Cloud9 collapses in Week 1 amidst changing meta
Riot·1/29/2015, 11:23:46 PM·0 votes·14,237 views
What happened to Cloud9?
After an impressive World Championship performance and winning IEM San Jose in dominant fashion, Cloud9 collapsed in Week 1 of the North American LCS. After a close, but definitive loss against TSM on Day 1, Cloud9 was massacred by Gravity Esports -- a team that was routed equally hard in their Day 1 match against Winterfox.
While watching the matches, it's apparent there were some fundamental issues with Cloud9's strategic approach in both games. Realistically, Cloud9 could have won the match against TSM if they changed a few champion picks and tightened up their mechanics. But there were deeper macro-gameplay related problems in both matches; particularly against Gravity.
What's forgivable for Cloud9 is not wanting to play champions they are unfamiliar with in a new season. What isn't is their lack of understanding for why specific compositions are successful. When Cloud9 first entered the LCS, they were praised for their willingness to emulate the Korean metagame, and used this to annihilate North America. While C9 has shown they've researched Asian leagues, they demonstrate a misunderstanding about why strategies are popular and what their win conditions are.
The problem of a vulnerable backline is compounded when C9 picks Orianna. They do have good mobility on their team overall with Rek'Sai and Janna, but again, it's risky to pick two immobile carries into an assassination and hard engage team comp. Perhaps the first warning sign of Cloud9's misunderstanding of their win condition was when Hai "Hai" Lam took Ignite. In this situation, exhaust is the best choice to mitigate the burst of Kassadin and Zed against your less mobile composition.
While the champion selects didn't end up in complete disaster for Cloud9, when you combine it with how they chose to play both games, they set themselves up to fail.
Understanding the Meta
It's important to note that a lot has changed in League of Legends since Cloud9's impressive run through Worlds. Changes to the jungle and Dragon, combined with adjustments to champion balance, have altered how we all play on Summoner's Rift. While the NA and EU LCS just started this week, there have been three weeks of games played in China (LPL), Korea (LCK), and Taiwan (LMS) for Cloud9 to study. Heavy engage strategies have been popular and successful in Asia in the 2015 season. Compositions involving Jarvan IV, Sivir, Gnar, Irelia, and similar champions have been among the most effective because of their engage and lockdown. On the other hand, some teams have chosen defensive compositions involving Sion, Renekton, Xerath, Janna or Nami for their strong disengage and safety.
What's forgivable for Cloud9 is not wanting to play champions they are unfamiliar with in a new season. What isn't is their lack of understanding for why specific compositions are successful. When Cloud9 first entered the LCS, they were praised for their willingness to emulate the Korean metagame, and used this to annihilate North America. While C9 has shown they've researched Asian leagues, they demonstrate a misunderstanding about why strategies are popular and what their win conditions are.
Errors in Champion Select
It's clear that Cloud9 correctly identified what is sometimes referred to as the "God Comp" -- Sivir, Jarvan IV, and Gnar (the support and mid lane are flexible depending on individual champ select). Sivir's On the Hunt combined with Gnar and Jarvan IV's great initiation and lockdown is a very powerful combination. Against TSM, they prioritized Sivir and Gnar in their first rotation of champion select and they banned the trio entirely in their second match against Gravity. What Cloud9 failed to understand are the weaknesses of this composition, and that other combinations of champions represent similar threats to their backline. For the match versus TSM, Cloud9 opted into the hard engage of the God Comp, but both neglected to ban Janna, one of the hardest counters to this type of strategy, and didn't pick Jarvan IV. William "Meteos" Hartman instead opted to go for Elise, who is having a hard time in the current metagame because of her lack of damage, hard engage and lockdown, and inferior mobility on higher cooldowns than similar champions. Meanwhile, Gravity went for something very similar to the God Comp in Game 2, though instead of going for lock down, they went for assassination. So what exactly is going on here? In response to Gravity's dive heavy team composition, Cloud9 correctly builds a team that disengages for their ADC. The problem is that their ADC is Kog'Maw. Picking Kog'Maw into Kassadin and Vi leaves Zachary "Sneaky" Scuderi vulnerable. Vi's ultimate cannot be disrupted, and Kassadin's gap closing means that every time he reaches Kog'Maw, Kog'Maw will need multiple CCs used to peel for him. It's possible Kog'Maw can work in this setup, but it's risky.
The problem of a vulnerable backline is compounded when C9 picks Orianna. They do have good mobility on their team overall with Rek'Sai and Janna, but again, it's risky to pick two immobile carries into an assassination and hard engage team comp. Perhaps the first warning sign of Cloud9's misunderstanding of their win condition was when Hai "Hai" Lam took Ignite. In this situation, exhaust is the best choice to mitigate the burst of Kassadin and Zed against your less mobile composition.
While the champion selects didn't end up in complete disaster for Cloud9, when you combine it with how they chose to play both games, they set themselves up to fail.
