Do you like meta enforcing?
just want to know if the players want more freedom or not
76 Comments
Junkο30 votes"We do not enforce the meta" -Riot
The most hilarious joke of the century.
Chaotic Reks10 votesa bigger lie than anything obama has said
Yoella2 votes"Thanks Riot"
HeadHonchkrow1 votesSarcasm, right?
Yoella1 votesOf course!
HeadHonchkrow1 votesthank GOD
windwolf7776 votes[{quoted}](name=Hurny Quilva,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=P2UOKva4,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2015-03-08T13:24:06.549+0000)
"We do not enforce the meta" -Riot
The most hilarious joke of the century.
And a very close second "We "compensated" 
for removal of DFG"
And on topic, hell no. BORING AS HELL
Levyathyn16 votesThe meta is great. But it needs to be guidelines, not rules. Leaving it there lets high ranked and competitive play have tighter expectations and smaller focus, but you have to leave it open for players who just want to play and enjoy League to have fun. It's a necessity. A majority of people are just into League on the surface levels, and there to try things, learn, experiment, and as I said, have fun. That's what matters.
Trolls can always troll, and hardlining the meta won't change that. But fun, surprising picks, whether or not they work, are at least partly what League was founded on.
blueberrypancake1 votesI think the most fair meta is the Tank/Bruiser/Mage meta but just my opinion
lojician1 votesIt's funny how no one ever mentions adc because it's just understood that riot will never let them be remotely weak ever.
TehNACHO14 votesChampion pick or 1-1-2-Jungle?
Meta enforcing via champion picks per role, in my opinion, is the lesser of the two. Champions like Alistar, for example, who were balanced around one role (Support) and then abused in a different one (Top Lane, Jungle) tended to turn into total messes when balanced for their stronger role. It shouldn't be a coincidence why Riot has been so adamant against touching individual Junglers all the way up to just recently in S5; they don't want to pull an Alistar again by balancing Junglers for the Jungle, but instead accidentally creating an OP Mid or Top as a result.
On the other hand though, I almost always would support decisions towards a 1-1-2-Jungle setup, be it duo top or duo bot. This is mostly because I know for a fact that any other combo tends to be gold inefficient, and in general just imbalances the team's late game potential instead of significantly helping it.
DisasterSola3 votesChampion pick or 1-1-2-Jungle?
Meta enforcing via champion picks per role, in my opinion, is the lesser of the two. Champions like Alistar, for example, who were balanced around one role (Support) and then abused in a different one (Top Lane, Jungle) tended to turn into total messes when balanced for their stronger role. It shouldn't be a coincidence why Riot has been so adamant against touching individual Junglers all the way up to just recently in S5; they don't want to pull an Alistar again by balancing Junglers for the Jungle, but instead accidentally creating an OP Mid or Top as a result.
On the other hand though, I almost always would support decisions towards a 1-1-2-Jungle setup, be it duo top or duo bot. This is mostly because I know for a fact that any other combo tends to be gold inefficient, and in general just imbalances the team's late game potential instead of significantly helping it.
Riot enforces the meta by tuning and creating champions for a specific role. And honestly, hyper specializing for the jungle isnt hard. you just lower base damage and add bonus damage to monsters.
TehNACHO9 votesRiot enforces the meta by tuning and creating champions for a specific role.
Not true, Jarvan is recent proof of this. His last round of buffs were targeted for Top Lane, and instead that made him a fantastic all around Jungler, and he stayed there for quite a while.
And honestly, hyper specializing for the jungle isnt hard. you just lower base damage and add bonus damage to monsters.
This also doesn't really work for certain champions; for example, any champ who can Mid and Jungle. Let's say they receive fantastic amounts of bonus damage against Jungle monsters; you've now opened up the Raptors as a prime target for dirty farming, which interferes with the Jungler and can lead to a direct advantage within Mid Lane if they are capable of abusing that secondary farm while the enemy Mid Laner isn't able to. That's a situation where balancing for Jungle leads to an indirect advantage for the Mid laner.
Duke Anax6 votesI think Bard is a nice example of not enforcing the meta. He is a support, but he is a roaming support. Something that didn't quite exist before. Of course there are some supports that tend to roam a lot, but none that is dedicated to support from the jungle, rather than from bottom lane.
However he is not a dedicated jungler either, so with him team may end up with a 1-1-1-2J compo.
Slushi Simcambi2 votesYeah I wanted to say this, Bard is refreshing because he encourages roaming without being a jungler.
Most "off-meta" champion we have seen in a while.
MrBuffington6 votesMeta enforcing? Nah. Meta supporting? Sure, no problem
Pyrokineticmage6 votesMeta enforcing is pretty much the reason for the lack of diversity in this game.
manbearswine5 votesUh let's face it,this community got babysitted for so long they cannot function on their own.
Take laneswaps for example,it's often done in competitive(let's not start discussing reasons too much),how many times have you seen it in solo q? That's not because it's very complex,sure as hell isn't because it fits only competitive play,people are just so lazy they would rather do the same shit every game than make the slightest innovation,no matter how obvious and strong it is.
It's just pointless at this point.
MrBuffington4 votesIt's also kind of difficult in solo-q, trying to trust random people you never met to understand a strategy that, if you're really 'innovating' on it, they've heard like, once, in pre-game lobby, and have probably never practiced. Like, if I'm playing top lane, and my bot lane is like "yo let's lane swap", and I'm playing like Tryndamere or something, I'm just going to get annihilated cause I have no idea how to deal with a competent 2v1, especially as a champ like Tryndamere.
You see a lot more varied strategies in pre-made teams, maybe not as often as you'd like, but it's there
manbearswine1 votesIt's also kind of difficult in solo-q, trying to trust random people you never met to understand a strategy that, if you're really 'innovating' on it, they've heard like, once, in pre-game lobby, and have probably never practiced. Like, if I'm playing top lane, and my bot lane is like "yo let's lane swap", and I'm playing like Tryndamere or something, I'm just going to get annihilated cause I have no idea how to deal with a competent 2v1, especially as a champ like Tryndamere.
You see a lot more varied strategies in pre-made teams, maybe not as often as you'd like, but it's there
well tryndamere isn't the best for 2v1,so if there's sense behind their decisions,they most likely won't ask for a lane swap if their top laner is trynd(though in extreme cases of damage control(think twitch janna against karma draven),there may be sense in it)
but I disagree,lane swaps are very commonly done in competitive,so you don't really need too much communication with your team for it(and worst case,the other top laner should be as confused as you are).
MrBuffington1 votesI admit I picked a bad example on purpose just to make the point, but still, I don't know how to 2v1 as like, Gnar, Maokai; champions that pros actually play when they do lane swaps
manbearswine1 votesI admit I picked a bad example on purpose just to make the point, but still, I don't know how to 2v1 as like, Gnar, Maokai; champions that pros actually play when they do lane swaps
You last hit from a distance with ranged abilities,while trying to avoid death,you'll get better with practice,just as everything else,and so will the opposing top laner.
I mean consider this,let's say bot is twitch janna vs karma draven,and you are gnar vs irelia,do you really want to keep with what both of you are familiar with(where you will likely lose,and bot lane will almost certainly get slaughtered),or you can swap lanes,put everyone in a position they aren't too familiar with,but where both you and your bot lane will likely survive. The obvious answer is solo q is "let's slam our head straight into the wall",god,I'm so frustrated with that.
MrBuffington2 votesRight, but if the other bot lane is competent, they'll zone you off minions and poke you down so you can't CS until the wave is under your turret, and then you end up being denied a lot of CS and experience. Sure, this is also happening to the enemy top laner, but in a lot of cases, I'd rather trust my ability to do well in standard lanes rather than trying to trust a bot lane I've never met before to deny the enemy top laner harder than I'm being denied by the enemy bot lane.
I'll agree with you that a lot of people in solo-q are very inflexible and treat the meta like a dogma, but there are a lot of confounding factors/variables in trying to pull off strategies like lane swaps, which most pro teams don't always pull off successfully. It's not even just the lane swap; what's the transition after that? Where does it go from there, what's the plan? Keep in mind this is all with a bunch of random players you just met.
If you really want to start playing with more complex strategies, you should form a team, get on voice comms, and play ranked 5s.
manbearswine1 votesRight, but if the other bot lane is competent, they'll zone you off minions and poke you down so you can't CS until the wave is under your turret, and then you end up being denied a lot of CS and experience. Sure, this is also happening to the enemy top laner, but in a lot of cases, I'd rather trust my ability to do well in standard lanes rather than trying to trust a bot lane I've never met before to deny the enemy top laner harder than I'm being denied by the enemy bot lane.
And that is why you fail young grasshoppa,you assume your team are a bunch of idiots and the enemies are a bunch of geniuses,when not only there's little to imply that,it's also quite baseless.
I'll agree with you that a lot of people in solo-q are very inflexible and treat the meta like a dogma, but there are a lot of confounding factors/variables in trying to pull off strategies like lane swaps, which most pro teams don't always pull off successfully. It's not even just the lane swap; what's the transition after that? Where does it go from there, what's the plan? Keep in mind this is all with a bunch of random players you just met.
Guess what,your enemies are in the exact same spot,you do this to try and prevent your bot lane laning against an obviously stronger lane,and you will achieve that,you are making this much more complex than it actually is.
If you really want to start playing with more complex strategies, you should form a team, get on voice comms, and play ranked 5s.
This strategy isn't complex,very far from it,it's just to prove my point that people in solo q really don't feel like doing anything different,ever,no matter how obvious the need for it or the advantages may be.
MrBuffington1 votesAnd that is why you fail young grasshoppa,you assume your team are a bunch of idiots and the enemies are a bunch of geniuses,when not only there's little to imply that,it's also quite baseless.
No, I'm assuming that neither team has much if any experience doing a lane swap, because that's most likely true; yes I realize it's just a feedback loop (no one lane swaps so no one has any experience so no one lane swaps), but that doesn't change the fact that people probably don't have any experience with it. Heck most western pro teams are just beginning to understand how a top/bot lane swap works, what advantages your team gains from that, how to properly leverage your advantages in the mid game, etc. All of these things require a lot of team coordination, and without voice comms, it becomes very difficult to play around.
If you want to talk mid/top lane swaps, yea sure, I see that a lot actually if one of your teammates is getting hard countered, and swapping would actually end up being beneficial (which in itself is a pretty rare occurrence). Swapping into 2v1s has a lot more potential to backfire. If you want to talk about invades (another non-standard strategy), yes, I actually see that a lot if it's actually beneficial, if it's actually a good call to invade (like your team actually has the better lvl 1 fight). Most of the time in my games, if someone makes the call to invade (and the call actually makes sense; again, if we have the better lvl 1), we'll do it.
This strategy isn't complex,very far from it,it's just to prove my point that people in solo q really don't feel like doing anything different,ever,no matter how obvious the need for it or the advantages may be.
It honestly seems like you're the one making assumptions :P
manbearswine1 votesNo, I'm assuming that neither team has much if any experience doing a lane swap, because that's most likely true; yes I realize it's just a feedback loop (no one lane swaps so no one has any experience so no one lane swaps), but that doesn't change the fact that people probably don't have any experience with it.
So?
Heck most western pro teams are just beginning to understand how a top/bot lane swap works, what advantages your team gains from that, how to properly leverage your advantages in the mid game, etc.
Not really,lane swaps are ancient.
All of these things require a lot of team coordination, and without voice comms, it becomes very difficult to play around.
Again,not really.
If you want to talk mid/top lane swaps, yea sure, I see that a lot actually if one of your teammates is getting hard countered, and swapping would actually end up being beneficial (which in itself is a pretty rare occurrence). Swapping into 2v1s has a lot more potential to backfire.
everything has a lot of potential to backfire,a 2v1 lane swap has as much potential to backfire as staying 2v2,assuming no extra information is given.
If you want to talk about invades (another non-standard strategy),
No,I don't want to talk about it because it's in fact very standard.
It honestly seems like you're the one making assumptions :P
Not really.
Look your problem is,you keep assuming your enemies are way better than you,if that's the case you are going to lose anyway,you keep saying lane swaps are some sort of rocket science and thing is,even if they are(and they aren't),your enemies would be just as confused as you are.
MrBuffington1 votesLook your problem is,you keep assuming your enemies are way better than you,if that's the case you are going to lose anyway,you keep saying lane swaps are some sort of rocket science and thing is,even if they are(and they aren't),your enemies would be just as confused as you are.
You are the one that keeps making assumptions about what I'm saying; I tell you that's not the case, and you keep assuming it. I explain to you how that's not the case, and you ignore it.
You act like I'm opposed to lane swapping; I'm not, I never said that, look back at my comments. I said it's a riskier option, it's a less common and less practiced strategy because it is. This was your response:
everything has a lot of potential to backfire,a 2v1 lane swap has as much potential to backfire as staying 2v2,assuming no extra information is given.
So let's entertain that. In a complete vacuum, sure, what happens is that both top laners get equally denied and both teams basically are playing with an equally underfed top laner. With respect to the rest of the players in the game, the top laner is now a liability, because they are a role that needs resources and were denied them. You're effectively introducing a crack into the team; you might think it's all the same because both teams have this weaker member, but it's not because the team demands that the top laner has resources when they don't; that's why they were given a solo lane to begin with.
You compare this with standard play; in a vacuum, each role gathers the resources their champion requires to be effective in their role. It's the safer option; everyone gets what they need to be a contributing member of the team. Check your core assumption on why the lane swap is a strategy; you're putting your team at a disadvantage in one area (your top laner) in order to gain an advantage in another area (their top laner). That's the definition of risk, mate.
Yes, there are ways to mitigate that risk, and there are times where the situation is such that the potential benefits outweigh the potential losses; of course, that's why teams opt into a lane swap strategy in the first place. That risk still exists, even if you take precautions to minimize it.
manbearswine1 votesYou are the one that keeps making assumptions about what I'm saying; I tell you that's not the case, and you keep assuming it. I explain to you how that's not the case, and you ignore it.
You act like I'm opposed to lane swapping; I'm not, I never said that, look back at my comments. I said it's a riskier option, it's a less common and less practiced strategy because it is. This was your response:
So let's entertain that. In a complete vacuum, sure, what happens is that both top laners get equally denied and both teams basically are playing with an equally underfed top laner. With respect to the rest of the players in the game, the top laner is now a liability, because they are a role that needs resources and were denied them. You're effectively introducing a crack into the team; you might think it's all the same because both teams have this weaker member, but it's not because the team demands that the top laner has resources when they don't; that's why they were given a solo lane to begin with.
...and the same goes for the opposing top laner,it still stays the same.
You compare this with standard play; in a vacuum, each role gathers the resources their champion requires to be effective in their role. It's the safer option; everyone gets what they need to be a contributing member of the team. Check your core assumption on why the lane swap is a strategy; you're putting your team at a disadvantage in one area (your top laner) in order to gain an advantage in another area (their top laner). That's the definition of risk, mate.
That's a dumb way to look at risk,hell if you go 1v1 against him there's a solid chance he will win and zone you(and vice versa),and there's a solid chance your bot lane will win/lose 2v2,in fact performance is much more predictable in 2v1 scenario,so in fact 2v2+1v1 is more risky.
Yes, there are ways to mitigate that risk, and there are times where the situation is such that the potential benefits outweigh the potential losses; of course, that's why teams opt into a lane swap strategy in the first place. That risk still exists, even if you take precautions to minimize it.
Why is this supposed risk even bad to begin with? it's as likely to go in your favor as it is to backfire,you are just greeding over farm and are making excuses trying to convince yourself that it is indeed best for everyone to let you have it,when that's simply not the case.
MrBuffington1 votesYou keep acting like I'm opposed to lane swaps, I've explained to you over and over that I'm not, I'm just explaining the risks of the strategy. I never said the risk was inherently bad, if that were the case no pro team would opt into the strategy, I just said that risk exists. You seem to have this notion that I'm a top lane main who's opposed to lane swaps because I don't want to be in a 2v1, where in actuality I've just been explaining hypothetical situations; top lane is actually my worse role.
You bring up the point that performance in 2v1 lanes is more predictable, but this game is not won in lane phase. I've already explained this. It's a classic gambit, making your team weaker to make their team weaker, that itself is a risk that you are introducing into the system.
That's the extent of the argument I'm making, nothing more. There are ways to mitigate that risk, and ways to swing the situation in your advantage, that's why the strategy exists at all, but there are reasons it is not the default strategy in all games that go beyond "oh, solo q players are just lazy"
manbearswine1 votesYou keep acting like I'm opposed to lane swaps, I've explained to you over and over that I'm not, I'm just explaining the risks of the strategy. I never said the risk was inherently bad, if that were the case no pro team would opt into the strategy, I just said that risk exists. You seem to have this notion that I'm a top lane main who's opposed to lane swaps because I don't want to be in a 2v1, where in actuality I've just been explaining hypothetical situations; top lane is actually my worse role.
I have no idea what you want then,you keep making up some both meaningless and false problems.
You bring up the point that performance in 2v1 lanes is more predictable, but this game is not won in lane phase. I've already explained this. It's a classic gambit, making your team weaker to make their team weaker, that itself is a risk that you are introducing into the system.
Yeah no,that's not what a risk is,the only thing you are doing is reducing the chance for the duo and the solo lanes to find kills,you are removing risk from the system.
That's the extent of the argument I'm making, nothing more. There are ways to mitigate that risk, and ways to swing the situation in your advantage, that's why the strategy exists at all, but there are reasons it is not the default strategy in all games that go beyond "oh, solo q players are just lazy"
honestly,I would say purple side should swap by default,it's not just that,lane swaps are inherently stronger in solo q as picks aren't made around them(whereas your team could do that),so yeah,it does in fact come down to the laziness of people in solo q.
MrBuffington1 votesI have no idea what you want then,you keep making up some both meaningless and false problems.
I'm explaining to you the risks involved with a lane swap strategy. That's all. I've explicitly stated that in my past like, three comments, I don't know why you don't understand that.
Yeah no,that's not what a risk is,the only thing you are doing is reducing the chance for the duo and the solo lanes to find kills,you are removing risk from the system.
I disagree, you're increasing the chance for both duo lanes to get kills on the solo laners, not to mention increasing the chance that the solo laners get very far behind due to the fact that they're getting denied experience and CS. That's introducing risk into the system. Both teams being at risk does not negate the risk; it just means both teams are at risk; it still exists.
honestly,I would say purple side should swap by default,it's not just that,lane swaps are inherently stronger in solo q as picks aren't made around them(whereas your team could do that),so yeah,it does in fact come down to the laziness of people in solo q.
This is such a narrow point of view. Look at pro play right now; why are lane swaps becoming more common? Look at their champion picks; what top laners are in the meta right now? Lissandra, Gnar, Lulu, Maokai, Rumble, Kennen; most of them are champions that can handle themselves in 2v1s. When they pick a champion that does poorly in a 2v1, guess what, they usually don't opt into that strategy; when they see the enemy opt into a champion that does poorly in a 2v1, that's when they opt into a 2v1. Heck a lot of the time too, they're doing 2v2 lanes where it's the support and top laner on bot side with the ADC in a 1v1 in top lane. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I say the risk can be mitigated.
Default swapping your lanes is a terrible idea; your purple side Nasus in solo q is going to get obliterated in a 2v1. Sure, maybe your top laner picks Gnar or something; then what. You realize pro teams have to practice hours and hours every day to get the lane swap synergy down, right? Not to mention the hours they have to practice the actual champions that can succeed with the strategy. In solo q, first you need to get lucky in the fact that your top laner actually plays a champion that can succeed in a 2v1; then you need that top laner to actually understand how to handle themselves in a 2v1, something they've probably never practiced because no one does it (again, goes back to my original comments that it's a feedback loop, but it's the case nonetheless). It's the same case with pro play; you need the situations to be right or at least favorable for you to opt into a lane swap; it's not the default strategy for a reason.
manbearswine1 votesI'm explaining to you the risks involved with a lane swap strategy. That's all. I've explicitly stated that in my past like, three comments, I don't know why you don't understand that.
That's because these risks are imaginary.
I disagree, you're increasing the chance for both duo lanes to get kills on the solo laners, not to mention increasing the chance that the solo laners get very far behind due to the fact that they're getting denied experience and CS. That's introducing risk into the system. Both teams being at risk does not negate the risk; it just means both teams are at risk; it still exists.
No,the solo laners being aware of the situations should stay back and play safe,there's definetly more risk of dying in a regular 1v1 or 2v2 lane,on top of the top laners losing cs and exp being intended,ergo that's not the risk,that's the very thing you are going for.
This is such a narrow point of view. Look at pro play right now; why are lane swaps becoming more common?
They aren't? As I've said,lane swaps are ancient,and they happen about as frequently as they always have.
Look at their champion picks; what top laners are in the meta right now? Lissandra, Gnar, Lulu, Maokai, Rumble, Kennen; most of them are champions that can handle themselves in 2v1s.
That has ALWAYS been the case
When they pick a champion that does poorly in a 2v1, guess what, they usually don't opt into that strategy; when they see the enemy opt into a champion that does poorly in a 2v1, that's when they opt into a 2v1. Heck a lot of the time too, they're doing 2v2 lanes where it's the support and top laner on bot side with the ADC in a 1v1 in top lane. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I say the risk can be mitigated.
They aren't trying to mitigate the risk,you're the one cowering away from any changes,pro players don't have this attitude.
Default swapping your lanes is a terrible idea; your purple side Nasus in solo q is going to get obliterated in a 2v1.
So tell him "dude we are purple I have no intention of fucking dealing with broken tri brush so we are swapping lanes and don't pick nasus" Oh,and nasus can actually do okayish vs a lane swap(but you can replace it with trynd so I made a more general response).
Sure, maybe your top laner picks Gnar or something; then what. You realize pro teams have to practice hours and hours every day to get the lane swap synergy down, right? Not to mention the hours they have to practice the actual champions that can succeed with the strategy. In solo q, first you need to get lucky in the fact that your top laner actually plays a champion that can succeed in a 2v1; then you need that top laner to actually understand how to handle themselves in a 2v1, something they've probably never practiced because no one does it (again, goes back to my original comments that it's a feedback loop, but it's the case nonetheless). It's the same case with pro play; you need the situations to be right or at least favorable for you to opt into a lane swap; it's not the default strategy for a reason.
How dense are you? So what now? The enemy will beat you by experience? The enemy team has practiced for hours? Why exactly is placing yourself into an uncomfortable spot bad if your enemy is in the same spot? Which part of "the enemy is in the same boat" is so hard for you to register? Please read this paragraph at least 20 time,as you seem to be having immense difficulties understanding this very basic principle.
lojician1 votesIt's not done in solo queue because it's not fun to sit there being denied for 10 minutes or to faceroll someone 2v1 no skill required. People play games to have fun, not to maximize elo per minute. Otherwise everyone would be spamming top lane lulu like the koreans.
manbearswine1 votesor to faceroll someone 2v1 no skill required. First of all that's not true,second: people love facerolling.
People play games to have fun, not to maximize elo per minute. Otherwise everyone would be spamming top lane lulu like the koreans.
I disagree with you,most people would sell their soul to win,just look how popular op champions get,hell remember when taric was op? he was still crazy boring,but had the highest pickrate cause "free win lol".
It's not done in solo queue because it's not fun to sit there being denied for 10 minutes
And that's why riot enforces the meta,cause people sort of like the way it is right now.
tTops3 votesThe overall idea behind meta control actually intrigues me due to it's similarities to Classical vs Keynesian economists. On one hand, you could say Riot would need to fix any balance issues regarding "broken" champions, but on the other hand, you could say if these champions remain broken, the player base (community) will eventually have to experiment with various strategies to overcome the broken champs. In this case, Riot implementing a balance/meta shift would be a government implementing a policy.
If you have no idea what I am talking about, I encourage you to google, wiki, and so on, because it's interesting stuff!
The need for "meta-enforcement" would be dependent on how "sticky" the meta is in the short run. What this means is simply, how fast would the community find a solution to various meta problems. If it turns out that the meta is very slow to shift without Riot's intervention, then meta-control is necessary. Likewise, if the meta were to be fast to react/shift (to a new equilibrium/balance), intervention is not needed.
Personally, in terms of League of Legends (and other strategies games), I prefer a more classical approach because in my opinion, it breeds more diverse gameplay or strategies. If you wish to discuss further on this kind of stuff, feel free to follow the links below! ^.^
Malgana3 votesPeople just don't realize how far this enforcement goes, since they've forgotten that Riot has screwed with each individual lane.
Top and mid got huge armor bonuses to their outer towers so that people would stop pushing them so early, but this makes it a lot easier for assassin type champs to roam since it's harder to punish them for it. Riot has done more to support the assassin influx with this than they even realize. Now they want to remove the shield from the inner turret from mid specifically because it's OP against the delayed damage bullshit like Zed's and Karth's ults, which will push the lanes even farther out of equality and solidifies some champs into only being playable in mid lane, which is stupid IMO.
Leti the Yeti2 voteshonestly we need some sort of meta just to dictate who gets nerfed and why really, some champs only exist under the protection of a meta preventing what could totally gimp them.. from actually gimping them -cough- seen in top lane all the time
Orders2 votesFrom what I've seen in SoloQ games, people still pick many "off-meta" champions and they do just fine with them. Granted, I only play normal games so I assume people are much less competitive than in ranked.
I guess Riot does enforce the meta in terms of roles, however. In their Terms and Conditions made for the players of the LCS, all teams have to have a top, mid, jungle, ADC, and support. They cannot have, for instance, two top laners instead. In this instance there's definitely some meta enforcing but maybe their defence is so that the game doesn't become confusing? I have no idea.
Champion Skin1 votesWell you could try having two top laners and both of them getting targons to share the wave Or maybe have another support + carry lane? (and support could possibly roam some?)
Pæan2 votesIf you try your best and don't feed I don't really care what you play.
Had a game with a Nami adc and I think a Janna support. Nami out cs'Ed the enemy adc and got super fed.
Play what you want wherever you want, just as long as you know what you're doing its all good to me.
Champion Skin1 votesWell all ranged champions can be built as ADC (as they all have auto attacks and range) Though not all champions can be built like a mage (rip DFG Garen, AP Yi, AP Tryndamere)
NorthernDruid2 votesI like that there is a meta, that it's easy to grasp it, that it's easy to know which roles and setups are availible.
I don't like it when they force a champion to have only one role (as they might have done with Bard), though if they keep evolving gimmicks and creating more champions with unique sub-roles and metaless advantages (again, like Bard) it might get more interesting over time.
Champion Skin1 votesWell it was kind of cool when targons was stronger and duo top was actually kind of viable
The Lewd One2 votesMeta is good. Meta has given us tools to quicken games and make them feel more satisfying. We could not have adapted the 1/1/2 jungler playstyle commonly accepted without meta. Meta also gives us a strong idea of what our teammates and opponents are capable of due to playing with their picks so often. If everyone adheres to the meta then you will almost always come out with a strong team composition.
Meta is bad. It stifles player creativity. Out of Meta pick in most cases is associated with the term troll pick. A player could be harassed for picking their favorite champion that they have 200 games on just because it is out of meta. Picking out of meta picks can lead to weird team comps with glaring weaknesses that can be easily exploited...but on the other hand it could also throw an opponent off guard when Poppy ignores 4 members of your team and murders your carry while the rest of her team takes advantage of the fact that the opponents just wasted crucial CC on her. These type of plays and player enjoyment would not be possible if the meta was enforced.
Meta is a necessary thing in a competitive game. What makes the meta so stifling is people's reaction to it. There will always be strong and weak champions, but more people need to understand that player knowledge will always trump flavor of the month champions. I wish the time between the final pick of a team and entering the game was slightly longer so people could take some time to explain how to play with and get the most out of their unorthodox pick.
Champion Skin1 votesWell there was that time when duo top was actually a thing... that was kind of interesting (targons all the way)
BUDDHISTINK2 votesThere HAS to be a meta.
Der Lindwurm2 votesThe only reason I cooperate with the meta is because I know it's expected people will totally flip out if I don't - even in games at my 800-900 MMR where no one is playing at anywhere near the level of the players who developed the meta. This is a big part of the reason why my team has been owned by off-meta picks like Yasuo and Malphite bot lane - rather than quickly adapting, my teammates just get angry that they're not following the meta and accuse them of trolling or even cheating.
Cheating? The whole purpose of the meta is to increase your chances of winning. If you can't make their failure to follow the meta count against them, you're not playing at a level where it's worth worrying too much about the meta in the first place.
The result of this is that I often regret building legit support and feel like another assassin or bruiser would have helped my team a lot more, especially when laning degenerates into a free for all 15-20 minutes in. People want meta picks and meta builds, but just aren't careful, watchful, and experienced enough to properly handle meta gameplay yet. Though I would never bother trying to tell that to most of the people I get matched with.
Spacesuit Spiff2 votesI kinda want to play a couple games down there, just so I can experience the legend of Pantheon support.
The standard LCS fanboy's gameplan is "pick whatever I saw in the LCS last night, do absolutely none of what the LCS player did with it, ???, not understand why I lost". If you're not at least gold, there's never a reason to pick a conservative top like Maokai over a snowballer like Riven or Fiora.
Accusing people of cheating for not following the meta is hilarious. Anything to shift blame off themselves I guess.
Drunk Rummate1 votesto a certain degree... yes. i like consistency in my games. i'm okay with deviations to a certain degree but if people are using strategies which i know logically are inferior then it makes me a bit sad.
but thats why i just play ARAM. i got burned out on competitive crap from playing too much starcraft 2 and now i just play casual level only.
Subject 51 votesMeta is cancer =/
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 doublelift fg
First blood tower needs to fucking go already
Gameplay45 comments
157
votes
"We Want to Nerf Riven without Nerfing her Core strength"
Gameplay188 comments
149
votes
Syndra ulti should stop if she dies
Gameplay140 comments
136
votes
Certainlyt is buffing Urgot
Gameplay149 comments
123
votes
Ekko Completly Broke Riot's Philosophy
Gameplay147 comments
120
votes
Everytime Vayne was buffed she became gamebreaking and was nerfed
Gameplay64 comments
105
votes