Would it be such a bad idea to lower all sources of damage by a small amount?

Electro522·Jan 5, 2017·79 votes·2,574 views

What I mean is that all base damages, all AD and AP, and all extra sources of damage (i.e. Thunderlords or Ignite) get reduced by, let's say, 10%? The only 2 things that I think should not be affected by this are turrets and minions, since both deal a minimal amount of damage as they are. Jungle creep, however, would be affected.

Note, I did not say scalings. AD and AP scalings are not sources of damage themselves, but simply amplify your sources. Because of this, scaling should not be lowered, since they would be affected more heavily by the reduction.

The change would be small enough to where you may not notice any difference at first, but over time, you'll notice that towers are a bit tougher to take, marksman don't feel as overbearing, and an overall small increase in game length. Tanks would feel like they're actually tanking, instead of being just durable brusiers; and every champ that feels bad to play against shouldn't feel as bad.

The only problem I see are junglers being able to farm. Clear times would be increased, and if it's too much junglers, we can increase the amount extra damage the jungle items do to monsters.

But, besides that, I don't see much of a problem. Am I wrong to think this?

70 Comments

JavelinJoeJan 5, 201719 votes

If it ALL is lowered, than nothing would change except for defensive champions becoming much more dominate.

Papa AndreiJan 5, 20174 votes

Which is good thing because then defenses would mean something in this game. instead having 4k health over 2k means surviving .6 seconds longer.

JavelinJoeJan 5, 201714 votes

Or build other thing with the health, like AR and MR. And get them smartly. item 3742 is not the best armor item when against AD ranged and neither is item 3068 , but they are good vs AD melee. You want item 3075 item 3143 or item 3110 for the passives and the more armor they give you. Now every armor item is good vs AD melee to an extent, but there are some better than others.

For MR, you have 2 main options, item 3065 and item 3102 . One is better if you have extra healing from some source (either you or an ally, and not just summoner 7 item 3109 or item 3107 ). Where as is better for engage champions, and champions who really need that extra 15 MR. But I would always grab over if you are unsure because the other stats are better and has 10% CDR. You could get both too.

As for hybrids, item 3512 is always good unless vs a Nasus and where item 3060 is better if against an AP heavy team, item 3190 is better for team fighting. item 3026 is only if ahead or fairly tanky WITH damage (like a Hecarim or Renekton ) or on a fed ADC who is ahead of the other team's.

As for Health, most AR and MR items give 300+ health (usually 500). But if you need some damage too, get item 3027 item 3071 item 3152 item 3078 item 3748 item 3151 item 3053 item 3030 accordingly. And unless you really want to go all out, or have something that scales with your own health (% max damage maybe?) get item 3083

Now, item 3025 Is good if you use a lot of spells for your damage such as on Poppy Nasus and Ezreal . item 3109 is for supports mainly but is not usually a good item to start with.

For primarily AD damage dealers, might be useful to get at least one of these if vs a AP heavy team item 3814 item 3139 item 3156 and rarely item 3091 .

The wiki says more about how resistance and health is calculated so I would advise checking out that too, but be warned, it is a lot of math.

Papa AndreiJan 6, 20171 votes

Okay i know how tanking works. I had cinderhulk then all armor/health items so i ended up with around 270 armor and 4k health on Mundo.

But a Riven did all that in about 3 seconds with just Mortal Reminder.

StandgroundingJan 6, 20175 votes

How the hell would Riven have one item while you have 6 items?

And furthermore, how did Riven kill you haveing 1 item vs 6 item tank?

Papa AndreiJan 7, 20171 votes

I meant as the only armor pen item

TeCoolMageJan 6, 20172 votes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xn5E-G81FY lul

TahmKench ExpertJan 6, 20172 votes

In a world where the mega pen. items don't exist.

TeCoolMageJan 7, 20171 votes

in a world where you rush mega pen items at 20 minutes

Electro522Jan 6, 20175 votes

I have to disagree. Remember, this is a damage nerf across the board, meaning that everyone will take and deal less damage. Any squishy champion would have a bit more survivability, but their build focus may shift a little to that being even more damage focused. A tank would actually be able to dive the team and tank the damage like they're meant to, and not get melted by only 2 champs of equal level focusing them. But they themselves would be doing less damage as well, making it harder for them to kill anyone, including a squishy target.

And remember, this is only meant to be a small damage nerf, nothing crazy like 50% (that is crazy). If anything, this would just reinforce what champions are meant to be. Tanks would be walking meat shields that take hardly any damage, but hardly deal any damage themselves. Marksman would be sustained damage dealers, consistently putting out damage over time instead of bursting a somewhat durable champion in just 3 autos. Burst mages and assassins will still be bursty, but they will have to shift their focus to actually bursting the champs they are meant to burst down, instead of bursting the entire enemy team, or any target they choose on the enemy team. Divers and fighters will be able to do what their name entails: dive and fight. They'll be able to withstand a prolonged fight, while causing chaos in the enemy team, instead of mostly being feast or famine champs that are completely reliant if they snowball off of their lane or not.

Like I said, the change would be small enough to where you may not notice a difference. But over time, people will shift their focus slightly, and as a result, any champs identity should be better defined.

WoonStruckJan 6, 20173 votes

If just base damages are lowered, Tanks get hit MUCH harder than champions building damage.

So no, it wouldn't lead to defensive champions being more dominant. It would lead to them being more cc/peel oriented.

One VERY simple way to address damage would be removing the really stupid % damage masteries. FFS, things like those used to be the deepest points in a tree.

FailogJan 6, 20171 votes

Wrong. What would change is that fights wouldn't end as quickly. It will allow more players to be able to react to situations, thereby taking away the advantage of players who have faster reflexes. I dont know if that is good or bad, but I feel like this game is supposed to be strategic and tactical, not an arcade shooter.

WoodakoodashoodaJan 5, 20173 votes

I think the problems have already been pointed out that this would cause.

Tanks would have more presence in fights as they would become harder to ignore or eliminate. Jungle would have a harder time clearing the jungle and their progress overall would suffer as a result. Assassins and burst mages who rely on ability chains to eliminate single targets would not be able to perform their job.

And another point to include.

ADC's who are already incredibly squishy with few to no reliable escapes built into their kits would die even faster than they do now to champions with greater sustain. Their defenses of life steal and kiting rely on their damage output, after all.

So, yes, reducing ALL damage would be a bad thing.

Papa AndreiJan 5, 20173 votes

But being able to kill a 4k health mundo with 300 armor in 3 seconds is balanced.

JVP15Jan 5, 20171 votes

I mean, if the Mundo is being collapsed on by 3-4 people, then yes. However, one cannot solo kill a 300, 4K health Mundo in 3 seconds. Two people might, miiiiight be able to do it if they are pure tank shredders, but realistically, it takes 3/4/5 people to kill Mundo in that amount of time, and often, they have some sort of grievous wounds to reduce his healing.

Papa AndreiJan 6, 20172 votes

Nope, was simply facing a draven with Bloodthirster and LW. I was super fed with Jungling, but ye know, one item counters me.

JVP15Jan 6, 20171 votes

Something doesn't seem quite right with that number then. What level where you? What items did you have? What level was Draven? I'm only asking so that I may do some math.

Papa AndreiJan 6, 20171 votes

I don't remember. This happened about a few months ago, its just one of those really annoying things that stick in you mind forever ;-; I need mind bleach.

AnidanJan 6, 20172 votes

Didn't you point out that it was a Riven when you responded to JavelinJoe..? I distinctly see Riven.

Papa AndreiJan 6, 20172 votes

I play Mundo alot and this has happened ALOT. Riven one was when i was playing TT Draven was just on SR (Draven sucks on TT) Sorry my main comfort pick is Jungle Mundo because how does one land skillshots xD

AnidanJan 6, 20171 votes

Welp, fair enough. Can't say too much if it's a comfort pick. I'm not willing to do the math, so someone else can worry about that. I was just curious about the discrepancy is all. Carry on!

Lucian WaifuJan 6, 20173 votes

The entire problem starting with season has been the masteries. Nearly all the champions were designed with the old mastery system, the new one with keystones essentially adds a pseudo item at the start of the game without taking away any starting gold or an item slot. Then there is all this percentage damage increase that had never been there before without the corresponding percentage increase defensive masteries. That is why League seems so overly offensive and too much damage, especially early, champions are now getting far more stats for free and even extra abilities, keystones, and getting them from the start while being designed to work with only small stats from masteries and being able to be played and have appropriate power levels without being overly powerful early.

Not xPekeJan 6, 20172 votes

Yeah the new masteries that were introduced along with the keystone created too many problems imo.

They're interesting, a poor copy of the World of Warcraft mastery system, but interesting regardless. Still wish they didn't happen though. Like you said alot of champions were designed with the old mastery system.

ForgiveColourJan 6, 20173 votes

Buff tanks even more? Nice logic gameplay

Carrie PigeonJan 5, 20172 votes

I'm surprised this isn't receiving a bunch of hate as it's overall a nerf to everything however this would technically be buffing tanks allowing them to survive for 10% more time in fights making them even more dominant to ADCs.

Electro522Jan 5, 20176 votes

But they themselves would deal less damage as well. I don't know about you, but I don't think a Zac should be able to deal burst damage with a full tank build. Its the same problem Tahm Kench had during his release.

Instead, tanks would probably shift to what they are meant to be: hard to kill, team fight initiators. If I ult the enemy team as a full tank Malphite, my focus is not to kill anyone, but cause chaos while surviving for as long as possible. A damage reduction across the board would just reinforce this.

Steel BlossomJan 6, 20172 votes

I don't think ADCs and poke mages are dying fast enough as it is. They should add 10% dmg to all melee champs, if anything.

Not xPekeJan 6, 20172 votes

lul, what did you take and can I have some too?

WinTheWarOnPantsJan 6, 20172 votes

why lower all base dmg?! all you need to do is get rid of the insane amount of %dmg in the game that was added season 6. there is 12.5% in ferocity 7% in cunnning. then you have item 3001 and item 3036 hope i'm not forgetting anything. Dmg reduction is a part of it as well since allot of dmg items also make champs tanky like item 3812 item 3109 (obviously not dmg item, but it's 12% without buying a defensive item) item 3046

Gnart Even CloseJan 6, 20171 votes

Can we nerf sustain by 20% then too?

FCJAAAAGOOOOJan 6, 20171 votes

I'd consider it, except that many champions have unique forms of sustain and making them even weaker than they already are would water them down significantly to the point of staying pretty negligible.

What I'd most consider instead however is giving every champion 10% champion damage reduction rather than giving everyone 10% damage reduction to every form of damage. Turrets do squat to protect champions as is!

Gnart Even CloseJan 9, 20171 votes

if there's not enough damage to deal with sustain, then sustain becomes overpowered.

ModKnightsKemplarJan 6, 20171 votes

I think you're wrong to think so, and here's why.

Assassins. They have to be able to burst people when they play well, and if everyone's damage is lowered, there are only two possible outcomes:

Assassins can't burst people unless they are WAY ahead.
Assassins are OP

I see only one alternative, and that's if you don't accept my premise. In other words, you don't think assassins need to burst people. This game has developed with that expectation though, and getting rid of it would be devastating in a way that none of the other big changes have been. They've made a lot of changes to this game over the years, but nothing THAT drastic. The class is still supposed to burst, regardless of what people say about the updates, etc.

If you can convince me that assassins can still be bursty if all the damage is lowered, I might be able to get on board. But your method has another key problem. Namely, if base damages get lowered and scalings don't, then the game becomes even more snowball prone.

Base damages protect against a fed enemy. If scalings become an even larger share of every champion's damage, then a fed champions is EVEN MORE POWERFUL compared to champs working on their bases. I don't think that's good for the game. I think we're pretty well balanced right now.

There's a good argument for keeping it the way it is. High damage allows you to punish enemies swiftly for bad positioning and face-checking. It actually amplifies the strategy (not of teamfights, but of the macro game). If we reduced all damage, the macro game suffers in favor of champs that can teamfight well. If that's what you want, I suppose I understand why you want these changes. But say goodbye to the macro game of League as we know it. It would all change.

Not xPekeJan 6, 20173 votes

Assassins were fine before they even introduced the new masteries like thunderlord and stuff.

Every preseason they introduce new masteries where damage is increased across the boards for anyone, let alone new items, and in alot of cases buffs to items, or the increased development of champions with %hp damage, true damage, execute-like abilities, etc.

Masteries such as Extra damage on the first AA, Extra damage for 3% hp when coming out of a bush, the +% dmg x unique enemy player killed was buffed to 7% at 5 stacks from 5%, Extra 5% damage and take 2.5% extra back, etc, fervor increasing AD, or the scaling 5% increased in damage the longer you fight with an enemy which tanks/juggernauts can easily decide to go for that one, having a free 5% damage to a class that doesn't need that. Even the "tank" keystone like Grasp which was popular at the beginning of last season was still an increase in damage out of the blue for tanky champions.

Thunderlord helps champions that aren't known for their burst to have that extra little bit. People are just getting too many stats (even defensive through shields or sustain) for free.

You get blown up left, right, and centre by anyone. Tank, bruiser, or a true carry will blow up a squishy with no distinction.

The line between DPS and burst is long gone, the difference is barely recognisable.

I agree base damages may protect against a fed enemy, but it also means more and more champions don't even require to build damage to deal it.

I think the main point in this discussion here isn't to "reduce all damage". It's simply to REVERT the changes that lead the game in this direction.

I don't agree with your take on the macro game suffering if that were the case. If anything it's the opposite. You're forced to play smarter and use different rotations and objective controls if you are faced against a team with champs that can teamfight well.

ModKnightsKemplarJan 6, 20171 votes

Masteries shouldn't have increased damage overall, on average. There were still masteries that increased damage before, it was just in the form of invisible buffs instead of the more recognizable keystones.

And I don't follow your logic on the macro game. How does it punish mistakes harder if you die less easily? If I have a healer on my team that can get to me, they can keep me from dying even after making a big mistake. That can already happen sometimes right now; I do it all the time as Sona or Taric. Making champs less bursty will increase that frequency. I see no alternative.

Not xPekeJan 6, 20172 votes

Masteries have 100% increased damage with time. What you say is true, they did have them in the form of invisible buffs, but no where near the power they offer nowadays.

In addition to invisible buffs that are still present, we are also given Thunderlord for example, one of the most oppressive masteries ever made. Do you remember when it got released? 10 out 10 players in a single game would all have it. It's free damage, and it's not just placebo cus it's not invisible so you see it doing damage. It was just a free buff to anyone that could use that keystone to deal more burst. Then there's Fervor, a keystone that enables fighters especially to keep up in damage thanks to the free AD (and on hit extra dmg in the past, before it was changed) building tanky items as well. You get what I mean?

As for the macro.. do you really think nerfing damage (which wouldnt be by a huge amount by the way) would really all of a sudden not allow you to punish mistakes? Do you think in the past you were free to do any mistake you wanted to because "you can't get punished not enough damage". Sure it might have been more forgiving in the bpast, you didn't get blown up by anything, but it still happened.

and by the way it's not about making champs less bursty, it's about bringing balance back between DPSers and Burst champions, and Tanky champions. Cus right now, all I see is a big mess of "burst them down before we do". Much macro?

ModKnightsKemplarJan 6, 20171 votes

Well, EVERY change in the game has an effect on the macro.

It wouldn't be as though you couldn't punish mistakes if there was less damage; it's that every mistake would be punished less. Depending on how much you changed damage, things that would be considered mistakes now might not be mistakes at all, since you judge that based on damage/death in many cases.

Not xPekeJan 6, 20172 votes

what's wrong with that though? It's silly the way the game has evolved that once you hit 35ish mins, a lost teamfight could mean the enemy team can run it down mid and end it cus of how weak towers are and players deal more damage, both in fights and to towers.

They want League to be faster paced, with more damage, more snowballing, weaker towers, how is that helpful for the macro? Literally the only thing it applies to is "careful mistakes get punished". nothing deeper than that.

ModKnightsKemplarJan 6, 20171 votes

As I said to the other response to my original comment, there's nothing wrong with preferring a different game, inherently. Nothing. If you don't want mistakes punished that badly, then you're absolutely right. We should decrease damage across the board.

But many people like the direction of the game. I am one of those people. As I said to someone else in this thread, the existence of American football doesn't mean Rugby sucks. They are both nice games.

But I stand by the decisions Riot has made to improve this one. I understand that many people don't like it. The answer to your question, "what's wrong with that?" is nothing. There's nothing wrong, it just isn't this game. You could make a new game that was much slower paced and I would bet that many people would enjoy it. But not me.

There's a fundamental difference of opinion there that is unlikely to be resolved. I respect that you don't like the direction League has taken. I happen to like it, and that's as okay as me being a basketball fan and you being a football fan. I think it is foolishness to argue over which is better when both can exist in the same world.

The OP, though, asked if there was a problem with his line of thinking, and there is. Lowering damage would have a pronounced effect on the game, and many of us wouldn't like those changes. Some of us would. Either way, ignoring that reality is folly, which is why I responded to him. He ignored a lot of the effects that a change like that would have on the game.

PB4UAMEJan 7, 20171 votes

This game started off as much more Halo than CoD (for an FPS analogy) the game you want it to be is a different game than what League of Legends started out as. Yet, you seem to have reversed the roles here; are you a newer player, by any chance?

ModKnightsKemplarJan 7, 20171 votes

Not remotely. I've been playing since April 2012, I think, when I was about to graduate undergrad. That was Season 2, if I'm not mistaken. You can see my latest reply to Not XPeke for a more detailed opinion on where this convo went, but I ain't new.

To summarize: yes, it is a different game. Every patch. That's intentional, and that's good. If you don't like changes, LoL was never intended for you, frankly. That's not a dig, it's just a staunch opinion I hold. The constant changes ARE the point of this game.

Not xPekeJan 7, 20171 votes

The thing is, I don't prefer a different game. I'd just prefer game developers to stop making changes for the sake of change. Change is never inherently bad. But introducing changes just for the sake of it can cause more problems than anything else. Just look at Runescape and World of Warcraft. They are a fraction of the game they used to be, especially Runescape.

But yeah, it's different opinions clashing as far as this debate goes. I respect that you stand by Riot's decision on this one, that's fair enough. However, I wouldn't quite use the sports analogy because it's not like we are talking about 2 different games. We're talking about a single game. The only difference is that one has morphed and changed into something else.

ModKnightsKemplarJan 7, 20171 votes

Honestly, it doesn't feel different to me. Slowing it down would feel weird, imo.

The whole idea behind League was that changes are really healthy for a game like this. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this series, but if you aren't, take a look at this video, which specifically uses League as a positive example of what they call "perfect imbalance."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

Now, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with them 100% on this, but it's important to understand that Riot isn't doing this by accident. If the constant changes are a bother to you, you should be aware that it isn't going to stop. Ever. In fact, if Riot ever did end up with a "perfectly balanced" game somehow, they would likely intentionally change it to keep the changes going. "Change for the sake of change" to some, except it isn't, really. It's change for the sake of freshness.

The fact is that the banter on these boards is pretty low level. As a someone in a technical field myself, I have a lot of empathy for Riot's designers, because I know something that a large portion of these boards don't; Riot knows what they are doing WAY better than we do.

A lot of the ideas and criticism we level at them seems really innovative and cool to us, but it's likely that Riot has either tested those ideas already, or can point to examples in other games and explain why they aren't doing it that way. They aren't dummies. That doesn't mean that their design team is perfect, and that's why I still spend time here pitching ideas and bantering a bit with people. But the reality is that it's only a VERY small percentage of threads that give them ANYTHING new to think about (at least when it comes to the gameplay. Creative stuff like skin concepts is a different matter).

We aren't educating these guys on game design, any more than someone on these boards could educate me on Inorganic Chemistry (my area of expertise). The primary use of them is to get feedback, not insight. Those two things aren't the same.

So, maybe I got a little off topic, but maybe you already see my point. You say "the only difference is that one has morphed and changed into something else." To me, it doesn't feel like "something else," because the entire POINT of LoL was to avoid stagnation to begin with. The constant changes feel like home to me, because that's what I signed up for.

As I said to HellsTrueKing, I fully acknowledge that Riot could back off damage later, and I would support it if they did. The reason I posted my first reply to the OP was because there was a hole in his way of thinking. The "problem" (if you think it is a problem) isn't as simple as he claims, and we aren't the best people to decide what decision to make. If anyone thinks they are, I challenge them to make a better game to compete. It isn't as easy as it looks, and these guys are pros at it. They run the most successful game for "core gamers" (as they like to call us) out there. There isn't anything more successful than this.

You can argue that WoW and Runescape paint a picture of warning for Riot, but the fact is, they are WAY more educated that any of us about how and why those games have fallen out of favor while LoL thrives. The aren't ignoring that point, mind you, it just isn't a new idea to them. Obviously, they don't think change was the inherent reason those games "failed." It was about the nature of the changes. If they aren't smart enough to know that, they wouldn't have gotten this far.

So, in conclusion, I typically find reasons to like any given patch they way it is. Because that's the whole point. Right now, I really like playing Taric, a champion that I used early on but hasn't thrived in awhile. I've been working out new builds for him and trying new things. Usually mild perturbations in ranked, because it's fun. I enjoy it. I recognize that it's not perfectly balanced, because it was never intended to be. It makes the game more enjoyable than constantly trying to fix it.

HellsTrueKingJan 6, 20172 votes

To your Assassin point:

I believe assassins are a necessary evil in the present state the game is in. As long as I can one/ two shot a squishy as Draven (or other adc/mage), an assassin should be able to burst me down in the same. I've always felt that way. It's only fair.

Now, if you lower all damage in the game, meaning I can no longer blow an enemy up, then the assassin doesn't have to blow me up in return. Right? Thats where I'm coming from. If you take away everyone's 100-0 ability and make it so that fights have to last longer, then there isn't a need for assassins to have that level of burst.

Of course I'm a little biased since I've been asking for something similar for a long time now; but I hope that makes sense.

ModKnightsKemplarJan 6, 20171 votes

I think that would be a legitimate way for a MOBA to exist, but I'm not in favor of turning League into that. That kind of gets into my second point.

If you hamstring an assassins ability to assassinate, it's not necessarily unbalanced. But it does really make assassins seem silly thematically, and it does change the way the game is played. It's not wrong to prefer the game balanced differently. Some people prefer Rugby to American football, and vice versa.

I would be fine with a MOBA that didn't have so much damage. That's not a problem. But, personally, I would strongly prefer that those that want that make a new game. I like League the way it is, as do many others. If that's what other people want, let's have both. Let's not destroy Rugby just because we like American football. Both can exist.

HellsTrueKingJan 6, 20172 votes

I can understand that, in fact I might fully agree with you if given more thought. I think if you took all the damage out of League it would lose some of its magic.

That being said, my dislike of assassins in the meta ( or any champ really that can 100-0 you in the blink of an eye) grows from the numerous times one of those champs killed me and I had no chance to respond (looking at you old Leblanc). Death with the feeling of helplessness, kinda ruins the game for me.

While I can agree having assassins unable to assassinate feels wrong and doesn't fit within the idea of the game; however, being in the situation where I've just been deleted with no hope of counterplay makes me want things to change

I'll use hockey instead, since I love it way more than football.

Whenever I watch a hockey game and I see an enforcer lay a huge hit on a defensive player, I yell and celebrate cause its exciting and adds more to the game. If someone questioned why such things were allowed I'd say cause its just part of the game and if you don't like it that much, play something else. However, if I was that defensive player that just got hammered, I would be yelling and screaming "why the hell is he allowed to do that to me!" (I realize there are problems with this analogy, but the thought is there)

I guess my thoughts on what this game should be are kinda different depending on if I'm in the game or here on the boards, and it's difficult to stick to one sometimes.

ModKnightsKemplarJan 6, 20171 votes

To me, that's a sign of good balance. If there was an obvious, easy solution, like the OP suggests, Riot would have done it already.

The reality is that these things are complicated. People don't understand the complexity of the systems in place in a game like League. I suspect that the game designers understand them better. Not because they are smarter, but because they mess with them more. They make changes and edits that never see the PBE. As with many fields, you don't properly understand anything without experiments. And we don't get the opportunity to do NEARLY as many as the balance folks do. I trust that there is a good reason that damage is what it is right now.

That's not to say it's perfect. It might even be that Riot decides to tune it down a bit; but the OP acts like that's an obvious truth. I don't refute that we may be able to lower damage a bit. Maybe we could. I DO refute that it's an obvious answer that would solve all the "problems."

StephenizgodJan 6, 20171 votes

Instead what they should do is make a scale for potential damage based on risk and difficulty of landing the ability. If an ability is high risk and difficult to land, it should do more damage. An example of this would be actually Lee Sin's Q since he needs to go into danger and it is a skillshot. If an ability is low risk, but difficult to hit it should do moderate damage based on how low its risk is. Two different examples would be Viktor's laser which can be difficult to land but doesn't really put him at risk and for the latter Morgana's Q which can be difficult to land but is even less risk to her than Viktor's E because it comes with fatty CC. If an ability is low risk and easy to land, its damage should be lower based on how low risk it is. An example of this is Lee Sin's Ult, its a point click knock-back ability that is impossible to flash away from because it roots you in place before-hand. Another example is Syndra's Ult, it is low risk and point and click, its damage should be based on her other abilities (specifically her Q) instead of having so much damage loaded into it.