Ouroboro (NA)
: can we like, ban the word "SJW"
"SJW" is not a word. It's an acronym. (>_>)
: So today i manipulated my company into giving me a $1.50 raise
Beware of hard-ball tactics. No matter how valuable you may be, that value only exists if you're willing to stay. Any person who threatens to quit is worth replacing with someone more stable.
: Really nice Humble Bundle going on right now
All steam codes again. Good games, But I'll just buy a version that I'm allowed to own. (>_>)
: So, things seem rather negative, so on a positive note: One of our cats just had kittens!
That can easily be a negative note. What will you do with the kittens?
: > [{quoted}](name=Ariel the Cruel,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7ZGrm3mu,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-29T17:07:10.707+0000) > > Eh, I've been called worse. > Almost got booted from a sealed tournament for making a stall deck. > My best cards were [Ghosts of the innocent](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=89042), [Privileged Position](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=83720), and [Faith's Fetters](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?printed=true&multiverseid=83609). XD > Pretty sure I had a "make X indestructible" enchantment/artifact too, but I can't seem to find or remember it. :/ No, you see What you do is [Stuffy doll](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=279711), [Pariah's Shield](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=83730&type=card) and then you toss a [Cloak and Dagger](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=152604) in the mix so it cant be exiled. without using those en-masse exiles. Also, there is several that give indestructable
> [{quoted}](name=ZenithEevee,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7ZGrm3mu,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-29T17:34:59.712+0000) > > No, you see > What you do is [Stuffy doll](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=279711), [Pariah's Shield](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=83730&type=card) and then you toss a [Cloak and Dagger](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=152604) in the mix so it cant be exiled. without using those en-masse exiles. > > Also, there is several that give indestructible It was a sealed tournament during the transition to Ravnica block. You had to play with what ever came out of the handful of packs you opened. The dearth of life loss effects in that tournament meant running multiple Ghosts basically made it the game's slowest mill deck. I was the sole cause of the tournament running hours longer than normal. I didn't get kicked. But was told I'd get banned if I ever did it again. XD
Destaice (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ariel the Cruel,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7ZGrm3mu,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-08-29T05:45:05.449+0000) > > Platinum angel would be more entertaining. > Scratch that, make an entire deck dedicated to no player ever winning or losing. > That would be a troll. > (I want to do this now, but don't have the cards.) It exists and the people who do that are regarded as inhuman lizard men.
> [{quoted}](name=Destaice,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7ZGrm3mu,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-08-29T06:17:04.281+0000) > > It exists and the people who do that are regarded as inhuman lizard men. Eh, I've been called worse. Almost got booted from a sealed tournament for making a stall deck. My best cards were [Ghosts of the innocent](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=89042), [Privileged Position](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=83720), and [Faith's Fetters](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?printed=true&multiverseid=83609). XD Pretty sure I had a "make X indestructible" enchantment/artifact too, but I can't seem to find or remember it. :/
: To my team...
I've had this happen before. 1. The match ended and there was nothing to rejoin (ex: remake). 2. The client is hung. You can resolve this be relaunching. 2.5. http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=3404421 An old topic explaining how to reconnect directly to a match bypassing the launcher. Not sure if it still works with the new client. 3. Something else has gone horribly wrong and my experience can't help you. . .
Destaice (NA)
: This guy had Phage the Untouchable as his commander
Platinum angel would be more entertaining. Scratch that, make an entire deck dedicated to no player ever winning or losing. That would be a troll. (I want to do this now, but don't have the cards.)
: About ADC..
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/worthdemotivator.jpeg?v=1414017066 https://despair.com/collections/posters/products/worth
: I forgot Adobe charges for everything
Adobe has always charged for everything (Production side). Only difference now is you can't buy anything.
: Mission: Teach a Friend
I have no friends. And no money to buy fake ones with. (>_>)
Yoshiap (NA)
: Something about Kled that's been bothering me...
Kled is nuts. If playing him drives players nuts, perhaps it's not a mistake? ;p
: god i hate when people say "get better"
Perhaps "stop getting better" would be more appropriate in this context? XD
: IF MY TOPLANER BABY RAGES AT SUPPORT AND AFK BEFORE MINIONS SPAWN LET US REMAKE
: I haven't gotten primary role in 5 que's
Surprise! People hate bot lane. XD
DW Diana (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=2MKjsKEj,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-08-23T12:03:26.033+0000) > > This is not *entirely* true. It's important to note that the forced movement portion is unaffected by Tenacity and cannot be cleansed. As such, a knock-up is *slightly* stronger than a stun. In effect, a stationary knock-up is a two-part ability -- one part that says "you can't issue move commands" and one part that says "you are stunned." Tenacity affects the latter, but not the former. > > So we see stationary knock-ups on a lot of characters who benefit from keeping enemies in a single position (Alistar, Galio, Ivern, Janna, Jarvan IV, Malphite, Nami, Nautilus, Ornn, Wukong, Zac, Zyra), either because they're peelers or because they have damage that can follow it up especially well. > > We also see it for short-duration things, because in many cases it's more appreciable for short-term effects than a stun, because it's easier to *recognize*. Kayne, Blitzcrank, Rakan, Rek'Sai, Xin Zhao are good examples of champions that gain a lot of clarity (and some cool visual feel) by their knock-ups. > > I'd guess Nunu's case is a combination of his desire to keep enemies close as much as possible *and* the heavy visual graphic of the snowball. Making it knock up enemies means that the impact is a little more apparent to the Nunu players, the victims, and both teams, as otherwise the exploding snowball could graphically dominant the view. The main issue I have with displacement becoming so much more prevalent is the Yasuo who can ult off any of these and extend the duration by another second. To put this into perspective (and this is NOT a Yasuo hate post, just a comment around balancing), a nunu hitting with W and then going straight into his ult will be at a 2 second charge (90% slow) by the time you get out of the Yasuo ult that hits you from 1300 units away. This combo can basically 1 shot anyone and because it is a knock-up there is no counterplay (tried it on PBE with a friend and ended up with 15 kills on my Nunu as the Yasuo didn't even have to go far, even if I was ganking another lane xD). This isn't something that even requires a special buildpath like a full AP. Even as a tank Nunu this combo has 1 shot potential xD
As horrid as that sounds, would it be all that different from, say, a Wukong ult or Morg Snare? What makes Yasuo, specifically, an abuse case here?
: Knock-ups are also more powerful in that they cancel dashes which can be quite powerful and obviously it is much better than just stunning the target while they are locked into a dash which they complete regardless of being CC'ed
As we see on Vieger though, they can add that functionality to a stun.
: Well, technically Veigar's cage IS a displacement. It's coded as an ultra short displacement followed by the stun, and that's why it breaks dashes. And so yes, you're right, the design space remains the same, but then it's just a matter of clarity. Veigar has a big fat cage to show why your dash is interrupted. Something like a stun from Leona or Anivia, it's not clear at all why that would interrupt a dash if you want to add that functionality. So just to be clear: are you arguing that stun and knock-ups should be the same thing, only with different visuals?
In general, I'm trying not to take a side and arguing against any position any poster takes. That said, there is clear value in some cases for the lock-down to be a stronger version. And there are many cases where the added power just seems to exist for the sake of existing. The purpose of this topic is to explore why one is used over another when it is, and if that's a good thing (or not).
Pika Fox (NA)
: Assume youre an ADC. Assume the enemy is malphite. If you walk out of position, its safe to assume he will ult you, especially with his team there. You can then use mobility/flash before you see his ult to dodge it. Its better to use before than too late. Usually it wnds up being malph is on his way with his R when youre now flahing away, entirely because you opted to do so before you even saw him use it.
But this is an example of pro-actively avoiding an ability. Duration doesn't matter if you're not affected at all.
Dolasaur (NA)
: For the person getting CCed, it's frequently a trivial difference. But it can be pretty impactful for the other 9 players. When I'm Vel'Koz and I see an ally going in for an engage, even small CC duration differences will affect the order I do my spells. (Do I need to E first in order to chain CC? Or can I afford to fire off W before E, leading into substantially increased true damage from my ult?) It can make a difference for the person getting CCed too. If I'm getting ganked as Teemo, will I survive long enough to throw a mushroom, get CCed, then Q for the kill afterwards? Or do I need to Q immediately and use Ignite while CCed?
Combo order is relevant because it causes abilities to interact in a certain way. I'm not going to argue that. But once a very short duration CC lands, the rest of the combo probably will too. Unless You're doing an Ahri R-LichBane chain or something with significant built-in delays. Most abilities come out pretty fast and burst combos are generally executed whether they land or not because neither player has time to wait for confirmation.
: Yes and no. Firstly if we aren't considering qss flash a check then tenacity shouldn't be one either. For the specific reason that it simply reduces the duration, not invalidates it. So 2-1 for stun and 1-1 ish for knockups. Except that skills and balance is placed in such a way that it's virtually impossible to dodge everything. Plus the cost/risk isn't the same on both sides. One person wants to land a skill which costs a bit of Mana. However if he lands it then the other player dies (not in lane likely but, the longer the game goes on the more likely it becomes) so I would agree with your assessment in regards to something akin to ezreal q. He trades Mana for an exttempt at damage. Tradiing Mana for an attempt at a unmitigatable cc is not valid imho. Cause you have to dodge every one perfectly and can only afford 1 screw up for 5 minutes. At least with qss its only 90 seconds that you have to dodge every one. Vs 5 minutes. (Now your logic would apply if it required at least some aspect of danger to trade as well. So something like sion ult) So I guess I would accept the argument if the person who was knocking up had to be in melee range for it to knock up. So Cho q janna q and sion q would be changed to stuns or something. Because then at least the person using the knockup is at least trading danger for danger. It doesn't seem like good balance to give cc A an equal cost as cc B with cc B being Superior in every way.
>So 2-1 for stun and 1-1 ish for knockups. SO.... Stuns are still favored at this point. >Except that skills and balance is placed in such a way that it's virtually impossible to dodge everything. It's also virtually impossible to land every skill shot. > Plus the cost/risk isn't the same on both sides. One person wants to land a skill which costs a bit of Mana. However if he lands it then the other player dies . . . So, I'm not sure which side you're arguing here. The attacker is disfavored because the invest resources to use the ability. The defender is disfavored because getting hit is certain death. However, by that reasoning, the attacker is again disfavored because what ever resources they invested to land the ability are lost when the defender invalidates it. :/ >So Cho q janna q and sion q would be changed to stuns or something. I actually [made a list](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/lxFEH5ce-knockups-are-way-too-common-and-powerful-compared-to-other-forms-of-cc?comment=00190000) a while back of which displacements I thought were justified. My thoughts on the topic weren't quite as developed at the time, but I would mostly support your thought. >It doesn't seem like good balance to give cc A an equal cost as cc B with cc B being Superior in every way. That's kind of what I'm getting at here. Despite being often treated as interchangeable, stuns and knock-ups are not equivalent in power. Stuns have more counter-play, though displacements are arguable more fair in terms of expectation VS reality.
: So you are saying that Kayne, Blitzcrank, Rakan, Rek'Sai etc champs that have CC that's not affected by tenacity couldn't have their knock ups changed to a suspension? They are still knocked up, but the CC can be reduced.
They can. I'm saying they shouldn't in a world where stun and knock-ups are distinctly different effects. Think of it in reference to Oranges, Cleanse, QSS, and Crucible, which can all cleanse stuns but not displacements. If Riot starts spreading suspension all over the place, it becomes an unnecessary burden of knowledge for players too have too memorize which knock-up looking effects are removable and which ones aren't. In terms of game-play clarity, suspension shouldn't exist in the first place.
: In season 2 when knockups/backs were less common Irelia's passive grating up to 40% tenacity was actually a really nice stat to have in team fights. However by the time Riot changed her passive form number of enemies to a matter of being out numbered that 40% was far less reliable due to knockups/knockbacks being far more common. Add in damage having slowly increased since season 2 and the impact of tenacity had been reduced. I do think that tenacity should be in the game and should be relevant as a means of contending with high CC enemies outside of suppression. But as it is currently ninja tabi is usually a better option than murc treads due to damage being high and tenacity being unreliable.
What if tenacity was only hidden in runes as a windowed effect? Could be a nice pseudo-buff to the durability tree. This would reduce the overall prevalence of Tenacity and allow Riot to balance abilities around it's non-existence while still allowing for some level of response against CC heavy teams.
: > But, what else does Nunu have? A root- a root that is not visually appealing. You're simply held in place and not allowed to move. A stun for all visual purposes is no different- you're held in place. The knock-up is the more visually appealing CC option in this case because it's rewarding for Nunu and offers clear visual identification for allies for whether someone was affected. I don't see why they use Knock-ups so much when they have [Suspension](http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Types_of_Crowd_Control#Suspension) which more or less look like a knock up just that it behaves like a stun and is thus affected by tenacity and can be removed with QSS/Cleanse/Gankplank W the only abilities in the game with this form of CC are Nami Q, Velkoz E and Yasuo R
Suspension was added to the game because people were getting confused about why Yasuo couldn't ult off Nami's stun. In general, it's a mechanic that *shouldn't* exists because it confuses the player with unnecessary burden of knowledge. Having one form of CC that looks like another is a clarity problem.
Baka Red (EUNE)
: If Tenacity affected displacements, what would happen if Blitz/Nautilus (for example) hooked a Tenacious target? I believe this dilemma is the reason why Tenacity doesn't affect those. Edit; Ah, maybe this should be in different thread, since displacements aren't really what we are talking in this thread.
Knock-ups are a form of displacement. So the reason for their immunity is still relevant. Another popular line of reasoning is on very low duration CC (0.5 and less), a stun would need to last longer to be relevant in the face of Tenacity. Or in cases like Vi's and Yasuo's ults where long animations can break if escaped early.
Baka Red (EUNE)
: I see only one minor difference between Snare/Root and Frothy White Goo's suggestion; knockup would still allow Yasuo (and potentially some other champions in future) to lock on those Knocked up targets. Snare/Root does not allow that. Imo Basic attacks too should be allowed during that kind of knockup. However, I am not really in favor of this kind of knockup. Nunu's big snowball could slam the target(s) down instead of up. Knockdown or Snare/Root effect would imo be enough.
>Nunu's big snowball could slam the target(s) down instead of up. Knockdown or Snare/Root effect would imo be enough. How would you visually represent a "knock-down" in leagues art system? And how would it be different from a knock-up?
: I think it's about time that riot(and the players) differenceiate between raw kockups that funktionally are nothing other than stuns with fancy visuals, and displaces that actually move the target. I think the former could easily be affected by teneacity, allowing to use it whenever appropiate for thamatic or clearity reasons as it would be the same mechanic as a stun. The latter probably shouldn't be affected by tenacity as it'd screw alot with player expectations... on the other hand, pyke for example shows that a hook that doesn't always pull you all the way towards the user still is strong and statisfying, so things like Blitz hook beeing effected to some by tenacity atleast to some extend might not be as bad as people think, would certainly be worth a shot. However, slightly unrelated, but i do miss more subtle effects, stuff like AS slows(nunu had them on E and ult, both gone with the rework), other debuffs, allie buffs(nunu's new passive is a joke compared to his old W), auras...at some point in time, riot desided to go on a crusade against more subtle effects, and they cornered them selfs that way into limited design space. With out such effects, you basically only have damage and straight cc left, and the current situation of tanks is a dierct result(do i take this cc bot with 3 hard CCs, or that one with also 3 hard CCs, or the other one who, suprise, also has 3 hard CCs...) This way, the only way to create somethin interesting that seperates champs from similar picks rest is going full apeshit and designing shit like zoe and camilles ult or current ryze, you either have those really big and fancy new forms of utillity that also have massiv impact, especially on normal vs high elo balance, or you stick with damage and cc for you're designs. Haveing suptle forms of utillity opens up more options without needing to do something 'fancy and exiting' that later proofs to cause massive balance issues.
>I think it's about time that riot(and the players) differentiate between raw knock-ups that functionally are nothing other than stuns with fancy visuals, and displaces that actually move the target. I think the former could easily be affected by tenacity, allowing to use it whenever appropriate for thematic or clarity reasons as it would be the same mechanic as a stun. There are some characters that rely on that consistency brought about by irreducible knock-ups. Especially on the very short duration ones (0.5 seconds and less). >at some point in time, riot desided to go on a crusade against more subtle effects, and they cornered them selfs that way into limited design space. Officially, Riot was never against those effects. Their "crusade" was against low visibility game-play. The Subtle effects of yore often gave little or no indication they were in effect. The poster child was Sona's auras. Her own player-base was crying for Riot to address her visibility because the only contribution allies ever saw, especially on a large fight, was her ult. Granted, they cited Arcade Sona's added visuals as the solution before getting S4, but that's another topic. Riot's goal is/was to ensure that when something is happening to you, you A) know it is happening and B) know why it is happening. Relatively speaking, we *just* got an expanded buff bar and CC particle effects.
: I think a lot of these knock ups can be kept visually but changed to work like stuns through the seldom used "Suspension" effect. A knock up that obeys tenacity essentially. It could be a good tool to allow the visual effects to remain with better counter-play. And if this somehow makes Yasuo too weak then maybe allow him to also use long enough suppressions as knock up?
If we use the same animation for both stun and knock-up, it will just cause readability issue. Reference Nami's stun when Yasuo was released.
: I don't understand what you mean about riven q chains. Only her third q has a knockup and if people qss it more power to them. (rather a waste because of how short it is but that's if you ask me) however, as a side note some people already was out of her stun. It's a part of counterplay and I think it's good. Forced compliance is the problem. In a stuns case we have a ton of counterplay, we can avoid the skillshot. And then when we get hit by it we can simply have purchased tenacity or use qss/cleanse. All of these are available counterplay. When you deal with a knockup the only available counterplay is to dodge the skillshot unless you have both qss and flash. (on like lux or ziggs or something) That is a problem. Even suppression can have qss purchased (suppression is supposed to be the most powerful cc. And aside from using smite knockups are actually more powerful in every case nearly every case) So yes. Knockups and displacements should be able to be qssed/cleansed out of. The reason people get upset that they are so prevelant now is because they have the lowest counterplay of all of the cc's in the game. (Barring dodging in the first place)
The options argument works both ways though. The user of a skill has just as might right to it's intended function as the victim has avoid that function. When a player uses a stun, they have to pass 3 checks for their ability to work as intended: Land the skill, no available cleanse, no tenacity. Their opponent only has to pass 1 of those three. So balance favors the victim 3-to-1 in terms of options. When a player uses a knock-up, they and the opponent only have to pass the 1 same check: Land the skill. (Qss+flash isn't a reasonable check in my opinion.) So in terms of counter-play, unless the skill is point-and-click, knock-ups are the fairer of the two.
: > So then I fall back to a rather common question of mine. Does the existence of Tenacity as a counter create a problem in the game dynamic that would be better if removed? The issue is that some characters may rely on CC to differing extents, so Tenacity affects them differently. A knock-up is a nice way to say "Tenacity isn't as effective here." Vi, for example, would lose a LOT of her pick power if you could reduce her ultimate's lock-down by 25-40% easily, while it is nice to be able to buy some defense against a team that features incredibly large amounts of hard crowd control. > By the reasoning that a Displacement must be used to prevent movement because a root could be reduced, then an unreducable root would be a healthier mechanic because it still leaves the victim the ability to peruse non-movement option. An unreducable root would be less clear, because all other roots are reduceable. You'd also lose the stun effect, whereas a knock-up is when you want to stun someone but *also* lock out movement *even if the stun is reduced*. >Outside a gank or flank, that knock-up isn't doing much for his ult. Unless I'm doing something horribly wrong when I play him... It isn't doing much, no, but it's buying you a little time if your initial target has tenacity. > That comes back to making something stronger only because the weaker version isn't as clear. If some abilities are being buffed *only* for that reason, then shouldn't clarity of the weaker ability be addressed? I'd argue that it's probably more "Do we make this a knock-up rather than a stun, or add a small amount of power elsewhere? Well, if we make this a knock-up it feels more fun AND works out nicely, so we'll do that." I don't think it's "this champion is already 100% balanced, but let's add power just 'cause."
>The issue is that some characters may rely on CC to differing extents, so Tenacity affects them differently. I actually specific listed Vi's ult as justified in the opener. Referencing Automated Riven, who just posted, would making knock-ups subject to cleanse, not tenacity, be a healthy middle ground? That could remove the reduction problem on most uses while still leaving victims some form of reasonable response. Really niche cases such as Vi and Yasuo could then be upgraded to Suppression if needed to maintain the enforced compliance. I realize knock-ups would have to be replaced on the back-end to prevent problems. >An unreducable root would be less clear, because all other roots are reduceable. You'd also lose the stun effect, whereas a knock-up is when you want to stun someone but also lock out movement even if the stun is reduced. I worded that response poorly. If the goal of a knock-up is to prevent movement under any reasonable circumstance (QSS+flash is not reasonable), then wouldn't it be a healthier mechanic if it didn't include the stun by default?
: I am not a fan of knockups because they cannot be reliably qssed/cleansed. If they were I would be fine with the trade off of shorter duration displacements = unable to be reduced by tenacity and longer duration stuns able to be reduced. The fact that you have to use qss and flash on half of the champions means they are too powerful. Even suppressions don't have to be flashed out of which are supposed to be the most powerful form if cc. Tldr. Make it possible to qss/cleanse knockups and I will be fine with them being used as they are.
Mechanically, they can't make knock-ups subject to QSS/cleanse because they are a 0 distance displacement. Changing knock-ups would also affect Grabs, Gragas ult, Poppy's dash, etc. If they were to rebuild knock-ups into their own unique form of CC (back-end), this might be possible. Further, the design purpose of of knock-ups is to be irreducible. When they're used, it's to enforce compliance. Imagine if people suddenly started dashing out of Riven's Q chains. While making knock-ups cleansable who remove some frustration players express, would it undermine the mechanic's intent?
: That's actually a part of how the prevalence of moveblock CC came to be in the first place. Back in the early seasons (S1 and S2), average CC durations (on stuns, roots, etc., but also slows - slow proce Phage, slow proc Randuins, popularity of 2.5s slow Atmallet...) were longer, which made everyone buy Merc Treads. In fact, you'd have 4+ Mercs on any given team. Not because A (CC duration) was buffed, but because CC duration was already so high from the outset as to make CC reduction such a powerful stat. But I would not say that Tenacity should be removed - it still has an important place in the game when facing long-duration CC. Just because there are more instances of non-reducible CC does not mean that reducible CC vanished. Rather, Tenacity becomes more of a situational buy. Also, nowadays time-to-kill is pretty low (which Riot has acknowledged and is working on). That devalues Tenacity, as there is no effective difference between a 1 sec stun and 1.5 sec stun if it only takes 0.9 sec to kill someone.
> Back in the early seasons . . . In fact, you'd have 4+ Mercs on any given team. I remember those day. 90% dodge chance Sivir anyone? XD However. Your story still falls into the same pattern. CC was long. People bought the counter. Future CC was less effected by the counter. By your explanation, move-block CC came about because people bout a counter to existing CC. But rather than make the initial thing more resilient to the counter, they could have nerfed it and removed the counter. The result would have been largely the same (Morg same might be less of a meme). >Also, nowadays time-to-kill is pretty low Ya... That's a whole other can of worms just waiting to derail this thread. (>_>) Though if things are so much faster, you would think reducing down-time wouldn't be a problem. At least until that gets resolved.
Pika Fox (NA)
: There is a difference between .25 and .125. if im doing the CC or see someone else going to do the same, i can mentally queue up what im going to do. Same for the enemy. You can get around reaction times at high level gameplay by proactively doing things instead of reacting to them. For stun durations longer that end up being 1.5-2s, you generally dont need that foresight and can react to the shortened timer. Its generally long enough regardless to do what you were trying to do already anyway. And removing tenacity would cause some issues; namely champs lose an mr foot option (or more likely it becomes mr tabi), and you lose the ability to force the enemy off tabi or zerks just by being leona.
>You can get around reaction times at high level gameplay by proactively doing things instead of reacting to them. Ok. I don't quite understand the connection you're making here. What's the difference between proactively using am ability and getting stunned out VS Getting reactively using an ability and still getting stunned out? Are you referring to cast time buffering by any chance? Since that's a trick that allows you to use an ability while CC'ed, regardless of that CC's duration.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ariel the Cruel,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=2MKjsKEj,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-08-23T17:30:57.085+0000)The only practical differences are the investment to escape (Cleanse/tenacity VS Cleanse+blink) and Visuals... I would call that a meaningful difference though. If your target does not have a dash or blink handy, all the tenacity or CC reduction in the world won't help them. >If movement was the only concern, they could use a root instead. Which would then be removed via cleanse or reduced via tenacity. >What this tells me, is that Knock-ups are a CC designed for when it is absolutely necessary that the victim not escape. But that doesn't appear to be how it is used. In your examples, Zyra can make sense because she has to keep opponents in range of her plants (but no in range to kill them). On Ivern and Zac, it only acts as disruption and is somewhat spammable to boot. Wukong as a fairly large AoE and move speed boost that persists even when he is CC'ed. These three don't scream "Compliance necessary" to me. Ivern's goal is very much about helping his team close, and movement prevention helps with this greatly. Zac benefits hugely from additional time near a target and the ability to prep his ult. Wukong's is almost certainly a clarity issue given the thematic effect and the large particle on the spinning monkey. > If Stuns are not sufficiently visually clear, how can we make them so? I'm not sure that's the problem, so much that for some CC (especially visually complex CC or CC with large elements) it's simply clearer to see something *move*. Most stuns are sufficiently clear, but this is not the case in every situation. There is also the point of player satisfaction to consider -- knock-ups are visceral and fun and exciting, and that means stripping them out would come at a meaningful price to gameplay feel. Finally, there is also opponent clarity to keep in mind -- seeing yourself pop up is actually often a better indicator that you can't act than a particle effect, especially since stuns often have different visuals. So, to some extent, the question of "which do I use here" can often come down to "which will feel more FUN here," assuming you have the power budget to consider both.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=2MKjsKEj,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-23T18:05:38.355+0000) > > I would call that a meaningful difference though. If your target does not have a dash or blink handy, all the tenacity or CC reduction in the world won't help them. What does that have to do with visual clarity of action lock-out? Whether you are stunned or displaced, you still can't do anything unless the CC is removed. Unless you're saying it's important to know when you are stunned VS displaced. In which case I agree, knowing *what* you are affected by, especially when there are multiple similar effects, is vitally important. However, ability to tell them apart isn't necessarily relevant to the discussion of *why* you fall under either of them in the first place. > Which would then be removed via cleanse or reduced via tenacity. So then I fall back to a rather common question of mine. Does the existence of Tenacity as a counter create a problem in the game dynamic that would be better if removed? By the reasoning that a Displacement must be used to prevent movement because a root could be reduced, then an unreducable root would be a healthier mechanic because it still leaves the victim the ability to peruse non-movement option. > Ivern's goal is very much about helping his team close, and movement prevention helps with this greatly. Zac benefits hugely from additional time near a target and the ability to prep his ult. Wukong's is almost certainly a clarity issue given the thematic effect and the large particle on the spinning monkey. I agree movement prevention helps ivern's goal. But it's not uncommon for his ult to get multiple AoE knock-ups off in a fight, or none at all. In the case of the prior, he's still causing a lot of disruption. In the latter, it doesn't matter what he has. Zac's ult has a minimum charge time of 1 second before he even *starts* building travel range, full charge requires 2.5 second. His longest CC is a 1 second knock-up on a fully charged Sling Shot (shorter duration for less charge). Outside a gank or flank, that knock-up isn't doing much for his ult. Unless I'm doing something horribly wrong when I play him. . . Wukong goes back to the clarity discussion. > I'm not sure that's the problem, so much that for some CC (especially visually complex CC or CC with large elements) it's simply clearer to see something *move*. Most stuns are sufficiently clear, but this is not the case in every situation. There is also the point of player satisfaction to consider -- knock-ups are visceral and fun and exciting, and that means stripping them out would come at a meaningful price to gameplay feel. > > Finally, there is also opponent clarity to keep in mind -- seeing yourself pop up is actually often a better indicator that you can't act than a particle effect, especially since stuns often have different visuals. So, to some extent, the question of "which do I use here" can often come down to "which will feel more FUN here," assuming you have the power budget to consider both. > There is also the point of player satisfaction to consider -- knock-ups are visceral and fun and exciting, and that means stripping them out would come at a meaningful price to gameplay feel. I don't really agree with this one. But it's also a highly subject to opinion. so I'll just take your word for it. >Finally, there is also opponent clarity to keep in mind -- seeing yourself pop up is actually often a better indicator that you can't act than a particle effect, especially since stuns often have different visuals. That comes back to making something stronger only because the weaker version isna't as clear. If some abilities are being buffed *only* for that reason, then shouldn't clarity of the weaker ability be addressed? ----------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- I may make another topic to explore soft counters (Tenacity, Grevious wounds, etc). Seems like something worth exploring. And apologies if I seem obstinate in my responses. I'm trying to argue against everyone, regardless of where they stand. (Though so far, everyone is taking the same position.)
: According to the Wiki, 31 champions have straight knock-ups. 32 with Newnu. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Types_of_Crowd_Control#Airborne Here are the respective durations: 0.5 s: {{champion:266}} , {{champion:267}} , {{champion:113}} 0.75 s: {{champion:3}} , {{champion:59}} , {{champion:117}} , {{champion:78}} , {{champion:5}} 1 s: {{champion:12}} , {{champion:53}} , {{champion:31}} , {{champion:105}} , {{champion:427}} , {{champion:64}} , {{champion:111}} , {{champion:516}} , {{champion:497}} , {{champion:421}} , {{champion:141}} (as Rhaast), {{champion:163}} , {{champion:143}} 1.25 s: {{champion:3}} (R) , {{champion:254}} 1.5 s: {{champion:54}} 2 s: {{champion:516}} (R), 0.5-1 s: {{champion:14}} , {{champion:154}} 0.5-1.25 s: {{champion:40}} 1-1.5 s: {{champion:201}} (R) 1.5-2 s: {{champion:429}} ?: {{champion:92}} (should be 0.75-1 s) {{champion:62}} (same), {{champion:157}} (same), {{champion:20}} (?) 32 champions with straight knockups doesn't seem to be that overbearing to me, tbh. However, I'd agree with you that unconditional/untelegraphed AoE knockups with longer than 1s duration feel really bad - {{champion:201}} {{champion:429}} {{champion:54}} . Feel like those could be capped at 1 s and have the rest of the time only with the (reducible) stun. Also, if you were to convert most of the 1 s-knockups into stuns, they'd have a baseline duration of 1.5 seconds - or ~1 second with Mercs.
I'm fully aware stuns are currently more common. But Riot is slowly adding knock-ups where there would traditionally be stuns. The primary question of this topic is whether or not that's a trend they should continue following. >Also, if you were to convert most of the 1 s-knockups into stuns, they'd have a baseline duration of 1.5 seconds - or ~1 second with Mercs. That's a justification I see fairly often on the forums, and it's not limited to just tenacity. And it always brings me back to the same question. Thing A exists. Thing B exists to counter Thing A. Thing A is is buffed on the assumption that it will always be countered. Now either the counter is mandatory to deal with thing A, or the counter is meaningless because thing A now ignores it. Either way, the existence of the counter accomplishes nothing. So in the case of Tenacity, should it be removed or in some way gated such that Knock-ups no longer become a necessary counter-counter?
Pika Fox (NA)
: Because, for the most part, they are. Stuns get increased duration (even with mercs, stuns still generally last longer) but can be more easily mitigated by mikaels or qss. Displacements either function to give more utility disengage (poppy e or vayne e), force someone out of position (naut, vlitz etc), or the one youre mostly referring to just add a brief yet reliable interrupt, generally lasting a fraction of a second unless its an ult. The big thing is primarilly just "we want disruption, but we want short duration disruption". A stun has to be lengthy because of tenacity. A knockup doesnt. If you wanted a .25s stun, you might as well just make it a displacement.
If if I'm understanding your position correctly, the problem is with stuns being reduced by tenacity or cleansed. So does that mean there's a problem with tenacity? And I'm not convinced a 0.25 second stun is necessarily an issue. 0.25 seconds is barely within a person's reaction time. If the only goal to to break or disrupt, what is the practical difference between 0.25 and 0.125? Since most characters with CC tend to need that CC, what if tenacity was removed and all CC was re-balanced around a world where it wouldn't be reduced short of exceptional circumstances (Ex: Gangplank, Sej passive, and Cleanse). Would there be any major fall-out?
: New Aatrox slashes you with his sword and knocks you up for... reasons?
Reasons. (>_>) Aatrox's Q is pretty slow and telegraphed. Failing to dodge it should be a punishable offense.
: First, let's clarify what a knock-up actually is: Mechanistically, Knock-ups are actually stuns that occur simultaneously with with a moveblock (the actual knock-up). The stun part is reduced by Tenacity, while the moveblock has a forced execution time. If you remove the stun (with QSS, Mikael's, enough Tenacity or similar stuff) and reenable yourself to cast abilities, you can actually use your own moveblock to override the knock-up's moveblock, enabling yourself to act sooner. However, for some reason, {{summoner:1}} is specifically denied this feature.
The investment to escape a knock-up is significantly higher than a stun. This is why I rank it below only Stasis in the power hierarchy. But when is that added investment justified and when is it not? Right now, Stuns (without the move block) seems to be used interchangeably with with knock-ups. Is this a trend that we can justify?
Pika Fox (NA)
: Displacements are shorter duration than snares/stuns in most cases. You can also QSS them and use a blink to get out of them early (similarly, i believe tenacity does let you blink early even without QSS as well)
Snares sill allow non-movement actions, which is why I tried to avoid their comparison. I also acknowledge that stuns are generally longer in duration. But even on shorter duration, The function of a stun and a knock-up is almost the same. But despite that, the stronger knock-ups seem to be used almost interchangeably.
: >Stuns and Knock-ups are the only two mechanics with identical use cases This is not *entirely* true. It's important to note that the forced movement portion is unaffected by Tenacity and cannot be cleansed. As such, a knock-up is *slightly* stronger than a stun. In effect, a stationary knock-up is a two-part ability -- one part that says "you can't issue move commands" and one part that says "you are stunned." Tenacity affects the latter, but not the former. So we see stationary knock-ups on a lot of characters who benefit from keeping enemies in a single position (Alistar, Galio, Ivern, Janna, Jarvan IV, Malphite, Nami, Nautilus, Ornn, Wukong, Zac, Zyra), either because they're peelers or because they have damage that can follow it up especially well. We also see it for short-duration things, because in many cases it's more appreciable for short-term effects than a stun, because it's easier to *recognize*. Kayne, Blitzcrank, Rakan, Rek'Sai, Xin Zhao are good examples of champions that gain a lot of clarity (and some cool visual feel) by their knock-ups. I'd guess Nunu's case is a combination of his desire to keep enemies close as much as possible *and* the heavy visual graphic of the snowball. Making it knock up enemies means that the impact is a little more apparent to the Nunu players, the victims, and both teams, as otherwise the exploding snowball could graphically dominant the view.
>As such, a knock-up is slightly stronger than a stun. I mentioned their relative power in the opener. The intent between a knock-up and a stun are both to keep someone from acting at all. The only practical differences are the investment to escape (Cleanse/tenacity VS Cleanse+blink) and Visuals (Which I'll address in a moment). If movement was the only concern, they could use a root instead. What this tells me, is that Knock-ups are a CC designed for when it is absolutely necessary that the victim not escape. But that doesn't appear to be how it is used. In your examples, Zyra can make sense because she has to keep opponents in range of her plants (but no in range to kill them). On Ivern and Zac, it only acts as disruption and is somewhat spammable to boot. Wukong as a fairly large AoE and move speed boost that persists even when he is CC'ed. These three don't scream "Compliance necessary" to me. As for visuals: Riot added the CC icons to champions specifically to improve clarity. I can concede that knock-ups are being used for better clarity. But if a knock-up is only used for that reason, then the sensible conclusion is that their clarity improvement is failing. So accepting that dynamic, I offer this new point of discussion: If Stuns are not sufficiently visually clear, how can we make them so?
: Displacements should be affected by tenacity and it's just riot that have been too lazy to fix that issue. Only attacks that grab you should be excluded.
This is a major component of the discussion, defiantly! Non-grab displacements need consistency when moving people as well, otherwise the ability's parameters become unclear. Take gragas ult for example. If you have 50% tenacity, should it only move you half the distance? Should the just the stun fall off so you can do other actions while being moved? It can get really messy really fast. Though I would argue that some displacements don't really need too move their victims. As far as Knock-ups specifically though (Which move you 0 units): if they were affected by tenacity, what would make them different from a stun?
: > [{quoted}](name=Ariel the Cruel,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=2MKjsKEj,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-08-23T04:11:57.211+0000) > > What stuns and/or knock-ups that exist in the game should be replaced and why? Poppy's ult. Generally you don't want to fully charge it, but when you do it's pretty annoying to have used on you. If you don't charge it up, it's overcosted in terms of mana and CD for what it does. Since she has displacement with potential stun in her E, and she can prevent movement with her W, I think she's got enough tools for keeping someone where they don't want to be. What I'd like to see is for Poppy to jump up in the air and slam the hammer down, stunning and damaging everyone in the AoE.
>What I'd like to see is for Poppy to jump up in the air and slam the hammer down, stunning and damaging everyone in the AoE. For the full ult or just the snap-cast? And isn't getting people where they don't want to be poppy's niche? Her damage and CC is restricted by terrain and her ult is just as likely to save someone as leave their ally for dead. As for the change, the knock-up consistency can be argued as necessary for her to reposition for Q. Though honestly, I can think of just as man scenarios where a large AoE stun would be just as powerful. . .
: Knockups are fine as long as they are kept 1 second or shorter(pref shorter). IMO, A prime example of a healthy long duration "knock up" is Sion. Decimating smash deals a 0.5-1 knockup followed by a 1.25-2.25 stun, the end result is a stun enhanced by a minimum duration and style points instead of an uncleansible 3 second monstrosity. The ratio of knockVSstun provides another lever for balance team to fiddle with instead of just total duration. If biggest snowball ever becomes an issue, i say we add this property to it.
I agree with this. Don't expect biggest snowball to ever be an issue, honestly, but it makes a good example for discussion.
Glaedr (NA)
: Being able to simply QSS or cleanse out of a stun is the biggest argument against removing a knockup on a kit. The only option out of a knockup is a QSS + Flash once hit by it so maybe in playtesting Riot decided that the difference was big enough to keep for Nunu.
>Being able to simply QSS or cleanse out of a stun is the biggest argument against removing a knockup on a kit. Not being able to reliably do so is also the biggest argument for. I get that. But for the Nunu example specifically, his Snowball doesn't appear to be a large part of his combo so much as an engage and farming tool. What makes largest snowball so much for vital than, say, a Leona ult?
: The main difference is consistency with regards to durations. Knockups can't be reduced by Tenacity, which means champions balanced around a particular window of CC they can apply don't have to be balanced around two separate windows. Because knockups also move champions up and down, they tend to look more visible than stuns. This is pretty much why they're (over)used. I don't think it's a good reason, and I don't think there is a core functional difference between knockups and stuns, or suppression for that matter, but those are the use cases that arise from the particularities of the game's CC and CC mitigation systems.
I've considered that perspective before. If we're trying to make CC windows more consistent, then why not transition all stuns to displacements and/or modify/remove tenacity? Most (not all) champions with CC rely on it too maximize their kit.
: > Why are knock-ups used instead of stuns when they are (and technically vice-versa)? Crucial difference is that knockups break dashes. That allows for more skill-expression (as it requires good timing), and acts as a counter-measure for mobility creep.
Forgot about the dash breaks. Vieger's stun also breaks mobility skills though. So if tht's the primary goal, then it's still possible to achieve this with a stun. The design space remains the same between the two under this reasoning. Is there any kind of weirdness with veiger's stun that doesn't happen with displacements or vice versa?
  Rioter Comments
: That is horrible ideas for Karma. You are taking away the on-set damage of her Mantra Q for an unreliable damage to Eruption? You do know how unreliable that 2nd tick of damage is right? There is no other use for it and the reason she does damage right now is because of the first hit of Mantra Q. Get rid of the unreliable 2nd tick of damage or make the 2nd tick of damage heal instead of do damage. W and Mantra W just needs to be replaced with something else that gives her CC.
The goal of this Q2 *isn't* damage, it's utility. I even stated that outright. I would rather buff the radius or the slow than to add damage or another heal. The eruption would probably be about as reliable as Soraka's root. My goal with the W2 change was giving her a path into the front line. If she's going to be playing with the tanks, she'll needs ways to survive next to them. And since tanks will be more of a threat and there will still probably be another proper support, hard CC wasn't as much of a concern. Default W was intended to keep the root. This in mind, I'm open to suggestions. So going your route could be something along the lines of . . . P: Heal and shield are both buffed by 15% of target's missing health on allies. Q2: Leaves a large slowing AoE at the end of the bullet's range or on hitting an enemy that erupts after a short time healing allied champions in the radius. W: Karma gains damage reduction for 4 seconds and roots any enemy that damages her 4 or more times in that duration. W2: Apply this effect to tart allied champion. I'll be honest. I'm drawing a blank for good W CC options. ------------------- Just a note: This isn't necessarily intended as a literal solution to everything. This is me exploring OP's claim of lazy and boring while asking, "What would not lazy and boring look like by these standards?" So try not to take these as gospel (Otherwise I would have posted in concepts and creations). Direction is more interesting than fine detail (even if I did get carried away while without internet).
: > [{quoted}](name=Linna Excel,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=GIWBugod,comment-id=000b00000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T18:17:32.122+0000) I'm about to pop off a little. It isn't entirely your fault, but this needs to be stressed heavily. > > Yes Janna is a little overloaded but I also don't see any rioters claiming she needs to have a massive rework on her gameplay identity. Being complacent about it doesn't change the fact that it's a problem. Janna's *blatantly* overloaded. > As for Sona, she is what she is: an aura champ who is about selecting the right song for her passive AA. That's not something riot can really change. She's always going to be about positioning. The poke on her Q and the other champ heal on her W is just something so people can see her doing something. Riot could do something else with her E, but that's about it. She is what she is and I don't think her design is wrong. I love playing Sona. I finally got around to getting my first mastery 7 token on her yesterday (ARAM main for most of the year). Here's what you don't get. 1) EVERY. CHAMP. IN. THIS GAME. POSITIONS. That isn't a "thing" that brings out a champion's kit. It's a bare necessity of the game if you don't want to see Bronze 5. Your post even shows how lazily done her Q and W are. "Just so people can see she's doing something"? The hell!? Her design is *absolute garbage.* **Complete hogwash.** Lazy. Half-assed. Uninspired. Lousy. Idk, pick a word. > At the end of the day, not every champ is for every player. Just because some of us don't like all the champs doesn't mean those champs have a ton of people who do love them. As a person who really hates it when riot deletes some champs during reworks, I'd really prefer riot focus on making newer champs that don't have the flaws of the old ones. Oh, and here's the *biggest "F YOU"* in this whole thing. If I played tanks, they vgu'd Poppy and Galio, two wardens, they're reworking a third in Nunu, and they MADE ORNN for vanguard players. If I played battle mages, they vgu'd Swain and MADE AURELION SOL. If I played burst mages they MADE ZOE AND TALIYAH If I played assassins they vgu'd Evelynn and Akali and EVEN MADE PYKE, so you can support and play assassin at the same damn time. If I played marksmen they MADE XAYAH AND KAI'SA. If I played catchers they MADE RAKAN...and then made Ivern so you can support while you freaking jungle. If I play enchanters? Not only have they not modernized any of these older designs, **_but they haven't made a new one in 6 freaking years._** I don't want a warden or a catcher with "enchanter bits". I want *an enchanter.* We haven't seen a new one since 2012 ON TOP OF these problems detailed here. Riot gets no pass from me.
So trying to get a gauge of what you are after, here are some quick update ideas (off the top of my head). . . {{champion:432}} Bard Is awesome. Just a friendly reminder. :) -------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- {{champion:40}} Janna P: MS bonus changed to 5% +2% per rank of W while it is not on CD. Makes using Zephyr more costly. Q: Size grows with charge time, arrow effect alerting allies of the travel direction. (smaller hit-box when snap-casting, larger when fully charged.) Still breaks dashes. The idea here is too encourage predictive play on Janna's part. W: Cooldown per level lowered. AA bonus moved from passive to W, can be used on allies to give them her damage and MS bonus. Still castable on enemies to damage and slow. Becomes a linear collision skill shot only hitting champions (with a generous hit-box). While this will remove some of the encouragement Janna has to interact with enemies, it drastically increases the trade-off when giving allies bonus damage as opposed to the live version on shield. Changing the bonus to on-hit damage also removes crit scaling. E: Cooldown increased. No longer decays, but also no longer grants bonus AD. Partial cooldown and mana refund if the shield is broken. Since decaying shields are the newest enchanter trend and ult heal is being removed, this lets her preserve a core strength. The partial refund is to give opponents a way to play around the shield while also punishing her for spamming. R: Heal replaced with a slow and grounds enemies in the AoE. Channels for god-tier peel (or picks) instead of resetting the fight. The idea here is to really double-down on Janna's peel and decision making while reducing her general versatility. The damage bonus on her live passive feels like a trap most of the time and the AD on shield is often accused of double-dipping by the community. Reworking both of them into something donatable seems like a efficient solution to both. ------------------------ ------------------------ {{champion:43}} Skarma Step 1) Admit I'm biased. P: Shields and heals on allies gain bonus effectiveness equal to a % of the ally's missing health. 5% for heals and 15% for shields. First step to giving her a passive while returning her the niche of "front-liner's support." Q: No change. Q2: Bullet removed; changed to a ground targeted skill shot. Immediately slows and grounds in an AoE on cast. No damage until eruption. Changes from a damage focused ability to a utility focused ability. W: Increased leash range and damages every half second. Continually heals for a % of damage dealt. Increases consistency and safety making it more usable when not building tank. W2: Cast on target ally granting them both bonus resists equal to 10/20/30% of who ever's is higher (usable on minions, target detection prioritizes champions). Karma heals for a % of all damage taken by that ally and they heal for a % of all damage dealt by Karma's abilities and basic attacks (No Sunfire loopholes). Replacing the CC component with a durability steroid that allows and encourages her to follow her favorite front liner into the fray, while rewarding them for the carry. This also gives tank Skarma a purpose beyond "hard to kill," if people want to pursue it. Braum would still be a better option of you're trying to give squishies some durability, though. E: Shields Karma and target ally (Target detection prioritizes champions). Shield amount increased on self cast. Lets her double dip when shielding minions during lane phase or allies in a fight. Self cast buff allows ally shield to be weaker (using passive) without hurting her solo lane. E2: Deals damage in an area based on target ally's max health (Target detection prioritizes champions), then shields that ally equal to the damage dealt (post-mitigation). Return of the shield bomb! Though not quite as powerful as legend, it still allows her to perform some shenanigans during lane phase and becomes a mini-nuke when used on health stackers (Vlad, Zac, etc.). R: "Buy back" passive moved to ult. Mantras now ~~(again)~~ inverse abilities instead of making them flat better. Now that Mantra is replacing abilities instead of buffing them, that should free up enough power budget to give her a "real" passive. Working with Skarma's enchanter elements, I want to bring *back* pre-rework's synergy with beefy front liners. The goal is to keep her as an early game solo laner while transitioning into a mid/late game tank/fighter support. This, of course, means finding ways to reduce her effectiveness when supporting squishies. Hopefully the overhaul makes her a bit more interesting to play while pissing off her two fan bases *roughly equally.* ------------------------ ------------------------- {{champion:117}} Lulu {{champion:267}} Nami {{champion:497}} Rakan Since you didn't express any complaints about them, I won't bother touching. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ {{champion:37}} Sona P: Sona's basic abilities have no individual cooldown. Instead she has 4 "beats" (ammo system), one of which is consumed with each spell cast. All of Sona's basic abilities go on a half-second cooldown when a beat is expended. 1 beat is regained every 4 seconds (Not affected by CDR). Once every 6 seconds (not affected by CDR), if Sona has no "beats," Her next AA is modified based on the last spell she cast. - Q: Deals true damage in an area around the target. Instantly kills wards and visible, damageable traps in the AoE. - Reduces the single-target annihilation in return for extra team-fight chip. Doesn't feel as bad losing it to a ward. - W: Forces the target enemy to dance for a short amount of time. Only consumed when attacking a champion. - Keeping her stun after replacing the ult. - E: Causes enemies in a cone to deal reduced damage. - Upping the power a bit to compensate for the reduced usage. Q: Deals a small amount of damage in a cone. Enemies affected take a small amount of bonus damage from all sources, including her passive, for 2 seconds (Stacks up to 4 times, new applications also refresh duration). Burning 4 beats on Q then hitting with the AA will still chunk enemies, but gives a lot more counter-play. Original damage potential is shunted into "bonus damage" giving allies an opportunity to dance along. W: Grants Sona and nearby allies Bonus base MS for 1 second. Additional casts stack and refresh the duration. I'm really at a loss on what to do with this one. :/ E: Drops a <thing> that shields nearby allied champions (including Sona) for a small amount every time she uses an ability in it's radius. Lasts 3 seconds and multiple shields stack. Since the shield projectile was never very swift to begin with, I'm not overly concerned with the delay. This lets her create a "studio" where she can stack shields on allies. Individual shields are small though, so it's not a life-saving ability. Counter-play is to not let her set up, pull her out of the set-up, or assassinate targets before the shields can stack. R: Cut Time Sona temporarily changes tempo from common time to cut time, regenerating 1 beat immediately. For the next 6 seconds, her abilities have a quarter second cooldown and she regenerates 1 beat ever 2 seconds. <"Change the beat, set the mood."> Keeping Sona the "kitchen sink" support. Skill-shot counter-play is a bit of a rough one without completely alienating her player-base (this probably pushes it too far already). Instead I opted for situational counter-play. Keeping with her music theme, I tried to build the kit around musical tempo. Specifically, common time (4/4). When all hell breaks lose, she can change the tempo for a short-lived super show. -------------------------------- -------------------------------- {{champion:16}} Soraka P: Soraka uses %current health instead of mana to cast abilities. When ever she damages an enemy, she regenerates 80% of the health cost over the next 4 seconds (doubled against champions). 50% of Soraka's bonus health, health regen, and mana regen is converted into AP at a <number> ratio (Think Pyke, not Vlad). Moves faster towards low health allied champions. Implementing the mechanic that her kit will revolve around, while taking inspiration from Pyke/Jhin to mitigate itemized circumvention. Also keeping the ambulance thing so she has a "real" passive. Q: 5% cost. Drops a star on target location. Enemies take damage over time while allies gain bonus health regen. Does not affect Soraka. Her primary means of healing and recovering health in a fight. Technically has the ability to heal herself and an ally, which is why the functionality is limited to DoT and health regen. W: 15%. After a short channel, Soraka heals target ally for a large amount of health or damages target enemy champion. Thanks to the new healing options in her kit, I can afford to nerf this one. Keeping the Over-sized point-and-click heal players know, but adding the ability for enemies to interrupt it. Can also be used on enemy champions if she needs the health. E: 5% Still creates a silencing circle. Allies inside the circle receive increased healing and health regen from Soraka's abilities. Enemies inside the circle when it collapses are rooted, allies inside the circle when it collapses are cleansed. Encourages allies to stay inside the circle where enemies can layer their AoE. Also serves as my answer to grievous wounds. R: No change. Too Iconic. We know Riot Doesn't like Soraka *because* she is the game dedicated healer. Rather than making her revolve entirely around 1 skill, I'm trying to make her revolve around the 1 health conversion mechanic. Hard to say if this is better or worse, but it at least has more play dynamics. Using abilities in rapid succession is an intended method of "gaming" her passive recovery. As is enemies bursting her during the recovery window. -------------------------- -------------------------- Tried to post this earlier but my internet went out. Now the thread is exploding. XD Oh well. Best intentions and all that . . .
: In my opinion all Enchanters should be reworked into Utility-Mages capable of healthy solo-laning. Because if the kit is healthy in a Solo lane, it can't suddenly be bad in a Duo-Lane (the other way around is a WHOLE different story tho). The perfect example is {{champion:267}} here - her kit is pretty solid and fun, she's just kept low on purpose, but with some damage buffs, especially to the ratios she could become definetly a viable top/midlane pick. Aside from that, most champs you listed are old as fuck and due for a full-blown VGU.
>In my opinion all Enchanters should be reworked into Utility-Mages capable of healthy solo-laning. While I agree with this, there is a different fundamental design component that leads to their isolation. Though not originally intended, Supports (Champion) are often balanced around the assumption of minimal income due to the game's unequal revenue streams. Before we elevate the dedicated lower class, the game would have to be restructured to provide more equalized revenue. *Then* we can rework supports on that basis. If we try doing this the other way around, we end up with either Support Malz/Vel'koz (example) or FQC on mids. My personal favorite solution (though admittedly not perfect) was the role system used in [Dawngate](https://dawngate.gamepedia.com/Roles). The basic premise was that each person's primary revenue stream was a pre-game decision. This mitigated (not removed) the competition that leads to funneling strats. Gladiator: CS Tactician: harass and allied CS Hunter: Jungle Predator: Kills and income disruption (Passive income was an active component in that game).
Show more

Ariel the Cruel

Level 58 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion