasH wrote: The thing with those 2 champions are that they're also amazing for competitive play. Riven, however, shines the most in solo queue IMHO. How is Riven bad for competitive play? Nigh-ungankable, high damage, good teamfighting, hell, I bet she could run a 1v2 lane with her damage and mobility + shield. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On August 22 2012 23:56 Requizen wrote: It's dumb in both communities. While LoL has a much lower skill floor and is easier for new people to get into, the difference in the skill ceilings doesn't really matter. DotA is slightly mechanically harder and less forgiving, but in the end it's rarely mechanical skill that determines a win and more play/strategy that does. There are some exceptions (DL's amazing control, for instance, timing Smites, etc), but even the team with worse mechanics can win by a large margin via counterpicking, teamcomp, and map control. Like people complaining about SC2 being easier mechanically than BW, ~80% of victory comes from out-playing your opponent, not whether you have better micro than him. I don't really get why gaming communities are so obsessed with whether or not a game is more mechanically demanding or not. The reason I stopped playing SC2 within a few months isn't because I thought it was too mechancally easy compared to BW. I stopped playing it because it was really boring for me, and that's really the only big reason. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:21 koreasilver wrote: I don't really get why gaming communities are so obsessed with whether or not a game is more mechanically demanding or not. The reason I stopped playing SC2 within a few months isn't because I thought it was too mechancally easy compared to BW. I stopped playing it because it was really boring for me, and that's really the only big reason. It rhymes with "e-bleen" | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
barbsq
United States5348 Posts
edit: On August 23 2012 00:22 Ryuu314 wrote: I also doubt that most of the tourney/pro-scene money comes from Riot anymore. Sure, Riot still plays a huge role in funding it, but I highly doubt that they are the ones pumping in the vast majority of the cash. IMO, they're not very open about sponsorships if they get any, and that's where a lot of the whole LoL is only alive cause Riot feeds money stigma comes from. If Riot instead of repeating stuff like OMG 25 MILLION DOLLARS IN SEASON 3 and tells us more along the lines of 25 MILLION DOLLARS FROM COMPANIES X Y AND Z, then it'll be a lot harder for people to qq about Riot feeding LoL pro scene. afaik moonbear said that nestle and ford sponsored some LoL event not too long ago. Also, I don't really see any problem in not mentioning sponsors in what really amounts to a teaser trailer for S3. Don't have a background in marketing tho, so I don't really know anything about protocol for that type of stuff. | ||
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:16 Slayer91 wrote: Because we all know how amazing an item ghostblade is! That's why everyone buys it so much. If you want CDR you can buy kindlegems and shit. Ghostblade wastes money on a mix of stats that very few champions use well enough to justify it since most of the stats are scaling stats which bruisers can't afford to stack. The active is really good and it's saving grace I guess but you can be stunned out of it easily. On most bruisers Ghostblade is bad, yes, but i think on Rengar it's quite viable. Jump out of the bush, double-auto the opponent with your Q for a higher phage proc chance, activate ghostblade and trash the enemy. It even gives Rengar a choice for a GP10 item with the Avarice Blade since Philo is useless on him and the HoG is not really worth it anymore, though personally i don't know if that item is really worth it early on. Why would you build a Kindlegem on him? It doesn't build into anything he needs. Lastly, basically all other CDR items don't really have any stats he needs. | ||
|
thenexusp
United States3721 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:05 EquilasH wrote: I feel that AD carries are a much more toxic role than top laners, because of how they can almost take out an entire team by themselves if they're protected. A lot of his concerns are regarding the early game in top and the snowballing that's going on, which are warranted concerns, but I don't know how he'd ever fix those issues. In a lot of his posts he's also talking about how Riven's ult needs a longer cooldown, but I don't really agree with this approach since Riven is already sitting on 48%-49% winrate in solo queue most of the time anyways. There was actually an interesting post about how winrate and power weren't really well correlated. Having an MTG background helps. http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2498690 Edit: people get upset when an 'easier' game gets released and becomes more popular than the harder older game because it makes them feel that all the time they spent learning very specific skills to get a certain level of competency at the harder game was wasted. Man, the outrage around multiple-building-select and automine, seriously. Similar to the outrage in smash bros when it was found out that brawl wouldn't have wavedashing. | ||
|
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:07 Slayer91 wrote: I always thought riven was pretty OP but she relied on getting fed if she was going BT GA so maybe that's why her winrate isnt great. Maybe it has something to do with a lot of idiots playing her and going in first and getting bursted down because they think they're fed. | ||
|
VirgilSC2
United States6151 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:30 thenexusp wrote: There was actually an interesting post about how winrate and power weren't really well correlated. Having an MTG background helps. http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2498690 I really don't like that post as a major basis for his argument is that Ravager Affinity had sub 50% winrate because of a combination of the meta being Play RA or Counter RA, and mirror matchup. He fails to acknowledge that it's not a fitting comparison because of the lack of mirror matchups in Top Lane. | ||
|
thenexusp
United States3721 Posts
<warning potential pokemon sidetrack> metagames are actually pretty complicated systems though, and the effects of doing X or Y can be hard to predict. In gen IV pokemon, Garchomp was pretty overpowered: you either played him or had a specific counter for him. At some point he was banned, and it was only then that people realized that Salamence was also pretty overpowered but didn't seem that way since Garchomp was completely demolishing him (Garchomp has 2 more base speed than Salamence) - without Garchomp to hold Salamence back then Salamence became the new OP | ||
|
VirgilSC2
United States6151 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:42 thenexusp wrote: Yeah overpoweredness is pretty hard to measure on a whole. Personally I like to use the measure "A champion is overpowered if removing him from the game would increase champion selection diversity" <warning potential pokemon sidetrack> metagames are actually pretty complicated systems though, and the effects of doing X or Y can be hard to predict. In gen IV pokemon, Garchomp was pretty overpowered: you either played him or had a specific counter for him. At some point he was banned, and it was only then that people realized that Salamence was also pretty overpowered but didn't seem that way since Garchomp was completely demolishing him (Garchomp has 2 more base speed than Salamence) - without Garchomp to hold Salamence back then Salamence became the new OP Oh god Garchomp. Terrible Terrible Earthquake damage. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:30 thenexusp wrote: There was actually an interesting post about how winrate and power weren't really well correlated. Having an MTG background helps. http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2498690 Edit: people get upset when an 'easier' game gets released and becomes more popular than the harder older game because it makes them feel that all the time they spent learning very specific skills to get a certain level of competency at the harder game was wasted. Man, the outrage around multiple-building-select and automine, seriously. Similar to the outrage in smash bros when it was found out that brawl wouldn't have wavedashing. To be fair, Brawl introduced/removed a lot of things that made Melee such a good competitive game. (not just wavedashing) | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
I don't rightly know how one should focus on balancing champions in LoL, honestly. Champion strength fluctuates so much that aside from obvious ones, it's hard to pin down what is strong and what is weak. A new item being released can increase the power of a champion (Grail made every Swain I've played nightmarish), or even a new build being formulated. Champion strength changes based on level and comparative level, what the enemy is building, team composition. Hell, the same champ can be strong in one player's hands but shit in another's because they have different playstyles. I don't like that people are so quick to say "this champion is too strong, nerf plz" when there are so many mitigating factors that go into it. Obvious exceptions exist (release Xin, for example), but my point stands. On August 23 2012 00:47 jcarlsoniv wrote: To be fair, Brawl introduced/removed a lot of things that made Melee such a good competitive game. (not just wavedashing) TRIPPING. FUCK TRIPPING. | ||
|
barbsq
United States5348 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:36 VirgilSC2 wrote: I really don't like that post as a major basis for his argument is that Ravager Affinity had sub 50% winrate because of a combination of the meta being Play RA or Counter RA, and mirror matchup. He fails to acknowledge that it's not a fitting comparison because of the lack of mirror matchups in Top Lane. He does acknowledge it tho, he specifically says the top lane situation isn't as bad as the RA situation. It's just a semi-relevant example of a situation where a deck can be universally considered broken, but still have less than 50% win rate. He's basically just saying that you can't judge the OP'ness of a champion on winrate alone. edit: i think the scariest thing about redoing top is the unknown factor and unintended consequences. The way it is now, I at least know how to play matchups, and can even do ok in some bad matchups (i actually think the majority of the playerbase overestimates counterpicking). Maybe there are a couple champs that could be a bit better tailored, but I don't think there needs to be any fundamental changes. Altho, that might just be because I rather enjoy playing fairly snowbally, lane domination type champs. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:16 Slayer91 wrote: Because we all know how amazing an item ghostblade is! That's why everyone buys it so much. If you want CDR you can buy kindlegems and shit. Ghostblade wastes money on a mix of stats that very few champions use well enough to justify it since most of the stats are scaling stats which bruisers can't afford to stack. The active is really good and it's saving grace I guess but you can be stunned out of it easily. Rengar is one of those champions that can make use of the stats. On August 23 2012 00:47 jcarlsoniv wrote: To be fair, Brawl introduced/removed a lot of things that made Melee such a good competitive game. (not just wavedashing) *trip* | ||
|
Deltablazy
Canada580 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:34 JackDino wrote: Maybe it has something to do with a lot of idiots playing her and going in first and getting bursted down because they think they're fed. Or maybe that she gets lv2 ganked (when she doesn't have her q + e and is vulnerable to ganks) and the kill goes to the enemy top laner, and suddenly riven can no longer win the lane because she requires to be played aggressively and she is weaker by 1 kill. I'm surprised how many guides list champs like Olaf and such as riven's counter. | ||
|
Chiharu Harukaze
12112 Posts
On August 23 2012 00:44 VirgilSC2 wrote: Oh god Garchomp. Terrible Terrible Earthquake damage. So happy when he finally got moved to Uber. Specmence is the real deal. Oh, and Dragonite. 'CAUSE WE'RE ALL ABOUT THE OD OF THE OG! | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
However, the other two items both have something to do with mana, which is awkward.... | ||
|
Chiharu Harukaze
12112 Posts
| ||
| ||
