EPTNo.
If you have the money, I'd actually suggest getting a Needlessly Large Rod before you get Runaan's. I personally like that more. If you don't, then go for a recurve-bow and straight for Runaan's.
[Patch 4.8] RIP Pantheon General Discussion - Page 7
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
No. If you have the money, I'd actually suggest getting a Needlessly Large Rod before you get Runaan's. I personally like that more. If you don't, then go for a recurve-bow and straight for Runaan's. | ||
|
jaymik
Korea (South)425 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
sung_moon
United States10110 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Legitimacy
United States35 Posts
On May 23 2014 05:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: been watching a lot of vasilii, he gets baited sometimes but other than that his laning and team fighting are really good. Strong at all ADs except for vayne and varus. I think there's little doubt about his skills. His laning is hyper aggressive and he has great synergy with Mor when Mor plays very aggressive supports such as Thresh and Leona. However, his aggressive playstyle can lead to him getting punished by jungle ganks and his mentality is fairly questionable. He often tilts and has moments where it seems like he's given up on the game in both solo queue and competitive play. But it'll be a treat to watch LMQ in NA LCS this split against actual teams. I think their laners are very strong mechanically top to bottom (jungle aside), but their decision-making is very suspect. They're prone to doing some very dumb baron baits pretty much every game. It'll be like watching another Dignitas. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Legitimacy
United States35 Posts
On May 23 2014 06:10 zulu_nation8 wrote: there's only one correct way to lane as AD in any given matchup at any given situation whether it's passive or aggressive. If you don't establish dominance when you can then you're playing it wrong. A term like "aggressive playstyle" is used by commentators to make it seem like it's a legitimate insight when there's absolutely no meaning behind it. That's entirely a false statement. Aggressiveness is pretty much directly correlated to the amount of risk someone takes during the laning phase. Blowing flash to secure kills, arcane shifting into the enemy without vision of the jungler, etc. are all risks that Vasilii takes that typically other AD carries won't take in competitive play. Commentators often attribute the term "aggressive playstyle" incorrectly in generalizing playstyles of various regions, but in general I don't believe you can say Vasilii isn't an aggressive player in lane when he's often seen all-in'ing opponents at level 1 or level 2 even in Challenger Series play. The sheer fact that he doesn't win all or even most of those all-ins simply means he's a risk taker and he's willing to take the chances to potentially snowball the lane, which he often does. Harassing, trading, zoning, etc. are all parts of playing AD carry. None of that is considered passive nor aggressive. It's really a matter of fully committing to getting kills, which is something that Vasilii will do that other AD carries very rarely will do. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20341 Posts
On May 23 2014 03:38 ghrur wrote: No. If you have the money, I'd actually suggest getting a Needlessly Large Rod before you get Runaan's. I personally like that more. If you don't, then go for a recurve-bow and straight for Runaan's. Mid? Top? | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On May 23 2014 06:10 zulu_nation8 wrote: there's only one correct way to lane as AD in any given matchup at any given situation whether it's passive or aggressive. If you don't establish dominance when you can then you're playing it wrong. A term like "aggressive playstyle" is used by commentators to make it seem like it's a legitimate insight when there's absolutely no meaning behind it. or you play passive aggressive where you just subtly blame your support "I couldn't follow because no wards and I was scared of jungler" etc | ||
|
MooMooMugi
United States10531 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On May 23 2014 06:18 Legitimacy wrote: That's entirely a false statement. Aggressiveness is pretty much directly correlated to the amount of risk someone takes during the laning phase. Blowing flash to secure kills, arcane shifting into the enemy without vision of the jungler, etc. are all risks that Vasilii takes that typically other AD carries won't take in competitive play. Commentators often attribute the term "aggressive playstyle" incorrectly in generalizing playstyles of various regions, but in general I don't believe you can say Vasilii isn't an aggressive player in lane when he's often seen all-in'ing opponents at level 1 or level 2 even in Challenger Series play. The sheer fact that he doesn't win all or even most of those all-ins simply means he's a risk taker and he's willing to take the chances to potentially snowball the lane, which he often does. Harassing, trading, zoning, etc. are all parts of playing AD carry. None of that is considered passive nor aggressive. It's really a matter of fully committing to getting kills, which is something that Vasilii will do that other AD carries very rarely will do. blowing flash to secure kill -> so sometimes it's ok to let a kill go because you don't wanna flash? arcane shift into enemy without knowing where jungler is -> if it's not for a kill then there's rarely a need, pretty standard decision making, no good AD will blow their escape needlessly. Every good AD is aggressive, everyone will go hard at early levels if the situation calls for it, the ones who don't but should are bad. On May 23 2014 06:18 Legitimacy wrote: The sheer fact that he doesn't win all or even most of those all-ins simply means he's a risk taker and he's willing to take the chances to potentially snowball the lane, which he often does. This is a commentator analysis. It makes it seem like taking risks to snowball your lane is a unique trait for certain players. It's basically called how to play the game. The ones who take the risks but fail often are bad, the ones who succeed are good. On May 23 2014 06:18 Legitimacy wrote: It's really a matter of fully committing to getting kills, which is something that Vasilii will do that other AD carries very rarely will do. Are you saying some people will be like, nah you can live, when there's an opportunity for a kill and they're still considered good players? | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Sometimes the correct play is to be satisfied with your advantage (you forced them out of lane, blew their summoners, now you can take tower -> rotate to dragon). Sometimes the correct play is to extract maximum immediate value out of the situation (flashing for a kill when you aren't sure you'll end up getting it, positioning more aggressively in teamfights). In the moment, you often have incomplete information (maybe your skill comes off cd 0.1s before theirs, who knows where their jungler is, are you going to crit, is your movespeed enough to get the AA off before they get into the bush). So it is not obviously correct a priori which is the "right" option, and good players can and will disagree as to which of these options to take. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
You edited in a a priori after, I'm not sure how that applies. What people see when they think of "hyperaggression" is a player trying to maximize or look for small advantage. For example, if you are a caitlyn vs. lucian, "aggression" may look like the caitlyn missing cs at lv1 on purpose to try to autoattack the Lucian. The purpose is to establish lane dominance and make the Lucian blow his pot which will let you gain an advantage later on in the lane, which outweighs the gold you lose by missing those CS. A "passive" player will simply farm and try to get lv2 early, or try to have a safe laning phase of w/e. But it's the incorrect play as there's an advantage you're missing by either not having the mechanics or awareness to obtain it. In this case there's one right way to play, and that's to establish yourself as the alpha AD, aka "aggresiveness," the other way, by playing like a pussy, means ur bad. Those are not arbitrary qualities, they are extensions of skill. | ||
|
Legitimacy
United States35 Posts
Arcane shifting into enemy not for a kill -> Happens all the time. Look up Vasilii's games on Ezreal where he shifts just for damage. Every AD carry is aggressive if they play well that is correct because they're harassing and trading efficiently. I disagree about your assessment on the all-in portions. There's a reason why pros don't take many of those risks. You'll see many games in which yes they could just brawl and you never know who'll come out on top. There's a reason why many games aren't decided at level 1 or level 2 because someone decides to just go ham and fight. Pros dislike taking risks, pros mostly only go for the high percentage play. Engaging level 1/level 2 into a creep wave and not knowing who's going to take better creep aggro is not smart play. It's simply called "I think I can win and if I do I'll probably win the lane off it". There's a reason why when you load a stream of a professional league, the AD carry is rarely fed at 10 minutes. Players very rarely take risks, which is why when you bring someone over who has the ability to either be 4-0 at 10 minutes or 0-4 at 10 minutes, it's new and refreshing. I don't see why you don't deem him as an aggressive player who is a risk taker. Unless they're in a situation that is unescapable, you very rarely will see a player flash into a poor position and commit for a kill knowing they'll die if they do it. Just look back at even the Challenger series games. He has a propensity to either lose the lane really hard due to unnecessary risk taking or to win really hard because he's able to capitalize and take risks that others won't normally take. Think about other LCS AD carries you see play. There's no one like him in the NA or EU scene. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On May 23 2014 06:57 GrandInquisitor wrote: wtf? That's like saying there's only one correct way to play tennis, and so there's no such thing as an aggressive tennis player or a passive tennis player, just better and worse players. Sometimes the correct play is to be satisfied with your advantage (you forced them out of lane, blew their summoners, now you can take tower -> rotate to dragon). Sometimes the correct play is to extract maximum immediate value out of the situation (flashing for a kill when you aren't sure you'll end up getting it, positioning more aggressively in teamfights). In the moment, you often have incomplete information (maybe your skill comes off cd 0.1s before theirs, who knows where their jungler is, are you going to crit, is your movespeed enough to get the AA off before they get into the bush). So it is not obviously correct a priori which is the "right" option, and good players can and will disagree as to which of these options to take. And we might say that someone who tends to take the riskier of the options is the "more aggressive player" I seriously do not understand the position that these risks don't exist or that there is always a "best play" given the relevant information. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On May 23 2014 07:02 zulu_nation8 wrote: If you watch the replay there's one correct decision in 99% if not 100% of all situations. When having to decide with incomplete information, the better player will make the correct decision more often. If it were so cut and dry there would literally be no argument as to who the best players are. I don't care to respond in more detail right now, but this is a silly direction to take this conversation. | ||
|
Legitimacy
United States35 Posts
On May 23 2014 07:02 zulu_nation8 wrote: If you watch the replay there's one correct decision in 99% if not 100% of all situations. When having to decide with incomplete information, the better player will make the correct decision more often. You edited in a a priori after, I'm not sure how that applies. What people see when they think of "hyperaggression" is a certain player trying to maximum or obtain an advantage. For example, if you are a caitlyn vs. lucian, "aggression" may look like the caitlyn missing cs at lv1 on purpose to try to autoattack the Lucian. The purpose is to establish lane dominance and make the Lucian blow his pot which will let you gain an advantage later on in the lane, which outweighs the gold you lose by missing those CS. A "passive" player will simply farm and try to get lv2 early, or try to have a safe laning phase of w/e. But it's the incorrect play as there's an advantage you're missing by either not having the mechanics or awareness to. In this case there's one right way to play, and that's to establish yourself as the alpha AD, aka "aggresiveness," the other way, by playing like a pussy, means ur bad. Those are not arbitrary qualities, they are extensions of skill. And now assume the Lucian fights back agains the Caitlyn level 1. Both are taking creep aggro and it's really a toss-up as to who's going to come up with the kill. What do you classify that as? Because it's the wrong play for both parties because it's really a 50/50 coin flip as to who's going to come out on top with the uncertainty that is creep aggro. Once you reach that point it's no longer skill-based but rather luck-based. Pros a lot of the time won't do this. Does that make them bad? Not everything's as simple as you make it out to be. | ||
| ||
