: You might be getting more now, because winning games is no longer a requirement ;)
Take this with a grain of salt (since you can see how infrequently I play anymore), but my first impression is that no longer receiving keys at end of game won't be a good thing. They just...randomly drop when you're not in queue? This encourages us to sit around NOT queuing, not playing, waiting for something that might not happen. :/ When they drop at the end of a game at least we _know_. None of this teasing.
: {{champion:23}} Like, people talk about how braindead easy and cheesy he can be, and I just look at them like they're gods.
Trynd is weird. He's got a 'simple' kit, but it's all in the nuance. It's the little decisions like should I go for that extra auto that might crit, or when to use (or save) his W, or how best to use his straightforward but versatile spin. And he is _extremely_ matchup dependent as well, he can crush some enemies but gets outscaled by way more. And being a splitpusher as well, that's just one more thing that people think is 'braindead' but depending on how well your team is doing (you know, the other 80% of the map), this can also be a very difficult decision. Plus, the whole crit thing. You just never know. He's got a whole 'ride or die' vibe to him, which honestly is pretty fitting for his champ theme but so, so shitty gameplay-wise. Quas plays Trynd every now and again though, for anybody looking for tips. Check the past broadcasts. https://www.twitch.tv/quaslol
: {{champion:266}} {{champion:34}} {{champion:136}} {{champion:268}} {{champion:122}} {{champion:81}} {{champion:114}} {{champion:105}} {{champion:104}} {{champion:420}} {{champion:39}} {{champion:427}} {{champion:59}} {{champion:55}} {{champion:7}} {{champion:236}} {{champion:117}} {{champion:57}} {{champion:56}} {{champion:92}} {{champion:68}} {{champion:98}} {{champion:163}} {{champion:91}} {{champion:8}} {{champion:157}} {{champion:143}} I don't get how to play any of these. I suppose in relation to the "everyone but you knows how to play" thing, {{champion:122}} would be the biggest example of that. Don't understand how he's supposed to kill people at all.
Alright this thread is clearly a safe space, so before I ask I just wanna say that this isn't BM at all and I'm genuinely curious. {{champion:81}}? His kit's pretty simple, no? Ah, well then again his build paths vary a lot depending on the item metas. Tri or IBG, BotRK or ER or neither, do I need QSS or can I Shift out of everything, wtf armor pen do I buy, etc. And there is mechanical difficulty because he's extremely skillshot reliant, I can get that too... ...You know what, I think I answered my own question. Carry on.
: Except that Darius is still full-on cancer for most melee matchups. It's also incredibly easy for him to get 5 stacks on you any time you try to trade with him thanks to his grab and insane slow. Unless you have a very strong hit-and-run type of kit, there's no counterplay here because he can 5-stack you any time you try anything against him. And I'm pretty sure "dont get hit by the edge of his Q" has been the deal since he was released--so that has nothing to do with the rework--but its a bit of a stupid idea for counterplay regardless since being up in his face is usually suicide as well. I don't think we should consider Darius to be a success. Just "slightly less cancer than before". :P If it wasn't such a well articulated post I'd almost assume sarcasm tbh. Darius is not really in a good place at all. Still in a "Ban if you want to play melee top" place.
Champions are allowed to have strengths and weaknesses. Darius is _meant_ to have favorable matchups into most melee champs, because that's what he's good at. This is not to say that he doesn't have weaknesses, and ignoring these doesn't mean they don't exist. Like, is Caitlyn also "cancer" (-_-) because her auto range is longer than Lucian's? Is Jarvan "cancer" if he ults onto a non-mobile, Flashless champ? Is Baron "cancer" because it provides a buff to the team that kills it? ("Where is the counterplay here? It's either kill Baron or lose!") Take another look at where you draw the line between legitimate advantage and cancer.
: Garen has always just been "worse" Darius, can we fix that?
He already has a couple niches though. His ult passive makes him the game's only true anti-carry, and his armor shred means he does well into tanky teams or with AD-heavy teammates.
: Hey, sorry for the confusion. It looks like we forgot to include a crucial sentence -- once chromas have gone on IP sale once, they'll return every other IP sale. So the ones you missed in the previous sale will return next time. :-) We're currently working on updating this article to reflect that. Sorry about that!
: Yes, but her stealths are short, she can still be hit by skillshots, and she has the shortest auto attack range in the game. It was more like in the past her invisibility was just useless because people bought pink wards. It's not an outplay it's just her losing a part of her kit. If it needs to be tuned to an even shorter invisibility time or changed entirely then that's a balance issue that was always there but just ignored because of a small workaround. The invisibility changes make a lot of sense and should be left.
A reply that is reasonable and sees both sides of the argument while presenting the reality of the situation. Nice. ...Also, the most heavily-downvoted comment I've seen. This is how you know we're in an echo chamber.
Anonagon (NA)
: The class reworks on the whole have been mostly successful, even if individual reworks in them weren't. Riot is also learning important lessons from the class updates that will make future ones better. Of the four roster updates, the only one that was outright not successful was the juggernauts. From this, Riot learned not to attempt roster-level reworks for champions who need larger scale work, like Morde and Skarner. The Marksman update was great, aside from Kog. Every one of the major marksman reworks was incredibly successful at achieving the main goal - giving you unique reasons to pick them over other marksmen. So successful, in fact, that four of those reworked marksman are playable in roles that aren't the bot lane ADC role, showing that they do have strong strategic identities that persist outside of their lane. The Mage update was not as clean as the Marksman update was, for one primary reason - they decided to increase the scope of the smaller scale reworks. This has had lasting repercussions, some positive (Ziggs bot!), some negative (Syndra's skillcap being completely removed!). Sadly, it takes the Assassin update before Riot realizes that the smaller reworks aren't really great ideas, but at least their blog post confirms that they have in fact learned that lesson now. Riot also learned another lesson from the Mage update - fewer big reworks, bigger reworks. A lot of the big mage updates suffered from not enough attention and focus. For the assassin update, Riot would switch from 6 big updates to 4 bigger updates. The Assassin update has been, in my opinion, a success. All four of the major reworks are great. Yeah, three of them are busted as shit right now, but a champion being too strong or weak is not a reason to declare their rework a failure. The smaller reworks were less successful, but the only ones that are really "bad" are Akali and Fizz. These are the ones that really showed Riot that these smaller scale reworks aren't always a good idea. Because of the lessons all the previous roster updates provide, all the roster updates in the future will be better. I expect the tank rework to continue to improve on what has come before.
Best post in the thread. OP missed the entire point behind the reworks and is clearly trying to point out the negatives so he can squeeze out more upvotes from these dreadful boards.
: Isn't Katarina kinda OP at the moment though?
The reworks aren't concerned with balance. Never have been. That's what the biweekly balance patches are for. Instead, they deal more with game health and champion diversity. And I'd say they succeeded with Kat, for sure.
: http://i.imgur.com/axJmn.gif
It should be obvious to everyone here that the game already has an enemy missing ping, no? So from this, we can deduce that Mighty Marin's comment is sarcastic (as if the giant Pantheon thumbs-up wasn't enough of a hint). Which would mean that his joke whooshed over YOU. Sweet, delicious irony.
Castanean (EUW)
: I, um... I feel a bit sorry for that support. His/her luck with lane partners must have been awful...
I'd bet that his support is projecting. [Check it out.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) A non-salty support player will not jump to such salty conclusions. Regular players who see that their opponents are MIA will interpret MIA pings as such, because that is what they see. Salty supports, like his, will see the MIA ping and assume they are being salted against, because they themselves are salty. Which SSJTribe confirms, based on the support's response.
: You know when I trade with a champion and I take damage but they don't Cuz "lol free shield passive I don't have to manage" it seriously makes me hate the game.
It's not that she doesn't have to manage her shield, it's that she _can't_ manage it. Because while it is useful, like all other passives it is not under the player's control. Think how powerful Illaoi would be if you could store up tentacles, or save Poppy's passive, or Blitz's, or choose not to use Zac/Aatrox/Anivia's when you know you'll die immediately anyway, etc. It's a passive that gives her a shield. Not exactly ground-breaking. Her hextech bits glow when it's up, too, so at least it shouldn't take you by surprise.
: Nah, the crit RNG isn't really the issue. People just want an easy scapegoat to whine. But Crits aside, his kit is definitely not sorta OK. He jumps at you and whacks you with his sword until you die or he does. Except it always takes 3 more seconds than planned to kill him. He's just as bad as the 2 others you cited. I'd even say that Xin is in a better shape, 'cause his kit at least has some nuances to be used properly and most efficiently.
Crit RNG is THE issue imo. I agree the rest of his kit is definitely not sorta OK, but it's at least palatable. I don't think I go too far when I say that this game should reward making smart decisions and/or cleverly outplaying your opponent. Tryndamere's crits go against all of this. There is no "meaningful decision" when a Tryndamere hits you at level 2. He goes in on you and _hopes_ he gets lucky and crits. Whether he does or doesn't is out of both player's control, yet it can decide entire laning phases. Not okay.
: I will eat the thickest oranges without peel if brand gets buffed and shove 4 more up my ass.
The Rylai's and Liandry's changes are pretty big buffs for Brand. So...
: Then you suck at playing poppy. She has vastly higher damage than the majority of other wardens and trades no CC, survivability, or bonus stats for it.
How does him having rank 6 show that he's bad at Poppy? What sort of survivability does she have over other Wardens such as Shen or Maokai? It must be in her build paths or stats, because it certainly isn't in her kit. Also, these nerfs are hitting both Poppy's survivability and her damage output, which are both things you have said are too powerful. But at the same time you're saying you want her buffed. Huh?
Oelyk (NA)
: She has a unique spell that blocks all jumps around her... she can just stand on most squishies and block everything. every other warden does not have a skill like that.
Yea some champs have unique abilities. Revolutionary.
Dextix LT (EUNE)
: Yes, mages can play in the support role! We get that all the time, but even they do not have the damage output of brand! I have never seen a morgana take off more than half of my adcs hp even with her ultimate. I have never seen a vel'koz do the same. Not even lux or goddamn annie approach that kind of damage without their ultimates up. However brand can easily pull his combo off (Because using e-q is not a hard thing to do, so please don't try to show it as if it the slowest projectile ever, because it isnt). And he can poke heavily with his w, which hurts shitloads and is easy to hit because the enemy adc HAS to farm. When a "support" can almost solo kill an adc in around 2 seconds, THERE IS A PROBLEM. And even lockdown supports dont do shit, because guess what, their initiation will be stopped with his e-q (Which will be even ieaser to hit because the enemy is coming to him), and he can just simply focus and kill the adc because he will outdamage any lockdown support. If riot wants him to support, then they have to adjust him to the role, because having a "support" that can nearly solo kill your adc with 1 combo, is not fun gameplay. I read your comment, but unlike nay other mages i am not accepting a "support" that does as much supporting as a top lane nasus ganking. I am not accepting a support that can solo an adc with no problems. I am not accepting a support that with no items still does incredible damage. That is not a fucking support. Give me annie, lux, morgana, vel'koz, ANYONE over that cancer.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't a fact... You are free to refuse anything you want, but realize that you're being willfully ignorant, which is probably a bad thing.
Dextix LT (EUNE)
: He is still not a support, i will never accept a support that can nearly kill my adc in just one spell rotation. That is not a support, that is a mage. Any other mid lane mage on bot does not have such a high damage output and a nearly instant kill on an adc in one rotation. I do not refer to brand as "not support" because that he lacks cc. I refuse to refer to him as a support because he is a goddamn carry even in a "support" role due to his huge damage output even without items, which is a problem, it is one of the reasons why vel'koz support was once really popular and too good. Brand is simply too strong as a support and he is simply a mage. I am honestly tired or seeing mages on bot lane, because they fuck up the conventional supports and take their roles. I main bard, but when i face against a brand every second game, what is the point? Brand is not a support, his damage output even without any items is too high, he is a bot mage, not a support in any circumstance.
You're confusing terminology. Brand uses spells to do lots of damage. This means he is _classified_ as a mage. Brand can be played bot lane alongside an ADC. This is the Support _role_. Some mages can be Supports (Morgana, Brand), and some aren't (Taliyah, Ryze). Some Supports are mages (Brand, Lulu), and some aren't (Alistar, Thresh). Damage output doesn't have anything to do with their role. Just because lots of tanks go top lane doesn't mean everybody who goes top lane a tank, savvy?
: Fate/Zero
Nice, thanks for the quick response.
: This. When I queue for toplane / jungle, I do not want to play adc or support, and there is a reason for that: **I am not good at those roles, period.** I have no problem admitting that. I suck as ADC. I suck almost as much as a support. **By forcing me into that position, your matchmaking algorithm gives my team an unfair disadvantage and skews the functionality of your ranking system.** Whoever came up with this garbage system needs his head checked.
>By forcing me into that position, your matchmaking algorithm gives my team an unfair disadvantage and skews the functionality of your ranking system. Nope. Because the enemy team is just as likely as your team to have an autofilled player, this variable will have no effect over the long run. Just like AFKs, trolls, DCs, people playing on tilt, or anything else really. Sure, it sucks when these things happen to you and you might remember the _really_ bad cases for weeks or even months at a time...but I bet when this happens to the _enemy_ team, your happiness is nowhere near as profound as your frustration is when it happens to you. People only remember the 3 days the weather man was wrong, not the 97 he was right. Take solace in the fact that at least when you are autofilled now, you are guaranteed your primary or secondary role your next few games. This is much better than the old champ select, for many reasons.
: > I cant move up the latter Says the bronze 4 player. Just fyi, the only ranks that are affected by autofill are diamond and up due to the significantly longer queue times at these ranks. Your inability to climb the ladder* is due to your refusal to accept responsibility. Take it from a former bronze player that has managed to get to plat: you lose because you make mistakes. Fix them, and you will see your rank improve. Continue to blame others, and you will sit in bronze forever. Also, and this is very important, the situation you just described is NOTHING of or related to autofill. So basically you are blaming Riot for something THAT DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN.
Well said. Another point, over enough games he is just as likely to have as many autofilled allies as the enemy team does, so this will not affect his rank one way or the other.
Siazk (NA)
: I would rather wait 10 minutes for a position I picked over getting shoved into a random role. All I am going to do is wait and hope someone else drops before I do it. I will NEVER auto fill Riot.
If only it were that simple. You wouldn't just be increasing your own queue times. You would be increasing the queue times of the other nine people that the game places you with as well. If you are autofilled into a role and you already know you're going to dodge, it's probably better for you to just dodge immediately rather than waste the time of everybody else in that champ select. You are not the only person playing this game.
: It's a feeling of entitlement because I thought we moved PAST that hellhole. Imagine if we reinstated slavery tomorrow. People would probably riot. "But it was like this awhile ago." Yes, but we've progressed. No sense in reverting to it after removal was a success. It's a very blown-out-of-proportion analogy, but it gets the job done.
Except being autofilled one game then being guaranteed your roles the next few is still quite a few steps up from the old pick order system. >"But it was like this awhile ago." Yes, but we've progressed. No sense in reverting to it after removal was a success. Yeah, but the New Champ Select wasn't a complete success. Increased queue times are why we have autofill, remember? Everybody has the possibility to be autofilled in a given game. Seriously, don't be a douche and troll because you don't get your way.
Neidox (NA)
: I had an Alistair support yesterday that got auto filled into that position. We lost in champ select from his negative attitude towards being auto filled. I felt it affected his gameplay and decision making. He said he didn't care for the simple fact of being auto filled into a position he absolutely did not want. I say make auto fill an option IF YOU want faster ques. Not faster ques for other people.
Alright I'm gonna play the Devil's advocate here. You are not queuing just for yourself. You are queuing to be 1/5 of a team, and 1/10 of the players in a game. So if a player were able to avoid autofilling when it is needed, he isn't increasing only his own queue times, but the queue times of the other nine players as well. You can see how that isn't quite fair. Players _love_ the role selection that came with New Champ Select. And Riot loves that players love it, because people are more willing to play when they're having run, right? So with this, we can assume that Riot wouldn't want to use the autofill feature _just because_. Riot must have determined (with all their massive amounts of inaccessible, dubious data) that players dislike longer queue times more than they like the role selection. Otherwise, it would not be in their best interest to use the autofill feature. Seems logical, right?
: So you mean "one of us might get support" vs "i choose support"? Also Riot is including a mechanic that allows you to choose fill and select a role you dont want to fill in, such as support.
From the 6.23 patch notes: > **We have concluded testing position exclusion** in LAN and LAS **and saw it was negatively impacting queue times, so will not be continuing development on this feature.** We’re continuing to experiment with improvements to the whole champion select process. :(
: {{champion:86}} http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/c/c7/Saber%27s_Excalibur.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150730225158
: "Chaotic" seems to be one of the words filtered by the chat filter feature. What the hell Riot?
Mata is also filtered. LCS casters can say Mata in front of hundreds of thousands of people and it's fine, but I can't make _amazing_ references to five people in champ select.
Rurarz (EUNE)
: How can you make queue more healthier by leaving the most toxic type of champion pick as the only option for playing normal 5x5? This makes no sense, and you are trying to sell this to us by using some cheap PR Talk. You are suggesting that you know what makes players happy better than players themselves. This is utter ignorance. PLAYERS DONT WANT NORMAL DRAFT TO BE REMOVED, deal with it. You want proof? Here it is http://www.strawpoll.me/11606841/r So now you need to shift your narration and stop that PR crap that no one buys. If you want to cut costs just tell us, but telling that you want to make players "more happy" is complete BS.
Check out [this thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/5c0ims/i_analyzed_20_million_matches_and_found_that/) Look at the numbers. Normal draft only accounted for **6.4%**of all games played on EUNE. Apparently, Riot has determined that that percentage is too low, and I can see why. The lower the player count, the longer queues take, and the worse matchmaking quality is. And this is purely speculation on your part, but no additional server costs are good server costs. If this game mode were truly superior, more people would have been playing it. But people didn't play it, so now it's gone. Deal with it.
: > [{quoted}](name=Riot Draggles,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=iqcQYuBZ,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2016-11-09T02:28:55.554+0000) > > yes Is it going to work like season 5 (only 1 duo allowed per team, all 3 other players are solo) or is it going to work like season 6 (no limit to premades per team, duo + duo + solo bullshit can happen on the same team)?
I wasn't aware there was only one duo ever allowed on a team in solo/duo queue in years past. Can I get a source on that? Also, season 6 didn't have anything resembling a solo/duo queue. Allowing people to queue up with only up to two people is pretty different from 'no limit to premades per team.'
: At the cost of range, mobility, and lesser CC, aye.
All that, and also the ability to be a good tank as well. Any champ in the game can build tanky if they want. Nothing stopping your fed Viktor from buying Warmog's into Sunfire into GA if he wants to. Not that he _should_ buy these things, but regardless, if he did he still wouldn't be a tank. He's just be tank_y_. Item builds do not define a champ's class. So items don't turn Juggernauts into tanks. Got it. That leaves us with looking towards their kits, so let's take a look at Garen's. Damage Q, anti-burst W, damage E, and damage R. This guy's kit is obviously designed to murder people. Compare this to the kits of actual tanks like Poppy, Maokai, Braum, etc. who are loaded with CC and HP scalings. Here's a helpful hint Draco can use in the future: Juggernauts build tanky to empower themselves, whereas tanks build tanky to empower their team.
Meddler (NA)
: I read through that Reddit thread yesterday. It's got a lot of strong sentiment in it that's valuable feedback. It's pretty light on discussion from in game experience with plants though (few actual PBE testers commenting), so it’s not a complete picture. As with the other pre-season changes on the PBE plants are a work in progress. We’ve got some changes coming this week that should address a number of issues that have become apparent since the last set of changes (which occured just before PBE last week). Key details on those below. We’re also working on some backup plans for other possible issues that have been raised. For those sort of cases we want to have follow up plans ready in case they’re needed, but don’t want to make changes before things have been validated in game. Summary of those below too. The biggest concern about plants themselves we've seen expressed overall is that they're random and that randomness has no place in a competitive game. Can fully understand the concern there, given randomness can make for pretty miserable experiences in game at the expense of player skill. We don’t think randomness is automatically a bad thing in a competitive setting though. We see it as more a tool that, if used in the right way, can create good tests of skill and emergent play or, if used badly, can nullify skill and create a ‘that was bullshit’ feeling. Examples of what we feel falls into each of those two categories: . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . ** Controlled Randomness in LoL at present we think is good for the game: ** * Elemental Dragons Heavily telegraphed, rewards that support different strategies and counter them, system creates healthy game to game variety of experience. Equally available to both teams. * Kindred passive on enemy jungle camps Creates a series of risk/reward trade offs for the Kindred player that they’re free to engage with or not. Enemies can choose to try and counter or not. * Scuttle crab’s exact location You know roughly where Scuttle will be, and what the reward will be, but not the exact location it’ll be before getting there (assuming it’s up in the first place). Again, also equally available to both teams - it's a fair system, rather than one that biases in one direction or the other. * Draven axe landing location There's some randomness to where an axe could land forcing an adaptive responsive. Possible locations are from a limited pool and, when appropriate are effectively non random (e.g. when chasing) . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . ** Randomness in LoL we think is or was bad for the game: ** * Low % crit rates (higher % crit rates are also heavily debated, though a less clear argument) Small amounts of crit (runes in particular) have a small chance to skew a lane pretty strongly without any engaging gameplay. Crit’s much less problematic once champions have a moderate amount of it (becomes consistent ish), though even then there are arguments it should be removed. Avoiding getting into details of that since that’s a different topic and this is already a long post already. Should talk more about it sometime though, especially since it’s a subject we need a better consensus on internally too. Regarding crit runes, we’ll be removing the ability to start the game with crit when we do work on runes (hopefully sometime next year) * Old Phage Chance to slow on hit (mini, unreliable Frozen Mallet for anyone that didn’t play back then). Sometimes really lethal, sometimes completely ineffective. Did have some counterplay (e.g. only flash if the slow procs), overall though too much a case of randomness deciding situations rather than creating decisions. . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . ** Next iteration base off feedback from PBE testers and internal playtesting: ** * Fewer Blast Cone locations We’ve been testing a pretty wide variety of Blast Cone locations recently, especially compared to early iterations of plants which only had a few. Conclusion there’s that some of those locations are good fits, others feel more abusive than interesting though and the large number of possible spawn points makes it hard to predict likely Blast Cone locations resulting in a more random than intended result. * Limit of 2 Blast Cones per quadrant When it happens 3 Blast Cones in a single jungle quadrant has been resulting in too much Blast Cone chaining, given the proximity between them that creates. Chained Blast Cones are much harder to respond to and the second use seems to be less deliberate by the user as well. * Seedling time to 60s (from 30s) Increasing telegraph time on upcoming plants to improve ability to plan around their presence. * Reduced overall plant spawn rates Plant frequency has been too high in the version of the system currently on PBE, resulting in more frequent interactions than intended and therefore a greater overall impact on the game than desired. We’ll be reducing frequency of plant spawn a bit as a result. * Visual Polish On the art side there’s also still some stuff yet to come (minimap icons that are clear but less dominant, icons for individual plants when clicked on, etc) . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . ** Other concerns we're tracking and preparing follow up changes if needed: ** * Ranged versus melee discrepancy We haven’t seen it demonstrated yet, but it’s definitely possible plants will be too advantageous for ranged champs over melee. Fallback if needed’s to make them operate like Thresh lantern where it’s proximity to plant the allows interaction, not basic attack. * Randomness deciding outcomes, We want randomness to create a range of situations where player decisions and execution can then decide the outcome. If randomness is instead deciding situations however we’ll then want to add additional telegraphing, both to spawn times and locations until players are able to recall possible plant locations and play around the possibility of them being up in an informed manner. * Plant interactions still too frequent Upcoming changes might still leave plants too influential to the game and place too high an interaction burdern on players, junglers especially. Response there would be to continue to adjust spawn rate, maximum number possible per quadrant. Apologies for the wall of text, lot to cover. I’ve to run off to a thing now, I’ll be back later though to post a bit more.
Huge post, very detailed, very well thought out. ...And the only part I care about gets skipped over. >Small amounts of crit (runes in particular) have a small chance to skew a lane pretty strongly without any engaging gameplay. Crit’s much less problematic once champions have a moderate amount of it (becomes consistent ish), though even then there are arguments it should be removed. Avoiding getting into details of that since that’s a different topic and this is already a long post already. Should talk more about it sometime though, especially since it’s a subject we need a better consensus on internally too. Unlucky.
: Really? You wanna blame tank items for this disaster? Everyone knows it's not the items, it's the champions. Gangplank. Super safe laning phase, free global pressure, hypercarry. Oh course he's broken, you can't effectively stop him from scaling, and he's even relevant. Ekko. **very low cooldowns**, a lot of utility, a lot of stickiness, a % maximum health heal. Imagine if he had higher damage, and higher cooldowns, he wouldn't be viable as a tank, he's be forced to be an assassin because he's be more burst based. Yasuo. Buy PD or Trinity, and hey look you're Q is on a **low cooldown** plus you got a **less than 0.5 second cooldown gap closer.** See the trend? Gnar. Decent cooldown normal boomerang toss, decently high base attack speed, **0 cooldown 3 hit passive that deals massive damage.** Wanna see a few non-tank meta champions? Fiora. 0 cooldown passive markings that deal massive true damage, as well as an insanely low cooldown gap closer. What do all these champions have in common? High mobility or high anti-mobility and low cooldowns.
...Come on. You're just naming strong parts of champions' kits. GP's Q, ult, and scalings; Yasuo's E cooldown; Gnar's 3-hit passive; Fiora's passive; these have nothing to do with OP's topic. CDR being too readily available and mobility creep are different topics altogether as well. This topic deals with tank items being too effective on non-tanks, and proposes a solution to fix this. Try to stay on topic please.
: http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/3A5uuBw7-champion-subclass-list Yes, Vanguards (tanks) like {{champion:113}} {{champion:33}} {{champion:89}} share the same items as some Juggernauts i.e. {{champion:75}} . Not only that, mage rejects like {{champion:245}} {{champion:105}} {{champion:84}} could use the same build (which was never supposed to be done that way), and be way more useful. That is why I suggested that all champions, that need to build full tank in order to be viable, need to have higher base values, as well as the tank items to grant % of these base values instead of flat armor/mr/health. This will disable squishy champions (low base values) to get value out of tank items and the problem is solved.
You're right on the money, except for one thing. >That is why I suggested that all champions, that need to build full tank in order to be viable,** need to have higher base values**, as well as the tank items to grant % of these base values instead of flat armor/mr/health. This will disable squishy champions (low base values) to get value out of tank items and the problem is solved. Increasing base values only increases level 1 power, which should not be the goal of your proposed changes, for about a dozen reasons. Instead, we would have to introduce some new stats: defensive scalings. This might mean we'd need armor scaling, mr scaling, and health scaling. Or maybe it'd work with just one new value that encompasses all of them. That's the nitty-gritty and is frankly above the heads of everybody who doesn't work at Riot. We can still discuss the theory tho. :D For example, Malphite would have, oh, 1.0 DS (Defensive Scaling? Sure why not.), so he'd get 100% of the defensive stats from items, but Ekko with his 0.3 DS would only get 30% of the tank stats from items. Numbers pulled from my butt obviously, but you get the idea. Tanks (and champs that are "meant" to build tank items) would have higher defensive scalings than non-tanks. And this makes perfect sense because the game already has offensive scaling that limits build paths.
: > [{quoted}](name=Raith alghul,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UqajGpAd,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2016-09-03T19:47:11.474+0000) > > This would potentially cause some problems if actually implemented, like how would you balance around items like {{item:3001}} {{item:3157}} {{item:3156}} that give resistances but aren't meant as true tank items, they are pretty important items for dealing with certain matchups or attempting to come back from behind. I don't know if it's entirely relevant to mention those items because those aren't the items being abused by squishy champions. At worst, they could just keep their stats as they are, and the switch could only be carried onto "proper" tanky items, but a potentially better solution could be to either adjust those items through their unique features (e.g. Hexdrinker/MoM's shield, Abyssal's aura or Hourglass's active), or simply buff their resists. Alternatively, their components should probably give their users more tools to handle those kinds of matchups (e.g. Hexdrinker's anti-burst shield) that don't fall under pure passive resistances, which tend to be how tanks and most fighters deal with incoming damage. > [{quoted}](name=Raith alghul,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UqajGpAd,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2016-09-03T19:47:11.474+0000) > > There are also several champions that need to build defensively while not necessarily going full tank {{champion:136}} {{champion:8}} {{champion:131}} all require some durability to be able to even function as damage sources to begin with so they don't just get blown up. OP mentioned a few tanky champions who aren't tanks, i.e. Shyvana and Garen, so I think they may have implied including all tanky champions in general, including fighters, and not just tanks. Battle mages like Aurelion Sol and Vladimir, and divers like Diana are all meant to be innately durable, so buffing their base stats to better accomodate the switch would help them (buffing the resists on defensive AP items, as mentioned above, could also help them without affecting other classes too much). > [{quoted}](name=Raith alghul,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UqajGpAd,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2016-09-03T19:47:11.474+0000) > > Giving all tank champions high base values would also mean they had quite an advantage in the early game This doesn't necessarily have to happen. For example, instead of putting the full impact of the buffs at level 1, you could buff tanky champions' stat growth, which would have minimal early-game impact. Tank champions also tend to build tanky items very early in the game, too, so even a level 1 buff could end up leading to exactly the same net values when you factor the two together. > [{quoted}](name=Raith alghul,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UqajGpAd,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2016-09-03T19:47:11.474+0000) > > This also does limit build diversity quite a bit, while instances like tank {{champion:245}} {{champion:105}} or {{champion:84}} can be problematic there are several others that are not game breaking and bring something unique to the game or allow a new strategy to be created. I agree, squishy champions who happen to be fun and healthy with tanky items would find them less attractive in general, and thereby not use them, but if they synergize especially well with some specific items, they probably deserve an item that caters to that which doesn't exist yet. For example, if a lot of assassins or light fighters enjoy building Dead Man's Plate for its roaming potential, perhaps what we need is a roam-friendly damage item, or a buff to Boots of Mobility. If what they're ultimately looking for is an item that happens to give them both mobility and tankiness, they could still use DMP, but it'd be less effective on them than before, which is fine, considering tankiness is supposed to represent a major tradeoff on offensive champions. It's also worth mentioning that squishy champions very rarely, if ever, turn out to be truly healthy with tanky builds, mainly because it covers up one of their core weaknesses. > [{quoted}](name=Raith alghul,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UqajGpAd,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2016-09-03T19:47:11.474+0000) > > This could also negatively affect champions that aren't even building multiple defensive items, making champions that would normally build a defensive last item a lot weaker compared to those that scaled better with full damage or could deal their damage from further away. A change like this would only change item scaling relative to a champion's base stats, not items scaling with themselves. A marksman who gets a Guardian Angel will get less value from that item, assuming no other changes, purely because they have below-average base resistances, not because they didn't invest in a full tank build. Technically, any champion with just one or a few tanky items gets less value from them even now, since resists multiply health, but that wouldn't change with the kind of switch OP is proposing. If nothing else, perhaps this could be an opportunity to evaluate exactly how squishy-oriented defensive items should operate: Guardian Angel is definitely a defensive item for squishies, for example, but its base stats and even its resurrect work best on champions who build lots of health, which is contradictory, so perhaps it and similar items should be redesigned to always work better on squishies, instead of incidentally having more tank-appropriate scalings.
[Nice post.](http://imgur.com/gallery/dhMeAzK) I too think OP is onto something here.
: Yes, I agree, however Riot hasn't stated anything yet on either of these, dunno why this isn't their priority.
Because those champs aren't unhealthy enough to warrant a full-scale rework. Their problems are significantly smaller than those of old Sion, Poppy, and Yorick, etc.
: ***You're still going off-topic, captain.*** You. Did. Not. Prove. What. I. Said. To. Be. Wrong. Instead, all you did was try to pull the focus away from the explanation of how two champions function, and try to say that your suggestion of a *genuinely stupid* item overhaul is for the benefit of these two champions. Maybe, *juuuust maybe,* the problem isn't items, but those two specific champions. As for being salty about Ekko and Gragas(?) being able to build like bruisers and do well, Gragas was a mage bruiser before it was cool. You can't sit there and tell me that he's not built to be a mage bruiser. Ekko? Yeah, sure, it sucks that his kit allows him to do well as a bruiser, but that's *again* a specific, individual champion that's not tuned properly. This happens when the roster is over 100 champions *and still constantly growing.*
Woah woah, hang on a second. OP doesn't really know what a tank is. Your initial comment is correct, as are all of your responses up until this one. Thanks for explaining that to him and calling him out in his responses. _thumbs up_ >Instead, all you did was [...] try to say that your suggestion of a _genuinely stupid_ item overhaul is for the benefit of these two champions. >Maybe, juuuust maybe, the problem isn't items, but those two specific champions. Let's exclude those two champs and this whole argument over the classification of tanks, because this has nothing to do with OP's original topic. You used Yi for an example of a champ who can't build tanky and be effective (anymore). And you're right, building tanky doesn't make you a tank. But this topic wasn't made with Yi in mind. It was made because there is a fundamental problem within League that allows for non-tanks to build tanky and be too good. This has been a problem all season long. (Yes, there have been cases in seasons past, but this season in particular has been rife with such problems.) Graves, Ekko, Fizz, Yasuo, Yi, Fiora, Shyvana, Gnar, Swain, Vlad, Akali, Rengar, all were huge problems before nerfs. Hell, for a little while there before IBG was nerfed you could go IBG/Sunfire on ANYONE and be successful. I remember Valkrin streaming tank Talon and LeBlanc games and abusing them in Master and Challenger-tier games, and Dyrus finding success with full tank Jayce. lolwut Do you think it's more likely that all of these champs were all coincidentally too powerful after building tanky items because of their kits...or is it because maybe, _juuuust maybe,_ the problem is with the itemization? Enter OP and his idea. You mentioned that you read the rest of his post, but the only thing I've seen you say of it is that it's "genuinely stupid," and you didn't say why. We have offensive scalings that limit build paths, why not defensive scalings as well? When Yi was too powerful, his flat numbers were nerfed and his scalings were increased to encourage him to build AD, right? Well OP's idea is effectively the same thing, except it introduces defensive scalings. It makes sense. Even though Yi has AP scaling, he doesn't build it because his ratios are hideous. Similarly, if this change went through, Ekko won't build Dead Man's Plate anymore if he only got, say, 300 health instead of the full 500 and 30 armor instead of the full 50.
: >And that...proves what? >That these champions aren't competitive? Yes, among other things down below. >They're damage tanks instead of heavy-CC tanks, and they draw focus by being a huge threat in a fight. Their main source of tanking is self-sustain during combat, and their main damage output automatically scales as the game progresses. >None of that has anything to do with their ranked pick rates. It has to do everything with ranked pick and win rates. Damage tanks (Juggernauts) that are using tank items and being a huge threat in fights, having 0% competitive pick rate followed by a really low win rate in solo queue. Much gud, such wow. This fact is true for years, and the main reason to it are their kits, which are binary. In order for them to become better, they would need better scaling with items, or at least better base stats, as building full tank they are being outclassed by other utility picks (not mentioning the actual carry meta with {{champion:41}} and {{champion:150}}. Oh wait, that would be straight up buffing them? Yes! That is why I suggested for tank items to scale with % of Base Stats that would become increased for champions needing to build full tank in order to be useful, while removing these mid lane rejects in {{champion:245}} and {{champion:79}} as viable top picks using the exact same build path.
What you are trying to explain is irrelevant. Competitive pick rates have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Juggernauts like Nasus and Mundo have too much counterplay within their kits to be viable competitively; this has nothing to do with their itemization.
: > [{quoted}](name=JustMyBassCannon,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UqajGpAd,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2016-09-03T19:58:45.335+0000) > > Their method of disrupting a fight is more about being a high-damage threat than using hard CC. When you see Nasus or Mundo, *you get the hell away from them* because they will fucking *murder* you unless you're specifically anti-tank and they don't get close to you at all. > This is literally the definition of a Juggernaut.
I'm confused. He explained his reasoning quite well, and it looks like you're agreeing with him, but you have 8 upvotes whereas he has 2. Also that's not literally the definition of a Juggernaut.
: Tank items should be reworked
Interesting idea! I like it a lot. Characters already have innate "affinity" (i.e. AD/AP scaling) that affects their build paths. This change would function similarly, but with defensive stats instead of offensive ones. In theory it should have the same affect, no? Right now we don't see Malphite build an IE because his affinity for it is poor, so it would stand to reason that after this change we wouldn't see, say, Ekko building a Dead Man's Plate. Solving a fundamental problem by using mechanics that are already in the game. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}}
Dynikus (NA)
: I don't understand Garen conceptually. Even if somehow you're beating him in lane, his passive punishes you for killing him, and he becomes so tanky regardless of how poorly he plays in lane that it doesn't even matter later if you do beat him.
Well as others have said, killing Garen doesn't punish the killer by making them the Villain. Also, a Garen who goes straight tank is not using Garen properly. (I'm borrowing the following from Marine Revenge:) Garen is _defensively strong_ (scaling off of HP, and his W), but he is primarily an offensive unit. His Q, E, and ult all are there to kill dudes. This, combined with his lane bully nature, means that if you do beat a Garen in lane and force him to build tanky for his first 2 or 3 items, means you've done your job. Hopefully you've picked a more useful, or a harder scaling champ than Garen, so just by going even, you are actually ahead. The rest is left up to his simplistic, very counterplayable kit.
: Just dodge her tentacles. Just dodge zed's q. Just dodge darius q. Just dodge ekko's q. See where that logic gets us? And I'm not even hating on illaoi or thinks that she's op, but the "Just dodge x ability" argument is just stupid to me.
Be mindful of the enemy champion and your own, and use prediction skills to determine when you think they will throw out a skillshot, and dodge it. I mean the alternative to dodging those skillshots is to get hit by them...which is bad...so I'm not even sure how someone can argue against what is basically just good advice.
: Doesn't matter if dynamic queue is in effect or not. Its black and white. You cant queue with someone 2 tiers below you or above you. But its grey when it comes to match making? Where is the consistency ?
It's perfectly consistent once you realize that matchmaking uses your MMR, not your rank. You can see people's rank and queue accordingly, but can't see their MMR and can't queue accordingly.
: > [{quoted}](name=KING 5HARK,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mhEB78WX,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-07-31T16:05:28.716+0000) > > Where did they say that? Do you have a source? http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/vWEoZ6X0-balance-team-qa-ask-us-anything?comment=00010000
Nowhere in that post does he say they balance around Plat+.
: http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Yes-Yes-Yes-Wrestler-Cheer-On-WWE-Gif.gif http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/infinite-yes-daniel-bryan.gif http://media2.giphy.com/media/iF730ravzp95u/giphy.gif http://i.imgur.com/RcBFNBT.gif?noredirect
Niiiice. Good to see the memers start to appreciate DQ.
Mandang0 (NA)
: I keep hearing this, yet I've not seen any of the other wordings for comparison, only this one. Even if there's a wording that's equally questionable in the other direction, I'd still wonder why Riot would knowingly word their survey in a less-neutral fashion. As someone said in the reddit thread, this whole "different wording" trick sounds great as a prescreen when you're planning on how to send the survey out, but it undermines your findings if you do it during the actual survey because when different wordings disagree, you don't know which one(s) to trust. PS: Speaking of people who can't read, please reread my 2nd paragraph in the post you're replying to and note that my criticism isn't really one of diction but of Riot not clearly presenting the players' options. In fact, this is probably a complaint I'd have even with the other wordings of the survey.
> Even if there's a wording that's equally questionable in the other direction, I'd still wonder why Riot would knowingly word their survey in a less-neutral fashion. As someone said in the reddit thread, this whole "different wording" trick sounds great as a prescreen when you're planning on how to send the survey out, but it undermines your findings if you do it during the actual survey because when different wordings disagree, you don't know which one(s) to trust. It's to eliminate confounding variables, basically. Because there are subtle differences, due to framing, that can influence how people respond to each question. If you ask questions in only one way, people who respond may answer consistently incorrectly, right? But if you ask one question in a few different ways, through statistical analysis, it's possible to determine if one or more of the ways you framed a question was invalid. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, sort of. Not a trick, just math and science. :D
Mandang0 (NA)
: If the decision Riot is making is between DQ and X then just make the poll "I would prefer DQ over X". Strongly agree, agree, etc... The way Riot presented this survey doesn't suggest what's gained when Riot takes away the flexibility of queueing with more players. For example, if you prefer old solo/duo, but you're sympathetic to those players who like DQ, and you'd want both to exist, you might answer that you don't want Riot to remove DQ. However, if removing DQ is the only way you get solo/duo back, then you ACTUALLY wanted to vote that you *do* want Riot to remove DQ.
> If the decision Riot is making is between DQ and X then just make the poll "I would prefer DQ over X". Strongly agree, agree, etc... This can be confounding, however, because not everybody knows that New Champ Select isn't DQ. So if you ask your question like that, people who like the new system (because of NCS) might say that they would prefer DQ, when they really don't. >The way Riot presented this survey doesn't suggest what's gained when Riot takes away the flexibility of queueing with more players. For example, if you prefer old solo/duo, but you're sympathetic to those players who like DQ, and you'd want both to exist, you might answer that you don't want Riot to remove DQ. However, if removing DQ is the only way you get solo/duo back, then you ACTUALLY wanted to vote that you do want Riot to remove DQ. That's all true. But, then again, that's not what these surveys are used for. In order for each question to be valid, they need to be concise, easy to understand, and relatively simple. If you create a survey where each question is a paragraph long or you have a half-dozen similar but different versions ("Would you mind losing DQ if you got solo/duo back" vs "Would you mind losing DQ if we only allow soloing" vs "Would you mind losing 4-man DQ if we kept solo/duo/trio/5-mans"), people will not be interested enough to care to read each option critically. People have increasingly short attention spans, and with as many people play League, Riot can never be sure how educated the people that return their surveys are. There is a LOT of information that goes into creating surveys. Enough that people get their Master's in such areas. Riot doesn't just throw these out willy-nilly.
: Of course, because wins are made from skill, and skill takes time to develop.
If the numbers are too low it doesn't matter how much skill you have. Don't forget that since her release Riot has lowered her Q mana cost, lowered the worked ground duration two separate times, increased Q damage to minions by 50%, and increased her base health.
Quepha (NA)
: Yeah Exactly like your rank
Devil's advocate: that's not really true. Rank influences play because your matchmaking is (loosely) based on it. I.e. you will have wildly different games if you're Diamond instead of Silver, but the emblems themselves don't affect gameplay at all.
: Well it kinda does. If you queue with people around your skill level, but you use voice comms, your chance of winning is still way higher. And you'll also know for sure that you won't end up with a feeder or troller or flamer.
Playing a team game with a team doesn't mean you are boosted. There's absolutely no correlation that can be made. The reality is, toxic SQ players are just using it as an excuse to look down on people because they're salty. And now they've said it so often, reasonable people like you are starting to believe it. smh >If you queue with people around your skill level, but you use voice comms, your chance of winning is still way higher. Uh huh. That's kind of the point. It should be no surprise that you'll have more success playing a team game as a team game. Playing the game _well_ does not mean you are _boosting._ MASSIVELY different concepts. They're simply different things, like I'm not even sure how to approach this. It would be like explaining the differences between a fire hydrant and a mortgage, which would be less easy than just telling you what a fire hydrant and a mortgage are. >And you'll also know for sure that you won't end up with a feeder or troller or flamer. I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion, no offense. Anybody can be a feeder/troller/flamer, regardless of sticker. The only way you can know that for sure is if you queue up with people who aren't toxic, and you don't need a sticker for that.
: I honestly thought it would show up on the Splash art, like community ribbons do, when I first seen it mentioned. Don't see the point of this, but whatever.
It's a cosmetic reward. What else do you expect it to do? 'Ugh I played ranked all year and all I got was this Victorious Sivir skin and loading screen border and player icons. Like, what else do they do, why even give these?'
Show more


Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion