For those who don't understand what i'm asking.
**tactics **are the actual means used to gain an objective, while **strategy **is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to **tactical **execution.
I'd love to hear rioter's personal opinions on this matter, even if it's not an opinion of the greater company.
ScissorsNstuff4 votesTactics will always be more compelling in a live game. Strategy will usually be more exciting in hindsight.
Ali's rope-a-dope during the rumble in the jungle probably looked dull and/or scary at the time. In hindsight though it was just absolutely epic haxorz
Snowman Arc3 votesI love strategy honestly, because it has more to do with passively outsmarting your opponent, than having to execute some play in game. For example, being able to identify the optimal runes / masteries / build path to help you win the lane appeals more to me than using some trick to beat your enemy, even though both tactics and strategy often become one.
Elkington VI1 votesPersonally, I don't think there's anything remotely "compelling" about the laning phase. It's easily one of the least interesting aspects of LoL. Your question is too broad and depends on too many different factors (i.e. your champion, team composition, enemy composition, early advantage/weakness, strong/weak late game, etc). Strategy and tactics go hand in hand, regardless of how we feel about them and, more often than not, "fun" has to take a backseat to efficiency. Finding a balance between fun and efficiency is ideal, but one could argue that Riot makes it increasingly more difficult to do this with each new season.
deadlychuck1 votesStrategy and tactics do go hand and hand, however it's a one way relation. In that strategy requires tactics, but you can have tactics without strategy.
I think the game has become extremely lacking in terms of the strategy of the laning phase, which is why it is not compelling.
Elkington VI1 votesWhat is considered "compelling" is completely subjective though. For example, I don't enjoy the laning part of the game at all. I feel it's just slow, tedious, and uninteresting (to both watch and play). Without jungler intervention, it's essentially a bore. I think the game has become less strategic in terms of team compositions. The champions that tend to specialize (and have clear weaknesses) are the ones that get benched in favor of champions that can do everything well and often in a flashy manner.
One of the main differences I see in laning, compared to seasons long past, is that it is now far more snowball-heavy. Itemization also has far less anti-snowball options compared to the past. I remember Riot removing Heart of Gold, and other GP10, because they encouraged "passive snowballing" It seems they've completely thrown that out the window, as the game is 100x more snowbally than it was back then. Today, those kind of items would actually help early struggling champions stay relevant. There are also less early sustain options compared to the past (vamp scepter used to cost like 400g iirc). If that's what you mean, I suppose I can understand.
deadlychuck1 votesLet me see if i can rephrase that last statement, because I don't think you grasped my sentiment.
The laning phase has become slow, tedious, and uninteresting, because of the removal of strategy, and the highlighting of raw tactics.
Strategy is needed in situations which are constantly changing and need to be dynamically reassessed. So if you were to require more strategic gameplay during the laning phase, then there would be more exchanges, riskier plays, and, at least in my opinion, more interesting gameplay.
You're just writing off the laning phase as a means to get to the interesting part of the game, when there is no reason that it has to be uninteresting. And raising the stakes to absurd levels is how you remove strategy causes people to play safe, low risk, and passive.
Elkington VI1 votesWhat would you suggest be done to make the laning phase more strategic and interesting? Riot has yet to pull it off, which is why the game is so snowball-heavy and jungler presence has always played such a large part in getting things moving.
deadlychuck1 votesWell it's not something that will be solved by a single general change, but there are some that could help.
Reduce damage across all champions by X%, probably something rather significant.
Make CDR something you have to aim for, not just thrown around on items for little cost.
Break up kits, bring input-to-output complexity of champions closer to 1:1. Currently you have issues where champions which are simple to play, require complex methods of playing around.
buff life regen, nerf lifesteal, or meet them somewhere in the middle. Lifesteal gives too much recovery on top of in fight healing. It forces 100-0 fights, instead of a string of exchanges.
some changes to minion aggro might also help, as currently they limit early game exchanges between players. Not a very well thought out point, so nothing specific, just something that i could see helping.
Basically, reduce the damage so that exchanges aren't ALWAYS a risk, and make champion mechanics more distinct and independent. This would mean that you're making constant decisions around ability CDs and give players more incentive to make exchanges while behind in gold, as a means to push small random advantages that occur (e.g. accidentally eating a tower shot, failed jungle gank, a good exchange). Atm, it's too risky when behind in gold, to push a circumstantial advantage, due to damage output heavily punishing you for misjudging the advantage.
Elkington VI1 votesThese are all good points, especially concerning overall damage and CDR. I have a big fetish for capping CDR early and currently it is FAR too easy to do and you lose nothing for it. I'm all for buffing health regen as well and would personally like to see Warden's Mail get its hp regen back.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by #3. When you say "simple to play" are you referring to champs with simple kits like Jax/Trundle or Fiora/Darius? If the latter, I agree that champs like Fiora and Darius take more effort to outplay than they take to outplay their opponent the majority of the time. You have to go into trades against them with Batman-tier prep-time/forethought, while all they have to do is press a button typically. AD scaling true damage and on-hit healing is a magical thing, nevermind that walking away from a bad trade against them is very difficult, while they can always disengage with little risk. The sustain on both of these champions needs to be toned down if they're going to be that oppressive in trades.
There is never a good time to go in against a Darius/Fiora, compared to Jax/Trundle (who are both strong duelists) that have clear points of weakness where you can outrade them.
deadlychuck1 votesSo i'll use a couple of examples that i've used elsewhere to explain what i mean by #3
The most extreme case is probably. Malzahar: very very low input complexity. You basically play a rhythm game, and if the kit work or not, is dependent on how well the other person and their champion is capable of playing around the complex outputs of his kit. This includes things like having to play around the max range of his ult and voidlings.
More often than not it's expressed like this... where it's mechanics which don't add any complexity to the champion's kit, but prevent the opponent from playing around the otherwise disadvantages of the champion.
Ekko: The passive on his W, gives him execute damage, after he's managed to deal his burst. Yet this execute damage changes nothing of how the ekko player plays, it simply fills in an otherwise hole in his damage pattern which he'd be weak during.
Yasuo: His passive shield acts very much in the same way. Where the yasuo player really requires no extra thought about how to play their champion because they have the shield, but it acts as a buffer to his weaknesses that otherwise aren't handled by his W or E already.
Incarceration1 votesTactics because I like how I mastered the art of cs'ing and trading in lane to get the kill. A bonus would be if I used some kind of mechanical means such as a combo, an animation cancel, exploiting a window of time, etc. Strategy is basically a stat check while tactics actually involve an outplay.
deadlychuck1 votesI don't think that's true at all.
A tactics are often reduced to a stat check, because you're seeing if you have the numbers needed to preform the same maneuvers.
Strategy would be if you actually had to change up the combos you do and making extended trades and/or multiple trades.
Incarceration1 votesI thought strategy meant (according to your definition) taking the optimal runes and masteries while having an appropriate build to win their lane. Tactics involved mechanical outplay such as a combo so you can win your lane.
deadlychuck1 votesYou can kind of divide both strategy and tactics into two categories, macro and micro. A few examples for each.
Macro strategy: Runes, Counter picks, objective calls
Macro tactics: Team comps, Planned lane swaps, 3:30 gank
Micro strategy: Dynamic builds, Testing enemy damage, tempo
Micro tactics: Dodging skill shots, combos
I guess one way to put it, is that strategy is dynamically changing as new information is gained, but tactics in themselves aren't and are based on a particular set of information.
Lauchmelder1 votesIt's a weird question. The answer? Both.
You use tactics to achieve success with your strategy.
It's similar to chess. You come up with a strategy to get the queen, but have to have a tactic to set up your pieces to actually take her.
deadlychuck1 votesExcept tactics don't require strategy.
Strategy will manifest as tactics, but executing a series of tactics doesn't imply there was strategy involved.
Into The Aether1 votesTactics make up most of the fullness of the experience, so tactics.
It's not that I don't like strategy, or strategy games, but making that experience as good as it can be usually cannibalizes other things.
Strategy can be exceptionally one dimensional too, which is frequently overlooked. "Hit harder" is a completely viable and very common strategy/long term game plan.
Varied strategies are a lot more likely to divert people away from the actual gameplay, which then ends up getting them nerfed or reworked.
Like combining all of the available zoning tactics with the intent of starving an opponent, and leaving them weak all game. "Abuse my strength to make the opponent weak" is the strategy, hard all-ins and creep freezing/zoning are the tactics.
Or optimizing farm tactics with the intent of hitting a long term power spike without interacting with the opponent, then obliterating them. "Avoid my opponents strengths and peak faster than them" is the strategy, and timed jungle camp paths and mass wave catching + perfect CSing are the tactics.
deadlychuck1 votesI don't see how you can say strategy is one dimensional... "hit harder" is a tactic, sometimes you want to use it, but strategy is how you determine to utilize that tactic.
Strategy is the part which changes. Strategy is what decides which tactics to use as new information is gathered, and the circumstances are reassessed. If one set of tactics becomes too powerful relative to other tactics, then you end up with a one dimensional game, where everyone is rushing to do the exact same thing. No strategy is required if the way to win the game is through the same means every time, only recycling of the same tactics.
Meep Man1 votesI don't get it. Don't tactics make up a strategy? So shouldn't the answer always be strategy since strategy is "tactics plus some".
deadlychuck1 votesDid you not read the read the OP?
Tactics are a part of strategy, but strategy determines tactics. If you have only tactics, then there is no strategy involved. However, if you have strategy, tactics are how they are implemented.
Athenes Lulu1 votesTactics is more fun to watch, but strategy is more effective.
You can have the greatest tactics but can't win for shit if you got shit strategy.
Escheton1 votesStrategy. And I am not just saying that because my mechanical skills are bad and I need that chess-master edge to win. Nope. [slayer-jinx-wink]