: Thoughts on Frustrating Abilities: Unbreakable & Windwall
These are pretty good suggestions. I like making Braum's shield more skill-expressive in its damage negation, and I do think imposing meaningful costs to Yasuo's defenses would make him a lot less frustrating to play against. If I had some difference in opinion, it would be on two points: 1. Projectiles. I think blocking projectiles, and projectiles specifically, is super finicky, because a ton of effects are projectiles when people don't think of them as such (Soraka's Q used to have self-healing projectiles that returned to her, which could be blocked), and some effects aren't projectiles, and ignore that kind of blocking despite have no real reason to do so, e.g. Vel'Koz's basic attacks and Xerath's Q. This creates this weird technical environment where certain effects require additional gameplay consideration simply because of how they look, rather than because of how they play. 2. Outright blocking projectiles. As with the above, there are some technical weirdnesses (persistent projectiles need to act differently relative to skillshots that are consumed on impact), but also I feel this tends to screw with bigger and longer-ranged effects: is it really fair for Yasuo to block Nami's massive tidal wave, simply because the two abilities touched each other by a pixel? Because of this, from a technical standpoint, I think it might help to change the projectile blocking to some sort of directional untargetability on nearby allies: instead of having these effects block abilities outright, they could render all allies behind them in a certain radius untargetable for their duration. That way, larger and longer-ranged abilities wouldn't get screwed as bad, and the mechanic would behave more consistently relative to all ranged effects, and not just whichever thing is coded as a projectile. It could also add a tad more skill expression in some cases, as there would be a tad more emphasis on huddling up and covering allies with your protection area to make sure they're okay (this would apply more to Braum than Yasuo though, imo). As a side note, here's my take on Braum's ability: * **E - Unbreakable:** Braum raises his shield, gaining a shield that absorbs up to 100 / 150 / 200 / 250 / 300 (+ 20% bonus health) damage (or some other placeholder number) over the next 3 seconds from all effects that hit it directly. While the shield holds, all allies within a 500-unit cone on the other side become untargetable to effects that impact it. * The idea here being that Braum could protect himself more completely from damage, at the cost of his opponents being able to break the protection early by focusing the shield. Ideally, this'd be a win-win for both. I also personally dislike percentage modifiers, which is why I'd rather him have a shield for his shield. And as for Yasuo: * No longer generates Flow. * Resolve removed (no more shield). * **W - Wind Wall:** Yasuo throws out a wall of wind which lasts for 0.5 seconds, becoming untargetable to all effects that hit it from the other side. Wind Wall's cooldown is reduced by 1 second for every 55 / 50 / 45 / 40 / 35 units Yasuo travels. Has a 40-second static cooldown (i.e. unaffected by CDR). * The idea here is that Yasuo would only have one defense, namely Wind Wall, that this defense wouldn't double up as utility (he already does enough), and that he wouldn't be able to just passively deploy it in lane and deny the enemy laner for a prolonged amount of time (he doesn't want to stay too long in the same place anyway). In exchange, he'd be able to access this defense far more often if he keeps moving, though he'd still have more downtime in lane.
: I find that MF's Love Tap is unhealthy for several reasons and should be changed
I think part of the problem is that the original intent for Love Tap was to be a malus, not a bonus: the goal behind it was to encourage Miss Fortune to repeatedly switch targets, a goal supplemented by her low base AD and AD growth. In isolation, this could've been great, except its implementation was half-assed: in a vacuum, MF would deal poor damage on her hits beyond the first, but the reality of it is that these low base stats didn't matter as much when she could just stack AD from items. On top of that, this also fed into her passive, causing her to deal massive upfront burst on the first attack. As such, I think the _intention_ behind Love Tap is good, but the _implementation_ is not. Because of this, I'd suggest changing Miss Fortune's kit back again: make Strut her innate instead of Love Tap, but then reward Miss Fortune in more ways for catching multiple opponents with her abilities. For example: * Make Double Up auto-crit for bonus damage (scaling with bonus critical chance maybe) if the first hit affects a champion, and either keep or remove killing any unit as a trigger for this kind of crit as well. * Shorten Guns Blazing's duration, but have it make all of MF's cooldowns tick faster for the duration as well, and reintroduce the mechanic where the buff refreshes every time Miss Fortune hits someone she didn't immediately attack previously. Perhaps have the refresh also refresh Strut as well. * Increase Make It Rain's slow/damage every time it affects a different enemy champion. So you'd still have the essence of Miss Fortune as the best AoE marksman in the game, and would still have her terrific damage on ult immediately, rather than the previous version where it needed to ramp up and felt awkward at times, but the above could shift her more towards DPS, rather than burst outside of her ult.
: Because nearly everyone complained that the game was changing too much. So they are focusing on stabilizing what here now rather than adding any new large changes that shake up the game even more.
That's definitely Riot's argument for this, but I think it sort of misses the point. For sure, players were unhappy at the changes being made, but the issue wasn't just one of quantity, so much as one of quality: Riot released a lot of updates, but those updates frequently felt half-based, poorly thought through, and generally more disruptive than truly contributive to the game. Many of the changes we received felt like change for change's sake, starting at the beginning of the season with Runes Reforged, an update to the rune and mastery system that felt inferior to both, at a time when players had gotten used to the old masteries. The mage item mini-update insisted upon making mana a core stat to the class, while introducing items nobody really wanted, and the changes to mages' subsequent mana stats felt awkward and very biased towards competitive play. Similarly, the marksman and support item updates felt clumsy, and introduced several more problems to both affected classes, whereas changes like those to Scuttle Crab or Ignite shifted the meta in less pleasant directions. Adding to that, most of the champion releases and reworks we had this year were flops, and Clash, despite its hype, was a spectacular failure. If each of these additions had brought meaningful improvements to the game, players would likely not be quite as incensed against Riot, but as it stands Season 8 feels like the one where Riot hasn't quite been able to get anything right.
: A Discussion Regarding Ornn's "Unstoppable" Mechanic on W
I think unstoppability is an effect that has a ton of untapped potential for experimentation. Despite its short tenure, on Ornn it clearly provided opportunity for skill expression, and effects that approach unstoppability have had positive effects as well (Garen's temporary high Tenacity has made him a tad less binary with respect to kiting, even if he's still pretty binary overall). I'm disappointed that it was removed on Bellows Breath, because the problem with the effect was its high damage, not its unstoppability. As such, I agree completely with the above change: I believe there is strictly no reason for Ornn to have major damage to begin with, considering the immense crowd control he has at his disposal, on top of valuable team utility, so nerfing that I think would also be a push in the right direction. Ornn is also meant to be a late-game champion, owing to his special items, and is meant to compensate for his ability to buy outside the shop with meaningful weakness in lane, so the fact that he's also a lane bully right now is also way out of line. Nerfing Ornn's bully potential and turning back his W into a timely block could kill two birds with one stone in this respect as well.
floo (EUW)
: The thing is that Jhin is supposed to go in for high damage autos and go out with the resulting ms. You don't have smth like this on any other marksman. Jinx and Sivir as the only ones who have high ms steroids deal constant damage and not in single bursts. I would say this ms, burst, range combo is his niche ^^
> [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=sfbvmHWd,comment-id=0001000300000000,timestamp=2018-08-23T19:49:27.819+0000) > > The thing is that Jhin is supposed to go in for high damage autos and go out with the resulting ms. You don't have smth like this on any other marksman. Jinx and Sivir as the only ones who have high ms steroids deal constant damage and not in single bursts. Jinx's movement speed is conditional upon getting takedowns and towers, though, it's specifically designed to not be available on-demand. Meanwhile, it is for Jhin, and there are plenty of champions out there who do not rely on bonus movement speed to survive even when going in, e.g. Ashe.
: First, he offers the unique ability to get to the backline agianst unlimited amount of cc. No, but a lot of melee champs can kite as well. E.g. Yorick, Darius, Mundo etc. The thing about "stat-check" champs is, that they often don´t just win if they have the stats, as they lack the ability to outplay the opponent. A Zoe or Zed can outplay him even if they are behind.
> [{quoted}](name=Makadur,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xLE27IF9,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-23T17:38:52.824+0000) > > First, he offers the unique ability to get to the backline agianst unlimited amount of cc. And do what? That is my question. > [{quoted}](name=Makadur,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xLE27IF9,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-23T17:38:52.824+0000) > > No, but a lot of melee champs can kite as well. E.g. Yorick, Darius, Mundo etc. Darius can kite? How? Also, what purpose does it serve for a melee champion to kite another melee champion? > [{quoted}](name=Makadur,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xLE27IF9,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-23T17:38:52.824+0000) > > The thing about "stat-check" champs is, that they often don´t just win if they have the stats, as they lack the ability to outplay the opponent. A Zoe or Zed can outplay him even if they are behind. That's just finagling on what a stat-check champion is. Ultimately, the outcome of a fight for a stat-check champion depends on how much stats they have. What you are saying merely proves my point that stat-check champions are unhealthy for the game.
: I've considered that perspective before. If we're trying to make CC windows more consistent, then why not transition all stuns to displacements and/or modify/remove tenacity? Most (not all) champions with CC rely on it too maximize their kit.
That is exactly the question: currently, displacements are just treated as better stuns, and so due to a quirk of Tenacity, so the solution should likely be to remove or rework Tenacity, and change knockups and stuns to be functionally identical.
: General discussion of knock-ups VS Stuns
The main difference is consistency with regards to durations. Knockups can't be reduced by Tenacity, which means champions balanced around a particular window of CC they can apply don't have to be balanced around two separate windows. Because knockups also move champions up and down, they tend to look more visible than stuns. This is pretty much why they're (over)used. I don't think it's a good reason, and I don't think there is a core functional difference between knockups and stuns, or suppression for that matter, but those are the use cases that arise from the particularities of the game's CC and CC mitigation systems.
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UcXwW2Lz,comment-id=0001000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-23T11:52:47.502+0000) > > Sure, but then that creates the awkward scenario where these champions _have_ to build at least somewhat tanky, but are at the same time discouraged to do so via scalings in their kit. If that were the problem, Rakan would still have an adjustable lever with his innate shield, and Pyke would have his health and armor/MR growth. Well that is the current awkward situation they are in. With riot constantly nerfing their base stats and damage as a result. Except the player base is still going to keep doing these tankier builds until they are no longer viable and then be dropped by all but their die hard mains. Why? Because their intended damage focused builds (at least in Pyke's case) don't work in general. They get CCed before dying or getting chunked so hard they need to back by champions who did go a tankier set up or have built in sustain or shields.
This I can agree with, and is part of a larger balance problem. With that said, increasing a champion's durability will, by definition, make them more durable, so even if they cannot get tankier from items, there will come a point with buffs to their stats that they will become survivable enough for whichever meta they're in.
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T10:03:58.590+0000) > > This argument makes strictly no sense, because there are many more champions who do have counterplay. There is, therefore, some measure of gameplay changes that would make Olaf more interactive, even if it were something as drastic as replacing him with an entirely new champion, though I don't think he needs anything nearly at that level. The champions who have counterplay don’t have Olaf’s ult. Replacing him with a new champ would remove it, hence proving my point that a Juggernaut who can reliably gap-close has no weaknesses. > It doesn't invalidate any point, it's a complete red herring. Yasuo's performance decreasing at higher elos says strictly nothing about juggernauts or their own performance, it only suggests that all the claims about him being a champion for higher-skilled players appear to be greatly exaggerated. You’re moving the goalposts. Before, you were talking about how the whole game’s CDR levels and CC mechanics needed to be reworked for Juggernauts to be viable. Now you’re walking your point back to a skew between low and high elo play. > Oh, so Illaoi's a mobile champion now, is what you're saying? I’m trying to distinguish the even slightly mobile from the totally immobile Juggernauts. > And? What exactly are you trying to say with Aatrox, the champion who was literally just reworked? That doesn’t invalidate my point about him. You’re the one grasping at straws. > And this lets him dive like a diver or assassin... how, exactly? By running at you with a massive tenacity buff and haste. Why do you think a fed Mundo goes where he pleases? > Ah yes, how could I forget the amazing mobility afforded by Garen's positively terrifying 30% bonus movement speed. Clearly, a race car of a champion. I’ve tried catching Garen with Taliyah’s full kit and Rylai’s Crystal Scepter. Since he maxes Q and gets Tenacity from W, he just keeps spamming them while his damage reduction tanks the shots. Short of chained hard crowd control, you can’t catch or stop him. > Face it, you're grasping at straws. Juggernauts _are_ immobile, despite your desperate attempts to suggest otherwise via their non-mobility, and if nothing else they are the least mobile melee subclass in the game. They currently _have_ to auto-win all-ins against any champion they catch, because they auto-lose against any champion they don't. This is not a good situation, and both extremes need to be mellowed out. The only way this can happen, though, is if juggernauts are given more tools to outplay others, in exchange for more counterplay. They currently auto-win all-in’s because that’s their champion class identity. They can take and deal the most damage in the game. They’re supposed to be a rampaging monster. Take that away, and Juggernauts vanish. The closest example to what you’ve mentioned is Aatrox, who has a ranged knockup chain, a fast ranged displacement, and two dashes. He’s at the limits of Juggernaut design. > ... why? Why does one necessarily imply the other? > > Except, when practically any champion with a dash or CC can disengage against a juggernaut, that leaves awfully few champions left against whom juggernauts are actually effective. They can disengage for a while, but once those dashes or cc’s are on cooldown, the Juggernaut can keep chasing or begin to zone. Nasus, for example, has a high base movement speed. > Mundo had competitive presence because Mundo was severely overtuned for a time. Mundo's health and damage received substantial and unwarranted increases, which made Mundo overbearing in lane and impossible to dislodge. When Mundo finally got the nerfs he needed, nobody took Mundo in pro play anymore. Mundo then was not unlike Mordekaiser or Skarner post-Juggernaut Update, where both champions went where they pleased because they were buffed to 60%+ win rates. Hence, a champion balanced around his numbers. A ball of stats. One or two numbers changes and he took over pro play. > Except Veigar is a gimmick champ in the very same vein, yet Veigar doesn't struggle like Nasus. The problem with Nasus isn't his hyperscaling schtick, it's the fact that he loses so hard to kiting that he can't fulfil that fantasy properly, not even with a whole bunch of stats tacked onto his ultimate. Veigar has tools to deal with range, crowds and even mobility, whereas Nasus doesn't. Veigar is never really out of meta, but never really in meta. He’s weak early. He rarely sees professional play. That’s exactly Nasus’ struggle. The weakness to kiting > Again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes any analysis, while also failing to grasp the requirements of the points you are trying to argue. For a champion to skew towards low elo, they just need to skew towards low elo. Literally nothing says that, in an imperfectly balanced game (which we're in), they wouldn't be able to reach success at higher elo. It is perfectly possible for a champion that skews towards low elo to be good at high elo, the only implication there is that the champion ends up also being far too strong at lower elo, which is clearly the case with Garen. Your half-baked analysis proved nothing, and its flimsy conclusions are directly contradicted by my own. Can you make a post _without_ insulting me? I will reply next time if you do. A champion who skews toward lower elo tends to have gimmicks (Juggernaut mini-game) and be balanced around snowballing. Avoid the gimmick, camp them hard, and enjoy a free 4v5 win. But if their numbers are overtuned, they completely dominate pro play by ignoring the gimmick and just stat-checking the whole cast. > Literally as mentioned above, that has almost certainly to do with the fact that juggernauts skew towards low elo, and are generally unpleasant to deal with at that level. Notice as well how I'm not defending juggernauts either: I've criticized their playstyle at length, and accused them of having many of the same problems you subsequently brought up. This is why I am advocating for that class to change. Ultimately, even though we're arguing on this, we seem to be in agreement on how unhealthy juggernauts are, even though you seem hellbent on making them suffer, instead of genuinely looking for ways to improve their gameplay. You weren’t criticizing Juggernauts. You were demanding that the whole game’s CDR and CC balanced be changed to suit them and, as a small note, suggested this change. When I showed you thar CC is necessary to keep Juggs in check and that tank and mage CDR is only 10% higher than it used to be on typical meta builds, you first replied with the argument with a tank champion _could_ stack with a very particular rune and build path and then shifted back down to the one last point.
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > The champions who have counterplay don’t have Olaf’s ult. This is a fallacious argument, as it fails to imply that a champion with Olaf's ult could not be healthy. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > You’re moving the goalposts. Before, you were talking about how the whole game’s CDR levels and CC mechanics needed to be reworked for Juggernauts to be viable. Now you’re walking your point back to a skew between low and high elo play. No, the viability of juggernauts is indeed endangered by their design, which is a problem entirely separate from them being over- or undertuned. A balanced juggernaut will be less viable at higher elos and pro play, as has been proven. You are mistaking the forest for the trees here. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > I’m trying to distinguish the even slightly mobile from the totally immobile Juggernauts. ... by pointing out mobility effects that do not make these champions mobile by any stretch of the imagination. Once again, forest != trees. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > That doesn’t invalidate my point about him. You’re the one grasping at straws. Which point are you making, is what I'm asking. It is you who are grasping at straws by refusing to even state what it is you are trying to argue, and the fact that this refusal came after a direct request to explain yourself is telling. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > By running at you with a massive tenacity buff and haste. Why do you think a fed Mundo goes where he pleases? Neither of these are enough to mimic the much more rapid mobility of the aforementioned subclasses. Your overreliance on memes belies a complete lack of a valid argument here. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > I’ve tried catching Garen with Taliyah’s full kit and Rylai’s Crystal Scepter. Since he maxes Q and gets Tenacity from W, he just keeps spamming them while his damage reduction tanks the shots. Short of chained hard crowd control, you can’t catch or stop him. I can't really speak for you, but it doesn't sound like you played that situation all that well, considering how Taliyah's Q plus Rylai's guarantees a pretty persistent slow even at high Tenacity values (and Garen only gains 60% Tenacity for 0.75 seconds, after that it drops to 30% Tenacity), and how her displacement, terrain creation and persistent E slow all completely ignore Tenacity (Garen's movespeed also doesn't go through Taliyah's wall). You picked a particularly crappy example in your attempt to depict Garen's supposed unstoppability, and in doing so may have accidentally let out a particularly revealing reason behind your anti-Juggernaut animosity. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > They can take and deal the most damage in the game. This is patently false on both counts, as noted by literally any statistics site pertaining to League, or even a modicum of experience with matches featuring juggernauts relative to tanks or marksmen. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > They’re supposed to be a rampaging monster. Take that away, and Juggernauts vanish. "Rampaging monster" does not translate to "wins or loses completely depending on their opponent's ability to kite". It seems the issue here isn't with the juggernaut subclass, so much as your own very unhealthy model of what it's meant to be, and an equally unhealthy desire to keep the subclass in that state for reasons I still cannot fathom. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > They can disengage for a while, but once those dashes or cc’s are on cooldown, the Juggernaut can keep chasing or begin to zone. Nasus, for example, has a high base movement speed. A high base movement speed does not compare to an arsenal of gapclosers and crowd control, which is why Nasus is notoriously weak to kiting, especially in teamfights. Once again, you are grasping at straws here by pulling arguments that anyone with even the slightest amount of League experience knows to be wrong. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > Hence, a champion balanced around his numbers. A ball of stats. One or two numbers changes and he took over pro play. Indeed, Mundo is a ball of stats, that was never in question. What exactly was your statement supposed to respond to? The point so far has been that you tried to argue that Mundo is somehow viable because he once had competitive presence, to which I pointed out that that only happened because he was severely overtuned then, so this looks to be a pretty transparent attempt at shifting the goalposts on your part. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > Veigar is never really out of meta, but never really in meta. He’s weak early. He rarely sees professional play. That’s exactly Nasus’ struggle. The weakness to kiting He sees professional play more often than Nasus, and has altogether had a more successful track record. Once more, you are grasping at straws by attempting to draw a false equivalency. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > Can you make a post _without_ insulting me? I will reply next time if you do. I literally do not care whether or not you respond, particularly since your replies have not been written in good faith. I did not insult you, by the way, I merely pointed out a mistake you have made (repeatedly, might I add). If you cannot take that kind of criticism, then by all means, feel free to pick losing fights with someone else instead. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > A champion who skews toward lower elo tends to have gimmicks (Juggernaut mini-game) and be balanced around snowballing. Avoid the gimmick, camp them hard, and enjoy a free 4v5 win. But if their numbers are overtuned, they completely dominate pro play by ignoring the gimmick and just stat-checking the whole cast. So, effectively proving my point. So glad to see you finally come round! I also noticed you chose not to argue any further on CDR itemization, which was one of your main initial angles of attack. Smart choice! > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > You weren’t criticizing Juggernauts. Which part of "juggernauts are too binary and cannot be allowed to be made viable at high elo because of their design" fails to come across as criticism to you? Just because I'm not calling juggernauts the worst class in the game, and in need of deletion, does not mean I'm being soft on them. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > You were demanding that the whole game’s CDR and CC balanced be changed to suit them and, as a small note, suggested this change. Where? Where at any point did I say my proposals regarding CC or CDR in the game be retuned purely for the sake of juggernauts? Right now you're simply making shit up. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T16:27:39.258+0000) > > When I showed you thar CC is necessary to keep Juggs in check and that tank and mage CDR is only 10% higher than it used to be on typical meta builds, you first replied with the argument with a tank champion _could_ stack with a very particular rune and build path and then shifted back down to the one last point. Okay, so first off, the whole notion that CC is necessary to keep juggernauts in check has already been addressed multiple times above, and not by the statement you've given here (you in fact failed to produce any related statement at all). CC should definitely keep juggernauts in check, but the way it does so is far too binary, is my point. Moreover, my mentioning Transcendence was but one of the many arguments I produced to show that tanks and mages capped more commonly on CDR, as evidenced by literally any site indicating their builds. Not only are you intentionally misrepresenting me and my points here, you are demonstrating a very poor understanding of the argument as it has progressed thus far.
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UcXwW2Lz,comment-id=00010002,timestamp=2018-08-21T19:07:07.044+0000) > > That doesn't quite work, because Rakan still ends up buying tanky items and becoming more durable. There are also far more gameplay implications to being ranged than just not being able to go for Relic Shield, as it does have some impact on his laning and last-hitting, and digs into his power budget. If the goal is to avoid having Rakan build tanky, it might perhaps be better to give him a Pyke-like passive where he automatically converts the tanky stats he obtains into AP, particularly since it would also solve the issue of him currently building stuff like Knight's Vow and becoming more durable. I mean he goes a tanky build in general like Pyke because going full ad/ap isn't viable in most games. They just get blown up and because of their close range play style, need the defensive stats to function. This may not necessarily apply when laning against a melee support, but ranged support hurt like a mofo and have on demand heals/shields to negate your poke.
> [{quoted}](name=Oakleaf Ranger,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UcXwW2Lz,comment-id=000100020000,timestamp=2018-08-22T13:13:47.003+0000) > > I mean he goes a tanky build in general like Pyke because going full ad/ap isn't viable in most games. They just get blown up and because of their close range play style, need the defensive stats to function. Sure, but then that creates the awkward scenario where these champions _have_ to build at least somewhat tanky, but are at the same time discouraged to do so via scalings in their kit. If that were the problem, Rakan would still have an adjustable lever with his innate shield, and Pyke would have his health and armor/MR growth.
Sahn Uzal (EUW)
: I mean, when the item was on PBE they said that, if people were to stack it with Duskblade, they'd make those items non-stackable. And IIRC they'll be implementing that? Didn't Meddler mention something of the sort when he talked about Damage creep? I think it brought plenty of good to the table and if you can simply fix the duskblade stacking issue, there's no reason to remove the item.
> [{quoted}](name=Tidal Tyrant,realm=EUW,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=sfbvmHWd,comment-id=0001000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T13:27:23.040+0000) > > I mean, when the item was on PBE they said that, if people were to stack it with Duskblade, they'd make those items non-stackable. > And IIRC they'll be implementing that? Didn't Meddler mention something of the sort when he talked about Damage creep? They did, but it hasn't been implemented yet, and the item still overlaps with Statikk Shiv's own upfront burst, unless that's being made non-stackable as well (in which case you'd still have two separate marksman items competing for the same niche). > [{quoted}](name=Tidal Tyrant,realm=EUW,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=sfbvmHWd,comment-id=0001000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T13:27:23.040+0000) > > I think it brought plenty of good to the table and if you can simply fix the duskblade stacking issue, there's no reason to remove the item. What good did Stormrazor bring, exactly? By your own admission, it is at best a band-aid for a crit rebalance that screwed over marksmen who relied on the stat.
: Which other champ is unstoppable for a teamfight like olaf? Seems pretty unique to me. Also he is outplayable, biggest problem for olaf, like for most melees, getting kited. How is olaf unhealthy? For me akali, zoe, zed are unhealthy as they are to "complicated". Simple champs such as tryn, olaf, garen, nocturne, fiddle, annie, etc. can be a problem, but most of the time they are more like unplayble as they just got powercreeped. Not with stats but with purely overloaded kits. A good zoe can normally shut down a tryn alone.
> [{quoted}](name=Makadur,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xLE27IF9,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T13:27:24.917+0000) > > Which other champ is unstoppable for a teamfight like olaf? Seems pretty unique to me. And how does this make him contribute in a unique manner, pray tell? You are confusing a unique _effect_ with a unique _contribution_, which are not the same thing. An effect can be anything, a contribution is something you get to apply to others. Olaf doesn't apply anything to anyone else with his unstoppability, he simply becomes immune to certain effects. If the unstoppability allowed him to do things no other champion could do, then that would be valid, but as it stands his basic fighting style is one that exists on many other champions. > [{quoted}](name=Makadur,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xLE27IF9,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T13:27:24.917+0000) > > Also he is outplayable, biggest problem for olaf, like for most melees, getting kited. Ah, yes, I forgot League of Legends was populated exclusively by ranged champions, plus Olaf. > [{quoted}](name=Makadur,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xLE27IF9,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T13:27:24.917+0000) > > How is olaf unhealthy? For me akali, zoe, zed are unhealthy as they are to "complicated". Complication has nothing to do with it, and is in fact the very opposite problem. Olaf ultimately wins when he has more stats than his opponent, and loses when he doesn't. That is not a particularly engaging or healthy playstyle.
: This originates in mushes I believe, maybe even muds. That's where the MMO trinity first started to take root. Then MMOs popularized it. Now MOBAs are running with it. It's like QWERTY, it was an idea that was necessary for its time but now its outdated but we can't get rid of it because that's what everyone is used to.
I agree with this. Traditional support design is by no means the only carry-over League has from older games, including mechanics that can be traced all the way back to pen-and-paper RPGs (e.g. random crits), but it's definitely one that has had a more overt impact on League in recent times, as it's clashed pretty hard with matchmaking, and the need for a mass-appeal game to have a support on each team, despite the role being distinctly less popular than the rest. Thankfully, games like Overwatch seem to be breaking at least slightly from this mold, by giving their supports the ability to fight and have a legitimate chance of winning one-on-one, but we're not quite at a point where it's become the new model yet.
: I think you put it pretty well actually. Nami / Bard are the modern brand of enchanter. Even though Nami doesn't do nearly as much "enchanting" as a Sona or Soraka, the feeling of being a positive supportive ally is still there. Edit: also I didn't answer your question about if enchanters can become more viable in solo lanes. Generally we're not opposed to it if the gameplay isn't completely degenerate (old soraka starfall spam). Though in some cases like lulu they can work pretty well but in others their tools make it hard for them to be viable with minor tuning.
Bard in the past has been listed as a catcher, though, on the grounds that has some playmaking abilities that can catch enemies out. In view of this, would it not help to reevaluate the definitions for the support/controller class, as well as the enchanter and catcher subclasses? Enchanters have been largely defined as champions who make others stronger (mainly via heals and shields, which leads to the problem of excessive defenses), whereas catchers have been defined as champions who catch people with CC, and the latter can be used to describe almost any champion with a CC ability.
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=rpe5Nd7K,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-08-21T22:24:54.063+0000) > > I feel the new Q was just not well thought through: the dev who worked on the new kit clearly intended for Zac to use the skillshot component on a champion, and then attack a minion, but completely failed to realize that doing the opposite was much easier to do. As such, we were left with an ability that had much less counterplay than was intended. I like the idea of Stretching Strike as a telegraphed knockback, and I think Zac in general should be a champion who punishes clumped-up teams by spreading them out. I think that another way this could be fixed would be by changing Q to be multi-cast instead of using an auto-attack. Or making it pass through minions without sticking to them.
Agreed, if the Q fired two skillshots, instead of one plus an empowered autoattack, it would preserve its counterplay in all scenarios, including in cases where Zac's trying to smush two champions together. Considering how minions tend to move fairly predictably, when at all, this would also not really harm Zac's Q gameplay in lane.
: In my opinion all Enchanters should be reworked into Utility-Mages capable of healthy solo-laning. Because if the kit is healthy in a Solo lane, it can't suddenly be bad in a Duo-Lane (the other way around is a WHOLE different story tho). The perfect example is {{champion:267}} here - her kit is pretty solid and fun, she's just kept low on purpose, but with some damage buffs, especially to the ratios she could become definetly a viable top/midlane pick. Aside from that, most champs you listed are old as fuck and due for a full-blown VGU.
I very much agree with this. I think one of the biggest problems with supports in any multiplayer game, and especially in MOBAs, is that they're often placed _way_ too far into the utility end of the spectrum, and have so much power put on team reliance that they create this dilemma where they're mandatory for a team, while not being all that fun to play. It's not particularly fun being relegated to the team's servant, but _someone_ has to do it, because that servant is so team-synergistic that not picking one in a competitive setting is putting oneself at a serious disadvantage (though not one as serious now with mages becoming popular supports). Personally, I think there's a healthy medium to be found, one where supportive champions have _some_ measure of team utility, and quite some powerful utility at that, but aren't made so completely reliant on it that they become unable to engage in the things everyone else takes for granted, i.e. fighting, waveclearing, making plays, carrying, and so on. Nami's definitely a good example there, and I think there are also similar version of the above champions to be had: Soraka used to have a semi-tanky offensive AP playstyle, Janna deals more damage now, Sona is notorious for stinging a fair bit if she gets a Lich Bane, etc. Lulu as well is notable for having an on-hit steroid baked into her kit, along with quite a fair bit of offense, and I think it would help to bring her back to her roots, and make her more of a hybrid between an aggressive mage and an aggressive enchanter, rather than the pure shield/ult bot she's devolved into. As far as good models go, I'd say Kayle or Morgana are worthy examples of what enchanters could be like: champions who definitely have a fair measure of ally utility, and who can go into a position where they support their allies in a duo lane (Kayle used to be able to do that anyway), but who can also go solo and succeed (or at least could, in Morgana's case). Many, or even most enchanters could probably benefit from staying on the more utility side of things, and not having quite as much damage as Kayle, but they should still be encouraged to fight and participate in the game, and not just when their allies are around.
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002000000000001,timestamp=2018-08-22T07:47:33.804+0000) > > That's not how design works. If Olaf had different ways of approaching fights, and if he offered more counterplay, he wouldn't be a ball of stats -- because success or failure would depend both more on his own skill and his opponent's, rather than just his raw power, by definition he wouldn't stat check opponents to death. Ergo, not a ball of stats. There cannot be counterplay to a champion who can just sit on you. He can’t miss a skillshot. He can’t run out of time. There isn’t a mechanic in the game that could give him counterplay. > Seeing how you're completely talking out of your ass here, let's go step-by-step on each champion: > * [Darius](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/darius/all) is known for being the only successful juggernaut rework. Even so, his pick rate has only spiked recently, as shown by the provided link, and prior to that his win rate has fluctuated severely. While the difference is more minute than for most other juggernauts, his play rate, win rate, and ban rate all decline as he goes up in elo. So does Yasuo, who’s all about mechanics and outplays and wildly popular. Does that invalidate my point? > * [Urgot](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/urgot/all) is himself exceptional among marksmen in that he is a) ranged, and b) capable of both mobility and crowd control. Considering how the subject of discussion is precisely on champions that are melee and immobile, and binary as a result, picking him is disingenuous, not to mention irrelevant to the argument. Nonetheless, even his own win and play rates decrease as elo rises. Illaoi has a small dash on her ult. Aatrox has dashed on a charge system. Even Mundo has a scary haste on his ultimate. Garen has one on his Q and has been sleeper strong for a while. Juggernauts are binary not because they’re immobile, but because they auto-win any all-in against any champion they catch. They have to be just as terrible outside range as they are terrifying inside it. If you want to make Juggernauts less reliable up close, then you’d have to give them more options at range, effectively making them all-in Divers like Jax or Diana. > * [Garen](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/garen/all) has only had his win and play rates spike in very recent times, and prior to then had about half his current play rate, and a win rate much closer to 50%. He also happens to be one of the best examples of how juggernauts are slanted towards elo, as his 16.5% play rate, 53.6% win rate in Bronze drops to a mere 6% and 49.2% respectively in Diamond. Even at a time when he is notably overpowered, he is still not that great at high elo. A class that depends on punishing mistakes in lane and snowballing the mid-game because it’s so powerful in melee that it can’t be allowed to make its own plays won’t be effective against champs who can disengage. > This, by the way, is how one performs a proper analysis. One takes relevant information, and measures it in proper context, so as to be able to accurately answer whichever questions are at hand. Measuring win and play rates over time, for example, rather than purely based on a current reading, avoids misinterpretation based on some recent quirk of balance. Measuring those statistics across different elos directly answers the question of how those champions progress through different elos, and is essential to any such analysis. By contrast, you just took the first numbers you found that suited your ends, and dumped them on my lap with no context, and only implied relevance to the point I raised. Not only is your analysis shit, your results do not even apply to the matter being discussed. What are you even trying to say with your statistics? That Garen has always been the best top laner in Korea? This is to say nothing about the vapid insinuations with regards to Mundo and Nasus, the latter of which once had competitive presence, and even less of the many other juggernauts you so conveniently omitted. Juggernauts are not in a good spot, and shoddily throwing random numbers into the air does not change this fact. (I can’t resist the urge to do this in his voice...) Mundo had competitive presence because Mundo had R for 100% Max HP on low health cost. Mundo went where Mundo pleased, including backline under turret. Mundo was pick/ban champ for couple patch. But now everyone hate Mundo. Nasus is a gimmick champ. He stacks Q and hopes the game hasn’t gone to pieces before he’s ready for a 10 minute tower-smashing, champ-diving, 1v3 _rampage_. Then the carries get four items and he’s useless again. I’m not surprised players have no fun when he’s meta and try to avoid picking him. Now, back to the serious point. I made a cursory analysis because it was all I needed to prove that Juggernauts are not so burdened by crowd control as to need tools to negate disables or close the gap. Were it true, they would be stuck down in the bottom of the Top Lane rankings, corresponding to hard-nerfed competitive midlane terrors like Galio. We don’t need months of pick and ban rate data to see that these picks are viable. And speaking of nerfing, have you ever noticed the community outcry when any of the low-mobility Juggernauts is good, even briefly? The Nasus meta had its own complaint threads. Illaoi is still complained about even now. Mordekaiser was berated in Season 6 as an unkillable monster. The whole playstyle has inherent problems.
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > There cannot be counterplay to a champion who can just sit on you. He can’t miss a skillshot. He can’t run out of time. There isn’t a mechanic in the game that could give him counterplay. This argument makes strictly no sense, because there are many more champions who do have counterplay. There is, therefore, some measure of gameplay changes that would make Olaf more interactive, even if it were something as drastic as replacing him with an entirely new champion, though I don't think he needs anything nearly at that level. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > So does Yasuo, who’s all about mechanics and outplays and wildly popular. Does that invalidate my point? It doesn't invalidate any point, it's a complete red herring. Yasuo's performance decreasing at higher elos says strictly nothing about juggernauts or their own performance, it only suggests that all the claims about him being a champion for higher-skilled players appear to be greatly exaggerated. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > Illaoi has a small dash on her ult. Oh, so Illaoi's a mobile champion now, is what you're saying? > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > Aatrox has dashed on a charge system. And? What exactly are you trying to say with Aatrox, the champion who was literally just reworked? > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > Even Mundo has a scary haste on his ultimate. And this lets him dive like a diver or assassin... how, exactly? > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > Garen has one on his Q and has been sleeper strong for a while. Ah yes, how could I forget the amazing mobility afforded by Garen's positively terrifying 30% bonus movement speed. Clearly, a race car of a champion. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > Juggernauts are binary not because they’re immobile, but because they auto-win any all-in against any champion they catch. They have to be just as terrible outside range as they are terrifying inside it. Face it, you're grasping at straws. Juggernauts _are_ immobile, despite your desperate attempts to suggest otherwise via their non-mobility, and if nothing else they are the least mobile melee subclass in the game. They currently _have_ to auto-win all-ins against any champion they catch, because they auto-lose against any champion they don't. This is not a good situation, and both extremes need to be mellowed out. The only way this can happen, though, is if juggernauts are given more tools to outplay others, in exchange for more counterplay. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > If you want to make Juggernauts less reliable up close, then you’d have to give them more options at range, effectively making them all-in Divers like Jax or Diana. ... why? Why does one necessarily imply the other? > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > A class that depends on punishing mistakes in lane and snowballing the mid-game because it’s so powerful in melee that it can’t be allowed to make its own plays won’t be effective against champs who can disengage. Except, when practically any champion with a dash or CC can disengage against a juggernaut, that leaves awfully few champions left against whom juggernauts are actually effective. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > (I can’t resist the urge to do this in his voice...) Mundo had competitive presence because Mundo had R for 100% Max HP on low health cost. Mundo went where Mundo pleased, including backline under turret. Mundo was pick/ban champ for couple patch. But now everyone hate Mundo. Mundo had competitive presence because Mundo was severely overtuned for a time. Mundo's health and damage received substantial and unwarranted increases, which made Mundo overbearing in lane and impossible to dislodge. When Mundo finally got the nerfs he needed, nobody took Mundo in pro play anymore. Mundo then was not unlike Mordekaiser or Skarner post-Juggernaut Update, where both champions went where they pleased because they were buffed to 60%+ win rates. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > Nasus is a gimmick champ. He stacks Q and hopes the game hasn’t gone to pieces before he’s ready for a 10 minute tower-smashing, champ-diving, 1v3 _rampage_. Then the carries get four items and he’s useless again. I’m not surprised players have no fun when he’s meta and try to avoid picking him. Except Veigar is a gimmick champ in the very same vein, yet Veigar doesn't struggle like Nasus. The problem with Nasus isn't his hyperscaling schtick, it's the fact that he loses so hard to kiting that he can't fulfil that fantasy properly, not even with a whole bunch of stats tacked onto his ultimate. Veigar has tools to deal with range, crowds and even mobility, whereas Nasus doesn't. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > Now, back to the serious point. I made a cursory analysis because it was all I needed to prove that Juggernauts are not so burdened by crowd control as to need tools to negate disables or close the gap. Were it true, they would be stuck down in the bottom of the Top Lane rankings, corresponding to hard-nerfed competitive midlane terrors like Galio. We don’t need months of pick and ban rate data to see that these picks are viable. Again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes any analysis, while also failing to grasp the requirements of the points you are trying to argue. For a champion to skew towards low elo, they just need to skew towards low elo. Literally nothing says that, in an imperfectly balanced game (which we're in), they wouldn't be able to reach success at higher elo. It is perfectly possible for a champion that skews towards low elo to be good at high elo, the only implication there is that the champion ends up also being far too strong at lower elo, which is clearly the case with Garen. Your half-baked analysis proved nothing, and its flimsy conclusions are directly contradicted by my own. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-22T08:54:26.930+0000) > > And speaking of nerfing, have you ever noticed the community outcry when any of the low-mobility Juggernauts is good, even briefly? The Nasus meta had its own complaint threads. Illaoi is still complained about even now. Mordekaiser was berated in Season 6 as an unkillable monster. The whole playstyle has inherent problems. Literally as mentioned above, that has almost certainly to do with the fact that juggernauts skew towards low elo, and are generally unpleasant to deal with at that level. Notice as well how I'm not defending juggernauts either: I've criticized their playstyle at length, and accused them of having many of the same problems you subsequently brought up. This is why I am advocating for that class to change. Ultimately, even though we're arguing on this, we seem to be in agreement on how unhealthy juggernauts are, even though you seem hellbent on making them suffer, instead of genuinely looking for ways to improve their gameplay.
floo (EUW)
: Jhin hasn't been so oppressive before Stormrazor was released. Deleting that part of his passive because of an item which is pretty good for him just seems unfair imo. Nerf stormrazor instead.
I agree, Stormrazor is what really pushed Jhin over the edge, though to be honest, even before then his bonus movement speed always felt out of place. It wasn't the worst, because Jhin was relatively balanced, even quite weak for some time, but it still made him too difficult to catch at times, and undermined his purported niche as an immobile marksman. If anything, Stormrazor was the catalyst that showed just how inappropriate it is for a champion like Jhin to move really fast.
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:44:36.721+0000) > > Singed had two instances of crowd control, the ground and root were only added in later. Similarly, Rammus had only two sources of CC, both of which were either short-ranged or single-target, compared to tanks that now commonly have three or more sources of AoE hard crowd control. Annie has literally just one source of CC, so even if it _feels_ like a lot in relation to her burst, it's not all that much in the game's current environment. Janna is a support, and is meant to have CC. Tristana is the one champion who can be described as having lots of crowd control for her class, and to this day she still suffers for being overloaded. The only tank I know to have 3 AOE hard CC is Galio. Knockup-Dash, Channel-Taunt, Knockup-Ult. Even Ornn has only 2. A point-and-click AOE stun is still a lot, and I believed I also mentioned Cho. Well, then, you must admit that supports who have a lot of CC should. That leaves only tanks as a major source of the CC you complain about. > Getting 40% CDR by the third item is already far beyond what was originally achievable. It is your own reframing of the narrative here that is misleading. 40% CDR by three items requires a sacrifice of flat and scaling penetration and isn’t supported by current mana pools. A mage who builds, say, Luden’s Echo, Lucidity Boots, Morellonomicon, and Zhonya’s Hourglass will be much weaker and exhaust her mana if she actually casts off cooldown. She’ll buy Sorcerer’s Shoes and Void Staff instead if possible. > Iceborn Gauntlet is nonetheless a common pick even among tanks, and you omit Abyssal Mask and Knight's Vow, two common tank picks. Adaptive Helm and Warmog's Armor are also more CDR options than tanks had before. CDR on tanks is far more plentiful than it used to be, and the fact that it can be obtained readily from health, armor and MR options (including some pretty consistently strong ones) means there isn't really a tradeoff to be had in the same manner as before. Iceborn Gauntlet is a more niche pick for tanks who want to fight; e.g., Poppy or Ornn. Abyssal Mask is a tank item, replacing Adaptive Helm or Spirit Visage because building more than one MR item is inefficient. Knight’s Vow is a support option—not for top lane tanks. > It is nonetheless an option, and is popular among those going for Sorcery as a secondary tree, which includes several tanks. I actually don’t know how popular the rune is. Mages generally don’t like it unless they build Tear. > Actually no, you said this: > > You then went on to cite multiple examples of CDR items that did not exist before, and looking at common builds shows that CDR is much more common. It is therefore your own allegations that are demonstrably false. But taking _all_ those CDR items is not optimal, as your listing of them implies. > Master Yi is a ball of stats because more than half his kit is an autoattack steroid. Kai'Sa, by contrast, is not a ball of stats, and neither are Sivir or Nidalee. Your one example is disproven by many more counterexamples. On a melee champ designed to fight up-close, lacking CC turns them into a ball of stats because they either have the stats to walk through your CC, tank your damage, and kill you or don’t. Ranged carries or specialists built for hit-and-run generally don’t have this problem. > I have in the past, but that is not why I'm putting forth these suggestions, as many more players besides me have pointed out the state of excessive CC in the game, including with clips showing champions getting stun-locked for prolonged periods of time. Attempting to cast aspersions on my character and intentions does nothing to undermine the validity of what I'm suggesting. You mean like a Season 3 (?) Orianna-Kennen combo? Competitive teams roughly planned to win whole games by camping Baron and pressing R twice. How about Alistar Headbutt-Pulverize into Shurima Shuffle-Ult? Lulu Polymorph into Morgana Dark Binding? CC Chaining is a legitimate tactic which, by the way, depends less on the uptime of crowd control than on its duration. > Except your "proof" is bunk, as you yourself demonstrated, and is more indicative of wilful denial than any actual process of analysis. There are also only very few effects that are pure CC, as many crowd control effects are also tied to damage, and sometimes utility. The existence of a select few pure CC abilities, which by the way I am not specifically asking to remove, does not invalidate my suggestion. You’re just saying that I’m wrong. Do you have a reason, or are you just going to accuse me of making stuff up? > You explained literally nothing, you just made the claim and provided strictly zero evidence, case studies, examples, or the like on the matter. Some classes definitely do have CC as their core contribution, namely tanks, plus some supports and mages, but once again, that does not invalidate my request to prune CC from the game, as I am not asking to remove _all_ CC from the game. I am not asking to make Janna or Blitzcrank champions without crowd control, and in fact I think those champions in particular could probably have their CC left mostly untouched. Your entire critique here is founded upon a complete misunderstanding of the point I am making, one I suspect is deliberate. Well, let’s start with your own words: “Janna is a Support and is supposed to have lots of CC”. You are clearly not against the idea of a whole class with lots of CC. Let’s see your other opinions, then, since this idea clashes with your across-the-board CC complaints. Do you think that Tanks, which are all about CC, should not also have lots of it? How about Divers, who must lock down enemies in duels or when diving the backline? Mages, for their burst combos and to help their team during fights? What about Assassins, who need a small amount to stick to their targets? > Olaf isn't a ball of stats because he can ignore CC, he's a ball of stats because his entire kit largely boils down to literal stat bonuses. Once again, you are creating a red herring by associating two entirely unrelated points. Garen did not become more of a ball of stats after he got an upgrade to his Tenacity, in fact he became more skill-expressive and interactive. This is also why many players complained about Ornn losing his own unstoppability, because it also allowed for more skill expression and made him less binary in relation to range. Anti-CC effects only make champions harder to balance when they are implemented incorrectly, or when the base kit is unhealthy to begin with, and on their own have tremendous unexplored potential for better gameplay. Olaf could have any other abilities designed to make him kill enemies at close range, and as long as he had his ultimate, he would be a ball of stats because he could just run at his enemies and unload point-blank. Giving him skillshots or timed combos would just make him more complicated—not less stat-checky. > Speaking of emotionally motivated responses, this looks like one of them. You seem to have completely missed the part where I said that giving anti-CC effects to Juggernauts should allow them to have subtler and broader counterplay, counterplay that wouldn't hinge on something as binary as whether or not the juggernaut in question is in range of their target. Making the entirety of a juggernaut's playstyle revolve around one form of counterplay has visibly harmed the class and their viability at higher elos, which is why giving them more skill-expressive tools, as well as deeper counterplay, would help move them forward. It seems you just don't like juggernauts or want them to be viable, no matter what. Juggernauts like Darius? According to his op.gg rating, even a slightly less than 50% winrate doesn’t stop this 10% pickrate monster from reaching 4th place in the Top Lane rankings. How about Urgot, at 7th place with a more than 51% winrate? And that’s not including the #1 Korean Plat+ Top Laner: Garen. When a third of the top ten Top laners are Juggernauts and the remainder are near or above a 50% winrate in the next ten, one has to wonder whether, say, Nasus and Mundo see low pickrate because they are just not as fun to play as newer champions rather than needing the game changed around them.
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Olaf could have any other abilities designed to make him kill enemies at close range, and as long as he had his ultimate, he would be a ball of stats because he could just run at his enemies and unload point-blank. Giving him skillshots or timed combos would just make him more complicated—not less stat-checky. That's not how design works. If Olaf had different ways of approaching fights, and if he offered more counterplay, he wouldn't be a ball of stats -- because success or failure would depend both more on his own skill and his opponent's, rather than just his raw power, by definition he wouldn't stat check opponents to death. Ergo, not a ball of stats. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Juggernauts like Darius? According to his op.gg rating, even a slightly less than 50% winrate doesn’t stop this 10% pickrate monster from reaching 4th place in the Top Lane rankings. How about Urgot, at 7th place with a more than 51% winrate? And that’s not including the #1 Korean Plat+ Top Laner: Garen. Seeing how you're completely talking out of your ass here, let's go step-by-step on each champion: * [Darius](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/darius/all) is known for being the only successful juggernaut rework. Even so, his pick rate has only spiked recently, as shown by the provided link, and prior to that his win rate has fluctuated severely. While the difference is more minute than for most other juggernauts, his play rate, win rate, and ban rate all decline as he goes up in elo. * [Urgot](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/urgot/all) is himself exceptional among marksmen in that he is a) ranged, and b) capable of both mobility and crowd control. Considering how the subject of discussion is precisely on champions that are melee and immobile, and binary as a result, picking him is disingenuous, not to mention irrelevant to the argument. Nonetheless, even his own win and play rates decrease as elo rises. * [Garen](https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/garen/all) has only had his win and play rates spike in very recent times, and prior to then had about half his current play rate, and a win rate much closer to 50%. He also happens to be one of the best examples of how juggernauts are slanted towards elo, as his 16.5% play rate, 53.6% win rate in Bronze drops to a mere 6% and 49.2% respectively in Diamond. Even at a time when he is notably overpowered, he is still not that great at high elo. This, by the way, is how one performs a proper analysis. One takes relevant information, and measures it in proper context, so as to be able to accurately answer whichever questions are at hand. Measuring win and play rates over time, for example, rather than purely based on a current reading, avoids misinterpretation based on some recent quirk of balance. Measuring those statistics across different elos directly answers the question of how those champions progress through different elos, and is essential to any such analysis. By contrast, you just took the first numbers you found that suited your ends, and dumped them on my lap with no context, and only implied relevance to the point I raised. Not only is your analysis shit, your results do not even apply to the matter being discussed. What are you even trying to say with your statistics? That Garen has always been the best top laner in Korea? This is to say nothing about the vapid insinuations with regards to Mundo and Nasus, the latter of which once had competitive presence, and even less of the many other juggernauts you so conveniently omitted. Juggernauts are not in a good spot, and shoddily throwing random numbers into the air does not change this fact.
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400020000,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:44:36.721+0000) > > Singed had two instances of crowd control, the ground and root were only added in later. Similarly, Rammus had only two sources of CC, both of which were either short-ranged or single-target, compared to tanks that now commonly have three or more sources of AoE hard crowd control. Annie has literally just one source of CC, so even if it _feels_ like a lot in relation to her burst, it's not all that much in the game's current environment. Janna is a support, and is meant to have CC. Tristana is the one champion who can be described as having lots of crowd control for her class, and to this day she still suffers for being overloaded. The only tank I know to have 3 AOE hard CC is Galio. Knockup-Dash, Channel-Taunt, Knockup-Ult. Even Ornn has only 2. A point-and-click AOE stun is still a lot, and I believed I also mentioned Cho. Well, then, you must admit that supports who have a lot of CC should. That leaves only tanks as a major source of the CC you complain about. > Getting 40% CDR by the third item is already far beyond what was originally achievable. It is your own reframing of the narrative here that is misleading. 40% CDR by three items requires a sacrifice of flat and scaling penetration and isn’t supported by current mana pools. A mage who builds, say, Luden’s Echo, Lucidity Boots, Morellonomicon, and Zhonya’s Hourglass will be much weaker and exhaust her mana if she actually casts off cooldown. She’ll buy Sorcerer’s Shoes and Void Staff instead if possible. > Iceborn Gauntlet is nonetheless a common pick even among tanks, and you omit Abyssal Mask and Knight's Vow, two common tank picks. Adaptive Helm and Warmog's Armor are also more CDR options than tanks had before. CDR on tanks is far more plentiful than it used to be, and the fact that it can be obtained readily from health, armor and MR options (including some pretty consistently strong ones) means there isn't really a tradeoff to be had in the same manner as before. Iceborn Gauntlet is a more niche pick for tanks who want to fight; e.g., Poppy or Ornn. Abyssal Mask is a tank item, replacing Adaptive Helm or Spirit Visage because building more than one MR item is inefficient. Knight’s Vow is a support option—not for top lane tanks. > It is nonetheless an option, and is popular among those going for Sorcery as a secondary tree, which includes several tanks. I actually don’t know how popular the rune is. Mages generally don’t like it unless they build Tear. > Actually no, you said this: > > You then went on to cite multiple examples of CDR items that did not exist before, and looking at common builds shows that CDR is much more common. It is therefore your own allegations that are demonstrably false. But taking _all_ those CDR items is not optimal, as your listing of them implies. > Master Yi is a ball of stats because more than half his kit is an autoattack steroid. Kai'Sa, by contrast, is not a ball of stats, and neither are Sivir or Nidalee. Your one example is disproven by many more counterexamples. On a melee champ designed to fight up-close, lacking CC turns them into a ball of stats because they either have the stats to walk through your CC, tank your damage, and kill you or don’t. Ranged carries or specialists built for hit-and-run generally don’t have this problem. > I have in the past, but that is not why I'm putting forth these suggestions, as many more players besides me have pointed out the state of excessive CC in the game, including with clips showing champions getting stun-locked for prolonged periods of time. Attempting to cast aspersions on my character and intentions does nothing to undermine the validity of what I'm suggesting. You mean like a Season 3 (?) Orianna-Kennen combo? Competitive teams roughly planned to win whole games by camping Baron and pressing R twice. How about Alistar Headbutt-Pulverize into Shurima Shuffle-Ult? Lulu Polymorph into Morgana Dark Binding? CC Chaining is a legitimate tactic which, by the way, depends less on the uptime of crowd control than on its duration. > Except your "proof" is bunk, as you yourself demonstrated, and is more indicative of wilful denial than any actual process of analysis. There are also only very few effects that are pure CC, as many crowd control effects are also tied to damage, and sometimes utility. The existence of a select few pure CC abilities, which by the way I am not specifically asking to remove, does not invalidate my suggestion. You’re just saying that I’m wrong. Do you have a reason, or are you just going to accuse me of making stuff up? > You explained literally nothing, you just made the claim and provided strictly zero evidence, case studies, examples, or the like on the matter. Some classes definitely do have CC as their core contribution, namely tanks, plus some supports and mages, but once again, that does not invalidate my request to prune CC from the game, as I am not asking to remove _all_ CC from the game. I am not asking to make Janna or Blitzcrank champions without crowd control, and in fact I think those champions in particular could probably have their CC left mostly untouched. Your entire critique here is founded upon a complete misunderstanding of the point I am making, one I suspect is deliberate. Well, let’s start with your own words: “Janna is a Support and is supposed to have lots of CC”. You are clearly not against the idea of a whole class with lots of CC. Let’s see your other opinions, then, since this idea clashes with your across-the-board CC complaints. Do you think that Tanks, which are all about CC, should not also have lots of it? How about Divers, who must lock down enemies in duels or when diving the backline? Mages, for their burst combos and to help their team during fights? What about Assassins, who need a small amount to stick to their targets? > Olaf isn't a ball of stats because he can ignore CC, he's a ball of stats because his entire kit largely boils down to literal stat bonuses. Once again, you are creating a red herring by associating two entirely unrelated points. Garen did not become more of a ball of stats after he got an upgrade to his Tenacity, in fact he became more skill-expressive and interactive. This is also why many players complained about Ornn losing his own unstoppability, because it also allowed for more skill expression and made him less binary in relation to range. Anti-CC effects only make champions harder to balance when they are implemented incorrectly, or when the base kit is unhealthy to begin with, and on their own have tremendous unexplored potential for better gameplay. Olaf could have any other abilities designed to make him kill enemies at close range, and as long as he had his ultimate, he would be a ball of stats because he could just run at his enemies and unload point-blank. Giving him skillshots or timed combos would just make him more complicated—not less stat-checky. > Speaking of emotionally motivated responses, this looks like one of them. You seem to have completely missed the part where I said that giving anti-CC effects to Juggernauts should allow them to have subtler and broader counterplay, counterplay that wouldn't hinge on something as binary as whether or not the juggernaut in question is in range of their target. Making the entirety of a juggernaut's playstyle revolve around one form of counterplay has visibly harmed the class and their viability at higher elos, which is why giving them more skill-expressive tools, as well as deeper counterplay, would help move them forward. It seems you just don't like juggernauts or want them to be viable, no matter what. Juggernauts like Darius? According to his op.gg rating, even a slightly less than 50% winrate doesn’t stop this 10% pickrate monster from reaching 4th place in the Top Lane rankings. How about Urgot, at 7th place with a more than 51% winrate? And that’s not including the #1 Korean Plat+ Top Laner: Garen. When a third of the top ten Top laners are Juggernauts and the remainder are near or above a 50% winrate in the next ten, one has to wonder whether, say, Nasus and Mundo see low pickrate because they are just not as fun to play as newer champions rather than needing the game changed around them.
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > The only tank I know to have 3 AOE hard CC is Galio. You also missed Zac, but sure. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > That leaves only tanks as a major source of the CC you complain about. Not so. Champions on average have 2 different sources of CC in their kit, most commonly one soft CC and the other hard CC. This is excessive, as not all of these champions have CC as their core intended contribution. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > 40% CDR by three items requires a sacrifice of flat and scaling penetration and isn’t supported by current mana pools. A mage who builds, say, Luden’s Echo, Lucidity Boots, Morellonomicon, and Zhonya’s Hourglass will be much weaker and exhaust her mana if she actually casts off cooldown. She’ll buy Sorcerer’s Shoes and Void Staff instead if possible. What you just described are only four items out of six, including boots. This leaves plenty of room for at least one mana item, not to mention a Void Staff. This also doesn't even mention Transcendence, a rune that, despite your personal objections, is used by many mages. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Iceborn Gauntlet is a more niche pick for tanks who want to fight; e.g., Poppy or Ornn. Also Gragas, but if you want to talk about tanks who _don't_ want to fight, you'd better start talking about supportive items like Remnant of the Aspect, Shurelya's Reverie, even Redemption or Zeke's Convergence in some cases. No matter where you look, tanks do not have trouble adding CDR to their builds. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Abyssal Mask is a tank item. Indeed, as was mentioned above. Why then omit it? What you're also saying is that tanks are practically guaranteed as well to pick a MR item that also offers CDR. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Knight’s Vow is a support option—not for top lane tanks. Since when was this discussion restricted to top lane tanks? This is also false, as champions like Tahm Kench buy Knight's Vow even when they start out top. It's also worth mentioning that top lane tanks, who are more predisposed to fight, are also more likely to go for Iceborn Gauntlet. You cannot partition yourself out of this argument, no matter how hard you try. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > I actually don’t know how popular the rune is. Mages generally don’t like it unless they build Tear. So, by your own admission, despite having no actual knowledge of the rune's popularity, you still decided to emit an uneducated opinion on it as if it were a fact? And you still think to do so now? Alright then. In case you do want to read up on the subject, op.gg and champion.gg do a good job of showing popular rune builds, and from all indications, it's in fact fairly popular among mages. Look at [Ziggs](https://champion.gg/champion/Ziggs/Middle?league=), [Veigar](https://champion.gg/champion/Veigar/Middle?league=) or [Syndra](https://champion.gg/champion/Syndra/Middle?league=), for example. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > But taking _all_ those CDR items is not optimal, as your listing of them implies. Of course taking literally all of those CDR items at the same time will not be optimal, it's not even possible. However, it isn't particularly difficult to go for a build that maxes out on CDR. Spirit Visage + Iceborn Gauntlet + Transcendence is enough to cap out without sacrificing that many item slots, or committing too hard to health, armor or MR. That was my implication, and it feels like you're trying to twist my words here. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > On a melee champ designed to fight up-close, lacking CC turns them into a ball of stats because they either have the stats to walk through your CC, tank your damage, and kill you or don’t. Ranged carries or specialists built for hit-and-run generally don’t have this problem. There are different ways to approach a fight, different ways to apply damage, and different ways to contribute in ways that do not involve damage, e.g. utility. All of these aspects have generated different champions, and are the core of how different champions get to contribute, with or without range, with or without CC, so your claim here is patently untrue. Not every champion is an Olaf where the only thing they can do is walk up to an enemy and right-click (and he's a ball of stats despite having CC). > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > You mean like a Season 3 (?) Orianna-Kennen combo? Competitive teams roughly planned to win whole games by camping Baron and pressing R twice. An Orianna-Kennen combo provides a maximum of 2.5 seconds of continuous CC, so that does not even come close to what I'm talking about. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > How about Alistar Headbutt-Pulverize into Shurima Shuffle-Ult? 2.5 seconds as well, so no. Also, Azir is an old champion now? > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Lulu Polymorph into Morgana Dark Binding? That would pass at 5.25 seconds... except it's only single-target. Again, not what I'm talking about. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > CC Chaining is a legitimate tactic which, by the way, depends less on the uptime of crowd control than on its duration. Except when cooldowns recharge at a sufficiently high rate that one can reapply crowd control while the enemy's affected by someone else, CC chaining becomes a matter of uptime as well as duration, or it would if champions didn't die so quickly. Sure, wombo combos are cool, but the original wombo combo came from pairing up a champion heavy in CC, but lacking in damage, with a champion with lots of AoE damage, but little to no CC. Malphite + Miss Fortune is the classic example. When everyone can apply CC _and_ damage, and everyone can wombo combo off of each other, it becomes much less special, and a lot more annoying. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > You’re just saying that I’m wrong. Do you have a reason, or are you just going to accuse me of making stuff up? I literally explained why you were wrong in the quote you picked, and I also gave the reason for the refutation of your "proof", namely that what you claim to be proof is merely an unsubstantiated statement. The onus here is not on me to disprove a claim that has no backing, it is on you to back your claim up in the first place. Merely saying that X class needs CC is not proof that they do. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Well, let’s start with your own words: “Janna is a Support and is supposed to have lots of CC”. You are clearly not against the idea of a whole class with lots of CC. Let’s see your other opinions, then, since this idea clashes with your across-the-board CC complaints. Do you think that Tanks, which are all about CC, should not also have lots of it? I do think tanks should have CC, though I think many tanks could afford to have slightly less crowd control. Tanks should be able to disable opponents, but should not have to have 3+ sources of CC each time just to be considered a viable tank. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > How about Divers, who must lock down enemies in duels or when diving the backline? That's not what divers are. Divers engage the back line and duel their chosen back liner with survivability and DPS. CC is not integral to their contribution, bar rare exceptions like Camille. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > Mages, for their burst combos and to help their team during fights? As you just mentioned, mages already contribute with burst. Some mages definitely deserve to have crowd control, but their crowd control should stand on its own, not be purely accessory to their personal damage output. As such, many mages could afford to lose at least some measure of crowd control. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000200000000,timestamp=2018-08-22T03:14:14.122+0000) > > What about Assassins, who need a small amount to stick to their targets? They don't. Zed or Talon's functionality are not conditional upon their piddly slows. You also completely fail to situate your claims in context, as these champions frequently "need" crowd control only because they themselves are immersed in an environment saturated by it.
Sahn Uzal (EUW)
: I disagree with Stormrazor being horribly designed, I think it was actually a great addition to the game. Especially because it was a decent band-aid for the design issues in Crit itemization. However, I think reducing it's cost to 2800 gold was a terrible idea
I guess I'm probably just repeating myself here, but I disagree completely on Stormrazor's design. Even Riot has said that they pushed too hard on front-loaded damage, and Stormrazor is one of the major culprits. It's one of the main reasons, along with Duskblade and Statikk Shiv, why AD champions deal far too much burst damage upfront, and its function in relation to Shiv and Duskblade is redundant.
XeroKimo (NA)
: What are your thoughts on creating a true damage build path for adcs. Ideally the set gives lower overall AD compared to crit, somewhere along the lines of 250-300 compared to crit builds averaging around 300-350, but have higher attack speed. Attack speed items would give something like deal 10% total AD as bonus true damage on-attack (think runnans as their bolts are an on-attack effect, not on-hit) Overall aims to function as a better tank killing build, but not be completely outshown against crit builds in lane, hence dealing bonus true damage over converting true damage, and have crit still be there as an optional, better to kill squishes with, but less effective against tanks.
Personally, I'm not a fan of anti-tank damage, and I'd rather get rid of it entirely. I think marksmen should definitely be able to optimize against tanks, but personally I think that should come from investing heavily into DPS and sustain, rather than true damage. In this respect, higher attack speed would definitely work well for a tank-busting marksman build.
: Ally Minion Block Should Be Removed
Personally, I'd support removing minion block altogether, but this is a good start. With League's current buggy pathing and collision, minion block can suddenly become a huge obstruction from out of nowhere: while there may be some justification for it happening on enemy minions, there is none for allied minions. It is not possible to last hit or deny one's own minions, or manipulate them in any manner, which means that if a champions is stuck inside their own minions, they're screwed. That shouldn't ever happen.
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-08-21T07:49:30.517+0000) > > I agree with this. CC is definitely excessive, and there are plenty of recordings now where champions remain completely unable to move, sometimes unable to take action entirely, for several seconds at a time. This tends to be the more favorable scenario, where said champion doesn't die almost immediately following the initial wave of CC. I think there are two main issues at hand: number one, CDR creep, which has affected CC in addition to many other parts of League (including damage and mobility), and number two, gratuitious CC on champions. The original 40 all had plenty. Heck, the first champion ever designed was Singed. Then we had Janna, Tristana, Annie, and Rammus. They all had and have lots of crowd control. > The first problem I think is easier to identify: cooldown reduction has become a much more common and available stat over time, to the point where it is no longer particularly difficult for any class to max out on CDR. This point is misleading. CDR required a power trade-off before, but Riot has made it for us. Cooldown was added to some items to replace some of their stat-stick power. Nonetheless, reaching 40% CDR requires a significant trade-off, especially for some classes. Burst and Artillery mages build a Lost Chapter item first, gaining 20% CDR. Without sacrificing significant magic penetration, they cannot gain more from boots or their second item, building a 10% CDR defensive item as a third item at the earliest. They do not build any more cooldown reduction. Battle mages, furthermore, build their Lost Chapter item only after a Tear of The Goddess and a Rod of Ages, almost never sacrifice magic penetration boots, and still take their next 10% only as a third item at the earliest. Even then, all mages would rather have a Void Staff. In other words, until three or four items, mages have only 20% CDR. Tanks usually build Sunfire Cape, Mercury’s Treads, Adaptive Helm, Randuin’s Omen, Gargoyle Stoneplate, and Warmog’s Armor. Only the third and last of these items offer any CDR—and only 10% each. Opting for the Juggernaut items Iceborn Gauntlet or Spirit Visage offers more CDR but less Health and anti-DPS, respectively. Transcendence isn’t an option for many Sorcery users. Mages especially need Celerity for the damage and movement speed. > All of this contributed to an environment where everyone could cast their spells more often, not unlike in URF mode. However, unlike in URF mode, there was no accompanying reduction in CC duration, or global Tenacity, so the net result was that everyone could apply CC more frequently, and thereby have more total uptime on their CC duration (especially the classes that have above-average CC, namely mages and tanks). Meanwhile, victims of CC didn't really gain that many tools to keep up in the arms race, other than some situational items and runes that don't really make the biggest difference. The fact that so much CC ignores anti-CC mechanics, i.e. displacement ignoring Tenacity, makes the matter worse. Since I have proven that CDR is not much more accessible now than before, the “URF mode” style “arms race” you allege does not exist. There was not a previous time when Tenacity could be stacked and allow its owners to neglect most crowd control. Indeed, displacements have been common since the beginning of League. I remember doing the math. At least a quarter of the original cast had them, and the fraction has not increased much since. > This gets into the second problem, which is that CC is distributed liberally onto kits that strictly do not need it. Pretty much every champion in League has CC. Yi, Morde, Sivir, and Kai’Sa are the only ones I can readily imagine not to have any. Every Tank and Support needs lots. Every Diver and Mage needs some. Juggernauts and Assassins need a little. Marksmen and Duelists can have it or not. > Another misguided piece of design mentality that has led to today’s environment is the whole notion that a champion needs crowd control to remain relevant in the game, or to avoid becoming a “ball of stats”. That’s what happens when they have too little or no CC. Master Yi, for example, has no CC and is a ball of stats. > Because of all this, I think we need to implement three sweeping and major changes to CC: the first is that we need to do a pass where we reevaluate all of the CC we currently have, and rebalance it to match the amounts of CDR in the game. This sounds like design motivated by frustration. Do you play Juggernauts? >CC currently has way too high an uptime, so CC abilities need either higher cooldowns, or lower durations. The second change is that we need to outright remove CC on many effects, perhaps even most effects in the game that currently have CC: crowd control should exist only because it is part of a champion's core intended contribution, and should not exist otherwise. CC does not have “way too high an uptime,” as I proved above. Removing CC on “effects” is not a good idea, since most spells are little more _than_ CC. >A champion should not have CC simply because they synergize with it (_everyone_ synergizes with CC), because they need some reward, or because they need to keep up with the figurative Joneses. The third is that we need to reevaluate the rules and tech behind CC: we should not be putting knockups into champion kits simply because they're stuns with special interactions with items. This should mean reevaluating Tenacity and its place in the game, but also the tech behind CC, and its interaction with effects such as gapclosers. Each type of CC should serve a clear, distinct purpose from all others, and should be picked because it serves a specific function for the champion contributing such an effect, not because of some hidden rules. CC should also be rarer the harder it affects champions, so stuns should be given only _very_ sparingly. I explained above that almost every class in the game, except carries like Marksmen and Duelists, cannot go without CC to do their jobs. I have also explained above that displacements are not unusual and never have been. Their purpose is to provide hard peel and engage. Janna knocks away backline threats while Blitzcrank pulls in carries. > A separate, fourth change I'd also like to see happen is the implementation of more anti-CC effects in champion kits, at least for some subclasses. Juggernauts especially have this theme where they're supposed to be difficult to stop, yet they're suffering the hardest from CC creep because they have no real options to deal with getting chain-CCed. That whole point is wrong. Anti-CC effects create balancing nightmares, turning champions into binary balls of stats that either can kill you and do or cannot kill you and don’t. Olaf has one—he eventually got Olaf’d for it. Anti-CC effects on Juggernauts would remove their only counterplay, which is stopping them before they enter range. It sounds like you play Juggernauts and don’t understand or care that every class needs weaknesses, instead having become frustrated that just running at or frontlining against grouped enemies doesn’t work on a class designed for dueling and to be weak against crowd control. Take a step back from your own sub-class and see your proposed changes in light of how they would affect the rest of the game.
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > It sounds like you play Juggernauts and don’t understand or care that every class needs weaknesses, instead having become frustrated that just running at or frontlining against grouped enemies doesn’t work on a class designed for dueling and to be weak against crowd control. Take a step back from your own sub-class and see your proposed changes in light of how they would affect the rest of the game. You seem to be making a rather elaborate narrative inside your head to justify a response that is complete bullshit. I get that you hate Juggernauts, but bear with me for a second and perhaps try to listen: would you rather keep the class in a state where they auto-win or auto-lose based on range, and thereby stomp low elos while being completely unviable at higher skill levels, or would you rather have a class that is _vulnerable_ to being outranged and outmaneuvered, but not completely helpless, while also having an _advantage_ in extended melee fights, without being guaranteed to win? This is, by the way, how counterplay works for the rest of League: different champions and classes are weak to different things, but are not designed to be so weak to said thing that they have no way of dealing with getting countered. What you are asking for is to deliberately keep an exceptionally unhealthy model of gameplay for an entire subclass of champions that has demonstrably had a significant negative impact on both their viability and their counterplay. Why, exactly?
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-08-21T07:49:30.517+0000) > > I agree with this. CC is definitely excessive, and there are plenty of recordings now where champions remain completely unable to move, sometimes unable to take action entirely, for several seconds at a time. This tends to be the more favorable scenario, where said champion doesn't die almost immediately following the initial wave of CC. I think there are two main issues at hand: number one, CDR creep, which has affected CC in addition to many other parts of League (including damage and mobility), and number two, gratuitious CC on champions. The original 40 all had plenty. Heck, the first champion ever designed was Singed. Then we had Janna, Tristana, Annie, and Rammus. They all had and have lots of crowd control. > The first problem I think is easier to identify: cooldown reduction has become a much more common and available stat over time, to the point where it is no longer particularly difficult for any class to max out on CDR. This point is misleading. CDR required a power trade-off before, but Riot has made it for us. Cooldown was added to some items to replace some of their stat-stick power. Nonetheless, reaching 40% CDR requires a significant trade-off, especially for some classes. Burst and Artillery mages build a Lost Chapter item first, gaining 20% CDR. Without sacrificing significant magic penetration, they cannot gain more from boots or their second item, building a 10% CDR defensive item as a third item at the earliest. They do not build any more cooldown reduction. Battle mages, furthermore, build their Lost Chapter item only after a Tear of The Goddess and a Rod of Ages, almost never sacrifice magic penetration boots, and still take their next 10% only as a third item at the earliest. Even then, all mages would rather have a Void Staff. In other words, until three or four items, mages have only 20% CDR. Tanks usually build Sunfire Cape, Mercury’s Treads, Adaptive Helm, Randuin’s Omen, Gargoyle Stoneplate, and Warmog’s Armor. Only the third and last of these items offer any CDR—and only 10% each. Opting for the Juggernaut items Iceborn Gauntlet or Spirit Visage offers more CDR but less Health and anti-DPS, respectively. Transcendence isn’t an option for many Sorcery users. Mages especially need Celerity for the damage and movement speed. > All of this contributed to an environment where everyone could cast their spells more often, not unlike in URF mode. However, unlike in URF mode, there was no accompanying reduction in CC duration, or global Tenacity, so the net result was that everyone could apply CC more frequently, and thereby have more total uptime on their CC duration (especially the classes that have above-average CC, namely mages and tanks). Meanwhile, victims of CC didn't really gain that many tools to keep up in the arms race, other than some situational items and runes that don't really make the biggest difference. The fact that so much CC ignores anti-CC mechanics, i.e. displacement ignoring Tenacity, makes the matter worse. Since I have proven that CDR is not much more accessible now than before, the “URF mode” style “arms race” you allege does not exist. There was not a previous time when Tenacity could be stacked and allow its owners to neglect most crowd control. Indeed, displacements have been common since the beginning of League. I remember doing the math. At least a quarter of the original cast had them, and the fraction has not increased much since. > This gets into the second problem, which is that CC is distributed liberally onto kits that strictly do not need it. Pretty much every champion in League has CC. Yi, Morde, Sivir, and Kai’Sa are the only ones I can readily imagine not to have any. Every Tank and Support needs lots. Every Diver and Mage needs some. Juggernauts and Assassins need a little. Marksmen and Duelists can have it or not. > Another misguided piece of design mentality that has led to today’s environment is the whole notion that a champion needs crowd control to remain relevant in the game, or to avoid becoming a “ball of stats”. That’s what happens when they have too little or no CC. Master Yi, for example, has no CC and is a ball of stats. > Because of all this, I think we need to implement three sweeping and major changes to CC: the first is that we need to do a pass where we reevaluate all of the CC we currently have, and rebalance it to match the amounts of CDR in the game. This sounds like design motivated by frustration. Do you play Juggernauts? >CC currently has way too high an uptime, so CC abilities need either higher cooldowns, or lower durations. The second change is that we need to outright remove CC on many effects, perhaps even most effects in the game that currently have CC: crowd control should exist only because it is part of a champion's core intended contribution, and should not exist otherwise. CC does not have “way too high an uptime,” as I proved above. Removing CC on “effects” is not a good idea, since most spells are little more _than_ CC. >A champion should not have CC simply because they synergize with it (_everyone_ synergizes with CC), because they need some reward, or because they need to keep up with the figurative Joneses. The third is that we need to reevaluate the rules and tech behind CC: we should not be putting knockups into champion kits simply because they're stuns with special interactions with items. This should mean reevaluating Tenacity and its place in the game, but also the tech behind CC, and its interaction with effects such as gapclosers. Each type of CC should serve a clear, distinct purpose from all others, and should be picked because it serves a specific function for the champion contributing such an effect, not because of some hidden rules. CC should also be rarer the harder it affects champions, so stuns should be given only _very_ sparingly. I explained above that almost every class in the game, except carries like Marksmen and Duelists, cannot go without CC to do their jobs. I have also explained above that displacements are not unusual and never have been. Their purpose is to provide hard peel and engage. Janna knocks away backline threats while Blitzcrank pulls in carries. > A separate, fourth change I'd also like to see happen is the implementation of more anti-CC effects in champion kits, at least for some subclasses. Juggernauts especially have this theme where they're supposed to be difficult to stop, yet they're suffering the hardest from CC creep because they have no real options to deal with getting chain-CCed. That whole point is wrong. Anti-CC effects create balancing nightmares, turning champions into binary balls of stats that either can kill you and do or cannot kill you and don’t. Olaf has one—he eventually got Olaf’d for it. Anti-CC effects on Juggernauts would remove their only counterplay, which is stopping them before they enter range. It sounds like you play Juggernauts and don’t understand or care that every class needs weaknesses, instead having become frustrated that just running at or frontlining against grouped enemies doesn’t work on a class designed for dueling and to be weak against crowd control. Take a step back from your own sub-class and see your proposed changes in light of how they would affect the rest of the game.
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > The original 40 all had plenty. Heck, the first champion ever designed was Singed. Then we had Janna, Tristana, Annie, and Rammus. They all had and have lots of crowd control. Singed had two instances of crowd control, the ground and root were only added in later. Similarly, Rammus had only two sources of CC, both of which were either short-ranged or single-target, compared to tanks that now commonly have three or more sources of AoE hard crowd control. Annie has literally just one source of CC, so even if it _feels_ like a lot in relation to her burst, it's not all that much in the game's current environment. Janna is a support, and is meant to have CC. Tristana is the one champion who can be described as having lots of crowd control for her class, and to this day she still suffers for being overloaded. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > This point is misleading. CDR required a power trade-off before, but Riot has made it for us. Cooldown was added to some items to replace some of their stat-stick power. That is literally what I explained in the above post, but sure. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > Burst and Artillery mages build a Lost Chapter item first, gaining 20% CDR. Without sacrificing significant magic penetration, they cannot gain more from boots or their second item, building a 10% CDR defensive item as a third item at the earliest. They do not build any more cooldown reduction. Battle mages, furthermore, build their Lost Chapter item only after a Tear of The Goddess and a Rod of Ages, almost never sacrifice magic penetration boots, and still take their next 10% only as a third item at the earliest. Even then, all mages would rather have a Void Staff. In other words, until three or four items, mages have only 20% CDR. Getting 40% CDR by the third item is already far beyond what was originally achievable. It is your own reframing of the narrative here that is misleading. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > Tanks usually build Sunfire Cape, Mercury’s Treads, Adaptive Helm, Randuin’s Omen, Gargoyle Stoneplate, and Warmog’s Armor. Only the third and last of these items offer any CDR—and only 10% each. Opting for the Juggernaut items Iceborn Gauntlet or Spirit Visage offers more CDR but less Health and anti-DPS, respectively. Iceborn Gauntlet is nonetheless a common pick even among tanks, and you omit Abyssal Mask and Knight's Vow, two common tank picks. Adaptive Helm and Warmog's Armor are also more CDR options than tanks had before. CDR on tanks is far more plentiful than it used to be, and the fact that it can be obtained readily from health, armor and MR options (including some pretty consistently strong ones) means there isn't really a tradeoff to be had in the same manner as before. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > Transcendence isn’t an option for many Sorcery users. Mages especially need Celerity for the damage and movement speed. It is nonetheless an option, and is popular among those going for Sorcery as a secondary tree, which includes several tanks. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > Since I have proven that CDR is not much more accessible now than before, the “URF mode” style “arms race” you allege does not exist. Actually no, you said this: > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > This point is misleading. CDR required a power trade-off before, but Riot has made it for us. Cooldown was added to some items to replace some of their stat-stick power. You then went on to cite multiple examples of CDR items that did not exist before, and looking at common builds shows that CDR is much more common. It is therefore your own allegations that are demonstrably false. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > Pretty much every champion in League has CC. Yi, Morde, Sivir, and Kai’Sa are the only ones I can readily imagine not to have any. Every Tank and Support needs lots. Every Diver and Mage needs some. Juggernauts and Assassins need a little. Marksmen and Duelists can have it or not. Your reasoning here is exactly what I have called out at length in the post you are responding to, so please see above so that I don't have to repeat myself. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > That’s what happens when they have too little or no CC. Master Yi, for example, has no CC and is a ball of stats. Master Yi is a ball of stats because more than half his kit is an autoattack steroid. Kai'Sa, by contrast, is not a ball of stats, and neither are Sivir or Nidalee. Your one example is disproven by many more counterexamples. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > This sounds like design motivated by frustration. Do you play Juggernauts? I have in the past, but that is not why I'm putting forth these suggestions, as many more players besides me have pointed out the state of excessive CC in the game, including with clips showing champions getting stun-locked for prolonged periods of time. Attempting to cast aspersions on my character and intentions does nothing to undermine the validity of what I'm suggesting. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > CC does not have “way too high an uptime,” as I proved above. Removing CC on “effects” is not a good idea, since most spells are little more _than_ CC. Except your "proof" is bunk, as you yourself demonstrated, and is more indicative of wilful denial than any actual process of analysis. There are also only very few effects that are pure CC, as many crowd control effects are also tied to damage, and sometimes utility. The existence of a select few pure CC abilities, which by the way I am not specifically asking to remove, does not invalidate my suggestion. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > I explained above that almost every class in the game, except carries like Marksmen and Duelists, cannot go without CC to do their jobs. I have also explained above that displacements are not unusual and never have been. Their purpose is to provide hard peel and engage. Janna knocks away backline threats while Blitzcrank pulls in carries. You explained literally nothing, you just made the claim and provided strictly zero evidence, case studies, examples, or the like on the matter. Some classes definitely do have CC as their core contribution, namely tanks, plus some supports and mages, but once again, that does not invalidate my request to prune CC from the game, as I am not asking to remove _all_ CC from the game. I am not asking to make Janna or Blitzcrank champions without crowd control, and in fact I think those champions in particular could probably have their CC left mostly untouched. Your entire critique here is founded upon a complete misunderstanding of the point I am making, one I suspect is deliberate. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > That whole point is wrong. Anti-CC effects create balancing nightmares, turning champions into binary balls of stats that either can kill you and do or cannot kill you and don’t. Olaf has one—he eventually got Olaf’d for it. Olaf isn't a ball of stats because he can ignore CC, he's a ball of stats because his entire kit largely boils down to literal stat bonuses. Once again, you are creating a red herring by associating two entirely unrelated points. Garen did not become more of a ball of stats after he got an upgrade to his Tenacity, in fact he became more skill-expressive and interactive. This is also why many players complained about Ornn losing his own unstoppability, because it also allowed for more skill expression and made him less binary in relation to range. Anti-CC effects only make champions harder to balance when they are implemented incorrectly, or when the base kit is unhealthy to begin with, and on their own have tremendous unexplored potential for better gameplay. > [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040002,timestamp=2018-08-21T23:13:03.847+0000) > > Anti-CC effects on Juggernauts would remove their only counterplay, which is stopping them before they enter range. Speaking of emotionally motivated responses, this looks like one of them. You seem to have completely missed the part where I said that giving anti-CC effects to Juggernauts should allow them to have subtler and broader counterplay, counterplay that wouldn't hinge on something as binary as whether or not the juggernaut in question is in range of their target. Making the entirety of a juggernaut's playstyle revolve around one form of counterplay has visibly harmed the class and their viability at higher elos, which is why giving them more skill-expressive tools, as well as deeper counterplay, would help move them forward. It seems you just don't like juggernauts or want them to be viable, no matter what.
D357R0Y3R (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=sfbvmHWd,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-08-21T22:14:46.045+0000) > > My thoughts on this: > > * I agree, both Stormrazor and Essence Reaver are horribly designed. At this point, I'd suggest deleting both of them, as both of them arguably occupy a niche that should not exist in the first place (we don't need more upfront burst, nor do we need Lucian having virtually no cooldowns for a window of time). Marksmen do need more items overall, as well as some better rush choices for sure, but I feel neither Stormrazor nor Essence Reaver satisfy that in a healthy manner, at least not in their current state. why remove essence reaver, yes we don't need Lucian to have no cooldowns but Sivir for instance needs old essence reaver, Ashe may work without it but it feels insanely awful, I'm sorry if I make it personal but I can't play her anymore ever since ER is garbage now PLEASE GIVE ME THE OLD ONE or at least a version that can work on Ashe. > * I think now is as good a time as any to finally rework crit. I'm ok for this, do anything you want to crit as long as the users can work. > * Side note, I don't think Jhin should gain bonus movement speed from his kit. Okay but I'm afraid that would remove a lot of fun from the champion I'm still a Jhin player myself sometimes But if it's the right call then alright.
> [{quoted}](name=D357R0Y3R,realm=EUW,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=sfbvmHWd,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-08-21T22:32:27.089+0000) > > why remove essence reaver, yes we don't need Lucian to have no cooldowns but Sivir for instance needs old essence reaver, Ashe may work without it but it feels insanely awful, I'm sorry if I make it personal but I can't play her anymore ever since ER is garbage now PLEASE GIVE ME THE OLD ONE or at least a version that can work on Ashe. Sure, Essence Reaver in its older form had a niche, albeit a tad too much CDR for one item, and that could perhaps stay. However, the new Essence Reaver shouldn't. In this particular instance, merely reverting the item, and swapping out its crit chance for attack speed or the like, could be the way to go. > [{quoted}](name=D357R0Y3R,realm=EUW,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=sfbvmHWd,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-08-21T22:32:27.089+0000) > > I'm ok for this, do anything you want to crit as long as the users can work. This is the goal, yeah. I think there's a huge amount of potential in selectively enhancing certain autoattacks, which marksmen deserve to capitalize upon, and ideally crit marksmen should feel exceptionally accurate and mechanically skilled, whereas other marksmen should perhaps feel more conditional upon positioning or tactics. > [{quoted}](name=D357R0Y3R,realm=EUW,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=sfbvmHWd,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-08-21T22:32:27.089+0000) > > Okay but I'm afraid that would remove a lot of fun from the champion I'm still a Jhin player myself sometimes > But if it's the right call then alright. Fair enough, it's true that movement speed fun feels good to use, and Jhin's already attained meme status with his own. However, I think it's worth bringing up that _any_ mechanic has the potential to be fun to use, but that doesn't mean the mechanic is a good fit for a champion, or all that fun to deal with. If Jhin can be made healthy and still keep his movement speed, then that could be fine, but as it stands, his current high speed is a direct reason for why he's so frustrating to play against.
dome025 (EUW)
: Thoughts about Zac and his rework from the midseason tank update
I feel the new Q was just not well thought through: the dev who worked on the new kit clearly intended for Zac to use the skillshot component on a champion, and then attack a minion, but completely failed to realize that doing the opposite was much easier to do. As such, we were left with an ability that had much less counterplay than was intended. I like the idea of Stretching Strike as a telegraphed knockback, and I think Zac in general should be a champion who punishes clumped-up teams by spreading them out. As for the ult, I'm not personally a fan of the old ult, though I agree the current version has some problems. The central issue is that its telegraphing conflicts with the hard CC on his E, meaning that Zac can dash from a huge distance, lock down enemies, and give them far too little time to react before displacing them back onto his team. Either the ult or the E displacement needs to go, and from the looks of it, Zac's mains would rather keep the E as is.
D357R0Y3R (EUW)
: Possible fix for the problems of current botlane
My thoughts on this: * I agree, both Stormrazor and Essence Reaver are horribly designed. At this point, I'd suggest deleting both of them, as both of them arguably occupy a niche that should not exist in the first place (we don't need more upfront burst, nor do we need Lucian having virtually no cooldowns for a window of time). Marksmen do need more items overall, as well as some better rush choices for sure, but I feel neither Stormrazor nor Essence Reaver satisfy that in a healthy manner, at least not in their current state. * I think now is as good a time as any to finally rework crit. Crit as a random chance to deal bonus damage has never really worked out well, as it doesn't feel particularly fair to rely on or play against (you can't really play against RNG). Moreover, there are valid fantasies that could be covered with crit that crit currently just obstructs: critical hits should be about landing exceptional attacks, whether it be lining up a headshot with Caitlyn, or getting that deadly fourth hit in as Jhin. Crits should be specific, predefined attacks that run along predictable rules that can be both exploited and outplayed, and crit itemization should cater to that by making crits even higher moments (and not necessarily just through damage). Crit marksmen should be a subclass of marksmen that rely on those critical hits within their own kits, rather than just marksmen geared towards a certain stat. The basic two stats any marksman should scale with are AD and attack speed (and sometimes CDR), and marksmen shouldn't be made dependent on a third stat just to be able to scale normally. Considering how critical strike chance exists on only one item and its upgrades (i.e. Brawler's Gloves, which builds exclusively into Zeal, which then builds into items with near-identical stats), I think it's become easier than ever before to rework crit, and remove its RNG component once and for all. * Side note, I don't think Jhin should gain bonus movement speed from his kit. Jhin was touted as this immobile marksman on release, but in practice he's shown himself to be capable of outrunning opponents and moving quite fast (with the right build, in fact, he becomes The Fast). The end result is that he's a champion with immense range, damage and crowd control, but also a substantial amount of movement speed. Removing this bonus wouldn't completely solve all of his issues, because marksman itemization offers a lot of persistent MS still, but it would allow him to be truly immobile in a vacuum at the very least.
: Ty for nerfing Ryze, Riot
What bothers me is that, if the intent is really to nerf Ryze's pro performance, this is just about the worst way of going about it. Ryze is popular in pro play because he can unlock a ton of power with a sufficient level of mechanical finesse (plus good ping), and has access to an ult that really works well with voice comms and an organized team. While I do feel he has a bit too much burst, his damage is not what's making him OP at high levels. Perhaps that ratio nerf is warranted, but then I also think he needs to be made a lot easier to play, just so that his win rate ends up being not quite as abysmal.
: His Ult is like Tryns Ult very unique. Every champ feels oppressive when they are strong. Zoe, Zed, Yasuo, WUkong, QUinn that should remind you that strong champs feel oppressive. Maybe Olaf should get a dash? or invisibility? or a cool new skillshot axe? For me that´s just BS. Why can´t old champs stay the way they are if they are not breaking the game? They all have fans and people who love to play them. Just make new champs or at least give us a legacy mode...
Sure, champions tend to feel oppressive when they are strong, but ideally champions should still feel outplayable. Past a certain stat barrier, Olaf does not feel outplayable, much like Jax now. His ult is unique, for sure, but it's not really a contribution to his team, so much as a nifty steroid he can pop: if it were to allow him to do things no other champion can do, then that'd be good, but as it stands Olaf doesn't really do anything that other champions can't do already. It's also not enough for a champion to not break the game. For sure, Olaf has some fans, but he's not a popular champion, nor is he entirely a healthy one, and he mostly just takes up space in the game. There is more that could be done to make him a berserker, and he deserves an update that enhances his gameplay. Changing something does not equate to making that thing worse, and opposing change purely on the grounds that change is bad is exactly the wrong kind of mentality to have in a game in a constant state of flux such as League.
: Partially disagree on CDR creep for tanks and mages. Tanks allways had rather easy acces to CDR thx to FH, which gave 25%cdr initially, and back in the day we also had 10% cdr from the soul shroud aura, and could get tons of CDR from Runes if needed. Also, Randuins gave 12%cdr on release. CDR always was ment to be a prim stat for tanks and one of the main ways to scale into the game beyond raw tankiness. Mages had some CDR issues in the early games, but ever since Athenes gor released, rushing a 20% cdr item was standart for anyone but tear users, and even befor that we had dfg and morellos as options, aswell as runes and boots(15%cdr back then) However, it's true that you had a bigger tradeoff on CDR, sacrificeing raw burst for it which no longer really is the case, and you hardly have the option to NOT get CDR on a mage now. The big difference in terms of CDR is mostly for bruisers, marksmen and assasins. I remember building FH on riven vs ad heavy comps because i really valued CDR on her and had no other options. Now we have BC, duskblade, ghostblade(though that always was a thing), Maw, DD, Trinity, Er... ------------------------------- -------------------- As for how to deal with the current CC-creeped state, i think lowering CD-durations would be the wrong approach, compared to the past we already have lower duration on average. We need higher CDs but mostly we need less different instances of hard CCs. Back in the day, we had champs malph, amumu and old gragas as prim tanks and CC-setup for the team, malph and gragas had no hard CC in their base kit, amumu only an avoidable singletarget 1sec stun, we had old mao with 1 aoe mini kockback+slow from Q and single target root from W, old Seju with a high uptime slow on E and the big aoe ult and nothing else. Now Seju has a knockup on Q and a stun on E on top of the ult, mao has a bigger knockback, a slow on E and a new aoe root ult, new gragas has a slow on Q and a knockback+stun on E in adition to the ult...most tanks have 2-3 differnet CCs in their basekit and a hgih impact ult on top. Aditionally, most other champs also have decent CC now, like camile as a bruiser offering a stun, a aoe slow and the ultimate lockdown on her R... So back in the day, you had to watch out for a few key abillitites that had decent CC, you could play around them and find windows of opportunity even in a full 5v5. Now you have so many different CCs flying around paired with low CDs, it's near impossible to find a proper window on a dps melee, and Riot's reaction was to boost their upfront burst so they only need a small 1 sec window to be relevant, which is part of the damagecreep mess...If you can't unload you're kit in less than a sec, you can't really teamfight as melees as you just get drowned in CC, and you can't tank through that CC as the damage is to high. We need to go back to fewer rather than weaker CCs, with more CDs so you actually have windows in which you can act duering a teamfight. Asides from that, Tenacity really needs to affect kockups and possibly kockbacks, and it wouldn't hurt to either have baselin or as a rune some diminishng returns on CC-chains, like gaining 10 tenacity for 3-4sec whenever you get (hard)CCed. And i totally agree with Juggernauts getting inital tools vs CC, they already have a hard time vs mobillity and range, it seems only fitting thayt they can withstand CC more easily and would allow less binary tuneing.
> [{quoted}](name=Sire Hippington,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2018-08-21T20:44:12.032+0000) > > Tanks allways had rather easy acces to CDR thx to FH, which gave 25%cdr initially, and back in the day we also had 10% cdr from the soul shroud aura, and could get tons of CDR from Runes if needed. Also, Randuins gave 12%cdr on release. CDR always was ment to be a prim stat for tanks and one of the main ways to scale into the game beyond raw tankiness. Soul Shroud got removed in Preseason 3, which was also the time Randuin's got its CDR removed (it was also 15% CDR on release, not 12%, and got quickly pared down to 8%, then 5%). Frozen Heart itself was always a more situational item that wasn't viable in all situations and builds. Runes provided CDR, but tanks did not go for this, as it was far more valuable to take armor and MR instead. Tanks briefly had better access to CDR early in the game, but then had much of that cut out. > [{quoted}](name=Sire Hippington,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2018-08-21T20:44:12.032+0000) > > Mages had some CDR issues in the early games, but ever since Athenes gor released, rushing a 20% cdr item was standart for anyone but tear users, and even befor that we had dfg and morellos as options, aswell as runes and boots(15%cdr back then) Like I said, mages averaged 20% CDR, that doesn't mean they had strictly no cooldown reduction to speak of. There was indeed a time when Athene's and Morello's were competing for the CDR niche, but it was indeed a niche, rather than something you just incidentally got over time through normal purchases. > [{quoted}](name=Sire Hippington,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2018-08-21T20:44:12.032+0000) > > As for how to deal with the current CC-creeped state, i think lowering CD-durations would be the wrong approach, compared to the past we already have lower duration on average. > We need higher CDs but mostly we need less different instances of hard CCs. I can agree with prioritizing the removal of extraneous CC, but I still don't see why that should prevent lowering the duration of some excessive CC effects. Just because CC durations are lower per ability than they used to be does not mean that they can't go any lower, and I think there are still some older champions whose long-duration CC could stand to be reduced a little. For sure, if a CC ability has a higher cooldown, it could afford to have a higher duration, but there's still some crowd control out there that's too high for the ability it's attached to (e.g. Morgana's Q).
DW Diana (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2018-08-21T17:45:41.698+0000) > > That is fair, but my point is a little different: for one, I'm not arguing that _all_ champions should be stripped of CC; some champions are meant to contribute crowd control to their team and that's perfectly okay. Malzahar is one of these champions, and so I don't think he particularly needs to be stripped of much CC. However, my other point here is that the "need" to have CC for the functionality of one's kit is not a sufficient justification, and if a champion cannot function without crowd control, but isn't really meant to contribute that much CC, then their kit is poorly designed and needs to change. Again, Malzahar perhaps doesn't need to lose his CC, because CC is an intended strength of his, but he shouldn't keep his CC just because he needs it to function. Malz is notorious for the flaws in his design, and he could significantly benefit from a kit in which he doesn't depend completely on his ult, particularly since currently that just leads to him getting screwed by QSS. > It's one of the biggest byproducts from the 2017 voidling change: The focus of his kit was primarily his voidlings previously; the timing and how many "charges" you used depending on the situation. But when they made then a "spam" ability rather than a charge ability they reduced it to primarily waveclear rather then damage, leading to his ult being the primary focus of combat for him as his voildings were always out or dead. > As a side note, I agree that the state of damage in the game also further magnifies the importance of crowd control. Even a 1-second stun, which was nothing special at the start of League, can be a death sentence today, simply because even tanky champions are liable to die within that window of time. I definitely agree that we need to siphon this excessive damage out of the game, and the net result should be an environment where CC feels less severe. With that said, the combo of one champion applying CC and the other applying burst has existed for quite some time, and I think the only remarkable thing about our current environment is that there are increasingly more champions who can apply both at the same time. I think it's fine for two separate champions to supplement each other via teamwork, but I don't think it's okay for the same champion to kill their opponent in the same window that they've locked them down, unless doing so had sufficiently high levels of counterplay. > I agree burst has always existed and should continue to do so, but even a Zed, whose burst was huge last year, had to hit his abilities to do this. Sadly this is no longer the case and presents a marked increase in the burst available. Fizz used to be a Malzahar's worst nightmare as his Ult blew our shield before the damage and knockup. Now he doesn't even need his ult, and it's often used to secure a kill if ignite is on CD rather than the initiation tool it is designed to be. I agree CC needs to be reduced overall in the game, as currently it is CC for CC's sake, with champions like Zoe not really NEEDING any CC at the moment, but I do feel that natural tankiness being reintroduced, a reduction in burst overall, and power being put back into sustained/non front-loaded damage is key to "stabilizing" the game and allowing some of the CC to remain (in Zoe's case she would then NEED her E).
> [{quoted}](name=Lord Loki1987,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-21T19:35:11.904+0000) > > It's one of the biggest byproducts from the 2017 voidling change: The focus of his kit was primarily his voidlings previously; the timing and how many "charges" you used depending on the situation. But when they made then a "spam" ability rather than a charge ability they reduced it to primarily waveclear rather then damage, leading to his ult being the primary focus of combat for him as his voildings were always out or dead. I agree with this. Malz's voidlings were probably the aspect of his kit that got handled the worst, as it's clear RiotRepertoir has never quite found a good model where they could be interesting to use and healthy at the same time. Trying to combine the ult's suppression with his former W I think also made matters worse, and altogether ended up reducing him even further to an ult bot. I think the healthiest Malzahar can be is if he were able to kill people independently of his ult, and could then use the latter for when he specifically needs to disable someone or make a pick: he'd still have CC, and would contribute a large amount of it, but wouldn't _need_ it to function, and so wouldn't be countered as hard by QSS in the process. > [{quoted}](name=Lord Loki1987,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-21T19:35:11.904+0000) > > I agree burst has always existed and should continue to do so, but even a Zed, whose burst was huge last year, had to hit his abilities to do this. Sadly this is no longer the case and presents a marked increase in the burst available. Fizz used to be a Malzahar's worst nightmare as his Ult blew our shield before the damage and knockup. Now he doesn't even need his ult, and it's often used to secure a kill if ignite is on CD rather than the initiation tool it is designed to be. This I completely agree with. Whereas Zed once had to position his shadows correctly and aim in order to land enough burst, he can now ult, E, auto, and Ignite, and already deal some obscene amount of damage via all of that plus Electrocute, even though virtually none of those effects can be truly outplayed, except maybe by Stopwatch/Zhonya's. In general, the excessive amount of damage in the game means that champions can do the bare minimum and still get kills, with more skillful plays going into overkill territory. This definitely needs to change, so that it becomes about as easy to outplay damage as it is to apply it. > [{quoted}](name=Lord Loki1987,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-21T19:35:11.904+0000) > > I agree CC needs to be reduced overall in the game, as currently it is CC for CC's sake, with champions like Zoe not really NEEDING any CC at the moment, but I do feel that natural tankiness being reintroduced, a reduction in burst overall, and power being put back into sustained/non front-loaded damage is key to "stabilizing" the game and allowing some of the CC to remain (in Zoe's case she would then NEED her E). Ideally, I don't think champions should be made to need the CC in their kits, so much as be clear that their CC is a core contribution. Zoe is a good example to pick, because while her sleep effect is cool by itself, it's completely mismatched with the rest of her kit, and functionally operates as a stun for her Q one-shot. In an ideal world, the sleep effect should shine on its own, without solely functioning as an accessory to her burst. It should be perfectly viable to put a champion to sleep for its own sake, regardless of whether or not Zoe plans to follow-up with damage, and applying that kind of philosophy more broadly could enable more depth among champions too: the flipside to combos is that, when using abilities in one particular sequence is just so much stronger in all situations than using them in any other order, the champion in question becomes flat, because suddenly they have no real choice but to use their abilities in the same way each time. A champion's kit should definitely mesh well with itself (which isn't quite the case with Zoe), but it should offer multiple valid ways of using the tools it gives, if it is to enact truly diverse gameplay. In this respect, I definitely agree to reducing damage across the board, but I also want champions to be weaned off of an excessive reliance on combos: combos should still exist, and should feel good to land, but shouldn't be the one thing a champion is supposed to do at all times. With this, champions should ideally not feel like they need CC in their kits purely for the sake of a combo.
Verxint (NA)
: PSA: stop whining about "forced 50%"
I agree that there's a degree of conspiracy theory bullshit going on (unless a player is on the level of someone like Faker or whatever, they will eventually climb to a point where their win rate is roughly 50%), but I think the issue players take is with how the matchmaking system has a tendency to pull players from completely different divisions, leading to matches where you have players in Silver facing Diamonds, or the like. Some matches will have dud players, but for a match that determines how a player will advance _as an individual_ to be marred by some other player who's completely out of their depth is incredibly frustrating, and is likely what's leading to the feeling that the system is against them.
: The correct way to fix zoe.
I'd say switch her W and R around, and completely remove both the Ahri W/speed-up component and the RNG minion spell shards. Zoe's high moment with Spell Thief should simply come from opportunistically picking up someone else's recently used summoner spell or item, and being able to cast a "free" version of that effect is already powerful enough by itself. Meanwhile, Portal Jump is properly relevant to the way Zoe plays throughout most of the game, and likely deserves to be available from the start. She may need some rebalancing with this, but at least she'd be in a state where her summoner spell/item active casts would be entirely predictable, and wouldn't be this spammable effect she'd get to apply on a regular basis in lane.
: I Quit Maining Tanks after 4 Years
I sympathize with this. I used to main tanky champions in the jungle, and for past few years it feels like League just really, really doesn't want anyone to be actually durable. Everything is predicated on how quickly people can die, and this rule has even been extended to tanks, whose contribution in durability has been sidelined in favor of spamming CC and large amounts of base damage. There had always been a problem in overlap between fighters and tanks, but now the problem is worse than ever, because now tanks are also being pushed to get kills. Even from a thematics perspective, most of the bios and lore we've gotten for tanks recently emphasizes their eagerness to fight and kill stuff, with Galio as a prime example. It feels like Riot just doesn't know anymore what to do with tanks in their game, and that they perhaps don't even want tanks to really exist anymore, which is why tanks have instead been awkwardly relabanced into these bruisers with more CC.
Blu 1 (NA)
: I think the idea is that his banrate is consistently one of the highest every single patch in every single meta
This. Yasuo's ban rate has been among the highest in the roster for years on end, and there have been several instances where he breached the 90% mark. The last time that happened on another champion, which was with Kassadin, Riot _immediately_ gutted him before giving him this utterly slapdash rework in the space of a few weeks, all purely so that he wouldn't be quite so unpleasant to deal with. More generally, champions have been dumpstered in much shorter order for less, including with Zoe just recently: coupled with the fact that Riot routinely attempts to cover up Yasuo's problems by trying to divert attention to his play rate (which is the one thing that fluctuates heavily based on his balance), this suggests there is a deliberate attempt to avoid addressing the issue.
: the reason he is ranged is to stop him from going relic and being tanky when he shouldnt be, his playstyle should be going in then getting out quickly not going in and staying in for the entire fight
That doesn't quite work, because Rakan still ends up buying tanky items and becoming more durable. There are also far more gameplay implications to being ranged than just not being able to go for Relic Shield, as it does have some impact on his laning and last-hitting, and digs into his power budget. If the goal is to avoid having Rakan build tanky, it might perhaps be better to give him a Pyke-like passive where he automatically converts the tanky stats he obtains into AP, particularly since it would also solve the issue of him currently building stuff like Knight's Vow and becoming more durable.
DW Diana (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Teridax68,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AoMzyVkX,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-08-21T07:49:30.517+0000) > I like the well thought out way in which you have approached this, however I would point out that some of those that have always been famous for their CC also required it to fulfil their role. In the case of Malzahar, his damage happens over time and is heavily reliant on his voidlings. His ultimate was always the way in which he produced his maximum damage, and being point and click made him perfect for dealing with hypermobile hyper carries. With the increase of CC, burst damage has also increased significantly leading to ANY CC being an instant death. This should have been answered with a reduction in burst damage, but instead we've seen a reduction in damage for those WITH CC. Malzahar for instance has lost about 60% of his damage since just last year. This has meant that some CC champions have had to be supplemented with another person doing the burst, thus the seeming removal of counterplay. I'd therefore suggest BURST damage be lowered properly before CC. Edit: shows how tired I am: I repled to the OP without remembering just before this xD
That is fair, but my point is a little different: for one, I'm not arguing that _all_ champions should be stripped of CC; some champions are meant to contribute crowd control to their team and that's perfectly okay. Malzahar is one of these champions, and so I don't think he particularly needs to be stripped of much CC. However, my other point here is that the "need" to have CC for the functionality of one's kit is not a sufficient justification, and if a champion cannot function without crowd control, but isn't really meant to contribute that much CC, then their kit is poorly designed and needs to change. Again, Malzahar perhaps doesn't need to lose his CC, because CC is an intended strength of his, but he shouldn't keep his CC just because he needs it to function. Malz is notorious for the flaws in his design, and he could significantly benefit from a kit in which he doesn't depend completely on his ult, particularly since currently that just leads to him getting screwed by QSS. As a side note, I agree that the state of damage in the game also further magnifies the importance of crowd control. Even a 1-second stun, which was nothing special at the start of League, can be a death sentence today, simply because even tanky champions are liable to die within that window of time. I definitely agree that we need to siphon this excessive damage out of the game, and the net result should be an environment where CC feels less severe. With that said, the combo of one champion applying CC and the other applying burst has existed for quite some time, and I think the only remarkable thing about our current environment is that there are increasingly more champions who can apply both at the same time. I think it's fine for two separate champions to supplement each other via teamwork, but I don't think it's okay for the same champion to kill their opponent in the same window that they've locked them down, unless doing so had sufficiently high levels of counterplay.
La Bello (NA)
: Active items wont happen or rather are far less likely to happen. They overwhelm players and data showed most people have a disdain for them or think the focus should be mostly on champion mechanics _"playing Zed/Yasuo/Akali is already mind boggling enough why make me juggle actives while im at it?"_. Riot has talked about this multiple times before even giving us crazy stats to go along with it. Very few DFG users even remembered to use DFG before its removal and as a personal anecdote im personally REALLY bad with remembering to use Redemption before I die. Part of the charm of league is being simple and easy to get into. Making a large pool of active effects is the opposite of that idea. I think rather that tossing some actives in you should make more passives that kinda have a short opportunity window like {{item:3508}} {{item:3050}} or {{item:3094}}. These items make windows of play and can change your playstyle but they dont require extra clicky clickys to work which eases the brain.
> [{quoted}](name=Sunibee,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gPXiqPNQ,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-08-20T04:48:43.598+0000) > > Active items wont happen or rather are far less likely to happen. > They overwhelm players and data showed most people have a disdain for them or think the focus should be mostly on champion mechanics _"playing Zed/Yasuo/Akali is already mind boggling enough why make me juggle actives while im at it?"_. This is a fair point, imo. The problem with adding new gameplay effects, such as actives or conditional passives, via customization systems is that they each require the user to pay attention to them, which doesn't always work, and doesn't always mesh well with champions who are already complex enough on their own. In fact, it tends to make all champions less approachable, because in addition to having to learn their kit, one has to learn how to use items on them at the right times. This, I think, is one of the reasons why more modern items and Runes Reforged haven't always been popular, at least compared to the simpler, more stat-based runes and items we used to have, because they've made the game more difficult to approach overall and have taken the focus away from individual champions, when pure stats had the advantage of letting the player devote their full attention to mastering their champion's kit. This, I think, is the great failure of the whole design mentality of trying to inject major gameplay into every little piece of a game: not every little thing has to be a major decision point or a high moment, and implementing too much of those at the same time ends up making the whole experience confusing and muddled. Seasoning each individual piece of pasta with a different exotic spice, and blending them all with dairy from a dozen different animal species isn't going to make your mac and cheese taste that much better, and in fact may produce something truly abominable. In that same vein, turning itemization and runes into a conglomerate system that tacks on a dozen different gameplay effects to a champion, each with the ability of influencing the course of a fight, has ended up causing the game to feel less about the expression of each individual champion's fantasy, and more about abusing whichever part of the system Riot has chosen to focus on for the time being, namely by exploiting some broken item or rune.
: Wish I was that articulate with my sentences, but yeah you get it. Do you agree with my idea to have the e passive apply its dmg on death sentence with a larger charge time and reset if q is reactivated? I feel without the passive that surprising dmg would only be existent on his ult. That's why I suggested it, in order to not take away from the dmg it provide for thresh. I like the passive on his e but I have great disdain for the way he is set up as I explained. Its also best later in the game to have maxed q then w for play making so by the time you get around to e the dmg bonus kinda becomes irrelevant to the amount of dmg and tankiness that has developed.
I think if you want to have the E damage apply on Death Sentence, you may as well remove the E passive altogether and just buff Death Sentence's damage: the ability already has an innate cooldown, such that it will already only be able to apply its effects in periodic bursts. Having Death Sentence's damage scale directly with souls, or simply have a greater AP ratio, could therefore fuse the two effects together in a way that would allow Thresh to still poke without having to resort to ranged autoattacks, or without needing to autoattack at all. Personally, though, I'm simply not a fan of the E passive to begin with, and I'd rather remove it altogether, with appropriate compensation given to Thresh's AD. In fact, I'd perhaps even be in favor of flipping Thresh's soul gains so that he gets AD, rather than AP, from his souls. While I think it's fine for Thresh's combo to flow perfectly into itself, and punish players for getting caught by a hook by having him also trap them in a prison, I'm less okay with him dealing burst damage in equally quick sequence, which is why I think his damage should come from him being able to hit consistently hard with basic attacks, rather than from his abilities. This could also help a problem of his where he feels like he has nothing to do after blowing his combo, since right now he does his thing, lands an E-enhanced auto, and is then basically a sitting duck until either his allies join in, or his Q comes off cooldown: with powerful basic attacks on each swing, Thresh could feel much better about staying in a fight, even if his initial combo wouldn't take out as much of his target's health.
: Upcoming Kayle Rework Information Compilation
So the TL;DW on the gameplay-related clips is: * Kayle won't be designed or balanced as a support, but she'll still be able to support others with her abilities. * Kayle's new kit isn't really being discussed, but it's most likely that: * She'll still transition from melee to ranged, and is still likely to have a focus on autoattacks (her autoattacks will also be made to feel better). * Her R will stay in some form. It may get some tweaks, but it's still likely to have the same basic effect where you cast it on someone to give damage immunity. * The prime goal of her rework will be to make her more fun and exciting to play. Currently she mostly does one thing, and only hits a high note if she ults right, and Jinxylord wants to make her playstyle more varied and interesting overall, with more high moments available to her. So far, so good, imo. I'm curious as to how exactly they'll nail the melee-to-ranged transition, and what kind of gameplay loop they'll implement on Kayle's basic abilities, but so far it seems like the right bases are being covered.
: Thresh should be melee, he could be better in so many ways!!!
Ever since Thresh was released, I've always questioned why he needed to be ranged. His souls mechanic lets him become pretty durable, like any other tank support, his kit is full of incredibly potent CC and utility, and on top of that he also has a surprising amount of damage. He has no real difficulty reaching his targets, because he has a hook, and a dash on top of that in case he doesn't reel his opponents in close enough (his instant displacement on E makes things even easier). For sure, simply reducing his range right now and giving him no compensation would screw him over, but that argument could apply to literally any champion if they received a flat reduction to a stat after being balanced around said stat. In the end, the only real reason Thresh is ranged is because of the poke passive on his E, a passive that is itself eminently questionable due to the sheer amount of mechanics Thresh already has at his disposal. Thresh already has plenty of things to do even when he's not poking his opponent, and later in the game he will usually engage with his hook anyway, so having ranged autoattacks only really benefits him during the laning phase. Incidentally, this is a phase where Thresh currently suffers, because while he'd really like to make good use of Relic Shield, his status as a ranged champion means he can't properly execute minions or sustain himself. Ancient Coin isn't really a great fit on Thresh, so he's stuck with a really awkward laning phase just for the sake of a superfluous gameplay effect that is only truly meant to be useful during that point in time. Reducing Thresh's basic attack range, making him a melee champion, and buffing his MR accordingly (and the rest of his stats as needed) could bring him in line with other tank supports, while also making his item choices less awkward.
Malza (NA)
: A lot of CCs used to have longer duration, and most champs that have tons of CC are older champs.
This is a fair point. With that said, CC was used on fewer abilities overall, champions were often heavily limited by the CC they were allowed to have, and the CC itself was often heavily reduced by Tenacity. Tryndamere, for example, only had a slow, and that was enough to heavily limit his range and overall sticking power. Fiddlesticks and Morgana both had inflated CC durations to go up against Tenacity, as their entire combo hinged around them landing their hard CC, but then they also paid this price by being squishy, immobile and fairly short-ranged. By contrast, it's difficult to see what price a champion like Aatrox pays for his knockups, or even why Nunu, well-designed as he seems, is allowed to gain a knockup and a root. I also don't quite agree that the champions with the most CC are older. Nautilus used to be the high bar for CC in the game, and on his release he was considered to be extreme for a bunch of reasons, not just because he had four different CC effects, but also because he could root someone with basic attacks at no mana cost. At this point, though, he doesn't come across as exceptional, if only because we have champions like Ornn, who not only has four different sources of CC, but can also amplify all crowd control, _and_ has both substantial anti-tank damage and a degree of team utility on top of that. Camille, a diver whose core purpose is ostensibly to deal damage, has crowd control on three different abilities. Jhin, a marksman whose purpose is also to deal damage, also has three different sources of crowd control. Pyke and Ekko, two assassin-type champions, both have two different sources of CC, including hard crowd control. Some of these CC effects, such as Ekko's W, are extremely powerful, rivalizing with some tank abilities. Not only do we have champions with more CC than before, but we also have champions with CC in classes that were expressly forbidden from having CC in large amounts, or were at least forced to pay a heavy and distinct price for it. There effectively has been an inflation in CC in the game, even if we aren't anymore at a stage where champions have 3+ seconds of hard CC on one ability.
: We all talk about how high damage is, but can we address the CC bloat this game has?
I agree with this. CC is definitely excessive, and there are plenty of recordings now where champions remain completely unable to move, sometimes unable to take action entirely, for several seconds at a time. This tends to be the more favorable scenario, where said champion doesn't die almost immediately following the initial wave of CC. I think there are two main issues at hand: number one, CDR creep, which has affected CC in addition to many other parts of League (including damage and mobility), and number two, gratuitious CC on champions. The first problem I think is easier to identify: cooldown reduction has become a much more common and available stat over time, to the point where it is no longer particularly difficult for any class to max out on CDR. Supports have been balanced around capping out on CDR for quite some time, but more recently we've seen the same happen to mages and tanks: at the start of League, mages were balanced around having high amounts of AP to supplement their burst, and CDR was a situational stat, one that was desirable, but that incurred heavy tradeoffs in power if one wished to opt into the stat. The stat was even more situational on tanks, who once had to go for some very, very specific items in order to obtain CDR, let alone cap out on it. As such, opting into CDR was legitimately difficult, to the point where it was often not worth it. Cue Midseason 6, whose update to the mage class completely changed their itemization. AP on their items got severely reduced, and instead they were pushed to buy cooldown reduction and mana, with CDR becoming much more plentiful. Morellonomicon, up until then a situational item, became the must-rush core to the mage class, whereas Rabadon's Deathcap, the former core mage item, got turned into this super-expensive, ultra-specialized stat stick that was too inefficient for most people to consider buying. Mages went from averaging 20% CDR to capping pretty much in every game by design. Meanwhile, to solve the issue of some tank items being undesirable, Riot decided to slap CDR onto them, even if they contributed strictly nothing to the item's gameplay (e.g. Warmog's Armor). The addition of CDR tank items like Knight's Vow, plus the shifting of Abyssal Scepter into Abyssal Mask during the Midseason 7 Tank Update, further enabled tanks to opt into the stat with little tradeoff. The gratuitious addition of CDR into masteries, and then Runes Reforged, made the whole process even easier, even allowing players to buy _too much_ CDR and still not suffer (i.e. with Transcendence). All of this contributed to an environment where everyone could cast their spells more often, not unlike in URF mode. However, unlike in URF mode, there was no accompanying reduction in CC duration, or global Tenacity, so the net result was that everyone could apply CC more frequently, and thereby have more total uptime on their CC duration (especially the classes that have above-average CC, namely mages and tanks). Meanwhile, victims of CC didn't really gain that many tools to keep up in the arms race, other than some situational items and runes that don't really make the biggest difference. The fact that so much CC ignores anti-CC mechanics, i.e. displacement ignoring Tenacity, makes the matter worse. This gets into the second problem, which is that CC is distributed liberally onto kits that strictly do not need it. Crowd control at this point is so common that champions who do _not_ have CC, or who only have a slow or the like, are the ones deemed noteworthy. The designers for Kai'Sa were awfully proud with the fact that she had no innate CC, for example, and believed this justified the extreme amounts of mobility, burst, range and survivability in her kit. In general, CC has typically been handed out onto kits either as a feel-good reward for landing an ability, or out of synergy with some other effect, most commonly in burst mage combos. The problem with this mentality is that it fundamentally misunderstands the impact of CC in a multiplayer game: crowd control is the constraining of a character's available actions; in a multiplayer game, this means the loss or reduction of control a player has over their character. Such an experience is frustrating, and while it can be justified in the right circumstances, it requires good justification, and needs to itself be kept under strict enough control that a player should feel like they have good agency over the course of a fight. Something as basic as trying to reward landing a skillshot is therefore not proper justification, and what's worse, that kind of reasoning operates in a vacuum, where nobody else is presumed to have crowd control that would itself facilitate the landing of such an ability. This is why CC chains and wombo-combos are not uncommon, because once a champion is locked down, it's not particularly hard to pile on whichever other CC whose counterplay was that the champion on the receiving end was assumed to be able to move, or otherwise react. Another misguided piece of design mentality that has led to today's environment is the whole notion that a champion needs crowd control to remain relevant in the game, or to avoid becoming a "ball of stats". Gangplank was given a slow on his barrels, for example, with the expressly given reason being that the developers wanted him to be able to contribute something even when really behind. Similarly, Irelia was given a disarm for the same reason. A common defense thrown against stripping any particular champion of superfluous CC is that, if they lost it, they wouldn't be able to contribute, at least not compared to X or Y champions who have CC. In effect, adding CC as a means of allowing champions to contribute has only led to an arms race, one where champions need some minimum amount of CC to be considered relevant, a minimum amount that has increased over time, particularly with more and more champions receiving knockups in the place of stuns (even the new Nunu is guilty of this, as much as I love his new kit). Even tanks are guilty of this, since Nautilus, who was once considered the upper limit for how much CC a champion was allowed to have, isn't anything special anymore. Effectively, there has been a notable amount of CC creep in champion kits, where crowd control exists on more abilities, and is frequently more difficult to counter. Because of all this, I think we need to implement three sweeping and major changes to CC: the first is that we need to do a pass where we reevaluate all of the CC we currently have, and rebalance it to match the amounts of CDR in the game. CC currently has way too high an uptime, so CC abilities need either higher cooldowns, or lower durations. The second change is that we need to outright remove CC on many effects, perhaps even most effects in the game that currently have CC: crowd control should exist only because it is part of a champion's core intended contribution, and should not exist otherwise. A champion should not have CC simply because they synergize with it (_everyone_ synergizes with CC), because they need some reward, or because they need to keep up with the figurative Joneses. The third is that we need to reevaluate the rules and tech behind CC: we should not be putting knockups into champion kits simply because they're stuns with special interactions with items. This should mean reevaluating Tenacity and its place in the game, but also the tech behind CC, and its interaction with effects such as gapclosers. Each type of CC should serve a clear, distinct purpose from all others, and should be picked because it serves a specific function for the champion contributing such an effect, not because of some hidden rules. CC should also be rarer the harder it affects champions, so stuns should be given only _very_ sparingly. A separate, fourth change I'd also like to see happen is the implementation of more anti-CC effects in champion kits, at least for some subclasses. Juggernauts especially have this theme where they're supposed to be difficult to stop, yet they're suffering the hardest from CC creep because they have no real options to deal with getting chain-CCed. Giving these champions access to unstoppability, or other mechanics where they get to resist or mitigate incoming crowd control, would not only satisfy the class's fantasy, but also allow for them to become much less binary relative to kiting. If done well, and placed under sufficient restrictions and conditions, this should also allow juggernauts to become less frustrating and more interactive to play against, as they wouldn't have to be balanced around auto-losing to kiting, and auto-winning when they do get in range. I think a general rule is that, if a champion has little to no mobility and range, and is therefore predisposed to taking the brunt of incoming crowd control, crowd control that is predicated upon being more difficult to land, but is generally easy to apply to such a champion, then that champion should be given access to tools that let them skillfully block at least some of this CC.
Lakega (NA)
: Wouldn't limiting items based on class be best balance?
I'd be inclined to agree, but Riot has not been in favor of this option. The purported goal of itemization is, or at least was, to offer diversity of builds, and the freedom to customize the playstyle of your champion. To impose hard restrictions on what a champion can buy would therefore run directly counter to this. More to the point, though, it would be an overt admission that items as a customization system have failed, and that's not something Riot has ever truly been willing to admit. Instead, what we've gotten over time is "stat binding", a process by which Riot aggressively tunes the stats and scalings of champions such that they can only make use of a handful of stats. Effectively, you're not _forced_ to pick from only a narrow pool of items, but doing otherwise will simply make you lose. Riot have gone even farther by binding certain champions to certain items, e.g. by making AD assassins dependent on Duskblade. This solves many of Riot's problems, in that it lets them balance around a more controlled environment and limits the risk of abuse cases arising from players picking the "wrong" items on certain champions, all without having to impose harder restrictions, but imo is probably an even worse way of going about it: because there is nothing preventing players from picking items that are made to have very little use on their champion, the system we have is full of false choices, which are hugely misleading and new player-unfriendly, as well as a general source of frustration for people who either want to play outside the box, or just honestly do not know what to build. It's also had some pretty negative implications on balance, since the process has left many champions in a state where they are innately stilted, sometimes to the point of being almost useless without a certain item. In the case of many damage champions who were once at risk of building tanky, it's made them scale harder with damage items, thereby contributing to the hyper-snowbally environment we have today. The larger problem at hand here is that itemization simply doesn't achieve what it had originally set out to do: it does not offer any real customization, because players mostly go for the same builds, often buying items in the same order, and rarely deviate unless in circumstances defined by pre-established rules. In the long term, fixing this may require overhauling itemization, or replacing it with some new system entirely. In the meantime, though, I agree that restricting items to specific champions may be a viable short-term solution. Paragon, a now-defunct MOBA, had this interesting system where each character had a certain set of affinities, and these affinities determined which sorts of items they could buy: effectively, you could only go for tanky items if you had a tanky affinity, or for burst items if you had a burst affinity, and so on. Implementing some sort of color-coded system in this manner could perhaps help, though League's items are also super messy in distributing stats (many AP items offer health, for example). If nothing else, going through every champion by hand, and banning certain items from purchase, could probably make for some much more efficient and direct balancing than implementing some elaborate change that subtly affects the way a champion scales with items, among other side-effects.
: The most one can do is offer help and solutions. After that, hope for the best, though maybe expect less than that. A positive attitude towards Riot gives Riot more incentive to make changes like these.
> [{quoted}](name=mBadger,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gPXiqPNQ,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-21T02:15:29.594+0000) > > A positive attitude towards Riot gives Riot more incentive to make changes like these. This statement I question, both due to the way Riot has approached criticism in the past, and continues to approach criticism, but also on the grounds of what counts as "a positive attitude". On the first point, Riot at this time has gained a reputation for ignoring most criticisms: for a long time, many people have been pointing issues with features such as Runes Reforged, with the balancing of damage, or with Dynamic Queue back when it existed. In virtually all of these cases, not only did Riot avoid addressing these criticisms, they often pushed back against them, attempting to convince the playerbase that all was fine, and that the features being criticized were successful. In the worst of cases, Riot has resorted to outright gaslighting the playerbase, trying to cast the impression that critics were but a vocal minority that didn't matter, that they were all part of some delusional, conspiratorial hive mind, and that the things they were criticizing either did not exist, or had always existed. This has occurred regardless of how such criticism was formulated, with constructive feedback getting lumped in with the angry ranting. The few times where Riot _has_ apparently listened to feedback in recent times is when notable content creators like hashinshin go on these really vicious tirades, which then attract an equally vitriolic following. As such, as bad as it sounds to say, being nice to Riot is not what has gotten them to pay attention to the playerbase or their grievances. Additionally, I also take issue with the way the terms "positive" or "negative" are used in conversation relative to one's attitude towards Riot. This isn't targeting you specifically; rather, this is a larger problem I've seen on the internet when conversation turns to creative works. Usually, the terms "positive" and "constructive" tend to be used interchangeably when describing the attitude with which one gives feedback, where one voices one's criticisms with good intentions, i.e. that of trying to help with some issue. This does not imply one has nothing but good things to say about the people one is trying to help, and that very idea runs counter to the fact that one is criticizing the work of those people in some form, by pointing out that it is imperfect and could be done better. Nonetheless, that seems to be the standard many people here, including members of Riot, hold as " a positive attitude". To people with this opinion, feedback is only positive if it is slathered in praise for Riot and unwavering faith in their ability to do good, whereas making even the slightest criticism of the company, or the people within, is instantly cast as negative, and thereby made easier to dismiss. This is not how feedback works, and in fact the people who are only willing to process feedback that is unequivocally positive in tone tend to have a problem taking in feedback of any sort, as mentioned above. I think it is absolutely valid to criticize Riot for the things they have done, and not have to rely on blind faith alone to judge their capabilities as a development studio when they have had a track record of several years already. If Riot and its staff are unwilling to listen to feedback that is less than glowing, even at a time when it has become increasingly unwise for them to do so, then that is entirely on them.
Mannerone (EUW)
: Irelia What have they done to you my dear...
From the looks of it, the rework kinda flopped in that it made her difficult to balance, and not entirely healthy to play against. A few notable Irelia mains, including IreliaCarriesU, noted that the problem comes from her mark mechanic, which allows for a few too many dash resets (which itself has become the central component to her reworked kit). Personally, I think it hasn't helped that she was not balanced in the best way following her rework, as her problem comes from an excessive amount of damage on her abilities and too much reliance on dash resets, which balance work only worsened over time, at the cost of her autoattacking. I think her kit is fine in its broad lines now, but needs some adjustments, mainly so that there's more of an emphasis on sustained fighting through attacking, rather than trying to burst people down with her abilities.
: While I replied to each other post in one comment I felt the need to reply directly to this one. This comment words a few things in a way I failed to do so and I thank you for that. > despite the huge influence items have over gameplay in League, they fail to provide the element of customization they were designed for. This This This, so much so this. I find the only champion I currently find ways to itemize differently is {{champion:84}} and that may just be due to the fact people haven't created a set in stone build yet. > Riot has not successfully enacted diversity in itemization, but it also doesn't feel like they want to to begin with. This is the unfortunate truth behind the matter, and hence why I wanted to start a proper conversation rather than a thread just saying "I'm tired of seeing duskblade every game" > changing items themselves, which would be a massive task. Yet not one that I believe the community would be opposed to seeing, a change like this would breathe fresh life into the game. I also believe that Riot has the capability to make a change like this and though it would take time it would leave a substantial impact on the game as a whole; Riot has often talked about how they want more diversity and I find that items to be a very limiting factor for which heroes are and are not meta. > "fixed menu" style of customization. To pick an example, suppose someone takes Lulu As someone who occasionally plays Lulu top you can in the game already see pieces of the puzzle there and while I cannot fully visualize your concept I agree with your analysis. Again, thank you so much for your comment, it was very well argued and written.
> [{quoted}](name=mBadger,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gPXiqPNQ,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-08-20T15:55:04.497+0000) > > Yet not one that I believe the community would be opposed to seeing, a change like this would breathe fresh life into the game. I also believe that Riot has the capability to make a change like this and though it would take time it would leave a substantial impact on the game as a whole; Riot has often talked about how they want more diversity and I find that items to be a very limiting factor for which heroes are and are not meta. This is true. I might be biased on the matter, as I never found items in League to be especially successful (they used to be mostly stat sticks, now they're full of disruptive effects, and neither iteration really provided the most diversity), but games like Dota 2, or even Smite, show that it's possible for a MOBA to successfully implement itemization. I also agree: while overhauling itemization would incur a massive short-term cost, it would carry significant long-term benefits if done right, and would allow the rest of League's design and balance to hopefully become much easier. My main concern with any sort of large rework to underlying game systems, both for itemization and for my proposed customization, is that I'm personally not actually all that sure if Riot would be willing or able to do so. Riot has certainly implemented a lot of change, including some very disruptive updates, but those changes in recent times have come across as half-baked, with little done with regards to their long-term consequences. The class updates we've received, for example, only enacted half-measures, and ended up introducing more problems than they solved. Runes Reforged would be smaller than any hypothetical itemization overhaul, yet we're still dealing with major balance problems introduced by that system, as well as an impending preseason update that is likely to change many runes yet again. I don't entirely have faith in Riot anymore to enact changes at such a scale and produce something truly durable, particularly since the developers seem uncertain of which direction they should take League of Legends as well.
: Why would olaf need a rework? Maybe a new effect for w, thats it.
Olaf is one of those champions that gets called a ball of stats. There isn't anything he really contributes that is unique to him, and most of what he does is determined by the statistical power he has, rather than some overarching layer of strategy or mechanics. There isn't much subtlety to what he does, since his playstyle boils down to using his steroids to make a beeline for whichever champion he wants to kill, and there isn't much else he can do. When he's strong, he tends to feel oppressive because of this, and I think some people at Riot still remember the monster that he was in Seasons 2-3. He needs changes to his kit that don't necessarily change what he can do now, but that let him do what he does in a few more ways, while also allowing him to shine in a way no other champion can (likely by pushing harder on his prolonged CC immunity).
Exibir mais

Teridax68

Nível 30 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão