And? Riot makes more, ok. Still doesn't take away from the fact that Riot could make EVEN MORE if they followed Dota's example.
No, they couldn't, because if they could, Dota would be making more. Instead in 2013 Dota2 didn't even make 1/8th of the revenue that League of Legends did. This is because Valve doesn't need to rely on the revenue from Dota2 to keep it's doors open, Riot does. So Riot made a free to play system that (while slightly outdated and in need of some updating in terms of pricing and gain) actually works without gouging players and forcing them to pay to win. It's not perfect, no F2P system is or could be, but it's a lot easier on the player than many other systems.
But it IS decaying. Can you honestly say Riot listens to community feedback?
Yes, yes I can. I frequent these forums, I read the posts, I see the responses, I watch surrender@20. While Riot is slow in their actions, they DO listen! The issue is most people think that a suggestion should be implemented within days or a week of Riot hearing about it or responding to it. But if you watch long enough, it may take 1-5 months, but you'll start to see a lot of player feed back getting reactions and a lot of suggestions being implemented.
Can you say the game is in a balanced state where most champs are played?
That's not how League works. It relies on the metagame. Being that once something is strong, people will seek a way to counter it, the counter will become strong/popular and the former pick will go to the wayside until a strong/popular champ is weak against them.
It's not a perfect system. You've got champs with kits too similar to the point that you simply pick which ever champ you prefer or whichever just does the job better than the others.
You've got champs that have inherently unhealthy kits that cannot be allowed to be strong or else they will begin to warp the meta.
Then you've got the ever popular generalists who are sufficient in virtually any meta you can think of and naturally are going to constantly have high pick rates because of the safety they offer.
The pro scene showed that with a handful of champs always being picked for roles
The pro meta is also nothing like the general meta at any other elo. It can point to issues with champs, but is unreliable as a single source of information. If looking at the meta, you should typically consider Gold up to Master without counting the pro league. You'll get a much wider and more reliable information pool to pull from.
Riot is pushing more and more content into a game that severely needs a balance check. They are making it harder and harder for them to maintain any semblance of balance. Instead of simply stepping back, looking at champs and tweaking numbers here and there to help some champs that are in ruts and bring others down a notch, they just push new content.
This would make sense, if the content team and balance team were one and the same. But they aren't. The balance team does one thing, they monitor balance of each and every champ and try to make adjustments as they feel necessary.
Also, compared to 2012 when Riot released 19 champions. We got 5 new champs last year. They HAVE slowed down to focus more on balance.
I think the bigger question, is does your ideal of balance line up with Riots?
I guarantee you haven't been playing a long time, probably only for maybe two years or so
Mid season 3.
While they still have hiccups from time to time. The balance as a whole has improved.
Or do you want the jungle Trio back?
