Q mana cost increase.
Q hitbox/range decrease.
Q damage decreased in some form
Chained R's have a small GCD(0.5-0.75 seconds)
Forum Index > LoL General |
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
Q mana cost increase. Q hitbox/range decrease. Q damage decreased in some form Chained R's have a small GCD(0.5-0.75 seconds) | ||
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On August 18 2012 06:51 Requizen wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2012 06:46 Seuss wrote: On August 18 2012 06:07 Requizen wrote: On August 18 2012 05:42 Seuss wrote: On August 18 2012 05:13 Requizen wrote: On August 18 2012 05:05 Seuss wrote: On August 18 2012 04:47 Requizen wrote: On August 18 2012 04:44 Seuss wrote: On August 18 2012 04:41 arb wrote: On August 18 2012 04:37 Slayer91 wrote: So you play to win games rather than prove and improve your skill? Why not just play normals with 5 high elo guys and stomp? should we be playing to lose then? It's about priorities. If you play to win but don't learn anything you'll eventually get stuck. If you play to learn winning is a natural consequence of self-improvement. That's a chicken/egg argument. If you're playing to win, you're going to be playing at your best, which leads to improvement. So is it better to focus on winning (which leads to harder-to-win games and therefore improvement), or focus on improving (which increases the chance of victory)? It's not. There's nothing about playing your best which inherently leads to improvement. You can improve when playing your best, but that has nothing to do with how well you played and everything to do with ability to analyze the game objectively. Playing to win can, in fact, stymie growth by causing a chilling effect on your play. For example, many junglers aren't confident in their ability to directly counter-jungle. As a result the best way to win in the short term is to avoid that risk altogether. Long term the player is stuck until they can put winning aside and learn the skill that they've been avoiding because of the risk. Again, it's not a chicken and egg problem. It's about priorities. That's not entirely true. If I'm playing to win, I'm focusing as hard as I can on things that matter. I'm forcing myself to look at the minimap, to last hit correctly, to position myself in the right place - not because I'm actively attempting to improve myself in those aspects, but because doing them well actively leads to my victory. Eventually, they become habits that I don't have to focus on as much. I don't go into each game thinking "I have to get better at last hitting", I go in with the idea of "last hit as best as possible to win my lane", which eventually leads to becoming better at it in the long run naturally. But in that train of thought, improving and winning are naturally tied hand in hand, hence the chicken/egg argument. It's entirely true. Your skills improve when you focus on them, but when you play to win you focus on winning. Any improvement you experience with that mindset has nothing to do with you playing your best and everything to do with the fact that you focused on last-hitting/awareness/whatever for a few seconds or thought about what went right/wrong after the game was over. Whether you're playing your best or relaxing you get better at what you focus on. On August 18 2012 05:22 Requizen wrote: On August 18 2012 05:16 ZeromuS wrote: Not really. you can focus on last hitting and if its good then good you win the lane. But missing something on the minimap isnt the end of the game, its the next on the get better list. But you cant get better by doing everything at once. Right, and then I win that game, which raises my ELO, putting me against harder opponents. Then against those opponents, missing something on the minimap is the difference between Dragon and the enemy team getting it, so I force myself to focus on it, getting better because victory requires it. The next higher level, missing a tiny thing on the minimap is the difference between Baron and a loss, so I have to force myself to focus, etc. We're really saying the same thing, except I'm saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better to win more", while you're saying "I'm improving with the intention of getting better just to be better". Same difference. Edit: onus isn't the right word. You're not saying the same thing. You're saying, "I focus on winning in order to win and by winning improve." We're saying, "We focus on improving in order to improve and by improving win." Our argument is that the latter mindset is, in the long run, more effectual. Perhaps, but I'd argue that the former mindset is more rewarding. If, in the long run, both mindsets lead to both winning and improving (which you postulated), then the road to that point is either filled with more wins but less effective learning, or more effective learning but possibly less wins. At that point it stops being objective which is better. The hole in your argument is that focusing on winning only leads to more wins in the short term. Because you're only improving marginally, if at all, you very quickly hit a wall. You may be playing with better people than before, but because of your mindset and the fact that none of those people are particularly inclined (or necessarily informed enough) to critique your play in a constructive fashion you aren't actually getting all that much out of it. It's this mindset that leads to people getting stuck at an Elo wall, wondering why they can't climb any further. I'm only talking about solo queue here, not inhouses or playing normals with friends. When was the last time you finished a solo queue game and people stuck around in the after-game lobby to chit-chat about plays and improvements? Maybe it's just my ELow, but when I finish a game people either leave immediately or shit-talk/brag. If we're talking inhouses or other stuff, then that's another story. I'm obviously trying to improve if I'm playing a game that's not going to affect my ELO in any way (unless it's a bot game for silliness or whatever), but I don't view solo-queue ranked as my opportunity to focus on mechanics, I view it as a time to buckle down and win. The best practice for judo is judo, but there's no growth in the comfort zone, and no comfort in the growth zone. | ||
Bwaaaa
Australia969 Posts
| ||
Bwaaaa
Australia969 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:49 Amui wrote: After watching the blaze vs frost game, I think a few things are going to be tweaked about Diana. Q mana cost increase. Q hitbox/range decrease. Q damage decreased in some form Chained R's have a small GCD(0.5-0.75 seconds) You can't nerf q that much beacuse her whole kit is based on it. You can't r if you don't hit your q and you can't W because you don't want to r in without moonlight. | ||
zer0das
United States8519 Posts
| ||
![]()
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21243 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:49 Amui wrote: After watching the blaze vs frost game, I think a few things are going to be tweaked about Diana. Q mana cost increase. Q hitbox/range decrease. Q damage decreased in some form Chained R's have a small GCD(0.5-0.75 seconds) They need to decide what they want her to do, because they envisioned a jungler, but what they have is a tanky dps ap mid who can rival burst. they can either leave damage and nerf shield + take away mr/lvl (fucking lol, a mid with mr/lvl), or they can take away damage. | ||
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:49 Amui wrote: After watching the blaze vs frost game, I think a few things are going to be tweaked about Diana. Q mana cost increase. Q hitbox/range decrease. Q damage decreased in some form Chained R's have a small GCD(0.5-0.75 seconds) Reducing the hitbox a little is not a bad idea, introduces slightly more skill into what is basically a pubstomp champ at the moment. Q mana cost increase would be a big hit to her laning, but wouldn't affect her much in the jungle. Don't really see the point to the CD between ults. It's a conditional part of her burst, not really a change worth making. | ||
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
Alternatively, knock down her AP ratios, and she's more what they envisioned (keep the lower mana costs, make it less rewarding to stack ap on, wants to stick to targets with tanky builds rather than be a midlane highAP burst assassin) I am worried they will overnerf her, however. She's not hugely OP, she just needs some tweaks I think. | ||
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
| ||
Craton
United States17250 Posts
| ||
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On August 18 2012 07:53 NEOtheONE wrote: I found a google document with jungle clear times, but seeing as there are videos on youtube with faster times, I am a bit conflicted on how accurate the chart is. If we assume the chart allows for a practical gank after hitting 4 then it makes more sense. Jungle Clear Times Spreadsheet Edit: Diana has a 3:28 which I verified myself by achieving the same result with a slightly different setup of runes. The downside is that the route ends with blue leaving her oom for a few seconds. That spreadsheet is pretty bad. Skarner setup and path both bad, Jax path is very very strange too, rammus going back to wolves after wraiths is asinine, you gonna wait 15 seconds there or what? Not to mention reaching lvl4 asap is so old school, from my experience it's all about lvl 3 nowadays, because lvl 3 top ganks and counterganks are just so god damn powerful. Unless you wanna lvl 2 gank, lol. | ||
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On August 18 2012 09:54 TheKefka wrote: Jax is also pretty much the only top lane that I have ever seen in my life who can just come back solo from like going 0/3 to just flat out kill his lane with one item lol. Riven actually does that better than jax. | ||
![]()
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21243 Posts
On August 18 2012 15:02 sylverfyre wrote: Of those, I think Q mana cost is the most meaningful of the changes. The hitbox is about the same size as Galio Q, with an odd path leading into it - it's just as dodgeable as galio Q (very dodgeable at longer ranges, much harder to dodge point blank) and that feels like a good property for it to have. Alternatively, knock down her AP ratios, and she's more what they envisioned (keep the lower mana costs, make it less rewarding to stack ap on, wants to stick to targets with tanky builds rather than be a midlane highAP burst assassin) I am worried they will overnerf her, however. She's not hugely OP, she just needs some tweaks I think. They absolutely have to remove MR/lvl, or she's just gonna keep terrorizing mid lane tbh. Past a point, it just becomes impossible to trade with her MR + her shield, without even having to rune/itemize for it :| If not you're gonna end up with a mid lane version of Riven that's much more snowbally... | ||
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
On August 18 2012 10:24 Simberto wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2012 08:02 obesechicken13 wrote: On August 18 2012 07:53 NEOtheONE wrote: I found a google document with jungle clear times, but seeing as there are videos on youtube with faster times, I am a bit conflicted on how accurate the chart is. If we assume the chart allows for a practical gank after hitting 4 then it makes more sense. Jungle Clear Times Spreadsheet Edit: Diana has a 3:28 which I verified myself by achieving the same result with a slightly different setup of runes. The downside is that the route ends with blue leaving her oom for a few seconds. volibear's really slow considering that he gets a passive attack speed buff on his W. twitch's order is weird. WEW? Isn't W just a slow? No damage? Ok maybe two marks of poison for 24 aoe damage :/ As someone who has jungled volibear, i can say that he is indeed very slow. You got basically no AE, and yes, you get a passive attack speed buff, but punching every single wraith to death still takes a lot of time. His attackspeed buff is not even that overwhelming on lower ranks, too. It's still surprising. There are plenty of champions who rely mainly on auto attacks like lee sin and warwick and who have little AoE. That combined with his melee scaling, I expected him to do more consistent damage. | ||
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On August 18 2012 15:29 Craton wrote: Except she's a new champion so if you make the change now it affects very little. The longer you wait the worse it is. I don't see what hitboxes changes can solve that CD/dmg changes can't | ||
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 18 2012 16:04 Sufficiency wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2012 15:29 Craton wrote: Except she's a new champion so if you make the change now it affects very little. The longer you wait the worse it is. I don't see what hitboxes changes can solve that CD/dmg changes can't Well, it accomplishes the goal in a more skill-oriented way. Essentially, stops her from being a pubstomp champ (in theory), while potentially leaving her open as a competitive pick. Here is another potential example: Lets say Ez is too strong in certain games(again, in theory) because W is just crushing trades in lane. Of course, Riot could just nerf the damage or debuff it does to fix that. But maybe Ez is only too good from 1200-2000 ELO and not for the pros, and that change would break him for them. Maybe instead, you make it so that if W passes through a minion it loses some effectiveness (like the ult). That way, it stays strong, but you can't just faceroll through lane with it (in theory). | ||
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
From what I've seen, adding mana costs to Q (55+10/level or something, even ahri's Q is 70+5/level) to make it a spell that actually hurts diana to miss is a good start. As it is, with double dorans, she can use Q every time it's off cooldown and won't run oom in any meaningful amount of time. Most other mages with AoE clears have mana costs on the clear spell between 90-130 on the max rank of the skill they use to waveclear. Diana being able to both harass and clear wave without any regard to whether she has blue or not is stupid. I didn't even notice the MR/level before, I always thought it was just the shield that made her so tanky. It makes sense now why even if you shut her down early she scales so hard into midgame in lane, she's running a set of scaling MR runes for free. | ||
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On August 18 2012 16:26 Lmui wrote: I didn't even notice the MR/level before, I always thought it was just the shield that made her so tanky. It makes sense now why even if you shut her down early she scales so hard into midgame in lane, she's running a set of scaling MR runes for free. Most (or at least many) melee champs get free MR. That shouldn't be a huge concern. Obviously it still can be tweaked for balance. | ||
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On August 18 2012 16:33 spinesheath wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2012 16:26 Lmui wrote: I didn't even notice the MR/level before, I always thought it was just the shield that made her so tanky. It makes sense now why even if you shut her down early she scales so hard into midgame in lane, she's running a set of scaling MR runes for free. Most (or at least many) melee champs get free MR. That shouldn't be a huge concern. Obviously it still can be tweaked for balance. Gragas is the only melee AP without MR/Level. Diana, Rumble, and Fizz all get MR/Level. Diana scales so well late game because she's Akali with AoE skills, a superior defensive steroid, and actual team utility. No one should be particularly surprised that this turned out to be problematic. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH217 StarCraft: Brood War• davetesta45 • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv ![]() • Kozan • IndyKCrew ![]() • LaughNgamezSOOP • Migwel ![]() • sooper7s League of Legends |
Wardi Open
OSC
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
|
|