EPTOn January 11 2013 13:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Unless its something like leesin that's not something explicitly designed with "assassin" in mind, assassin effectiveness is basically op if instagib weak if not, without utility there's no logical way of balancing something whose main use is 100-0
This talk about ad carries being unfun, did you miss all the balance patches during the second half of s2?
Cool and unique concepts are often inherently "unfun" as defined by riot and tend to get the nerf treatment from riot as soon as it becomes popular instead of them unnecessarily raisin the skill requirement of the game for casuals needing to think about specific champs instead of just the roles
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2013 13:32 Alaric wrote:
I like Talon. I find it fun to use his combo, and kill somebody.
What I like the most is, when played mid and especially against a long-ranged mage, the feeling of outplaying when you finally get in E range and you get to unload your combo on him while he can't just cc you and walk away, or Flash. Because you silenced him.
+ Show Spoiler [Rest of old/new rant] +
TL;DR: I have already pointed it out a lot, but it has more to do with power creep and kits' issues than with assassins in general.
"Old school" assassins need some time to kill you (Pantheon, Akali, Talon, pre-rework Katarina who was more reliant on her ult so had to get at least 2 seconds out of it to get a solo kill), and often rely on multiple gap closer or cc to keep you from escaping by yourself, giving them the edge in 1v1s but making them weaker in teamfights where you can get help.
Newers ones (Rengar, Zed, Kha'Zix, Eve) can burst you down much faster (admittedly thanks to stealth removing the awareness and gap closing aspects, for some) and have better sustained damage, so they're both stronger and less opened to counterplay.
I don't really like it (and I don't really like them either, for the most part), but I see this as a problem inherent to the design process of champions, rather than an assassin problem in general.
They did it for AP mages, right.
Did they have to do it, though?
Was it the right thing to do, or even a right thing to do?
Do we have to take the exact same approach to assassin'?
If you give utility to assassins' and lower their damage, then they aren't assassins anymore, anyway.
I want the game to keep assassins. And I want them to be somewhat viable. It makes for diversity, gives more archetypes to play with, hell, AD caster is dubious from a design standpoint but they went for it because it was "cooler" than having Pantheon or Talon be AP casters, and they'll certainly have other ideas for "cool" assassin archetypes so they'll want them in the game (which isn't a good thing per see, I just mean that even Riot has interest in keeping the role in the game).
Imagine if we could kill bruisers without AD carries. Then AD carries would be "unfun" because they'd be so much less fair, those slippery ranged characters with OP damage that can kill everything in the game under 5 seconds. Should we remove them too?
On January 11 2013 12:58 Kupon3ss wrote:
The difference between am and an assassin is that am can't randomly instagib a hero whenever it wants
The main problem is that assassins are inherently Antifun in a game that needs to appeal to casuals. When there are champs that as a principle just randomly walks up to you and instagibs you without any danger to themselves while continuously scaling to be constantly able to do so, people are going to complain
The difference between am and an assassin is that am can't randomly instagib a hero whenever it wants
The main problem is that assassins are inherently Antifun in a game that needs to appeal to casuals. When there are champs that as a principle just randomly walks up to you and instagibs you without any danger to themselves while continuously scaling to be constantly able to do so, people are going to complain
I like Talon. I find it fun to use his combo, and kill somebody.
What I like the most is, when played mid and especially against a long-ranged mage, the feeling of outplaying when you finally get in E range and you get to unload your combo on him while he can't just cc you and walk away, or Flash. Because you silenced him.
+ Show Spoiler [Rest of old/new rant] +
Pantheon wouldn't get his whole HSS on a fleeing enemy if he didn't stun said enemy first.
Imagine Jax Leap Striking on a target without using Counterstrike first. Woops, Caitlyn used her net and now you're all sad and you can't hit her. The same would happen to Talon if he had no silence on his E. He wouldn't get his combo off.
On the other hand, he doesn't kill you in the blink of an eye. There is a slight wind down on his E. W has a travel time and has to come back. Same with his ult, even moreso if you want to use it to escape and so don't trigger the second part right away.
There is counterplay because during this time, you can use all kind of stuff to interrupt him. I had a great game where I would loath Cho'Gath (because fuck Cho'Gath really, I find he makes games really boring but whatever) who is sitting in front of his team. So I would try to flank them and jump on Draven after the teamfight was engaged by one side. At the start it worked well, but after 3 fights Lulu started sitting close to him, and she'd ult him, or polymorphs me during my combo.
Draven gets to live! But it also means his team has to fight 3v4 while he defends against me with Lulu.
I get to kill Draven 1v1. Doing my assassin's job. But in situations of bigger fights, I'm not as useful. I am exposed to counterplay. I don't "randomly instagib a champion whenever I want", I don't "randomly walks up to you and instagib you without any danger to myself".
Imagine Jax Leap Striking on a target without using Counterstrike first. Woops, Caitlyn used her net and now you're all sad and you can't hit her. The same would happen to Talon if he had no silence on his E. He wouldn't get his combo off.
On the other hand, he doesn't kill you in the blink of an eye. There is a slight wind down on his E. W has a travel time and has to come back. Same with his ult, even moreso if you want to use it to escape and so don't trigger the second part right away.
There is counterplay because during this time, you can use all kind of stuff to interrupt him. I had a great game where I would loath Cho'Gath (because fuck Cho'Gath really, I find he makes games really boring but whatever) who is sitting in front of his team. So I would try to flank them and jump on Draven after the teamfight was engaged by one side. At the start it worked well, but after 3 fights Lulu started sitting close to him, and she'd ult him, or polymorphs me during my combo.
Draven gets to live! But it also means his team has to fight 3v4 while he defends against me with Lulu.
I get to kill Draven 1v1. Doing my assassin's job. But in situations of bigger fights, I'm not as useful. I am exposed to counterplay. I don't "randomly instagib a champion whenever I want", I don't "randomly walks up to you and instagib you without any danger to myself".
TL;DR: I have already pointed it out a lot, but it has more to do with power creep and kits' issues than with assassins in general.
"Old school" assassins need some time to kill you (Pantheon, Akali, Talon, pre-rework Katarina who was more reliant on her ult so had to get at least 2 seconds out of it to get a solo kill), and often rely on multiple gap closer or cc to keep you from escaping by yourself, giving them the edge in 1v1s but making them weaker in teamfights where you can get help.
Newers ones (Rengar, Zed, Kha'Zix, Eve) can burst you down much faster (admittedly thanks to stealth removing the awareness and gap closing aspects, for some) and have better sustained damage, so they're both stronger and less opened to counterplay.
I don't really like it (and I don't really like them either, for the most part), but I see this as a problem inherent to the design process of champions, rather than an assassin problem in general.
On January 11 2013 13:08 cLutZ wrote:
Then why not just do the same for AD Assassins?
Isn't that what I have been arguing for all along?
On January 11 2013 12:59 Alaric wrote:
Oh please I asked you to stop with the goddamn Antimage thing. Antimage is a mix of Jax/Olaf's survivablity with Vayne's damage output and Katarina/Akali's (assuming they get resets). The guy is designed to 1v5 once farmed! Will your assassin do that? Nope. Sure, if his team helps him survive, deals damage so he just has to clean-up, etc. he'll do it. But if he gets focused, he'll die. Or GTFO at low health without damaging anyone apart from his original target.
+ Show Spoiler [non-concise example] +
TL;DR: I wish I had recorded a replay, because bruta-BT-warmogs Zed was a first and I'm really curious to know how it fared when trying to dive Ezreal, pre and post GA.
Also when Zed killed through peels and lived, he had invested more than half his money in defensive itemization. That's almost bruiser more than assassin here.
+ Show Spoiler [Passive mids example] +
TL;DR: Passive mids didn't fit s2 competitive meta (sorry Jiji). If we say "squishy ranged carries aren't popular in this meta because they blow up too easily", it's the same. You can blame assassins for being able to kill glass-cannon, I can blame squishies for not fitting the meta. Do you blame Malzahar because his roaming is vulnerable or do you blame Ahri because she ambushes and kills him?
If AD carries have to be tankier (without going BT->warmogs->randuin's I mean, of course that'd be a concern), how is it a problem?
Of course the full glass-cannon build doesn't work as well anymore. But then, if your carries build boots/BT/PD/LW/GA/warmogs they're still the pinacle of dps. They're still kings at killing towers (shush Nidalee and Jayce). It's just that the pinacle of dps has lowered. It doesn't make AD carries non-viable, though. And they still truck bruisers for 200+ dps while being ranged.
You know, it's been awhile since AP carries don't 100-0 stuff anymore, past midgame. Burst mages with such potential have been nerfed (hi Gragas, hey Eve). Did we say "oh AP carries can't burst down targets anymore, they're useless and non-viable"? Nop. Meta evolved. We moved toward sustained damage, we moved toward utility, we moved toward map pressure. But we moved away from full damage. We adapted.
On January 11 2013 12:01 cLutZ wrote:
1. Counter an assassin with an assassin? Joke right?
2. Splitpush: Depending on who you run, the assassin will be either able to slaughter the SP-er or slaughter your carry in a 5v4.
3. Jax is a fine plan, but there are not many characters that can duplicate Jax.
4. You can't Run Karthus because he will just die to the assassin. Both in lane and in teamfights.
5. Passive mids aren't played much atm because they will just get Assassinated in the river.
6. Poppy and Nasus are champs that have issues, not an entire group of characters.
On January 11 2013 11:24 Alaric wrote:
If the other team has an assassin, they you can run an assassin too. If the other team has an assassin... you can splitpush or poke comp and refuse to let him get a chance to fight! If the other team has an assassin, you can focus on assassinating him.
You can use super duelists like Jax that can't be assassinated and let him deal with the enemy bruisers. You can run Karhus and melt entire teams.
You can run Trundle just to fuck up people because he replaces any LW or BC you could need when the enemy team only has one guy relying on resistances to bolster his EHP, and send Elise destroy those HP bags.
You're saying "it's bad because AD carries aren't viable". But before that, it was assassins who weren't viable, you said it yourself.
Also passive mids (except Karthus) aren't viable (or at least not popular) at the competitive level because you need pressure and map presence.
Stuff like Poppy? Nasus? Veigar? Too farm reliant! Not enough roaming capabilities! etc. etc.
I don't see a problem with AD not being as good (they're still viable with only 3 damage items really). Diversity, yay!
If the other team has an assassin, they you can run an assassin too. If the other team has an assassin... you can splitpush or poke comp and refuse to let him get a chance to fight! If the other team has an assassin, you can focus on assassinating him.
You can use super duelists like Jax that can't be assassinated and let him deal with the enemy bruisers. You can run Karhus and melt entire teams.
You can run Trundle just to fuck up people because he replaces any LW or BC you could need when the enemy team only has one guy relying on resistances to bolster his EHP, and send Elise destroy those HP bags.
You're saying "it's bad because AD carries aren't viable". But before that, it was assassins who weren't viable, you said it yourself.
Also passive mids (except Karthus) aren't viable (or at least not popular) at the competitive level because you need pressure and map presence.
Stuff like Poppy? Nasus? Veigar? Too farm reliant! Not enough roaming capabilities! etc. etc.
I don't see a problem with AD not being as good (they're still viable with only 3 damage items really). Diversity, yay!
1. Counter an assassin with an assassin? Joke right?
2. Splitpush: Depending on who you run, the assassin will be either able to slaughter the SP-er or slaughter your carry in a 5v4.
3. Jax is a fine plan, but there are not many characters that can duplicate Jax.
4. You can't Run Karthus because he will just die to the assassin. Both in lane and in teamfights.
5. Passive mids aren't played much atm because they will just get Assassinated in the river.
6. Poppy and Nasus are champs that have issues, not an entire group of characters.
Oh please I asked you to stop with the goddamn Antimage thing. Antimage is a mix of Jax/Olaf's survivablity with Vayne's damage output and Katarina/Akali's (assuming they get resets). The guy is designed to 1v5 once farmed! Will your assassin do that? Nope. Sure, if his team helps him survive, deals damage so he just has to clean-up, etc. he'll do it. But if he gets focused, he'll die. Or GTFO at low health without damaging anyone apart from his original target.
+ Show Spoiler [non-concise example] +
I just finished a game where a bruta-BT-warmogs Zed killed our Ezreal several times. Why? Well, for one, noone peeled for Ez (I'd have done it but as Irelia there's stuff I do better than help killing a warmogs wearing dude), and moreover Ez didn't build anything defensive until his GA. I don't know if he managed to survive when that happened, Zed killed him several times but apparently he needed more than his combo (which means "hey, if we cc this guy Ez will survive and lifesteal back to healthiness", and he'll even end up healthier if we cc during the combo). So if Ez had randuin's instead of GA, or warmogs? Ez would have survived. Dueled I don't know, but definitely survived.
When Zed killed him through our peels, he had invested almost 3k (about 40% of his money at the time) in that warmogs. Ez hadn't invested anything into defensive itemis. Then Zed bought GA.
(I'll admit that I was surprised to see Zed with 315 AD from just bruta, BT, masteries and quints.)
I was playing Irelia (you can check lolking on Armoric, fucking tanky build since AP Nid was fed as hell and they'd focus me most of the time, 2 to 3 damage dealers and Nami's cc), I killed most of them 1v1 at one point or the other but when they focused me in teamfights they'd kill me. Often without me killing my target. Was fine. We won several fights because I'd occupy 2 of them and Ezreal would survive either through peeling or GA active; had Ezreal built warmogs (or even a belt instead of BF after his GA) he could even have survived Zed's combo reliably while their glass-cannon champs would be zoned because too low from me, and Zed dead. We proceed to win the 4v3.
When Zed killed him through our peels, he had invested almost 3k (about 40% of his money at the time) in that warmogs. Ez hadn't invested anything into defensive itemis. Then Zed bought GA.
(I'll admit that I was surprised to see Zed with 315 AD from just bruta, BT, masteries and quints.)
I was playing Irelia (you can check lolking on Armoric, fucking tanky build since AP Nid was fed as hell and they'd focus me most of the time, 2 to 3 damage dealers and Nami's cc), I killed most of them 1v1 at one point or the other but when they focused me in teamfights they'd kill me. Often without me killing my target. Was fine. We won several fights because I'd occupy 2 of them and Ezreal would survive either through peeling or GA active; had Ezreal built warmogs (or even a belt instead of BF after his GA) he could even have survived Zed's combo reliably while their glass-cannon champs would be zoned because too low from me, and Zed dead. We proceed to win the 4v3.
TL;DR: I wish I had recorded a replay, because bruta-BT-warmogs Zed was a first and I'm really curious to know how it fared when trying to dive Ezreal, pre and post GA.
Also when Zed killed through peels and lived, he had invested more than half his money in defensive itemization. That's almost bruiser more than assassin here.
+ Show Spoiler [Passive mids example] +
Karthus can lane without fighting an assassin. You can accomodate picks around that (hell, people lane swapped just to give a safe laning phase to Vayne or Kog).
About passive mids getting assassinated in the river, well, 3 things:
- they're passive because they don't go in the river, be it for invades or for roaming, anyway.
- if they went, even in s2, they would get ambushed by champs like Annie or Ahri, so they'd die all the same, and it wouldn't be "assassinated".
- if an assassin can 100-0 somebody, even a popular roaming mid like Ahri or Diana would get assassinated in the river then.
Put assassins out of the picture. Passive mids aren't loved currently because the meta makes them weak at the competitive level. They don't have what is currently required (map presence, potential for pressure). It's not a particular example, it doesn't have to do with other roles specifically. If we say "squishy ranged carries aren't popular in this meta because they blow up too easily", it's the same.
About passive mids getting assassinated in the river, well, 3 things:
- they're passive because they don't go in the river, be it for invades or for roaming, anyway.
- if they went, even in s2, they would get ambushed by champs like Annie or Ahri, so they'd die all the same, and it wouldn't be "assassinated".
- if an assassin can 100-0 somebody, even a popular roaming mid like Ahri or Diana would get assassinated in the river then.
Put assassins out of the picture. Passive mids aren't loved currently because the meta makes them weak at the competitive level. They don't have what is currently required (map presence, potential for pressure). It's not a particular example, it doesn't have to do with other roles specifically. If we say "squishy ranged carries aren't popular in this meta because they blow up too easily", it's the same.
TL;DR: Passive mids didn't fit s2 competitive meta (sorry Jiji). If we say "squishy ranged carries aren't popular in this meta because they blow up too easily", it's the same. You can blame assassins for being able to kill glass-cannon, I can blame squishies for not fitting the meta. Do you blame Malzahar because his roaming is vulnerable or do you blame Ahri because she ambushes and kills him?
If AD carries have to be tankier (without going BT->warmogs->randuin's I mean, of course that'd be a concern), how is it a problem?
Of course the full glass-cannon build doesn't work as well anymore. But then, if your carries build boots/BT/PD/LW/GA/warmogs they're still the pinacle of dps. They're still kings at killing towers (shush Nidalee and Jayce). It's just that the pinacle of dps has lowered. It doesn't make AD carries non-viable, though. And they still truck bruisers for 200+ dps while being ranged.
You know, it's been awhile since AP carries don't 100-0 stuff anymore, past midgame. Burst mages with such potential have been nerfed (hi Gragas, hey Eve). Did we say "oh AP carries can't burst down targets anymore, they're useless and non-viable"? Nop. Meta evolved. We moved toward sustained damage, we moved toward utility, we moved toward map pressure. But we moved away from full damage. We adapted.
Then why not just do the same for AD Assassins?
Isn't that what I have been arguing for all along?
They did it for AP mages, right.
Did they have to do it, though?
Was it the right thing to do, or even a right thing to do?
Do we have to take the exact same approach to assassin'?
If you give utility to assassins' and lower their damage, then they aren't assassins anymore, anyway.
I want the game to keep assassins. And I want them to be somewhat viable. It makes for diversity, gives more archetypes to play with, hell, AD caster is dubious from a design standpoint but they went for it because it was "cooler" than having Pantheon or Talon be AP casters, and they'll certainly have other ideas for "cool" assassin archetypes so they'll want them in the game (which isn't a good thing per see, I just mean that even Riot has interest in keeping the role in the game).
Imagine if we could kill bruisers without AD carries. Then AD carries would be "unfun" because they'd be so much less fair, those slippery ranged characters with OP damage that can kill everything in the game under 5 seconds. Should we remove them too?
Unless its something like leesin that's not something explicitly designed with "assassin" in mind, assassin effectiveness is basically op if instagib weak if not, without utility there's no logical way of balancing something whose main use is 100-0
This talk about ad carries being unfun, did you miss all the balance patches during the second half of s2?
Cool and unique concepts are often inherently "unfun" as defined by riot and tend to get the nerf treatment from riot as soon as it becomes popular instead of them unnecessarily raisin the skill requirement of the game for casuals needing to think about specific champs instead of just the roles
I just woke up, and my mind is already blown away. Your points are all very strong and it's obvious you understand this game. Why aren't you posting more?
One thing you forgot when talking about melee carries, though, that there is no Vanguard, Manta style and most importantly BKB in league, so even if Yi had AM's or Void's farm, he still wouldn't be able to carry as hard. Their abilities are also much more suited for it, Yi has pretty much a useless Q and mediocre W. Void has a 40% (i think it was 40% at max?) chance to backtrack any damage, 40% to stun, a blink that makes him invulnerable, and an ultimate that stops time for everyone besides Void inside. AM, similarly, has a 40% magic reduction, and a 4 second cooldown blink. These are kits made for hard carrying in mind. Yi has 2 useless skills, none of which help him survive when attacking. PL has many clones dealing ridiculous damage and stealth, etc. I feel that melee carries in league could potentially exist, if only riot designed them for it.
