Boards›Gameplay

Evaluation - what do you think about enchanters?

InTheory··6 votes·2,924 views

My last threads about marksmen went pretty even with low participation because of the quality every participant brought to the table. At this point I want to thank everyone for giving their opinions about marksmen in constructive manner and help getting a viable result in the first place.

I want to repeat this again, this time with Enchanters due to them being targeted next after preseason. You don't need to be a support main or enchanter main to give constructive arguments and opinions, but just leave any circlejerk out of this. Every opinion counts for themselves, the rest is up to more general evaluation. So here are the questions:

What do you think makes enchanters easy to play? What do you think makes them hard to play?

What makes enchanters successfull? What makes them unsuccessfull?

What makes enchanters fun to play? What makes them unfun to play?

What makes enchanters fun to play against? What makes them unfun to play against?

12 Comments

Warlord Rhinark2 votes

Why did the last enchanters evaluation post get removed?

InTheory2 votes

You can compare the views from threads before and after one to check if something is overread or not - which was the case the last time. Sometimes the time you posts something is a major point that influences how much attention a topic gains so posting something later can help to get more participation, that I in return need for my follow-up work. I hope that makes it more clear.

Killer of Night91 votes

The fun and the unfun part of enchanter is their cd compared to their duration (it's up to often). Using their ability for outplay their assassin / protect from insane burst is their core and fun part. What's not fun it's their damage and their duration of shield. A enchanter can deal 1,5x damage of adc damage in laning phase and can be compared to a poke mage with a support ability. They don't leave too much opportunity from one shield to another (a bad timing shield it's not punished and for fix that in my opinion every shield should've 3s of duration or 2s and then decay). Shield cannot be countered by item like heal can (that's why soraka it's fine/in the weak side). Also item are too cheap with a standalone item that someone should always buy eg :item 3107 item 3504 Conclusion: What should change: Nerf. Shield last too long. Damage is too high. Item are too cheap. Make enchanter support weak when compared to all in/poke if both use a good spell rotation but also make them strong with single poke ability (in my opinion enchanter should get even more strong with the course of the game and not at the start of the game). Buff. Encourage support that use well their ability (eg high shield with decay overtime so they can be match with poke early game/burst late game). Adding diversity item for support other class. Making heal into a better spot or encourage healer support to be match with shielder eg censar split into shield or heal part.

InTheory1 votes

Follow-up questions:

The fun and the unfun part of enchanter is their cd compared to their duration (it's up to often).

They don't leave too much opportunity from one shield to another (a bad timing shield it's not punished and for fix that in my opinion every shield should've 3s of duration or 2s and then decay).

Having up shields faster gives the possibility to also switch targets with shields. Do you think having shields up too often is something that solves if there was more than only one allied target to constantly protect? Could you imagine some sort of per-target-cooldown?

Using their ability for outplay their assassin / protect from insane burst is their core and fun part.

Assassins are claimed to be countered by tanks. What do you think should be more of a counter to assassins: Tank supports or enchanter supports?

Also item are too cheap with a standalone item that someone should always buy eg Redemption; Ardent Censer

Adding diversity item for support other class.

Do you think enchanter itemization is more stale than e.g. marksmen itemization? How do you imagine a varied or situational itemization for enchanters?

Automated Riven2 votes

Just to chip in, tank supports don't counter assassin's. However the actual tank class does. (regarding map movement and 1v1's. Ideally on equal gold a tank will simply laugh at an Assassin's attempt to kill them. Flat armor pen should never be enough to be doing more then like 35-40% of your actual damage to the tank. Tank supports tend to prioritize HP over resists and rely on kit strengths vs item break points. (braum shield, alistar ult, taric -kinda a tank but shares roles with enchanters- ult blitz passive ) vs actual tanks having more reliable cc (baring alistar) and typically actually being able to kill things, partially due to higher base damages and a higher income to purchase items which facilitate higher dps. Tank suports should be picked for engage/beef (with DPS heavy comps) where enchanters- supports should be picked into assassin's or into dive heavy comps.

saltran1 votes

A -1:Their main heal/shield is point and click, I'm not against it but is indeed easier. -2:Knowing which ally they have to peel for in the right time to maximaze their strenghts. Yes you can always shield the adc but if you play properly is better change. Also good reaction times since they are a reactive class overall.

B -1: Properly peel for the team, specially against salty assasins when they try to kill the ap or ad carries. Good roams mid game. -2:Getting caught and be deleted since they are made of paper and. Having a assasin that feed that their peel is worthless or being a ward bot with no gold or xp like they were in S3.

C -1: I don't main supp but my most played supps are Janna/Nami/Soraka and I find the laning fase really fun playing with the poke and the 2vs2. Later roaming with mobility boots to other lanes to help my toplaner (example) that is losing a 1vs1 and make the enemy top rage on /all. Also a good disengage or a kill with Redemption are always fun. -2: When your team is worhless since is like you buff/shield minions. Honestly I would take a superminion over a 0-10 Vayne.

D -1: They can be easily get bursted when they are caught, once you can all in in the 2vs2 the enchanter is just free gold, I specially laugh when I play MF against Sona since I can kill her with 2 good bounces on lane. I like playing against them. Extremly fun when they waste the shield/heal for the adc and you burst the enchanter instead. -2:Passive lanes when you can't all in properly, outside of the lane the only unfun enchanter to play against imo is Lulu, fk that Yordle with her polyphorm, everything is tilting about playing against that purple demon.

InTheory1 votes

Follow-up questions:

I don't main supp but my most played supps are Janna/Nami/Soraka and I find the laning fase really fun playing with the poke and the 2vs2

Could you imagine enchanters being reworked to work better in solo lanes due to increased self-agency and decreased focus on saving allies and how would you rate that? Also: Do you think enchanters are tailored too much to marksmen and what class would you like to team up with in duo lane more often (and face in return of course)?

Extremly fun when they waste the shield/heal for the adc and you burst the enchanter instead.

Enchanters that are defined to be super squishy while giving all their protection to an ally tend to play pretty passively for that reason. At the same time, it is important to them to have a proper target selection for their peel. How would you design them to remove this sort of dilemma or would you just leave it be?

saltran1 votes

Could you imagine enchanters being reworked to work better in solo lanes due to increased self-agency and decreased focus on saving allies and how would you rate that? Also: Do you think enchanters are tailored too much to marksmen and what class would you like to team up with in duo lane more often (and face in return of course)?

I can imagine that but I wouldn't like that happening: enchanters are the supps for definition and in order to send them to midlane (example) without being unhealthy (like Janna just waveclearing with a Q) they would need a drastic change. That would be for me like reworking an adc that was always played bot into a Jungler (cries in Graves): a bad decision imo.

Enchanters that are defined to be super squishy while giving all their protection to an ally tend to play pretty passively for that reason. At the same time, it is important to them to have a proper target selection for their peel. How would you design them to remove this sort of dilemma or would you just leave it be?

I would honestly leave it, if you change it (for example) that now their shield/heal is always aoe but weaker and they don't even have to choose who to peel for in the right moment they would be called even more braindead champs -and for a good reason-, I like that you can change focus to burst the enchanter if he wastes the peel resources just like how the enchanter has to play play around it: remove that and you are removing part of their skill expression.

In other hand I would quote LS talking about Janna (that seems to be the most infamous enchanter along with that purple demon called Lulu): I saw a coment from him on Reddit that was like "Janna has a high skill ceiling and the lowest skill ceiling at the same time. The sad fact, is that she's picked in SoloQ 99% of the times for the low skill floor". I agree with him and I liked the he pointed it because everyone agrees that enchanters have a low skill floor (I include myself) but most of them ignore their skill ceiling since it's not as flashy as a otp Zed doing a crazy 1vs3 and spamming mastery 7.

warpenguin5551 votes

1- What makes them easy to play is their reliability. There aren't many ways to screw up on most enchanters. You can't miss Sona's basic abilities, you can't miss a polymorph, you can't miss a Soraka W or Ult. They have powerful abilities that are hard to screw up

What makes them hard to play is how deceptively easy the class is. Enchanters are by no means a hard set of champions to play, but they aren't as easy as they can look. A good Janna makes it look like a toddler can play her because being good at Janna requires you to be good at things that aren't blatantly obvious. Things like timing, resource management, and positioning aren't things people tend to notice unless it's done poorly, in which case it's incredibly obvious.

2- A well designed enchanter is one that has more to them than the things I mentioned above. Nami is my golden girl here, imo she's the shining example of what an enchanter should be. She only has CC from telegraphed skillshots. Assassins and divers can outplay her by dodging her Q and R and pop her back line. Her poke comes at the cost of her utility. If Nami wants to poke, she has to use her W and lose access to her healing for a little bit. Yes her W can bounce back and heal, but each bounce makes the heal worth less. You can outplay a Nami, and she can outplay you.

A poorly designed enchanter has no real outplay potential going either way. How do you outplay a Lulu? You really can't, she'll just polymorph you or ult your target and you're screwed. She doesn't really get to outplay you either, she just throws e and ult on an ally that's all there is to it. It doesn't really matter if she gets the knockup part of her ult because the ally gets the bonus health anyway.

3- A fun enchanter is one that can play both aggressively and passive. Nami and Taric can try to make plays with their stuns but also can peel and disengage using those same tools. You don't need damage to carry, if you're making godly engages that win fights, you are carrying. Nami and Taric can carry

An unfun enchanter is one that can only be played defensively. There's a reason nobody likes playing Soraka. She can't do anything besides heal. Your contributions are barely even noticeable for players on either side, you can't make plays, and if your team sucks, it doesn't matter how much health you pump into them, you won't win.

4- An enchanter who's fun to play against should make it harder, but not impossible, to kill the ally they're helping. The enchanter should be vulnerable to the enemy team. The enchanter should not be able to easily defend them self from the enemy, and if they can it should be at the cost of an important ability, probably their ult. The core similarity between Enchanters should that they are good at protecting and buffing their allies, but are unable to do the same for them self.

An enchanter who is not fun to play against is pretty much the exact opposite

InTheory1 votes

Follow-up questions:

A poorly designed enchanter has no real outplay potential going either way. How do you outplay a Lulu? You really can't, she'll just polymorph you or ult your target and you're screwed. She doesn't really get to outplay you either, she just throws e and ult on an ally that's all there is to it. It doesn't really matter if she gets the knockup part of her ult because the ally gets the bonus health anyway.

Most enchanters tend to have low outplay potential because their kits revolve around teammates instead of opponents. Would you prefer increasing their missplay potential from changing game mechanics that are usually ally-oriented (e.g. shield skillshots like lux or giving shields a natural decay) or would you rather move them more towards opponent oriented kits and therefore make them more mage-like?

A fun enchanter is one that can play both aggressively and passive. Nami and Taric can try to make plays with their stuns but also can peel and disengage using those same tools.

The enchanter should not be able to easily defend them self from the enemy, and if they can it should be at the cost of an important ability, probably their ult.

If supports were to be changed towards kits that can be used both offensively and defensively, you'd most likely have to move power in their kits. Would you focus on reducing the defenses they give to teammates or tools they can use to defend themselves?

Infernape1 votes

What do you think makes enchanters easy to play?

Their kits are very reliable. They are mostly point and click (with some exceptions like Rakan and Nami) with active effects (Locket, Redemption etc.). You can't really miss with their kits. You can't screw up a Janna E, or a Lulu W with the exception of casting it on the wrong person entirely.

What do you think makes them hard to play?

Probably relying on their team. More specifically the ADC. But then again, the same goes for most support type champions in the game. Or knowing who to shield (which nowadays is probably their carry).

What makes enchanters successfull?

The fact that you cannot outplay their kits. They mostly have no dodgable skillshots as mentioned above, and there is no actual counterplay to shields except from destroying them or waiting them out (unlike healing, which has Grievous Wounds). That problem is further exacerbated by the fact that with 45% CDR, a lot of enchanters have near 100% uptime on their shielding abilities (IE Lulu's E has a six second duration, and a 5.5 second cooldown at 45% CDR). It wouldn't be so bad if every enchanter item didn't have CDR on it.

That on top of the fact that enchanters can shield an ADC for about half their HP bar with Redemption and Ardent Censer bolstering their shield power.

What makes them unsuccessfull?

The fact that they're usually squishy (aside from Rakan/Taric who both build as enchanter/tank hybrids). They die to the wind blowing through the rift.

What makes enchanters fun to play?

Knowing that no matter what you can have an impact on the game (IE Redemption working while you're dead), or the fact that your powerful abilities,

What makes them unfun to play?

The lack of skill expression. All you do is press your buttons and things happen (with the exception of some obviously).

I wouldn't mind it if enchanters became more like Rakan. His healing is conditional (it's a skillshot), and using his E aggressively can put you in danger. The only gripe I have against Rakan (as someone who plays him), is how reliable his ult into W is.

Or even Taric. His healing is dependant on him interacting with his opponent or his surroundings, and his powerful ultimate has a significant delay and requires coordination to use it at the most optimal moment while providing ample counterplay to his opponents.

What makes enchanters fun to play against?

The fact that a single step makes the difference between them dying and living.

What makes them unfun to play against?

The lack of interaction and the lack of outplay potential. Take Janna for instance. In lane, all she'd do is max W, and press it on you off cooldown while AAing you with her passive, shielding herself to avoid taking damage back and constantly poking you out with Aery. Or she plays meekly and just E's her carry from a mile away. There is nothing you can do about it apart from not being in her range. The same goes for champions like Sona.

Not to mention the fact that they can shut down and negate champion damage with a single button press and there is usually nothing you can do about it.

InTheory1 votes

Follow-up questions:

Their kits are very reliable. They are mostly point and click (with some exceptions like Rakan and Nami) with active effects (Locket, Redemption etc.). You can't really miss with their kits

If you were to increase the difficulty on enchanter kits and therefore increase their missplay potential, would you rather change point'n'click shield mechanics to be more skillfoll (e.g. Lux shield) or increasing the difficulty on their other abilities (e.g. Nami bubble)?

The fact that a single step makes the difference between them dying and living.

Do you think there is something else making enchanters fun to play against outside of punishing their mistakes or you do think they are lacking major weaknesses to play around?

The lack of interaction and the lack of outplay potential. Take Janna for instance. In lane, all she'd do is max W, and press it on you off cooldown while AAing you with her passive, shielding herself to avoid taking damage back and constantly poking you out with Aery. Or she plays meekly and just E's her carry from a mile away. There is nothing you can do about it apart from not being in her range.

The gameplay fantasy of enchanters currently revolves heavily around their allies. Can you imagine them being overhauled and pushed away from teammate oriented gameplay to an opponent oriented gameplay and how could that look like?

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by InTheory

I asked you - you answered. Stuff about marksmen
Gameplay22 comments
22
votes
Complexity and imbalance of the game has gone to a point...
Gameplay3 comments
10
votes
@Maple Nectar: Boots (long response)
Gameplay4 comments
8
votes
Irelia Login Screen Music
Story, Art, & Sound5 comments
8
votes
[POLL] What bothers you most in regards of gameplay atm?
Gameplay24 comments
7
votes
[KARMA] Collect your gameplay ideas and participate in the rework process
Gameplay10 comments
6
votes