Anyone else feel like the game has just lost all strategy?

deadlychuck·Feb 11, 2017·25 votes·1,353 views

Obviously there is still some strategy on a more macro scale, but in terms of 1v1 micro, there doesn't seem to be any strategy in the game anymore. Fights are so quick that you really don't have time to make strategic decisions just react, on top of only getting a single use of your CDs in most cases.

Then you have shit like the malzahar rework which in effect just automates the champion, and turns the game into a glorified rhythm game.

I think a lot of it has to do with the effective time to kill in the game. I don't mean the literal time to kill, because even if it takes, say fizz, 3 seconds to kill you, you were still as good as dead by 1 second.

29 Comments

SirΤeemοFeb 11, 20176 votes

this game is just punishing ... no strategy , 1v1 laning phase lost for ever. too many unbalanced champions (either weak either strong ) junglers like lee sin rule the map ... mages became unstoppable cc factors , supports.. ain't no support no more. adc is destroyed . you can see any champion top lane... mid lane is a clown fiesta the first guy who gets 2 kills pretty much have 50% more chance to win the game premades everywhere smurfs everywhere most champions became 1 shot killers . ehhh

DJMason88Feb 11, 20173 votes

You think this game is punishing? Try out Dota 2, then you will understand punishing. But you're not wrong.

AnidanFeb 12, 20172 votes

"Yeah, I'm fed AF!" dies "HOLY CRAP WHERE DID MY GOLD GO?!"

My favorite general reaction from someone just starting up and they get fed for the first time.

Variks the LoyalFeb 11, 20174 votes

No, there's still strategy. It's just that, right now, only one general strategy works (Rush early for fast towers and snowballing), leaving more varied strategies by the wayside.

Since there's only one good strategy, it might seem stale.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20171 votes

Even if they were multiple macro strategies, the lack of micro strategy seems like a deal break in itself.

Variks the LoyalFeb 11, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Even if they were multiple macro strategies, the lack of micro strategy seems like a deal break in itself.

I'd argue there's plenty of macro strategy, depending on the matchup, who you're playing, and who you're playing against.

Playing against Illaoi or Fiora, for example, is all about positioning and strategy.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20174 votes

No, i wouldn't say there is much strategy in those fights. There's potential for strategic gameplay, but the time to kill is so low, that any lead gained by the opponent puts you in the danger zone and forces you to play passive.

All of the mechanics in the game which have the potential to make strategic gameplay are basically nullified by the fact that most every champion can 100-0 an enemy in less time than it takes for the average basic ability to come off CD, or at least because a single exchange almost always costs too much health.

MinaZer0Feb 11, 20171 votes

nah pretty braindead, especially if you are playing and comparing it to For Honor right now.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20171 votes

eh, couldn't get into that game. The keyboard controls just felt too awkward to ever play with, and then having no real tactile way to tell which way you're blocking.

With a controller i bet it's awesome, but with mouse and keyboard i could never see myself playing it.

MinaZer0Feb 11, 20171 votes

yea, I definetly use a controller, it isnt an FPS, controller is way better, on controller you block and change block directions with Right Analog stick, too smooth and fluid gameplay

MFTORANK1Feb 11, 20171 votes

I bet it feels good with a ps4 controller, I can't wait to buy this game and play something else than League, BF1 is also pretty great if you guys are into FPS :)

MFTORANK1Feb 11, 20171 votes

Yeah there's still a strategy, clown fiesta botlane. You can basically pick anything as an AD and you can pick any mage as support (Fiddle,Xerath,Brand,Zyra). I was annoyed by it at first because it doesn't make any sense but I wanted to win so gotta go with the flow man. Too bad I can't play my Janna and my Trist anymore.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20172 votes

So "strategy" to you, means picking a champion.

Such compelling strategic value [slayer-jinx-unamused]

MFTORANK1Feb 12, 20171 votes

meh I dont make the rules buddy

deadlychuckFeb 12, 20171 votes

You are the one defining that as strategy.

Troy242621Feb 11, 20171 votes

It's also pretty annoying that it's rarely worth deviating from the "let's camp bot" strategy. Bot lane has the most people in it, which helps sieging, and has the best objective taker on the team as well as dragon nearby.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20171 votes

Personally that doesn't really bother me. It's a macro strategy to gain a lead. What bothers me is more that they can send 4 bot lane, and within 3 seconds of even the 3rd person coming out of the fog of war. The fight is already over.

If you didn't die in so little time, then you might actually see that happening less often due to the defending team being capable of outplaying them under tower and causing it to not be worth the time investment and risk to send 4 people into bot lane.

k wìxFeb 11, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Obviously there is still some strategy on a more macro scale, but in terms of 1v1 micro, there doesn't seem to be any strategy in the game anymore. Fights are so quick that you really don't have time to make strategic decisions just react, on top of only getting a single use of your CDs in most cases.

I find that it greatly depends on who you play - I think that the 'damage creep' or the explosion of damage has made CC really, really important. Certain champions have the power to slow the pace of the game down strictly because of CC. You are also seeing Summoner Spells like Exhaust see some use outside of bot lane, directly to deal with the high damage cap - **Either way, Riot is already announced plans to nerf some of the extreme early game damage. **

Then you have shit like the malzahar rework which in effect just automates the champion, and turns the game into a glorified rhythm game.

Uh.. so now your complaining about a specifc champ here. Malzahar is a lot stronger than he used to be - potentially top-tier. 'Automates' the champion? how? He's a bit easier to play, I guess? No one is automated, not even Sona. How is this relevent to the game losing all strategy? I don't get the connection at all.

I think a lot of it has to do with the effective time to kill in the game. I don't mean the literal time to kill, because even if it takes, say fizz, 3 seconds to kill you, you were still as good as dead by 1 second.

I literally don't understand what you are trying to say here. Like for real. What do you mean?

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20173 votes

Nerfing the early game damage doesn't change the fact that late game fights are still going to be determined by a single rotation of abilities. This isn't strategic at all, it's half numbers and half kit capabilities. Kit capabilities, as in a fight that's decided in a few seconds doesn't give the player time to play around the holes that should exist in their kit (a few champions just don't have any though, just weak points), or for enemies to capitalize on those openings. It's purely a mechanic and number check of the champion(s) and the build your running.
i used him as an example of the kinds of kits that riot have put out. He is "automated" in the sense that input-to-output complexity is stupidly bad. There is no complexity in his input, because there is only a single play pattern that is effective no matter the situation. This is why i compare it to a rhythm game, you know the inputs, you've just got to hit the buttons at the right time, if it works or not beyond that has almost no relevance to the player's skill. In other champions this is often expressed more as the same pattern of play being used in all situations, even though they're not as restricted.
Another example of what i'm talking about is zed. Riot can reduce the time it takes to kill a champion by adding a mechanic that delays the damage (with fizz it's how his kit plays around his ult). If it takes a zed 0.5 seconds after his ult actives to take you to half health, then while it might take 3 seconds in total for you to die to the ult pop. The fight was already decided in less than a second.

Really I guess you could put the sentiment of this post like this instead...

Fights are decided too quickly for there to be any strategy in them. It's more important that you combo correctly and dodge 1 or 2 key abilities from your opponent. That's not strategy, that's tactics (which mind you are very different things, and if you think they're interchangeable google it first).

k wìxFeb 11, 20171 votes

This is a really good reply! I wasn't expecting this.

I'm not sure I believe you that late game teamfights are over as quickly as you state - Sure, many of them CAN BE decided by a single rotation of abilities... but its not always the case, and I believe I could find high level play evidence to suggest such. I think there are a lot of genuinely good 'lengthy' teamfights that have good interaction, good strategic depth, and are really fun to watch. That being said, I also concede that there are many points in the late game where certain champions become unstoppable, or that certain champions just enter 'burst' mode where they can explode someone in a few seconds. I believe this is by design, and I think its overall healthy for the game. I don't really want to see late-game or mid-game scalings pulled back. (well, maybe a bit! but like..5-10% tops!! ) It feels like your complaining directly about damage creep here, which they are addressing. If your complaining about late game damage output, I think we'll probably never agree, and I don't think your problem is solvable.

Some fights are decided too quickly, and I don't think a global damage nerf is the answer, to put it bluntly. I agree with you there is a problem, but its so much more complex than what your saying. I think it's being addressed.

Furthermore, I think 'twitch or reflex' style playing is critical to leagues success - I think that you need both to be successful at the game. When you slow the pacing of the game down, It gets a bit more boring. I tend to favor the 'quick-paced' nature of the game that keeps it feeling more like an action game and less like a strategy game. That's just my opinion though - and I do agree that we could use some minor damage nerfs, but they need to be targeted.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20171 votes

To be clear, I'm not implying that twitch reflex aspects should be removed from the game. Only that their importance is far too heavily weighted, relative to mid-fight decisions making. There is a way in which they complement each other, in that having good reflexes should offer advantages and force both players to re-evaluate how they are going to proceed in a fight. Though I think it's very dulling to make them **the **deciding factor in most fights.

Really there is no answer to the problem of fights being decided to quickly. It's a complex problem that needs to be addressed. However, i do think that global damage nerfs would be a movement in the direction of addressing the problem. In themselves they aren't going to fix everything, but say a global X% damage nerf, in combination requiring targeting of CDR, and less "rounded" kits would be rather close to an answer. By rounded i mean mechanics which only exist to buffer weaknesses of the champion. Like how ekko's E gives execute damage for when he would otherwise have to wait for CDs, or how yasuo just gets his passive shield to act as defensive buffer for every other situation which his W or E can't address. Again, as with the malzahar example, these kinds of mechanics only add output complexity with no real increase to the player's input complexity.

Also, in terms of time to kill late game, it's in a really weird spot. Where some games you can be against a team of 5 AD champions, get 400+ armor and 3k health and die in less than 3 seconds. Yet other games, in similar situations, you can be an unkillable god. I think this leads back more to the champion designs, but i could also see it being, at least in part, due to %armor pen offering too much multiplicative value.

Sona PingFeb 11, 20171 votes

" Anyone else feel like the game has just lost all strategy?.... but in terms of 1v1 micro, there doesn't seem to be any strategy in the game anymore. Fights are so quick that you really don't have time to make strategic decisions just react, on top of only getting a single use of your CDs in most cases."

No, not at all. There is still strategy in how you use your abilities, when you use your abilities, how to position relative to X and Y, etc. etc. If someone is only reacting, that is a personal problem with their play and hurts them if they are not working out fights but only reacting.

Also, I don't see how the number of iterations qualifies or disqualifies something from being strategic.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20171 votes

The reason the iterations is important to strategy is because the fewer you have, the fewer opportunities there are to swing the momentum of a fight.

In fact, by definition of strategy, fast fights have less. The concept you're looking for is tactics.

Sona PingFeb 11, 20171 votes

{quoted}

The reason the iterations is important to strategy is because the fewer you have, the fewer opportunities there are to swing the momentum of a fight.

1 . So? The number doesn't disqualify or qualify them as being such. 2 . Then, those fewer opportunities only serve to make individual decisions more important

In fact, by definition of strategy, fast fights have less. The concept you're looking for is tactics.

That does not follow.

Also, no I am not. But that doesn't matter either way, because you are not actually resorting to such semantic quibbling. Right?

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20171 votes

In fact, i am going to bring up such semantics because the difference is rather important in this context.

Have this gift from google, so you understand why it does disqualify them.

**tactics **are the actual means used to gain an objective, while **strategy **is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to **tactical **execution.

Say you want to fight an Ahri, so you need to dodge her charm. You avoid the charm and kill the Ahri, or you eat the charm and die. While the tactical element to the fight was there, it had basically no strategic play involved whatsoever.

Yes, they do. Yet which is better in a game? More decisions or few decisions? Which better highlights player skill? Which is more entertaining to watch? (all independent questions)

Sona PingFeb 11, 20171 votes

If you insist:

If the distinction that you are deciding to create is so important....

but in terms of 1v1 micro, there doesn't seem to be any strategy in the game anymore. Fights are so quick that you really don't have time to make strategic decisions just react, on top of only getting a single use of your CDs in most cases.

why are you the one getting it wrong yourself?

Yet which is better in a game? More decisions or few decisions? Which better highlights player skill? Which is more entertaining to watch?

Without specific, concrete instances to look at, the answer to all of them would pretty much be down to personal preference.

deadlychuckFeb 11, 20171 votes

I think you are not understanding what is being said in that statement. So let me clarify.

Micro strategy is referring to the decisions made during a fight and at most could maybe extend out to "within the same recall".

Macro strategy is referring to things like lane rotations, objective calls, team compositions, builds, exc.

There also exists micro and macro tactics. Micro being things such as engaging after a missed ahri charm. Macro being things such as 4v2 bot lane first tower.

( guess a good rule of thumb, is that macro = coach can make the calls, where micro = the player has to make the decisions themselves )

Eh, which is better in a game, and which is more entertaining is a personal preference question, not denying that. However, the "Which better highlights player skills" is rather objective, as two players can use the same tactics, but rarely do two players devise the same strategy.

sobi999Feb 11, 20171 votes

I personally think that the game is more punishing for your mistakes than it should be. So the first one to make a lethal mistake suffers so much that it's unbelievably difficult to catch up to the enemy. Therefore i believe the game doesn't lack strategy but lacks counter play since every other champ can burst you in 0.5secs now.