Rift Herald should've protected towers.

Clementine·May 3, 2017·32 votes·1,094 views

Would've been a cooler idea that would work out better for rift to kill the minion hitting your tower if you're not there.

11 Comments

DunkinNoobsMay 3, 20177 votes

Teams strong enough to take neutral objectives don't need help defending towers; they need help destroying them. That's literally the whole reason those objectives exist: they're what you get when you're stronger than the enemy but not strong enough to force down towers.

SnakDatSmilesBakMay 3, 20171 votes

I don't think teams that are ahead need even more help destroying towers. Both suggested iterations of rift herald have their pros and cons but bc of the lack of defensive options I'm favoring the defensive herald more than the offensive.

DunkinNoobsMay 3, 20174 votes

{quoted} defensive herald more than the offensive.

The defensive herald has no purpose because teams that get it dont need help defending towers.

5000000000000000May 3, 20171 votes

I don't know, it could help with more aggressive roaming.

TehNACHOMay 4, 20171 votes

Okay you need to learn how to snowball.

You don't roam for the sake of leaving lane and coming back, you roam to put pressure in a different part of the map and start knocking shit down with your team thanks to the numbers advantage your roam just generated. This means we are now back to the defend or destroy towers scenario, a scenario where the probably winning team with Herald doesn't really need defense as much as they would rather have another siege breaking tool.

There aren't many scenarios where you can justify defending towers when you could also equally destroy a tower while on the offensive. For example, is your roam taking too long because your siege can't break through the enemy's defense? Defensive Herald won't be making that much of a difference while Offensive Herald gives you the snowball.

xelakerMay 4, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Teams strong enough to take neutral objectives don't need help defending towers; they need help destroying them. That's literally the whole reason those objectives exist: they're what you get when you're stronger than the enemy but not strong enough to force down towers.

the other 78% of the player base would like towers to last past the 11 min mark..

DunkinNoobsMay 4, 20172 votes

78% of the playerbase is silver and below and doesn't understand the game. Pointing to majority opinion does not help you when the majority of people are bad at this game and blatantly don't understand it.

Tobias BracknerMay 3, 20175 votes

NO MORE THINGS TO MAKE THE GAME LONGER

PLAY AGGRESSIVE

EVEN LATE GAME SCALERS HAVE TOOLS TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND MAKE SHIT HAPPEN EARLY GAME

reaperteaserMay 3, 20172 votes

this^

WiegrafOfValorMay 3, 20172 votes

But Rito wants to make their pro games end in 20 min so they can shove more games and have better schedules for their events.. Your satisfaction isn't part of the plan.

rtbf76109271May 4, 20171 votes

Getting objectives is supposed to give an advantage which assists the game in actually ending. Defending is not helping the game end, you have to take towers. The size of the reward matters a ton since they have to find a balance between meaningful advantage but not insta win. I have no comment on that since i havent played this patch yet, but I do like the idea of what it does.

I guess defending would mean someone could roam and not lose their tower for it, but still you don't want to just miss all the CS the rift herald kills for too long.