Boards›Gameplay

Lets talk about "skill" and balance for a minute.

PhearBunny·1/31/2020, 6:57:37 PM·1 votes·1,117 views

First lets start with a question.

Should champions who have more mechanics, be rewarded with champion superiority when exercised correctly? or Should champions who have more mechanics be equal, or perhaps weaker(numbers wise) than less mechanical champions?

For me, I think Mechanical or "skill based" champions when played properly should be equal in power to their less mechanical peers, and here's why...

Mechanical champions don't require more "skill" than non-mechanical champions do. They require a DIFFERENT kind of skill. Mechanical champions require more micro-intensive skill, however non-mechanical champions require more game knowledge, macroskill, and understanding, as they do not have the mechanics to escape from mistakes or bad positioning, whereas their mechanically superior counterparts do.(Get out of jail free cards.).

I firmly believe Azir and Annie should be exactly equal in power even though Azir requires significantly more microskill than Annie does. On the flip side, Annie requires a whole lot more intelligence to be successful even though her kit is literally braindead. When you are surrounded by mechanical champions that can quite literally run and jump circles around you, whilst dealing equal or often times more damage than you do as a non-mechanical champion...it DOES require skill to succeed. Just as much as it takes for that Azir player to play Azir efficiently. Its just a different type of skill.

11 Comments

2gudaiya1/31/2020, 7:13:18 PM1 votes

if they are only equal when executed correctly, when having more to have to execute correctly, then what would be the point in any skilled player picking the champions with more mechanics?

Kai Guy1/31/2020, 8:10:25 PM1 votes

[zombie-brand-mindblown]**[zombie-brand-facepalm]

IP Masquerena1/31/2020, 9:31:14 PM1 votes

You again? Oh well, gotta get ready, so bottoms up.

Look, your misconceptions come from the fact that you seem to believe mechanically complex champs don't require macro play or gameknowledge or understanding, while in reality it's the opposite. They require just as much macro play, just as much if not more understanding of the game because they need to know how everything works to be able to play around it, positioning is the same as they are just as squishy as the the immobile ones, so if they get caught out they die in the same way, but on top of all thar knowledge that both need in equal measure, there's also the heaps of mechanical skill that Azir needs and Annie doesn't.

Hence why he should be able to do more as he requires not only the same knowledge and macro skill Annie needs, but she doesn't require the mechanical skill he needs.

Simple enough?

freeformline1/31/2020, 10:14:58 PM1 votes

I generally think that champions who require a lot of mechanical skill to play effectively should be rewarded with higher-than-average potential power, but only if their difficult mechanics come with significant risks or weaknesses built-in.

Draven is a good example of this. His mechanical difficulty is mostly tied to keeping his axes spinning. It takes practice and a moderate amount of focus just to keep his axes spinning while CSing on your own. Throw in an enemy or two who know that aiming skill shots where Draven's axes will land will either let them land free hits or force him to drop an axe and lose a lot of power, and suddenly it becomes pretty difficult to keep your axes up. If you drop your axes, and most people will drop them most of the time, you'll lose access to about half of your kit. This means that Draven's spinning axe mechanic, the basis of his mechanical difficulty, is a weakness rather than a strength.

An example of a champion who has a reputation for mechanical difficulty who should not have a higher-than-average maximum potential is Lee Sin, because his difficulty comes not from mitigating weaknesses, but from choosing between strengths. For instance, Lee Sin's Safeguard/Iron Will has a lot of options built-in, so using it optimally requires a fair amount of quick decision-making. His options might include: Shielding an ally from an incoming skill shot, dashing to a back-line ally so he can peel for them, ward-hopping into the enemy team to engage, dashing anywhere to gain a shield or dodge a skill shot, or ward-hopping over a wall to leave his worthless teammates to die while he puts up a surrender vote. Every option is attractive, so it can be difficult to choose the best one in the heat of a battle. This difficulty, however, does not add any weaknesses to his kit, it just makes him harder to play optimally.

My opinion is that if Draven's mechanical difficulty comes from balancing a strength with a weakness while Lee Sin's comes from balancing strengths against other strengths, Draven's maximum potential power should be higher than Lee Sin's, to make Draven be worth picking despite the risks built into his kit. Similarly, Draven's maximum potential power should be higher than that of mechanically simpler champions who lack the weaknesses he is required to manage in order to be effective. Lee Sin, lacking Draven's built-in weaknesses, should probably be about as powerful on average as any other champion whose power isn't contingent on mitigating built-in weaknesses. Of course, Lee Sin's versatility should be accounted for in his power level, so his actual ability values should probably be lower than those on champions who have fewer options built into their kits, like Mundo.