"It's unfair to counter [Zed, Trundle or Fiora ult] with…

Dessem · 2016-04-20T14:35:40.358Z

But it is fair when it continues to counter these champions' ults, right, Riot? There's more, but when I think of "champion who really needs their ult's CC to make a teamfight impact", these are the champions I think of. Let's make one thing clear: I really do not mind that QSS is being changed so that it can no longer cleanse debuffs like Malzahar's Malefic Visions, or Trundle's Subjugate, or even Zed's Death Mark. If before these debuffs were balanced around a QSS Cleanse, it means that should open up space to make these debuffs less impactful. After all, Trundle will have no counterplay against his ult. He uses it and you're fucked and have to disengage the fight, which is rough with Trundle's powerful slow, and chasing power. I'll have faith you will adjust it. HOWEVER, if the reasoning is that it's not fair for these debuffs when you can erase their effect with the click of a button... then please do consider the above champions. Their ults are a high moment. In the case of Warwick and Amumu, it's almost the only high moment permitted in their plays. QSS still negates those. If you're going to say it isn't fair for Zed to have counter-play against his ult's marking, then I'm going to say it isn't fair that Warwick can be rendered completely useless with the click of a button either. Either they can both have their point-and-click ult rendered useless by QSS, or neither should. Please draw one line here.

BlainezyApr 21, 201622 votes

Well if you're going to absolutely nerf everything that can counterplay Zed, then I'm going to need you to go ahead and nerf that broken ass Hexdrinker/Maw passive. 1300 gold to completely counter a mage is ridiculous.

l Helios lApr 21, 20163 votes

Completely counter? It's a shield that does nothing more than take damage. It doesn't offer "counterplay" anymore than barrier does, but barrier at least does all damage. Also they just nerfed it two patches ago I believe. It's annoying to fight against, but it's nowhere near a counter in the manner that QSS is/was.

SnugglePuggle94Apr 21, 20166 votes

They touched the attack speed and MR stats on the item, not the shield at all.

Phoenix Kotori Apr 21, 20165 votes

Yea but I feel that's a case could be made for the suppression champions as well that they'd more balancable without having to account their inability to pick targets they want later as well if you're going to make it work like that for Zed/trundle/fiora, I mean summoner 1 doesn't break suppression so it feels like would be easier to balance if QSS didn't as well.

HellioningApr 21, 201628 votes

How is Grevious Wounds different from this? It's basically a counter mechanic for a few specific champions, but you're making it more applicable in the same patch that you're making THIS change. It seems contradictory.

DeathBurstApr 21, 201633 votes

That's a fair point, but Grievous Wounds doesn't completely and instantly negate sustain. A X% reduction still lets you sustain in part, it doesn't change how you fight, it just reduces your power. Whereas QSS completely and instantly removed debuffs, it completely changed the way a fight happened.

I'm not saying here that Grievous Wounds is good or that old QSS is bad, mind you. I'm just answering to your "how is it different".

HellioningApr 21, 20165 votes

You could use that logic to prevent QSS from existing in the first place; if a champ needs CC to function, the enemy being able to remove that CC changes how they fight, right?

Steel BlossomApr 21, 20165 votes

But this some champions also need to be not CCed AND in melee range to function. How do they work, then, against any competent opponent who can keep the CCs on their team on a rotation?

SuicideJApr 21, 201611 votes

So why have champions that counter champions? Why have CC? Why have Raw Damage? All of these things counter something. You need to have consistency before we can trust what you say. On top of that you have to follow your word (everyone at Riot).

RiotRiotRepertoirApr 21, 201638 votes

So why have champions that counter champions? Why have CC? Why have Raw Damage? All of these things counter something.

Mostly because there's a difference between soft and hard counters, being effective versus something and completely negating it. QSS tends to index too hard on complete negation.

pripustasApr 21, 20165 votes

So if I'm correct, AD champions will be screwed, while AP champions can just buy a Zhonya that will be even cheaper, and nothing will change? Stop the discrimination. Zhonya for all.

QuephaApr 21, 201612 votes

{quoted}

So if I'm correct, AD champions will be screwed, while AP champions can just buy a Zhonya that will be even cheaper, and nothing will change? Stop the discrimination. Zhonya for all.

Just the other day all the mage players were crying that Zhonya's was ruined and they won't be able to stand up to AD champs Now the poor AD champs lose the one thing keeping them viable so the mage master race can sit in mid lane and clear waves until they get enough farm to delete you from off screen It is intensely amusing.

DecritApr 21, 20168 votes

This is why i think currently LoL is very very balanced: everyone complains that there is a meta for every class, each one picking one at time.

Looks good to me.

Photos of GhostsApr 21, 20166 votes

It's good in terms of classes, not in terms of individual champions. Too many outliers within each class.

SakaruApr 21, 20165 votes

It's impossible to balance 120+ champions without making most of them the same. It's better to have some strong some of the time, and cycle through them. It keeps things interesting.

One trick ponies and people who only like 2~3 champions get frustrated, but for the most part it keeps people coming back. Because it's not always the same things all the time (Despite people saying it is), what's strong cycles frequently. You have to account for different things, several times throughout each season.

Gives you a chance to play things you haven't and have them work, play things that you missed from back in the day when they come back into power, so on and so forth.

Certain immobile tops were bad for a long time, so they made the juggernaut update. Certain ADCs felt stale, so they updated those as well. Immobile mid mages have fallen off, so they're getting changes. The jungle's had massive changes once or twice. Bushes got reworked. Items get added, changed and removed. Champions and entire classes get buffed or nerfed.

In the end, people wouldn't want the true balance for which they clamor, because it would bore them too quickly. Although I cannot stand change in life, much more so than anyone I've ever met.. Even I must admit the constant change in power in games like this is good.

TheWeatherWaxApr 21, 201619 votes

"The one thing keeping them viable"... I'm guessing all those other toys that AD champs have gotten from the multiple patches are "worthless" please don't make me laugh.

Enjoy the power of Zed, now you too can understand the pain and frustration. At least you don't have to lane against him constantly and can enjoy some "freedom" until he pushes your mid under tower/slaughters them and decides to come visit. (Oh and you at least get armor pen, maybe you should "burst him down" or "avoid him" or whatever it was that you are always telling Mages they should do against him.)

But please let's do hear about how fantastic hourglass is again.. Those of us who buy it would really love to know how often 120 cd will save us from someone who can ult 2 or 3 times in that timeframe, who uses energy not mana to push waves and is pretty much "safe" from our burst/cc etc. Oh and how that 45 max armor is working out for us.. We'd love to hear about it.

XonraApr 21, 201614 votes

{quoted}

This is pretty much the point, and admittedly, it's a difficult sell. I'll talk a bit about the reasoning here so that people can at least have some context around the change.

The issue here is about balancing what is best for the game in the long term versus what feels necessary for the game right now. In the long term, it's probably better to not have a bunch of items that serve specifically as hard counters to champions. In the short term, however, we have champions that feel like a hard counter is the only way of dealing with them, which is where I believe a large part of the concern over this change originates.

With this change to QSS, there are certainly champions that come out power positive. As many have been quick to point out, Zed, Fiora, and Trundle are some of those. The ideal long term state for champions like these (and others affected by the change) is that their abilities are powerful in their intended ways without opponents needing an item that strictly eliminates abilities that tend to define their caster's purpose within their team or any particular engagement.

At the end of the day, it's probably more likely that players like knowing they have the option of purchasing QSS to deal with these one off abilities much more than they actually like having to dump large amounts of gold into such an item to feel like they can play.

The assumption here is that the game is in a better, fairer state in the long term if it feels more like fighting Zed (or any other champion, really) is a fair engagement than an obligation to purchase a hard counter type item to deal with what otherwise feels like an unfair effect.

I'll check back in here in a bit if I get a chance. Do let me know if anything seems off about this or was unclear.

While I get the point you are trying to make, this is really feeling like another "We want to change x, so we are going to first remove y, and eventually we will get to Z".

You say in the long term you don't want people to have to get an item to, for example, counter Zed, but you removed an item that does that, yet you aren't actually FIXING the problem, you are just removing the short term solution.

That would be like having a leaky pipe and someone tapes it up to stop the leak NOW. Instead you guys are going "no no, we want a long term fix" and so you remove the tape, the leak is still leaking, and you walk off to go check on another pipe as the basement floods.

What good does it do to say you want to fix the problem long term, but are removing the only way to fix the problem short term? This is only going to make Zed even worse to deal with. Sure the "blah blah he doesn't need his ult to kill you", but does that mean we just let him have a free tool to make SURE he kills you, and the only counter (which you guys nerfed by the way) is Zhonyas.

RiotRiotRepertoirApr 21, 201632 votes

What good does it do to say you want to fix the problem long term, but are removing the only way to fix the problem short term?

This is a good point honestly, and it's one we've been mulling over as well. Not too long ago, we removed DFG from the game and went about the process of a bunch of compensation buffs and what-not. Generally speaking, we think that attempt in being ahead of a change actually caused more issues than it cut off. It's possible we should nerf Zed (and again, there are others) for 6.9, but it's possible the less disruptive action would be to see how things actually play out as opposed to prematurely nerfing all the things we assume will cause big disruptions without knowing how they will actually play out.

Angry MonsterApr 21, 201635 votes

well as a player i know my solution, i just have to make sure X champs do not get into my games now. You are not going to get any data out of players like me since i do not want to deal with the pain/ position you are putting me in.

You guys are already admitted that zed does not have enough weakness in the mid mage web cast. Now players have to suck it up so you guys can figure this and 200 other things at once? Yeah great plan.

ProeliumApr 21, 201616 votes

[{quoted}](name=Angry Monster,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=FJb6w1gc,comment-id=00060001000b00000000,timestamp=2016-04-21T04:30:26.446+0000)

well as a player i know my solution, i just have to make sure X champs do not get into my games now. You are not going to get any data out of players like me since i do not want to deal with the pain/ position you are putting me in.

You guys are already admitted that zed does not have enough weakness in the mid mage web cast. Now players have to suck it up so you guys can figure this and 200 other things at once? Yeah great plan.

They've known this for literal years and still haven't fixed it.

Kuroi86Apr 21, 20165 votes

Sadly sometimes you can only tackle one problem at a time and have to prioritize.

XonraApr 21, 201610 votes

{quoted}

Sadly sometimes you can only tackle one problem at a time and have to prioritize.

I 100% agree with this statement. The problem in season 6 so far is that multiple problems are being put into the game at once because they essentially have to live test (or so they feel) multiple things. IT was like preseason, stacking multiple things and trying to get them all good at once.

It caused so many problems, op champs (for a while at least), the masteries are STILL being fixed, and so on. It is looking like the same situation. So yes, 100% you can only tackle one problem at a time, but maybe then only implement one problem to solve, instead of 6, when you can only fix one, and are testing it against items, jungle changes, champs, etc all at once. At that point, fixing one problem could very well cause another two.

(sorry for the rant there, just couldn't find a shorter way to say that. My bad)

XonraApr 21, 20162 votes

{quoted}

This is a good point honestly, and it's one we've been mulling over as well. Not too long ago, we removed DFG from the game and went about the process of a bunch of compensation buffs and what-not. Generally speaking, we think that attempt in being ahead of a change actually caused more issues than it cut off. It's possible we should nerf Zed (and again, there are others) for 6.9, but it's possible the less disruptive action would be to see how things actually play out as opposed to prematurely nerfing all the things we assume will cause big disruptions without knowing how they will actually play out.

I can see the logic behind wanting to test it, but I can speak as a player (not sure what else I'd speak as <_< I guess) in saying that Zed was already frustrating. I can also say that the "test it on live" thing is very frustrating this season as well. We are at the mid point and there are still things being ironed out from pre season, and now we are getting a big batch of things to toss balance out of whack all over again.

I know it sounds like people are annoyed, but it is just change after change after change after change, and things aren't seeming to be given time to smooth out before the next big thing is put into the pot without fully stirring. It has (unfortunately) become a meme asking when preseason will be over, because the game has been in flux more this season than any other, and putting all of this at once isn't going to make that any better I'm afraid.

ElikainApr 21, 20163 votes

I may be speaking for myself here but i feel like Zed would be a fair champion - if he didn't have his ult. The ult is a deal breaker for me - always allowing him to make the first move, essentially you having to wait for his execution so that you could react to what's about to happen - in the last second. For every other champion, they stick to you until you die or they flat out burst you with damage but Zed - has to 50% you and his ult pops you for the other 50%.

For Zed players, it may be the most satisfying thing after sex but for the enemy, i feel like i didn't give him the consent to do me in such a rough manner. :(

QsarioApr 21, 20166 votes

{quoted}

This is a good point honestly, and it's one we've been mulling over as well. Not too long ago, we removed DFG from the game and went about the process of a bunch of compensation buffs and what-not. Generally speaking, we think that attempt in being ahead of a change actually caused more issues than it cut off. It's possible we should nerf Zed (and again, there are others) for 6.9, but it's possible the less disruptive action would be to see how things actually play out as opposed to prematurely nerfing all the things we assume will cause big disruptions without knowing how they will actually play out.

Do we not have enough evidence to nerf Zed even without this?

Also, technically, he still has a one-item counter item 3157 , it's just that the item is rather weak right now.

LuciferApr 21, 20165 votes

{quoted}

This is a good point honestly, and it's one we've been mulling over as well. Not too long ago, we removed DFG from the game and went about the process of a bunch of compensation buffs and what-not. Generally speaking, we think that attempt in being ahead of a change actually caused more issues than it cut off. It's possible we should nerf Zed (and again, there are others) for 6.9, but it's possible the less disruptive action would be to see how things actually play out as opposed to prematurely nerfing all the things we assume will cause big disruptions without knowing how they will actually play out.

QSS aside, Zed is already a top pick in solo queue and competitive play, and seems out of hand. Even if these changes weren't going through, he should really be on your radar.

"It's unfair to counter [Zed, Trundle or Fiora ult] with the click of a button." - Repertoir

378 Comments

More from Gameplay

More by Dessem