Let's talk: Champ Diversity

So, I've been around the boards for a few years now, and well, you guys never cease to impress me, sometimes for the better, but most often the worst, but this is now what we're here today. Today we are here to talk about 1 big complain from the boards: "there's no champion diversity" and hopefully, yo disclose some misconceptions, because............there are good bunch. For starters, let's get this out of the way, 90% of the mentality of "I want champion diversity" is half of it, the other half is "but not in my lane", most often associated with ADC mains, least associated with mid mains. This type of mentality also has a "half form", where they go with "I want champ diversity only within a role. If it's diversity in bot lane, then all ADCs should be viable (and only supported by an enchanter or Braum), not having mages as ADCs or bruisers" Having champion diversity is good and all, but that also contradicts with another big point the community wants, "no counter picking". Well, here's the thing, if you want a diversity, there will be a good bunch of match-ups where you're Galio'd, think of it like Rock Paper Scissors, one beats the other and beaten by the last. Let's say, Tanks vs Bruisers vs Pokers, normally, it's Bruisers beat Tanks, Tanks beat Pokers, Pokers beat Bruisers, which is kinda what we have now for the island up top, there's quite a lot of diversity there, and what do we have? "Whoever picks first is counter picked and loses" cries, tho Darius mains are not allowed to complain, they deserve to see the other side of the match-up once in a while. So if simple "viability" is not the "healthy" way of creating diversity, what are the other options? Well, among them, it's relevancy, or more precise, irelevancy. Think back at the good old S5 (?) tank meta, where people say "everything was viable, best meta", but, was it really diverse because everything was good, or simply because if you weren't a tank, Vayne or Bugsplat, it made little difference what you picked? As I recall it, it was the later, everything was viable because except for tanks or the two tank busters, nothing really mattered. Which is similar to a suggestion someone made on the boards a few days ago about "how to balance the game to be 'healthy' for both pro play and yolo que" (I really hate to use the word "healthy"), and their suggestion (was a comment in a thread, sorry, forgot where, but it was an Akali related thread) was "keep champions at different skill floor difficulties, but have then all have the same skill ceiling reward", meaning as a quick example, Annie is much easier to play than Azir, but at the end of the day, Azir and Annie would have the same power when mastered, as in, Azir's all stats lowered so much that he wouldn't even be able to kill Annie unless she's still buffering, just so "it's a fair fight, as she can missclick on that creep instead of Azir, as he's dashing too much". Basically, another "make it versatile by making it irelevant what you pick", but what people don't realize about irelevancy based diversity, is that most people will simply pick the easiest and most successful picks, as there's no reason to try and master Riven, Akali, Irelia, Azir, Taliyah, etc, you're not rewarded, you're just as strong as Taliyah as if you were playing Malzahar. Some people may think that that's a good way of balance because "then the player's skill would matter more", but it's actually untrue. Player skill would matter less. Why be flashy with Azir pulling a dope Shurima Shuffle, when you can play Annie, press F + R = won team fight. The end result is the same, and Azir can't do more than Annie, they have different skill floors, but the same skill ceiling. If you like Azir, sure, you can pick him, but if you don't and don't care, just want to win? Annie is just that much better. Diversity isn't as easy to accomplish in a game such as LoL because of player mentality, the "I need to carry". If you have actual diversity where everything is actually viable because it's good, you also have a lot of counter picks, but if you don't want counter picks and everything to be viable, then everything is irelevant, as no other champ than whatever class is the current best matters. In the tank meta? Tanks are OP, everything else is the supporting cast, maybe you want Mozart, and I want Black Pink while my ex wants Pavarotti. It's kinda the same deal, you chose what you like because you like it, not because it's better than the rest, {{champion:39}}, that's just you. Just because you chose what you like most, doesn't mean everyone else will do the same, in any game, most players will chose the path of least resistance, the one with the most reward for the lowest effort ({{champion:11}} {{champion:23}} as long as you have a right click) People bash Riot because "we want diversity", then when they get diversity, they bash at Riot because "I don't want to be counter picked". People's mentality is the biggest issue. Want a better example? We all know that a lot of people love to complain about Akali, and how even a trash one can win lane no problem, well, a few days ago, I made a thread where I showcased some of the games I laned against an Akali, and gave time stamps from games, almost all looked like this: - 2 mins: Akali died - 3 mins: Akali died - 5 mins: Akali and jungler died - 8 mins: Akali died And what I was told will surprise some of you, and won't surprise others, but a good bunch of the comments could be summed up to one of these: "but Akali in pro play....." or "it doesn't matter that you can win the lane against all the bad Akali players you get matched with, others should not be forced to learn how to do it just because you can". In another Akali thread, old one, made around her release, there were these 2 comments in it, made by the same person: - "Akali should not be allowed to at worst go even. She's made to be required to snowball and she's strong if she does, so every champion should be allowed to beat her if they are better than her and make her useless, as it's not fair for her to have the tools to go even in any lane" Which I would totally agree with if not for the guy's next comment regarding the {{champion:8}} vs {{champion:238}} match-up: - "Zed is snowball reliant, he should have the tools to at worst go even in any lane, otherwise he'll be useless". Notice anything? The same reason why Akali should not have her tools is the reason why Zed should have them: would be useless if behind because snowball reliant. What does this last part have to do with diversity? Easy really: having a lot more diverse lanes and match-ups would mean that players have to adapt and change their playstyle, builds, lane management, pathing, etc, but most players don't actually want that, what they want is to pick the same champ over and over, do the same thing over and over and succeed, but that's impossible under true diversity, while diversity by irelevancy is just as bad because "I'm tired to see the exact same ones because they do this 1 job better than the rest" (Qiyana: "Jax, you're getting killed by Kha, build some armor" Jax: *rushes Mercs into Sheen* Jax: "I need damage to kill him before he kills me" Qiyana: "Guess I'll promote to Gold when I get back to promos tomorrow")
Compartilhar
Reportar como:
Ofensivo Spam Mau comportamento Fórum incorreto
Cancelar