Riddle me this, man
How can people want longer games on average AND want this hyper-carry meta to end at the same time?
How can people want longer games on average AND want this hyper-carry meta to end at the same time?
It's meta because the hyper-carry's are getting their gold much faster, and deal incredible damage much earlier now than in any other season. Riddle solved.
So even if they get the gold slower, if you increase the game length, we're STILL gonna want to use hyper-carries anyway.
So even if they get the gold slower, if you increase the game length, we're STILL gonna want to use hyper-carries anyway.
How so? If they're weaker early on wouldn't that make lane bullies like
a bit more attractive to keep them behind?
Um, no. If the games are long, it gives hyper-carries a chance to farm back up even if they got abused in lane. If the games are short, then lane bullies are better because they stand a chance to win before the hyper-carries can recover.
Um, no. If the games are long, it gives hyper-carries a chance to farm back up even if they got abused in lane. If the games are short, then lane bullies are better because they stand a chance to win before the hyper-carries can recover.
I'm not claiming lane-bullies would be the new meta. There would just be more of a reason to pick them and go for the early game advantage as opposed to now where you just pick a hyper-carry because they're strong enough to deal with a lane bully early on making them a pointless pick in the first place.
I mean, that's true. If the hyper-carries aren't actually weak early, that's a different thing, though, imo. Long games are not going to favor lane-bullies unless the lane-bullies scale comparatively to the hyper-carries.
If it's a true lane-bully vs. a true hyper-carry, your best bet is to win quickly. Once laning phase is over, the lane bully can't keep the same pressure on the hyper-carry. The longer the game is, the more likely they will come back from a bad laning phase.
I mean, that's true. If the hyper-carries aren't actually weak early, that's a different thing, though, imo. Long games are not going to favor lane-bullies unless the lane-bullies scale comparatively to the hyper-carries.
If it's a true lane-bully vs. a true hyper-carry, your best bet is to win quickly. Once laning phase is over, the lane bully can't keep the same pressure on the hyper-carry. The longer the game is, the more likely they will come back from a bad laning phase.
And that's also not to say the lane-bully just falls off, the hyper-carry is just has a more powerful kit and (should) have enough sheer power to out-do a lane-bully if they aren't outplayed. For example
still has a powerful crit build and is still a powerful ADC late game. What's pissing off the player-base which is approx 85% below platinum, is the fact that a hyper-carry can get
and just bulldozer a teamfight and snowball like mad. People like to see longer games because it just opens up more possibilities for picks and builds and isn't a set in stone "If you build this 1 item on this champion, you'll out-damage everyone."
Yes...if Riot doesn't go under the hood and force longer game times like people are asking for some reason.
In this current rift, the possibility for longer game times exists as well as shorter ones. If people ask Riot to push the game into one direction or the other, the other side will pretty much be invalidated outright.
1-3 minutes of average game time doesn't mean slogging through 35+ minute games every time.
1-3 minutes of increased average game time either doesn't accomplish anything you as a player can feel or gives hyper carries 1-3 more minutes to grab gold to run you over with.
Not true, I like game times in silver which average ~28 minutes but diamond feels way too fast with an average of ~25 minutes.