Instead of nerfing Zed, maybe we should buff mages?

AquariusGine·Mar 21, 2016·6 votes·469 views

Why? Because ADC's are OP as hell and mages feel like crap to play.

Mages that aren't

22 Comments

warpenguin555Mar 21, 20163 votes

why cant we do both?

Very Hard EngageMar 21, 20162 votes

mages arent weak, they still do the same things they've always done except other new additions have caused certain positions to become gross with damage making it a "why pick a mage at all" we no longer need a mages utility of poke or waveclear when we can score a pick outright with this bursty build and champion choice.

and while we have more picks were snowballing so we can be lax on champion choices and team strats and just lead with whatever we want and build tons of damages and then cap it off with a tank build to prevent death.

like i pick galio because

A) he has the tankyness to take the burst, nulifying what the enemy team was trying to go for ( a pick and now 5v4 )

B) his ult can create a come from behind victory

C) he prevents a snowball lead in the mid lane from occurring on either side.

JayHog1992Mar 21, 20161 votes

That's why Riot is gonna give us the mage update eventualy. Most mages that are immobile will be somewhat buffed.

Wolfram OxfordMar 21, 20161 votes

Mages are weak since when...

SlythionMar 21, 20162 votes

They've been weak for awhile now...

Wolfram OxfordMar 21, 20161 votes

Please look through the list of mages and honestly tell me they are weak. All of them are loaded with both utility and damage.

SlythionMar 21, 20162 votes

The majority of mages have a <50% winrate and a terrible pick rate. The only exceptions are Lux and Morgana and Ahri really...where does your evidence come from?

Mine comes from champion.gg (with 1000's of games of data with plat+ ranks)

Edit: I should also point out that by filtering the data to list the champs with the lowest win rate (for mid lane) that 23/29 champions with a win rate <50% are mages

Wolfram OxfordMar 21, 20161 votes

But the thing is plat+ is a small percentage of players. Since there is a small amount it is a lot easier for win rates to fluctuate. You also have to consider players around this elo are doing what they think are meta. This means seeing a buff to a class and jumping on the band wagon. Mages will and forever be meta, because they bring both damage and utility whereas ADCs bring damage exclusively. Another reason why they will be meta is having two types of damage being built on a team. In a meta team comp you will run two carries, like I said one will have damage and utility and the other will have mainly damage. So if the class supplying damage only is buffed with more survivability, does that really mean the other class is weak? Not at all, especially when considering mages are a lot safer because their damage isn't stuck on a 450-650 range, and often comes in quick succession whereas ADCs need to be glued to a target to deal damage.

SlythionMar 21, 20162 votes

I would think that 1000's of games of data of players who know what they are doing would be an accurate representation of a champion classes viability. If these high elo players are opting out of this apparently "carry" and "meta" group for other classes because they can't win with them, shouldn't that suggest there is a problem with mages itself?

These guys aren't winning, mages are actively losing in the majority of games they are played in. If you wanted to incorporate bronze/silver/gold ranks into the data, the data would be inaccurate due to the lack of knowledge in the lower elos.

How can you dismiss this data under the terms that plat+ doesn't represent low elo players? The game doesn't cater to the learning players, it adjusts for those who play the game efficiently.

SlythionMar 21, 20161 votes

Here I am with all these stats and the only things people who disagree with me have are personal experiences and ap assassins to disprove me...

Wolfram OxfordMar 22, 20161 votes

Okay, I guess a s5 bronze player would know better...

SlythionMar 23, 20161 votes

If you had actually looked, you'd see Ive only played like 20 ranked games. Good jab at someone who made the mistake of playing ranked right when they hit 30 instead of providing real logic though ;)

Wolfram OxfordMar 23, 20161 votes

Timing has no factor, it still means you are a bronze tier player who doesn't know much about the game.

SlythionMar 23, 20161 votes

you can't say "timing has no factor" when talking about the past (over a year ago actually) as an accurate representation of my knowledge today. Time has everything to do with it actually, so stop trying to turn this argument into an insult fest and use knowledge and facts for your reasoning.

People who pull the "I'm better than you" card without anything to back it up is an excuse for someone who is wrong.

Wolfram OxfordMar 23, 20161 votes

I am not wrong, but I am still pointing out that you have a limited knowledge of the game compared to the majority of player who play this game. Like others you were ranked last season, being that you achieved the lowest tier it is safe to say this. Another thing I would like to point out is, season 5 hasn't been passed for a year, so your bronze ranking is fairly recent and indicative of your skill level. And like you said "If you wanted to incorporate bronze/silver/gold ranks into the data, the data would be inaccurate due to the lack of knowledge in the lower elos." So according to this your opinion is inaccurate because you have no knowledge of this game, being that you were the lowest rank.

SlythionMar 23, 20161 votes

I got that rank in the early S5 season so ya, it has been a year. While I'm not necessarily plat worthy, that doesn't mean that I can't be right and that all of my opinions should be discarded.

Honestly, if your basis that you're right and I'm wrong is because of our ranks (and I don't even play ranked) then you have a very close-minded view on things. Ranked players aren't better than normal players.

And besides, if you do use the excuse that my opinion is wrong because I didn't bother to play more than 15 games of ranked last year (cuz 15 games is soooo accurate right?) and that bronze/silver/gold tier shouldn't have a say in this, then you only support my argument that I'm right because all the plat+ stats show mages are struggling.

You can't argue both sides man, either you can say my opinion is wrong because of my obviously accurate rank (which means you agree that that plat+ stats are accurate) or you can stop using cheap shots and start using reasoning to explain how the plat+ statistics are inaccurate somehow. Which is it?

Dominick DestineMar 21, 20161 votes

{quoted}

The majority of mages have a <50% winrate and a terrible pick rate. The only exceptions are and

Ahri Fizz Leblanc Ekko

Zero Skill TankMar 21, 20161 votes

Fizz not a mage, assassin Leblanc not a mage, assassin Ekko not a mage, assassin

Ahri he mentioned her

SlythionMar 21, 20161 votes

Leblanc : 46.22% winrate (one of the worst for mid laners) Ekko : 46.06% winrate (also extremely low) Fizz : 50.36% winrate (barely making it, but his kit is difficult to nerf to the point of a terrible winrate) Ahri : 52.87% winrate (she was the exception that I forgot about, so the only decent flaw you pointed out)

To add to this, notice how non of those were immobile mages? Take a look at Velkoz/Xerath/Victor/Karthus/Ziggs/Cassiopeia/Orianna winrates (all below 50% by a significant amount)

Most of the "mages" with a decent winrate are mobile as hell (and even those are limited) or assassins (not true mages)

Dominick DestineMar 21, 20161 votes

{quoted}

: 46.22% winrate (one of the worst for mid laners) : 46.06% winrate (also extremely low) : 50.36% winrate (barely making it, but his kit is difficult to nerf to the point of a terrible winrate) : 52.87% winrate (she was the exception that I forgot about, so the only decent flaw you pointed out)

Let's use your garbage logic; LeeSin 45% win rate, therefore needs hardcore buffs. Thresh 47% win rate, therefore needs strong buffs. THE LOGIC OF BRONZE R UNBEATER.

SlythionMar 21, 20161 votes

The difference is that my data covers an entire class of champions (mages) while you picked 2 extremely, mechanically difficult champions that will always have a low win rate due to their high learning curve

You can't pick and choose your evidence man, the only thing they have in common are high learning curves which means they will always have a lower win rate.

Rain NTMar 23, 20161 votes

Imo ori xerath ryze lux snydra morg lulu anivia will always be strong picks, they arent in favor right now, but good players who plays those champions are to be FEARED. I actually fear them more then good assassin players.