EPTIt's easier to hide behind "no counterplay" or "unfun" (wtf do those even mean anyway??) than it is to take a cold hard look at your own play, sadly only one of those approaches makes you improve at the game.
[Patch 4.8] RIP Pantheon General Discussion - Page 40
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
SagaZ
France3460 Posts
It's easier to hide behind "no counterplay" or "unfun" (wtf do those even mean anyway??) than it is to take a cold hard look at your own play, sadly only one of those approaches makes you improve at the game. | ||
|
Nos-
Canada12016 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
| ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
On May 28 2014 01:08 SagaZ wrote: When you get killed by Rengar it gives you an easy thing to blame for your lack of ability at the game, once they nerf Rengar people are going to find something else to shift the blame on to. Stop crying, get better, no1 on this forum or Reddit is at the skill level where they lose solely because of the inherent strength of the champions. It's easier to hide behind "no counterplay" or "unfun" (wtf do those even mean anyway??) than it is to take a cold hard look at your own play, sadly only one of those approaches makes you improve at the game. The problem is this "counterplay" is having a high level of team coordination, something which isn't really all that easy to have in solo q. Even if you stay grouped, Rengar can completely remove one person on your team, to a level far beyond lb or vi or anyone else. If you're the fed carry on your team, you can avoid bushes or get a banshees to dodge lb, stay near the edge of fights to avoid bruisers etc etc, but what can you, as an individual, do to avoid rengar? You literally have to always sit on a pink ward, or risk suddenly being dead out of nowhere... Noone should be able to get onto you without being, even if you have perfect ward coverage, then instantly kill you before the average person even has time to zhonyas. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
When people use the term here, they're basically only ever using it to evaluate individual scenarios without ever referencing the macro game leading up to it. It's basically saying that DT rushing has no counterplay because if you have zero detection when it hits there's nothing to bail you out--completely ignoring the entire game played up to that point where you had options to find out about or deal with the rush otherwise. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
Noc can also build all offensive (see my signature), with an R far more powerful than Rengar's (no invis or any other bullshit. He just flies at you unconditionally). No one complains about him because his burst is lower than Rengar's. If Riot reduces Rengar's burst by lowering his Q damage, he will be fine. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
"No counterplay" when describing the entirety of the game is a bit of a buzzword, but "limited counterplay" or "insufficient counterplay" are perfectly acceptable terms by your argument it seems. A player should never be in a situation where it feels like they are going to lose no matter what they do. There should always be a way for them to succeed, either via them outplaying their opponent or their opponent making mistakes. You can make all the hypothetical arguments you want about you shouldn't have let Rengar get ahead (I'm sure we've all seen the video where Ryan Choi is down 4 kills and 50 CS by level 6 but still snowballs and carries the game) or you should be staying with your team and have better vision or buy more defensive items etc etc. These arguments all have some validity, but the underlying point is that when Rengar is in a position to instantly kill you, he does so with fewer opportunities for counterplay than other assassin characters do, and fewer opportunities for counterplay than I think most people would deem reasonable. It is also less risky for him to do it and harder for him to fuck it up. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
| ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I guess it could work by adding a "in reasonable circumstances" caveat, Yango, meaning similar gold/exp, even numbers in a skirmish, etc. I think another issue is that people are reasoning on a flat scale (which Riot promotes due to homogeinisation, I'll give you that): if you're alone, Kha'Zix is more dangerous. If you try to fight Viktor when he's 6 with his Augment to your chalice, he's comparatively more dangerous than when you're both 6-slotted and 18, once Vayne completes BotRK she can duel most marksmen regardless of a 1k gold differential at that point, etc.. Most people don't take these into account when they say "we've got same gold and I'm one level ahead, I should crush him!" Here the issue isn't that Rengar has timings or situations where he can kill people from a deficit (like 1v1 against a squishy when he finishes Tiamat even if the other guy has a 3k item), it's how wide they are. He can start 4 dblades and delete people even when behind, and doesn't really seem to ever fall off in killing potential past that point; worse, it spills over and lets him burst people even in a group of 5 before he can be cc'd and dealt with (the huge defensive power of his W plays into this). Most other assassins won't be able to do that (I think Trist has the base numbers to do the multiple doran thing, though). Fuck that I type too slowly. | ||
|
Duvon
Sweden2360 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
That's where most of this disagreement comes from. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
I guess it could work by adding a "in reasonable circumstances" caveat, Yango, meaning similar gold/exp, even numbers in a skirmish, etc. Even that caveat isn't appropriate because it doesn't respect differences in power level over the course of a game. If you're saying that all fights should be "reasonable" at every possible moment across the entire game, and that there shouldn't be large shifts in teams' combat ability even on even farm at different points in the game, I say that's a boring as fuck game (though apparently this is where Riot is consistently going). | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
^ Did you read the rest of the post, Yango?  I precisely addressed that, with people not taking these gaps into account.That there is counterplay also doesn't mean that it has to be 50/50. If someone's in his power spike, sure he ought to be advantage even at similar farm/experience, but as his opponent you can still have outs, simply reduced or less reliable than normally, but not ridiculously improbable either. Of course past a certain point people are just so fed that nothing of this all applies, and I'm fine with it. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 28 2014 01:30 Alaric wrote: ^ Did you read the rest of the post, Yango? I precisely addressed that, with people not taking these gaps into account.That there is counterplay also doesn't mean that it has to be 50/50. If someone's in his power spike, sure he ought to be advantage even at similar farm/experience, but as his opponent you can still have outs, simply reduced or less reliable than normally, but not ridiculously improbable either. Of course past a certain point people are just so fed that nothing of this all applies, and I'm fine with it. I know, but my point was in general that "even farm" doesn't really describe all the conditions of the scenario adequately. If you're pushed up all the way to their base towers, and Rengar catches you there, it's not like you're going to have outs, and by all means, you don't have a right to an out there. Extreme case, but you get my point. Even in a reasonable situation with close farm/levels and with power curves out of the discussion, there are still scenarios where you made a sufficiently poor decision that you should die for it. | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
Not that it takes anything away from the fact most people misuse it (at least at times). | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 28 2014 02:12 Alaric wrote: it just became "screw this, can't define something exhaustively when it's situational by nature >_<". Which is what I was saying. | ||
| ||
