Why is it his grab has never been nerfed? by nerfed i mean giving it an animation delay to allow better counter play. I ask not because blitz is OP but because he's banned almost every game. And has been for seasons sololy based on his grab alone. Just a thought anyway, you'd think riot would focus on nerfing/buffing champs according to their ban rates to make all playable equally.
Gamer Life1 voteswhy does it need nerfing? just because you cant dodge a skill shout. What you want Riot to do make everything easy?
Kilanost1 votesI think what he's saying is that other champs either have a shorter grab (naut) or some sort of indication that the grab is coming (Thresh windup) and that blitz's long range, no "wind-up" grab seems contrary to the concept of counterplay given the strength of the ability.
Gamer Life1 votesI think what he's saying is that other champs either have a shorter grab (naut) or some sort of indication that the grab is coming (Thresh windup) and that blitz's long range, no "wind-up" grab seems contrary to the concept of counterplay given the strength of the ability.
but its easy to got get grabed, if you can read what going on and keep behind your minons when if your not sure
Kilanost1 votesI mean i see his point. If you decided every other champion with the ability needs to have it built differently to introduce counterplay, why shouldn't this apply to blitz as well. I feel like you can get significantly more done in a thresh lane than you can in a blitz lane especially considering on top of all that, blitz is the only one that pulls the target directly to his location when cast. Now that the OP has me thinking about it, I'm really siding with him on this one. It doesn't make sense how its currently built when you look at other champions with a similar mechanic.
Gamer Life1 votesI mean i see his point. If you decided every other champion with the ability needs to have it built differently to introduce counterplay, why shouldn't this apply to blitz as well. I feel like you can get significantly more done in a thresh lane than you can in a blitz lane especially considering on top of all that, blitz is the only one that pulls the target directly to his location when cast. Now that the OP has me thinking about it, I'm really siding with him on this one. It doesn't make sense how its currently built when you look at other champions with a similar mechanic.
and what would they they do there nothing they can add to show that he is about to grab you?
Kilanost1 votesThe question is not "What should they do?" its "Should this be done?". And given the evidence from other similar mechanics, the answer is yes, it should.
TheFallenShaw1 votesMy point isn't about if its OP or not just his ban rate. I'd like to see him banned less. Its not about if i can dodge a skill shot or not. You shouldn't attack players just because you assume something, or because they are less skilled that's just wrong.
Kilanost1 votesI wasn't attacking anyone.
Gamer Life1 votesThe question is not "What should they do?" its "Should this be done?". And given the evidence from other similar mechanics, the answer is yes, it should.
you didnt aswer what i put I ask what could they add?
Kilanost1 votesBecause your question was and still is irrelevant. However, simply adding a premptive sound effect or animation would suffice just fine. This is what thresh has on his hook.
Gamer Life1 votesBecause your question was and still is irrelevant. However, simply adding a premptive sound effect or animation would suffice just fine. This is what thresh has on his hook.
its not irrelevant. Your saying they need to add somthing before he grabs so, what should they add?
Kilanost1 votesReread that, I just answered your question.
Gamer Life1 votesReread that, I just answered your question.
no that is useless adding a sound? so what if someone doesnt have sound or some times in game the sound just stops
Kilanost1 votespremptive sound or animation was what i said. dear lord dude. are you a blitz main? what's your deal?
And what if they don't have sound? They they get hooked without warning. If you pay close attention, sounds offer a lot of input in the game and playing without them denies you a lot of very easily obtainable information.
Gamer Life1 votespremptive sound or animation was what i said. dear lord dude. are you a blitz main? what's your deal?
And what if they don't have sound? They they get hooked without warning. If you pay close attention, sounds offer a lot of input in the game and playing without them denies you a lot of very easily obtainable information.
what animation then?
am not a main but people just complete all time because they want everything easy
Kilanost1 votesNot sure which of these applies to your line of questioning or whether you're fishing for information to apply one:
The Argument from Ignorance (also, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves you're wrong and I'm right!" This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos, and a fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning.
The Argument from Incredulity: The fallacy of doubting or rejecting a novel claim or argument out of hand simply because it appears superficially "incredible," "insane" or "crazy," or because it goes against one's own personal beliefs, prior experience or ideology. This cynical fallacy falsely reifies the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" into an absolute law of logic. See also Hoyle's Fallacy. A common form of this fallacy is dismissing surprising, extraordinary or unfamiliar arguments and evidence with a wave of the hand, a shake of the head, and a mutter of "that's crazy!"
The Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives): The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim. E.g., "Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the fight!" Even evil people with the most corrupt motives sometimes say the truth (and even those who have the highest and purest motives are often wrong or mistaken). A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator's purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g., "Sure, she may have beaten her children bloody now and again but she was a highly educated, ambitious professional woman at the end of her rope, deprived of adult conversation and locked up between four walls for years on end with a bunch of screaming, fighting brats, doing the best she could with what she had. How can you stand there and accuse her of child abuse?") See also Moral Licensing.
Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence): The fallacy that if available sources remain silent or current knowledge and evidence can prove nothing about a given subject or question this fact in itself proves the truth of one's claim. E.g., "Science can tell us nothing about God. That proves God doesn't exist." Or "Science admits it can tell us nothing about God, so you can't deny that God exists!" Often misused in the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th Amendment, remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixon has no alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet!" In today's America, choosing to remain silent in the face of a police officer's questions can make one guilty enough to be arrested or even shot. See also, Argument from Ignorance.
Availability Bias (also, Attention Bias, Anchoring Bias): A fallacy of logos stemming from the natural tendency to give undue attention and importance to information that is immediately available at hand, particularly the first or last information received, and to minimize or ignore broader data or wider evidence that clearly exists but is not as easily remembered or accessed. E.g., "We know from experience that this doesn't work," when "experience" means the most recent local experience, ignoring overwhelming experience from other places and times where it has worked and does work. This fallacy is also related to the fallacy of Hyperbole, where an immediate instance is immediately proclaimed "the most significant in all of human history," or the "worst in the whole world!" This latter fallacy works extremely well with less-educated audiences and those whose "whole world" is very small indeed, audiences who "hate history" and whose historical memory spans several weeks at best.
Overexplaning: A fallacy of logos stemming from the paradox that beyond a certain point, more explanation, instructions, data, discussion or proof inevitably results in less, not more, understanding. Contemporary urban mythology holds that this fallacy is typically male ("Mansplaining"), while barely half a century ago the prevailing myth was that it was men who were naturally monosyllabic or non-verbal while women would typically overexplain (e.g., the 1960 hit song by Joe Jones, "You Talk Too Much"). "Mansplaining" is, according to scholar Danelle Pecht, "the infuriating tendency of many men to always have to be the smartest person in the room, regardless of the topic of discussion and how much they actually know!" See also the "Plain Truth" fallacy.
Shifting the Burden of Proof: A classic fallacy of logos that challenges an opponent to disprove a claim rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., "These days space-aliens are everywhere among us, masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you to prove it isn't so! See? You can't! You admit it! That means what I say has to be true. Most probably, you're one of them, since you're soft on space-aliens!" A typical tactic in using this fallacy is to get an opponent to admit that a far-fetched claim, or some fact related to it, is indeed theoretically "possible," and then declare the claim "proven" absent evidence to the contrary. E.g., "So you admit that massive undetected voter fraud is indeed possible, at least in theory, and you can't produce even the tiniest scintilla of evidence that it didn't happen! Ha-ha! I rest my case." See also, Argument from Ignorance.
I will break this down simply.
You continuing to ask me for more details and trying to reject them as ridiculous isn't going to change the facts.
Gamer Life1 votesNot sure which of these applies to your line of questioning or whether you're fishing for information to apply one:
The Argument from Ignorance (also, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves you're wrong and I'm right!" This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos, and a fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning.
The Argument from Incredulity: The fallacy of doubting or rejecting a novel claim or argument out of hand simply because it appears superficially "incredible," "insane" or "crazy," or because it goes against one's own personal beliefs, prior experience or ideology. This cynical fallacy falsely reifies the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" into an absolute law of logic. See also Hoyle's Fallacy. A common form of this fallacy is dismissing surprising, extraordinary or unfamiliar arguments and evidence with a wave of the hand, a shake of the head, and a mutter of "that's crazy!"
The Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives): The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim. E.g., "Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the fight!" Even evil people with the most corrupt motives sometimes say the truth (and even those who have the highest and purest motives are often wrong or mistaken). A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator's purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g., "Sure, she may have beaten her children bloody now and again but she was a highly educated, ambitious professional woman at the end of her rope, deprived of adult conversation and locked up between four walls for years on end with a bunch of screaming, fighting brats, doing the best she could with what she had. How can you stand there and accuse her of child abuse?") See also Moral Licensing.
Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence): The fallacy that if available sources remain silent or current knowledge and evidence can prove nothing about a given subject or question this fact in itself proves the truth of one's claim. E.g., "Science can tell us nothing about God. That proves God doesn't exist." Or "Science admits it can tell us nothing about God, so you can't deny that God exists!" Often misused in the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th Amendment, remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixon has no alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet!" In today's America, choosing to remain silent in the face of a police officer's questions can make one guilty enough to be arrested or even shot. See also, Argument from Ignorance.
Availability Bias (also, Attention Bias, Anchoring Bias): A fallacy of logos stemming from the natural tendency to give undue attention and importance to information that is immediately available at hand, particularly the first or last information received, and to minimize or ignore broader data or wider evidence that clearly exists but is not as easily remembered or accessed. E.g., "We know from experience that this doesn't work," when "experience" means the most recent local experience, ignoring overwhelming experience from other places and times where it has worked and does work. This fallacy is also related to the fallacy of Hyperbole, where an immediate instance is immediately proclaimed "the most significant in all of human history," or the "worst in the whole world!" This latter fallacy works extremely well with less-educated audiences and those whose "whole world" is very small indeed, audiences who "hate history" and whose historical memory spans several weeks at best.
Overexplaning: A fallacy of logos stemming from the paradox that beyond a certain point, more explanation, instructions, data, discussion or proof inevitably results in less, not more, understanding. Contemporary urban mythology holds that this fallacy is typically male ("Mansplaining"), while barely half a century ago the prevailing myth was that it was men who were naturally monosyllabic or non-verbal while women would typically overexplain (e.g., the 1960 hit song by Joe Jones, "You Talk Too Much"). "Mansplaining" is, according to scholar Danelle Pecht, "the infuriating tendency of many men to always have to be the smartest person in the room, regardless of the topic of discussion and how much they actually know!" See also the "Plain Truth" fallacy.
Shifting the Burden of Proof: A classic fallacy of logos that challenges an opponent to disprove a claim rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., "These days space-aliens are everywhere among us, masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you to prove it isn't so! See? You can't! You admit it! That means what I say has to be true. Most probably, you're one of them, since you're soft on space-aliens!" A typical tactic in using this fallacy is to get an opponent to admit that a far-fetched claim, or some fact related to it, is indeed theoretically "possible," and then declare the claim "proven" absent evidence to the contrary. E.g., "So you admit that massive undetected voter fraud is indeed possible, at least in theory, and you can't produce even the tiniest scintilla of evidence that it didn't happen! Ha-ha! I rest my case." See also, Argument from Ignorance.
I will break this down simply.
- There are a class of abilities we generally refer to as "grabs/hooks." 2 Riot has identified that counterplay is important to the game and tries to implement is often to balance the power of champions/abilities.
- Other champions have abilities that fall into the "grabs/hooks" category.
- Champions other than Blitzcrank who have abilities that fall into the "grabs/hooks" category have power limitations on them.
- These power limitations fall into the form of either a) Shorter length of action b) Not moving the target from the point of contact with the ability to the point of initiation of the ability c) moving the initiating champion from the point of initiation toward the target (exposing said initiating champion to danger) or d) showing some sort of preemptive indcation that the ability (hook/grab) is about to initiate to allow for a reaction by the targeted player.
- Blitzcrank's hook/grab has none of the above elements of counter play.
- Blitzcrank therefore should likely see one of those elements of counterplay introduced to his hook/grab.
You continuing to ask me for more details and trying to reject them as ridiculous isn't going to change the facts.
because there no animation they can add or they would of added it. the face is it not hard to not be grabed by blitz he hasnt been buffed in years nothing has changes with him.
In the past seasons he wasnt play much and wasnt a problem ever when he was played. so this means the level skill of the community has gone down, there are tools to practest thing and to improve
Omen461 votesblitz op. #1 hated champ because his natural tank and high base ad ratios are stupid strong. It's a counter to all champions.
robotmaster1 votesblitz op. #1 hated champ because his natural tank and high base ad ratios are stupid strong. It's a counter to all champions.
XD