Small Ekko nerf: better counterplay through better ult clarity (QOL for enemies)

Hyrum Graff·May 31, 2015·127 votes·9,116 views

The Problem

You're chasing a low hp Ekko with ult up. He runs into a bush. His ult indicator/ghost disappears. "Where can I position, to avoid it?" you wonder.

Ekko's ult does a LOT of damage. The justification is that there is a clear indicator for you to avoid. That is fine, but right now that counterplay does not exist if Ekko breaks line of sight, even if I actually saw where he was 4 seconds ago.

The Solution

Ekko's ghost does not disappear when he does.

If you can see Ekko, his entire ult trail is revealed (like live)
If Ekko walks into the fog of war, whatever trail is currently visible stays visible.
If you follow Ekko, you can only see the trail that was already visible (unless you catch sight of Ekko).

#tl;dr

If I know where Ekko's indicator should be (because I had vision of him 4 seconds ago), I should be able to see the indicator, instead of having to guess.

edit because enough people have been confused:

I am NOT proposing that we make Ekko's indicator visible independently of Ekko.

I AM proposing that we make Ekko's indicator like live, but if I have vision of Ekko and his indicator, and Ekko breaks line of sight, the indicator does not disappear.

90 Comments

BeddlamMay 31, 201557 votes

I'm don't buy into the Ekko OP hype, but I do agree that this is a good idea. You should lose sight of Ekko's hologram 4 seconds after you lose vision of Ekko. It should work the other way too, you shouldn't gain vision of Ekko's hologram until 4 seconds after you gain vision of Ekko.

MrBuffingtonMay 31, 201515 votes

Champion.gg just released some initial stats on him, So far his win rate is in the mid 40s, but if you look more carefully much of this is due to players having little experience on him. For players with 5-15 games on him (about 4% of Ekko players currently), that win rate jumps to under 60%, which is near 420 Weedwick status (of course with some caveats, Warwick was the entire player base, etc). I do think a lot of these threads are overreacting (this thread is smart though), but the numbers so far seem like a cause for concern. Ekko isn't a terribly difficult champion to pick up (master, yes, but in my experience on pbe I felt like I got the hang of him pretty quickly), but comparing to other champion trends, his numbers are pretty high for how few games people have put on him.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, his win-rate for players with 5-15 games on him has dropped to ~50%. Perhaps the initial jump was just a learning curve for people learning to deal with Ekko

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20153 votes

True, but it's also possible that it's easier to pick up Ekko than learn to play against him.

For example, it's very dangerous to engage on to Ekko (because he's often able to bubble on top of himself and then zhonya's/ult in place) and I don't think people have learned that yet.

[{quoted}](name=Hyrum Graff,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7O58ZEZo,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2015-05-31T18:00:47.412+0000)

My current assessment of Ekko's balance, which is NOT what this post is about, is that he's maybe slightly overtuned, but overall in a pretty good place. He's strong throughout the game in 1v1s through 3v3s, but struggles in 5v5s, and, like other assassins, struggles at trading in lane (Karma absolutely dumpsters him). Since 5v5's become more important as the game goes on, he tends to fall off late game.

Could the ult AP ratio use a little tuning down? Maybe. But maybe it would feel less like BS if he couldn't surprise me with it even when I should know where he's able to ult to.

Most of the time he has both good outplay potential and counterplay, -- if he kills me, I feel like I got outplayed, but that I could have outplayed him -- but if he gets fed, all that counterplay goes out the window. I'm not sure exactly what changes I'd add to make him less snowbally in this way, but it's a problem all assassins have.

DreDreJun 3, 20151 votes

For example, it's very dangerous to engage on to Ekko (because he's often able to bubble on top of himself and then zhonya's/ult in place) and I don't think people have learned that yet.

I literally thought of this earlier on, wasn't sure of whether it works or not

Hyrum GraffJun 4, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I literally thought of this earlier on, wasn't sure of whether it works or not

Bubble has a 3 second delay. Zhonya's lasts for 2.5 seconds. When they engage, you bubble, then zhonya's, then immediately E dash so you can blink into the bubble (since you may not have bubbled right on top of yourself). Stun lasts for 2.5 seconds at max rank. That means it ends 5.5 seconds from when you were initially engaged upon, which is plenty of time for you to find an opportunity to ult.

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20155 votes

{quoted}

Champion.gg just released some initial stats on him, So far his win rate is in the mid 40s, but if you look more carefully much of this is due to players having little experience on him. For players with 5-15 games on him (about 4% of Ekko players currently), that win rate jumps to under 60%, which is near 420 Weedwick status (of course with some caveats, Warwick was the entire player base, etc). I do think a lot of these threads are overreacting (this thread is smart though), but the numbers so far seem like a cause for concern. Ekko isn't a terribly difficult champion to pick up (master, yes, but in my experience on pbe I felt like I got the hang of him pretty quickly), but comparing to other champion trends, his numbers are pretty high for how few games people have put on him.

Gallio's stats are better. Amongst people with 125+ Gallio games, his winrate is 80%.

MrBuffingtonMay 31, 20151 votes

Right, that's for people with 125+ games though, it isn't uncommon for mains to have very high win rates on their champions, in fact it's almost abnormal not to. I'm saying that people with 5-15 games on Ekko probably haven't mastered him, especially since he's been out for like three days, I don't think there's even consensus on his build path, runes, etc yet.

Most of the champions I've seen have pretty average win rates for 5-15 games, usually scaling up with experience. I don't think I've seen one scale so aggressively over so few games, or such a high win rate for so few games played. Again, it's still too early to call, but the numbers seem abnormal to me

Hyrum GraffJun 1, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Right, that's for people with 125+ games though, it isn't uncommon for mains to have very high win rates on their champions, in fact it's almost abnormal not to. I'm saying that people with 5-15 games on Ekko probably haven't mastered him, especially since he's been out for like three days, I don't think there's even consensus on his build path, runes, etc yet.

Most of the champions I've seen have pretty average win rates for 5-15 games, usually scaling up with experience. I don't think I've seen one scale so aggressively over so few games, or such a high win rate for so few games played. Again, it's still too early to call, but the numbers seem abnormal to me

Generally agreed, although 80% is pretty absurd. Regardless, I don't really want to derail this thread any more, as it is not intended to be an Ekko balance thread. Rather, one to do with clarity of his ult indicator. A QoL buff for Ekko's opponents, if you will.

MrBuffingtonJun 1, 20152 votes

*derails further*

Galio is op yo :P

Real though, my bad, Ekko balance is just a hot topic right now. I agree with your suggestions though, and Beddlam's, it just seems to make more sense, no weird sudden appearance or dissapearance of the clone.

LordGeovanniJun 1, 20152 votes

its ok to say that you may not have mastered a champion if you havent played 5-15 games but many people act as if this is an absolute law which is wrong

MrBuffingtonJun 1, 20151 votes

It isn't enough games to play all your match ups, I don't see how you can claim to have mastered a champion with so few games. To be able to play competently, sure, I don't think you need a hundred games on any champion to get the gist of how they work. But mastery is something far more elusive, it's not just getting that badge Riot gives you or whatever

LordGeovanniJun 4, 20151 votes

you need to play a new againts all of the champions that you already play against to learn him instead of applying what you learn on a new champion against all the champion mechanics you already know

SkiasMay 31, 20152 votes

He's like Talon, gets a few kills and becomes strong. If anyone has seen an Ekko die a few times, he comes worthless.

Grandpa ChaddieMay 31, 20151 votes

{quoted}

He's like Talon, gets a few kills and becomes strong. If anyone has seen an Ekko die a few times, he comes worthless.

Yup, most games have 2 Ekko and one tends to die while the other thrives and it's a HUGE difference in gold and just being able to overpower, I think the problem is people need to learn to counter him, move out the way n such. I have had no issues playing against him but have been on the positive side of things :D Ekko

SkiasJun 1, 20151 votes

I guess, if all you play is teambuilder, an mode that isnt mainstream.

only zhuleMay 31, 201510 votes

Still say his ult needs to have a cost added to it, something like 100-150 mana to use. You know, just enough that he can't blow his whole load then free bounce back to safety and/or finish off with a large AOE nuke despite being out of mana. But at the same time, not enough that it totally cripples his ability to do combos. I'd also love his ult to have slightly lower ratios, self heal, large damage and 130% ratio seems a bit much even with an "always visible" indicator of where it could be.

Correct me if i'm wrong but i think Ekko is currently the only champion with a mana pool/ and resource pool, who's ult doesn't require use of it in the least.

DecrousMay 31, 20156 votes

Leblanc's ult has no mana cost.

Edit: since you also included resource pool that doesnt require the use of it, then include Zed ult, shen ult (no cost ultimates but use energy for rest of abilities)

CyanBloodMay 31, 20157 votes

Neither does Kayle's.

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20155 votes

[{quoted}](name=only zhule,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7O58ZEZo,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2015-05-31T17:02:37.144+0000)

Still say his ult needs to have a cost added to it, something like 100-150 mana to use. You know, just enough that he can't blow his whole load then free bounce back to safety and/or finish off with a large AOE nuke despite being out of mana.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here for thematic reasons. The ult having no cost, and "fixing mistakes" is, IMO, close to the crux of what we know about the Z-drive at this point. Think about the comic, or the Seconds video. Ekko keeps resetting time so he can have more chances at reaching his friend, or killing that thug. The whole point of the Z-drive is that he can try something out, then hit R if it didn't work and try again.

Heck, thematically it should probably restore mana based on how much mana you've spent. I think it would be interesting to give it a mana cost, but also make it restore mana. So it doesn't cost anything (actually, it restores mana), but you can't cast it if oom. This is just me speculating, though, I haven't given serious thought as to how that would feel for the Ekko player.

But at the same time, not enough that it totally cripples his ability to do combos. I'd also love his ult to have slightly lower ratios, self heal, large damage and 130% ratio seems a bit much even with an "always visible" indicator of where it could be.

My current assessment of Ekko's balance, which is NOT what this post is about, is that he's maybe slightly overtuned, but overall in a pretty good place. He's strong throughout the game in 1v1s through 3v3s, but struggles in 5v5s, and, like other assassins, struggles at trading in lane (Karma absolutely dumpsters him). Since 5v5's become more important as the game goes on, he tends to fall off late game.

Could the ult AP ratio use a little tuning down? Maybe. But maybe it would feel less like BS if he couldn't surprise me with it even when I should know where he's able to ult to.

Most of the time he has both good outplay potential and counterplay, -- if he kills me, I feel like I got outplayed, but that I could have outplayed him -- but if he gets fed, all that counterplay goes out the window. I'm not sure exactly what changes I'd add to make him less snowbally in this way, but it's a problem all assassins have.

ChaoticPineconeMay 31, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Hyrum Graff,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7O58ZEZo,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2015-05-31T18:00:47.412+0000)

I'm going to have to disagree with you here for thematic reasons. The ult having no cost, and "fixing mistakes" is, IMO, close to the crux of what we know about the Z-drive at this point.

there are thematic reasons for completely giving him a new ult. he cant use it multiple times. he didnt get healed when he used it. its used to fix mistakes and gain knowledge, but it doesnt override his past mistakes.

kunkudunkJun 1, 20151 votes

If you look closely using his z-drive in the video did heal him somewhat as his arm was actually broken but he can use it some after he rewinds time. He still feels some pain from it, probably cause his mind thinks he is still injured or he just isn't fully healed.

ChaoticPineconeJun 1, 20151 votes

we never see the arm break. we see him before, using both arms (right hand sword, left hand in front). after that scene, we see him only using his right hand, with his left limply hanging by his side.

kunkudunkJun 2, 20151 votes

Maybe i didn't watch the arm he uses carefully but the arm definitely broke, the giant dude stomped on it.

DroogzyMay 31, 20155 votes

Was actually discussing this with a friend of mine, I honestly would feel a lot better playing against Ekko if you could keep vision of his ghost when you don't see him directly.

Maybe make the ghost it's own separate figure? Meaning if you're in vision range of it, you can see it, but if Ekko's ghost is in vision range of you, he can see you? I think that would make things better, as it stands right now, getting slammed with the nuke on his ult when you have no indication of where his ghost is, is just frustrating.

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20154 votes

{quoted}

Was actually discussing this with a friend of mine, I honestly would feel a lot better playing against Ekko if you could keep vision of his ghost when you don't see him directly.

Maybe make the ghost it's own separate figure? Meaning if you're in vision range of it, you can see it, but if Ekko's ghost is in vision range of you, he can see you? I think that would make things better, as it stands right now, getting slammed with the nuke on his ult when you have no indication of where his ghost is, is just frustrating.

I'm actually totally fine with not being able to see his ult, if you didn't ever have vision of him.

How frustrating would it be to play Ekko, and know your enemies can track you from 4 whole seconds behind. You'd never be able to run, ever. Ambushes would need to be set up more than 4s ahead of time, etc. That just seems excessive to me.

Plus, it doesn't make sense thematically. I think of it like, Ekko is rewinding time to 4s ago. That indicator isn't actually real (think: the Seconds video, there wasn't a spectre sitting in the back that Ekko returns to), it's just for gameplay clarity, so you don't have to manually keep track in your head of where Ekko has been in the past 4 seconds. I have actually been toying with the idea of Ekko's trail only being visible in places where you actually had vision of Ekko. For example, if he walked out of a bush, you'd see Ekko, and then his trail would gradually become visible, rather than all at once. However, I've also got some gameplay clarity concerns about this (Ekko walks into a bush, in fog of war. I go ward that bush. I immediately see Ekko, but don't realize that his trail is about to catch up with me).

Anyway, overall, I think that last paragraph would be the most thematically correct, but for gameplay's sake, I think what I propose in the OP would be the best solution.

SymbolicGhostMay 31, 20153 votes

Its kinda common sense, if you saw where ekko was 4 seconds ago, you should be able to figure out where his ult will hit if you continue to chase.

Malicious FuryJun 1, 20153 votes

I disagree with OP. If he goes into a bush, don't follow him if you know his ult is up. That's like knowing Nunu's ult is up and you chase him into a bush, only to die to his ult that's been channeling inside the bush. You knew you were risking death by walking in there, but you did it anyways instead of choosing to go a different path. Granted, Nunu doesn't have a trail, but the point is you're taking that risk by following him and really you shouldn't chase if you're going to die to an ult.

Besides, like Shyvana, the game counterplays him for you because you_** know when Ekko's ult is up**_. With most champs the only way you know if their ult is up is if you're watching the clock or if they just recently hit 6. There's no excuse to be hit by it if you chase Ekko after you lose vision of him.

bonfire10Jun 1, 20151 votes

That's very counter-intuitive because the ghost is giving you information that you've already seen. It doesn't make sense to cut it off when you lose vision of ekko because you still had vision of him 4 seconds ago. You knew where he was, so you could know where the ghost was, so what's the issue with showing the ghost up to the point where vision was lost? That's just provided clear indicators on information that could be extrapolated anyway. It's like when riot added the range indicator around ChoGath's rupture. The area affected by the spell was ambiguous before the indicator was put around the animation. This would be the same thing, the player would know exactly where ekko's ghost was instead of it being ambiguous information that they should be able to estimate, but shouldn't have to.

You might say "if you had vision of ekko prior to losing vision, you can predict roughly where the ghost would have been 4 seconds ago." Well if that's the stance riot is taking, then why show the ghost to the enemy team at all? Why not make a statement saying the enemy players will need to predict where the ghost is in relation to what they've seen ekko do.

But they didn't do this; they instead made the ghost visible to the enemy team. All I want is consistency. It makes no sense to not show the range indicator of an enemy ability if it's based on information that could be extrapolated anyway.

Malicious FuryJun 1, 20151 votes

Ekko's counterplay to you knowing his ult is up is specifically by going into brush or entering the fog of war. I understand the concept that people don't like this, but I think it's fair. The OP is asking for a counterplay for his ult, but there already is one: You know when Ekko's ult is up and that right there is your counterplay to him. Asking to remove Ekko's counterplay to you by removing the trail when you lose vision of him isn't fair.

bonfire10Jun 1, 20151 votes

OP isn't asking for that counterplay and that isn't counterplay. It's a QoL change.

Asking for an indicator to information that is already available isn't a nerf, especially when the indicator is already available sometimes. That's just asking for consistency. No one's saying that the trail should be visible all the time, but it should be visible up to the point where vision is lost of ekko.

If we see ekko go into a bush, we should see his ghost go into a bush 4 seconds later. That's consistency. The ghost shouldn't just disappear as soon as vision is lost. It has 4 more seconds of indicating the position before vision was lost. And the main point of my argument is because we just had vision of ekko, we already know where the ghost's general location is, so why make it vague by taking away an indicator that specifies information that could already be tracked.

It's like when Riot added timers for jungle camps. Of course you could time the camps yourself, but why not have an indicator so that you don't have to. It was something that added unnecessary complication to an aspect that didn't need to be complicated. The same is happening for ekko's ghost. You could see where ekko moved and extrapolate the ghost's position to be there in 4 seconds, or the indicator could just remain consistent and show you the position up to the point of vision loss.

Malicious FuryJun 1, 20151 votes

I'll quote the OP:

"Ekko's ult does a LOT of damage. The justification is that there is a clear indicator for you to avoid. That is fine, but **right now that counterplay does not exist **if Ekko breaks line of sight, even if I actually saw where he was 4 seconds ago."

He is asking for that counterplay to exist.

ElJanitorFrankMay 31, 20152 votes

I buy it, but paying attention will serve you the same purpose. You already saw him do it, if your memory extends past 4 seconds you should be good.

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I buy it, but paying attention will serve you the same purpose. You already saw him do it, if your memory extends past 4 seconds you should be good.

In a teamfight it can be much more difficult to keep track of.

Plus, it's one of those things like buff timers: yeah, you totally can keep track of it, but you shouldn't have to. Leage should be about the decisions you make with the information you have, not about bookkeeping.

ElJanitorFrankMay 31, 20152 votes

Wait, what? You're saying that a high damage AOE nuke is something you shouldn't be bothered to keep track of? You just want Riot to immediately flash you out of range when it's activated or something? I don't understand your reasoning. Buff timers makes sense, it's just a simple change that takes stress off of arguable the most stressful role in the game.

Are you saying you shouldn't be bothered with keeping track of what the opponent is actually doing? Do you play a lot of split push champions or something so you don't teamfight a lot?

I don't understand.

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Wait, what? You're saying that a high damage AOE nuke is something you shouldn't be bothered to keep track of? You just want Riot to immediately flash you out of range when it's activated or something? I don't understand your reasoning. Buff timers makes sense, it's just a simple change that takes stress off of arguable the most stressful role in the game.

Are you saying you shouldn't be bothered with keeping track of what the opponent is actually doing? Do you play a lot of split push champions or something so you don't teamfight a lot?

I don't understand.

I feel like most of your comment here is saying we don't need an indicator at all. By making an indicator in the first place, Riot has already said that we DO need an indicator. Because it's a near-instant, high damage, aoe nuke. Because it's really difficult to keep track of exactly where Ekko was, exactly 4 seconds ago -- 4 seconds is a long time in a teamfight -- particularly when Ekko is dashing and blinking around. If there was no indicator, they'd have to nerf the crap out of the ability.

MY post is about how the indicator doesn't do its job, because it disappears when you lose vision of Ekko. I'm saying, the indicator should work like it does on live, but if you already have vision of the indicator, you shouldn't lose vision of that part if you lose vision of the champ.

ElJanitorFrankMay 31, 20151 votes

My point was that we have a good enough indicator. It's not that hard to keep track of it, and if you can't that's your own personal problem and something you need to work on, not Riot.

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20152 votes

{quoted}

My point was that we have a good enough indicator. It's not that hard to keep track of it, and if you can't that's your own personal problem and something you need to work on, not Riot.

And I'm saying I disagree, one two counts:

"Good Enough" is all about marginal cost vs marginal utility. If it is easy to make an improvement and that improvement will make a big difference, it is worth doing, no matter how good that thing is already.
Even if I did believe in "good enough" as a threshold of "once it reaches a certain point there's no point in improving it," I think Ekko's ult indicator is a problem often enough that it would not fit into the "good enough" category.

YOU BEEN WARNEDJun 1, 20152 votes

You saw where he was 4 sec ago if you were chasing him, what you are suggesting is overkill counterplay.

The low counterplay aspects in league are Mobility, Burst and CC. All of which Ekko has, some of them delayed and gated (W,Q) some of them are not (E,Passive).

KivolanJun 1, 20152 votes

The problem with Ekko is that everything in his kit is loaded. Every single skill has multiple effects.

His ult should not do the amount of damage it does while also restoring a ridiculous amount of HP AND blink / recall him to a location.

His field should not slow / stun, do damage AND grant him a shield.

El Dios De FuegoJun 4, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Hyrum Graff,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7O58ZEZo,comment-id=,timestamp=2015-05-31T14:41:25.448+0000)

You're chasing a low hp Ekko with ult up. He runs into a bush. His ult indicator/ghost disappears. "Where can I position, to avoid it?" you wonder.

Ekko's ult does a LOT of damage. The justification is that there is a clear indicator for you to avoid. That is fine, but right now that counterplay does not exist if Ekko breaks line of sight, even if I actually saw where he was 4 seconds ago.

Ekko's ghost does not disappear when he does.

If you can see Ekko, his entire ult trail is revealed (like live)

If Ekko walks into the fog of war, whatever trail is currently visible stays visible.

If you follow Ekko, you can only see the trail that was already visible (unless you catch sight of Ekko).

#tl;dr

If I know where Ekko's indicator should be (because I had vision of him 4 seconds ago), I should be able to see the indicator, instead of having to guess.

edit because enough people have been confused:

I am NOT proposing that we make Ekko's indicator visible independently of Ekko.

I AM proposing that we make Ekko's indicator like live, but if I have vision of Ekko and his indicator, and Ekko breaks line of sight, the indicator does not disappear.

Please watch this video. Redmercy shows in this video how the Ekko ultimate works in regards to visibility.

https://youtu.be/lTNZn9z8oZg

TL:DR Whereever you have seen Ekko you will see his shadow there. If you lose sight of him somewhere, you will not see his shadow there even if you walk into the area to gain sight. This is intentional. Ekko shouldnt have a tail chasing him around if you didnt even know he was there. Then you could always just randomly find Ekko because you saw his shadow somewhere even though you never saw him.

In your situation you say you see him go into a bush. Well you will see his shadow go into the bush too. As soon as you gain vision again on him you will start seeing his shadow again. This situation is no different than any other champ running into a bush. It is why we run into bushes, it is a chance to outplay.

Hyrum GraffJun 9, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=El Dios De Fuego,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7O58ZEZo,comment-id=001d,timestamp=2015-06-04T14:32:38.914+0000)

Please watch this video. Redmercy shows in this video how the Ekko ultimate works in regards to visibility.

https://youtu.be/lTNZn9z8oZg

TL:DR Whereever you have seen Ekko you will see his shadow there. If you lose sight of him somewhere, you will not see his shadow there even if you walk into the area to gain sight. This is intentional. Ekko shouldnt have a tail chasing him around if you didnt even know he was there. Then you could always just randomly find Ekko because you saw his shadow somewhere even though you never saw him.

In your situation you say you see him go into a bush. Well you will see his shadow go into the bush too. As soon as you gain vision again on him you will start seeing his shadow again. This situation is no different than any other champ running into a bush. It is why we run into bushes, it is a chance to outplay.

What the video shows, and what you describe, is what I'd like. In my games with Ekko, though, when I see Ekko go into a bush, his shadow IMMEDIATELY DISAPPEARS.

Qwomp1May 31, 20151 votes

item 2044 {{summoner:2}} item 3340

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20159 votes

{quoted}

As much as I wish the entire map were warded, always (support main), the simple fact is that fog of war exists, and as long as it exists, Ekko WILL run into it and his indicator WILL disappear. Lack of clarity isn't a problem just because it happens less when the map is well warded.

{{summoner:2}}

Let's be honest, this is only viable on TT Hexakill.

SkiasMay 31, 20151 votes

That would also be the same idea that Nunu ult should be visible in bushes.

Hyrum GraffMay 31, 20152 votes

{quoted}

That would also be the same idea that Nunu ult should be visible in bushes.

Not exactly. I'm not saying Ekko's indicator should always be visible. I'm saying, keep it as-is, but make it not disappear if you lose vision of Ekko.

It's like saying, if I had a ward in the bush, and it expired in the middle of Nunu's channel, I should still be able to see it for the channel duration. I still don't think that's the best comparison because Nunu's ult radius doesn't move while he's channeling while Ekko's does, but it's much closer.

hgjkdlsaf jeldvbMay 31, 20151 votes

http://champion.gg/champion/Ekko/Middle

He needs more than a small nerf. One people get his mechanics down, they're winning 60% of games, on average.

SoMNiaJun 1, 20151 votes

And yet, after ~15 games, that winrate is dropping right back down to 45%, most likely because he's a new champion, and after people learn to play as him, other people are learning to play against him. Let's not be dishonest, here. That 60% is a flash in the pan. His average winrate right now is under 45%.

hgjkdlsaf jeldvbJun 1, 20151 votes

there's no data for it. Can you read?

SoMNiaJun 1, 20152 votes

That's interesting, because the link you provided shows data they don't even have. "Win rate % by games played" clearly shows a sharp drop after 5-15 games. It's not until you get to "playerbase experience distribution" that it becomes clear that data is based on no games at all. Why am I to trust ANY of their data, given this discrepancy?

If you're going to choose a site that blatantly contradicts you to represent your position, don't get pissy when someone takes issue with it. Your attitude stinks. Frankly, if there's no data beyond the 5-15 games mark, there is not remotely enough data to make any sort of judgement. That is not statistically significant.