Doublelift's Video and the Duality of Boards

ModCaptainMårvelous··38 votes·12,754 views

Doublelift just put out a fucking awesome video about his thoughts on League and what he sees as a downside to playing the game. However, there's an interesting aspect to it that I think people aren't touching on: How Doublelift's view contradicts and even fights with some of the things the more casual playerbase such as Boards/Reddit likes. I'd watch the video first because I'm going to go a bit more broad with this:

#1.) Patch Cycle

It's no secret that League's patch cycle was part of its success as a game. A new patch/champion every two weeks meant that you were never bored for long, as there was always something new to log into. Perhaps more damaging is that it gave players the notion that any problem with balance could be addressed in two weeks or less, depending on if you looked at the PBE. To this day we still see people demanding changes asap, as things that are a problem but untouched in the current cycle are lambasted as "Riot ignoring the problem YET AGAIN GG"

Doublelift's suggestion is interesting because it means these problems are exacerbated, hurting the casual playerbase more. He'd want longer patch cycles, which could be anywhere between 3+ weeks or longer, and more focus on letting the game sit. Now, pray tell, how does boards and reddit react when a problem champion avoids a nerf bat? Well, they freak and mock it. That begs the question what happens if Nidalee rises to viability/OP-ness in one patch followed by a 6 week wait to see if Riot nerfs her. There'd be anarchy, no? And that's not even addressing deeper system changes like jungle, neutral monsters, twoers, etc.

The most interesting thing is that DL proposes for the game to be better, he wants it to sit and stew whereas the predominant board request is for fixing ASAP and changes yesterday.

#2.) The Bot Lane Change

Another thing that has been harped for years from boards was marksmen dominance botlane. ADCs OP! They're the only class that go bot! Etc etc. Riot somehow accomplished this crazy task yet, from DL's point-of-view, a lot of players are frustrated because suddenly something they've mastered for years has to compete with something new. While I do think Riot's at fault for letting ADC dominance get as bad as it was, the request for years has always been to open up bot lane from forums, boards and more. Perhaps most of all, it spoke to a casual mindset that encouraged people to ask for more variety, more flexibility and more unpredictability in draft phases.

Unpredictability is, by and large, a concept that appeals to casuals more than pros. Pros have and always will want a static game. It means that their practice isn't for naught and they can continue to use skills they learned well into the year and beyond. Casuals want new things so the game experience is fresh. This butting heads has caused and will continue to cause issues.

#3.) More Static, Less Practice = More Content

Doublelift also argues that in making the game more static and less prone to change, pros can spend less time scrimming and make more content. What I find interesting here is that Doublelift argues that the game will be more popular as a watched or visual experience. As the game won't change much, it'll be up to players to adapt. Adapt, of course, is not a casual-friendly thing. It will, however, make good players know meta changes and have more time to experiment. The problem is how boards and reddit have always treated the idea of game change: The game should change around the masses, not pro play.

The split here is extra fascinating because it means that Doublelift equates popularity more to the game as something you can watch rather than something you necessarily play. Again, a hotly hated thing on the boards ("CATERING TO THE LC$ YET AGAIN I SEE!") and would push further to enforce the game as a more skilled game that demands you not ask for buffs/nerfs but rather that you get good.

#4.) Buffs

I'd imagine up to this point boards has been nodding their head in agreement with Doublelift. Mostly because he has been saying how he wants league to change and how people love to be told their complaints are right....then you get to Doublelift's call to change: More buffs. Less nerfs. This is perhaps the biggest divide and shows where the pro and casual split actually lies. Just as it has happened for years, pros don't want nerfs to champions. They want to expand the pool and improve counters by buffing less-than-good champions. In Scarra's own words, he thinks the power scale should be A-to-C tier champions, rather than S-to-F tier champions.

Yet conversely, boards despises the idea of buffs. They seem immune to loss aversion and seem to always want to nerf what is strong first rather than buff what is weak. If towers are weak, the top complaints always fall back onto "Damage being too high" before "Towers are buffed". Likewise, rather than buffing tank itemization, they would rather nerf damage so fights last longer. The predominant response is to remove rather than to change. This is perhaps the biggest split and where the casual vs. pro rhetoric shines hardest.

#Conclusion

It can't be overstated that Doublelift isn't analyzing the game from the perspective of us. He's far better at the game than most of us will forever be and his understanding of it is deeper than most people here could ever hope. However, that doesn't necessarily make him in the right. DL is a pro and we're not. The needs of a casual are nothing like that of a pro, which is why I found this video so interesting. In Riot's case, they have two very divergent paths they can take: They can listen to the boards and mass-nerf things, changing as fast as possible to keep people happy and sedated. Alternatively, they can listen to Doublelift and tell casuals that they'll need to buck up and learn rather than wait for change.

For years, since Season 2, I've always harped on the casual and pro balance split Riot has always done. I always warned them that there will be a time where the problem comes to a head and they'll need to finally choose who they're going to embrace and what path League will take. It's here, Season 8, that it seems that this time has finally come. Pros and casuals need drastically different things to have them enjoy league from what Doublelift talks about. At the end, this fifty-fifty balance is doing more harm than good. Riot needs to knuckle down and pick the side because a neutral party is only going to lead to run.

TL;DR: Much of what Doublelift talks about (Buffs, less changes, etc.) would be reviled by the community or disliked. Static, rarely changing game with focus on pro player enjoyment vs. rapidly changing game with focus on hitting problems asap for casual players. The fifty-fifty pub-and-pro balance isn't working anymore and Riot needs to choose a side.

72 Comments

Akali is SO HOT7 votes

A problem with just buffing every champions is that it becomes much harder to get everyone on the same level. If most champions are A - D tier, but Kass and Renekton are S tier, then it is a lot easier to just nerf Kass and Renekton than it is to buff everyone else. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it definitely is a challenge to do.

ModCaptainMårvelous3 votes

Well then the question is which is better for the game: The easy solution or the more challenging one? (I don't have an answer to that, just food for thots)

ZackTheWaffleMan7 votes

{quoted}

just food for thots

#LET THE THOTS STARVE

Warlord Rhinark5 votes

{quoted}

#LET THE THOTS STARVE

Who would've thot.

ZackTheWaffleMan1 votes

#NOBODY I KNOW WOULD EVER HAVE THOT

#I AM NOT ACQUAINTED WITH SUBHUMANS

chipndip14 votes

Do you know any women?

Malak2 votes

{quoted}

Well then the question is which is better for the game: The easy solution or the more challenging one? (I don't have an answer to that, just food for thots)

How much food do these thots need??

y0r1ck1 votes

Mmm food

Akali is SO HOT2 votes

I'm of the opinion that a mixture of both is the best way. Making sure the champs on top are toned down a little bit so you don't have to buff the weaker champions as much to get them onto their level helps prevent mega power creep from happening. No matter which option you go with though it is still impossible to achieve perfect balance. There are always going to be champs that have kits that allow them to almost always be good Janna no matter how many nerfs Janna they get Janna and then there are gonna be champions that are almost always going to be bad because they either have horrible kits or their kits are way too good to allow them to even be close to decent without completely warping the game.

That's something that a lot of people don't really seem to understand. There are always going to be a group of champions that are the best no matter what. You can nerf Sej, Kaisa, Zoe, and Camille all you want. It just means that they'll eventually come back to the top because the meta favors them or there will be other champions to take their place. Just saying NERF NERF NERF all day long does nothing to help the problem because there are always going to be the best champions and there is nothing the balance team can do about it.

People get angry when they see that Riot is buffing champions on PBE, but that is just them trying to get those champions on the level of the better ones. Sometimes they go completely overboard with the buffs Aatrox but most of the time they don't make too much of a difference. In my opinion, I would rather have a patch come out once every 3 or 4 weeks instead of 2. Gives the game more time to settle down before it is changed again. Doing patches once every 2 or 3 months is pretty bad because then we can end up with item 3504 being busted for 3 months straight before it might get fixed.

Tbh I actually kinda liked the way they did it this time around. The PBE cycle ended up being 3 weeks so they did a small micropatch to even things out. Maybe doing a patch every 4 weeks with a micropatch 2 weeks in would be something worth experimenting with.

AirKingNeo2 votes

the answer is nerf because if you buff enough you'll eventually outscale the map itself and turret would become paper

also its harder to buff everyone

KoKoboto4 votes

I agree but I think the damage needs to be addressed. It's been this way for a long time now.

Edit: I'm not being clear. Damage is too damn high.

ModCaptainMårvelous3 votes

So basically just reaffirming the point I made in play disparity:

You, a gold player (Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm gold as well) think the correct path is to buff towers but nerf most champs across the board. Doublelift, a pro player, thinks that the correct path is to buff weaker things so that it's equal across the board.

D357R0Y3R4 votes

doublelift's point is irrelevant in this situation

he can think buffing weaker things should happen but that does not excuse the changes riot did multiple times for no reasons which just raised the amount of damage in the game

IE:-removal of mr runes+buffing physical damage +buffing mr pen during preseason +buffing tribute damage +buffing ignite

to a point where now a support can 1v1 a squishy target and i'm not talking about "supports" no i'm talking about REAL supports

chipndip12 votes

What Janna has been hitting you lately?

D357R0Y3R1 votes

idk about janna, but soraka hell fucking yea and same for the majority of supports

chipndip12 votes

I mean it's kind of on you if you're getting hit by EVERY Q, isn't it?

Also, an enchanter is meant to be strong in laning phase. It's AFTER people buy spikes that enchanters fall back.

GayFluffyUnicorn1 votes

Always thought enchanters should power up their allies and not be damage lanebullies.

Fízz v22 votes

Bard item 3092 summoner 14 oneshotting me :[ never forgetti

BestPudgeNA3 votes

Rekkles benched himself and cried like a girl As UZI smacked down the LCK at RR playing ADCs. Conclusion: ADCs outside of UZI are a bunch of crybabies that aren't actually good at the game Solution: get gud kid

PaffWasTaken3 votes

I'd imagine up to this point boards has been nodding their head in agreement with Doublelift. Mostly because he has been saying how he wants league to change and how people love to be told their complaints are right....then you get to Doublelift's call to change: More buffs. Less nerfs.

I don't see where this reaches anyone here. Several popular threads are just about how Riot just keep buffing damage without nerfing most sources of it in everysingle champs, leading to an huge damage creep that almost everyone hates. This led to tanks not being able to tank anymore and being forced to be buffed in damage too. This led to the disaster of the assassins' class update that cranked up so much damage in assassins that everyone else in the game also got buffed to make up for it. BALANCE is a word that implies both diminutive and positive changes. Only focusing on positive ones will just crank up the game to an height where everything becomes unenjoyable.

GayFluffyUnicorn2 votes

Yeah reddit is jerking off hard to this video and especially demands "fight op with op". So instead of hard nerfing support, tanks and adcs we buffed assassins and gave bruiser a new keystone to fight tanks. What could possibly go wrong. And riot has been doing this for a longer time now which lead to the powercreep we are experiencing now. And this is where doublelifts video fails. Also the thinking it leads to more "skill" expression is blatantly wrong. Look at the dmg creep in this game where even a lulu support bursts a talon in midlane away. Where is the skill expression? Like, teemo is op. I'm playing Darius. Teemo takes like 2/3 of my health bar with Auto Q Auto and Aery/comet before i can do anything. So we make darius op too which means teemo would have to die in one Q auto from me. Where is the skill expression? Or we can nerf teemo so he doesnt kill me in two autoattacks so i can bait him to close the gap and grab him and kill him in a longer trade. Which scenario has more skill expression? Where teemo has to kite/orbwalk away and i have to bait him or close the gap somehow or where we both kill each other in 0,5 secs?

MorganFreemanBot3 votes

I disagree with a lot of this.

Put simply, I couldn't care less about watching League of Legends. I find watching someone else play video games the same as watching someone play sports; boring and tedious. I'd rather actively be DOING something rather than watching someone else do it. This is even more true for video games, where the skill barriers are far easier to overcome, age isn't much of a problem, and there's ease of access to other people to play with.

As a result, the Lion's share of this would push me away from League. Making the game into more of a spectator sport, which is exclusively designed to pander to the extreme upper echelons at the cost of actively trying to alienate the lower ones into 'viewers', rather than 'players', would drive me out of the game right quick.

And, honestly? I think it would immediately kill the game. I believe that most of the viewership for games comes from people who play, to some degree, and want to gain a better understand / enjoy watching as well as playing. If you make playing ungodly awful for those lower-rung players, they'll simply stop investing in the game; therefor no longer playing AND no longer playing, at least imo.

With that said, two things:

I agree with longer patch cycles, to an extent. League often offers whip-lash changes, where balance spikes and doesn't get the chance to solidify at all. It occasionally becomes blatantly obvious that champions who need nominal nerfs or buffs are crammed full of changes (Aatrox, Kai'sai,) due to no one really having a grasp on how they function, and them being unreliable in a live environment as a result.

Though honestly, this is more about not hot-fix buffing / nerfing a champion within 24-fucking-hours of release. That's never a good idea. Ever.

Again though, this requires discretion. As someone who very much enjoyed WoW arena pvp in TBC, you have to make changes faster than they did. Specific champs dominating the game in obvious states of imbalance, for months or years on end is.. unacceptable. So "slower" doesn't mean "Glacially slow".

And, lastly, the bit about buffing:

I see where he's coming from, sort of.

When you get down to it, if done right, mass-buffs would be the same as the mass-nerfs that Boards and Reddit seem to want. You don't actually have to scale back damage creep, assuming you massively buff survivability across the board, therefor keeping damage the same but 'resetting' the speed at which people die through buffs via nerfs.

That said, unless that's what he means, I disagree. We've seen this sort of meta once before - in S3 - where it's all about burst and tanks are generally useless. It's not fun, though I'd argue S3 was actually burstier. While I think the desire for there to be A-C champion tiers only (and agree with it) rather than S -F, I don't believe that we should reach that goal by ramping all damage upto 17 and turning everyone into a monstrous burst machine.

Frontline Fury2 votes

All-around buffs wouldn't be bad at all. The problem is when the buffs are only happening to an extremely limited selection of champions.

ModCaptainMårvelous1 votes

That's easy to explain. Generally, Riot takes time crafting buffs and changing aspects of a champions kit. It's also better to release them on their own so you don't encounter a problem. Say Riot releases a Lucian buff and a new on-hit item. Lucian's win-rate skyrockets to 60%. Does this mean Lucian's buffs were too strong? Was it the item that made him OP? Both?

It's also why Riot tries to change things in batches. ADC changes so the effect is all about adcs. Mage items for mage changes. etc.

Speeedy1 votes

except when riot does big changes like Runes reforged, bruisers were bad for how many months? Now with AP items it didn't change too much just gave you slightly better variety. Finally on 8.11 riot gutted a class and have to buff them back up. Taking the marksman lets look at what they did:

  1. IE change gave them about 15% less damage overall (if you want ill break out math for you)
  2. Gold cost more on items
  3. Base stat nerfs
  4. Other changes on focusing on making the game time shorter

You have something that you know is Overpowered but you chip away at their power. What riot did was have a splinter in their finger and took off the persons arm instead. If I was running riot, once the season starts you should have a major change ship out. Then balance it through the year in small steps because I want pro teams to be well practiced on the game for when worlds comes around. It doesn't feel like riot make too many logical decisions on what to expect when they make a change. They have done this twice so far in the last year alone.

PS just cut damage on everyone across the board, to bring back more strategy into the game

TLDR

Riot needs to take smaller swings at buffs or nerfs not go to the extreme like they do

ChaosThief1 votes

Traditionally, smaller swings don't get received nearly as well. To give a few examples: Vayne's -5 AD nerf, Kayle's -3 AD, -5 base damage off of a spell (can't remember the champion, maybe there are several champions with nerfs like this one.)

GayFluffyUnicorn1 votes

It's even easier to explain: Riot live design are a bunch of fuckin hypocrites with a huge boner for a select champs of favorites and everyone else can sit in the dirt.

How it took them five months to give us conq. The nerfing death timer, conq, teleport and removing steraks to completely shit on and destroy bruisers again. Meanwhile everyone else can enjoy their freelo on zoe, graves, taliyah for months. Why nerf them they are soooooo cool and interactive when completely busted. Rakan, fiddle, morgana broken? Who? No way. Kai'sa OP? That would never happen nono. Let's wait a few months if she is ACTUALLY overpowered while we hotfix buff and break her.

KICK OUT AT 22 votes

Ah. Finally. This is the pushback I've been waiting for since 2015. I had the same thought process DL has in the video about the aatrox rework when GP was reworked in S5. No reason to remove the old champion that many players have invested hundreds if not thousands of hours into if the reworked version of him plays completely differently.

ModCaptainMårvelous1 votes

The problem there is that there's both a placement cost as well as a dev cost.

To use your example, let's say Gangplank didn't get reworked and instead you now have Gangplank and Plankgang (PG being the reworked version). For one thing, you have thematic overlap: Both are pirate captains who use sword/gun combos as well as sharing aspects of their kit. This means that both are now competing for player love in that category. Gangplank and Plankgang are both pirate captains with extremely similar themes so who gets the larger playerbase? Like divorced parents or something.

Then you come to aspects of skins and cosmetics. So the skin I think Gangplank got right after was Dreadnova...so who gets it? Gangplank? Plankgang? Do they both get one and cause double the work for a fraction of the payoff? How about the future? In the end, one of these champions will get more love, leading to one atrophying and getting less love than the other.

The last aspect is balance changes and what not. I don't need to spend too much time on this but in general just think of it as having to put even more work into balancing a champion that may not be particularly healthy ala Poppy or old Sion. Plus in cases like Gangplank/Plankgang you might have two champs filling very similar niches so it's always a fight of Gangplank vs. Plankgang. One is always going to be the better pick because of how close they are.

The one thing I'd add as a compromise is a "Wild format" of sorts where in normals or customs you can pull out old champions. However, they'd be as they were last in the game and never get balance adjustments (sans actual gamebreaking bugs). Other than that, reworks are just a necessary part of League.

KICK OUT AT 22 votes

If they kept GP in the game then the reworked kit would be on a different champion, not GP 2. The barrel mechanic, which is obviously the focus point of his new design, could be done with any explosive. No animation or visual effect was kept from old GP. They basically designed an entirely new champion visually so whether that work was put in to recreate GP or design something else entirely makes no difference. The problem I can see here is that they would have to change his Q, W, and R so they wouldn't be so obviously gangplank. That would take more time than just copying over the abilities for the most part.

As for balance, barrel GP and old GP don't really have overlap as far as their roles go. Barrel GP being an AD caster with strong zoning, teamfighting, and sieging. Old GP could fill 3 different roles, one as a melee ADC with strong splitpushing and 1v1, one as a meatshield, and one as an pseudo AP champion with strong sustain and global presence. Probably the most flexible champion in the game. To upkeep two champions instead of one isn't that big of a deal. There's already a ridiculous amount of champions in the game, what's one more? Old GP wasn't a complicated champion so his upkeep would not be difficult.

I got a bit bothered by your last sentence. Reworks are only necessary for champions whos kits are unhealthy for the game. GP was reworked because he was unpopular as stated by a riot employee, as was galio and urgot. That isn't an acceptable reason to remove a character from the game, neither are reworks because a champion is too simple. Are all the players who played the pre-rework champion expected to fuck off afterwords or what?

ModCaptainMårvelous2 votes

The problem with your initial idea is that it'd create a drastically different champion from what rework GP is. As an example, part of why Urgot was reworked was due to the fact that his old ult had no purpose being on his kit. Plus a very unique, tank-esque/diver-esque ult ate up that ult on another character. Riot actually said that they plan on bringing Urgot's OG ult back at some point when they find a kit that meshes. GP's current kit meshes together pretty well and avoids some of the pitfalls of his old design(Which I'll get into in a bit).

Also: Old GP only psuedo-filled those roles. While we don't have the stats anymore, 2/3 of those roles were always the lesser ones. GP could be a splitpusher but he rarely did it as well as another champion. He could be a psuedo AP champ but it was often the "wrong" choice. The option was there, the quality was not. It also made a problem of balancing: Maybe you nerf the AP Ratio to make old triforce (when it had AP on it) not as good without disrupting GP's core strength. But then you're hamstringing AP GP. It's one of those cases where massive build variety leads to innate kit problems (Again, something I'll get to next).

So we come to the final part where "reworks are only for unhealthy champs". The problem is...what constitutes an unhealthy champ? Take Aatrox for example. Completely playable but arguably unhealthy. A binary kit that was almost always too strong or too weak depending on factors outside of his kit. Old GP suffered the same fate: Because he had a tendency to be a ball of stats whose focus was a point-and-click ranged on-hit/crit activator (That's a fuckin' mouthful), he was usually either too strong or too weak. In a lot of ways old GP was perserved saved for the barrels, which made his kit extremely different and created a vast gap in what a good and bad GP could do.

Additionally, well, there's always a cost. There's always someone who gets fucked by this no matter how you slice it. If we released Plankgang as a new champ, who is to say we're not actively hurting GP by creating a champion that does his exact role but with more skill and variety? Who is to say that Riot didn't spurn the tiny playerbase of old Sion who really liked building deathcap and one-shotting people with his absurd 1.something AP Ratio? There is always going to be a cost and it's a bullet you end up having to take whenever you rework a champion. The answer that should be asked is "In reworking this champion, am I helping more than I'm hurting?". That's a case-by-case question but if you hamstring yourself by "But what about the current players", then no champ would ever be reworked due to there always being some tiny group who loves a champ to death.

It's a sticky topic but earnestly, reworks are probably for the best. Plus there's still the development and thematic cost which is still taken up in having a character be <theme or character>.

Akali is SO HOT1 votes

It really depends on the rework. If the rework is done correctly, then it can be great for a champion and their mains. I thought that the Fiora and GP reworks did super well and the Warwick rework is probably the best rework of all time. However, you also get garbage reworks that completely remove the champion from the game. Prime examples being Aatrox and Galio. If the reworks are done right, then it is great for the game, but if they are done badly, then it feels awful for the players who liked that champion.

KICK OUT AT 21 votes

Even good reworks shaft a portion of the playerbase. I like the new swain, if i'm playing mid he's one of my favorite picks. However, put yourself in the shoes of an old swain main. You've played the champion for thousands of hours, you know him in and out. Then one day the champion is removed from the game and replaced with something completely different. All the time you spent learning swain, his builds, his matchups... all that is now worthless. The champion you had the most fun playing is gone forever. Riot has left you with nothing. What are those players supposed to do? Quit?

Akali is SO HOT2 votes

The Swain rework was pretty bad as well. Tbh most of the reworks Riot has done has shafted the mains of that champion, but not all of them have done that. They aren't gonna stop doing them anytime soon so you just gotta hope they don't screw it up when they get to your champion.

My Waifu Vanilla1 votes

You shouldn't cater to an extremely small minority though. People complain on here that riot caters too much to high elo yet also wants riot to cater to mains of <1% pick rate champions? The only time the likes of Swain, Sion, Poppy, Yorick, Galio, etc. etc. ever broke MAYBE 3% pickrate is when their binary kits got buffed and were overtuned. Even still that 3% pick rate maximum isn't entirely mains. That still includes people trying the champion out or what have you. All the reworks now have less stat reliant kits and could feasibly see play without being overtuned. They all have niches outside of "my numbers are bigger than yours". Swain brings follow up to any engage with his pull, he also brings vision and more reliable hard CC.

Automated Riven1 votes

I wouldn't put gangplank in there as good. I don't think most gangplank players liked the barrel system. And it really didn't add anything of value to the game that old gangplank didn't already have. I think the ult and sea serpents was a good change. However simply changing his old e to be a personal buff without a cast time and a bit stronger would have been much better of a change IMHO. WW was a good change and Fiora was 50/50. Her ult was way too powerful and had to go. All in all I think that one was pretty good as well.

But I agree, 90% of reworks are done absolutely terribly.

La Belle Sauvage2 votes

Bravo!

This is perfectly stated.

And I love your conclusion. Well thought out posts (even if readers disagree) should be embraced over a majority of rant type posts.

As soon as I saw that article I thought, great, here we go all the rangers are going to point to that article as justification to their rant.

When my reaction was I agree with some of his thouts and disagree with others. And I do not have a foot to stand on because I'm not a pro player.

ChaosThief2 votes

It'd be nice if Riot aimed for more radical changes that didn't always involve "more damage" or "more mobility"

I'd love to see Riot do something like, say, towers now have double health, but you can cast abilities on them. Or if we added an item active to a defensive item that just blocked a single hit coming from outside a bubble that it creates.

Hell, even some mobility items would be nice; like the one item they had in black market brawlers, where the active returned you to place after X seconds. If I recall an ARAM item was added that did such a feature, but it would likely change quite a few things in the rift too. Ok, well, maybe not that item, but the point stands.

Every item that is bought is either an offensive item with an uninteractive defensive passive/active (phantom dancer, death's dance, mercurial, etc) or an offensive item with even more offensiveness tied into it (pretty much all crit itemization besides phantom, duskblade, stormrazer, etc.)

Utility-based items seemed to be locked down for pretty much only support based champions, or they're just "here's movement speed" and champions like Vladimir, Singed, and juggernauts have a field day. There really isn't a healing item that's build for a damage dealer to help their allies, for example.

Granted it would take wild amounts of thinking to come up with that kind of stuff just off the top of one's head, but it still should be looked into before more items that just add more damage come in.

ChargeItDownMid1 votes

[deleted]

ModCaptainMårvelous1 votes

Counterpoint to that is maybe we were actually sitting on a patch that's a venerable goldmine of quality gameplay/balance...buuuuuuut we didn't even get the time to pull out a pickax. A good chunk of balance/meta is kneejerk early reaction. As DL points out in the video, Zerg/Protoss was a shit match-up for years until one player discovered an incredible tactic that completely blew apart Zerg dominance.

In League terms, let's take this patch for example: Maybe this patch is actually the best patch league has ever had in the history or ever...buuuuuuuuuut we'll only really see it once we let it sit for two-to-three months. Conversely, maybe a patch people really loved (Say, Cinderhulk patch) was really amazing at a glance but when you dig deeper and let it sit, the meta is actually horribly stifling and restrictive.

I'm not saying this patch or any other patch has a great or bad meta, but DL's claim is that you can never really tell unless you let it sit and see the results. For the life of me, I don't think we ever really have an extended period without changes other than the month-or-two when worlds comes around. It's this aversion to letting a patch sit and the demand for fixes asap which lead to further problems.

ChargeItDownMid1 votes

[deleted]

ModCaptainMårvelous1 votes

Possibly? As Dopa put as an example: Gold funneling was always good and viable but the changes brought it into the limelight and made it more obvious/optimal.

The fact is that it's a case where we're never going to know. There are situations and have been in the past where the meta has been relatively stable with quite a few viable picks. However, we never get to go beyond that. While I agree that there are flaws in his argument, the biggest issue is that we never get to see a stable meta for more than a month or two, even if the meta could possibly lead to a great game state.

ChargeItDownMid1 votes

[deleted]

My Waifu Vanilla1 votes

Except it has been shown in history that things pop up without receiving any direct changes at the time. Ziggs hadn't been touched in MONTHS almost before he started showing up as a meta bot laner in competitive play. Fiddlesticks main reason being picked bot lane has NOT changed in months. It only took people taking Aftershock on him to realize "hey this Q is really good". The LAST direct change that Fiddle got that actually helped Fiddlesticks support was in patch 7.6 where they added range to his Q. Everything else has either been aimed at jungle fiddle (the E buffs) or were blanket changes such as runes reforged giving him armor or the mage update changing his mana values.

GayFluffyUnicorn2 votes

This might have been a good idea before riot fucked up the game. Now i dont wanna sit on a patch with talon, graves, rakan, fiddle, talijah being broken as fuck for another few months. Three months of playing this shitty game where every fuckin champselect i have to pray that noone picks these stupid ass busted champions.

Power Cosmic1 votes

He did say he was in favor of the small patches. That is what I think would be good too, because static could become stagnant for those who are fans of off-meta stuff. Also variety and depth are the spice of life, which could be done through small buffs and nerfs.

ModCaptainMårvelous3 votes

I was mostly hearing the patch cycle they attempted this year: One HUGE patch followed by a handful of small patches.

....whiiiiiiiiiich the community hated...

Power Cosmic1 votes

{quoted}

I was mostly hearing the patch cycle they attempted this year: One HUGE patch followed by a handful of small patches.

....whiiiiiiiiiich the community hated...

Roger. Luckily I think independently, but I get what you are saying in terms of the duality :-) In my opinion, only big stuff that should ever be done is stuff that NEEDS to be done.... like freeing supports from being tied to one class.

deadlychuck1 votes

Well this is pretty much what I've said for years. But I'm just a boards troll at this point, because after the MYMU and the removal of Malzahar, then the subsequent obliteration of his AD build. I just gave up on the game precisely because I'm fully aware that no matter what I find enjoyable about the game. Riot will inevitably remove it for literally no justifiable reason with more often than not attempts that leave the problem more serious than it started.

I think something that's over looked in this video though is the influence on the design of the game itself that this patching cycle has had. How it's related to the simplification of the game is hard to say, chicken or the egg, but the fact of the matter is that over the years despite what newer players want to ignorantly claim, the game has gotten much much simpler. There's far less depth and far less decision making which determines the outcome of the game. Riot opted for fewer "more impactful" decisions. The result will inevitably be that, unlike starcraft where new strategies from skilled and creative players can flip the meta on it's head, the more simple a game is, the less it can survive through player innovation and experimentation. While I think it would do riot good to slow their patches, I don't think that the game can survive very long without them now that they've excessively simplified the game. They'll basically be forced to keep this patch cycle going until they can rework the systems... again... to reintroduce complexity to the masteries, itemization, and champion designs.

For all of riot's concern over the game possibly going stale, they've unintentionally made it more vulnerable to exactly that problem. If they don't touch the game for 3 months, then they'd loose TONS of players. But that just objectively wasn't true in the past when the game had enough complexity to change on it's own as players learned the game.

At this point, riot minds well release the tier list changes with their patch notes, because the mental math involved is so fucking simple now.

More from Gameplay

More by CaptainMårvelous