StefONNNN (EUNE)
: Wasn't everyone complaining about tanks being unkillable and dealing dmg like a year ago?
And everyone was also saying that tanks should be unkillable while dealing no damage, not being melted while bursting you down.
Kárma (OCE)
: So tanky, hits you so hard with their truck like damage while being so hard to kill cause of their tankiness, wtf is this. {{champion:420}} {{champion:122}} {{champion:75}} {{champion:106}} {{champion:86}} {{champion:86}} {{champion:86}}
To be honest, you just listed 5 bruisers. If they don't do damage, what's their point?
: I disagree. They would have to heavily increase the damage of it to warrant its use over Aftershock. And it is a purely offensive rune, I wouldn't consider this a good keystone for a defensive tree. Every other keystone in Resolve has some defensive added to it. Aftershock: Increased tank stats (armor + MR) Guardian: Shielding you and an ally Grasp of the Undying: Healing
It is not only offensive. Shield bash also increases remaining shield size by 10%. It depends of course on how much you're focused, but it's still a defensive effect nonetheless.
: Who cares. Nerf adcs who use it whatever. Two or three champions holding half the games roster hostage? What is this bullshit idea?
Nerfing the champion who abuses it is the complete opposite of the way to solve the issue. If you do it, then you'll make said champion even more reliant on that item, as any other build has just been nerfed. If you buff BC's Ad and then lower Lucian's Ad to compensate, then Crit Lucian or any other build that doesn't use BC has now been nerfed for no reason, while having BC more or less neutralizes that nerf. So you just nerfed every build other than BC, which is the exact opposite of what you wanted to do. The way to remove an abused item from a champion is to either break the synergy or make it less appealing for that champion.
ozzirp (NA)
: i disagree they should change the build path and just nerf the adcs directly there not broken cus the item there broken cus of the numbers.
If you buff Cleaver in a way marksmen benefit from it and then nerf marksmen to accomodate for this buff then you are pretty much forcing them to build Cleaver, since all of their other builds have just been nerfed for no reason. And this is exactly the opposite of what we want, as we want Cleaver to be a bruiser item.
Rioter Comments
: You're argument that marksmen did too much dmg in too few hits does not explain why a champion that builds nothing but health and armor is allowed to have a free cleanse and a delete button.
Because he doesn't have something other champions have: range and pick potential. Damage and tankiness aren't everything in this game: you may have all the damage you want, but if you can't hit someone you'll never kill them.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=xAAQRvWo,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-07-01T13:08:28.356+0000) > > Again, why would you disagree with Garen? He won't touch you or bother you in the slightest way, if you're an honest part of community. If, instead, you are a criminal, then you are an enemy of the community in the first place so your opinion has no matter. > The first case is just a society of fake people, acting like they are your friends because they have to. It is dishonest to an extreme level. > > You are failing to describe the world of perfect Order. It's not a matter of being good or bad. It's a matter of being lawful or chaotic. In the world of perfect Order there are still people that you won't like and negative emotions. The idea of chaos will be destroyed, not the idea of bad. The difference is that everything is regulated with a karmic precision. You received a wrong from someone? That someone will receive an equal punishment. You do a wrong to someone? You will receive an equal punishment. No one is talking about Teletubbies' happy world. > > Same thing as before. If Darius wins, the idea of morals gets destroyed, not the idea of being good people. In Darius' world there will still be good people, but will all be meticulous calculators who do everything not caring for the way they do it. In Darius' world the main point will be "the end justifies the means", and it doesn't matter if the person is good and wants to save more people by sacrificing few, or is bad and wants to kill the most people possible. Because by killing Garen the entire idea of order, laws and morals dies as well. > So again, the point is that you're thinking in a "good and bad" way, but that's not what this event is. The correct way to idealize is "lawful and chaotic", which has completely different implications. It is highly implied that Garen **kills** everyone disagreeing with him and his idea of the utopia. Meaning if you do harm to someone, for example by hurting them, then you are disturbing his perfect peace. You **won't** get proper punishment for your action, you will get just killed, even if all you did was slapping someone. You are picturing Garen as the representant of a perfect society and there will be no reason to disagree with him and rebel. This is wrong, since both characters are supposed to have good and bad sides. You get protected in Garens society, simply because everyone who slightly harms any other member of the society gets flat out **killed**. This is tyranny on an extreme level and no matter what, I will not support fascism. And the biggest joke of all, Garen will kill everyone who harms society, but he himself, who is a murderer of thousands, gets to survive in that society still. This is hypocrisy to the max.
> [{quoted}](name=SatomiKun,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=xAAQRvWo,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-01T13:24:03.001+0000) > > It is highly implied that Garen **kills** everyone disagreeing with him and his idea of the utopia. > > Meaning if you do harm to someone, for example by hurting them, then you are disturbing his perfect peace. > You **won't** get proper punishment for your action, you will get just killed, even if all you did was slapping someone. > > You are picturing Garen as the representant of a perfect society and there will be no reason to disagree with him and rebel. > This is wrong, since both characters are supposed to have good and bad sides. > You get protected in Garens society, simply because everyone who slightly harms any other member of the society gets flat out **killed**. > > This is tyranny on an extreme level and no matter what, I will not support fascism. > And the biggest joke of all, Garen will kill everyone who harms society, but he himself, who is a murderer of thousands, gets to survive in that society still. This is hypocrisy to the max. It is your interpretation. I base my interpretation on what we know Riot's take on Order and Chaos has been as showed in the events and the skins. And my interpretation is that Garen kills everyone that doesn't fit in the utopia TO REACH this utopia. The point is that after this utopia is realized, the sword will lose its purpose, since there will be no one else to kill. After the utopia is reached, the only people who will remain will be people who live with the idea of Order, so no one will ever find a reason to be discontent. In the same way, in Darius' world the only people that will remain will be people who revel in chaos. While, of course, they will technically be happy as well, the question is: how many people in our world actually think that way? History and nature have teached that bigger communities have better chances to survive, and that most people prefer to live in a society than in anarchy. As last year's event's ending told us, of course, the losing side will eventually be reborn and reincarnate in another entity for next year's event, so both utopias aren't permanent, but that's not the point as well.
: Disagreeing with Garen gets you killed as well and at least for me and if I get the choice, I will **always** vote for freedom of mind. I don't want to become a mindless robot and just a tool for society. And btw: Yes, a world of chaos gives all the psychopaths out there the freedom to do what they want, even if their biggest desire is to hide a knife in your ribcage. But at least for me, it boils down to the same problem why the concepts of heaven and hell are bad in my opinion. What is better, being **forced** to be a good person, even if you clearly aren't, or being a good person **because you have an inner motivation to be**. The first case is just a society of fake people, acting like they are your friends because they have to. It is dishonest to an extreme level. And Darius' world gives you freedom to do what you want. So if you want to be that guy protecting the old and the weak in this world, you are allowed to do so. You might fail, but it is an honest world and a person who is able to keep his moral standards in this world is probably the most honourable ever seen.
> [{quoted}](name=SatomiKun,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=xAAQRvWo,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-07-01T12:06:13.788+0000) > > Disagreeing with Garen gets you killed as well and at least for me and if I get the choice, I will **always** vote for freedom of mind. > I don't want to become a mindless robot and just a tool for society. Again, why would you disagree with Garen? He won't touch you or bother you in the slightest way, if you're an honest part of community. If, instead, you are a criminal, then you are an enemy of the community in the first place so your opinion has no matter. > What is better, being forced to be a good person, even if you clearly aren't, or being a good person because you have an inner motivation to be. The first case is just a society of fake people, acting like they are your friends because they have to. It is dishonest to an extreme level. You are failing to describe the world of perfect Order. It's not a matter of being good or bad. It's a matter of being lawful or chaotic. In the world of perfect Order there are still people that you won't like and negative emotions. The idea of chaos will be destroyed, not the idea of bad. The difference is that everything is regulated with a karmic precision. You received a wrong from someone? That someone will receive an equal punishment. You do a wrong to someone? You will receive an equal punishment. No one is talking about Teletubbies' happy world. > And Darius' world gives you freedom to do what you want. So if you want to be that guy protecting the old and the weak in this world, you are allowed to do so. You might fail, but it is an honest world and a person who is able to keep his moral standards in this world is probably the most honourable ever seen. Same thing as before. If Darius wins, the idea of morals gets destroyed, not the idea of being good people. In Darius' world there will still be good people, but will all be meticulous calculators who do everything not caring for the way they do it. In Darius' world the main point will be "the end justifies the means", and it doesn't matter if the person is good and wants to save more people by sacrificing few, or is bad and wants to kill the most people possible. Because by killing Garen the entire idea of order, laws and morals dies as well. So again, the point is that you're thinking in a "good and bad" way, but that's not what this event is. The correct way to idealize is "lawful and chaotic", which has completely different implications.
Rioter Comments
: Well they're supposed to excel in longer fights with beefier targets and decimate squishy targets that are in their reach. That hasn't really changed with damage creep other than both cases are much faster, with beefier targets dying almost instantaneously the moment a Juggernaut's "conditions" are met (Darius 5 stack, Yorick 4 ghoul/Maiden -> E + W trap, Illaoi E + R in melee range, etc.). The ones with no clear conditions restricting their damage output other than "melee" (Mundo, Mordekaiser, Trundle, etc.) are just melting targets much faster than before. Some don't see play since they operate on the worse end of things, dying before they can reach anyone such as Skarner, pre-buff Mundo and Volibear (basically the ones that can't usually catch their opponent without a Righteous or Predator). This is why after Mundo's ult buff he skyrocketed into top tier status. His damage was always bonkers but he simply couldn't survive. The ult buff gave him all the defense he needed while taking nothing from his offense.
The issue is that the juggernaut as class is the one with the most restrictions, and the class itself has actually two purposes: the first is, of course, designate champions who follow a certain concept, which is the extreme tankiness and conditional high damage. This includes the firstborn Nasus, who was used as model, the three (four) juggernauts that came with the class introduction update Garen, Darius, Mordekaiser (Skarner) and the champions that were released / reworked thereafter, so Illaoi, Urgot, Yorick and Aatrox. These champions were designed having the juggernaut model in mind. The second is to group up certain champions who are similar but don't belong in other classes. The remaining juggernauts (Udyr, Trundle, Shyvana, Volibear and Mundo) are here because they don't belong anywhere else (besides a bit of vanguard blood here and there) but they kind of resemble juggernauts, and they are not unique enough to justify being specialists. The thing that makes them hard to consider full-fledged juggernauts is the main thing they have in common: they are tanky stat-checkers. So, to be honest, I wouldn't use these ones as examples when talking about juggernaut's state in the meta as a class.
: So are Juggernauts supposed to be Lane Bullies or Carries? And as a class what should they excel at?
It all boils down to the damage creep issue of the last years. Every source of damage is higher than it should be. This means juggernaut's is higher too, but one of their niches is that their damage is unreliable or requires setting up. So they aren't able to do that much more damage quickly, but champions who they should be able to tank in sustained fights like divers or skirmishers have higher damage as well that is reliable, and are able to burst through juggernaut's sustain, which is strong but either unreliable just like their damage or scales with their defense, and currently offense is unbalancedly stronger than defense. So, in other words, the damage creep - short games - flashy plays meta literally destroyed the core of another class.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=000500030000000000000000000000000000000100000001,timestamp=2018-06-24T20:02:31.082+0000) > > Even difficult books, if you try reading them over and over, following explanations and whatever, you will eventually understand them. None of them is special in this way. > > You are still talking about difficult books. What if your child reads 1000 hours of jokes collections? Would that still be better than 1000 hours playing whatever game? If you have to read a book multiple times to understand it you aren't very intelligent. Especially people who have to "follow explanations" to understand. That is practically providing them with an answer key. I cannot teach the average child calculus no matter much effort I put into it. They just aren't intelligent enough yet. Reading 1000 hours of jokes and 1000 hours of games are pretty equivalent. Both are wastes of a person's time and aren't intellectually stimulating.
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=0005000300000000000000000000000000000001000000010000,timestamp=2018-06-26T12:51:20.939+0000) > > If you have to read a book multiple times to understand it you aren't very intelligent. Especially people who have to "follow explanations" to understand. That is practically providing them with an answer key. I cannot teach the average child calculus no matter much effort I put into it. They just aren't intelligent enough yet. > > Reading 1000 hours of jokes and 1000 hours of games are pretty equivalent. Both are wastes of a person's time and aren't intellectually stimulating. Most of the games considered hard can't be done in one go without trying multiple times. Just like the books you're talking about. If reading 1000 hours of jokes and 1000 hours of games are pretty equivalent, then you can agree that reading is not necessarily better than playing, as you were stating before, right? So, we've sorted out that there are books that are intellectually stimulating. We've sorted out that there are books that aren't intellectually stimulating. We've also sorted out that there are games that aren't intellectually stimulating. Now, for the last piece, do you agree that there are games intellectually stimulating, like the ones I mentioned before?
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=0005000300000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-06-24T09:42:36.186+0000) > > How about you compare "difficult" books with "difficult" games, or books in general with games in general? No because difficult books take intelligence to understand unlike difficult games that even children can get through with enough trial and error. As I said earlier, I'd be prouder od my child who spends 1000 hours reading books than 1000 hours playing mindless videogames.
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=00050003000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-06-24T10:10:49.180+0000) > > No because difficult books take intelligence to understand unlike difficult games that even children can get through with enough trial and error. > > As I said earlier, I'd be prouder od my child who spends 1000 hours reading books than 1000 hours playing mindless videogames. Everything in life is trial and error. Even difficult books, if you try reading them over and over, following explanations and whatever, you will eventually understand them. None of them is special in this way. Also, you can say you're not comparing difficult books to non-difficult games, but that's exactly what you're doing, and the fact that you keep stubbornly denying that doesn't make up a good proof of that intelligence you're valuing so much. You are still talking about difficult books. What if your child reads 1000 hours of jokes collections? Would that still be better than 1000 hours playing whatever game? On the other hand, what if your child plays 1000 hours of hardest difficulty Sudoku, Slitherlink, Logic grids and all the other logic games, do you still think that they're less valuable than reading Socrates, Marx or whatever?
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=dlncmgR8,comment-id=000100000001,timestamp=2018-06-23T10:25:55.751+0000) > > Another important reason for this is that, since people know URF is time-limited, they play a lot more than how they do usually to get the most out of it. So it's only normal that, once the event is over, they get overfed and take a small break. If URF was permanent, it would normalize itself after some time, just like ARAM. Except that quote said once they turn URF on. On being the key word here. Meaning that after we get URF we stop playing as much.
> [{quoted}](name=Sammystorm,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=dlncmgR8,comment-id=0001000000010001,timestamp=2018-06-23T16:48:11.626+0000) > > Except that quote said once they turn URF on. On being the key word here. Meaning that after we get URF we stop playing as much. I see. But how is that possible? "Oh, there is a temporary alternative mode for a week that I hate so much. Grrgrrrrr Riot I'm so angry that you dared doing that, now I'm going to quit forever!" How does that even work? It sounds so strange that there's even a correlation between the two things here.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=00050003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-23T10:09:15.233+0000) > > You say these things about games but if you apply the same logic then books are included. Books DO NOT teach you anything. Yet another strawman. I said reading books makes you smarter. The action of reading difficult books. Not the book itself. I did not say books taugbt people anything. But I'm glad you now agree games don't teach strategy.
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=000500030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-23T11:52:28.466+0000) > > Yet another strawman. I said reading books makes you smarter. The action of reading difficult books. Not the book itself. I did not say books taugbt people anything. But I'm glad you now agree games don't teach strategy. Then you are doing an illogic comparison. You're putting only "difficult" books against all of the games in general. How about you compare "difficult" books with "difficult" games, or books in general with games in general? There are certainly books that push your thought process, but at the same time the world is full of light reading for entertainment, like fables, for example. At the same time, while there are games made for the mass entertainment, there are others that are quite challenging, like chess, for example. So as far as "difficult content to push your thinking" goes, both books and games are good, which is what people in this thread were trying to explain you. If anything, games are actually more useful since, while books only train thinking and processing, games also train reflexes and coordination on top of that.
Leetri (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=dlncmgR8,comment-id=000100000001,timestamp=2018-06-23T10:25:55.751+0000) > > Another important reason for this is that, since people know URF is time-limited, they play a lot more than how they do usually to get the most out of it. So it's only normal that, once the event is over, they get overfed and take a small break. If URF was permanent, it would normalize itself after some time, just like ARAM. People don't take a small break, they leave permanently. It doubles the player churn, AKA the rate of which people quit the game.
> [{quoted}](name=Leetri,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=dlncmgR8,comment-id=0001000000010000,timestamp=2018-06-23T10:57:05.411+0000) > > People don't take a small break, they leave permanently. It doubles the player churn, AKA the rate of which people quit the game. Mmh... maybe they are UFR-only players? After all, there are people who pretty much only play ARAM. I can't see how a limited-time event would make normal players quit the game because of it, so it must be people who are especially attached to URF.
: > [{quoted}](name=YuGiHo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=dlncmgR8,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-06-23T09:11:04.881+0000) > > riot was suprised people liked what they were asking for? maybe they should brig back urf, who knows what would happen. Apparently there's a huge drop in players after a few days with URF. They've posted about it before. People get burnt out from League or something?
> [{quoted}](name=IcyPepper,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=dlncmgR8,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-06-23T09:20:19.005+0000) > > Apparently there's a huge drop in players after a few days with URF. They've posted about it before. People get burnt out from League or something? Another important reason for this is that, since people know URF is time-limited, they play a lot more than how they do usually to get the most out of it. So it's only normal that, once the event is over, they get overfed and take a small break. If URF was permanent, it would normalize itself after some time, just like ARAM.
: WhenNasusWithersButGarenQ'd
I'm a ~~real~~ simple man. I see Garen, I upvote.
: > [{quoted}](name=L Psy Congroo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=000500030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-23T05:07:53.702+0000) > > Games teach you the importance of planning ahead, making tactical sacrifices, identifying the weaknesses of an opponent and exploiting them, creative problem solving, and thinking clearly under pressure. > > Some children may have a stronger propensity for it than others, so it comes to them sooner. But to say that children are too stupid to create strategies is like saying children are too stupid to plan ahead, focus intently on a problem, and devise creative solutions. If you really want, I can provide multiple videos of children doing exactly this. > > I don't know what exactly you have against games, but writing them all off as meaningless wastes of time is very short-sighted of you. Games do not teach you this. Those are methods the player thinks of themselves to meet the win conditions of game. I did not say children are too stupid to create strategies I said they are too stupid to think of any "complex strategy." Do not strawman me. Games ARE meaningless wastes of time. They are just wastes of times you enjoy and choose to partake in, Games are entertainment.
> [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ttz9MiKm,comment-id=0005000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-23T06:03:26.676+0000) > > Games do not teach you this. Those are methods the player thinks of themselves to meet the win conditions of game. > > I did not say children are too stupid to create strategies I said they are too stupid to think of any "complex strategy." Do not strawman me. > > Games ARE meaningless wastes of time. They are just wastes of times you enjoy and choose to partake in, Games are entertainment. You say these things about games but if you apply the same logic then books are included. Books DO NOT teach you anything. Books present to you a certain amount of content and then you, the reader, think yourself about ho to interpret what you just read. So, in the same sense, if games don't teach you anything because, by your reasoning, they are just a stimulus that prompts you to find an answer inside yourself, then the same applies to reading. Also, again, you can't generalize "reading" and "gaming" that much. There are heavier types of reading, but there are also useless and trash examples of reading (aka, these boards). On top of that, I don't understand your point of differentiating these two things in the first place. There are surely examples of games that rely on gameplay alone, like puzzles, sport or, generally speaking, sandbox and simulation games, but many other games have a plot to follow. And having a story unfold in front of your eyes is exactly the same as reading a book.
Streep (NA)
: The Issue with the Crit Item changes - and ways to fix them!
While the crit is definitely a factor, I don't think it's the only one. If that was the only reason, then {{champion:110}} and {{champion:96}} would be strong, too, since they can do the on-hit build as well. What differentiates these two from the others you mentioned is the fact that they are immobile and they can easily be dove by enemy bruisers, so, while changing crit items could help, I'm not sure it would be enough.
remakoro (EUNE)
: Actually MR works just fine. If you build enough of it. Armor on the other hand completely useless. You will be better off just killing your opponent before he can attack you.
TFW in ARAM you are a tank and the enemy team is full magic damage and you bathe in their tears with {{item:3065}} {{item:3194}} {{item:3111}} , but if they're full AD you still get melted with {{item:3075}} {{item:3143}} {{item:3068}} {{item:3110}} {{item:3047}} .
: I understood what the OP was saying, I was speaking against this: > [{quoted}](name=TotalJerk,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1JpibVxM,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-06-18T14:30:18.440+0000) > > The additive stacking. To give an extreme example in a world with no CDR cap: going from 0% CDR to 10% results in a 10% increase in spell uptime. **To go from a theoretical 80% to 90% results in a 100% spell uptime increase**. > This is wrong because math can't ever operate in this way. An 80-90% will never result in a 100%.
But he's right, though, and I was talking about that in my reply. With 80% CDR you have (with the same spell as before) 20s cd, so you have an uptime of 1/20s. With 90% CDR the cd becomes 10s, and the uptime becomes 1/10s, which is exactly double the previous one, so it's an effective 100% increase on uptime. You see?
: By it's very nature, percentages do not equal 100% unless they are 100%. If you have a 100s spell, and you have 10% CDR, your CD is now at 90s, which is a 10% increase in uptime. However, if you have 80% or 90% CDR, your CD is now 20s or 10s respectively, which is an 80% or 90% increase in uptime. In no circumstance will a 80% or 90% ever equal 100%. That's just simple math. It may seem that way on shorter CD spells, but there is still a CD, no matter how brief. That said, 40% max CDR is hardly ruinous to the game. I don't think it's a problem, and while it does contribute to quicker games, it's not problematic like the snowballing and the sheer increase in pure damage across in the board.
That's not what OP's saying. When your skill has 100s cd and you go from 0% to 10% CDR the spell goes from 100s to 90s, so it's a 10% reduction. When getting another 10% you spent the same gold to get the same amount of CDR, but the cd of the spell went from 90s to 80s, which is, effectively, a 11.1111% reduction. Additive reduction % bonuses always have increasing effects when taken multiple times, and that's what he's talking about. Now, how impactful the difference between stacking multiplicatively and additively may be, that's another whole matter, for which I can't really say much. An important thing to notice though is that this makes different values of CDR hard to calculate. When multiplicative, buying 20% becomes better than buying two 10%. Taking OP's example of four 10%, anyway, while the absolute difference is 5.6%, the relative difference ends up being 9.14%, almost 10%. It means that skills will effectively have almost 10% more cd than what they have now, which could have some impact. With that said, while this change may remove the "problem" of increasing effects on CDR, to be honest, they're not really that impactful to begin with. So this change would just end up complicating numbers, so I disagree with it.
A Nunu (NA)
: These days, tanks are not meant to be tanks. They are just kinda' beefy bombs of CC. And honestly, I think that's more balanced than just being unkillable. https://i.imgur.com/b7Hjwht.png/img
But... that's exactly what they should be and what people want them to be. If anything, what they don't want to do is being able to shot squishies with one rotation and being melted as counterpoint, which is what tanks are now.
: They keep giving tanks better ap ratios and stuff. It seems like Riot doesn't want people to build full tank.
It's almost like tanks' main selling points weren't supposed to be disruption, utility and damage-soaking.
: at least he looks like himself more than Eve rework
Rioter Comments
Risen29 (NA)
: That's a weird misuse of the word convalidate.
My bad, English is not my mother language so sometimes it slips out a bit too much academic.
Elohaven (NA)
: - Tanks are effectively useless right now since every one and their mother has true damage and can do an ADC's job. - Yi doesn't build Reaver unless he's so ahead.
"Everyone and their mother" consists of Infinity Edge users, since that's the only true damage added this patch. And marksmen are in a bad spot, so the only champions that are left are the bruisers that build Infinity Edge, which can be counted on one hand, and they are also not in the best spot right now. The actual argument you should use is that removing the competition of a certain mechanic makes said mechanic stronger, which is what happened: Conquerer and marksmen are both counters to tanks. Before this patch, marksmen were the strongest, so, even if Conquerer was good against against tanks and removed them from toplane, marksmen still had the "spotlight". Now that marksmen are weaker, Conquerer is the new strongest anti-tank thing. So Conquerer is not what changed Master Yi, but simply his competition weakened. This doesn't mean Yi isn't a problem, but it's important to target the actual reasons. With that said, Conquerer's anti-tank part is still a multiplier and not a flat damage increase. This means that the problem can be solved by reducing the damage it's multiplying, since, mathematically speaking, Conquerer is a good and niche concept and 20% is not a bad number, so for game health's sake, it's better to not attack it too much.
Risen29 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=fl4vNVKL,comment-id=001d00000000,timestamp=2018-06-09T19:01:12.094+0000) > > Mordekaiser is the Ap Juggernaut, and we can all see how his itemization doesn't scream "juggernaut" at all. He's pretty much built like a glass cannon mage. No, he never builds glass cannon. He generally builds only hybrid defense/ap items, with the core of his build being liandries and rylais. Hes one of the few champions that actually wants a liandries early after the mage item changes. The only problem with his build, as an ap juggernaut, is that he almost never builds full tank items. Any other AD juggernaut builds some full defense. Maybe the AP juggernaut items arent good enough that you can get away with having only a few hybrid items with the rest into pure defense. Or maybe morde specifically as a juggernaut doesnt have the kinds of situational power that allows other juggernauts to amp up thier damage as high as they need without more items.
You... already answered 2 days ago, why reposting? XD I had not answered again since I agreed with what you said and I had nothing to add. Anyway, the main issue I see is that current ap bruiser items don't scale that much with time. Black Cleaver reduces the armor, so it's already a damage amplifier. Titanic Hydra scales with max health. And so on for the other Ad bruiser items. Even Aspeed items scale with time, since you get more Ad by levelling up. Most Ap items simply don't behave like this. Sure, less cooldown on spells definitely amplifies Ap's effectiveness, and there are some spells that have the Ap scaling scale with rank, but that's pretty much it. So when you get an Ap item you get like a flat damage increase, more than a damage multiplier like Ad items do, and that's why Ap users are pretty much forced to stack them up. Mordekaiser is no different. Anyway, Mordekaiser's conditional neutral damage comes from his ult's ghost, but it still ends up giving you simply more Ap or more tankiness to apply the damage you already have, unless you pick the ghost of an autoattacker. But even then, you are relying on Ad items (the victim's ones), so it just convalidates my hypothesis even more.
Elohaven (NA)
: Regarding Yi and how ludicrous he is right now
You do realize that against someone with 100 armor, the true damage part of Conqueror gives you a measly 20% effective damage increase, right? And that the less armor the target has, the less that increase becomes. If anything, it's the mixture of many variables that made Yi pop up, mainly the new Essence Reaver, so I give you credit for the rest. Conversion to true damage of Conqueror and IE is actually one the few things they finally got right at Riot, since it's neutral against squishies and effective against tanks, which is the point of that keystone and item.
: The thing is, with how broad he made the statement "100 to 0 someone in 3-4 seconds", most of the champions in the game can achieve that given enough advantage over an enemy or such enemy being extremely frail. Maokai being 3-0 can kill an underleveled caitlyn in similar time, whatever time it takes to proc frozen guantlet twice. Following that reasoning, every champion in the history of the game is included in that statement and thus they are all viavle top, mid or jungle. Removing tanks as a team oriented pick is not correct in this situation because they are viable for that exact reason. Removing them would basically exclude all non-damage dealers from his statement which would turn out to be something along the likes of "If your damage dealing oriented champion can't 100 to 0 someone in 3-4 seconds, it's not viable in top, mid, or jungle". And yes, damage dealing oriented champions are supposed to be able to kill frail champions in a similar time frame to 3-4 seconds, which has happened since the beginning of the game. The someone he alludes to is also not clear in his post. That someone can perfectly be a bruiser and those do not kill each other in 3-4 seconds unless one is ridiculously fed. If he alludes to squishy targets solely, then his post is stating the obvious fact that being able to be killed in a short time frame is the weakness of glass cannons and frail champions, which is redundant to state. Might as well made a post titled "The sky is blue". What I am trying to say is that fitting his statement to mean that damage oriented champions need to kill frail targets in 3-4 seconds or they are not viable is the equivalent of saying "If your champion that is supposed to 100 to 0 specific targets in 3-4 seconds cannot 100 to 0 those specific targets in 3-4 seconds, it's not viable in top, mid, or jungle". In the rest of situations, tankier targets and non-damage oriented champions have to be included in the statement which makes it wrong.
The problem is that nowadays you don't need to be 3-0 on a meta champion to kill a squishy, you can do it even when you're even with them. I think this is what OP wanted to point out: in the past you needed to be 3-0 to melt a squishy with anyone that wasn't an assassin specialized in burst. In the last seasons the conditions have been less and less strict for it to happen.
Risen29 (NA)
: The problem with tank ekko was not that an AP juggernaut is inherently a problem, but that he was designed as an assassin. He had too much CC and mobility to be allowed to play as an AP juggernaut. The same problem with Yasuo. He had way too much mobility/utility/CC to be allowed to play like a juggernaut. You can have AP juggernauts, but they haven't been designing them. But, even the AP juggernaut we have doesn't have very good juggernaut style itemization. So itemization might be part of the problem of why there is no demand for more of these champions. Or maybe they are afraid of creating that itemization because it would allow too many AP tanks to become juggernauts while still having cc/utility.
Mordekaiser is the Ap Juggernaut, and we can all see how his itemization doesn't scream "juggernaut" at all. He's pretty much built like a glass cannon mage.
: I responded to your answer. "Or, you know, you could actually look at pick and win rates and notice that virtually all of the top champions have high damage burst." That statement is blatantly wrong. Udyr is not a burst champion. Period. Outliers are still champion in the top 20 win rate, so they still prove your statement wrong. I'm sorry if you want to throw a tantrum. But still, don't worry, it doesn't matter what I say because you are still going to be completely ignored by the ones which count and you can do nothing about it :)
I think the issue here is that OP didn't mention burst champions, but called for "champions that can 100-to-0 someone in 3-4 seconds", which is slightly different, since it depends on more things. While Udyr is a dps champion, in this meta with the right setup he CAN effectively melt a squishy in few seconds, so yes, he's correctly included. If, from your list, we remove marksmen and supports (since OP talked about top, mid and jungle) and remove tanks that function as team-oriented picks that only want to survive lane phase to scale in the midgame, we are left with Kennen, ASol and Mordekaiser. Of these, ASol is the only one who really needs time, while the other 2 follow the same idea of Udyr.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=EdOWeazw,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-06T14:29:05.866+0000) > > Except the first 6 words of your post were "I think it would be overpowered" referring to OP's proposal of having 2 extra runes in place of a Keystone. After that, you proposed a version that does the same exact things with 6 runes but, if deemed overpowered, reduced to 4. The point though is that 4>2. So if 2 is already overpowered, how is 4 right? i see what you're saying. you're reading my post in a way that was unintended. normally when you get a keystone you then choose 3 runes for that keystone and then you choose a secondary path and get 2 runes from it. correct? the OP's version grants you 2 extra runes on top of the normal version. that means you get the initial 3 runes + the 2 secondary runes + the 2 extra runes from "toolkit" which brings your total to a whopping 7 runes. my suggested version grants only the runes you choose. not the primary set or the secondary set. you dont even get a secondary focus bonus. all you get are the runes. so that would be somewhere between 4 and 6 runes. im not certain what would be balanced, but it's around those numbers.
Ok, I see. So you mean a Keystone that lets you choose a number of runes chosen from all the pages INSTEAD of the 3+2 we have now. Put it like that it's not that bad, if we assume that we still have to choose primary and secondary page for the stat bonuses, and at this point I guess 5 runes, like the normal number of runes, is fine, since you get to pick them from any page but give up a keystone. It might work.
Cunky (NA)
: > Fu = Finally Uganda You called?
: I say terrible things in abbreviations
Kys = Kled You're So-good f.g.t = Freaking Good Towerdive! Mthrfckr = Mate This Has Really-been-a Fine Kill Really Fu = Finally Uganda
: > [{quoted}](name=Fefnil,realm=EUW,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=EdOWeazw,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-06-04T12:11:12.979+0000) > > Wait, you say that with 2 runes it would be overpowered, and then propose an iteration that does the same thing but with 4-6 runes? no, EUW account. that's not at all what i've done. what i've done is provided a scale that has a range of 4 to 6 because i don't know the possibilities or the implications of having that much freedom. by stating 4-6 i am assuming that the balanced version would fall somewhere between those numbers. as in 4 might be underpowered because you're getting 1 less rune and your keystone is worthless, 5 might be balanced except your keystone is sort of pointless, 6 might be overpowered, but you'd get a decent benefit from your keystone. So i've proposed that it should likely fall between 4 and 6. or in other words 4-6.
Except the first 6 words of your post were "I think it would be overpowered" referring to OP's proposal of having 2 extra runes in place of a Keystone. After that, you proposed a version that does the same exact things with 6 runes but, if deemed overpowered, reduced to 4. The point though is that 4>2. So if 2 is already overpowered, how is 4 right?
: Storm razor has extra damage on it and the 160-200% scaling is on the extra damage not the crit
> If you haven't attacked in the last 3 seconds (scaling down with attack speed), your next basic attack will critically strike **for 160% damage** You can try in the Practice Tool if you want. Stormrazor simply makes you crit, and this crit is weaker than normal crits until you have 60% crit chance. No extra damage that you wouldn't do anyway with a normal crit at all.
ADC Bard (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=A Bad Varus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=rsqUrF7m,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-06-04T04:35:52.793+0000) > > _I need healing._ aatrox is left handed, the sword sheat goes on the right {{champion:432}}
> [{quoted}](name=ADC Bard,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=rsqUrF7m,comment-id=000100000001,timestamp=2018-06-04T05:58:39.058+0000) > > aatrox is left handed, the sword sheat goes on the right > > {{champion:432}} https://i.imgur.com/c6JvdLD.png
: i think it would be overpowered. it doesnt need to replace kleptomancy. i like kleptomancy. it just needs to have less chance of receiving an item when using a ranged character is all. i think this rune would be cool if it : - was a keystone - was in the inspiration path - allowed you to take 4-6 runes from any tree. i say 6 because the keystone itself doesnt really do anything but that might be extremely overpowered. i say 4 because it might make it more balanced if you have to sacrifice 1 rune.
Wait, you say that with 2 runes it would be overpowered, and then propose an iteration that does the same thing but with 4-6 runes?
Bern (NA)
: tbh, the problem is people are building lethality on a support build tankier items like ga/hexdrinker/currently busted banner so you can actually cc people in fights and use your kit, and you'll be k even if he can't build health, the hp regen he gets while unseen means resists still get a lot of value on him
Sure, as I said, the problem of not knowing how to play him (which includes build path) is still there. My point was that this champion is one of those bound to a specific kit mechanic regarding power budget, so he's doubly weaker than how he should be. I agree with what you say, though. Pyke's ult (which is his most important aspect) is an execute if used correctly, so it doesn't scale with Lethality, but only with AD. Sure, Lethality helps with the other skills in 1v1, but as a Pyke you shouldn't be doing 1v1, since you are an assassin support. So I agree that AD items with resistances or other utility would be better. Even BC can be a decent choice, since you can reduce armor for your team while you're at it.
: Normal crit damage + extra damage.
No, it doesn't. You should read Stormrazor's tooltip again. Stormrazor makes you crit for 160%-200% of your damage instead of standard 200%. So it actually gives you weaker crits if you don't have other crit items. And if you normally crit on top of the Stormrazor's crit they don't add up, normal crit is always prioritized.
Rioter Comments
: It's true he falls off. However. He doesn't function as a support any better. He doesn't offer anything useful as a support being as how he is forced to buy damage items. It's better to play him in jungle and try to snowball hard and win before he falls off. Also OP.gg puts pyke top with his highest winrate. 47% top 44% support 39% jungle. Lol analytics has both mid and top higher then his support winrate. 44% for mid 43% for top 41% for support 39% for jungle
Pyke supports his marksman with cc and by duplicating gold in the same way as Relic Shield works. For this reason Pyke works as a snowball-reliant champion that works on a gold lead. If come midgame you are still even goldwise with the enemy botlane, it means you failed as a Pyke and you are now considerably weaker. If you are a Relic Shield user and you never proc it even once in the early game, during midgame you're going to feel the gold difference. The same happens with Pyke, and that's why he's so hard and underwhelming to play at the moment.
: He plays a like Leona, in terms of setting up kills. Lots of upfront damage with cc at the end, to give time for your bot laner to take the kill. Then at level 6, if they don't make it in time then just take the kill. He doesn't have the durability though much like Thresh or a poke-y support would offer. He's an interesting champion really.
Actually, after level 6 Pyke is the one who should get all the kills (only with the ultimate of course; if he loses it or doesn't have it, the kill goes with the standard priority). It's the same thing as taking the cannon minion with the Relic Shield, whenever possible Pyke should execute to get duplicate gold, otherwise he loses a lot of kit budget. He's actually not that easy to work with, since his kit works with the idea that his team has the gold lead. I agree with the rest.
: Don't you mean her claws? {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}
She now uses fingers torn off from the bodies of her victims...
: Don't forget{{champion:154}} {{champion:113}} {{champion:79}} {{champion:421}} and {{champion:203}}
{{item:3070}} {{champion:111}} {{item:3070}} Lost and forgotten...
Rioter Comments
Show more

Fefnil

Level 136 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion