|
I'm one of those people that thinks that its best to learn a couple of champions and stick to them. I believe that you learn how to deal with "counters" and other unpleasant situations. Playing every champion once or twice doesn't really give the person in depth knowledge of what to do in any given situation. Where as experience with a select few would.
On January 23 2013 18:18 Aphasie wrote:
By the way, what do you (more experienced, mid-high ELO, etc) guys think about all-pick vs. draft pick when learning the game? All-pick certainly lets you churn out mores games. Ive tried to draft from time to time, but its so frustrating to have to go through 5 drafts and wait 15 mins for a game to start. However the matchups seem more balanced and more meaningful. More games vs. better games - whats the consensus?
Edit2: Some heros lets you learn things faster. I think ziggs, tf, panth for instance lets you get better global map-awareness cuz of their ults. Might be a good choice to learn heros that excels at some skills.
Personally, I find that being in draft is much better because you're able to prepare accordingly for your match up, changing runes/masteries appropriately. Better games should provide better practice and be more enjoyable really allowing you to play more games.
|
On January 23 2013 18:18 Aphasie wrote:
I take it youre new. I was new last october with no prior moba experience and for the most part Ive stayed in the jungle, playing various champs. It has been a fun time, but i can say it hasnt developed my last-hitting as much as I wanted to. Im now looking to expand more to mid and top (Ive played some heros in those lanes throughout).
Im no expert, but I think building up a stack of champions you like/intrigues you is the best way to go about it. Buy and play the champions you like. But when a new free rotation comes in, play the free heros that are interesting or you see very often in games. Just a handful of games with popular heros will let you deal with them much more easily, cuz youll know when they are weak/strong/what items they need/etc.
Some heros, like Trundle for instance, you "never" see and he doesnt interest me much, so i never considered playing him.
my 2 cents...
Well, i am not really new. I just had a brake from lol since May xD
I know every champion does up to Varus patch, and since i started again, i have learned most of the new ones as well. )I am asking more out of curiosity. )
But i have only 15 champions i bought from IP, and basic 2 rune pages 
Very interesting advice so far. And its as i would expect , do something in between. Have 2-3 champions for ~4roles you play.
Also, i was thinking that if you wanted to specialize in only one champion, it would be ideal if it was some versatile champ that can play 3+ roles...on top of my head, lee sin/nidalee/gragas/kennen/kayle/nunu....
|
Pick a lane you like.
Invest the rest of your IP on champs, runes, and pages for that lane.
solomid.net or mobafire your opponent before the 2 minute mark to figure out their skills.
Or
Pick a champ you like.
Get runes for him.
Play him in the top, mid and jungle (unless you pick an adc or pure support char)
Then pick a lane you like.
And finally, force yourself to go to other lanes in order to not be completely screwed over in ranked games if you're planning to go on the ladder.
|
As a new player I am kinda going through this I have been playing mainly ash alot and doing well but I also want to learn some other roles beside carry and different players and I can def see a drop in play but in the long run it will make me better
|
I think everyone should spend some time learning jungle and support, preferably with simple(but not necessarily easy)-to-use heroes like nunu and janna. I think those two roles teach you more about game flow and map awareness than the others. Also, playing new roles is fun!
|
On January 23 2013 04:10 Gotmog wrote:
I find it interesting that attitudes towards this are polar opposites in dota and lol community.
In LoL, people will tell you, hands down that becoming REALLY good with 2-3 champions is the way to go.
In Dota, people don't like to stick to one champion and just play through all of them, and they would tell you that you need to learn each champions abilities, all roles etc etc.
Obviously both sides have their pros/cons.
What do you guys think ?
The reason i am asking, is that for most of new players, it will be a choice between buying the whole lot of of 450-1350-3150 IP champs and playing them out. Thus having the ability to counter pick, deal with banning, play more roles, knowing what other champions can do etc.
OR saving for that expensive 6300ip champion, and playing him exclusively. Thus becoming really good at him, getting better at skill shots, judging what and when they can pull off, lane dominance etc etc.
1. Why is this so different in dota and lol ? (only reason i can think of is IP restrictions and skill shots which plague lol, while mechanics are brushed aside)
2. What do you think is the better option ?
To be any good at LoL, you really should be good with a bare minimum of 5 champions (one for each role in the current meta), in case you are forced to play a role that you don't normally play. You also need to be good with back-ups in case your main is banned. So no, LoL players really don't just stick with one or two champions. Also, you are still expected to know all of your opponents' abilities.
|
On January 27 2013 11:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 04:10 Gotmog wrote:
I find it interesting that attitudes towards this are polar opposites in dota and lol community.
In LoL, people will tell you, hands down that becoming REALLY good with 2-3 champions is the way to go.
In Dota, people don't like to stick to one champion and just play through all of them, and they would tell you that you need to learn each champions abilities, all roles etc etc.
Obviously both sides have their pros/cons.
What do you guys think ?
The reason i am asking, is that for most of new players, it will be a choice between buying the whole lot of of 450-1350-3150 IP champs and playing them out. Thus having the ability to counter pick, deal with banning, play more roles, knowing what other champions can do etc.
OR saving for that expensive 6300ip champion, and playing him exclusively. Thus becoming really good at him, getting better at skill shots, judging what and when they can pull off, lane dominance etc etc.
1. Why is this so different in dota and lol ? (only reason i can think of is IP restrictions and skill shots which plague lol, while mechanics are brushed aside)
2. What do you think is the better option ?
To be any good at LoL, you really should be good with a bare minimum of 5 champions (one for each role in the current meta), in case you are forced to play a role that you don't normally play. You also need to be good with back-ups in case your main is banned. So no, LoL players really don't just stick with one or two champions. Also, you are still expected to know all of your opponents' abilities.
I disagree. You should definitely have backups but it is extremely slim chance that all of your 3-4 champs will be banned outright, so I'd say 5 is a good medium but not one per role but rather 2-3 roles you're particularly good at. Any others you should really just play to figure out how they work. Even better if you can find people to play with, even a single one.
|
Wouldn't say learn one or two champs or learn all of them. Well this actually applies more to those who solo queue but I think learning how to play 1-2 heroes in each role is the best. There is nothing i hate more than when people get into ranked games, someone calls a lane and then a person is like "but i only know how to play top" etc etc. I wish there was some sort of testing system before you got placed into ranked where you have to win at least a couple games in each role, would hopefully increase some empathy between players ie realizing you can't expect jungle ganks to magically to appear when you over push your lane and other lanes are struggling or how much effort it takes to be a good support.
If you've got a team I guess for the sake of performance it would be much more better play few champs in your set role.
|
On January 23 2013 18:29 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 15:50 Capped wrote:On January 23 2013 09:14 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I can still name every champ's passive gggggggggggggggg thats awesome in a name the champs passive quiz, but do you know what the passives do? XD I certainly dont know 50% of the champs skills / passives / crap by name or can recall them, but when i come up against them i'll know how they play, what they can do, and when im going to get fucked. I basically know their skillsets by heart, but not by name. I know how to play a few champs for each role, like its been said already 2/3 each role is good, knowing every champ in the game is hard, but you need to know them to improve / be competitive. You can play the champs once each to get a general grasp, but most of it comes from playing against them and seeing what they can do and how you can assfudge them when they do it. Sorry, I should have been more precise, I know what every champ's passive does. I can't name even 1/4 of them, but I can tell you what they do.
I can name every skill including passives of every champion in the game.
Get on my level.
Soon I'll know every ratio on every ability, but that's for another time (never).
|
There's diminishing returns when you play a champ too much.
|
On January 27 2013 11:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 04:10 Gotmog wrote:
I find it interesting that attitudes towards this are polar opposites in dota and lol community.
In LoL, people will tell you, hands down that becoming REALLY good with 2-3 champions is the way to go.
In Dota, people don't like to stick to one champion and just play through all of them, and they would tell you that you need to learn each champions abilities, all roles etc etc.
Obviously both sides have their pros/cons.
What do you guys think ?
The reason i am asking, is that for most of new players, it will be a choice between buying the whole lot of of 450-1350-3150 IP champs and playing them out. Thus having the ability to counter pick, deal with banning, play more roles, knowing what other champions can do etc.
OR saving for that expensive 6300ip champion, and playing him exclusively. Thus becoming really good at him, getting better at skill shots, judging what and when they can pull off, lane dominance etc etc.
1. Why is this so different in dota and lol ? (only reason i can think of is IP restrictions and skill shots which plague lol, while mechanics are brushed aside)
2. What do you think is the better option ?
To be any good at LoL, you really should be good with a bare minimum of 5 champions (one for each role in the current meta), in case you are forced to play a role that you don't normally play. You also need to be good with back-ups in case your main is banned. So no, LoL players really don't just stick with one or two champions. Also, you are still expected to know all of your opponents' abilities.
I think 2-3 roles is enough. 5 is a stretch.
|
To play in ranked you need 2 to 3 roles (it helps if ones support), with 2-3 champs for each. There are some players who seem to get by with less, but by only being able to play one role force other players into roles they're not great at. Ideally you should be ok in all 5 at a pinch.
Either way though, learning a wide spread champs is incredibly helpful, because it makes you aware of how to lane against them, cooldowns and so on. I feel far more confident laning against champs I have used a lot, because I know exactly what they are capable of doing.
|
If you're not a pro gamer and you only play one role and refuse to play anything else then I hate you.
|
5 champs per role, all 5 roles - 25 champions.
Why?
The literal worst thing that can happen is your forced to play X role, 3 of your champions for that role are banned out and another is taken by someone.
Then your left with 1 champ you can play ^^ not taking into account counterpicks and whatnot but that chances of 4/5 of your champs being bent over is minimal, your usally have the pick of 3-4 to counterpick with
|
On February 09 2013 22:27 Capped wrote:
5 champs per role, all 5 roles - 25 champions.
Why?
The literal worst thing that can happen is your forced to play X role, 3 of your champions for that role are banned out and another is taken by someone.
Then your left with 1 champ you can play ^^ not taking into account counterpicks and whatnot but that chances of 4/5 of your champs being bent over is minimal, your usally have the pick of 3-4 to counterpick with
The chances of that scenario as well are minimal. I'd say either find champs capable of multiple roles (Shen's been amazing both for top and jungle, for example) if you're really preparing for everything. You want to have the lowest number of champions you play, as long as you feel very comfortable that you will be able to pick one. 25 is definitely a stretch because mastering that many champions and adapting to current meta will take a huge amount of time, and although the rewards will be great if you are proficient with all 25 of them, I'd still say you could put that time into even 15 and play those 15 a lot better than the 10 redundant ones.
|
^ Well multi-role champs are awesome yeah, i didnt mention that..it does the same job only with less champs.
Like nida, lee, lux etc
|
Elise can play every role
(except AD  )
|
I play like 5 champs and I never had the situation in ranked that I was forced to play anything different nor did I had the feeling that a bigger champion pool would have been of huge benefit.
I have some more champs I play to a decent level (for my standards) but I never have to play them.
|
I think it's interesting to practice one or two champs a lot for solo queue but it's not if you play competitively because the other team will just ban the champ you're good at..
For example the NA guy called "Best Riven NA" is a sick Riven player and own solo queue, same with XJ9 he's really good with Vi..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
