|
On July 12 2014 01:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 00:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
There are a lot of solutions to fixing Galio, most of which revolve around fixing how tenacity affects his ult.
1. Make his ult duration longer (downside: champs who don't build tenacity get wrecked, but then there's the incentive to pick champs or itemize around it)
2. Attach "% tenacity ignored" to his ult, increasing each level of his ult
3. Give Galio scaling tenacity reduction on his passive. It would also affect the slow from his Q (and red buff/ crystal rod/other item slows) You could start by removing the arbitrary 25 range reduction on the damage radius for canceling it early rather than letting it channel completely. It's a lot simpler than introducing new mechanics.
TIL...
I feel like a lot of the reason you would play Galio, you could just play Zyra instead.
|
On July 12 2014 01:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 01:12 TheYango wrote:On July 12 2014 00:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
There are a lot of solutions to fixing Galio, most of which revolve around fixing how tenacity affects his ult.
1. Make his ult duration longer (downside: champs who don't build tenacity get wrecked, but then there's the incentive to pick champs or itemize around it)
2. Attach "% tenacity ignored" to his ult, increasing each level of his ult
3. Give Galio scaling tenacity reduction on his passive. It would also affect the slow from his Q (and red buff/ crystal rod/other item slows) You could start by removing the arbitrary 25 range reduction on the damage radius for canceling it early rather than letting it channel completely. It's a lot simpler than introducing new mechanics. TIL... I feel like a lot of the reason you would play Galio, you could just play Zyra instead.
I don't feel like that at all, galio adds a lot of utility with his move speed, does a ton of damage if he wants, gets the AoE lockdown, but most importantly is incredibly tanky
|
It doesn't help that he doesn't really have a passive and they can't just give him MR ratios without having decent AP ratios to keep him from "relegated magic damage team buster."
|
On July 12 2014 01:37 GreggSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 01:15 wei2coolman wrote:On July 12 2014 01:12 TheYango wrote:On July 12 2014 00:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
There are a lot of solutions to fixing Galio, most of which revolve around fixing how tenacity affects his ult.
1. Make his ult duration longer (downside: champs who don't build tenacity get wrecked, but then there's the incentive to pick champs or itemize around it)
2. Attach "% tenacity ignored" to his ult, increasing each level of his ult
3. Give Galio scaling tenacity reduction on his passive. It would also affect the slow from his Q (and red buff/ crystal rod/other item slows) You could start by removing the arbitrary 25 range reduction on the damage radius for canceling it early rather than letting it channel completely. It's a lot simpler than introducing new mechanics. TIL... I feel like a lot of the reason you would play Galio, you could just play Zyra instead. I don't feel like that at all, galio adds a lot of utility with his move speed, does a ton of damage if he wants, gets the AoE lockdown, but most importantly is incredibly tanky
So you got move speed buff(Ori). Got lockdown(Ori/Syndra/Zyra), got damage(Ori/Syndra). His lockdown is also completely reliant on offensive flashing compared to other strong picks. Really I see absolutely no reason why you would want to pick Galio in his current form.
|
On July 12 2014 00:35 GreggSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 12:18 Slusher wrote:
have you seen relegated teams play challenger teams?? not interested. LMQ? SKT1K was basically a relegation team at one point...
extreme hyperbole? I'm not sure SKT K qualified and made the quarters the first time they attempted to get into Champions LMQ got into the LCS on their first attempt?
this isn't some made up fake example, Coast, a team who lost twice the amount of games they won in their previous LCS split went 29-4 (including playoffs) vs. challenger teams after getting relegated [I watched most of these games, almost all of them were rofflestomps with Zion playing shit like poppy, stack max nasus and going legendary], fooling some people, including myself, into thinking they had improved only to come back into the LCS and improve their record by a measly 1 win and get relegated again.
I'm telling you the difference between 8 and 9-10 in NA is actually really big, and that is already in a world where 6-8 aren't real contenders for a split title.
|
I think giving a challenger team an LCS spot will increase its resources and its power level.
See: coL
|
On July 12 2014 01:54 Sufficiency wrote:
I think giving a challenger team an LCS spot will increase its resources and its power level.
See: coL
I don't think the complexity organization had any issues with resources prior to LCS. its a pretty well established team.
|
it will keep high end challenger teams like Tempest from disbanding so easily, no doubt, but it doesn't bring much in terms of competition in the short term.
I was prepared to drop it but comparing NA challenger teams to SKT Judgement day was something I couldn't bring myself to ignore even though I know I'm probly being trolled
|
On July 12 2014 01:59 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 01:54 Sufficiency wrote:
I think giving a challenger team an LCS spot will increase its resources and its power level.
See: coL I don't think the complexity organization had any issues with resources prior to LCS. its a pretty well established team.
Did they have a gaming house prior to LCS?
So yeah.
|
The problem with increasing LCS size is that is even easier safe money then it already is. It depletes a mediocre challenger scene even more and will most likely that 9 out of 10 if not just 10 out of 10 LCS teams will remain season after season which reduces the drive to excel and instead doing just enough to beat challenger teams for relegation while sitting on a nice cash income for playing some games.
|
On July 12 2014 02:05 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 01:59 PrinceXizor wrote:On July 12 2014 01:54 Sufficiency wrote:
I think giving a challenger team an LCS spot will increase its resources and its power level.
See: coL I don't think the complexity organization had any issues with resources prior to LCS. its a pretty well established team. Did they have a gaming house prior to LCS? So yeah.
thats not a sign of having more resources. its more of, why would they invest in a gaming house in a volatile scene like challenger lol. LCS gives stability, but not any significant amount of resources than one of the largest Esports teams in the world already had.
|
adding stability is his point lol, a team with potential is incentivized to stick together if they can stay in top 10, a team like c9:Tempest comes to mind (although a lot of their players have been in the scene forever so I have my doubts on the potential) but as an example, if they were the 10th place team in the LCS right now and 0-15 or whatever, at least they would still be a team getting scrims vs. the best teams in NA, with an income, instead they couldn't beat EG and ceased to exist.
eventually a 10 team league WILL develop more talent in NA, but it will decrease the number of top4 vs. top4 games in the short term and that to me is a big loss on the competition side of the argument. (they said in the announcement if they did go to this format they would shorten the season)
|
The point is complexity had the resources to put the team in a gaming house well before they got into LCS. saying complexity struggled with resources before LCS is implying that without LCS the organization couldn't afford to house its players when that's far from the truth. Col is the worst example of what he was trying to say. its akin to suggesting that EG or Fnatic or Mouz couldn't do so before LCS. Something like velocity is a better example of a team that didn't have the resources before LCS as given by the dismantling of the team after they failed.
|
if they weren't getting the ROI from having a team in the LCS they would have never purchased a house.
they COULD have yes, but they would not have, and now 5 players that would not have had this oppertunity have it because they qualified for the big show, the change has potential to add 10 more players to this advantaged status, Hopefully allowing them to improve as much as CoL undoubtedly has this split.
|
On July 12 2014 02:20 PrinceXizor wrote:
The point is complexity had the resources to put the team in a gaming house well before they got into LCS. saying complexity struggled with resources before LCS is implying that without LCS the organization couldn't afford to house its players when that's far from the truth. Col is the worst example of what he was trying to say. its akin to suggesting that EG or Fnatic or Mouz couldn't do so before LCS.
To be fair, most challenger teams are startups with no organizational backing, while Complexity has been around for over a decade.
|
On July 12 2014 02:24 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 02:20 PrinceXizor wrote:
The point is complexity had the resources to put the team in a gaming house well before they got into LCS. saying complexity struggled with resources before LCS is implying that without LCS the organization couldn't afford to house its players when that's far from the truth. Col is the worst example of what he was trying to say. its akin to suggesting that EG or Fnatic or Mouz couldn't do so before LCS. To be fair, most challenger teams are startups with no organizational backing, while Complexity has been around for over a decade.
yeah. thats what i was saying. Complexity will continue to exist whether they make LCS or not. and they could afford to do the same either way. so its a bad example.
the biggest change from adding 10 teams isn't what it'll do to the weaker challenger teams, but that it makes it significantly more difficult for the namebrand teams to be replaced, even as they age and fall off in strength. thats a consistent move they've made over time, making it more and more difficult to drop out of LCS even if you play terribly
|
CoL even had 2 teams and they literally just dumped the 2nd one as soon as CoL.Black(now CoL) qualified, can =/= would invest.
|
On July 12 2014 02:11 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 02:05 Sufficiency wrote:On July 12 2014 01:59 PrinceXizor wrote:On July 12 2014 01:54 Sufficiency wrote:
I think giving a challenger team an LCS spot will increase its resources and its power level.
See: coL I don't think the complexity organization had any issues with resources prior to LCS. its a pretty well established team. Did they have a gaming house prior to LCS? So yeah. thats not a sign of having more resources. its more of, why would they invest in a gaming house in a volatile scene like challenger lol. LCS gives stability, but not any significant amount of resources than one of the largest Esports teams in the world already had.
You basically agreed with my point.
|
On July 12 2014 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem with increasing LCS size is that is even easier safe money then it already is. It depletes a mediocre challenger scene even more and will most likely that 9 out of 10 if not just 10 out of 10 LCS teams will remain season after season which reduces the drive to excel and instead doing just enough to beat challenger teams for relegation while sitting on a nice cash income for playing some games.
In the short term maybe, but in the long term? I feel like it'd give more people the drive to try their hand in the challenger scene, because you know the lower echelon LCS teams are probably going to be worse, even with the extra resources. There's more incentive to shake things up in the mid-tier to try to improve because there's more leeway for doing poorly in the short term.
The player pool take a while to grow around it, but I think there's legitimate reasons for doing it even if its awful in the short term.
|
On July 12 2014 02:29 zer0das wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem with increasing LCS size is that is even easier safe money then it already is. It depletes a mediocre challenger scene even more and will most likely that 9 out of 10 if not just 10 out of 10 LCS teams will remain season after season which reduces the drive to excel and instead doing just enough to beat challenger teams for relegation while sitting on a nice cash income for playing some games. In the short term maybe, but in the long term? I feel like it'd give more people the drive to try their hand in the challenger scene, because you know the lower echelon LCS teams are probably going to be worse, even with the extra resources. There's more incentive to shake things up in the mid-tier to try to improve because there's more leeway for doing poorly in the short term. The player pool take a while to grow around it, but I think there's legitimate reasons for doing it even if its awful in the short term.
I think the biggest issue is if it makes teams even less likely to do roster changes if they are mid-bottom in the log. It took Dig 3 splits AND Coast getting eliminated before they finally decided that their potential loss from removing Scarra was outweighed by the massive skill increase of Shiphtur. If 10 team LCS makes teams even less likely to change if a player is popular then it'll hurt the scene pretty bad.
Actually don't even know if Dig wanted to remove Scarra or Scarra decided to take a step back. Does anyone know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
