Conqueror’s Excessive True Damage Conversion Increases Snowball

Ifneth··1 votes·971 views

The conversion rate of true damage on Conqueror is too high, causing a primary and secondary effect that have increased the snowballing of games.

The primary effect of Conqueror is to increase the gold efficiency of damage item purchases of Attack Damage Juggernauts, Fighters, and Duelists who have the keystone. Since less of their damage is blocked by armor, each gold coin spent on AD translates into more damage on target. This effect increases the snowball potential of fighters who kill their opponents in lane, since any gold difference will translate into a larger trading and all-in difference than before the rune was introduced.

I imagine that this effect was desired. Such champions were having a hard time converting lane leads into map pressure. However, it has caused a secondary effect, which is to decrease the gold efficiency of armor purchases against Conqueror uses. This change was meant to affect tanks, who could stonewall a lane by stacking early armor, but it also affects everyone else.

The secondary effect was so strong that tanks could no longer reliably contest lane against fighters and duelists, making them the meta top lane picks. Any matchup with a fighter or duelist on both sides is inherently volatile already, but the increased efficiency of the damage items they buy and decreased efficiency of the defensive items they otherwise might purchase when losing only increases this volatility.

Moreover, classes facing fed conqueror champions also have less reason to buy armor. Carries continuing to buy damage to potentially scare them off and keep scaling is often the more gold-efficient choice, but it spreads the inherent volatility of top lane to their roles. Supports and junglers now have less reason to spend their meager budgets on armor, too.

Some reduction was reasonable, since resistance stacking was leaving fighters and duelists irrelevant. However, the true damage conversion is so high that champions cannot buy armor to force champions who have the rune to continue their snowball by roaming to other lanes or invade the jungle to rather than forcing solo kills or denying farm. The delay of scaling from even starting, much less finishing, an resistance item is significant. The relief should be, too.

Otherwise, Fighters and Duelists will have such reliable laning, snowball potential, and target-agnostic scaling damage as proved unhealthy on hypercarry Marksmen like Tristana, Kog’Maw, and Twitch last season. A reasonable yet substational reduction of the true damage conversion would keep fighters and duelists from crowding out tanks in solo-queue without greatly reducing their effectiveness against squishy targets who have not built any armor. If the conversion reduction is too great, then it can be pared back or compensated with more AD.

I propose a reduction from a 20% conversion to a 15% conversion. For a corrective AD buff if necessary, I propose an increase from 10-35 to 15-50 bonus attack damage. These are guesses, and I would welcome harder numbers on them in addition to your opinions about the effect of Conqueror and my proposed change.

6 Comments

ChargeItDownMid1 votes

[deleted]

Ifneth1 votes

{quoted}

Compared to something like fervor for battle, conquerer should snowball the game less. Fervor gave more damage but no true damage conversion meaning it was stronger against lower armor champions and weaker against higher armor champions. Put in another way, conquerer was better against someone who is ahead (more gold to buy armor) and worse against someone who is behind (less gold to buy armor) so it actually causes less snowballing compared to its predecessor.

Glad you replied!

I disagree. Fervor of Battle granted melee champions 1-8 AD for each basic attack against a champion, up to 8-64 AD. Whereas Conqueror grants 10-35 AD and a 20% true damage conversion for being in combat. Conqueror is stronger early, when snowball is the easiest to start, and can be kept stacked by, say, melee basic attacking a minion every few seconds. The rune also synergizes with itself, since its true damage conversion helps its bonus AD deal damage, and likewise with the base damage from abilities. Conqueror is stronger than Fervor was.

And although Conqueror might technically be ‘stronger’ against tanks who are building more armor because they’re ahead of an AD champ, that’s actually a different problem. The tank can’t easily snowball on the fighter or duelist by stacking armor, but the fighter or duelist can easily snowball on the tank by buying AD and using Conqueror’s true damage conversion to penetrate whatever resistance the tank could afford. And after lane, that conversion only becomes stronger as the AD champion scales with gold and gains base damage with levels, snowballing them further. Tanks have therefore been crowded out of top lane by these snowball-ier AD champs.

Now, on carries, the effect is different. They don’t usually buy armor until later in the game, when it would affect their scaling and own ability to snowball less. A mage or marksman buying Seeker’s Armguard or a Chain Vest is sinking precious early gold into defense rather than the damage they were drafted for and significantly delaying their powerspikes. That sacrifice must be worthwhile for the carry to have a reasonable choice between building to protect themselves against a 1v1 AD threat until the team groups or building to scale past them faster. Otherwise, they might as well just build their usual damage items and try not to die, which is, again, snowbally.

Hence the prevalence of AD Bruisers with Conqueror. Darius Top, Irelia Mid, and even Yasuo ADC for the meta-adventurous. This rune’s true damage conversion is doing more than just helping AD melees stay relevant against tanks. It helps them dominate lane against tanks and squishies, snowball the mid-game if they get a lead, and scale their damage late against any composition. Hence my proposal for a substatial but reasonable nerf to the conversion.

ChargeItDownMid1 votes

[deleted]

Ifneth1 votes

{quoted}

A couple of things:

  1. You cannot compare numbers 1:1 when you talk about a keystone in a 6 rune set vs a keystone in a 60 rune+mastery set. Numerically, all of the keystones now are a bit stronger now than last season to make up for the loss of 54 runes/masteries. You have to cut about 25% of the numerical power (see grasp this season vs last season or electrocute vs thunderlord) of the keystones now to make up for there being less runes overall.

  2. Ferver's ability to be activated without a delay makes it stronger in lane where windows for trading are small and do not always line up with conquerer.

Overall, I agree with you that conqueror is stronger than fervor was, just as all of the keystones now are stronger than keystones last season. However, the majority of this difference comes in the form of lategame damage against champions who have the gold to buy armor. Against champions with less armor, press the attack being always up tends to be a better choice and would cause more snowballing problems than conqueror.

Conqueror is not contributing to the snowballing problem which was present before conqueror was even added to the game this season. The only thing that conqueror has done is allow for bruisers to compete with tanks. Do note that for all of the people qqing that tanks are dead, they still have a huge presence in high elo and pro play. If you want to stop the snowballing, conquerer is not the thing to be touching.

While the keystones were buffed to compensate for the loss of runes and masteries, 20% true damage conversion is so far beyond what the old system offered that the rune can be considered by itself. As for Fervor on short lane trades, you needed to land four basic attacks against an enemy champion for the full value. With most champions’ 0.67-0.75 base attack speed, Fervor was for anything but short trades. It was for going in.

Conqueror, on the other hand, activates once in combat and just stays active if you basic attack a minion every four seconds. It can have permanent, full-value uptime at minimal cost. That’s better in short and long trades. Outside lane, it outscales Press the Attack against all targets, especially during skirmishes or teamfights, where you’ll switch targets several times.

It really did change the meta. Before the rune was released, tanks were everywhere in solo-queue top lane. Then the rune was released, and the tanks quickly disappeared outside high elo and professional play, where some tanks were nonetheless strong enough in lane for skilled summoners to deliver their game-changing utility to teamfights. Ornn and Sion come to mind. But everywhere else, it’s fighters and duelists all game, every game.

The option to pick a tank, survive lane, and scale into an undying wall of meat and crowd control that turns skirmishes and makes big plays during teamfights should be just as viable a strategy as picking a carry top, winning lane, and splitpushing with occasional roams. It just isn’t right now, and having a keystone let your resistances affect only 80% of the latter playstyle’s damage is a big part of it. The same goes for building armor as a scaling squishy against a Conqueror champ.

ChargeItDownMid1 votes

[deleted]

Ifneth1 votes

{quoted}

I guess the problem comes down to what you are looking at then. I was always under the assumption that balance was geared towards high elo and professional play. In that environment, the downsides of conqueror such as the need to be in combat for 4 seconds really shines through (meanwhile, the drawbacks for fervor is not as prominent due to properly animation canceling and orb walking). In high elo and professional play, bruisers are stronger than tanks but only by a very small margin and any significant nerf to conqueror will push the game back to only tanks. That difference is much better addressed by simply nerfing the problematic bruisers such as irelia.

The game is balanced for three type of play: regular, highly skilled, and competitive. Here are some examples. Simple controls and strong telegraphing are for regular play. Not letting Riven have high base numbers to prevent one-tricks from exploiting her skill cap too much is for highly-skilled play. The many Ryze reworks and dreaded Azir treatment were for competitive play.

The trouble with not addressing Conqueror directly is that nerfing one problematic user will just leave another, less-problematic one as the meta choice. Also, balancing champions around runes and not vice-versa is unhealthy. Champion diversity in competitive play will always be poor, though, since the professionals will always and only pick and ban the ‘strongest’ champions every game.

The only reason it’s high now is that Riot so disturbed the meta that no-one knows what’s good or bad. Faker plays Darius bottom. Crit is dead? Doublelift picks Xayah. Crit is amazing? It’s Season 1 all over again, but that ended with the meta that Riot just shook up.

More from Gameplay

More by Ifneth