While I Enjoy The More Diverse Pool, I Think This Is a Lesson To All

Meep Man·Jul 31, 2017·35 votes·1,989 views

This game is old and much of it's content is old. Many people constantly complain about the diversity of champions played, but recently Riot has been buffing many of the commonly older and "left in the dust" champions. Now, everyone complains about them because of their gameplay when they are viable. I hope people have realized that perhaps some champions are not widely viable and played for a reason. Some champions are so old, it makes the game annoying when their older, more binary kits are commonly seen.

39 Comments

Big LincolnJul 31, 201716 votes

maybe people are just bad and don't understand that simple champions have simple counterplay

KloqdqJul 31, 20171 votes

This ^

BrascusJul 31, 20173 votes

They sometimes don't have counterplay just counter picks, remember old poppy ult :D

Meep ManJul 31, 201716 votes

They have to be careful though. If your team can't provide that counterplay and the enemy champion is last pick, if they are meta, they start the game with an incredible advantage since the champion has been balanced around such counterplay. Binary. Do or die. Feast or famine.

If the champion gets buffed, it becomes mostly feast and a little famine.

Big LincolnJul 31, 20173 votes

that's not binary, that's just how the game works

if you picked for a shitty teamfight and poor pushing then it's not Nasus's fault if he has the upper hand, because you can't force the 4v5 while he's farming and beat him before he becomes relevant

if you pick for hard engage then it's not poor design if Illaoi and Zyra 2v5 your whole squad

An Undead bratJul 31, 20174 votes

if you pick for hard engage then it's not poor design if Illaoi and Zyra 2v5 your whole squad

But that's different because Zyra and Illaoi both have decent counterplay options and are not binary at all. Xin or Jax on the other hand...

It Hertz When IPAug 1, 20171 votes

item 3082 item 3123 item 3110

An Undead bratAug 1, 20173 votes

Items with passives that shift with numbers = statchecky and binary

It Hertz When IPAug 1, 20171 votes

item 3135 item 3071 item 3035 item 3153

You must really hate these, then, because they also change in effectiveness based on the enemy's stats.

Counterbuilding is intentional, whether you like it or not.

ExecutionerAug 1, 20172 votes

Also needed.

Meep ManAug 1, 20175 votes

I don't like champions who essentially become "build this item or die" kind of champions. That's the definition of binary because if it's that extreme, it probably means THEY DIE if you have the item or YOU DIE if you don't. I'd rather a match up be more based around the plays you make than the items you build.

PB4UAMEJul 31, 20176 votes

And they don't want to bother having to look up or remember anything, or realize that different champions have different counterplay.

MetalGearTeemuJul 31, 20175 votes

Dota 2 is older and its viability rates on heroes literally makes this game look like a joke thats still in beta.

Age of the game is not an excuse for being slow to make changes and leaving large portions of the cast on the bench for extended periods.

MarshbouyJul 31, 20179 votes

that's becasue it balances around high level competitive play 100% of the time. Certain heroes are .2% playrate 40% winrate and some heroes are 60% winrate 20+% playrate. It's ridiculous.

ModCaptainMårvelousAug 1, 20174 votes

To build atop this, DOTA also fully embraces hard counters. Picking Nature's Prophet into Spirit Breaker means you're a moron who is now going to get his face smashed in all game.

League never accepted hard counters to the degree of "<x> giving you trouble? Pick <y>". Of course, this is also part of the reason why less champs are played in a pro sense than DOTA.

Meep ManAug 1, 20171 votes

Picking Nature's Prophet into Spirit Breaker means you're a moron who is now going to get his face smashed in all game.

I mean usually. That match-up is entirely based around vision and who is counter attacking who. It's like a stare off and whoever takes the offensive first loses because Nature can pretty easily use his ultimate to stop and Spirit Breaker split and Spirit can use his Q to stop a Nature split. If Nature never reveals himself until he reaches Level 25 (when he gets 0 second cool down teleport) then he wins the matchup.

More on topic though, Dota 2 can't be compared with LoL. They allow for a ton of different strategies that aren't even viable in LoL. The level of split push in Dota 2 is insane. The level of deathball in Dota 2 is insane. The level of siege compositions in Dota 2 is insane. It's insane. There is just far more mechanics in Dota 2, allowing for much more depth overall in what is possible. This can be both a good and bad thing, but it's just something I wanted to note. Not saying Dota 2 is better than LoL, although I think it is in some ways and not in others.

ChaoticPineconeAug 1, 20171 votes

Really? Lets look this up...

https://www.dotabuff.com/heroes/played https://www.op.gg/statistics/champion/

Dota2 has a champion with a 1.17% pickrate (Chen) and League has a champion with a .61% pickrate (Udyr).
Dota2 has a champion with a 33.7% pickrate (Pudge) and League has a champion with a 29.15% pickrate (Thresh)
Dota2 has a champion with a 36% winrate (Io) and League has a champion with a 41.59% winrate (Ryze)
Dota2 has a champion with a 56.75% winrate (Zeus) and League has a champion with a 53.83% winrate (Malz).

TL;DR - Dota2 is worse in terms of balance for high pickrate, high winrate, and low winrate champions. League is worse for low pickrate champions.

Mr VulcanatorAug 1, 20171 votes

The reason that Io has such a low winrate is that a lot of people don't play the little glowy blob very well, and he requires a competent carry to pocket.

ChaoticPineconeAug 1, 20171 votes

Whatever the case is, Dota2 has a worse distribution of winrates. Dota2 has 15 heroes with <45% winrate of the 111 heroes available in Captains. League's distribution of winrates is considerably better - 6 champions with <45% winrate out of 137 total. Dota2 has 12 with <44% winrate; League has 2 with <44% winrate.

On the upper end, Dota2 has 6 heroes >55% winrate. League has none. League's highest winrate champ is currently Malz at 53.9% (looks like he rose from when I submitted my past post). Dota2 has 13 heroes above League's highest winrate champion.

Looks to me like Dota2 has more problems with balance than League does. But thats just me

MetalGearTeemuAug 5, 20171 votes

Thank goodness none of those things impact character viability rate at the high level. You know, that thing League is desperately pushing as hard as it can, removing its normal stats, pushing a fucking weekly gaming league year round. etc.

Its almost like its inferior to Dota at what it sets out to do.

I also take a moment to point out your chen example. Where chen is a low pickrate because is an enormously micromanagement heavy hero that requires a high level of multitasking and thus appeals to a niche, and still enjoys a higher pick rate then one of the games most simple champions in Udyr.

Mr VulcanatorAug 1, 20172 votes

Agreed. You can pick any hero in Dota 2 and do well with them if you understand their kit and you haven't picked into a lineup with strong counters to that hero.

In LoL you have to pick from a pretty limited pool of meta heroes.

MarshbouyJul 31, 20174 votes

Bottom line is people complain

PaffWasTakenJul 31, 20173 votes

The problem isn't really the champion's age, but the fact that Riot will apply random changes each patches on it in hope that it'll get more healthy. The community then complains because Riot should ask the people who mains said champion in different elo's to know how to apply changes to it in an healthy and balanced way. Remember what happened to Aatrox ? Best example since those who mained him complained for months on the boards

Sun Wu RyuumokuAug 1, 20171 votes

they shouldn't ask to low elo, they have no clue about the game, about what's healty or not...

Aatrox is a great exemple, is better now than his old version. And it was obvious after some fixing it would end like this.

LightIsMyPathAug 1, 20172 votes

What is an aatrox? Is it something to eat?

Sun Wu RyuumokuAug 1, 20172 votes

This meme wasn't even fun when he was weak... Saying this now is same like a "adc 2k bs"

IcyPepperAug 5, 20171 votes

No, that's aliment. Aatrox is something that wakes you up in the morning to go to work or school.

LightIsMyPathAug 5, 20171 votes

Oh. So aatrox is my grandma 👵

AnagsAug 1, 20172 votes

People complain about any champs that they feel are strong. It doesn't matter if they are new or old. The boards are equal opportunity in that regard.

MonkeyMadnessAug 1, 20171 votes

Riot needs to actually use the resources (ie money) that it has to just sit down for a solid 3 months and crank out champ relaunches every other week to fix some of this shit. They have more money than virtually any other game dev and only one game (compared to companies like blizzard that support 6 simultaneously). Just update all the old and outdated champs and bring them in line with current releases in terms of complexity and most of this shit would be solved...

But no, you're going to release more chroma packs, aren't you rito?...

DorkunedAurasAug 1, 20172 votes

This is a terrible argument on so many levels.

First, the people that do chromas are not the same people who do relaunches. Artists doing skins are not the same people.

Secondly, Riot spends an extremely long time, sometimes upwards of a year, doing the huge relaunches. They put a massive amount of time and iterations into their designs. This isn't something you can crank out on an extremely regular basis without destroying the whole system.

MonkeyMadnessAug 1, 20171 votes

The money comes from the same place. Riot could be spending that money on reworks/relaunches. This would be sooo much better for game health than giving fizz new skins.

Glory ln DeathAug 1, 20175 votes

Cranking out champions every 2 weeks is what got us in this mess in the first place. Go look at Seasons 1 and 2 and how many champions they were pumping out (literally a new champion almost every patch), and look at how many of them have become "problem champions".

It's much better for Riot to take their time and do it right than to speed through and create almost as many problems as they solve.

MonkeyMadnessAug 1, 20171 votes

Yes, but if you think that Riot doesn't have the money to have upwards of 10 or even 20 reworks in progress simultaneously you are shitting yourself.

SpoofghoulAug 1, 20171 votes

I agree ADC class is binary

all they do is basic attack

JmmanAug 1, 20171 votes

Personally I think you are totally wrong. And Funny how some of the champs you main or play are old ones with reworks that made them better.

The problem is Rito doesn't fix the champ. They just ban aide the problem or change number for the easy of it.

Cho is an easy fix. The minion and monster feast 1/2 every time he dies. But the champ and epic monster stay. His ult now does magic damage and reduces MR to zero. (fixes stone plate issue)

But see they wanted big lcs plays. Therefore they have to leave his strong for a must or good pick for the pros. You cant tell me they can fix singed in hours but letting cho through after everyone told them its stupid. Look at the sivir issue. Its totally not the older champ but the balance team that must have the critical thinking skills of a Fly inside a car ramming the window..... maybe if I just rework Azir Malzahar Ryze one more time.

Older champs need to have there kits updated. All the newer kits have skill shots with more damage and utility attached to everything. You don't like point and clicks or binary things then they need changed.

Instead of new champs how about we RE-RELEASE older ones with new skins. That will be a good money maker. There needs to be at least one team looking at older champions maker sure they are in an ok place. It needs to be a circle of balance. Looking at the bottom and always check. Soon you will find the bell curve getting smaller and smaller for the difference of power between the champs.

But hey leaving them weak and moving on the bigger flasher things is the new way. I prefer the more work better foundation way. It will last longer.

this is why I down voted you. Change the older kits or delete them would have been better.

Critmaster GarenAug 1, 20171 votes

i think its worth to note that a lot of the buffs theyre giving these old champions are mini reworks which update their kits to newer standarts.

so the argument of outdated content doesnt really hold here.

in chogath case, who got updated more than just once with the recent buff to his e they just dont have a clear design direction.

despite the champion being old, hes actually doing well compared to modernized tanks, providing large amounts of telegraphed cc to his team while being a beefy frontliner.

the main issue is, that theyre also trying to make him a juggernaut at the same time and added absurd amounts of base damage to his cc heavy kit instead of trying to support his ability to disrupt enemy teams with rupture and his q.

in case of nasus, i think people arent used to respecting his new power like they should. hes supposed to be a lategame hyperscaling juggernaut. hes supposed to be frightening to face in melee.

its true that his design was outdated, which is part of the reason why he didnt scale as well as he should have, being hard countered by armor and tanks due to a previous lack of access to armor pen/shred (when juggernauts are a class of champions that are generally known for being able to fight tanks).

but now that his design is updated and he scales like he should, it created a shock where people still need to get used to the fact that an 800 stack nasus WILL obliterate you in a 1v1 situation and you wont be able to cut down the damage on his q to 25% with 2 armor items.