[Skarner follow-up] New passive direction - what are your thoughts?

RiotMorello·4/25/2014, 11:00:03 PM·33 votes·52,665 views

Hey everyone!

One thing we've been talking a lot about is how we want to make sure Skarner is followed-through on to correct some things you guys called out in his rework. I won't recap the whole discussion as it's long, but our goals are;

  1. Ensure Skarner's pattern is healthy, can be balanced, and allows for meaningful choices when fighting against him

  2. Create (or somehow restore) Skarner's identity that players miss now - mainly that of the "inevitable predator", freight-train style play.

  3. Make sure Skarner's strengths and weaknesses make sense.

With that, I wanted to shop two different ideas to players and get a read on which direction seems like the better set of tradeoffs to satisfy these goals. To be clear, this must be a tradeoff to meet goals 1) and 3), but which one we choose is heavily influenced by 2).

In both versions, his old passive would be removed, but the passive would be a passive on the Q (so it stays the same) Listed below. Other skill cooldowns likely lowered to match the fact that they don't get the passive. This keeps him out of total feast-or-famine, but allows some scaling/changes in power based on performance. In both versions:

Q: Skarner gains A/B/C% movement speed as he stacks up Q hits, for X seconds. This will help him stick when he reaches a target.

Now, for the two passive directions we're looking at.

Direction 1: Skarner is a premier freight-train with great stickiness and good control. His tradeoff is his damage pattern is less bursty/longer time-to-kill,

New Passive: Crystal Poison (name tbd) Spells apply stacks of poison to the enemy. After X stacks, the next auto-attack will do a (short) stun and bonus damage.

  1. We're stoked on this because it adds into his training pattern
  2. We have a cool animation and effect we can repurpose to make this awesome (stings you with his tail!)
  3. Likely more healthy with his natural transition into late-game initiator

Direction 2: Skarner is a damage-oriented fighter with low utility. Gets no more control than on live, and does damage until transitioning into a late-game pick-tank.

New passive: After X spell hits, Skarner's next attack does +damage and heals him for Y.

  1. Likely true damage
  2. The more he trains, the more damage he does
  3. Probably gets really bad if behind because damage is more granular and dependent on snowballing.

So this is what we're talking about right now. I wanted to come ask what you think about these - I have my opinion, but since we want to make this right, we wonder if damage, or the ability to train/control is MORE important to Skarner fans or potential Skarner fans.

511 Comments

M15t3rF15t3r4/25/2014, 11:10:17 PM39 votes

I honestly like Direction 1 its more hist style to play i mean hes meant as a tank but hed then be able to be a tank/support

lightdragoon884/26/2014, 4:01:01 AM39 votes

Viktor "Let me know when you are done working on Skarner. I have a Battlecast to finish."

RiotRiot Scruffy4/25/2014, 11:08:53 PM16 votes

In either version of this change, the ramping movement speed on Q allows him to stick to a target once he is able to close. Feels good.

Honestly I would be pretty happy with either version.

Spirit Yordle 694/26/2014, 3:12:59 AM15 votes

I Personally Like Direction 2 more. The movement speed boost sounds like it brings his stickness up Anyway. Iceborn Gauntlet is practically core on Skarner now so the permaslow effect is kinda there anyway. But His Heal only has a chance to come back in direction 2. I like the idea of Skarner as a tank as much as anyone but I feel like a short little stun wouldn't really cut it. Like if its like .5 stun then Direction 1 defintely sounds worse.

AS someone who actually used Skarners whole kit on the old character bringing back some of the sustain on Skarner as well as the stickness sounds way more satisfying. I liked to play Skarner as a laner and a jungler and I feel like Direction 2 is much better for helping him achieve this. I have always felt that Skarner was a Scrappy brawler that dives in picks off an important target and ensures their demise in teamfighting scenarios.

A Tiny amount of extra CC might make him better as a Peeler But I feel like direction 2 HELPS Skarner more through every part of the game with all the playstyles old Skarner could perform the Combined sustain and damage making him a greater threat and more difficult to kill. Anyway thats my opinion. I don't want to see some tiny lackluster CC when I could see meanful damage trades and sustain as an option on the table.

Potato Jesus4/25/2014, 11:17:25 PM14 votes

I'll miss the old passive, but at least his q spam is the same.

I would rather have the first passive rather than the second one, because I feel that Skarner should be a champ in everyone's face, a nightmare to get chased by, and gives the ability to stay tanky while shred. The second choice would work a lot better if he was a laning champion, giving him sustain he needs to stay in lane, but doesn't do a lot in teamfights, as he won't be able proc the heal when his ult is active. Love the Q buff though, but if the old passive is getting moved to Q, the ult CD would have to be almost cut in half to be in par with ww ult. One thing about the first passive is that Braums will be a lot more useful as teammates will be able to stun the target as well, so it should be a lot stronger than Braums or it will fall shy of greatness.

I like it, miss the old passive, but happy to see changes (although i hope the cd for abilities are worth the switch)

Zaphas4/25/2014, 11:14:17 PM14 votes

Direction 1, hands down. Skarner is the kind of champ that doesn't really feel to me like a super damage dealer fighter. I like to see him as a Tanky McBeeftrain that wades into a fight, deals consistent damage, can initiate or peel, and is enough of a threat that you can't just ignore him.

That's what live Skarner lacks, the stickiness and long term power.

Foggles4/26/2014, 4:20:57 AM13 votes

I'm currently favoring Direction 2, not because it sounds that great (I'd rather keep his current passive), but because I feel he'll lose part of his playstyle with Direction 1. I'm worried that shifting too much of his power into his CC will kill his dueling potential. He's always felt like a hybrid damage fighter with very high CDR scaling, but removing his damage will just shift him into more of a tank role than he already is. I guess a lot of it comes down to the numbers, and I'm sure either could be balanced to make him feel good. If Direction 1 can be done while keeping his identity as a strong fighter, then I'm all for it.

Kuronok24/26/2014, 2:50:20 AM12 votes

Scruffy and **Morello **

Since i think the D1 will be picked for Skarner i'm a little worried about something.

Right know Skarner is a mix of tank and fighter and he is able to dish a good amount of sustained damage while being able to endure a little more than some other champions, but he is not that tanky and can't do damage equal as some other bruisers (like Darius for example). My concern is that following the D1 and taking away some of his damage in order to add more CC to his kit, you guys will ended up turning him into a new Sejuani or Maokai . These champs have a good amount of CC and are able to tank a lot of damage middle to late game, but they rely on their team following them because they have like no damage. You guys know better than me that the tank junglers are very unappreciated right now and totally out of the meta. If he becomes a utility tank with very little damage (and horrible clear times) he will be still out of the meta and probably won't be picked.

Using Sejuani as example again, she has a lot of CC and her kit is actually fun to use, but her clear times are so bad and the fact that she can't fight anyone make it very hard to choose her over any other jungler even with all her CC. When it comes to TFing she just walks around pretending she is dealing damage. I hope Skarner doesn't become just a CC machine without ANY capability of fighting (his ult is already very bad for him alone, only helping him if you have someone of your team together). Do you guys have any opinion about this?

PS: Just to make it clear, i like to play the current Skarner

Admiral Penguin4/26/2014, 3:39:37 AM12 votes

I think the problem with Skarner right now isn't so much his passive (although seeing it replaced with one of these is totally fine), but that he doesn't really have an identity and that his kit is essentially the same as Udyr, but crappier.

Passive number 1 is an alright and interesting passive, but it also just isn't as effective as other single-target stuns in the game. To go back to the Udyr comparison, Bear stance does Skarner's W and passive 1 at the same time with no ramp up period.

To continue with this theoretical "passive 1" kit, moving the cdr to his Q AND having it give MS along with AS brings with it a whole slew of problems. We end up with one ability that does 3 things all at the same time. That sounds like a nightmare to keep balanced AND feel good to use at the same time.

You also plan to lower Q's damage when doing that, which is seriously going to hurt his clear time, especially if passive 1 doesn't do damage. Already his clear time isn't really all that great AND it's mana hungry.

Passive 2 is an alright direction too. Giving him more damage moves him more into the damage-fighter spectrum, which I find to be an area of skarner that is pretty effective. Skarner right now supposedly does more damage than he used to, but we all really know that isn't the case. Losing his ability to stick to a target really lowered his ability to maintain sustained dps compared to what he used to do, which actually inadvertently lowered his damage without actually reducing any numbers.

Anyways, Passive 2 would help alleviate this problem and award Skarner for managing to stick to a target long enough to build up the stacks for a burst of damage, acting as a sort of finisher. Heck, in drawn out fights it would even heal him to allow him to keep fighting, synergizing well with his shield.

Overall I think the real problem with Skarner is the fact that counter play against him is extremely binary. The main counterplay is evade him long enough to destroy the shield and then just kite him forever. The ramp up period on the speed boost from W only further emphasizes this, especially since you're using half of your shield duration just trying to get the maximum speed boost and reach your target.

An idea I have for alleviating this is to just make the shield last longer with a smaller speed boost. Instead of 16-32% I'm thinking like 12-20%, but the shield lasts 8-10 seconds instead, sort of like Nautilus. Also the MS boost doesn't ramp up. This makes the ability more consistent and addresses the problem of Skarner just barreling out of the fog of war like a freight train with little reaction time from the opponent. Granted, the counterplay to this is still just as binary, but overall it feels better for the Skarner player.

To sum up, both of these passives seem pretty cool, but neither really address the main problem here with Skarner: his identity. The stun passive causes him to lose out on a lot of other things that are core to what Skarner is/was and don't really help him stand out from other fighters that do the same thing as him, namely Udyr. Passive 2 is a good direction for pushing him more into the damage end. Heck, he already has a strong multi-target slow and a Suppression drag attack. Overall though counterplay against him is pretty binary and he doesn't seem to bring anything, outside of his ultimate, to the table. The areas you should be looking at are giving him a kit that better meets the fantasy Skarner players want and I changing the passive + giving Q a MS buff aren't really going to solve that dilemma. Plus 3 effects on Q is just silly.

Al3xn4/26/2014, 1:17:43 AM11 votes

I know I'm in the minority but I've recently started to play Skarner top and have found him pretty fun to play. Personally if I wanted to be selfish I would choose the 2nd option as I feel like it would fit my own playstyle with him more and is a much better passive that would work well for him in the top lane as it would provide the sustain which I feel like is his main issue top.

However if I were choosing to restore his 'identity' I would definitely choose the 1st option. My only concern with choosing that would be that the reduced damage on his Q would gut his ability to be played in the top lane, I guess it would be dependent on the passive bonus damage.

So my main question really is what is your opinion on Skarner top, and are you considering it when balancing Skarner? And what impact do you think each of the two options would have on top lane Skarner?

Morningbell4/25/2014, 11:15:04 PM6 votes

Easily the first one, it's already established that Skarner fans don't want him to just do damage and scale. Another form of CC and a DoT would let him feel a lot better about going more tanky and forsaking Trinity/Lizard Elder. Additionally, his main job is his ultimate. Being tankier will allow his whole kit to be more synergistic and satisfying.

Guitar Solo4/26/2014, 12:04:00 AM3 votes

I like the direction of poison, but the thought of a stun over a stacking thresh level slow seems weird

I'm on board for a utility skarner over a fighter. I expect to do damage inevitably not with strength