Taking a champ you're great with vs. countering the opposing team?
I feel like it's more important to pick someone who counters the other laner. Am I wrong in that thought process? Or is just better to go with someone you're better with?
15 Comments
The only time you should never prioritize a comfort pick is if you're countered so hard you understand that you're never going to win. Counters only work if player skill level is equal or in favor of the counter, as well, so in low-mid ELO, you should always take an appropriate comfort pick.
You're better off with picking someone you're better with. What's the point if you have no clue on how to play a champ, even if he/she counters a certain champion? You're going to feed just as hard as if you just got countered yourself. And if you know how to play that "countered" champ so well that you can carry even if countered in lane, there's no point trying to counterpick.
But if you are equally good at both, then go for the counterpick. Otherwise, don't even risk it, you'll only make your life harder.
Picking to fit your team comp, though, is what you should focus more on in terms of champ choice. Laning and counterpicking isn't everything.
I like to play stuff that I get countered by so I can learn the match up and further my knowledge with such champion.
I once went jg Jax instead of Sion because my team said Jax was a better option.
I sucked because I was too used to engaging and Jax was too squishy.
Unless it's an extreme situation, play your comfort zone. But it doesn't hurt to have back ups.
game is literally decided in champ select so yeah
It's more important to pick who you are comfortable with.
First off outside of very high elo your ability to play X matters more than counters/tier lists, and secondly there are very, very few true hard counters in this game. Most "counters" are actually merely lanes where you are at a disadvantage but you can still go even or win if you know how to play your champion.
nope, if you're really that good at a champ, you should know how to play them into all possible lane matches. for example, i main leona, and i still pick her into morgana (who can block all of my cc by pressing 1 button) because i know how to play against her
I'd say there isn't a clear answer between the two. If you're comfortable on a champ, you're bound to perform better than on someone you barely know, but overall viability directly influences to what degree that holds true.
Before Rito gutted Teemo's shrooms, I could win literally any lane with him short of Pantheon. On multiple occasions, I even won 2v1 lane swaps including duo lanes like Cait/Leona & Kennen/Zed, but as he is now he even struggles in favorable lanes.
Don't just listen to only my own example. Westrice has made a name for himself as a famous player of Akali top lane. Yet in today's meta and with the nerfs made to her ult, even he's abandoned her at last word I've heard on the matter.
So depending on the situation it could go either way. Playing an OP champ for the first time would probably be better than a gutted champ you have tons of experience on. Whilst on the other hand, a slightly sub-par champ you're also super-experienced with tends to be a smart decision over the counter-pick you kinda, sorta know.
It's really a grey area, not at all black/white.
I always say that if you feel comfortable playing a champion (whether you're good at that champ or are just starting to learn how to play it), you should play it. If you aren't comfortable with playing the champion, you won't do as good of a job than if you were comfortable. Now, if you're being countered then it depends on the skill you have at your champion. Tristana vs Draven is a bad matchup for the Yordle, but if you're experienced enough at her and know how to deal with Draven you should be able to do well.