LDR buff rationale "fighters are usually only around 1000 health up on ADCs" - Meddler

{quoted}

Righteous Glory for engage. It’s not a Sion ult like engage but it’s similar enough to be “good enough”.

The problem with tank utility is that frankly as good as it is they aren’t the only ones bringing it (frankly everything is overloaded with utility imo). Divers like Renekton and Rhaast can act as frontliners and have enough CC to do the job while being able to engage.

What tanks offer better is holding people down in fights after the engage.

And again, if Juggernauts were as durable as tanks because of their sustain I’d be ok since they thrive in battle and want to keep fighting. But I draw the line at being equally durable without their sustain because that makes them more durable over all than actual tanks.

Riot wanted tanks to be the most durable class. Frankly I feel they needed to make tanks less reliable (because I am sick and tired of people using Maokai as an example of all tanks. As a Sion main it angers me).

righteous glory is an easily countered engage. you just have to have another frontliner stand in the way for the aoe slow to trigger and the movement speed to canceled. if your engage stops at the enemy bruiser or tank with some soft cc, you havent won much.

its as unreliable as dead mans is for an engage tool.

amazing if you want to follow up an actual tank or support engage of your own team, but not comparible on its own.

i can see your other points. though i still dont understand why adc need damage buffs against juggernauts. theyre dealing enough damage to them as is.

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4WEW9Rc6,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-07T20:52:08.952+0000)

righteous glory is an easily countered engage. you just have to have another frontliner stand in the way for the aoe slow to trigger and the movement speed to canceled. if your engage stops at the enemy bruiser or tank with some soft cc, you havent won much.

its as unreliable as dead mans is for an engage tool.

amazing if you want to follow up an actual tank or support engage of your own team, but not comparible on its own.

i can see your other points. though i still dont understand why adc need damage buffs against juggernauts. theyre dealing enough damage to them as is.

I don’t understand it either. I’ve noticed Riot tends to buff anti durability stuff whenever they buff durability.

{quoted}

I don’t understand it either. I’ve noticed Riot tends to buff anti durability stuff whenever they buff durability.

its like riot cant give one single buff to a specific class of champions without buffing marksmen at the same time.

theyre buffing top lane bruisers and increase their damage against tanks, so they get back into the game and compete better with tanks on top lane. so of course they also have to buff adc against tanks and bruisers in the same patch?

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4WEW9Rc6,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002,timestamp=2017-12-07T20:58:12.619+0000)

its like riot cant give one single buff to a specific class of champions without buffing marksmen at the same time.

theyre buffing top lane bruisers and increase their damage against tanks, so they get back into the game and compete better with tanks on top lane. so of course they also have to buff adc against tanks and bruisers in the same patch?

Wish I knew man. Maybe they want to avoid “ADC in 2K17” while they are on vacation.

[{quoted}](name=The Yetii Rider,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4WEW9Rc6,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002,timestamp=2017-12-08T00:00:42.641+0000)

And so, what? Because this change can hurt juggernauts, Riot SHOULDN'T make it? It helps divers and skirmishers. Why shouldn't those classes get love too?

they are already getting some love with direct buffs. and this change doesnt buff skirmishers and divers, it just buffs marksmen.

im saying riot shouldnt do the change because its pointless. juggernauts arent anywhere enar too strong and marksmen dont have issues killing them.

[{quoted}](name=The Yetii Rider,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4WEW9Rc6,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000020001,timestamp=2017-12-08T02:34:45.151+0000)

Marksmen have issues killing tanks.

bull.

shit.

marksmen arent having trouble killing anything right now.

and with the buffed cleaver and the better bruisers, there will be more damage on a team to deal with tanks anyways. there is no fucking reason to give marksmen another buff. if anything, the class needs severe cost nerfs to zeal items to stop the horrendous snowball thats coming out of bot lane.

{quoted}

Support name choice aside, your asking fighters to be equally tanky through their stats. This makes them more tanky than tanks because of their sustain.

Wait, so is sustain tankiness or is it not? Because if it is, then sustain is simply part of tankiness, and so would already be factored in, just like resists are a large part of the tankiness of tanks, but much less part of the tankiness of fighters. If not, then it has no bearing on this discussion. I don't see the contradiction here.

I don’t see sustain as tankiness and it’s why I believe it has bearing in this discussion because you think fighters should be as tanky as tanks.

Because I don’t factor in their sustain as their durability, I interpret this as saying fighters should be as durable as tanks without sustain.

This has bearing because I have also mentioned that if fighters reach the same durability as tanks through their in combat sustain, I wouldn’t mind because it only further separates them.

Am I being clear?

I personally do think sustain is tankiness, but even when factoring this in, I still think fighters are still far less tanky than tanks. Some fighters have healing, but tanks often have shields, in addition to far superior resistances. Because of this, even if fighters and tanks were on equal raw health, they would still have their own unique and equal variants of tankiness.

I agree that I'd like to see more distinction between sustain-based durability and more static tankiness, though this is something I think could apply to both tanks and fighters. I'd like to see more champions have survivability that is anti-DPS, but not necessarily anti-burst, so lower base health and resists, but persistent healing or shielding. Champions with large, static health reserves, on the other hand, should remain good against burst and weak to DPS. Because this should be done on a champion-to-champion basis, however, I still don't think this contradicts the premise that fighters and tanks should have equal levels of health on average.

{quoted}

Well ask yourself, “why am I building X when I can be just as durable with Y?”

I mean, if it comes down to the choice between anti-burst and anti-DPS, the choice should come down to whether you're dealing with burst or DPS. If not, then it should be a matter of how your champion expresses their own durability via their kit.

See, I don't think there should really be that much of a separation in tankiness between divers and the rest. At the end of the day, that's not really why you'd pick one subclass of fighter over the other, as you're still going for a tanky champion, so it really comes down to what either subclass contributes uniquely: personally, I think the difference should come from divers having long-range mobility, and juggernauts having AoE, meaning one subclass should be really good at reaching the back line, and the other should be good at damaging multiple targets at the same time.

Right now, though, the problem with this is that both divers and juggernauts are dysfunctional in their own way: divers are frequently overloaded and given shit they don't need, such as CC, AoE, even burst (all of which you can find on someone like Jarvan IV, for example), whereas juggernauts simply cannot achieve their fantasy right now, as their damage is often insufficient against crowds and their raw stats do not make up for the amount of peel and lockdown they have to deal with. Both of these situations need to change, and the end result should likely not involve giving these subclasses particular differences in tankiness or even DPS.

I also agree, the general problem with fighters, and any tanky damage class, is that whereas tanks scale only with durability, and thereby go for full durability builds, fighters need to build for both damage and durability, meaning they end up with inferior damage compared to a pure damage class, and inferior durability relative to tanks. I feel one way to potentially solve this could be through scalings, so that the durability and damage of fighters would scale better than similar effects on damage classes or tanks. That way, an "average" fighter build should allow them to have top-tier tankiness and DPS, and min-maxing could potentially produce some funny off-builds as well.

{quoted}

Death is the most powerful cc. Killing a priority target is much more valuable than locking them down with cc for a few seconds.

Except this assumes you are able to kill a target instantaneously, which is generally not the case, particularly not with a fighter. By contrast, many tanks specialize in locking down priority targets immediately, and for an extended duration, which is more valuable than trying to kill them when they're killing you first.

{quoted}

If tanks weren't locked into building pure durability by their kits, they would build damage because it's such a valuable stat.

Every tank has damage ratios on their kits, so they could build damage if they wanted to, yet they still build full tank. This statement you made is patently wrong.

{quoted}

Juggernauts are basically tanks that are allowed to build damage because their kits scale well with both durability and damage,

Juggernauts have some of the worst CC in the game. They are absolutely not "basically tanks", and the fact that you would associate them as such demonstrates a very poor distinction between the functions of damage and crowd control.

{quoted}

and having a fighter's damage scaling and a tank's durability is such a strong combination that juggernauts have to be almost entirely immobile to counter their absurd strength.

Juggernauts aren't "absurdly strong" by any stretch, and are in fact struggling particularly hard, precisely because their durability does not make up for their current vulnerability to kiting. Again, this kind of fear is disproven easily just by looking at the performance of champions in-game.

{quoted}

Remember when Riot took Galio, who was boxed into building pure tank to be viable, and then increased his AP scaling? There was a lot of shit on the boards about that... XD

Except Galio not only has damage and durability, but also AoE, mobility, and massive amounts of hard crowd control. Of course there's a problem, because he was already overloaded before he even got his damage buffed. I personally believe Galio should have damage, but not nearly as much CC. In fact, he's a good example of what I'm criticizing in recent tank design, because his VGU gave him the CC of a tank, plus a ton of mobility, when he was meant to lack crowd control and mobility in exchange for his AoE damage. As a result, he's basically become an even more loaded diver, and the other tanks that followed suit in the roster update all ended up encroaching on fighters by dealing comparable damage, on top of more CC and durability.

{quoted}

For killing a priority target to be worthwhile, you just have to kill them before they kill you. Fighters can pull this off quite easily, and will have built tools to sustain through the rest of the fight.

Again, "killing them before they kill you" is all well good in isolation, but in the heat of combat, that priority target is going to have peel, heals, shields and a frontline. Simply stunning them at a critical time can have much more of an impact than trying to DPS them down.

{quoted}

Tanks very limited damage ratios in their kit, and since their damage ratios are very often tied to defensive stats it comes down to "I can build full damage and be less effective than a champion that is supposed to build full damage, or I can increase my damage slightly by building full tank and be 6 times harder to kill as well". Tanks can't opt into damage because they're rendered redundant by champions who are designed to find more success using the same build.

This doesn't contradict what I said, and in addition this also just goes to show that, unlike fighters, tanks often don't even have to choose between damage and durability, because their builds naturally provide both. At the end of the day, tanks can opt into damage if they so desire (and, according to you, damage is always better than CC, so by your logic they should be doing this no matter how bad their ratios are), but fighters cannot, and should not, opt into hard CC.

{quoted}

Tanks can't build like fighters (or mages) because fighters (and mages) are better at being fighters (and mages) than tanks are.

... but mages and fighters can't build like tanks either. That part isn't true either, as tanks like Maokai and Galio have done quite well by incorporating AP into their builds, while still having top-tier CC. It is effectively possible for a tank to build in such a way that they also become a fighter, and this is what's happening on a few tanks right now already.

{quoted}

This doesn't detract from my point. In fact, it pushes it further: a class that has the durability of a tank and the sustain and damage of a fighter, in order to function in this game without completely breaking it, has to the standard mobility of a fighter and make big sacrifices in their cc.

I'm not quite understanding what you wrote here, but no, tanks do have mobility as well, so fighters don't need to sacrifice mobility just to have good damage and durability. I do agree that fighters shouldn't have good access to CC, and too often they do right now.

{quoted}

I wasn't saying "juggernauts are literally tanks with damage that are immobile" as you seem to think I was. I was simply making a point about why having high damage on a high durability champion was so valuable, and, by extension, why tanks would definitely be building it if it had any real value to them.

You literally said they were "basically tanks", and your point contradicts itself: if damage is so valuable on a high durability champion, why are tanks not all building damage?

{quoted}

You took "absurdly strong" completely out of context.

I didn't. Even at melee range, juggernauts do not have top-tier damage or utility, so even if they can out-duel certain divers in lane, they aren't the most major threats even when they do get in range. There is simply no real reason to pick a juggernaut in the subclass's current state.

{quoted}

You're looking at game balance as it stands now rather than operating within the context of this discussion

This discussion is literally about the balance of fighters. Of course game balance "as it stands now" is relevant, not your own "context" which is purely theoretical, and demonstrably wrong. Fighters and juggernauts haven't been in a good place even before preseason, so there's no real point in trying to derail conversation into that topic either.

{quoted}

If you want to discuss whether tanks or fighters are better at any given moment in the game's lifetime, just visit a lol statsite and look up the statistics for yourself and there will be indisputable evidence as to whether one class is stronger than the other in the current meta.

I invite you to do this at your earliest convenience, because that is what I've been doing, and what permitted me to come to the conclusions I did here. Where exactly do your opinions come from?

{quoted}

I'm not willing to shift this discussion to talk about Galio, so please excuse me ignoring most of your last point.

It's not a shift, Galio just so happens to be a tank whose existence disproves much of your argumentation.

{quoted}

All there is to this discussion is that Riot is making an attempt to keep all classes and champions in line with each other and functioning within their roles.

... except that is simply not the case right now, for the reasons I mentioned. You're not Riot, and you should not assume they run on your personal design principles.

{quoted}

If League is in a balanced state, that means tanks are going to be just as functional in building full tank as fighters who partially build damage.

Okay, but as I said before, fighters building tankiness and damage is simply part of a system where both of those need items to scale. Hard CC does not need to scale, therefore fighters should indeed be "just as functional" by going for their own builds, by having the tankiness of a tanky class and the DPS of a DPS class, not lesser amounts of both.

{quoted}

Your predisposition seems to be that because tanks don't need to build damage to be functional, they are simply better as a class than fighters are.

I'm not saying they're innately better, my point is that CC, one of the major contributions of tanks, does not require items to scale. If tanks can have their CC auto-scale but also have their tankiness surpass the scaling of fighters, then yes, they are bound to be stronger than fighters.

{quoted}

But, if League is in a balanced state, there is something that fighters are offering that makes them equally valuable to tanks.

... that thing being damage, which is an alternative to crowd control. Tankiness is not the tradeoff here, and your attempts to discount CC as somehow not a valuable contribution don't hold water.

{quoted}

I've theorized that these things are their sustain, and of course their higher damage output. I could be completely wrong, but since fighters and tanks are supposed to be equally strong from Riot's design standpoint, there is something that makes fighters better in some ways that tanks are not.

Except sustain is innate to only certain fighters, is present on some tanks as well, and does not make up for the difference in durability. I agree that there should be a tradeoff between damage and CC for the two classes, but it shouldn't be one of survivability.

{quoted}

Maybe fighters' more flexible mobility options give them tools to apply their damage in more effective ways than a tank does. Maybe fighters are just better at getting solo picks. Maybe it has something to do with objective control.

Fishing for excuses does not a convincing argument make, particularly since mobility and objective control are neither exclusive to tanks nor innate to fighters as a whole class.

Jesus christ dude, you've completely lost sight of the issue. Let me remind you the question I've been trying to answer this whole time, as well as an extremely simple response to that question.

Somebody said "Fighters should not be as tanky as tanks" to which you said:

{quoted}

But why, though?

And the answer is that fighters with a tank's durability would essentially be mobile juggernauts, which would break the game, which I have elaborated quite thoroughly in my previous comments.

You may think that we've been going back and forth about something else this entire time, but this is the issue that I've been trying to discuss with you since the beginning.

{quoted}

And the answer is that fighters with a tank's durability would essentially be mobile juggernauts, which would break the game, which I have elaborated quite thoroughly in my previous comments.

Except, as I've said, juggernauts are distinguished by their AoE, which is not a universal quality. Ultimately, the tradeoff between a diver and a juggernaut is one of mobility versus AoE, not some finagling on durability numbers. Divers and juggernauts do not do the same things outside of mobility, and arguing that juggernauts are just less mobile divers just falls apart very quickly.

{quoted}

You may think that we've been going back and forth about something else this entire time, but this is the issue that I've been trying to discuss with you since the beginning.

I don't really think so, you started this argument by stating that CC had no value relative to damage, and that tanks therefore needed more tankiness. And now tanks are not even within your argument? What changed? This argument that was supposedly at the core of what you were trying to say came only very late into this conversation, and doesn't seem all that related to your other points.

{quoted}

Except, as I've said, juggernauts are distinguished by their AoE, which is not a universal quality. Ultimately, the tradeoff between a diver and a juggernaut is one of mobility versus AoE, not some finagling on durability numbers. Divers and juggernauts do not do the same things outside of mobility, and arguing that juggernauts are just less mobile divers just falls apart very quickly.

Give a juggernaut a dash and you break the game. Give a fighter a tank's durability and you have a juggernaut with a dash.

I don't really think so, you started this argument by stating that CC had no value relative to damage, and that tanks therefore needed more tankiness. And now tanks are not even within your argument? What changed? This argument that was supposedly at the core of what you were trying to say came only very late into this conversation, and doesn't seem all that related to your other points.

I started off with a very simple explanation of why tanks have more durability than fighters. The discussion evolved into why fighters shouldn't have the same kind of durability as tanks, and why a fighter's damage is just as valuable as a tank's durability and cc.

######(I also went ahead and made the point that since fighters are a damage focused class and tanks are a cc-focused class, that both would equally useful to a team in a balanced state of the game, and that tanks have more durability than fighters, we can conclude that a fighter's damage is more valuable than a tank's crowd control, because tanks need additional durability for their cc to be as valuable as a fighter's damage.)

The way the issue was framed has changed, but the context has always been about tanks vs. fighters as a class, not tanks vs. fighters in the current meta.