Boards›Gameplay

Fixing Critical Strike: A Proposal.

ModThe Djinn··85 votes·4,478 views

Hey there, Gameplay! Today I'd like to share a suggestion I have for tackling the eternal balance conundrum in League: critical strike. Love it or hate it, it's a known thing that Riot has looked into a few times, so I'd like to start with the assumption that it does merit investigation and/or a redesign. If you disagree that's great, but since Riot has stated it's on their radar I'd like to focus the discussion on the merits of this solution rather than the merits of addressing critical strike in general.

The goal of this exercise is simple -- reduce the impact of critical strike randomness of League without removing it entirely (as seeing big numbers and animation changes is exciting), and while remaining as impact-neutral as possible on game balance and laning dynamics.

Edit: For those interested in a deeper dive, I've put up a more detailed thread with several other models I debated and ultimately iceboxed (or marked for future exploration) here.

A brief TL:DR -- This suggestion flattens the predicted outcome of critical strikes at all stages of the game, while retaining some random elements (as many players enjoy seeing those critical strike animations). It keeps damage values over multiple attacks more consistently predictable across the game, while also keeping the same total DPS as on live, which reduces the amount of ripple-effect balancing that would be necessary to support the change. Unlike static DPS boosts or "energized" crits (i.e. crit chance stacks up predictably like Static Shiv), this also doesn't necessarily empower poke champions significantly more than they already are. In short, it's designed to resolve somd of the complaints with current crit while being as low-scope as possible.

#The Mechanic: OVERCRIT The first stage in implementing this suggestion is to reduce critical hit's damage from 100% bonus damage to 50% bonus damage while also doubling the critical hit percentage granted by all items. Zeal, for example, becomes a 40% chance of 50% bonus damage rather than a 20% chance of 100% bonus damage.

The net damage output over a fight is the same, but the reduction of the value of a single critical hit makes fight calculations easier and makes building critical strike less dependent on random variance. As on live, this number adjusts dynamically the longer you go without scoring a critical hit.

The second step is the implementation of Overcrit. In this model critical change can stack up to 200%, and any percentage over 100% is a chance to deal an additional 50% bonus damage. At 120% critical hit chance, for example, you have a static 50% damage buff from your critical hit chance, and a 20% chance for an additional 50% damage.

The net DPS at all levels remains the same:

--40% crit at 100% bonus damage and 100 AD: Average of 40 bonus damage per attack (40% of 100). --80% crit at 50% bonus damage and 100 AD: Average of 40 bonus damage per attack (80% of 50).

--80% crit at 100% bonus damage and 100 AD: Average of 80 bonus damage per attack (80% of 100). --60% overcrit (160% total crit) at a 100% chance of 50% bonus damage and a 60% chance of an additional 50% damage: Average of 80 bonus damage per attack (50 assured damage, and 60% of 50).

There would be a slight adjustment in how trades work (more consistent damage, less big spikes), which might slightly disfavor engage-heavy teams that might rely on seeing that crit proc to dive in, but I think that's a side effect that goes along with any reduction in the bursty way that crit currently deals damage.

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

148 Comments

ModKnightsKemplar29 votes

I think this is really good just to flatten out the current crit system! Impressive maths, definitely a good idea, at least for the short term. For the long term, this doesn't address my fundamental issue with crit, though.

The problem with crit (just my humble opinion) is that it is designed to help deal with the massive health bars of the enemy frontline, but the side effect is that it gives them burst against other squishies. Crit needs to be something that allows ADCs to be target agnostic without allowing them to blow up an enemy mage in 2-3 attacks.

TakaDama1 votes

I'm not entirely familiar with crit in other games, but in Pokemon (in some generation), crit cut through some amount of their version of resistances.

So with the OP's proposed system, maybe have crits ignore resistances partially in exchange for slightly less crit damage? Doesn't help with HP heavy champions, but then again Mortal Reminder should have been Giant Slayer+Executioner's Calling imo.

ModKnightsKemplar2 votes

Pokémon, if I understand correctly, is actually pretty decently balanced from a competitive standpoint. I would expect that taking a look at their systems would be a good idea.

I have stayed pretty vague on my proposals related to that intentionally. I think testing is really crucial, and there are any number of ways you could do it. I have proposed, in the past, that crit would do some % extra damage and also grant some % pen. I think there are probably ways to do that right, but I'm not a game designer :P

Zero Skill Tank2 votes

Define "balanced". The game is perfectly fair to both players (because they have access to the same poke and item pool), but the same is the truth for league (because, as the game starts, both teams can pick from the same pool of champs).

Meanwhile, there are pokemon that are straight garbage, others that are not garbage, but still strictly worse than another poke with the same moveset (so never used anyway). Even if we don't look at legendaries (which are stronger than other for plot purposes), fans ended up dividing pokes into "tiers" or "formats", because if not that, say Arbok would never ever be seen.

Let's not even mention the RNG and game-breaking glitches in older gens.

It's similar to League competitive (there are champions who NEVER appear on the highest level, though most of them do appear in lower-level competitive play sometimes), it's only SO MUCH worse. And it took them many years to even bring it to current level, gen-1 was a total balance shit-show.

Pokemon is the last thing to look at for balance inspiration.

ExpStealer1 votes

I'll tell you about Paragon - there are just a few cards and gems which give you % chance to do bonus damage, but the higher the damage the lower the percentage. There's also one card (typically used by bruisers I think) which gives you 100% bonus damage to your basic attack every 5 seconds, but it slows your Attack Speed by quite a bit, so your DPS stays relatively the same.

Other than that carries do not rely on critical strikes at all. They have solid DPS against both Squishies and Tanks, but the problem is in League ADCs can't move and shoot at the same time, if you know what I mean.

KlydeFrog2 votes

or just make all adcs like jhiin, graves ashe. where you always crit and its just a damage modifier

ModThe Djinn9 votes

{quoted}The problem with crit (just my humble opinion) is that it is designed to help deal with the massive health bars of the enemy frontline, but the side effect is that it gives them burst against other squishies. Crit needs to be something that allows ADCs to be target agnostic without allowing them to blow up an enemy mage in 2-3 attacks.

I'm not entirely convinced -- I think Crit was intended to do a bit of both, and I suspect the mage-exploding is intentional. I do agree the tank-busting vs. squishy-busting dynamic can be made more interesting, but I'm not sure crit itemization is the place to do it. More counter-crit itemization might achieve the same effect in a fashion less detrimental to current gameplay.

ModKnightsKemplar4 votes

Oh, definitely, it's entirely possible that I'm the only one with this hangup. The RNG isn't the best mechanic, but it actually isn't that bothersome to me at the end of the day. The effect that the scaling has on the meta is the much bigger issue to me.

I think this idea is perfect if you're just trying to solve the rng.

WiegrafOfValor4 votes

Just rework critical strike to something more like item 3122 Passive..

#Critical strikes now deal 125% flat damage + 30% damage over 5 seconds, instead of 200% flat damage.

item 3094 [TOTAL COST]: 2600g to 2800g [NEW EFFECT]: +25% critical damage [REMOVED]: 5% MS

item 3046 [TOTAL COST]: 2600g to 3100g [REWORKED]: 5% MS to 15% MS

item 3087 [TOTAL COST]: 2600g to 2900g [NEW EFFECT]: +25% critical damage [REMOVED]: 5% MS

item 3031 [TOTAL COST]: 3400g to 3000g [BUILD PATH]: BF SWORD + PICKAXE + CLOAK + 425g // NEW: BF SWORD + CLOAK + 900g [NEW EFFECT]: +20% damage over 5 seconds. [REWORKED]: 70 AD to 40 AD

Tristana + item 3087 + item 3094 + item 3031 = Critical strikes deals 225% damage instantly + 50% damage over 5 seconds.

#That way you can't burst anyone until lategame where you can stack all the critical damage from crit items, and the delayed damage fits more the constant DPS characteristic of ADCs.

Z3Sleeper14 votes

I like how you weaseled in gold value nerfs to every item mentioned while also massively reducing each item's individual effective gold value as well.

The concept itself just doesn't feel like something anyone would want.

And it'd be weird getting used to being auto'd 5 times and retreating with 20% of your health only to die to the 5-stacked bleed for 250% of their AD over the next 5 seconds.

Ofcourse if you were implying that the bleed can't stack, the gold value on those proposed changes goes down dramatically further.

WiegrafOfValor3 votes

Those items need nerfs and +25% crit damage adds gold value to the items. The passive bleed obviously doesn't stack just reset the tick as any over time damage does like brand passive for example.

Those items are way to cheap and the gold difference isn't even something noticeable.

NOW: item 3094 + item 3087 + item 3031 = 8600g

*80% CHANCE OF HITTING YOU FOR 250% DAMAGE + 70 AD + 10% MS

REWORKED: item 3094 + item 3087 + item 3031 = 8700g

*80% CHANCE OF HITTING YOU FOR 225% DAMAGE INSTANTLY AND 50% OVER 5 SECONDS + 40 AD + 0% MS

#YOU'RE BITCHING FOR +100G GOLD INCREASE, ADC MAINS REALLY LIKE TO CRY.

Z3Sleeper6 votes

I actually never touch ADC. EVER. I have ~10 games played as ADC in my entire ranked career of all 8 seasons. And as a top lane main naturally I hate Marksmen.

However, this is a massive nerf. You seem to be looking past the actual values you're talking about here. I'll lay it out for you with math.

Note that I integrated the crit damage values into the crit chance values.

Current item 3094 2600g

30% attack speed = Gold 750 30% critical strike chance = Gold 1200 5% movement speed = Gold 197.5 Total Gold Value = Gold 2147.5/2600 (-452.5g efficiency)

Proposed item 3094 2800g

30% attack speed = Gold 750 30% critical strike chance = Gold 1200 -> Gold 1170 5% movement speed = Gold 197.5 Total Gold Value = Gold 1920/2800 (-880g efficiency)

Overall -427.5g efficiency

Current item 3087 2600g

35% attack speed = Gold 875 30% critical strike chance = Gold 1200 5% movement speed = Gold 197.5 Total Gold Value = Gold 2272.5/2600 (-527.5g efficiency)

Proposed item 3087 2900g

35% attack speed = Gold 875 30% critical strike chance = Gold 1200 -> Gold 1170 (this item alone) 5% movement speed = Gold 197.5 Total Gold Value = Gold 2045/2900 (-855g efficiency)

Overall -327.5g efficiency

Current item 3046 2600g

45% attack speed = Gold 1125 30% critical strike chance = Gold 1200 5% movement speed = Gold 197.5 Total Gold Value = Gold 2522.5/2600g (-77.5g efficiency)

Proposed item 3046 3100g

45% attack speed = Gold 1125 30% critical strike chance = Gold 1200 -> Gold 975 (this item alone) 5% -> 15% movement speed = Gold 197.5 -> Gold 592.5 Total Gold Value = Gold 2692.5/3100 (-407.5g efficiency)

Overall -330g efficiency

Current item 3031 3400g

70 attack damage = Gold 2450 20% critical strike chance (+passive) = Gold 1200 Total Gold Value = Gold 3650/3400 (+250g efficiency)

Proposed item 3031 3000g

70 -> 40 attack damage = Gold 2450 -> Gold 1400 20% critical strike chance (+passive) = Gold 1200 -> Gold 1125 (this item alone) Total Gold Value = Gold 2525/3000 (-475g efficiency)

Overall -725g efficiency (holy hell)

Also if you were implying that the bleed doesn't scale with the crit damage but rather the user's attack damage, then the gold value plummets further (I integrated crit damage x 30% bleed into the crit chance gold values).

This was also alot of work I will never do again lol.

WiegrafOfValor1 votes

I like how you leave out the gold value of +25% critical damage to fit your agenda.

Z3Sleeper6 votes

I like how you didn't read that I actually included the gold value of +25% crit damage to fit your agenda.

Since you seem to skip over large text walls I'll copy paste here:

{quoted}

Note that I integrated the crit damage values into the crit chance values.

If I didn't do that then the crit values would be ALOT lower.

Example: item 3094 crit gold value would've been 725 rather than 1170.

WiegrafOfValor1 votes

Mind to tell everyone how do you got the value of the % bonus critical damage?

Z3Sleeper6 votes

If we know that Critical Strike Chance gold value = 40g

Then we can assume that Critical Strike Chance with 200% Critical Strike Damage = 40g

This means that we can assume that Critical Strike Chance with reduced Critical Strike Damage would mean reduced gold value.

Thus we can assume that at 125% Critical Strike Damage the value is lowered by 37.5% or 15g.

WiegrafOfValor1 votes

Your logic makes no sense, how come % increase of you DPS is worth 0.12 gold?

Can't argue with that bias. Have a good night kid.

Z3Sleeper6 votes

...what? Where'd you come up with 0.12 gold?

{quoted}

Can't argue with that bias. Have a good night kid.

Uh... It's not bias or logical error, it's just mathematical fact.

I mean, the math is all there for you. I'm not like, lying to you or anything. You can use a calculator to fact check this. Or you can continue to believe that math is biased lol. Your choice.

Personally I'm done teaching math class too so I wouldn't mind stopping here.

Also it's 3:45 PM and I'm 23.

WiegrafOfValor1 votes

...what? Where'd you come up with 0.12 gold?

Thus we can assume that at 125% Critical Strike Damage the value is lowered by 37.5% or 15g.

15g/125 = 0.12g per 1% (0.12 x 125 = 15g)

It's bias that you made up the value of % critical damage and is conveniently lower so it match your opnion. If you assume that % critical damage has the same value of % MS for a second.

5% MS = 197.5 197.5/5 = 39.5g per 1%

25 x 39.5 = 987.5 gold

This is if you think % damage increase can be compare to % MS which if you offer to anyone they will prefer % damage rather than some more units faster.

Z3Sleeper5 votes

You misunderstood or misread.

I was saying the gold value of 75% reduced crit chance is reduced by 15g, making it 25g.

This means that the value of 1% critical strike with 125% critical strike damage = 25g.

Essentially critical strike damage shares the gold value of critical strike damage, since one's value comes from the other, which is why I paired them.

In the example I gave (Rapid Firecannon), I calculated it as:

30% critical strike chance = 40g * 30 = 1200g 125% + 25% critical strike damage (-50%, or 75% of 200%) = 1200g x 75% = 900g

However I also calculated in the damage over time like this:

1200g x (((150% x 30%) + 150%) / 200%) = 1170g

1200g x (((1.5 x .3) + 1.5) / 2) 1200g x ((0.45 + 1.5) / 2) 1200g x (1.95 / 2) 1200g x 0.975 = 1170g

Anyway, Critical Damage can't be given a gold value, since it is inherently tied to Critical Strike Chance and the only item it is present in is Infinity Edge (which is beyond gold efficient, meaning the usual tactic of subtracting the value of component stats and assigning the remainder to the excess stat doesn't work here).

Coupling the crit damage value with the crit chance value makes sense since crit chance's value is directly tied to crit damage.

So essentially every point of crit damage falls into this formula:

(Critical Strike Chance x 40 gold) x (200 - Critical Strike Damage) = X gold

Primaquarius2 votes

You've considered Yasuo in this concept right? Overcrit will make the haters shit themselves over his even larger potential damage output

ModThe Djinn9 votes

{quoted}

You've considered Yasuo in this concept right? Overcrit will make the haters shit themselves over his even larger potential damage output

It's possible he would need additional work due to the consistency, but his total damage output should actually remain the same even under this model, as I don't believe it changes his total numbers. Remember, no character actually gains net damage from this, and that includes Yasuo.

That said, I consider Yasuo and Tryndamere to be characters that would probably need some minor adjustment in any Critical Strike adjustment model.

Karn Bishop2 votes

Seems easier to just remove crit / increase zeal item costs / lower crit amp by 50% / make crits grant no healing from healing based items abilities or skills.

FCJAAAAGOOOO1 votes

Doesn't look like a nerf.

Marksmen need nerfs. Some like Graves will always have burst - that isn't the issue here.

ModThe Djinn3 votes

{quoted}

Doesn't look like a nerf.

Marksmen need nerfs. Some like Graves will always have burst - that isn't the issue here.

Not intended to be a nerf. Just intended to flatten the RNG spikes of current critical strike. A nerf proposal would have been called out as such.

only zhule1 votes

I feel i need to chime in and say that i hate this idea. The big issue that i think a lot of people have with ADC's is that they simply do to much damage as well as it being such a small investment to get there. The fact that i need only 5200 gold in two items (item 3087 + item 3094 ) which nets me 65% attack speed, 60% crit chance and 10% movement speed, Plus the empowered attack bonus from both of them. You have bought no items that give you bonus AD but your DPS has gone through the roof. Imagine this kind of idea on any champion that is AP based. I build zero AP but i can build fairly cheap items that give me bonus CDR (with a hard cap around 80%) and let all my spells do 250-350% damage.

ModThe Djinn1 votes

[{quoted}](name=only zhule,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Ea9yXFnb,comment-id=001a,timestamp=2018-02-18T05:19:38.759+0000)

I feel i need to chime in and say that i hate this idea. The big issue that i think a lot of people have with ADC's is that they simply do to much damage as well as it being such a small investment to get there. The fact that i need only 5200 gold in two items (item 3087 + item 3094 ) which nets me 65% attack speed, 60% crit chance and 10% movement speed, Plus the empowered attack bonus from both of them. You have bought no items that give you bonus AD but your DPS has gone through the roof. Imagine this kind of idea on any champion that is AP based. I build zero AP but i can build fairly cheap items that give me bonus CDR (with a hard cap around 80%) and let all my spells do 250-350% damage.

That seems more a complaint about crit than this particular idea. I'll readily admit that my goal wasn't to rebalance crit, but rather to address somd of the output issues with the current mechanic.

only zhule1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Ea9yXFnb,comment-id=001a0000,timestamp=2018-02-18T05:26:21.072+0000)

That seems more a complaint about crit than this particular idea. I'll readily admit that my goal wasn't to rebalance crit, but rather to address somd of the output issues with the current mechanic.

i didn't explain myself well there. I think the issue is that crit is too consistent, and i think halving the damage while doubling the chance is going to just make it worse. The idea that i can build 2 items and 100% crit chance is going to mean that they have to nerf the ever loving hell out of AD items. item 3031 + item 3087 now means you ALWAYS do 200% damage. Do you like the idea of playing against a champion with 400 AD but zero crit? What if they could also build tanky and/or invest heavily into attack speed? What if that number was closer to 600 AD?

Sightless661 votes

IE + SS now means you ALWAYS do 200% damage.

No it doesn't. You are making a mathematical error. You'd do 175% damage, which is exactly the same expected dps you have with IE and Shiv on live. I can prove that too.

With the current system, if you have an IE and SS, you have 50% chance to crit for 150% extra damage, which means that you do on average 175% of your AD.

Math: Assuming 100 AD (just to make the math easy) and 2 attacks, you will have 1 non crit for 100 damage, and 1 crit. That crit would do 100 bonus damage, + 50 bonus damage from IE passive giving 50% crit damage. (100 + 150 = 250), (250 + 100)/2 = 175 as your average damage per attack.

With the new system, if you have an IE and SS, you'd have 100% chance to crit for 75% extra damage.

Math: Assuming 100 AD and 2 attacks, you will have 2 crits. Each crit will do 50 bonus damage, + 25 bonus damage from IE passive giving 50% crit damage. Each attack will do 175 damage, exactly the same damage you'd have on live.

Doubling the crit chance just means that there is a smaller window in which the ADC doesn't do a vastly increased level of damage.

No, it doesn't. The expected damage amount will be exactly the same at all item thresholds. There will just be less variance, because there is less RNG.

This really is the key point: the damage is not changed. If you want damage to be decreased, that's a different argument entirely, and we can have that discussion in one of the dozens of threads devoted to that. This proposal is just about reducing RNG's impact on the game, not about changing balance.

only zhule1 votes

{quoted}

No it doesn't. You are making a mathematical error. You'd do 175% damage, which is exactly the same expected dps you have with IE and Shiv on live. I can prove that too.

With the current system, if you have an IE and SS, you have 50% chance to crit for 150% extra damage, which means that you do on average 175% of your AD.

Math: Assuming 100 AD (just to make the math easy) and 2 attacks, you will have 1 non crit for 100 damage, and 1 crit. That crit would do 100 bonus damage, + 50 bonus damage from IE passive giving 50% crit damage. (100 + 150 = 250), (250 + 100)/2 = 175 as your average damage per attack.

With the new system, if you have an IE and SS, you'd have 100% chance to crit for 75% extra damage.

Math: Assuming 100 AD and 2 attacks, you will have 2 crits. Each crit will do 50 bonus damage, + 25 bonus damage from IE passive giving 50% crit damage. Each attack will do 175 damage, exactly the same damage you'd have on live.

No, it doesn't. The expected damage amount will be exactly the same at all item thresholds. There will just be less variance, because there is less RNG.

This really is the key point: the damage is not changed. If you want damage to be decreased, that's a different argument entirely, and we can have that discussion in one of the dozens of threads devoted to that. This proposal is just about reducing RNG's impact on the game, not about changing balance.

i seem to have misread the way that IE did bonus damage.

That aside i still think it's a bad idea. Even without the overcrit concept you are making a class where 90% of the champions in it, will always be doing 175% damage after they get 2 items. Let's assume for a half second that the average ADC can get to 200 AD in every game. That means that champion is doing 350 damage before resistance on every auto attack. Now let's assume that the ADC can get up to 1 attack per 1 second. The ADC's DPS is now 350 (before resist) assuming no AA resets, no bonus damage from SS, nothing else being factored in. Now let's do the logical thing and make the ADC's attack speed 1 and a half attacks per second, that DPS is now 525 (before resistance). Now for fun let's expand our scope, let's assume the average MAGE champion has 4 seconds of cooldown on their abilities. This means that assuming PERFECT timing, every time the mage's abilities are up, the ADC has attacked 6 times. This means that in a "fair" world, that mage would need to have a rotation that does 2,100 damage to be on par with the ADC. Even if we trim that back a bit and say the ADC only gets off 4 attacks, the mage would still need to do 1,400 damage. How much AP do you think it would take for a mage to do that kind of damage with 2-3 abilities? How many of those abilities do you think would require set up (could miss)?

Sightless661 votes

Even without the overcrit concept you are making a class where 90% of the champions in it, will always be doing 175% damage after they get 2 items.

You're saying this like it's something that will be new. It's not. The entire point here is that any ADC who builds IE + zeal upgrade is already doing 175% damage on average with each attack after they get 2 items. If they have 200 AD, they'll do 200 damage with 1 attack, then 500 with the next, averaging out to 350 damage per hit**. That's exactly the same damage.** Your entire second paragraph describes something that already exists.

What I want from you is not a description of how much damage carries do, because that isn't changing. What I want is a reason why the new system, which has the same damage but less RNG, is worse than the current system.

only zhule1 votes

{quoted}

You're saying this like it's something that will be new. It's not. The entire point here is that any ADC who builds IE + zeal upgrade is already doing 175% damage on average with each attack after they get 2 items. If they have 200 AD, they'll do 200 damage with 1 attack, then 500 with the next, averaging out to 350 damage per hit**. That's exactly the same damage.** Your entire second paragraph describes something that already exists.

What I want from you is not a description of how much damage carries do, because that isn't changing. What I want is a reason why the new system, which has the same damage but less RNG, is worse than the current system.

The purposed change is just a damage buff. The thought process you are using is that crit chance will always mean x/100 attacks crit. To use a different metaphor, it’s changing a 100 person raffle where 20 people win 10 dollars into 40 people winning 5 dollars. The RNG makes It so that each of person gets to pick 20 numbers, I roll a 100 sided die and if one of your numbers is there you win a prize of 10 dollars. The change would mean that you get to pick 40 numbers, and if you win you get 5 dollars.

Both have a chance to fail. However the old system lets you pick 50 numbers for a chance to win, the new one means you CANT LOOSE, even if you are only getting half the amount per win. Run the raffle enough and the cost is the same, that doesn’t mean that each raffle has an equal amount of money going out.

The purposed change turns a MAY happen into a WILL happen. Two attack’s with 200 AD do not always equal 700 damage dealt.

Sightless661 votes

The purposed change is just a damage buff.

No, it isn't. As mathed out above, the expected dps is literally exactly the same, and basic probability tells us that results better than or worse than the expected will happen at exactly the same rate.

To use a different metaphor

No, don't use metaphors. Use math directly related to the situation. Math out why you think this is doing more damage. I've done that, and I've given you a proof for why it isn't more damage. If you want to dispute me, stop dancing around the issue and just use math directly related.

All you're doing is making your argument harder to follow. Given that I've told you I believe that you have a misunderstanding of the mathematics, you making it a metaphor makes it that much more difficult for me to see what you're actually thinking. Just explain it directly.

Two attack’s with 200 AD do not always equal 700 damage dealt.

Correct. They can equal more, or less, and if I have interpreted your argument right, then I'm almost positive that you're forgetting about the "MORE" part of that equation. I think you're only taking into the account the old system's potential for not having crits, and you forgot that you can have more crits than expected (I can't be certain because you threw in that horrible metaphor that obscures your argument, but I think I'm interpreting you correctly).

Some math to explain why this is incorrect: The proposed system, at 50% crit with 200 AD and 2 attacks, would have 350 damage per hit, and 700 damage dealt. That is a 100% chance for 700 damage at 50% crit. There is RNG at other crit levels, but not at 50% or 100%.

Now, let's look at the old system. You have 2 attacks at 200 AD with 50% crit chance. Each attack has a 50% chance to crit (the game actually uses pseudo-RNG, but we'll ignore that for now). So, you have a 25% chance for no crits, giving 400 damage, a 50% chance for 1 crit, giving 700 damage, and a 25% chance for 2 crits, giving 1,000 damage.

So, as you can see, the expected dps of 700 with the old system also has a 25% chance for 300 less damage, and a 25% chance for 300 more damage. I think you can see how that balances out, and how it produces the exact same dps.

If you want to argue that the proposed system does more damage, please don't use any more metaphors. Just stick to math. It makes it much easier to understand you. I spent about 10 minutes just reading over your metaphor trying to figure out what you meant, and there's a good chance that it was still too unclear, I missed something you were trying to say, and we'll need to revisit this in the next post. If so, then I apologize and I'll try to address what you actually said if you want to restate it. Just be clear and concise.

only zhule1 votes

{quoted}

You're saying this like it's something that will be new. It's not. The entire point here is that any ADC who builds IE + zeal upgrade is already doing 175% damage on average with each attack after they get 2 items. If they have 200 AD, they'll do 200 damage with 1 attack, then 500 with the next, averaging out to 350 damage per hit**. That's exactly the same damage.** Your entire second paragraph describes something that already exists.

What I want from you is not a description of how much damage carries do, because that isn't changing. What I want is a reason why the new system, which has the same damage but less RNG, is worse than the current system.

Another way to look at it would be to point out the the change would mean that ADC’s are always doing 175% damage BUT can sometimes do 250% damage.

ModThe Djinn1 votes

[{quoted}](name=only zhule,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Ea9yXFnb,comment-id=001a000000000001000000000001,timestamp=2018-02-18T22:02:42.380+0000)

Another way to look at it would be to point out the the change would mean that ADC’s are always doing 175% damage BUT can sometimes do 250% damage.

If we're talking about my proposal here, it's actually damage neutral across the board over any reasonable number of attacks.

It's (2x * 50) over 10 attacks at 100% or below (where X is whatever your crit chance would be without the x2 multiplier the model gives), which is the same as (1x * 100) over 10 attacks. At over 100% it is (50% damage + [2x-100] * 50), which is the same as (1x * 100).

Sightless661 votes

No, that's not accurate. If we're at 50% crit, then with the new system, you would always do 175% damage. You could not, under any circumstances, do 250% damage unless you had had more than 50% crit chance. That's a quirk of the system. There is no RNG at 50% crit chance with the proposed system.

Math it out if you disagree, but I've already done the math for you, and you're not correct here.

only zhule1 votes

{quoted}

No, that's not accurate. If we're at 50% crit, then with the new system, you would always do 175% damage. You could not, under any circumstances, do 250% damage unless you had had more than 50% crit chance. That's a quirk of the system. There is no RNG at 50% crit chance with the proposed system.

Math it out if you disagree, but I've already done the math for you, and you're not correct here.

so i'm going to address both of your replies. As to why i say it's a buff, according to the math if i had a "mirror" match between 2 champion one with the old system and one with the new it should be a 50-50 split. But if i asked you to put money down between the champion with 20% crit chance, who's crits did 200% damage, or the champion who has a 40% crit chance, but their crits only do 150% damage, can you honestly say you would give equal odds? The math says that out of 10 auto attacks the first champion should land 2 crits and the second should land 4.... but which auto attacks are those crits landing? Let's say you are playing the mirror, i have landed 4 crits in 6 shots, you have landed 1. the math says that i should not get a crit in the next 4 attacks, if that turns out not to be the case you auto lose; if it's right we both walk away at a sliver of health.

As for the 50% thing the issue starts at 51%, old system you have a 51% chance to do 250% damage and a 49% chance to only do 100%. New system, you will always do 175% damage and have 2% chance to a bonus 75% damage. The math says these two things are equal, but again would you want to play game after game with the old system versus the new?

Sightless661 votes

But if i asked you to put money down between the champion with 20% crit chance, who's crits did 200% damage, or the champion who has a 40% crit chance, but their crits only do 150% damage, can you honestly say you would give equal odds?

Yes, I would. I would give exactly equal odds. Why wouldn't I?

The math says that out of 10 auto attacks the first champion should land 2 crits and the second should land 4.... but which auto attacks are those crits landing?

Probability tells us that those crits should land on an even distribution across the series of attacks, but with bunched groupings. pRNG decreases the number of bunched groupings. This is true for both systems, in the same way.

Let's say you are playing the mirror, i have landed 4 crits in 6 shots, you have landed 1. the math says that i should not get a crit in the next 4 attacks,

First off, that still has a math error. That's not correct because your chance to crit isn't affected by how many crits you previously landed, if crits are independent events. It doesn't matter if you just landed 4 in a row, the probability is unchanged. Even with prng, the probability still only is altered by "how many attacks since you last crit". The whole "expected crits in x attacks thing" is only a predictor of future attacks. Attacks that have already happened don't count.

So, to be clear: The math says that if you have a 40% crit chance and you are attacking 4 times, you should crit 1.6 times. It doesn't matter how many crits you got or didn't get before that.

With that established, your scenario seems flawed. You're taking an example where one system has landed more crits than expected and the other has landed fewer, and you're using that as a comparison to say that one system is stronger than the other? How is that supposed to be a fair comparison?

I feel like the obvious answer is that I'm not expecting to win that situation not because the system was changed, but** because I'm already losing when the scenario started**. That's the key factor in your example, not the actual system changes.

As for the 50% thing the issue starts at 51%

What issue? Be specific. You acknowledge that the damage is still mathematically equal, so what issue are you talking about?

The math says these two things are equal, but again would you want to play game after game with the old system versus the new?

Yes. Why wouldn't I? You haven't actually told me why you think that there is a difference in power. You've just insinuated that there is one.

Be more specific. You're being coy, playing around an answer like you're trying to seduce it. Just be direct. If you have a reason why you think this leads to an appreciable difference in damage that is somehow different from the expected dps, then make that clear.

only zhule2 votes

{quoted}

Yes, I would. I would give exactly equal odds. Why wouldn't I?

Probability tells us that those crits should land on an even distribution across the series of attacks, but with bunched groupings. pRNG decreases the number of bunched groupings. This is true for both systems, in the same way.

First off, that still has a math error. That's not correct because your chance to crit isn't affected by how many crits you previously landed, if crits are independent events. It doesn't matter if you just landed 4 in a row, the probability is unchanged. Even with prng, the probability still only is altered by "how many attacks since you last crit". The whole "expected crits in x attacks thing" is only a predictor of future attacks. Attacks that have already happened don't count.

So, to be clear: The math says that if you have a 40% crit chance and you are attacking 4 times, you should crit 1.6 times. It doesn't matter how many crits you got or didn't get before that.

With that established, your scenario seems flawed. You're taking an example where one system has landed more crits than expected and the other has landed fewer, and you're using that as a comparison to say that one system is stronger than the other? How is that supposed to be a fair comparison?

I feel like the obvious answer is that I'm not expecting to win that situation not because the system was changed, but** because I'm already losing when the scenario started**. That's the key factor in your example, not the actual system changes.

What issue? Be specific. You acknowledge that the damage is still mathematically equal, so what issue are you talking about?

Yes. Why wouldn't I? You haven't actually told me why you think that there is a difference in power. You've just insinuated that there is one.

Be more specific. You're being coy, playing around an answer like you're trying to seduce it. Just be direct. If you have a reason why you think this leads to an appreciable difference in damage that is somehow different from the expected dps, then make that clear.

Reason you might choose not to give equal odds, could be something as simple as the idea "who ever lands their crits first wins". I do not believe that it is an actual 50-50 chance in practice.

Probability is great in a vacuum but tends to fall apart when put into real world practice. Most if people aren't going to think "probability says i have an equal chance to land this fight deciding critical, even though my opponent has landed 3 and i have only landed 1" OR "probability says i should win these next two exchanges despite having lost the last two" The idea that people aren't going to take current or past information into account when making choices that effect the game is absurd.

the math says a lot of thing and i'm sure if you run a test enough times those numbers will even out. The problem is that there exists a chance that in any specific game the math falls apart. Can you promise that the champion with a 40% crit chance will only crit twice for every time the champion with 20% crits once? Can you promise that the champion with 20% will only crit twice every 10 attacks?

the 50 to 51% issue is based around the idea that critical hits are based entirely around your chance. No ability to bank percentages to guarantee critical strikes. The old system says that if you attack you are favored to land a critical but no one would be surprised if you didn't. Let's repeat, you are again favored to land a crit but still no one would loose their mind if you missed. you are favored to do 300% of your AD between those two attacks, but no one would bat an eye if you only did 200%, people might loss their minds if you did 400% though. The new system changes that, now you will ALWAYS do at least 300% AD, but each attack also nets you a 2% chance to do a bonus 50%. People would still freak out if you did 400% AD and would still freak out if you did 350%, but at no point are you EVER at risk of doing 200%. As the chance to crit grows, when you miss in the old system you feel bad " how the heck did i not crit TWICE with 80% chance?!?!". The expect damage is the same, but their is a level of safety in knowing that even if you are RNG cursed you will always do 150% of your AD. Sure this issue clears up once you hit 100% in the old system and 200% in the new, but that's a different issue that we aren't addressing currently. (that issue being that you CAN hit 100% crit rate in the old system)

Sightless661 votes

Can you promise that the champion with a 40% crit chance will only crit twice for every time the champion with 20% crits once?

No, but I don't need to promise that. What I can promise is that the number of times when the champion with 40% crit has an outcome better than expected or worse than expected will be exactly the same as the number of times that the champion with 20% crit has an outcome better than or worse than expected. That's the measure that tells us whether or not there actually will be increased damage in one system or the other.

It may be different in a specific game, but the number of games in which it is better, and the number of times in which it is worse will be exactly the same. Additionally, I can promise that the degree of variance in how much better or worse the results are will be lower than the variance in the current system. Essentially, there WILL be fewer games where RNG from crit decides game outcomes.

The problem is that there exists a chance that in any specific game the math falls apart.

Now you're just criticizing probability. How does this specifically say that the new system is better than the old one?

Most if people aren't going to think "probability says i have an equal chance to land this fight deciding critical, even though my opponent has landed 3 and i have only landed 1"... The idea that people aren't going to take current or past information into account when making choices that effect the game is absurd.

That's because people don't understand probability well. If they did, they would know not to take it into account.

Again, this is an interesting discussion to have, but** how is it related to whether or not either of these systems do more damage?** You're just talking about how people don't know how probability works, but that says nothing about either system. It's just a commentary on probability.

the 50 to 51% issue is based around the idea that critical hits are based entirely around your chance. No ability to bank percentages to guarantee critical strikes.

You're talking about the pRNG system, correct? Why would we remove that? There's no reason it wouldn't be a part of the new system. Nobody has proposed getting rid of it.

The new system changes that, now you will ALWAYS do at least 300% AD, but each attack also nets you a 2% chance to do a bonus 50%

There's two problems with this critique. First, low crit values like this don't in this game (except in Trynd) The best I could be at would be 60% crit chance. You're criticizing low crit values, but it's not something that can actually happen. The theoretical exercise was already addressed 4 years ago with the removal of Brawler's glove and crit runes. It has no meaning to today's game.

Second, even if low crit values did exist, the potential for extremely unexpected crits still exists in the current crit system at low crit values. Nothing changes except a very specific threshold for where you might have RNG.

The expect damage is the same, but their is a level of safety in knowing that even if you are RNG cursed you will always do 150% of your AD.

It's not a level of safety. It's a level of "reliability", and it doesn't make the system stronger. It does mean that you're less likely to have a very bad streak, but you're also much less likely to have a good streak where you do a ton of extra damage. That potential is very strong, and I think you've been consistently ignoring that possibility for this whole discussion.

Or, to put it in your words: You can't be RNG cursed as much, but being RNG blessed will be much, much less rewarding. In terms of strength, it 100% evens out.

only zhule1 votes

{quoted}

No, but I don't need to promise that. What I can promise is that the number of times when the champion with 40% crit has an outcome better than expected or worse than expected will be exactly the same as the number of times that the champion with 20% crit has an outcome better than or worse than expected. That's the measure that tells us whether or not there actually will be increased damage in one system or the other.

It may be different in a specific game, but the number of games in which it is better, and the number of times in which it is worse will be exactly the same. Additionally, I can promise that the degree of variance in how much better or worse the results are will be lower than the variance in the current system. Essentially, there WILL be fewer games where RNG from crit decides game outcomes.

Now you're just criticizing probability. How does this specifically say that the new system is better than the old one?

That's because people don't understand probability well. If they did, they would know not to take it into account.

Again, this is an interesting discussion to have, but** how is it related to whether or not either of these systems do more damage?** You're just talking about how people don't know how probability works, but that says nothing about either system. It's just a commentary on probability.

You're talking about the pRNG system, correct? Why would we remove that? There's no reason it wouldn't be a part of the new system. Nobody has proposed getting rid of it.

There's two problems with this critique. First, low crit values like this don't in this game (except in Trynd) The best I could be at would be 60% crit chance. You're criticizing low crit values, but it's not something that can actually happen. The theoretical exercise was already addressed 4 years ago with the removal of Brawler's glove and crit runes. It has no meaning to today's game.

Second, even if low crit values did exist, the potential for extremely unexpected crits still exists in the current crit system at low crit values. Nothing changes except a very specific threshold for where you might have RNG.

It's not a level of safety. It's a level of "reliability", and it doesn't make the system stronger. It does mean that you're less likely to have a very bad streak, but you're also much less likely to have a good streak where you do a ton of extra damage. That potential is very strong, and I think you've been consistently ignoring that possibility for this whole discussion.

Or, to put it in your words: You can't be RNG cursed as much, but being RNG blessed will be much, much less rewarding. In terms of strength, it 100% evens out.

I think the big issue in this argument is the scope that we are looking at. You seem to be looking at this from the grand scale "if 10,000 games are played the numbers equal out". While i'm looking at it from the individual scale "how will a player change their game play when they crit twice as often? How will they change there game play when their enemy crits twice as often?"

In the grand scheme you are correct, the crit chance would all even out. I believe that it has a very large change on individual play style. I'm not likely to make a play where i need to "get lucky" with my crits (at a 20% chance) to come out ahead. I very well might take that chance if i only needed to "be average" with my crits (at a 40% chance). To put numbers to it, you NEED 2 crits at 20% chance VS. 3 crits at a 40% chance (yeah it's not fair but chances are the enemy isn't going to have perfectly dividable health). if we expand out to the 50% chance you get to a personal question for the player "do i build other items and do an average of 175% damage, decided by a coin flip?" where the new system asks instead "So you are going to do 175% no matter what... do you want to buy more items and have a chance at 250%?".

I'm disappointed you missed the point of my 50 vs 51% argument, which was not based around criticizing low crit values. So let me reword it using 60% crit chance VS. 100% crit chance and 20% overcrit chance. You have a 40% chance NOT to crit on every attack, for most people this means that you expect to crit but wouldn't loose your mind if you didn't. Now with the 100% crit chance you KNOW you can't do less then 150% damage but you get cherry on top that you MAY do and additional 50% damage. The same situation comes into play on a game by game bases. At 60% you feel like of bad if you get "RNG cursed", not enough to call bullshit though because 40% chance NOT to crit is still pretty high, but you aren't likely going to notice if you get "RNG blessed" (well of course i'm landing almost all my critical strikes, i have 60% crit chance). At 120% the feeling of "RNG curse" is different. Instead of missing multiple +100% damage attacks that you were favored to land, you are failing to get your additional +50% damage that you were not favored at all to land. "RNG blessed" though still feels like a thing since you only had a 20% chance per attack to get that additional damage, and isn't it amazing that you have gotten that damage on 3 out of your last 5 attacks.

Something to keep in mind is that i HATE the critical strike system. Or more specifically i hate how easy it is to get to critical mass with it, while also having VERY high attack speed, base AD, and room to build "answer" items depending on the situation. I hate the idea that critical has become the thing you are expected to do. Missing a critical at 80% feels 1000 times worse then missing one at 40%. I hate that critical has turned champions that use to be about sustained damage per second, into champions with insanely high burst, who get to keep their sustained damage per second assuming the target doesn't die to the initial 2,000 damage in 2 seconds. I hate that some champions are now so strong because they have great built in mobility / safety tools. But most of all, i hate that crit has more or less homogenized the ADC roll. I can blind first pick vayne; 80% crit chance means i'm going to delete squishy champions, and my kit has built in answers to super tanky champions. But wait, i could have just as easily picked twitch, trist, Lucian, maybe even Caitlyn, because what mattered was that it was a champion who could get within auto range and then abuse their 80% crit chance and +70% attack speed boost (maybe they even have their own attack speed steroid as part of their kit).

HarrowR1 votes

If you think any carry will do damage with rushing those two items without an IE in between you never played an adc. Whats the point of criting when you have 70-80 damage and your crits do 120 damage after resistances,you need to get IE or at least a bf sword first

only zhule1 votes

{quoted}

If you think any carry will do damage with rushing those two items without an IE in between you never played an adc. Whats the point of criting when you have 70-80 damage and your crits do 120 damage after resistances,you need to get IE or at least a bf sword first

oh no, guess i'll just wait the extra 4-5 mins.... so instead of doing 70-80 damage with 120 damage crits after resistance, i'll do 180-200 damage with 400-450 damage crits after resistance.

HarrowR1 votes

Good for you if you can get 3400 gold in 4 minutes,you must be challenger

Poske1 votes

Your idea is not what we need. Not the Right kind of improvement in short

This is what we need.

  • Less dmg from crits
  • NO Rng
  • NO Flat damage (so no it wont be % dmg increase)

SO HERE IS A SOLUTION Crit damage reduced to 150% (200 with IE) **I would implement every 4th auto crits in each of the crit items we have instead of current crit chance **

So PD/IE/RFC/REAVER etc would have sentence which says every 4th auto starting with first/second/third/forth you crit Combat cooldown the same as in with mobility boots

Now since crits early game are unhealthy, items such as zeal (Legendary item components) would have this instead Every 30 seconds your auto does bonus damage (That way we know from where the every 4th thingy origins)

So how would formulas work if you have multiple crit items ? **Logicaly but if speed is even slower wins **

So A,A,A,C + C,A,A,A = A,C,A,C,A,C,A,C,A,C So C,A,A,A + A,A,C,A = C,A,C,A,C,A,C,A,C,A

Obviously IE should be fast with critting. Revaer should be kinda slow since its mainly CDR item PD is defensive item so it should probably have A,A,A,C formula. C,A,A,A formula fits RFC etc

I have solution for 3 crit item formula but for keeping it short and simple wont post it

Yasuo gets A,A,A,C formula for every crit item he has. AKA A,C,A,C,A with 1 item. C,C,C,C,C with 2

Sightless664 votes

OP already responsed to this idea in his main post. I'll post his answer, then critique your idea myself.

"Unlike static DPS boosts or "energized" crits (i.e. crit chance stacks up predictably like Static Shiv), this also doesn't necessarily empower poke champions significantly more than they already are. In short, it's designed to resolve somd of the complaints with current crit while being as low-scope as possible."

I would implement every 4th auto crits in each of the crit items we have instead of current crit chance

That's not a great idea. That heavily impacts balance in an unhealthy way. It turns crit from a damage steroid into a poke steroid. It rewards highly ranged champions like Cait or Trist who can build it early, hit minions 3 times, then poke from out of range while the enemy has their crit down.

Additionally, it's boring and homogenizing. It makes carries more similar, instead of different. We don't need or want a stack-counting poke mechanic on every ADC. An advantage crit has in its current state is that it benefits all AD carries roughly equally, favoring only the need to autoattack. It allows individual kits to determine how champions play. Your system majorly favors carries who use autoattacks as occasional poke over those who use it for all-in situations. It encourages a stack-counting, poking style of gameplay. That's homogenizing. We should be actively avoiding mechanics like this.

ModThe Djinn1 votes

{quoted}

OP already responded to this idea in his main post. I'll post his answer, then critique your idea myself.

I have nothing more to add! :D

Definitely an idea I considered though -- if there's interest I can post my entire thoughts/breakdowns of the crit system reworks.

Poske1 votes

{quoted}

OP already responsed to this idea in his main post. I'll post his answer, then critique your idea myself.

"Unlike static DPS boosts or "energized" crits (i.e. crit chance stacks up predictably like Static Shiv), this also doesn't necessarily empower poke champions significantly more than they already are. In short, it's designed to resolve somd of the complaints with current crit while being as low-scope as possible."

That's not a great idea. That heavily impacts balance in an unhealthy way. It turns crit from a damage steroid into a poke steroid. It rewards highly ranged champions like Cait or Trist who can build it early, hit minions 3 times, then poke from out of range while the enemy has their crit down.

There is a combat cooldown. Idk how your thoughts go. But do you really think that in midgame, Where everyone groups mid. You ll be able to autoattack creeps 3 times then autoattack an enemy champion XD? wut? I cant really imagine that ??????

In laning phase this wouldnt be possible because you see Non Legendary items wouldnt give Crit. They would be sort of Crit alike items and whatnot with passives like every 30 seconds next auto does bonus damage (which is fine enemy can wait it out till the other enemy blows it on cs + there are windows of power)

And there is nothign wrong with that since carries like agency. They are OP as fk but they lack agency which is why the end up being spoonfed by 3.5 players.

Additionally, it's boring and homogenizing. It makes carries more similar, instead of different. We don't need or want a stack-counting poke mechanic on every ADC. An advantage crit has in its current state is that it benefits all AD carries roughly equally, favoring only the need to autoattack. It allows individual kits to determine how champions play. Your system majorly favors carries who use autoattacks as occasional poke over those who use it for all-in situations. It encourages a stack-counting, poking style of gameplay. That's homogenizing. We should be actively avoiding mechanics like this.

Its boring? AND THE OP suggestion isnt boring? its 10 times more boring. You only saw preview of my idea anyway. Homogenizing? I dont understand how every top tier Carry already builds the same. Regablade odballs would still build regablade

It would be insufficient poke crit dmg reduced + the fact that you cant have legendary item in laning phase, AND if you think that something like POKE from carries exists outside of laning phase you are being ridicilus

Your system majorly favors carries who use autoattacks as occasional poke over those who use it for all-in situations

This is just straight up false. It would be like this in laning phase if for example you already managed to get insane LEGENDARY tier crit item and laningphase somehow still exists

And again combat cooldown prevents this

And crit NOWHERE NEAR TREATS EVERY AD CARRY THE SAME HLY SHIT. tHIS IS just straight up garbage talk

Sightless664 votes

But do you really think that in midgame, Where everyone groups mid.... I cant really imagine that ??????

Who's talking about the midgame? I'm talking about the lane, when you have an IE. By your proposal, the standard 7-8 minute IE would NOT have a cooldown.

And besides, yes, Caitlyn can easily hit minions 3 times and then sit on stacks even in the midgame. If you can't imagine people hitting minions before a fight, then clearly you've never seen a high-level Kog or Kayle prestack rageblade. It's not hard to do.

Its boring? AND THE OP suggestion isnt boring?

OP's suggestion keeps things the same. Your suggestion encourages carries to play more similarly, which is boring. You implement a change to playstyles that encourages everyone to do the same thing. That is boring. Yes, it's actively making the game worse, instead of just keeping things the same.

It would be like this in laning phase if for example you already managed to get insane LEGENDARY tier crit item and laningphase somehow still exists

If you're playing games where you're not getting an IE before laning phase ends, then you need to last-hit better. It is expected that you're getting a full item at least before lane ends.

Seriously, you keep working on this assumption that people will never have a major item in lane. That's silly. More than half of a standard laning phase takes place with a major item.

But hell, let's actually look at your other proposal, just for shits and giggles. You say that if you have a zeal (or, I assume, a crit cloak), then you have a 30 second cooldown for a crit auto. Well, shocker of shockers, that ALSO BENEFITS POKE AD CARRIES. A Caitlyn can sit on that charged attack and poke someone with it from long range, while a Lucian or Draven can not do that nearly as easily. Again, you've created an item that favors poke over all-ins.

And crit NOWHERE NEAR TREATS EVERY AD CARRY THE SAME HLY SHIT

That's not what I said. It's not even what you quoted. What I said is that crit right now only asks you to autoattack. If you autoattack, you benefit from crit. If you don't, you won't. Your system asks people to build stacks, which not something every autoattacker does reliably. Caitlyn can do it much easier than Draven can. Therefore, Caitlyn uses it better, and Draven should attempt to build stacks before fighting if he wants to be successful.

This is a bad proposal. There's a reason Riot has explicitely said that they will never have a stack-based crit system.

SpecterVonBaren1 votes

Somewhat off topic but Tristana's range isn't that amazing early.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by The Djinn

@Riot: In-Depth Feedback on Teamfight Tactics
Teamfight Tactics95 comments
114
votes
Veigar's Particles: Please Sell the Ult More
Gameplay57 comments
110
votes
Improving Report Feedback
Player Behavior74 comments
100
votes
Qiyana: Awesome visuals, but one big missed opportunity.
Story, Art, & Sound146 comments
95
votes
Shotgun Knees for Fun & Profit [Urgot Suggestion]
Gameplay140 comments
77
votes
Teleport Fix Idea: Nerf the Pro-Plays, Increase the Fun
Gameplay50 comments
75
votes