It's fucking incredible that LB can fly all over the screen and burst but Veigar can't have a stun
#balanced
#balanced
This is the eternal argument on the balance forums. "Why did X get nerfed, when Y is clearly more powerful and oppressive?"
and riot is never, ever going to listen to it.
that's not the core issue here.
As of late the league community is becoming more aware of the stark contrast between the hyper mobile meta champs and the older (imo more enjoyable) immobile champs. the community is becoming split between league being a strategic game and a tactical game. Many of us long time league fans (like myself) vastly prefer the old league with it's emphasis on strategy. "Is that {insert champ name here} fed/problematic/OP?" common advice was "focus them as a team | group up | don't clump up" depending on the issue at hand. There were always options with how to deal with a champ that seemed problematic.
But the recent design direction is taking league in a direction that vastly favors high reflexes rather than actual smarts and intelligent play with it's emphasis on mobility and play making. And with riot designing champs around the standard adc/supp/top/mid/jung paradigm, it has drastically diminished the players' ability to come up with new innovative strategies and try to out wit their opponents.
LCS Plays. Thats all it is about anymore. ;/
I understand this is a popular sentiment atm, but I'd like to disagree.
There was a match a few weeks ago (was it C9 vs dig? I can't remember who) where the winning team barely did anything all game, and just slowly suffocated the enemy without hardly getting any kills. And if I'm correct, they used the common LCS picks to do this.
Fast forwart to C9's game with lemonation playing veig support. I loved that match it was so much fun watching lemon land those stuns and make plays for his team. I could hear my brother shout from the other room, "The stun! Oooh! The stun!!!"
C9 has always had a knack for finding champions, team comps and strategies that simply suffocate (love your diction) their opponent. Do you remember what got Teemo's mushrooms nerfed? After Oracles was removed it took a game between C9 and TSM when Hai picked Teemo for RIot to realize something was up. Team Solo Mid won every early and mid game team fight but were simply never able to push because they were never able to avoid Teemo's mushrooms. Every time they tried they'd either lose all their health from shrooms or died pushing.
that's not the core issue here.
As of late the league community is becoming more aware of the stark contrast between the hyper mobile meta champs and the older (imo more enjoyable) immobile champs. the community is becoming split between league being a strategic game and a tactical game. Many of us long time league fans (like myself) vastly prefer the old league with it's emphasis on strategy. "Is that {insert champ name here} fed/problematic/OP?" common advice was "focus them as a team | group up | don't clump up" depending on the issue at hand. There were always options with how to deal with a champ that seemed problematic.
But the recent design direction is taking league in a direction that vastly favors high reflexes rather than actual smarts and intelligent play with it's emphasis on mobility and play making. And with riot designing champs around the standard adc/supp/top/mid/jung paradigm, it has drastically diminished the players' ability to come up with new innovative strategies and try to out wit their opponents.
Agreed. This is why now when you lose a fight you may seem "outkited" rather then "outplayed".
Many match-ups are decided from champion select, sadly.
I find that statement ironic tho. As that has been what riot has been trying to avoid for the past 2 years. And honestly, I don't quite agree. I rarely see matchups where I know 100% I'm going to lose. The vast majority of my losses come from either me performing poorly, or one of lanes I'm not in snowballs out of control before I can do anything about it. And even then some matches drag out to the 40-50 min mark before we finally succumb due to the enemy being unable to end properly.
And honestly, I think it all stems from the fact that players have stopped thinking about how to actually win, and just rely on the champs they play to win for them. The teams that win with a crushing victory usually have strong objective control, and my team is left scrambling about.
Champs are nothing but tools to achieve a goal. And as such, I value reliability. If I can't rely on a champ to do it's job for me, why bother playing that champ?
But current Veigar lane matchups are known from champ select , u just cant win lane, he is not a toon that can 1v1...
and that's the sad part. The single target burst mage cannot 1v1. You'd think that'd be one of his strengths!
Only, he can. You wouldn't take a vei in say a Zed match, but take vei against someone like karth, leblanc, heimer.. vei has an advantage. He's a good apc counter with his ult, and fair range. At the same time, his stun nerf (delayed 1sec I believe) was a hard hit to his kit. It allowed him to safely move in and out since his spell range is not the greatest, some which are delayed. I mean, playing against the new Veigar is hilarious to me. You see his cage's outline and know then and there to get out or stay away from the borders. You have time to react. Before this nerf, there was actual risk engaging veigar. Now there's a lot less risk when engaging him, and he's a lot easier to kill. At the same time his burst allows for one burst kills against full APC champions making it risky to go with a full AP build against vei. And even with a defensive build, vei can be scary. Did they get Banshees? Use q then ult to negate the spell block. GA? Once they're dead, time your gate with their revival (though this second time may require a team effort if your ult is down). Veigar isn't in the trash quite yet, but it's pretty ridiculous I agree that his gate was nerfed.
Leblanc wasnt an easy matchup for veigar , it was a hard one , now its just something u wont win even if leblanc goes afk 4 mins and comes to lane when u are lvl 3.... The other 2 were not hard ( karthus was easy , heimer could put out a fight). He isnt trash , just not worth playing , veigar is a champ that cant win lane and unlike nasus he doesnt put up much preasure on denying him, cos he cant befome a tank that does a lot of dmg.
I find that statement ironic tho. As that has been what riot has been trying to avoid for the past 2 years. And honestly, I don't quite agree. I rarely see matchups where I know 100% I'm going to lose. The vast majority of my losses come from either me performing poorly, or one of lanes I'm not in snowballs out of control before I can do anything about it. And even then some matches drag out to the 40-50 min mark before we finally succumb due to the enemy being unable to end properly.
And honestly, I think it all stems from the fact that players have stopped thinking about how to actually win, and just rely on the champs they play to win for them. The teams that win with a crushing victory usually have strong objective control, and my team is left scrambling about.
Champs are nothing but tools to achieve a goal. And as such, I value reliability. If I can't rely on a champ to do it's job for me, why bother playing that champ?
Sadly, there are some match-ups that, if assuming equal skill, you will lose.
There is no way
can win against
.
There is no way
can win against
(or
to bring it back to this thread).
There is no way
can win against
.
These are just a few examples, but before I could pretty much pick any champions and have fun. I knew that, if I lost lane, it was only because I got outplayed. Today it's different tough, kits are so overloaded with everything. Now I prevent myself from playing some champions I love simply because I know I will be a liability if I get matched VS a certain champion. Hard counter do exist, and it's really becoming a problem for diversity.
the thing is, ppl are too focused on matchups. The game isn't just the laning phase. If you have a poor matchup, just acknowledge the loss and make plans accordingly.
For example, I had a lvl 28 friend playing maokai top against a lvl 30 kalista. He was doomed from the start. But because he listened to my advice, he turned a guaranteed loss lane into a victory for the team. I told him he will lose his lane. I told him to simply accept that fact and focus on damage control. Focus on farming as much as he could safely acquire and build armor. He lost his tower early (between 8 and 15 min) but once he got a warden's mail and a catalyst, he could actually 1v1 the kalista.
Damage control is an important skill that not a lot of players bother to learn properly. I've seen far too many ppl focus on winning lane to the detriment of the team. Being 20-40 cs below your lane opponent at 20 mins does not mean you insta lose the game. But being 0/5 with 40 less cs is a death sentence to your team.
But with the recent surge of mobility focus riot's been giving us; everyone is focused on "out playing" their lane opponent and trying to "win" lane instead of focusing on farm and securing objectives.
I can't tell you how painful it is for me to be mid lane happily out farming my lane opponent by 12 cs only to hear "an ally has been slain" coming from the bot lane every 1-2 mins or so. Early aggression is fine in moderation, but ppl are just so aggro nowadays that it gets really tiring.
you actually bring up a really good point that I havent really put much thought into. A lot of people (myself likely included) seem more focused on winning/defending their lane without losing a tower, instead of admitting your loss in that lane and apply pressure elsewhere. I feel like defensive strategies is something some people have a lot of trouble grasping which leads to throws by the lanes with higher kills because they think they have to make up for a lane lost by being overly aggressive and try to close the kill gap instead of the objective gap.
I am definitely a more aggressive player, so thank you for this new perspective.
This is the kind of stuff you used to HAVE to learn to be good at league, the strategy of it... nowadays its more about that aggresive plays and the right champs. I feel like now more than ever you have a big handicap if you aren't playing meta champs, it used to be that if you understood the game better than your opponent you could win a lane or a game with most champs.
A strategy and a tactic are the exact same thing.
The argument you elaborated on describes two different things.
You started off with "the community is split between option A and option A" and then went on to describe an option B -which honestly makes me want to downvote you for halfway invalidating your own argument...
You mean that the community is split between a strategic game that revolves around careful planning, and a reactive game where plays revolve around lightning fast reflexes, and the person with the slowest reflexes loses -not the person with the best stategy.
Albeit a lightning fast assault is a strategy (see Blitzkrieg warefare), but if it is the only option available then there isn't much strategy to this game at all. having* one viable strategic playstyle, and claiming the entire game boasts strategic diversity is bullshit*.
A strategy and a tactic are the exact same thing.
No they are not. Strategy is planning, tactic is DOING it.
Though reactive would still be a better word choice than tactic
Google the definitions for both tactic and strategy -they are identical. The definition of tactic even uses the word strategy in it's definition.
And how the fuck is tactic a verb? Verbs are action words, tactic is a noun. Again, google it.
Grade-school English is hard.
words have 2 forms of meanings to them. They have their default definition, and they have their developed connotation.
While tactic and strategy are extremely similar regarding definition, they have completely different connotations.
Strategy is generally associated with planning and thinking. Being prepared for every eventuality, always trying to out smart your opponent.
Tactics is generally associated with doing things and acting out plans. And is often related to reacting to the opponent and adapting to situations that were unable to be pre-planned.
If you want a good example between the two contrasting ideas, go watch Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion. Lelouch embodies strategy, while his friend Suzaku embodies real time tactics.
What the public associates words with has absolutely no effect on their root definitions. Perception does not change cold hard facts.
then I suppose you should never call someone "nice" as the original root of the word in old english meant they were an idiot. Nor should you call someone "silly" as, like nice, has it's roots in old english meaning "cowardly"
Right now, in this century -today, even; The actual definition of the two words you used are synonymous. Even the base Greek definitions demonstrate this (thank you poster-who's-name-I-can't-find).
Because you perceive something in a certain way doesn't change what something is.
Your argument was perfectly sound -but you invalidated yourself at the beginning.
You are using words that used to mean something, and mean something else today as a defense for using words that meant something in the past and mean the exact same thing today incorrectly.
you seem to be under the misconception that "synonym" means "same." This is not, nor has it ever been, the case. Synonym means "similar." Meaning they are related, but not identical. The two words exist for a reason, if there was no reason then there would be no meaning.
Also, you are extremely undervaluing the importance of connotation. A prime example of how influential connotation is the wore "awful" literally means "full of awe" and yet it has an extremely negative connotation, in fact, due to it always being connoted and used in a negative aspect, it has adopted new definitions that associate it with terrible things.
The only way you would be even remotely correct in the way that you used strategy and tactical, is if you used them in a present or future-tense -but you didn't. You simply posted them as equally abstract explanations for two different definitions of game-play.
The only way your statement about two differing types of game-play works in any sense is if you elaborate on the meanings of the two differing playstyles -because, what you posted makes no grammatical sense if you read it with no predisposed understanding of both words.
Sigh, I am getting quite tired of you and your boorish arguments over something as completely inconsequential as the definition of two vague words pertaining to how we, as gamers, like to define our play patterns. If you wish to further disapprove, do so elsewhere as this debate is now over. You refuse to listen to the overwhelming opposition despite the well formed arguments against you.
I thank you for derailing what could have been an extremely helpful conversation to focus on the frightfully trivial differences between two similar words. You are no longer welcome here, and I will not deign to respond to another post of yours; as there is no longer any benefit in doing so. You are beyond the reach of our words, so I will cease all further attempts to get through to you.
And with that, I say to you, "Good day sir, good day!"
"I got rekd and I know it, and now I can't disprove it so I'll pretend to take the high ground."
Lol.
So I just looked up the Merriam-Webster definition of tactics and strategy, and I quote:
Tactic: an action or method that is planned and used to achieve a particular goal
Strategy: a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time
Oh look, they have the same definition, except that strategy very specifically points out that it is the long-term version.
But wait, isn't that what everyone's been saying? Isn't that what you said wasn't the case based on the Merrian-Webster definitions? The definitions I just posted?
Tactics are short-term plans for immediate results. A strategy is a long-term plan for reaching an overall goal.
Tactics are used for battles. Strategies are used for wars.
I seriously do not understand where your argument is coming from. You are actually arguing with your alleged source when it says right there.
Furthermore, before you try it again:
Check it out. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Synonyms. And once more I quote:
The theater of war is the province of strategy, the field of battle is the province of tactics.
Anything else you'd like to make up for your argument?
I agree completely! I pretty much have stated that ad-verbatim recently, but wasn't sure if I was correct. I mostly played in Season 2, and am just coming back and kind of interested in improving again.
I noticed that the game feels entirely different. I can understand if they're trying to REALLY focus on "esports," because I bet that's a huge source of income/publicity for Riot (hell, they could even be in history books one day,) and that fast-paced action is more interesting to watch for some. But I don't think trying to "be" something that is still relatively new, and somewhat unprecedented, is a good idea. Whom do they have to learn from?
It seems like League of Legends is the biggest spectator "sport" in gaming, but it's not like that was their intention from the start. Almost all changes are seemingly made to control professional play, and a lot of the changes might not make sense to the average player, the majority of their customer-base, a person who may not have mastered a massive champion pool but holds a particular fondness for a certain one who gets nerfed into oblivion. I mean... that kind of sucks.
It's essentially like we're playing a "home" version of Wheel of Fortune. Actually, in fact, we are. We're not earning any prizes, so you know, we'll just take what we can get. Which is a pat on the head from our mommies. :3
Bonus points for using the word "boorish".
Acting superior when being so wrong on your assessment only makes you seem like more a fool.
Strategy is a long term vision, playing for position, space and conditions.
Tactics is the ability to execute short term sequences that turn the outcome of an individual battle.
The two work hand in hand, but are different. Strategy is about the war and tactics are about the battle. Perhaps the best example would be the differences between Chess and Go. Both games are heavily influenced by strategy and tactics, but both have vastly different ratios. Chess--while having a great deal of strategy---is actually much more about tactics. Go, by contrast is much more about long term strategy, but does have tactics when it concerns shapes and life.
English is not nearly so difficult as behaving like an adult.
Where you are drawing your information from I would love to know. Straight out of the dictionary there are absolutely no indications that strategy has anything to do with long-term or "the war" or that tactics have anything to do with right-now or "the battle".
What you have just listed is your personal perception and understanding of what those words represent and mean. Grammatically speaking, neither of them represent any form of current or future-tense. You are sadly mistaken.
They are two words developed for the same purpose, neither meaning anything more or less than the other. If you can find me a credible source (as in a nationally recognized dictionary) that represents these words in the fashion you described, then by all means -I'd love to see it.
Any military manual out there would mention it, as well as any marketing plan or even sports.
The strategy is the overlying plan, and tactics are the execution of smaller tasks to reach the overall strategic goal.
since you like google searching:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/strategic-planning-strategy-vs-tactics.html
The guy had made a good point, and you ruined it by grammar policing him (incorrectly at that).
You should feel bad.
Because mobility inherently has counterplay! I have no idea what this counterplay really is, and I don't think Riot does either. But all mobility has counterplay, according to Riot.
"Instant" stuns, which is reality already had a half second delay, do not have counterplay, because they are stuns.
Oh, but knockups are the perfect CC, because they have counterplay. Even though they are the only CC not affected by Tenacity. Because reasons.
The balance team just has a giant wall with champ pics painted on it, and they poop in their hands and throw it at the wall like monkeys in a zoo. If it hits a champion, that champion gets nerfed. Lee Sin's picture is way up in the top corner, and is only one square inch big. It occasionally gets a small fecal speck on it, and they have to remove his ability to shield wards, but not his ability to jump to them.
Oh, but knockups are the perfect CC, because they have counterplay. Even though they are the only CC not affected by Tenacity. Because reasons.
There is no tenacity in Dota. Does that mean CC in Dota has no counterplay?
BKB, I believe, serves as the itemizable counter for CC in DotA.
Then again, I haven't played DotA 2, and it's been nearly a decade since I've played the WC3 DotA map, so I could be mistaken.
As Verandure mentions, Dota has BKB.
He forgot, or didn't know, to mention Manta Style, which can remove some types of CC, and Linken's Sphere, which acts as a Banshee's... that you can opt to transfer the spellshield to a teammate. There is also the Diffusal Blade, which removes debuffs from your hero.
League went a different route. For most champions, Tenacity is the only CC reduction they will ever get. In high level or organized team play, the support might buy Mikael's if they have the money and the team needs it. And there is Banshee's, which blocks one spell no matter what it does.
They are different games with different methods. What DotA does not have, however, is a special form of CC that is impervious to all defenses and actions. And you can't even say the counterplay to knock-ups is not to get hit, because they aren't all skillshots. If they were restricted to being skillshots, that would be a reasonable justification for making them uncounterable once you got hit.
Everything is broken in DotA. Therefore nothing is.
[{quoted}](name=One True Siren,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EpV60VQr,comment-id=000600000002,timestamp=2015-03-05T12:02:07.805+0000)
Everything is broken in DotA. Therefore nothing is.
You've never actually played dota,have you?
Because mobility inherently has counterplay! I have no idea what this counterplay really is, and I don't think Riot does either. But all mobility has counterplay, according to Riot.
Yes it has counters,they are called instant stuns,which is ofc why they are so hated by riot,giving tools to deal with hyper mobile trash,what a travesty. I mean sure,the guys having these tools are already a small pool(and getting smaller,veigar losing his,talk of ryze's rework suggest so will he,and I suspect annie is quite likely to lose hers as well),so it's more of a counterpick,but well,you know... #LCSBIGPLAYS
Oh, but knockups are the perfect CC, because they have counterplay. Even though they are the only CC not affected by Tenacity. Because reasons.
You're kinda exaggerating it most of the champions who have knockups either need it(like velkoz,as immobile mages need some extra protection vs bruisers) and champions who it strongly fits thematically on,well also kalista,but that's from being the most idiotic thing about her(I still claim she,same as yasuo and thresh shouldn't have been created in the first place).
LC$
Veigar has a stun.
No, Veigar has a giant "Hey you! Yeah, you! You better back off now!" warning sign.
His enemies have a self-stun that activates if they are too stupid to pay attention to warnings.
That's the reality.
Learn to aim
There is no such thing as aiming a skillshot that has a 1.25 second delay. There is only hiding in a bush and hoping your opponent is incompetent enough to not be paying attention the actual ground upon which they stand.
Good news! It's about to drop to only .75 delay and stop any dash trying to go through. And yes, that .5 seconds makes a BIG difference.
No, Veigar has a giant "Hey you! Yeah, you! You better back off now!" warning sign.
Which, in fairness, is one of the most valuable things in the game. Consider Leona's ult, you're not dropping that in the expectation of landing it every time, you're dropping it because now everyone on your team knows exactly where the poor sap being warned off is moving, and unless you're a complete failure the obvious option is "toward where I'd rather him be standing, because my jungle's in that bush" etc.
Contrast Leona's "You better not stand in this circle or you're screwed!"
with Veigar's "You better not stand in this very specific and tiny location once I've finished casting this or you might be in trouble if you didn't buy any defensive items!"
Um, no. I cast Leona's ult with the expectation of landing at least the slow, and more often the stun, 95% of the time. And the 5% that doesn't land, I feel like an idiot for missing.
Veigar's stun, on the other hand, I don't feel bad if I don't stun a single person in the game. It just means I didn't have braindead opponents.
MEANWHILE 
Right? Silly Leona, why does she use it as her ult when she could use it as her W and have it deal more damage?