|
|
Baa?21246 Posts
On February 28 2014 10:54 silencefc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:23 Crusnik wrote:
If you define Balance by everything being the same, then yes, LoL is fine. I for one would prefer to not have 8 champions to pick between for my two roles (ADC and Top) without being completely fucked in lane. Not playing Mundo/shyvana/Renekton/Trundle? Get ready to lose/be less useful than your opponent. Not playing Caitlyn, Jinx, Lucian, Sivir? Better completely outplay your opponent, and even if you do, you might cost your team the game just because you played Corki, MF, Varus, or Twitch.
I know Draven is viable as well, but I can't play him and haven't put the time into learning him since I don't think it's worthwhile. Ehh, I think you're overblowing things. He's reallky not.LCS picks are consistent because pros will pick either what suits their team comp or whatever is marginally the best. Flavor picks are rare when you're paid to win. False. LCS picks are designed so that you are always playing the strongest champions available. It proves that there is a terribly small pool of strong heroes that gives you a good chance of winning. You're confusing cause and effect.Twitch was so damn close to being the next OP AD before they buffed the shit out of Triforce/Corki right before S3 Worlds. Now he doesn't get played because Meta teams don't/can't protect the AD; Jinx rarely gets picked in Korea for the same reason. I mean, yeah, that goes to prove the point that most ADCs are simply unplayable.Diamond is full one one-trick pony players that main non-Meta picks. The majority of champs are not unviable; some just require less effort than others and I think bitching about that is pointless. Viable is a stupid word and we've had this discussion ad nauseum on TL.
Using Diamond solo Q is a terrible indicator of anything of import, as we have established here many times (though some obstinately ignorant posters will disagree, but, well, they're obstinately ignorant).
On February 28 2014 10:59 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:23 Crusnik wrote:
If you define Balance by everything being the same, then yes, LoL is fine. I for one would prefer to not have 8 champions to pick between for my two roles (ADC and Top) without being completely fucked in lane. Not playing Mundo/shyvana/Renekton/Trundle? Get ready to lose/be less useful than your opponent. Not playing Caitlyn, Jinx, Lucian, Sivir? Better completely outplay your opponent, and even if you do, you might cost your team the game just because you played Corki, MF, Varus, or Twitch.
I know Draven is viable as well, but I can't play him and haven't put the time into learning him since I don't think it's worthwhile. Yeah, because if you're not playing a FotM champion then you automatically lose. Ok.
Another fallacy that has been discussed ad nauseum but OK, keep pretending like you've discovered the theory of relativity with your brilliant insight and razor wit. What an elegant statement! GolemMadness is truly the Wilde of our generation, with his pithy observations coiled within biting sarcasm. How could we ever hope to defeat such a rigorous argument?
|
On February 28 2014 10:53 Alaric wrote:
Uh, making Ahri reliant on E instead of "build DFG, faceroll, miss every skillshots and still kill people from full health if ignite is up" made her more "good at everything"?
You are missing the point. Its not about balance but champion design, there are good ways to force people into hitting E like nerfing W and R damage and buffing return damage on Q and E scaling. It forces Ahri into i can all in but i won't kill people unless i hit them. Even nerfing her base stats to complement an even more dfg kill or lose would make her more interesting.
Rengar has similar issues as idealy you would max Q or E but W is flat out better since it helps you push sustain and harass at the same time.
|
On February 28 2014 10:58 Gahlo wrote:
Uhm, so who was the dip that let things like tormented soil trigger spellthief's?
Lux passive triggers it too, so she gets two procs in the same autoattack.
|
On February 28 2014 11:06 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:58 Gahlo wrote:
Uhm, so who was the dip that let things like tormented soil trigger spellthief's? Lux passive triggers it too, so she gets two procs in the same autoattack.
Or you can teemo, double proc it with auto attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
On February 28 2014 11:18 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 11:07 wei2coolman wrote:On February 28 2014 11:06 Ketara wrote:On February 28 2014 10:58 Gahlo wrote:
Uhm, so who was the dip that let things like tormented soil trigger spellthief's? Lux passive triggers it too, so she gets two procs in the same autoattack. Or you can teemo, double proc it with auto attacks. I thought they fixed that in the patch so you can't with teemo? correct me if i'm wrong tho
Just tested, you get two.
|
On February 28 2014 10:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:53 Alaric wrote:
Uh, making Ahri reliant on E instead of "build DFG, faceroll, miss every skillshots and still kill people from full health if ignite is up" made her more "good at everything"? The Ahri change was a stupid and unnecessary change that was a straight up nerf disguised as a "separate the good Ahris from the great Ahris" change, and is a perfect example of the point that's being made here.
The nerf was needed to begin with, though. Forcing Ahri to actually hit her spells (meaning nerfing W and R and giving power back to Q and/or E) was an easy way to deal with it because the issue was "I'm a skillshot-based assassin who kills people when hitting only auto-targeted stuff".
It's not false in that it does indeed increase Ahri's skill floor, while possibly lowering her skill ceiling too (mostly in cases where she's acting as sustained damage, or trying to hit multiple people; considering she was designed as an assassin, eg. single-target burst at core, hitting these areas sounds like lowering that "good at everything" part in favor of a (arguably fairly large) niche).
I mean, Riot did straight-up admit Ahri's E change was a nerf unless you hit the skillshot that's supposed to be your "catch", it was stated several times in the threads regarding her, so I'm not sure what your issue with that one was? ôo
Not that I disagree with you on the topic of Riot spewing blatant bullshit and lies on a regular basis (and simply ignoring when "delicate" topics are brought up), but some of these examples are shaky (which is uneeded since there's so many of them available anyway).
On February 28 2014 11:03 Eppa! wrote:
It forces Ahri into i can all in but i won't kill people unless i hit them. Even nerfing her base stats to complement an even more dfg kill or lose would make her more interesting.
You guys are complaining that Riot flattens everything (which is true) and let champions "do everything" too much, quoting Ahri's E change, and now you claim it's bad because it pushes her into a particular direction over the "good everywhere, anytime" she was before? ._.
I mean, that "unless I hit them" part is exactly what you guys were asking design-wise!
|
Honestly there's a lot of things I don't like about riot balance.
Champ underplayed > don't be afraid to just add a small QOL buff or like +5/lvl scaling(unless it's real edge cases like poppy)
Champ overnerfed > unnerf. Seriously. Urgot. He went from bottom tier to below average with new muramana, and then tear/muramana got nerfed and he went back to bottom tier.
Like new champions crowd out a huge number of old ones who got nerfed in a meta that's no longer even relevant, but they're basically set aside as irrelevant because riot doesn't adapt to the new meta.
Lux, yorick, GP nunu(The BB change was fucking retarded. His self steroid wasn't even an issue, it was the buff to others). maokai, irelia singed etc.all could see much, much more play if they reverted some of the nerfs they recieved. Some of the nerfs are over a year old, and the game has changed drastically in that time.
|
On February 28 2014 11:28 Amui wrote:
Honestly there's a lot of things I don't like about riot balance.
Champ underplayed > don't be afraid to just add a small QOL buff or like +5/lvl scaling(unless it's real edge cases like poppy)
Champ overnerfed > unnerf. Seriously. Urgot. He went from bottom tier to below average with new muramana, and then tear/muramana got nerfed and he went back to bottom tier.
Like new champions crowd out a huge number of old ones who got nerfed in a meta that's no longer even relevant, but they're basically set aside as irrelevant because riot doesn't adapt to the new meta.
Lux, yorick, GP nunu(The BB change was fucking retarded. His self steroid wasn't even an issue, it was the buff to others). maokai, irelia singed etc.all could see much, much more play if they reverted some of the nerfs they recieved. Some of the nerfs are over a year old, and the game has changed drastically in that time.
His Ult also got nerfed into the ground, even when Urgot was popular in pro play, he wasn't overly prevalent to the same extent Lucian is now. (not saying Lucian op'd, but to put into perspective how much play he actually saw)
|
It's not just Riot's fault either. Most LoL players are like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
One of my biggest peeves with Riot balancing is their stubbornness in virtually never reverting a nerf.
Sometimes, a nerf is necessary because it's too overbearing for the current meta-game. When the meta changes, and the nerfed champion is unplayed, perhaps it's time to revert the nerf. Instead, Riot chooses to "rework" a champion when simple nerf reversion would be perfectly fine. Not only does it free up resources for the Riot design team (since they don't have to spend tons of time effectively redesigning a champion), but it also ensures that the champion in question stays true to their original playstyle.
Now, granted, some champions simply just have toxic playstyles (like AP Yi or AP Tryn) that should be removed or heavily revamped, but in my opinion, such cases are few and far between.
On February 28 2014 11:47 Sufficiency wrote:It's not just Riot's fault either. Most LoL players are like this: + Show Spoiler +
tbh the Kassadin OP circlejerk, especially on Reddit, is imo way overblown in the context of solo q.
|
United States11393 Posts
On February 28 2014 11:28 Amui wrote:
Honestly there's a lot of things I don't like about riot balance.
Champ underplayed > don't be afraid to just add a small QOL buff or like +5/lvl scaling(unless it's real edge cases like poppy)
Champ overnerfed > unnerf. Seriously. Urgot. He went from bottom tier to below average with new muramana, and then tear/muramana got nerfed and he went back to bottom tier.
Like new champions crowd out a huge number of old ones who got nerfed in a meta that's no longer even relevant, but they're basically set aside as irrelevant because riot doesn't adapt to the new meta.
Lux, yorick, GP nunu(The BB change was fucking retarded. His self steroid wasn't even an issue, it was the buff to others). maokai, irelia singed etc.all could see much, much more play if they reverted some of the nerfs they recieved. Some of the nerfs are over a year old, and the game has changed drastically in that time.
In Lux's case, sometimes it feels like why even play her mid when people like Ziggs exists? Why play her support when Morg exists?
|
On February 28 2014 11:50 Harem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 11:28 Amui wrote:
Honestly there's a lot of things I don't like about riot balance.
Champ underplayed > don't be afraid to just add a small QOL buff or like +5/lvl scaling(unless it's real edge cases like poppy)
Champ overnerfed > unnerf. Seriously. Urgot. He went from bottom tier to below average with new muramana, and then tear/muramana got nerfed and he went back to bottom tier.
Like new champions crowd out a huge number of old ones who got nerfed in a meta that's no longer even relevant, but they're basically set aside as irrelevant because riot doesn't adapt to the new meta.
Lux, yorick, GP nunu(The BB change was fucking retarded. His self steroid wasn't even an issue, it was the buff to others). maokai, irelia singed etc.all could see much, much more play if they reverted some of the nerfs they recieved. Some of the nerfs are over a year old, and the game has changed drastically in that time. In Lux's case, sometimes it feels like why even play her mid when people like Ziggs exists? Why play her support when Morg exists?
Because you want to play her and think she is fun?Champ power really doesn't matter much unless you are just picking something that gets brutally countered.
|
Am I the only one that doesn't care what riot nerf policy is? something gets nerfed, ohwell don't cry about it and move along
|
On February 28 2014 11:55 SagaZ wrote:
Am I the only one that doesn't care what riot nerf policy is? something gets nerfed, ohwell don't cry about it and move along
Because then it ends up like dead game SC2
|
On February 28 2014 11:54 nafta wrote:
Because you want to play her and think she is fun?Champ power really doesn't matter much unless you are just picking something that gets brutally countered.
i main vlad but whenever i pick shyv top instead (which i dont play much) i still feel game is 100x easier to carry and to stay useful
|
On February 28 2014 11:57 kongoline wrote:
i main vlad but whenever i pick shyv top instead (which i dont play much) i still feel game is 100x easier to carry and to be useful
That's because vlad is in a very deep dark hole, that exists around the realm of Poppy and Ryze.
|
On February 28 2014 11:24 Alaric wrote:
You guys are complaining that Riot flattens everything (which is true) and let champions "do everything" too much, quoting Ahri's E change, and now you claim it's bad because it pushes her into a particular direction over the "good everywhere, anytime" she was before? ._.
Because her kit should be based on a 2 spell rotation for solo kills where you can miss 1 skill shot. Hence the 3 charges on ulti which help hit true damage on Q. This how her kit is set up.
Also there a shitton of hit skill shot go all in champs.
|
On February 28 2014 11:55 SagaZ wrote:
Am I the only one that doesn't care what riot nerf policy is? something gets nerfed, ohwell don't cry about it and move along
You can still discuss it without crying. I'm actually fine with their cycle of champions who get nerfed/buffed. Anyone who claims to know what works and what doesn't (besides what obviously doesn't work, don't be retarded) doesn't understand the game as much as they think they do. With balance changes with every major patch the game is constantly evolving. If Riot stopped patching League instantly from this point forward it would still take YEARS for the majority of the current game to be totally "figured out". The game is way deeper than any single person (even Yango) could dissect fully. There's way more things that can work that people have simply not figured out yet, and that list changes slightly with every single game change, and ESPECIALLY with item changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/skeN1rW.png)
