Boards›Gameplay

Riot's need for everything to "Feel good" is their biggest design problem.

ModCaptainMårvelous·Jan 31, 2019·88 votes·18,680 views

Let's go back to early days of League to explain this.

Caitlyn and Vayne were polar opposites when it came to playing them. Caitlyn was an absolute goddess in the early game and had great power in the early/mid game. However, the longer the game went on, the worse she was. At late game she was pretty awful and could barely do anything. Conversely, Vayne had an early game that was a toothpick under toenail tier. She felt terrible to play. By mid game she started picking up and finally, in the late game, she was tumbleweed nuke with silverbolts on a stick.

You'll notice that these characters have almost inverse proportions these days. Caitlyn's early game was nerfed in exchange for her late game power boost. Vayne is now not awful early but still has a decent late game.

Riot's necessity to "feel good" has caused great balance problems. And yes, players are partially to blame as well, but I put the onus on Riot for listening to these complaints. Champions SHOULD have high and low points and there should be trade-offs for having decent-to-great phases. If I lose lane as Caitlyn, I don't deserve a decent mid game and a great late game. Likewise, if I can weather the storm, I should get a reward for playing Vayne. This is also a very important balancing lever: Carries need weak early. Lane bullies need weak late. When everyone is decent, it just makes it about who is the outright best, which leads to metas where you have about 10 good characters and 2 great ones.

Really, there needs to be bad feelings in league. If we don't have them, how can we really tell when something is GREAT?

88 Comments

Frosted TipsJan 31, 201939 votes

Caitlyn was an absolute goddess in the early game and had great power in the early/mid game. However, the longer the game went on, the worse she was. At late game she was pretty awful and could barely do anything.

This is wrong though. Caitlyn was a god early and then unless she was at least a full item up she felt horrible mid game then once she got to late game she was a god again.

Anime FizzJan 31, 201919 votes

[{quoted}](name=Frosted Tips,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UKaosw5V,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-01-31T04:22:56.032+0000)

This is wrong though. Caitlyn was a god early and then unless she was at least a full item up she felt horrible mid game then once she got to late game she was a god again.

Yep, and vayne has never been completely terrible early game, she has one of the best all ins of bot lane at lvl 6, and late game vayne can actually be worse than caitlyn in a 5v5 against certain teams since she has to risk herself much more than caitlyn to do any damage.

Some ppl dont realize its much more than just being good at early or late, caitlyn has specific set of strenghts (siege, safety, range, 5v5, poke) which are different from vayne's (high damage, all in, skirmisher, 1v1, tank busting).

The point should be, neither champ is complete as they are good in some areas and weak in others, as opposed to newer champs who are just good at everything.

saltranJan 31, 20195 votes

Yep, and vayne has never been completely terrible early game, she has one of the best all ins of bot lane at lvl 6, and late game vayne can actually be worse than caitlyn in a 5v5 against certain teams since she has to risk herself much more than caitlyn to do any damage

But that would mean to understand that champs dont scale to lategame in the void or alone, it always matters the comp at the state of the game. For example a Kog Maw with no peel on his team will scale to lategame less than a Ezreal on the same team because at the end what matters its the Gameplay and how can you play the lategame, not how much dmg you do with 6 items against a target dummy that it's how I think some ppl decides which adcs are good or bad on lategame.

Nevermind, this is Gameplay Boards:

Metal man good.

Crossbow woman bad.

saltranJan 31, 20197 votes

If you are expecting OP to have a proper knowledge about how an ADC performs you don't know him.

I cant believe that a post saying that pre rework Caitlyn had great power in the mid game is being upvoted, it's beyond any logic.

SaezioJan 31, 20192 votes

When was her rework? U mean before traps did the extended range right?

saltranJan 31, 20194 votes

Also her E didn't gave headshot.

It was on 5.21 with the Marksmans updates (CertainlyT designed her new gameplay btw) but anyway none of the itinerations of Caitlyn has been "great on midgame and awful lategame she cant do anything" as he claims so he's wrong no matter which Caitlyn he talks about.

That's just on CaptainMårvelous head's but somehow this is being upvoted because they dont care about reallity.

SaezioJan 31, 20192 votes

Maybe he remembers the meta where ADC and support rotated after IE+Zeal/ Zeal+BF to take all outer towers in competitive. That's Cait's best mid game that I remember. But if I recall it was usually vs a team with scaling adc (sivir or something) so maybe that's why it felt like she was good mid game

Iota ThetaFeb 1, 20191 votes

{quoted}

If you are expecting OP to have a proper knowledge about how an ADC performs you don't know him.

I cant believe that a post saying that pre rework Caitlyn had great power in the mid game is being upvoted, it's beyond any logic.

Love seeing the disregarding of the topic.

I admit to the upvoting of the OP. Why? Because despite the example not being the greatest, the point still gets across. The idea is that there have been champs that have gotten tweaks to improve their weaker stages of the game. While at times this seems fine, after a certain point it gets to where most champs start to feel the same in terms of power curve. Rarely should all champs be good at all stages of the game.

LarrietJan 31, 20191 votes

So nothing has changed?

Frosted TipsJan 31, 20192 votes

She is much better mid game than she used to be when she wasn't insanely ahead.

SeenanFeb 1, 20191 votes

[{quoted}](name=Frosted Tips,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UKaosw5V,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-01-31T04:22:56.032+0000)

This is wrong though. Caitlyn was a god early and then unless she was at least a full item up she felt horrible mid game then once she got to late game she was a god again.

She was not a god late game unless she had ridiculous attack speed to proc her passive with (but she isn't gonna go max attack speed + boots + IE). The thing that balanced her range and safety was that her late game wasn't as monstrous as (back then) Vayne was. I think Lucian is good at all stages of laning though, and that's why he's so strong right now.

KFCeytronJan 31, 201932 votes

Zoe was put into the game specifically because QA said she made them hate playing.

xDelightifyxJan 31, 20191 votes

idk why you would do that except for bias reasons.....

KFCeytronJan 31, 201913 votes

{quoted}

idk why you would do that except for bias reasons.....

They did it because playing against Zoe inspired feelings of anger and hatred, and those feelings gave people a closer connection to LoL and made them more likely to play again.

ﬂooJan 31, 20198 votes

What kind of argument is that? People literally leave becausd of design choices such as he did..

KFCeytronJan 31, 20195 votes

{quoted}

What kind of argument is that? People literally leave becausd of design choices such as he did..

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

xDelightifyxJan 31, 20194 votes

that does perfectly show the horrible policy riot is following.... Instead of providing good feelings and good emotions they do the exact opposite and wonder why ppl are to toxic... Its Riots own fault that they are losing players. And no, the numbers they gave out (100.000.000) are completly wrong, because smurfs and shared Accounts arent considered.

BestPudgeNAJan 31, 20194 votes

Holy shit that's some of the most disconnected babble i've ever read... how did someone think hiring this guy was good idea

chipndip1Jan 31, 20193 votes

{quoted}

Holy shit that's some of the most disconnected babble i've ever read... how did someone think hiring this guy was good idea

You're not supposed to like playing against every character in the game. Sure there's a difference between "disliking something" and "something that's legitimately straight bullshit", but that's not as black and white as "If it's annoying, it's bad". If we were to have the whole game revolve around that notion, we'd have a lot of champs that play way too similarly. In other words, we'd have continued on with the issue that was festering up until Riot said "Aight we need to stop this" with the release of Bard, where they'd just slap champs into the game without thinking about how they do anything that effects the game differently in comparison to the rest of the cast.

KFCeytronJan 31, 20193 votes

{quoted}

Holy shit that's some of the most disconnected babble i've ever read... how did someone think hiring this guy was good idea

He worked on Age of Empires (from map/scenario design to lead designer), and he was WoW's Lead Systems Designer for a while, which is a pretty impressive resume. He got into the games industry in 1998, which was a time when fresh interns weren't expected to have five years of work experience in six-month-old technologies.

He actually has a Ph.D. in marine science. He switched to game design because he was tired of filling out grant applications and stuff. You can call him Doctor Street if you want. For example, "Dr. Street, you're a terrible designer" or "Dr. Street, sir, greenlighting Zoe specifically because people hate her was such a bad choice." :)

chipndip1Jan 31, 20192 votes

{quoted}

They did it because playing against Zoe inspired feelings of anger and hatred, and those feelings gave people a closer connection to LoL and made them more likely to play again.

(source)

So what I'm understanding is that you don't really understand what GC meant, and when he asked "Do you understand", you'd say "No I don't".

Cause he didn't say "We added her because people hate playing the game when they face her." They added her because it increases emotional involvement for those involved with her game play. A friend of mine has "increased emotional involvement" when he sees Neeko, and the same when he sees other champions. A champion he hates isn't justified in the game solely because he hates them, though, nor is a champion he likes justified solely because he likes them.

But nice way to misconstrue what people say.

KFCeytronJan 31, 20193 votes

{quoted}

So what I'm understanding is that you don't really understand what GC meant, and when he asked "Do you understand", you'd say "No I don't".

Cause he didn't say "We added her because people hate playing the game when they face her." They added her because it increases emotional involvement for those involved with her game play. A friend of mine has "increased emotional involvement" when he sees Neeko, and the same when he sees other champions. A champion he hates isn't justified in the game solely because he hates them, though, nor is a champion he likes justified solely because he likes them.

But nice way to misconstrue what people say.

No, I understood it perfectly. Facing Zoe produces high "emotional involvement" because it's a rage-inducing experience. QA hated it a lot. And that strong emotion - even though it was a strong negative emotion, for the majority of players in a match - was seen as a justification to add her to the game.

When I was young, video games were supposed to entertain people with an enjoyable experience, not addict people with "high highs and low lows." I mean, most designers didn't know how to do that (and the business model was often coin-op), which is how we have things like the AVGN, but it's a much more developed field nowadays. It's just too bad that that knowledge is being misused.

chipndip1Feb 1, 20191 votes

{quoted}

No, I understood it perfectly. Facing Zoe produces high "emotional involvement" because it's a rage-inducing experience. QA hated it a lot. And that strong emotion - even though it was a strong negative emotion, for the majority of players in a match - was seen as a justification to add her to the game.

So you didn't really get it. Aight.

You also don't know shit about classic games. Not a single fucking clue, and yet you're telling me about how games were "back in the day".

KFCeytronFeb 1, 20192 votes

{quoted}

So you didn't really get it. Aight.

You also don't know shit about classic games. Not a single fucking clue, and yet you're telling me about how games were "back in the day".

Oh, are we gonna have an old-off? You're talking to a literal greybeard, by the way, just in case you want to back out of that.

chipndip1Feb 1, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Oh, are we gonna have an old-off? You're talking to a literal greybeard, by the way, just in case you want to back out of that.

...AND?

Nothing about how old you are changes Mega Man X 3 Sigma's tiny ass hit box.

Nothing about how old you are changes the difficulty of Super Nintendo platformers like Donkey Kong Country and Mario Bros: The Lost Levels.

Nothing about how old you are changes the ridiculousness of rubber-banding in older racing game titles.

Old school games didn't have super elaborate single-player campaigns in most situations. They produced game longevity through difficulty. That wasn't just an arcade thing. By the time we got to the GameCube, a lot of games were being tailored to a more casual market, so they started becoming easier and easier, with more flashy cinematic scenes and less need to actually execute to achieve the high points of a gaming experience, which hit a high point in the console generation after, where QTEs were infesting nearly everything.

Like, many older games don't have massively long campaigns. They just felt like fleshed out experiences because it's a 2-5 hour campaign + all the hours you spent dying and learning the game's layout so you could steadily crawl to the end. Arcades did that, too, but largely by being insanely cheap with ridiculously large hordes of enemies and AI that'd basically read your inputs or even use blatantly overpowered kits (if they were bosses in fighting games) to feign actual skill.

KFCeytronFeb 1, 20192 votes

{quoted}

...AND?

Nothing about how old you are changes Mega Man X 3 Sigma's tiny ass hit box.

Nothing about how old you are changes the difficulty of Super Nintendo platformers like Donkey Kong Country and Mario Bros: The Lost Levels.

Nothing about how old you are changes the ridiculousness of rubber-banding in older racing game titles.

Old school games didn't have super elaborate single-player campaigns in most situations. They produced game longevity through difficulty. That wasn't just an arcade thing. By the time we got to the GameCube, a lot of games were being tailored to a more casual market, so they started becoming easier and easier, with more flashy cinematic scenes and less need to actually execute to achieve the high points of a gaming experience, which hit a high point in the console generation after, where QTEs were infesting nearly everything.

Like, many older games don't have massively long campaigns. They just felt like fleshed out experiences because it's a 2-5 hour campaign + all the hours you spent dying and learning the game's layout so you could steadily crawl to the end. Arcades did that, too, but largely by being insanely cheap with ridiculously large hordes of enemies and AI that'd basically read your inputs or even use blatantly overpowered kits (if they were bosses in fighting games) to feign actual skill.

Like I said, many older games were coin-op, so they were supposed to be difficult and long/repetitive. Non-coin-op games kinda followed in the same vein, because 1) developers were used to that model, and 2) requiring a player to practice a level 200 times to beat it is easier than including 200 levels. But the basic idea, especially once there was room for a real game in there, was for the player to have fun. Examples include Sonic, Mario, and Zelda.

But none of those games were deliberately adding bullshit just to make players rage about the bullshit and be so furious that they'd think about it all the rest of the day and log in the next day looking for the good feelings they occasionally get. And it's not even necessarily OP bullshit; Zoe's win rate is trash tier and yet she's super-aggravating to face (kind of like Akali). It's not even just an aggregate thing, either - you can win against one of these champions and yet still have a frustrating time dealing with them.

Bears Dont CareFeb 1, 20191 votes

{quoted}

They did it because playing against Zoe inspired feelings of anger and hatred, and those feelings gave people a closer connection to LoL and made them more likely to play again.

(source)

"We certainly talked a lot about her. If we had felt that she did more harm than good, then of course we would not have released her. League is a game with high highs and low lows. When you win, it feels great, and when you lose, it can feel pretty terrible. I think that is part of the emotional attachment that we all have with the game, and** I fear if the team tried to make champions in which you didn't really feel much at all when they beat you, then their attachment to LoL would erode. Does that make sense?**

Clearly, it is a statement along the lines of "we want people to feel more attached to the game both with their wins and their losses. So when you lose to Zoe, and then beat her the next, the feeling of success will be greater."

Considering that RIOT actively hires psychologists for their game, they would definitely not go against a body of science which has supported the conclusion that when people are angry and hateful, they are less likely to continue enjoying and playing a game.

I can understand how one might interpret such a statement, but I would argue this is a moment of bias towards Ghostcrawler who has generally been viewed negatively in various gaming communities.*

iiGazeiiJan 31, 201915 votes

I think there's a difference between "feeling good" and having weaknesses.

There are absolutely champions with worse early games than others. There are champions who struggle against assassins, or who struggle against ranged damage, or who struggle against tanks.

When a champion doesn't "feel good", it's when their flaws are so apparent that they literally can't do anything if someone they are weak to exists in the game, or when a niche ability is so niche that it never actually gets used. When a champion's early game is so weak that even when they play perfectly they still get stomped on by somebody who is just stronger than them, that's when it doesn't feel good.

Weaknesses are fine, but when they are so glaring that they make the game less fun, then the devs absolutely should work at making it more fun. Weaknesses should be a challenge, not an insurmountable obstacle.

3TWarriorJan 31, 20192 votes

what about in the opposite case, where their strengths are so glaring that they make the game less fun?

in addition, being strong or weak at points helps to highlight the individuality of the character within their niche or trade. If everyone is equally good, it can also mean that everyone is equally generic, but even in cases of generic, some advantages are just too much for them to hold over their opponents without offering some kind of deficit in exchange for that benefit

GigglesOJan 31, 20196 votes

I would also put mages hardly ever no days running out of mana as a similar issue.

KazekibaJan 31, 20192 votes

"Mana sustain is too high, so we're making changes to Doran's Ring and mage base stats so that mana becomes an actual issue."

Also: item 3001 item 3003 item 3285

GigglesOJan 31, 20191 votes

Except that they made it so that you didn't have to last hit to get the mana regen out of dorans ring (net neutral possibly buff).

Correct me if I'm wrong on this part... but didn't they then add mana regen to mages at the cost of 1 less spell level 1 oh boy.

Those were basically both buffs.

KazekibaJan 31, 20192 votes

They made it flat mana regen instead of 50% base mana regen, which hit some mages harder than others. clearing two waves gave 48 mana/minute, on top of the base mana regen (13.8 mana/5 on Syndra @ level 3, about 18 mana/5 @level 7) which is another ... 31 mana per minute from the ring?

Its a buff for lower elo mage players, possibly, but a definite nerf to most mages especially in high elo. Give champs like Annie and Karthus who can Q for free + Doran's mana regen, or Syndra, Cass and Ori who spam spells for extremely low costs.

Madjack01Jan 31, 20194 votes

By extension this should apply to abilities and entire kits as well

Not every ability or kit must be fun to play against, yet this notion gets twisted into something that's supposedly about balance all the time.

If it were up to players, league would be bland as fuck and Riot seems indeed intend on listening to players a tad too much in this regard, even if it takes them a while.

NoDiscussionJan 31, 20193 votes

I feel like you're using the wrong examples.

Think about some of our reworks. A lot of them are really fun champions to play, in fact so are a lot of the new releases. Even if you end up feeding your rear end off, they're a lot of fun. Their mechanics are smooth, whether you're playing them from the top of the skill cap or the bottom.

Of course this combined with the hatred of point and click really gives us a lot of issues here.

hhaavviikkJan 31, 20193 votes

I'm sorry what? caitlyn was awful come late game? what game have you been playing? when crit ADC's were still a thing caitlyn was strong at all stages of the game, abilities isn't what made ADC's so ridiculously strong late game, it's the items + them being ranged, having burst per second makes all ADC's inherently strong late game including caitlyn, sure vayne was STRONGER but caitlyn was still strong

JackMcSnipeyzJan 31, 20192 votes

Cait had shitty traps, her E was one of the worst mobility tools and her Q was pretty much a snare. All abilities that are good for lane control but bad for teamfights. After her rework every ability she had got buffed to give her steroids (headshot crit) and now cait's late game DPS and abilities are usefull all game long.

What makes Twitch a good late game adc? Not the items, every adc has those, it's his kit, he has AA range buff, piercing shots, attack speed buff that maxes level 13, all steroids for late game team fighting.

Renekton for a toplane example, doesnt lose damage late game against squishies, if he gets to you you'll be bursted, but late game his tools are much more limitied than in a 1v1 early scenerio.

Kit matters, and effects a champion much more than the items they buy.

SpecterVonBarenJan 31, 20194 votes

Except that's why Cait was really good come late game. Her mid game was crap but because of her having the highest base attack range in the game she would become formidable again.

JackMcSnipeyzJan 31, 20193 votes

She did kick back late game when she had enough AS and armor pen, but every hyper carry would out scale her, making her in comparison weaker.

Hyper carrirs are the true late game marksmen, cait is an early game bully with late game safety but no dominance (of course, before they made her the siege monster she is now).

hhaavviikkJan 31, 20193 votes

{quoted}

Cait had shitty traps, her E was one of the worst mobility tools and her Q was pretty much a snare. All abilities that are good for lane control but bad for teamfights. After her rework every ability she had got buffed to give her steroids (headshot crit) and now cait's late game DPS and abilities are usefull all game long.

What makes Twitch a good late game adc? Not the items, every adc has those, it's his kit, he has AA range buff, piercing shots, attack speed buff that maxes level 13, all steroids for late game team fighting.

Renekton for a toplane example, doesnt lose damage late game against squishies, if he gets to you you'll be bursted, but late game his tools are much more limitied than in a 1v1 early scenerio.

Kit matters, and effects a champion much more than the items they buy.

oh I know, been playing since 2009, even if her abilities were shit it doesn't matter when she can deal 500 damage per attack 2 times a second from 650 range, like I said other ADC's are STRONGER, twitch is a STRONGER late game hypercarry than caitlyn but that by no means mean caitlyn is weak late game

JackMcSnipeyzJan 31, 20193 votes

Strong and weak is all in comparison. Like the renekton example i gave, he falls off late game but not because he's literally becoming weaker, his job just gets harder and others outscale him.

Same with cait, she has safety of range, but other marksmen will out DPS her, and divers will have the tools and durability to dive her (and prob win 1v1) etc etc..

Just because you fall off late game doesnt mean you become useless, just that others will outscale you.

Daddy AntsJan 31, 20192 votes

{quoted}

oh I know, been playing since 2009, even if her abilities were shit it doesn't matter when she can deal 500 damage per attack 2 times a second from 650 range, like I said other ADC's are STRONGER, twitch is a STRONGER late game hypercarry than caitlyn but that by no means mean caitlyn is weak late game

Twitch is the strongest late game hypercarry imo.

Kog'Maw overtakes Twitch if he's protected and peeled for long enough so he can stand still and turret down the enemy team.

Attempting to orb walk as Kog'Maw (without scripting) will absolutely murder your damage output.

Cloud273Jan 31, 20193 votes

{quoted}

Let's go back to early days of League to explain this.

Caitlyn and Vayne were polar opposites when it came to playing them. Caitlyn was an absolute goddess in the early game and had great power in the early/mid game. However, the longer the game went on, the worse she was. At late game she was pretty awful and could barely do anything. Conversely, Vayne had an early game that was a toothpick under toenail tier. She felt terrible to play. By mid game she started picking up and finally, in the late game, she was tumbleweed nuke with silverbolts on a stick.

You'll notice that these characters have almost inverse proportions these days. Caitlyn's early game was nerfed in exchange for her late game power boost. Vayne is now not awful early but still has a decent late game.

Riot's necessity to "feel good" has caused great balance problems. And yes, players are partially to blame as well, but I put the onus on Riot for listening to these complaints. Champions SHOULD have high and low points and there should be trade-offs for having decent-to-great phases. If I lose lane as Caitlyn, I don't deserve a decent mid game and a great late game. Likewise, if I can weather the storm, I should get a reward for playing Vayne. This is also a very important balancing lever: Carries need weak early. Lane bullies need weak late. When everyone is decent, it just makes it about who is the outright best, which leads to metas where you have about 10 good characters and 2 great ones.

Really, there needs to be bad feelings in league. If we don't have them, how can we really tell when something is GREAT?

Anyone who thinks Caitlyn's late game is garbage isn't playing her properly.

DoktorKaiserJan 31, 20192 votes

Exactly this, one of the changes that ruined the gameplay is the removal of power points during the game. Nerf Vayne's late game, buff her early. Nerf Pantheon's early game, buff his late game. Same with Lee Sin, Caitlyn, Orianna, Renekton, Kayn and countless other champions, they constantly keep nerfing their strong phases and buffing their weak phases to the point where it doesn't matter whether the champion is supposed to be good early, they are all at least decent early so they can survive it or even get fed quickly. Champions like Jax, Fiora or Yi whose only counterplay used to be shit early game are now running rampant in the early game, I saw a Lee lose straight 1v1 to Master Yi at lvl 2 while not misplaying at all, I also saw Lee kill an ADC late game in 2 seconds which couldn't be possible 4 years ago and it shouldn't be. This fucks up so many designs and no wonder that late game champions are stronger than ever, why pick Mundo when Fiora get's to full power after half an item and never drops.

Radiant SeraphJan 31, 20192 votes

I'm sorry, but you don't know anything about game design if you think making things "feel good" is a bad design philosophy. That is the first PRIORITY a designer should have in mind.

Linna ExcelJan 31, 20192 votes

It's not the only one though. If you've got a late game champ, it needs to be powerful in the late game while having a weak early game.

Then you've got to consider that "feels good" is a very subjective and means different things in different games. Even within a genre, feels good can mean different things.

Linna ExcelJan 31, 20192 votes

For awhile I've been talking about riot having the wrong guiding philosophy on gameplay design and I think this is just a symptom of the bigger problem. If people don't like the game they aren't going to spend money on it and this is one of the reasons why riot lost 700 million last year.

BigFBearJan 31, 20191 votes

I think it's a good thing how they did it. No one wants to play a champion. Who is complete useless trash in early game or late game. And no one wants to play AGAINST a champ who is UNBEATABLE in early or late game and can literally 1vs9.

And ADCs are still better than Bullies in late game.

Daddy AntsJan 31, 20192 votes

{quoted}

I think it's a good thing how they did it. No one wants to play a champion. Who is complete useless trash in early game or late game. And no one wants to play AGAINST a champ who is UNBEATABLE in early or late game and can literally 1vs9.

And ADCs are still better than Bullies in late game.

Bullies are exactly that, bullies.

They abuse their early strength to snowball and close out games.

Imagine if Pantheon had a good late game. Imagine if Lee Sin had a good late game.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.

GameplayJul 18, 2015764 comments

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.

GameplaySep 1, 2015156 comments

GameplayApr 1, 2016606 comments

GameplayDec 21, 2014456 comments

3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.

GameplaySep 17, 2015114 comments

When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?

GameplayNov 30, 2014634 comments

More by CaptainMårvelous

"Wow dude you're playing like shit"

GameplayMar 31, 2017167 comments

Can the Cass situation from today be the beginning of a trend?

GameplayMar 25, 201695 comments

How to Reward Vets (Without just dumping 30+ boxes on them)

General DiscussionSep 4, 2017341 comments

Please make Taric's V-neck scale with armor.

Story, Art, & SoundApr 4, 201648 comments

Riot, you're working yourselves deeper into a corner with skins.

Story, Art, & SoundJan 10, 2019135 comments

Gotta say: Not a fan of Kayle's new look.

Story, Art, & SoundFeb 18, 2019267 comments