I really dont give a damn about LCS balance

SwiftKitten88·Apr 11, 2018·187 votes·44,791 views

TLDR: If you want to make changes specifically for LCS balance.. go ahead that's fine.. BUT YOU BETTER BLOODY FUCKING MAKE SURE THEY DON'T RUIN THE GAME FOR US!!!

i dont play in LCS and every LCS i watch its always "only S tier picks"

doesn't matter who they are. i dont CARE who the "pros" think are "OP" in thier elo. it has NO influcence on if i am going to watch lcs or not.. it has NO influcent if i an going to spend money on this game or not.

You want to know what does?

ME enjoying playing the game.

i dont give a ass about if is 100% pick ban.. if is 100% pick ban, or if needed more and more nerfs becuase of pro play.

what i CARE about is how the changes effect ME.

99.9999 of your player base is not LCS.

98% of your playerbase is plat and below 92% is gold and below

now we if you want to make changed for LCS.. go ahead that's fine.. BUT YOU BETTER BLOODY FUCKING MAKE SURE THEY DON'T RUIN THE GAME FOR US!!!

(if you are wonder what brought on this thread, it was pbe 66% LESS ap from mana

and the actual REMOVAL of trackers knife that went through despite the fact is is 100% needed gold and below. BECAUSE WE CANT RELY ON OUR TEAMS TO WARD PROPERLY.

218 Comments

RiotRiot MapleNectarApr 11, 201879 votes

To start off, you're 100% correct in expressing frustration when you feel the game you play is negatively impacted by balance decisions that are made focused on the highest levels of play. You're opinion is one that's certainly shared by a large group of players, but it's also only one of several of the demographics that make up our playerbase that we're trying to serve with both solo queue and the professional scene. Let me elaborate:

Group A - Just wants to play League doesn't care about the pro scene Group B - Enjoys League, tunes in occasionally to watch the pro scene (usually for big things like playoff finals, MSI, Worlds) Group C - Enjoys League, watches LCS religiously (every weekend they make time to watch every game or atleast the games with their favorite teams. Group D - Used to play League, doesn't anymore, but still watches the LCS because they like the pro scene Group E - Never played League before, but I friend told them it was pretty cool and got them to watch a few games.

*These groups are not all encompassing, but what I'm trying to outline is that the number of people that care about there being some amount of focus put on pro play balance is far greater than just the players that actually play professionally.

Now, more direct to your point, I have a desire/goal for a future where we don't have to make as many changes to champions based on their performance in pro play nearly as much as we do now. Right now we're beset by two conflicting goals, we (Riot) really want pro play to be as exciting as possible, and professional teams really want to win, more or less regardless of the tactics. Why these conflict is that the path to victory is often one of min maxing for risk/reward - which manifests as choosing more generically strong champions with less pronounced weaknesses, and then out macroing the shit out of your opponent. Why choose Zed when you can pick Ryze who's proven to have far fewer weaknesses when playing in a low ping, highly coordinated environment as an example? In order to make Zed a more likely pick in pro, we'd likely need to buff him drastically to overcome his weaknesses/counterplay - which is a surefire way of putting him in crazy territory for our average solo queue warrior. Since that isn't really a great option, we need to find another way. We're currently putting some brainpower in how we could help shelter pro play from specific points of imbalance, letting us put less focus on pro play in regards to balance and focusing more on the regular game. It sucks to have your champion heavily nerfed, especially when it's for something you don't care about, we totally understand that, and ideally we can find a world where that can become less of a thing that we need to do. Potential avenues could be exploring changes to the drafting phase beyond 10 bans. There really isn't much to talk about yet though.

At the end of the day we highly value League as a spectator sport, and we'll continue to make changes that we believe help achieve that. We just need to make sure we're doing our diligence when we're making big changes that could impact the way the players actually engage with the game and make sure the cost is worth it. I stand by our decision to remove trackers as an example, as I firmly believe the value in terms of "quality of game" we get both in pro and normal was worth the cost of removing that one item. To close off, we simply can't shackle ourselves by only making decisions that all players will find agreeable, as doing so would mean we should probably just stop making any meaningful changes to the game period, and that's not a world that I think we should be moving towards.

ps - the archangels change is only archangels. Once it's upgraded to Seraph's you get the full 3% ap again. Right now it's simply too good as a rush item when it's intended to be more mid/late game scaling power spike.

Linna ExcelApr 11, 201816 votes

Maple, out of curiosity how difficult would it be for riot to separate the pro balance from the live balance? For example Ryze gets +10 on his Q for solo queue compared to the pro server.

EROTIC RAID BOSSApr 11, 201844 votes

This is not a good route to go down. You don't want 2 different games out there

IfnethApr 11, 201819 votes

Yeah. Just seeing the game a patch or two behind is disorienting. I don’t want it to become a different game.

Dani El PezgloboApr 12, 20184 votes

I dont see the problem , they already have diferent patch, remenber how heal of ardent censwer was removed, but on proplay they were on the patch before, so the meta was completly diferent

InfernapeApr 11, 201811 votes

Difficult. They already said previously that they want the pro games to be played on the same patches we filthy casuals play on. Separating the two would basically create two distinctive games.

UpDownLeftRightABApr 11, 201813 votes

They're 2-3 patches behind, always. So, when we watch the games they are already not playing on the same patches.

M00ndanc3Apr 11, 20183 votes

thats only so that a major change doesn't cause unpredictable mixups in the progames

Linna ExcelApr 11, 20186 votes

Unfortunately it also means that the pros are already playing on a different version of the game than the rest of us are now. By protecting the players who least need protection, they've segregated the balance between the pro and pleb version of the game.

Linna ExcelApr 11, 20183 votes

This is a good point.

I am RazgrizApr 12, 20182 votes

No. Weplayed on those patches too. It's the same game. Separate patches that we have never played on, is the question and would ruin the game very quickly. As well as the maintenance.

And it wouldn't behoove them. Challenger is very different from Silver and only a step away from LCS. So do we have a separate patch for Master/Challenger vs Gold/Silver? Does this mean when you rank up your game changes?

See the problem? They've discussed this before as well.

AMYS GRAVEApr 11, 20185 votes

Do you mean to imply that those groups of players deserve equal weight when making balance decisions? Certainly group E doesn't care about the minutia of who is strong or not, they likely don't even understand why a jungler is important to the game. Meanwhile group A certainly does care very much, and is largely feeling disenfranchised by decisions over the past several years. Furthermore how many people are you serving in each group, group A is certainly much much larger than group E so from that standpoint you have to be careful to not cater to those groups equally.

we simply can't shackle ourselves by only making decisions that all players will find agreeable

What degree of agreeability do you need then? From our perspective out here it looks a lot like you're giving yourself the justification to dismiss negative feedback in order to allow you to change the direction of the game, even if that direction takes the game away from the one that people fell in love with and ultimately what made it popular in the first place.

DraehlApr 11, 20184 votes

I think the key difference is 'exciting to watch' doesn't necessarily sync up with 'enjoyable to play'. I think most would agree that pro play is more interesting when fights are on a razor's edge. As a lowly Gold player, however, it feels way too easy both to kill enemy players and to be killed yourself. The game feels more and more biased in favor of damage, making the game lose a lot of nuance and strategy it once had.

I hope the balance of the core game isn't where it is right now just because it makes for better pro play.

SilverjustApr 11, 20189 votes

Can you atleast take a look at the snowball-meta that is increasing from patch to patch? I want to play the game again

ŚhunpoApr 12, 20186 votes

[{quoted}](name=Maple Nectar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UbZdRKB,comment-id=0018,timestamp=2018-04-11T21:58:02.750+0000)

To start off, you're 100% correct in expressing frustration when you feel the game you play is negatively impacted by balance decisions that are made focused on the highest levels of play. You're opinion is one that's certainly shared by a large group of players, but it's also only one of several of the demographics that make up our playerbase that we're trying to serve with both solo queue and the professional scene. Let me elaborate:

Group A - Just wants to play League doesn't care about the pro scene Group B - Enjoys League, tunes in occasionally to watch the pro scene (usually for big things like playoff finals, MSI, Worlds) Group C - Enjoys League, watches LCS religiously (every weekend they make time to watch every game or atleast the games with their favorite teams. Group D - Used to play League, doesn't anymore, but still watches the LCS because they like the pro scene Group E - Never played League before, but I friend told them it was pretty cool and got them to watch a few games.

*These groups are not all encompassing, but what I'm trying to outline is that the number of people that care about there being some amount of focus put on pro play balance is far greater than just the players that actually play professionally.

Now, more direct to your point, I have a desire/goal for a future where we don't have to make as many changes to champions based on their performance in pro play nearly as much as we do now. Right now we're beset by two conflicting goals, we (Riot) really want pro play to be as exciting as possible, and professional teams really want to win, more or less regardless of the tactics. Why these conflict is that the path to victory is often one of min maxing for risk/reward - which manifests as choosing more generically strong champions with less pronounced weaknesses, and then out macroing the shit out of your opponent. Why choose Zed when you can pick Ryze who's proven to have far fewer weaknesses when playing in a low ping, highly coordinated environment as an example? In order to make Zed a more likely pick in pro, we'd likely need to buff him drastically to overcome his weaknesses/counterplay - which is a surefire way of putting him in crazy territory for our average solo queue warrior. Since that isn't really a great option, we need to find another way. We're currently putting some brainpower in how we could help shelter pro play from specific points of imbalance, letting us put less focus on pro play in regards to balance and focusing more on the regular game. It sucks to have your champion heavily nerfed, especially when it's for something you don't care about, we totally understand that, and ideally we can find a world where that can become less of a thing that we need to do. Potential avenues could be exploring changes to the drafting phase beyond 10 bans. There really isn't much to talk about yet though.

At the end of the day we highly value League as a spectator sport, and we'll continue to make changes that we believe help achieve that. We just need to make sure we're doing our diligence when we're making big changes that could impact the way the players actually engage with the game and make sure the cost is worth it. I stand by our decision to remove trackers as an example, as I firmly believe the value in terms of "quality of game" we get both in pro and normal was worth the cost of removing that one item. To close off, we simply can't shackle ourselves by only making decisions that all players will find agreeable, as doing so would mean we should probably just stop making any meaningful changes to the game period, and that's not a world that I think we should be moving towards.

ps - the archangels change is only archangels. Once it's upgraded to Seraph's you get the full 3% ap again. Right now it's simply too good as a rush item when it's intended to be more mid/late game scaling power spike.

Ok Mapple, there are just a few issues with what you've said.

Issue one:

"we (Riot) really want pro play to be as exciting as possible"

Why say this when LoL's professional play is currently THE most boring it's ever been both as a spectator sport and as a sport which our pro players play? You guys are promoting nye-unkillable tanks such as Sejuani and Maokai as well as completely overtuning both bot lane positions just so there's a guaranteed way for pros to win if they stall for long enough.

Furthermore you guys are also anti-assassin in terms of pro play since apparently they're toxic to watch as a spectator, which I could not disagree with more. You mention Zed here: "Why choose Zed when you can pick Ryze who's proven to have far fewer weaknesses when playing in a low ping, highly coordinated environment as an example?" and yet he's always Riot's scapegoat in terms of getting assassins into pro play. Other assassins do exist y'know......and believe it or not they're actually MORE healthy than Zed is.

Additionally, Riot loves to instantly nerf high damage melee champions when they're picked in pro play, despite the fact that Ghostcrawler once said that melee champions in this game need some loving. Where am I coming from with this? Well, you instantly nerf any assassin that is seen in professional play, as well as some niche high damage bruisers (such as Shyvana).

Case and point: What's this, Katarina has been played 4-5 times in the current LCS split across all regions and has won 1-3 matches? Oop, better nerf her like 6 times. Oh? Leblanc is getting picked in pro play? REAL SHIT. What's this, Xayah and Ezreal has a 51%+ winrate with a 40% pickrate in solo queue and a near 100% pickrate in the LCS? Nah, we'll wait to them. Also Janna......seriously a 54%+ winrate across ALL elos and ALL regions, with a 15%+ winrate and NO (relevant) nerfs. If that isn't bias I don't know what is.

Another example of a champion that is just boring to face in both forms of play (as well as powerful) is Ryze. Like....where are your changes to make him more fair to play against? This is purely a personal gripe, but seriously, this champion is nuts and Riot has done nothing about him apart from heavily buffing him with the AP itemisation update.

Issue two:

"Potential avenues could be exploring changes to the drafting phase beyond 10 bans."

Just stop releasing champions, plain and simple. There are far too many champions for a normal human player to keep track of, and the only reason any CAN is because they've devoted 4000+ hours to the game like I have. The game doesn't need more champions right now, it needs to be further refined in how it's balanced and in its lore.

We do not need more than 10 bans in this game, we just need the number of champions to not increase for a bit, and for the already existing champions to be properly balanced so we don't have to deal with the current situation where we have other 50 problem children which all need to be banned.

Issue three:

" I stand by our decision to remove trackers as an example, as I firmly believe the value in terms of "quality of game" we get both in pro and normal was worth the cost of removing that one item."

Yeah, and you guys pretty much neutered what was originally Lee's most fun aspect for picking him, his ward hops. It's like you guys completely forgot about Lee when you removed BOTH Sightstone and Tracker's....and I doubt you're ever planning to release an item just for Lee to use.

It's funny because Lee is arguably the most popular champion in the game, or at least WAS until the game became more bot lane focused and solo carrying deteriorated.

Issue four:

"....strong champions with less pronounced weaknesses."

That sounds exactly like most of the current viable champions in the LCS :D

Issue five:

"To close off, we simply can't shackle ourselves by only making decisions that all players will find agreeable, as doing so would mean we should probably just stop making any meaningful changes to the game period, and that's not a world that I think we should be moving towards."

League was once a prosperous game, and in that time the game was indeed.....balanced for everyone. You saying that Riot cannot shackle yourselves to do so is simply to do with the hole which all of you have dug for yourselves.

Right now you guys can't balance for all players purely because you've been balancing for a specific area that if you did start to balance for everyone it wouldn't work because your current playerbase is filled with toxic egotists who only care about winning and seeing an increase to the number on their shiny little medal known as their rank.

Now, that's not to say you can't balance for everyone, you definitely can. All Riot needs to do is backtrack to when the game was once amazing and then reconsider their balance choices as well as their design choices. League should stop trying to be like every other game and just go back to being League. League is not Crysis where graphics mean everything. League is not Overwatch, we do not need nor want lootboxes as our primary means of progressing in level. League is not Sm4sh, we do not need to only focus on pro play when making balance changes. League is not Hearthstone where we should have an overabundance of content (champions) that we need to take in just to get better at the game.

Believe it or not, you can't just paint a turd and make it look like it isn't turd. By doing that you've just made a shiny turd that everyone will now notice. That is my analogy for League right now. You guys are trying to make it look amazing with your recent choices, however at the end of the day it's still just a shiny turd which is only doing well because players refuse to give up hope and quit, since they believe there will indeed be light at the end of the tunnel if they stick with League.

Jon 678910Apr 14, 20183 votes

You guys are promoting nye-unkillable tanks such as Sejuani and Maokai as well as completely overtuning both bot lane positions just so there's a guaranteed way for pros to win if they stall for long enough.

While I'll agree with the second part of your statement, I disagree that riot are promoting tanks. Most top lane tanks are mediocre in terms of both play and win rate in solo queue. While they are nerfing tanks, it's being done on a general level through runes (i.e aftershock), rather than looking at individual problems. The only thing keeping tanks around is the ability to peel, and with the strength of ADCs, this is a priority.

What's this, Katarina has been played 4-5 times in the current LCS split across all regions and has won 1-3 matches? Oop, better nerf her like 6 times.

I'm pretty sure the katarina nerfs were not because of LCS, but as a result of her having both a 50+ winrate and a good playrate at higher elos.

On top of that, I'd disagree with your statement on high damage champions like shyvana, who were pretty dominant on the ladder as well. I understand having issues with LCS, but high elo solo queue meta should still be the main factor when it comes to balance.

That being said, I do agree with your conclusion. A lot of the newer champions have been overtuned to the point where they took heavy nerfs which left them weak in solo queue while still leaving them relevant in LCS (Zoe,Ornn).

SuperspickApr 12, 20183 votes

You need two versions then. Sorry - it's what is necessary BECAUSE the skill disparity and motivation to play ARE so different.

And, let's be honest. RIGHT NOW the games are not the same.

LCS is 2-3 patches behind, nigh constantly. There are changes in 2-3 patches that shift EVERYTHING about how the game is played. That may not be desired, but it's the reality as it stands.

The best example I have, and it sucks but I'm sleepy is suggesting what it would be like if any sport of your choosing suddentl redid it's rules ALL the time, BUT now the groups who play in the weekends casually at the gym HAVE to play that way too. Over and over again, and it will be different next month, possibly next year too. Because you now have a spectator sport that's a consideration you have to have for your players and if not, it's because they're not your focus.

Fact is your players are struggling because they are not the focus any more. That's probably not a bad thing, objectively, but if you all are confused by the vitriol, that's why you're feeling it.

It's the natural progression of small, indie companies (not the meme, I actually wayyy back when LoL WAS niche) who then grow huge but you all may be the first to spike so hard and fast into a MASSIVE international spectacle, what with the franchising and general exposure and validity you've brought to E-sports.

You're trying to create parity between two totally different beasts who sport the same colors. What is enjoyable to watch for a casual, play for a casual, watch for a pro AND play for a Pro ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Players need to understand that complexity but maybe that complexity predicates the need to look into this.

I dunno what the solution is, but that's what's happening. You're heading in a completely different direction than your players want you to go or thought they would go, and they don't -know- it yet bc you're not really saying so.

I feel you're trying to grow your brand and international presence, which you NEED to do because I feel you all are pioneers for legitimacy in Esports, but either you're okay with the casual side (SoloQ) repeatedly getting left behind or you'll address that, and I don't know how else you could tbh, other than separate the realms, so to speak.

You, you're, your, and yours = Riot btw.

I'm still playing just about every day and I genuinely feel enjoyment - a good deal- of the time. I will admit it has dropped a fair amount in the last two seasons, but mostly because for me, I can't find consistency anymore in LoL.

*I get it - Riot will flourish more greatly by focusing on it's success in ESports, at this point I feel that is undeniable. What's sad is you're not able to find a way to not ostracize the players who got you there, so to speak. it's a tough af dilemma, but know that a lot of the negativity comes from a legit place of enjoyment that they can't find anymore.

130xApr 12, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Maple Nectar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UbZdRKB,comment-id=0018,timestamp=2018-04-11T21:58:02.750+0000)

To start off, you're 100% correct in expressing frustration when you feel the game you play is negatively impacted by balance decisions that are made focused on the highest levels of play. You're opinion is one that's certainly shared by a large group of players, but it's also only one of several of the demographics that make up our playerbase that we're trying to serve with both solo queue and the professional scene. Let me elaborate:

Group A - Just wants to play League doesn't care about the pro scene Group B - Enjoys League, tunes in occasionally to watch the pro scene (usually for big things like playoff finals, MSI, Worlds) Group C - Enjoys League, watches LCS religiously (every weekend they make time to watch every game or atleast the games with their favorite teams. Group D - Used to play League, doesn't anymore, but still watches the LCS because they like the pro scene Group E - Never played League before, but I friend told them it was pretty cool and got them to watch a few games.

*These groups are not all encompassing, but what I'm trying to outline is that the number of people that care about there being some amount of focus put on pro play balance is far greater than just the players that actually play professionally.

Now, more direct to your point, I have a desire/goal for a future where we don't have to make as many changes to champions based on their performance in pro play nearly as much as we do now. Right now we're beset by two conflicting goals, we (Riot) really want pro play to be as exciting as possible, and professional teams really want to win, more or less regardless of the tactics. Why these conflict is that the path to victory is often one of min maxing for risk/reward - which manifests as choosing more generically strong champions with less pronounced weaknesses, and then out macroing the shit out of your opponent. Why choose Zed when you can pick Ryze who's proven to have far fewer weaknesses when playing in a low ping, highly coordinated environment as an example? In order to make Zed a more likely pick in pro, we'd likely need to buff him drastically to overcome his weaknesses/counterplay - which is a surefire way of putting him in crazy territory for our average solo queue warrior. Since that isn't really a great option, we need to find another way. We're currently putting some brainpower in how we could help shelter pro play from specific points of imbalance, letting us put less focus on pro play in regards to balance and focusing more on the regular game....

This is where I can not believe what you are preaching. The path you are on is 100% contradictory.

You say you want more interesting pro play, more interesting counterplay. Yet just this season, in runes reforged, you have significantly dumbed down League. Taking away runes, and calling old masteries runes makes 0 sense and makes this game dull. More runes would have been the correct option.

New champions/reworks all have ridiculous skills, super speed, and now most have iframes?! Come on now... This isn't creating more outplay but just creating more need to pick certain champions, and making the insignificant even more so. I can't even say much more on this, just a joke.

And champion balance?!? Come on now. We both know you greatly minimized the impact of items. The correct way to create a truly beautiful strategic battle is to make items account for at least 70% of whatever champion uses them. This would allow people to actually and significantly counter build, and counter play teams on a whim. The game used to be this way, not sure why it changed direction into simplicity. I used to build armor into a phys dmg champ, and laughed as I was unable to be dmged(assuming we were equal in gold and lvl) But i would greatly sacrifice my own dmg potential so when and why were key. Now I can not see any item really affecting me if it is one you all think I shouldn't build despite if the stats should counter whoever.

This leaves me wondering, since none of what you claim you are building towards seems to hold true, who or what are you building this game for or towards? Seriously after reading your reasons, your goals, and knowing what and how this game is currently playing as opposed to used to be, nothing lines up. I thought you all were simplifying it for new people(which I am against), but turns out it is supposedly the opposite?! My hope in this game ever improving is gone.

BanuvanApr 12, 20182 votes

The sad thing is that the pro scene is extremely dull when it comes to champ selection. Extremely dull. There is little to no variance considering the massive amount of champion options out there.

cheerfothebeerApr 12, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Maple Nectar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UbZdRKB,comment-id=0018,timestamp=2018-04-11T21:58:02.750+0000)

To start off, you're 100% correct in expressing frustration when you feel the game you play is negatively impacted by balance decisions that are made focused on the highest levels of play. You're opinion is one that's certainly shared by a large group of players, but it's also only one of several of the demographics that make up our playerbase that we're trying to serve with both solo queue and the professional scene. Let me elaborate:

Group A - Just wants to play League doesn't care about the pro scene Group B - Enjoys League, tunes in occasionally to watch the pro scene (usually for big things like playoff finals, MSI, Worlds) Group C - Enjoys League, watches LCS religiously (every weekend they make time to watch every game or atleast the games with their favorite teams. Group D - Used to play League, doesn't anymore, but still watches the LCS because they like the pro scene Group E - Never played League before, but I friend told them it was pretty cool and got them to watch a few games.

*These groups are not all encompassing, but what I'm trying to outline is that the number of people that care about there being some amount of focus put on pro play balance is far greater than just the players that actually play professionally.

Now, more direct to your point, I have a desire/goal for a future where we don't have to make as many changes to champions based on their performance in pro play nearly as much as we do now. Right now we're beset by two conflicting goals, we (Riot) really want pro play to be as exciting as possible, and professional teams really want to win, more or less regardless of the tactics. Why these conflict is that the path to victory is often one of min maxing for risk/reward - which manifests as choosing more generically strong champions with less pronounced weaknesses, and then out macroing the shit out of your opponent. Why choose Zed when you can pick Ryze who's proven to have far fewer weaknesses when playing in a low ping, highly coordinated environment as an example? In order to make Zed a more likely pick in pro, we'd likely need to buff him drastically to overcome his weaknesses/counterplay - which is a surefire way of putting him in crazy territory for our average solo queue warrior. Since that isn't really a great option, we need to find another way. We're currently putting some brainpower in how we could help shelter pro play from specific points of imbalance, letting us put less focus on pro play in regards to balance and focusing more on the regular game. It sucks to have your champion heavily nerfed, especially when it's for something you don't care about, we totally understand that, and ideally we can find a world where that can become less of a thing that we need to do. Potential avenues could be exploring changes to the drafting phase beyond 10 bans. There really isn't much to talk about yet though.

At the end of the day we highly value League as a spectator sport, and we'll continue to make changes that we believe help achieve that. We just need to make sure we're doing our diligence when we're making big changes that could impact the way the players actually engage with the game and make sure the cost is worth it. I stand by our decision to remove trackers as an example, as I firmly believe the value in terms of "quality of game" we get both in pro and normal was worth the cost of removing that one item. To close off, we simply can't shackle ourselves by only making decisions that all players will find agreeable, as doing so would mean we should probably just stop making any meaningful changes to the game period, and that's not a world that I think we should be moving towards.

ps - the archangels change is only archangels. Once it's upgraded to Seraph's you get the full 3% ap again. Right now it's simply too good as a rush item when it's intended to be more mid/late game scaling power spike.

"At the end of the day we highly value League as a spectator sport, and we'll continue to make changes that we believe help achieve that."

You are putting too much focus on the above. Who is going to watch LCS when nobody gives a crap about League? Nobody.

FrostQueensPlaneApr 11, 201835 votes

It's because they have it backwards.

A good game with a large fanbase helps competitive flourish. Riot thinks it's the other way around and it'll be another reason for why this game will be rotting corpse like WoW in a few years. At least the players in NA got to make out like bank robbers before all of this shit dies.

iV0lt4GEApr 11, 20189 votes

IMO, Riot has always been a company that focused a lot on the marketing, only now, they have shifted their business model.

F.e. During LoL first 4-5 years, it was important for Riot to get as many players as possible and therefore made the game a little chaotic so that people would enjoy it and because it was a new game, it had a lot of hype around it. However, it got to a certain point where they couldn't really get a lot of new players as they did before and that was because EVERYONE knew what LoL was, what kind of game it was, it was well-known by any player around the world and therefore lost this hype that it once had.

Therefore, it was just better for Riot to focus on E-sports since just like ordinary sport brings competitiveness and team rivalries which hype up the fans who are watching. This made it just better for Riot to change the game to be around LCS players because it would make the game have more quality, make more people watch it and eventually make people spend money on watching it live, in the arena.

Soraka RulesApr 11, 20185 votes

{quoted}

It's because they have it backwards.

A good game with a large fanbase helps competitive flourish. Riot thinks it's the other way around and it'll be another reason for why this game will be rotting corpse like WoW in a few years. At least the players in NA got to make out like bank robbers before all of this shit dies.

I can guarantee WoW is not dying anytime soon, especially with the release of BFA lol. What are you talking about?

I Love RosesApr 12, 20182 votes

dude there are still so many people play wow, what are you talking about

DauntApr 11, 201820 votes

You guys are really delusional if you think that balancing the game around silver players like yourselves wouldn't have killed this game a long time ago. <removed by moderation>. Your job is to get better at the game <removed by moderation>. Why would worse players get rewarded while the better ones get screwed over because the worse ones are incompetent? To me, that's how you make a shitty casual game.

Boards wants the game to be less of a casual game, boards wants the game to be balanced around the majority of the players. thinkingemoji

Just look at the fact that you're complaining and ranting about Archangels getting nerfed. That item is busted beyond belief. Other mana items can't contest with it since they're not as efficient as Archangels. Which is one of the reasons why you see its abusers pop off so much lately (Ryze, Cassio, Anivia). Just because lower elo doesn't use it as much since they don't understand why it's so much better than Ludens doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

saltranApr 11, 20185 votes

{quoted}

You guys are really delusional if you think that balancing the game around silver players like yourselves wouldn't have killed this game a long time ago. I never understood why lower elos even care about these changes if they don't understand why they're being made and how they actually impact the game. Your job is to get better at the game not shitpost and bitch about changes that you don't actually understand. Why would worse players get rewarded while the better ones get screwed over because the worse ones are incompetent? To me, that's how you make a shitty casual game.

Boards wants the game to be less of a casual game, boards wants the game to be balanced around the majority of the players. thinkingemoji

Just look at the fact that you're complaining and ranting about Archangels getting nerfed. That item is busted beyond belief. Other mana items can't contest with it since they're not as efficient as Archangels. Which is one of the reasons why you see its abusers pop off so much lately (Ryze, Cassio, Anivia). Just because lower elo doesn't use it as much since they don't understand why it's so much better than Ludens doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

That's a good point, in fact, Rito is trying to balance the game between both sides: majority of the playerbase and high elos. Which is obviously harder and I also think that they jinx it sometimes, balance team isn't perfect but thanks goddes that they don't balance the game only for low elos.

AltiverseApr 11, 20183 votes

There's a big difference between "not balacing the game around LCS players" and "not balancing the game around top level of play". (It has been in fact acknowledged recently in an Ask Riot regarding balance)

Being high elo myself as you are, I still agree with OP that the game shouldn't be balanced around LCS. While I objectively disgaree with OP concerning Archangel's Staff (which does need nerfs imo, but not as hard as the ones being planned), I believe champions like Ryze or Gnar (or the removal of Tracker's Knife) that were specifically nerfed because of their strength in a competitive setting (aka LCS), while not being unusually strong even in high elo, is bad balance design.

It's not even a necessity to "break" LCS balance in order to balance the actual game. Riot has the ideology that having LCS play on a different patch than live servers will make players less engaged in watching esports (they talked about it a while back), yet other games like Overwatch have their competitive setting play on a different patch, yet there are a lot of viewers and it doesn't seem to concern anyone. As FrostQueensPlane put it, a good game with a large fanbase helps competitive flourish. Not the other way around.

UltîmaApr 11, 201815 votes

You know what doesn't make sense? A game that becomes more imbalanced as you become better at it. That is basically what you're asking for by having Riot cater to you, the average player. I'm mid-plat and even I understand that balance changes are largely directed at people who are better than me, and that's fine. My goal is to become better at the game, not abuse whatever happens to be absurdly broken to gain freelo. If Riot ever made the mistake of making Kalista, Ryze and Azir accessible to low-elo players it would immediately skew the competitive integrity of their game, as those characters would be insta pick-ban in Diamond+ elo. That is not fun, and it is not healthy for LoL in the long-run.

Now unto specific examples;

item 3003 is straight-up better than item 3030 and item 3285 . Full stop. That item is completely skewing build diversity in the midlane since its rework because it offer superior stats and scaling on top of a very powerful survivability active. It isn't situationally better than either of its cousins, it's better. So it's getting a nerf up until it turns into item 3040 , which will retain its stats and therefore give a huge powerspike once it's fully stacked. This will make the item viable on characters who can actually stack it, and should use Archangel's in the first place. Therefore, the item will have a softer power curve on purchase and still retain it's late-game power status.

Tracker's Knife was honestly super strong even in Plat+ elo because of how much vision it could offer. That item was single handedly responsible for stalling out games because of how consistently teams could get information about each other on the map. I highly doubt it's removal was felt keenly at the silver elo where - as you said - people largely fail to ward altogether. Vision control has always been anemic at this level of play and will continue to be regardless of its existence.

My advice to you is this: Learn, improve and play to win. Read the patch notes and try to follow up on what will be strong on a patch-to-patch basis, and you will likely succeed.

MimrApr 11, 20184 votes

{quoted}

You know what doesn't make sense? A game that becomes more imbalanced as you become better at it. That is basically what you're asking for by having Riot cater to you, the average player. I'm mid-plat and even I understand that balance changes are largely directed at people who are better than me, and that's fine. My goal is to become better at the game, not abuse whatever happens to be absurdly broken to gain freelo. If Riot ever made the mistake of making Kalista, Ryze and Azir accessible to low-elo players it would immediately skew the competitive integrity of their game, as those characters would be insta pick-ban in Diamond+ elo. That is not fun, and it is not healthy for LoL in the long-run.

Having champions with such a high skill floor that they only work in plat+ is bad design in and of itself.

MalrothDragoniaApr 11, 201810 votes

why? in a roster with 120+ champions and growing, it would follow that some will be niche, and having different skill requirements lets you take greater risks in kit design, as well as giving you another design space to play around in (i.e. this champ is designed for coordinated team play)

SteelflameApr 12, 20185 votes

Not really. It just means you need to have actual skill to be effective. A lot of people don't like to admit they are bad at the game, and refuse to look at themselves as the reason they can't climb.

Something more agreeable, is that a champion shouldn't have power massively impacted by the enviroment's ping. Which is one of Ryze's primary problems, your ping effects how easy you can blast out those combos, and abuse his kit. This is part of why he is much stronger in pros than solo queue, because most of the time in solo queue Ping is 10-50 MS higher than pros, and such fractional differences add up on a champion like Ryze very quickly over the course of a fight, in quicker combo releases, more "on the cooldown" plays (which when Ryze has resets and such, over the course of a fight can easily add up to a second or more in extra "used" CDs quite quickly), and other such things.

VerxintApr 11, 201815 votes

I liked the idea of them balancing around LCS at first because I thought it would mean LCS would get more interesting Instead solo queue just gets worse and LCS is still the same 12 champions every game.

WitchQueen AnnieApr 11, 201814 votes

the Archangel nerf makes sense

As I made a post about it earlier, half the Mage pool could just spam a Tear of Goddess (since it built into a very economical Archangel) and then mindlessly perma-push at no cost.

It makes for uninteractive play.

I played a Ziggs game where I literally Q-ed the minions all game until we won after a single Tear rush.

ZullarApr 11, 201812 votes

I couldn't agree with this post more.

8.4: Ryze 45% win rate. 8.5: Ryze E Nerf 8.6: Ryze 43% win rate (after Archangels and Abyssal mask Nerf) 8.7: 8.8: Ryze E nerf & Archangels nerf.... he will be like 41% win rate?

Ryze on 8.7 currently is the lowest win rate out of all 140 champions (43%) and they hare 2x nerfing him (E mana nerf and Archangels nerf)... just because of pro play. They admitted he was purely nerfed due to pro's here (even diamond had 49% win rate and they nerfed him) https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/uHtUVgXK-patch-chat-with-the-playtest-team-85?comment=0029

I don't give a damn about LCS balance either. What about the other 10's of millions of players like me? You know the people who pay and support your game?

And all this wackamole on LCS balance isn't effective either. It's 8 seasons in and by now they have to realize IT'S NOT WORKING! The pro's still only play about ~30 champs and ignore the other 110.

I think what Riot needs to do: 1: Balance for the regular players. Completely ignore LCS balance. 2: Implement a mechanic that forces LCS champion diversity to make it more fun to watch. Idea here https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/general-discussion/EfZgmjKi-riot-an-idea-for-pro-play-champion-diversity-balance

This will give better game balance the players and more champion diversity at the pro scene. (a win-win)

HalcyonDwellerApr 11, 20182 votes

Word. +1

BisaknospApr 11, 20183 votes

until they remove his point and click root and mana tank identity i dont mind any nerfs to this champ tbh

RainfallApr 12, 20182 votes

0.75 second root too stronk the mana+tank identity of ryze died years ago,you can't play ryze with items like frozen heart anymore you just play full ap and get an extra push from mana.

JustaNewbApr 11, 201811 votes

What I find interesting is their business model at this point. Screw the 98% in exchange to cater to 2% of the playerbase... using all of the money they make off of the 98% to pay that 2%.

Step Sis LuxApr 11, 20189 votes

Ye and the funny thing is they still didnt nerfed 100% pick/ban Tanks champions mostly on toplane

saltranApr 11, 20184 votes

{quoted}

Ye and the funny thing is they still didnt nerfed 100% pick/ban Tanks champions mostly on toplane

The interesting part is that the only strong toplaner tank is Sion when we talk about SoloQ and he's already getting nerfs while in pro play they still play toplaners tanks when GP and Camille are banned.

AirKingNeoApr 11, 20182 votes

so maybe they don't balance around pro?

Step Sis LuxApr 11, 20182 votes

{quoted}

so maybe they don't balance around pro?

? then why they nerfed azir ryze and taliya?

AirKingNeoApr 11, 20181 votes

they didn't nerf azir

Step Sis LuxApr 11, 20183 votes

{quoted}

they didn't nerf azir

8.5?

AmazoXApr 11, 20182 votes

{quoted}

8.5?

Maybe say that before instead of confusing one into thinking he was nerfed in the latest patch.

FutureCreatorApr 11, 20188 votes

It's always been baffling to me how Riot would even THINK about balancing around LCS. Like, they're such a tiny minority of the playerbase, it's ludicrous. Shifts in the meta for the 99,99% of people who aren't LCS still affect the LCS so it's not like the meta would always be the same there anyways.

atomicwitApr 11, 20186 votes

And unlike you, I want an objectively balanced game. Guess which view supports long-term game health... Having a well-balanced game supports my time investment and makes my experience better because I have no real excuses even if things aren't as I like. If a game was fun but terribly balanced, I might play it for a few hours here and there but certainly not long-term. It would feel like a complete waste to ever attempt to master such a game since you'd be slapped in the face by bad balance. League's actually not terribly balanced despite what some say. However, it's hard for weaker players to see the full picture, understand all counters etc. They see something in the time it's supposed to shine, often when they're behind and then they write a thread about it.

nuleticApr 11, 20186 votes

Really don't think balance decisions have any relevance below Gold. It's certainly NOT the primary reason for failing with a champion or not climbing. To base balance around bad play is just atrocious for a game and an insult to skilled players or those who aspire to get better.

Craft ZeppelinApr 11, 20185 votes

Just bring back DFG, and sword of the divine (cheese of the divine) to enjoy the fireworks. Or even a damn item that punctures shields and removes them completely. (Who cares? Shields are spammable. A item that removes it once in one teamfight is balanced at this point.) In every patch everything is clockwork. Tanks adcs, mid as sub-support. It is boring.

A bit of chaos can really do by now.

The EcdysiastApr 11, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=Craft Zeppelin,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=1UbZdRKB,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-04-11T06:52:53.463+0000)

Just bring back DFG, and sword of the divine (cheese of the divine) to enjoy the fireworks. Or even a damn item that punctures shields and removes them completely. (Who cares? Shields are spammable. A item that removes it once in one teamfight is balanced at this point.) In every patch everything is clockwork. Tanks adcs, mid as sub-support. It is boring.

A bit of chaos can really do by now.

It seems like they might make that shield-buster item, since they introduced the mechanic with Irelia's new passive.