Rioter Comments
F53710 (NA)
: I'm most curious about the philosophy behind those changes. Crit items were changed so they would be better against tanks and less volatile against squishies. With the consideration of reverting IE, has the crit item changes not panned out as Riot had hoped? What problems does reverting IE solve? Crit items were also changed because they were too strong in combination late game. Ad carries were considered mandatory because of the sheer power they brought later in the game. As a result, crit items were made more expensive so the power levels remained the same, but came online much later. The IE changes in direction two would make late game carries much stronger. Does Riot think mandatory ad carries are a problem, and if so, how would this IE change help or hinder the issue? Have you considered lowering the maximum possible power level of ad carries and putting that power somewhere else?
There are a few issues we see with Crit items being effective against tanks and less useful against squishies post the changes. 1. Hitting tanks as your optimal DPS pattern isn't as exciting as finding opportunities to go take out their backline. 2. The tank passive ended up being much better in Pro play compared to regular play, with the result being that Crit Marksmen were more useful in Pro compared to normal play (which then makes them less satisfying in regular play). 3. Satisfaction with split damage numbers (true and physical) is lower.
: So, uh, how's Yasuo getting that 100% crit, when the item itself doesn't have any? I'm assuming by the fact that it's in a passive (and written as "increase" rather than "gain") that you only get that bonus 50% if you already have other crit items And he is most definitely not 1v5ing.
The item would just give 50% crit and Yasuo would double it to 100%.
: Why not just revert essence Reaver or add crit since the new one just seems worst on the champions that use it and a bit better on adc's but there is better items for them since they need crit so why not add crit or just revert it and make this one into a new item.
> [{quoted}](name=boricCentaur1,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=oA7EoIrf,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-12-21T23:57:19.433+0000) > > Why not just revert essence Reaver or add crit since the new one just seems worst on the champions that use it and a bit better on adc's but there is better items for them since they need crit so why not add crit or just revert it and make this one into a new item. Generally like the emerging builds it's created for fighters. Adding crit on an item is likely to remove these users. I think there's a world where we can support it for both user pools.
  Rioter Comments
Roigaar (EUW)
: If you're looking for a power increase, why decrease the AP on the item, though? It's small enough that it won't be terribly noticeable, but that exact case can be made for *not* changing the AP value. (If it's largely unnoticeable, then why change at all?) I just don't get why you would identify the item as an underperformer and still fear adding power without engaging in some sort of tradeoff. If the item were to become dominant, a 5 AP drop won't prevent it from reaching that status. I feel you guys are way too tentative about some low risk stuff and go overboard with delicate balance actors.
The power increase should be as targeted as possible to the item's purpose in the item system (in this case, countering HP stacking), rather than just a generic power increase. This is to avoid items just being default purchased every game. We're increasing the top end of the burn to achieve this, but this needs to come with an overall decrease to general power so as to not just make the item overpowered. 5 AP is not a trivial amount of power to be adding/removing from an item.
: 1. Interesting is there any chance that AP fighters will be getting an item? They lack itemization drasticaly and need some way to kill targets with high MR but building Void Staff on them is comparable to build Last Whisperer items on Darius. 2. Also I know tanks abuse Conqueror if it is adaptive, but why should that gate AP fighters? Maybe tanks scalings and damages need to be looked at. Edit: Formatting
Speaking to the AP fighter itemisation, Solcrushed and I are looking at something as a slow burn project to address this itemisation hole.
: "Damage and burst are too high" also "100% increase in yasuo R" thank you riot.
Yasuo got blasted by 8.15 (took the brunt of the IE nerfs [which were huge] without the balancing factor of the Stormrazor buffs). We wanted to avoid pre-emptive buffing him, despite knowing it was power down, but I expect him to be weak on 8.15. (Pro is playing on 8.14). We aren't going through with the Yasuo buffs as Scruffy stated, because we can't get good alignment on a changelist that is not frustration up (and he is a high risk buff candidate), but I suspect he'll be weak for this patch as a result.
  Rioter Comments
: Why would you decrease his Damage? {{champion:11}} {{champion:23}} Can solo him at 20 mins if they are fed enough now Health doesn't do jack when they can outheal him solo : /
Champions should be able to exert their power when fed. There is intended to be some variance in which champions are able to do well on standing DPS checks and not (and makes these champs feel special and have different forms of counterplay - be careful of fast barons when Udyr/Yi/WW/Nunu are in the game). Granted, if non-fed champions are able to solo Baron too quickly (they are meant to take a long time), I agree that's a problem.
: > [{quoted}](name=PhRoXz0n,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=XToRlJG2,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-06-01T18:26:48.387+0000)Distribute more damage over the backline to reduce the emphasis on having a pure tank in your comp to be able to take Baron [ie. allow more solo queue style comps to take Barons]. > > Increase Baron's health so that he takes longer to do, but does less damage. Have you considered making one or more of Baron's moves deal variable damage based on the number of nearby enemies, out of curiosity? I've seen some concerns that these changes make it much easier to solo Baron, and a change like that (less single-target damage the more people are near Baron) might help decrease 1-2 man Barons without compromising your desires to spread out team-wide damage. Of course, that's assuming that the long period of one-man Baron is something undesirable, which I'm not 100% convinced that it is, given the potential risks associated with the attempt. But yeah, I could see something like this having potential (numbers super rough): **LORD OF THE PIT:** Baron Nashor deals 40% increased damage, decreased by 8% for each nearby champion. Or some alternative where one of his abilities deals X damage, spread out between all targets it strikes. > Can understand the desire for a "raid boss" style Baron encounter, don't think SR is the right place for that given that he has been tuned that way in the past [when SRU launched] and resulted in an overly tactical encounter that is too hard to take in all-but ace situations, rather than fulfilling the strategic and pacing goals set for it. Rotating game mode: BARON UNLEASHED. :P
Yeah we did, there are some visualisation challenges. The existing corruption model exists to have this effect (more impactful when there are low numbers of champions in the encounter). There is also intended to be some variance within champions and their effectiveness against Baron. Essentially, tuning the Baron encounter around Yi or Udyr makes it too hard for everyone else.
: This is a bit of a weird since we're in 8.12 for PBE, was it a typo for 8.10/11
No, just some additional context for the Baron changes that landed this (and last) patch.
  Rioter Comments
: Dear Riot: When The Champions That Abuse Liandry's Will Be Broken Next Patch
Should we see DoT champs become problematic, we'll likely be addressing Liandry's first.
: What do we mean when we say the boards/reddit are a minority?
One thing Maple didn't mention was Vietnam is the 2nd largest region (slightly larger than Korea and EUW and 1.5 times NA). I think a lot of people are interpreting it as Vietnam being the smallest region or something.
Akumu (NA)
: Some thoughts on Spellbound Orb after having tried it. Honestly this item seems incredibly mediocre. In my opinion it is straight up worse than old Ludens which was already a situation item at best and had a niche on poke mages but rarely used. I dont see anyone building this item as the active is just not very good/useful except maybe on certain AP assassins while MASSIVELY ahead. On burst mages the new Morellos is probably superior as is Lichebane on assassins. In the current state of League you simply cannot afford to build glass canon items like Spellbound Orb, particularly when its active requires such a large build up time and isnt even that great when fully charged. I think the item needs to be scrapped entirely and or redesigned with a new active if you're insistent on having a second AP item with move speed.
Which champions did you try it on?
: Comparing Haunting Guise to Orb of Shadow: I am curious about the reason for having both Haunting Guise and Orb of Shadow both options to buy. They seem to serve the same purpose, so why not have just one item that builds into both of their parent items? Is it because they are intended to force their purchasers to commit to one of their parent items early and give opponents time to see it coming? _Edit: Thanks everyone for the info!_
We didn't want both items to have Flat Pen and be stackable is the short of it, given how stacking flat pen is usually the dominant strategy any time it is strong as it amplifies base damages.
: **Update Four**: Testing New Morello Build in 5v5 PvP Game The game itself wasn't the prettiest, but I was able to get a couple results and I just happened to have a pretty comparable game in my Match History. Both were losses and with very similar scores. **PBE Game** - 27:04 Minutes {{item:3020}} {{item:3165}} (New) {{item:3135}} {{item:2421}} {{item:1029}} https://imgur.com/b6EB60s **Match History Game** - 27:34 Minutes {{item:3020}} {{item:3151}} (Live) {{item:3165}} (Live) {{item:1052}} https://imgur.com/3UHH23n For the old game, I was against a Soraka and wanted Grevious Wounds. Not sure if that was a great idea. I have to note a couple things: - My KP was higher on the PBE Game - Had a Void Staff opposed to the old Mana-Morello on the PBE Game Here's the **Gold Graphs** **PBE** https://imgur.com/7cwgJnt **Old Game** https://imgur.com/O0ar7zB You can tell that the old game was much closer and that it suddenly broke off near the middle, which may be a reason as to why my damage ended up being higher on that game. **Conclusion from this test**: While the new Morello build performed much better than what I expected after testing **Slicing Maelstrom** on the dummies, the scaling feels a bit on the weaker side. I can't keep testing right now, but I'll try to get a really good game tomorrow on the PBE with the new build and compare it to a good game from my Live history. See you around!
Thanks for that. Your damage values in the first test seemed very low? 250 vs 960? Yeah completing Morellos is probably only worth it for dealing with healers.
: I like the changes for the most part. I think you could stand to make Morello's cheaper, 3000 gold for average stats and the 15mpen is a bit overkill. I know it has GW too but the rest of the GW items are all also very cheap, so it seems fine. Also, I don't know how you guys could do this, but I wish you would keep GLP good for Aurelion Sol. The lost catalyst passive + health really sucks for him. Spellbound Orb stacks a bit too slowly in my opinion, even after the buff. It doesn't seem like a great first item rush because of how long it takes to stack, and it doesn't seem especially great in teamfights either due to the active cooldown.
Yeah, it's meant to be good in hectic games where you're fighting a lot.
: Hi, I was hoping for an AP QSS, Zhonyas changes to make it less punishing to get against a Zed (while he doesnt get punished for Hexdrinker), and a better build path for Rabbadons. Two NLR still isnt good. I doubt this is going to get seen but another thing I want changed is changes to Sorc boots so mages can actually get other types of boots.
Do you feel like Seekers isn't sufficient? Zed pays alternate costs,e g. he doesn't have that much AOE damage and scales pretty poorly.
: Spreadsheet of Rabadon damage vs Void Staff damage: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ah4pdH2v9szDgtBE549dmwSKFDak_w This Spreadsheet covers AP built before building one of them, the opponents resistance (I didn't do any scenario where Void Staff would reduce the resistance below 0%), base magic damage on ability, and the AP ratio on the ability. I did scenarios up to a 500% AP ratio so that it could be used to see impact of full combo vs single ability, as well as scenarios up to 1000 base magic damage for the same purposes. I then set up an equation to show what AP built previous to buying Rabadon's or Void Staff gave equal damage for the two items, with numbers higher than the resultant AP favoring a Void Staff build. I then filtered the 3500+ scenarios to only show positive resultant AP (where it's actually possible for the two to give equal damage outputs at some point). This spreadsheet compares buying one over the other, and from looking at it, it's still a buy Void Staff world in almost all cases. If however Riot wants Rabadon's place to be in addition to a Void Staff, then Rabadon's may be a worthwhile item. On specifics of equations used please see this post (helps keep this post small): https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/TaijPHAm-ap-itemization-on-pbe-84?comment=00e3
Thanks for that. Bit confusing to get through at first though.
: Just had some games on the PBE as Lux. I have to say that I don't really like the new path tried. I tried rushing Ludens, and it was a really strong spike in damage (on loosing lanes I came back with ludens and killed the opponent or forced him back).. but once the teamfights came I had to completely forget of even trying to waveclear/poke or I would be completely oom during the teamfight. The spellbound orb while good on paper felt really unimpactful due to the high time required to stack. I never had the occasion to buy Morello. Really, once I get the 1500 gold little orb that gives me what I am looking for in the item (magic pen flat), why would I ever pay another 1500 to get 60 AP more and "not requested" GW? Why didn't you give us the opportunity to buy pen without GW (and GW alone.. I'm not eager to face a Vladimir..godbless)? Why the big flat pen item always has attached something else (yes, I DON'T WANT HP TOO)? the only change that really hit the mark for me at the first impression is the new Rabadon's buildpath. It finally felt not so pain to buy and I think I can finally aim to have a nice hat more or less reliably. Next I will try AA path because really Ludens mana is not enough to sustain my high cost spells in a siege or prolonged skirmish scenario. It was supposed to be THE item for poke champions.. but you simply can't poke out of lane without ending your mana miserably
If you want to go an infinite mana build, Ludens may not be the play. You could go with a Tear -> Ludens -> Archangels build if you wanted. We can't give out too much flat pen, because it is usually the best option when you just stack them.
  Rioter Comments
: Have you considered changing the item's build path, namely by adding in a mid-tier item? Part of the reason why the item feels so difficult to build is because the buyer has to sit on a lot of gold and three separate basic items to finally unlock it. Infinity Edge, by contrast, only requires 425 gold in addition to its own items, whereas Rabadon's requires 1265 gold, more than the price of another Needlessly Large Rod. Increasing its scaling might make it more attractive on mages who want raw AP, but it might still not be enough to counteract the severe constraints it imposes on an AP champion's itemization choices at that point.
Yes, in general we feel that having mid tier items that do a small version of the final item is only appropriate for counter items/items that fill a particular purpose (eg. hexdrinker, cutlass, etc.) This is mainly because it reduces the satisfaction of the final purchase. The most compelling argument so far regarding Deathcap changes has been that you just don't have enough slots to hold 3 component items in the later game and so potentially this could be something we figure out before ship.
Karppa (EUW)
: {{item:3802}} 25 AP {{item:1026}} 40 AP {{item:1052}} 20 AP Total 85 AP from components {{item:3285}} gives 80 AP in total. I hope this will be looked at, it's definitely mildly infuriating to lose 5 AP upon completing the item
Thanks, we'll look at this.
Adalvar (EUW)
: Hum, problem with Deathcap isn't so much the % amp, but cost and buildpath. So as long as those don't change, it will remain at the wayside. EDIT: rest seems nice, would have like for some changes to Rod of Ages, but i'll take what i can get.
We definitely explored reducing the cost of deathcap, but ultimately felt it was more fitting as a late game fantasy item for a large AP multiplier. Trying to find a good balance between what is compelling decision making and what is fun is a tough problem. I'll see what compromises we can make here regarding build path or cost.
: Liking what I see so far, but I have one big question. Given that **Archangel's Staff** is positioned as a big, late-game scaling item, has there been any consideration about how certain mages interact with it? I'm thinking specifically of mages like Lux, Morgana, Malzahar, and other mages who would love to be able to opt into late-game scaling power, but lack the spellcasting frequency to effectively use these items, whether due to mana costs, strategic spells that you typically save for the right opportunity, or just general lack of spell-spam. This was less of an issue previously, but with Archangel's intentionally positioned into this slot I have some concern that it may still end up effectively locked out of a lot of mage's itemization. I'm wondering if reducing the number of stacks Tear gains from spellcasting but putting a baseline on tear acquisition (or lowering the total stack number) might assist in this. Thoughts? I know I'd love to be able to consider Archangel's on a wider number of characters without feeling punished for not playing, say, Ryze or Cassiopeia, and right now I'm not entirely convinced that the item as it is currently designed supports that.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=TaijPHAm,comment-id=0027,timestamp=2018-02-06T21:27:41.248+0000) > > Liking what I see so far, but I have one big question. > > Given that **Archangel's Staff** is positioned as a bit, late-game scaling item, has there been any consideration about how certain mages interact with it? I'm thinking specifically of mages like Lux, Morgana, Malzahar, and other mages who would love to be able to opt into late-game scaling power, but lack the spellcasting frequency to effectively use these items. This was less of an issue previously, but with Archangel's intentionally positioned into this slot I have some concern that it may still end up effectively locked out of a lot of mage's itemization. > > I'm wondering if reducing the number of stacks Tear gains from spellcasting but putting a baseline on tear acquisition (or lowering the total stack number) might assist in this. Thoughts? I know I'd love to be able to consider Archangel's on a wider number of characters without feeling punished for not playing, say, Ryze or Cassiopeia. One of the intentions is that the Lost Chapter is there to bridge the gap. Perhaps later on, we may decide to even further loosen the restriction on tear stacking (eg. 4 spell casts per 16 seconds), should this not pan out. We have found that a lot of champs like Lux and Ori and Syndra are able to stack tear relatively well in this new model.
: I'm guessing the Haste unique passive is to mitigate Transcendance shenanigans?
> [{quoted}](name=RavenHusky,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=TaijPHAm,comment-id=0011,timestamp=2018-02-06T21:08:16.543+0000) > > I&#x27;m guessing the Haste unique passive is to mitigate Transcendance shenanigans? It's unique to prevent 20% CDR stacking from becoming too powerful. One of the consequences of having an additive CDR model (our live model) as opposed to a multiplicative model (diminishing returns) is that CDR purchases incentivize further CDR purchases. eg. 0-20% CDR == 20%-30% CDR < 30%-40% CDR in terms of number of casts.
  Rioter Comments
ofart (NA)
: Yet Another Unjustified Corki Nerf Proposal (INDEPTH)
We're still looking at changes to Malzahar, but wanted to see how his keystones shook out (specifically how good he is with comet), as he is one of the best Aery users and so determining how much this would move him and what his next best options are. With regards to Corki and other champs who deal primarily magic damage, but did not run magic pen marks, they just deal a lot more damage in this Preseason due to the lack of magic resist runes (Corki went up almost 5% at high MMR, which for context is essentially equivalent to increasing his Q ability by ~60 base damage). Leona is another one in this category and also got an additional damage source from aftershock.
  Rioter Comments
: Honestly Muramana needs a rework, not buffs
I actually think that Muramana is a pretty interesting item as is (sac your early game for a strong mid game spike), though external factors mean that its set of users is quite limited as you've noted. (Mana regen is high across the board, since AD items are so hard bound makes the opportunity cost very high, etc.). Also there's questions as to whether Jayce is a good muramana user from a game health perspective, because it reduces his reliance to get in melee range to solve his mana issues, but as we saw in the C9, SKT game, it also gives Jayce a bit of a better decision tree against tanky opponents where he'd otherwise run out of mana. Having said that, we don't have the scope to rework Muramana right now and buffing it up to retain its relative value to Crit items seemed like a better decision.
: Is this AP pass expected to come out during mid-season, or during pre-season? Or somewhere inbetween?
unsure on timeline as of yet
  Rioter Comments
GripaAviara (EUNE)
: Can you please nerf twitch already Riot?
Personally, I think live Twitch indexes a bit too hard into teamfight power and not enough into his assassination/map control playstyle, though arguably both are quite frustrating to play against. To me though, Twitch's winrate is not extremely alarming as a hyperscaling carry with stealth which biases towards solo queue and he has pretty much sat at this winrate for almost the last 2 years. Having said that, there are things about this game state that are different than previous years (eg. Ardent is better on him and probably more frustrating than most other champs). As a result, we have opted not to nerf him for the last while. I'm personally not sure how much of this is Twitch is the best ADC vs "an ADC is the best ADC and here's the problem with them" - a lot of ADC's have been this at various points in time while being balanced for pro, eg. Ashe does too much damage while having too much utility, Caitlyn does too much damage while being too safe, Draven is too snowbally, Sivir engage is unbeatable, etc. So my earlier thoughts about a hyperscaling stealth ADC being top winrate is not surprising to me, because this is a good combination of traits to succeed in solo queue. (Though it's possible he is allowed to be the best, but not by this much).
: The problem with ADCs is they do too much damage full stop
My personal opinion on the matter is that the game that was built at the beginning with: Burst > Sustained > Tank > Burst was one that worked. It also has costs, namely people dying instantly with very little counterplay. When we changed unconditional burst to not be a viable strategy (think old LB, old Rengar), we also removed one of the checks for ADC's. On the flip side, mages are now more sustained damage threats in themselves (since their power is translated) and can rival ADC's in mid game as well. Ultimately, we could give sustained AP the best late game scaling (as champs that can miss), but it is not a trivial problem space and there are a lot of run-on problems from solves in this space. Needless to say, we certainly hear you and something we debate about on a regular basis and are not particularly happy with, but again it is a large and difficult project.
Skias (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Trading Stance,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=jPg9JAtR,comment-id=0013,timestamp=2017-10-10T21:48:29.944+0000) > > 20% base AD equates to roughly between 20-30 AD when you purchase this item (~800 gold) (for the characters that buy it) who also have the highest base AD growth in the game (usually between 4-5 per level). The shield decay portion after 0.75s is also larger than it looks due to the amount of times your shield would previously get instantly popped. We&#x27;ve found it to be pretty performant in playtests and also adding more components to the build path makes it more performant while you&#x27;re on the way to the item. I'd never be able to afford it in an average game. The price is far too high and it's not good enough for a 1st or 2nd purchase.
It's almost the same price as Black Cleaver and gives more offensive stats on the way.
: 3200 is INSANE for the new steraks gage
20% base AD equates to roughly between 20-30 AD when you purchase this item (~800 gold) (for the characters that buy it) who also have the highest base AD growth in the game (usually between 4-5 per level). The shield decay portion after 0.75s is also larger than it looks due to the amount of times your shield would previously get instantly popped. We've found it to be pretty performant in playtests and also adding more components to the build path makes it more performant while you're on the way to the item.
: Here is some info about the power creep and gold efficiency of post-nerf Ardent Censer!
In mid-season, one of our projects was to increase the attractiveness and general agency of the support role. By giving supports access to income streams that they never had before, they are also much more impactful. For reference, Redemption and Locket also are very cost efficient , though most of their power is in the actives. I would say what players find particularly offensive (though correct me if I'm wrong) is the relatively low skill expression of Ardent's power. So yes, I would agree that the role and items have been power crept, but this needs to be held in the context of supports having less gold income as well.
: I feel you. The lack of itemization is saddening. {{item:3151}} should be split into two items because flat pen on an antitank item is just bad synergy. Mages just need to be able to apply grievous wounds. I think that a few changes would give us a mage meta.
Liandries was made to solve a specific problem (warmogs rushing tanks with no MR) and as such is a pretty brittle design, though it can be changed to solve an itemisation problem. Problems to solve there would be finding a new home for the flat pen that isn't abused by manaless assassins (the health is currently a damage tax).
Catarina (OCE)
: Are games nowadays too short?
Oftentimes, the feeling that games are too snowbally is actually misdiagnosed as: won games are drawn out for too long. If the game is decided at 10 minutes, forcing players to stick around for the entire time is probably bad. On the flip side, your experience of games feeling like they are over, when they actually aren't may be misdiagnosed as "comeback mechanics are not clear". We do a reasonable job of displaying bounties and other rubber banding mechanics for gold, but not for XP.
: If season 8 doesn't make marksmen thoroughly weaker in practice than they are now
Skirting the line between "ADC in 2017" and "ADC in 2017" is a tough one. Ultimately, understanding and building towards the union of what would make designers at Riot happy with the game and also what players find fun, engaging and variant game to game is quite a challenge. Marksmen have a unique power curve, such that just nerfing them doesn't make much of an impact by itself. By supporting a late game fantasy, it almost by definition makes them quite hard to deal with late game. The balancing factor is that both teams have one, so they kind of neutralise each other. Ideally, most designers would prefer that teams can play variant classes of characters in the "support lane", but the way the game is constructed right now, Marksmen are pretty much the way to go due to their tower killing proficiency and late game scaling. Ideally, the best solution in this space is to find something that both players and designers are aligned on (eg. players feel like all roles have agency, designers feel like you can do any number of meaningfully different strategies to win). TLDR is that nerfing marksman doesn't automatically solve the problem. If players are inherently not happy about skirting the boundary between either ADC's being unable to touch tanks or ADC's being too powerful, it's possible that exploring some more fundamental changes to the way ADC's function is a potential option - which of course carry different costs and benefits.
Yenn (NA)
: Remember when Fizz was rebalanced so that he needed to land his ult to all-in?
There is certainly a lot of damage in his non-ultimate abilities. However, only when he's reasonably far ahead can he one shot someone without his ultimate (especially if they take defensive summoners or build defensively to outscale him). I think Fizz is in a pretty reasonable spot balance wise, though he's just by nature a relatively frustrating champ to play against.
: ADC meta is the worst it has EVER been in the history of this game
Is this any different to a really fed mid laner trying to catch people out and dying in the process while you're supporting them? Sometimes you just have teammates that don't play optimally; that's the game. However, there's something to be said about having multiple roles be supported in lane, we just haven't been able to achieve it in the attempts we've tried internally - not to say we'd never do it, but it's a hard problem to solve and takes time. AD/Support in the current landscape feels a lot more statchecky out of the early game than I'd personally like, but that is almost an expected effect if Ardent is the only offensive support option.
Vekkna (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Trading Stance,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=JE5Ers1q,comment-id=002b,timestamp=2017-10-03T03:05:06.963+0000) > > Zyra mid is something that we could potentially support but needs work that we&#x27;re not prioritising at this point in time (things to solve: accurate threat representation of plants, making sure mid and support are balanced together, etc.) Can you (or anyone) address these quotes from Zyra's MYMU thread? > [{quoted}](name=20thCenturyFaux,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=xVQr7ihf,comment-id=00180001,timestamp=2016-03-18T03:32:11.929+0000) > > She gets played both lanes successfully and will continue to--we&#x27;re committed to keeping her strong in both lanes. > [{quoted}](name=20thCenturyFaux,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=xVQr7ihf,comment-id=002e000300000001,timestamp=2016-03-19T02:36:56.074+0000) > > Our plan was to make her viable mid and balance around support, so we wouldn&#x27;t be happy if she was a weak midlaner. > [{quoted}](name=20thCenturyFaux,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=xVQr7ihf,comment-id=00410000,timestamp=2016-03-18T04:42:55.136+0000) > > Yep! We want her to be viable in both roles. > [{quoted}](name=20thCenturyFaux,realm=NA,application-id=A7LBtoKc,discussion-id=xVQr7ihf,comment-id=002e000300000001000b0009,timestamp=2016-03-25T23:40:20.121+0000) > >Going forward, we’re putting her in more midlane tests and making sure we don’t leave a lane behind. Meddler also recently made a comment about not being opposed to the idea of Zyra mid. Here you say it's something you could "potentially support." Both comments amount to this: she's not on the radar, and she's not a priority. How do you reconcile that with the comments I posted from her update? "Committed to keeping her strong in both lanes" is not ambiguous. "We wouldn't be happy if she was a weak midlaner" is not something that can coexist with the "maybe someday" replies from live balance. "We want her to be viable" is not how you describe something that you are "not prioritizing." I think this deserves a response. Overt promises to players are not a common thing in the gaming industry, and the promises made about Zyra were not hedged with the typical disclaimer words like "hope" or "intend" or "subject to change." To the contrary, these promises used terms like "committed to" and "going forward" and "making sure." In light of that, do you guys not feel any responsibility to acknowledge that these statements never resulted in any follow-through or action of any kind? If Riot makes clear statements about a champ's design and balance direction, don't you think that creates an obligation to the players? And why/how does this sort of breakdown happen in the first place?
Honestly, it comes down to project prioritisation. I think in this case the project of "Make Zyra viable in mid" compared to balancing runes or doing worlds balance is a non-proposition.
Thryale (NA)
: Hi Trading! Thanks for chiming in :) Would you agree that this is something that would have to be handled as another "pre-season makeover" like the runes reforged? As I agree that it will definitely require a major overhaul of the existing system. That being said, those major power spikes are some of the reasons that players play mages to begin with, and I'm not entirely certain that it's inherently a bad thing either. Especially now, considering that the overall powerlevel of the game has gone up so much since when I started playing back in 2010. Fights are so much faster, and can end mere seconds after they start. In fact, I just made a post replying to another player in this thread considering how the game has aged and how mages haven't quite aged as well as their AD counterparts. Here's a link if you'd like to check it out: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/jHAgghMg-lets-discuss-ap-itemization?comment=0025000000000000 Long story short, I feel like the original concept of what a mage is was created in a world where the game was a lower paced system and mana costs and CD's were more meaningful, but as the game aged, and the pace of combat sped up, both players and riot have sought out ways to help mages adapt, and not all of which have been healthy for them. (like how players constantly seek ways to trivialize mana and cd's, and how riot has been lowering mana costs a lot since I started playing) So in that respect I feel that's one reason why mage itemization lacks the luster it rightly deserves.
Yes I think so. It would be sized as a mid-season project I'd imagine; something like the Defensive items changelist that brought in stoneplate and such. With the CDR creep, mages have kind of homogenised more towards sustained damage dealers, though I wouldn't say they haven't aged as well - mages are still playable.
Thryale (NA)
: Okay, so this is something I've noticed riot has been on about for a long time now, and it's starting to get to me. What is inherently _wrong_ with some champs being "non-interactive"? Some times I want to play a champ and just put myself in a kind of "cruise control." Generally speaking the champs that are "interactive" can actually be very stressful to play, and sometimes players just want to de-stress, and playing champs that can easily farm waves safely fulfill that desire. I still remember being able to wave clear with a fully charged janna tornado, and how riot nerfed that to the ground because it wasn't "interactive" and while I respect that decision, I must also respectfully disagree. Playing AP Janna back then allowed me to approach the game differently, instead of focusing on playing 5v5 team death match in mid lane, I could play more strategically as I forced the enemy team to fight on my terms as we forced different lanes to towers and whittle them down via attrition. Yes it might be a less _active_ or _exciting_ method, but was still a legit method nontheless, and the enemy still had the ability to engage us at any time should they ward smartly and flank properly. And allowed for me to enjoy a more low stress game of league than some of the hyper reflexive dog fights that are much more common in today's league. Thoughts?
I think there's something to be said for your opponents playing against it who might not find it fun or the junglers on both teams that avoid the lane, because neither side is gankable. So it might be a fun experience for you, but not for everybody.
Raoul (EUW)
: What exactly is the drawback on ressourceless champions?
Some is itemisation; eg. Kat or Vlad don't build Morello even though they'd like to. Others are that the champion usually pays tradeoffs for being manaless and have strengths and weaknesses associated with it. eg. Resourceless ranged harrass is usually good early game, but mana becomes a non-gate late game and so its relative value decreases over game time. This is essentially declaring that we want the champion to be good early game.
: why is riot happy that intended mid lane mages zyra/morg now only function as supports?
I wouldn't say we are happy with them as purely supports as long as their play pattern supports it, but at least in the case of Morgana, we are certainly happy she isn't played in midlane. Her play pattern in mid is quite non-interactive (wave clear from range, then punish you if you try to interact with her). Ultimately, role diversity is something that we would like to achieve, but it can be hard to balance champions for multiple roles (not impossible though). Zyra mid is something that we could potentially support but needs work that we're not prioritising at this point in time (things to solve: accurate threat representation of plants, making sure mid and support are balanced together, etc.)
: Let's discuss AP itemization
AP items usually have CDR so that they are not so spiky (power in burst damage) as a 1 item purchase. Though as a design tradeoff, it means we need to give the item stats in other scaling categories (eg. CDR, %health damage), which leads to things like CDR creep. Agree that we need more choices in AP itemisation, however it's a reasonably big project and the designer needs to be careful they don't power creep the system, which is hard to do. I wouldn't say the system is all bad though, there is still some choice between Liandries/Ludens and Void/Zhonyas/Banshees/Hat are also all situational in 2nd/3rd slot too.
Show more

PhRoXz0n

Level 71 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion