"X ADC is fine because if they're jumped by an assassin they're dead instantly"

WoonStruck·Dec 20, 2016·64 votes·3,451 views

I've been seeing this argument come up again and again, and I don't think people realize how bad of an argument it is.

If you say "X ADC is fine because assassins can kill them", and they're balanced around that like you foolishly think is healthy, then assassins become the only means of dealing with said champion.

In such a case, both assassins and the ADC in question have unhealthy interactions and every other class has a terrible time dealing with either.

#**Keeping a champion objectively overloaded/overpowered because a very small fraction of the roster can deal with them is not how you create a healthy balance offset in a game. **

68 Comments

SGT Dingle BerryDec 20, 20165 votes

Dude ADCs are in a horrible place atm, if one kicked your ass it's because they were fed and you weren't.

WoonStruckDec 20, 201625 votes

No, you're just biased and like to assume things.

I keep seeing this argument come up and its a terrible one to make.

ADCs are fine atm, with half being in a really poor spot, and the others being in a spot that definitely deserves nerfs. Most of the issues revolve around abusers of the Zeal items (mainly Runaan's)+warlord's atm. Those who don't abuse them hard enough atm are considerably weaker than those that do.

Tribbles FoxfolkDec 20, 20167 votes

{quoted}

No, you're just biased

This isn't a valid counter-argument. Bias is in everything. Hell, YOU'RE biased, and I'm biased. It's not something you can control, as it's completely based off of your experiences which all hold some form of influence.

Telling someone "you're biased" is the same thing as saying "you breathe" or "you eat"; it's redundant and not helpful information.

ADCs are fine (The fact that you still see at least 1 in nearly every game should be evidence enough...), and I do agree that "ADCs are fine because Assassins shit on them" is a bad argument. Assassins are MEANT to tear squishies down, and explode in the process. ADCs have been a must-have since they were introduced into the meta, but they're only truly strong currently because of itemization.

ADC items are simply too overloaded in stats. Runaan's Hurricane used to be a niche item that acted as a massive AS steroid. Now, it's a crit item with AS and insane waveclear steroid. Phantom Dancer is just outrageous in its current form. And the list goes on.

WoonStruckDec 20, 201610 votes

His statement has nothing to do with the OP, fails to be a legitimate response to the topic, and only succeeds to assume things that are both irrelevant and untrue. That is solely bias speaking, so yes, it is a valid 'counter-argument' in this case because there is no argument to counter.

He presents nothing other than his bias.

As far as Zeal items, a large part of the issue is that the stats are basically the same as their previous iterations, but with more stats/passives tacked on while the costs were lowered.

Each deserves to be at least 400g more expensive. If they still prove to be issues as far as scaling, their stats/passives should be toned down only after that.

RivuoDec 20, 20165 votes

{quoted}

His statement has nothing to do with the OP, fails to be a legitimate response to the topic, and only succeeds to assume things that are both irrelevant and untrue. That is solely bias speaking, so yes, it is a valid 'counter-argument' in this case because there is no argument to counter.

He presents nothing other than his bias.

As far as Zeal items, a large part of the issue is that the stats are basically the same as their previous iterations, but with more stats/passives tacked on while the costs were lowered.

Each deserves to be at least 400g more expensive. If they still prove to be issues as far as scaling, their stats/passives should be toned down only after that.

She is actually right, Everyone is biased to a point whether you like it or not. Past experiences affect us.

Also, adcs are in a horrible spot right now

The only adcs that are stupid and need nerfs arent even adcs... Twitch and Vayne are more like bullshit assassins who have permanent damage

and Jhin is an AD caster..

WoonStruckDec 20, 20169 votes

Biased doesn't necessarily mean you just lean one way or the other on a matter.

It often means you blindly follow one side without considering the other.

ADCs are not in a horrible spot. They are still mandatory. They still carry. They are still the single most potent lane to gain a lead in. Twitch, Vayne, and Jhin are not the only powerful ADCs at the moment, and Jhin is most certainly an ADC.

RivuoDec 20, 20162 votes

{quoted}

Biased doesn't necessarily mean you just lean one way or the other on a matter.

It often means you blindly follow one side without considering the other.

ADCs are not in a horrible spot. They are still mandatory. They still carry. They are still the single most potent lane to gain a lead in. Twitch, Vayne, and Jhin are not the only powerful ADCs at the moment, and Jhin is most certainly an ADC.

Adcs do not carry as of now. You and the circlejerk boards can keep saying adcs are bullshit and need nerfs or whatever

but as of right now there is a 7000 liked post on reddit by ex diamond and challenger adc mains who said they quit adc because its influence isnt dictated by your skill but by your team.

WoonStruckDec 20, 20167 votes

Going from the top, I'm down to 4k and still don't see the post you're talking about. Either you're bullshitting, or you're giving me a link right now.

Mira Arya EntheDec 20, 20164 votes

I agree with your OP. But everyone is sick of you throwing the word bias around anytime somebody argues against you. That has been your counter to everyone since I saw you 6 months ago on the boards. I don't even think you know what bias means, how irrelevant it is in most cases, or when it should be used. It is just your "I disagree with you!" Buzzword.

WoonStruckDec 20, 20169 votes

That was one post, and you were extremely biased in it.

You did nothing but blindly follow the information you knew while ignoring any other input. That is textbook definition almost.

Mira Arya EntheDec 20, 20164 votes

It's your primary defense mechanism. I could have easily said you were bias ignoring multiple experts on a matter out of arrogance. But looking over your board history you have an obsession with the word like SJWs do with their buzzwords. It's your end all "ur wrong cus I feel you bias" argument.

WoonStruckDec 20, 20167 votes

The only arrogant one was you. Everyone was disagreeing with you because you were wrong. Nobody was saying that it does not require strength to fire a bow. People were saying that there is more to trained swordplay than just swinging the damn thing, and that it does help to be stronger.

Bias is not my primary defense mechanism. It just so happens most people don't have a real argument to stand behind.

Mira Arya EntheDec 20, 20162 votes

I was in fact not wrong. My statement was the strength threshhold to effectively use a combat bow is higher than the strength threshhold to effectively use a sword. A sword being a lightweight piece of metal and primarily about technique. A bow being spanning the strength of the wood is literally designed like an exercise machine people use to build back and shoulder strength. I linked 2 experts and an article from another expert speaking on the matter. The democracy of board votes doesn't decide reality nor know more than them.

In bone records English archers upper bodies had bone deformation and showed signs of immense upper body strength. By comparison no special signs of abnormal strength were found on Knights, because wearing 50lbs of well distributed armor and swinging a 2.5-3.5lbs weapon around doesn't require massive strength. Just endurance and good breathing. And while muscle does help with resisting impacts and hitting harder. You do not muscle swords into a target. Swords are a technique weapon. Thus strength helps, but isn't necessary for it to function normally.

A bow however absolutely requires you to be able to span it's draw weight over and over. 30lbs is the minimum for hunting but warbows in history were usually 70-150lbs draw weights. That is the strength required to push the wood and pull the string away from one another.

As such. A swordsman at most needs some endurance and basic physical ability. Everyone at the time did. More strength is better(for anybody) but the minimum strength threshhold for handling a sword is low. Kids in martial arts classes do it with ease.

While spanning a bow has a high minimum threshhold to use on a basic level. A hunter must be capable of spanning 30-70 lbs while not shaking, and aim well. A warbow archer 70-150 lbs.

Is that clear enough mr.bias? Need I link dozens more historical articles and experts?

WoonStruckDec 20, 20166 votes

Your argument is faulty because you disregard factors outside of kill potential.

Nobody was saying that swords were harder to kill with.

They were saying that more strength benefits a melee combatant more than a ranged one. If a bowman is significantly stronger than his draw, it does not benefit him/her very much.

Strength required depends on the weapon, how its being used, and what its being used against; with bows, this is very binary and based entirely upon the bow in question.

They were saying that a stronger swordsman has the advantage over a weaker; for example, they can push leverage much easier. You kept ignoring or denying this repeatedly saying "ARCHERS ARE STRONGER!!11!" essentially.

Mira Arya EntheDec 20, 20164 votes

Except I didn't. Post is still there. I said the minimum strength to handle a bow of combat strength is higher than the minimum strength to handle a sword. I said handling a sword does not require muscle as sword power is determined by design, weight and swing speed, technique is paramount. More strength helps but isn't necessary. More strength improves a warriors power. But isn't baseline necessary.

Strength is necessary to produce the force necessary to bend wood with 70-150lbs of resistance over and over and over. Granted it is isolated strength.

Also if an archer is stronger he moves to a heavier draw weight or can draw his current bow back further easier abd more often. So strength increase the ability to effectively use the bow. Just like a sword.

Cosmic WarperDec 21, 20162 votes

{quoted}

No, you're just biased and like to assume things.

I keep seeing this argument come up and its a terrible one to make.

ADCs are fine atm, with half being in a really poor spot, and the others being in a spot that definitely deserves nerfs. Most of the issues revolve around abusers of the Zeal items (mainly Runaan's)+warlord's atm. Those who don't abuse them hard enough atm are considerably weaker than those that do.

Except you don't balance a class by nerfing the top half of the pool and buffing the bottom half simultaneously like riot has been doing for the past several years. That creates and endless cycle of meta where 2-3 champs are stronger than everyone else at all times, rather than 7-10 being strong in their role, in either specific circumstances or generally.

Valor BotDec 20, 20165 votes

Assassins aren't the only class that can deal with Marksmen though.

WoonStruckDec 20, 201621 votes

Nobody said they were.

The argument I keep seeing is simply "assassins can kill them easily, so ADCs can't be unbalanced", basically.

My point is that its a stupid argument.

BlâckLotusDec 21, 20161 votes

the adc role is balanced though.

RavenMagusDec 20, 201613 votes

Well, of course they're not.

Assassins can't deal with Marksmen. At all.

It's more of a diver/tank job these days.

ahferroin7Dec 21, 20163 votes

Assassins can't deal with Supports. At all.

There, changed that for you.

Assassins can deal with ADC's just fine, as long as there isn't a support there with them.

RavenMagusDec 21, 20165 votes

That's true, until the endgame.

In the very late game assassins can't deal with supports or ADCs.

At that stage (4+ items) ADCs have too much burst damage; assassins will die before their own goes off.

TeCoolMageDec 21, 20161 votes

not if they have stealth or gated defensive tools and aren't vayne/twitch

So Fizz, Rengar, Kha'zix, and maybe three others that aren't gutted.

dominusxDec 21, 20162 votes

Kha can 1v1 adcs late game because he can dodge auto's with his stealth. Fizz is fizz screw that champ.... Rengar has his busted Crit i guess.

THE RlVER KlNGDec 20, 20165 votes

Jinx Jhin especially imo

MissingKayoDec 20, 20164 votes

Why bother defending the garbage assassins against the salty ADC mains who couldn't play well to literally save their own life?

Brain Errör 404Dec 21, 20161 votes

Sits behind team waiting for big cooldowns and ulti's, fed Vi comes from side lines and presses R. I try to stay by team for peel.

ERROR 404: Peel Not Found

My fucking bad for playing that so badly.

MissingKayoDec 21, 20162 votes

First, Vi's not an assassin. Second of all, I'm not even talking about those cases anyways where the team fails to peel.

RandomoniumDec 20, 20164 votes

Good points but it's not just assassins who can easily reach the carry. Have you ever tried to escape a fed Vi or Hecarim or Irelia or any other diver as an ADC? At least with an assassin if I burn flash and heal and any escape I have I might have a shot to kill the assassin because his health is so low and I might get lucky with a few crits. No such luck with the 200 armor diver who can still kill me in a couple seconds.

I'm not trying to complain, just pointing out that it's not just assasins who are the bane of ADCS. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone should have champions or sub classes that they fear. I know those assassins and divers hate dealing with fed juggernauts and tanks and that juggernauts and tanks hate dealing with a fed ADC. For every play there is a counter. If an assassin or diver gets to me as an ADC there may not be much that I can do but there is a ton that my TEAM can do to stop them. Likewise, if there's a fed tank or juggernaut my team may not be able to do much to stop them but there is a lot that I can do as an ADC. Everyone has power in their own way and everyone is vulnerable in their own way. That's what makes this game fun. Saying that every class should be able to deal with every other class is an unrealistic expectation.

WoonStruckDec 20, 20163 votes

You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point of this post.

The point was that one class/champion being able to deal with someone does not mean that the 'someone' in question should be immune to balance criticism, and that people should stop using vulnerability to a specific class/champion as an argument for why they're balanced.

TyrekGoldenspearDec 20, 20164 votes

The sad thing is that J4 is a better ADC killer than most Assassins.

Can't juke him in his ult, plus a properly built J4 will nukr 3/4 of your health just from the impact.

BlåbæretDec 21, 20161 votes

{quoted}

The sad thing is that J4 is a better ADC killer than most Assassins.

Can't juke him in his ult, plus a properly built J4 will nukr 3/4 of your health just from the impact.

J4 so stronk right now guise.

PROJECT KatarìnaDec 20, 20164 votes

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/657/039/7fa.jpg

Unlucky47Dec 20, 20164 votes

Its funny because not even assassins can reliably kill adcs anymore with all the fucking support items.

JackMcSnipeyzDec 20, 20163 votes

Nope, not just assassin, anything. One mage combo kills an ADC (most famous: vel, brand, syndra) at ranges longer than their basic AA. Tanks have enough CC to shut down the ADC long enough for his team (malph can even straight up kill them). Juggernauts, while weak to kite, absolutely wreck an ADC if he gets their hand on them.

So on and so on, an ADC's counter is not just assassins, it's CC and any a bit of burst, maybe if your tank wouldnt blow his CC on the enemy support, you'd understand how easy it is to shut down an ADC. Of course there are outliners, vayne is incredibly safe, so is cait, but they are specific cases, if your team cant lock down twitch, or kog, or jhin.. Then you're the one at fault here, this is a team game.

EDIT: I read a couple of your responses to comments similar to mine, and ill answer in advance: Anyone who says ADC are all balanced because assassins can 1v1 them, doesnt know what he's talking about. My most banned champ is vayne, because of how safe she gets late game, cait close 2nd, but saying "OMG ADC does a lot of damage late game, NERF ALL ADC!" Is just as stupid as the argument you're against in this thread.

l not Faker lDec 20, 20162 votes

[deleted]

WoonStruckDec 20, 20166 votes

Considering there is still a near-mandatory ADC on each team, Deft's win rate with Twitch has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of ADCs.

It only shows that Deft is often better than the ADC he is facing. Or that Twitch is overpowered. In this case, both.

RebonackDec 20, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Considering there is still a near-mandatory ADC on each team, Deft's win rate with Twitch has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of ADCs.

It only shows that Deft is often better than the ADC he is facing.

This displays a fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of Summoner's Rift. Marksmen as a class could be the weakest position by far and they would still be vital to the success of a team due to the map's resource allocation and the nature of objectives. The only way to change this would be to fundamentally alter resource allocation and how objectives are taken, which would probably result in an unholy shitstorm from the player-base.

When people talk about how strong a class is, they're typically talking about how much of an ability a class has to turn the game in the team's favor. While a Marksmen is mandatory for winning, their contribution to securing that victory is comparatively small beyond a few outliers I believe we're all familiar with.

WoonStruckDec 20, 20163 votes

And yet in DotA, a very similar map, drafts do not require ranged carries at all. And no, this is not just due to Black King Bar or other itemization. Olaf, for example, is not a viable alternative to a ranged ADC. Having Morgana mid does not allow Yasuo to be a viable replacement for a ranged ADC. Finally, BKB is often used for teamfights, not objective taking, which is why you claim ranged ADCs are mandatory.

It is your fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of Summoner's Rift that's being displayed.

RebonackDec 20, 20162 votes

{quoted}

And yet in DotA, a very similar map, drafts do not require ranged carries at all. And no, this is not just due to Black King Bar or other itemization. Olaf, for example, is not a viable alternative to a ranged ADC. Having Morgana mid does not allow Yasuo to be a viable replacement for a ranged ADC. Finally, BKB is often used for teamfights, not objective taking, which is why you claim ranged ADCs are mandatory.

It is your fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of Summoner's Rift that's being displayed.

DotA is superficially similar at best to Summoner's Rift. Time would fail in summarizing all the relevant differences, but here are the ones that matter the most.

The net gain for your team in killing an enemy hero is MUCH higher in DotA than it is in Rift.
Towers in DotA deal about half the DPS of the towers in Rift.
Casting spells doesn't draw tower aggro.
The three points above make tower-diving weak early game champs a much stronger strategy, making such champs a gamble unless you're running a 1/3/1 team comp, which actually works due to the nature of resource allocation on DotA.
Vision on DotA is vastly limited compared to vision on Rift. You only get a couple of wards that recharge slowly in the shop. And less vision means vulnerable, immobile heroes are more of a gamble. Especially considering the range of initiation granted by Dagger.
Between the stat system, weaker towers, larger map size, and a MUCH weaker Baron analog, ranged heroes aren't needed to effectively contest primary and secondary objectives.

PermabannedGarenDec 20, 20161 votes

{quoted}

And yet in DotA, a very similar map, drafts do not require ranged carries at all. And no, this is not just due to Black King Bar or other itemization. Olaf, for example, is not a viable alternative to a ranged ADC. Having Morgana mid does not allow Yasuo to be a viable replacement for a ranged ADC. Finally, BKB is often used for teamfights, not objective taking, which is why you claim ranged ADCs are mandatory.

It is your fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of Summoner's Rift that's being displayed.

Sure, let's make turrets in League so laughably weak that League melee carries can take them by themselves with no minions helping them late game. Let's give League melee carries point and click abilities that can 100-0 the enemy support with a single cast (like Juggernaut's ult). Let's make supports so incredibly gold-starved that they usually only build like two or three actual items (including boots) and then spending the rest on wards, so that they're laughably weak late game. Let's also make them scale so incredibly poorly with gold that they are almost completely useless late game even if they somehow manage to get full build. Let's make it so that ability damage doesn't scale with level so that melee carries don't have to worry about being nuked from orbit by mages. And yes, let's also give melee carries an item that gives them an Olaf ult that also makes them immune to magic damage.

Once you do all of these things we might make melee carries a viable replacement for ranged AD carries in League.

WoonStruckDec 20, 20162 votes

Making something viable as an alternative to ranged ADCs doesn't mean League has to be DotA. Every other MOBA outside of League has viable alternatives to ranged carries.

Nice strawman though.

All it requires is a lower XP penalty for duo lanes and for Riot to actually address the ranged vs melee dynamic properly for the first time since they made the game. Jungle might not even be mandatory in every single game then either.

PermabannedGarenDec 20, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Making something viable as an alternative to ranged ADCs doesn't mean League has to be DotA.

Nice strawman though.

Yet I don't hear you giving any suggestions on how to make that possible, you're just saying "B-b-b-b-but DOTA 2 CARRIES DON'T HAVE TO BE RANGED MARKSMEN!"

You completely missed the point. The comparison is mind-numbingly stupid because of how different Dota 2 really is from League, and it's a shitty and cowardly way to prop a piss-poor argument up against people who might not know better. Yeah, Dota 2 has melee carries as viable alternatives to ranged marksman carries. But that's due to all of the above I stated and more.

Honestly, the big one is how weak turrets are. Similarly, Heroes of the Storm also has viable melee and ranged carries, with neither crowding the other out. Because Heroes of the Storm has probably the most laughably pathetic turrets in a MOBA, so you don't need ranged DPS to siege them down.

Make turrets in League weaker and ranged ADs might start to seem less mandatory.

WoonStruckDec 20, 20161 votes

The strength of towers has little-to-nothing to do with ranged vs melee ADs when they're very, very rarely the ones tanking it in the first place.

If you believe you need someone ranged simply for turret-taking, explain why DPS mages are not a viable alternative to ADCs (similar teamfight use, damage scaling vs tower). Oh, right. **The exp penalties League has for duo+ lanes. **

Let's see...another League-specific reason that you need ranged ADCs...AoE/waveclear is too common, too powerful, and too low CD, and minions (at the very least melee) have no AoE reduction. Because of this, attack speed edges out the damage scaling mages have vs towers.

Its not "because DotA 2 has" its "because League has". Its a very League-specific issue.

PermabannedGarenDec 20, 20162 votes

{quoted}

The strength of towers has little-to-nothing to do with ranged vs melee ADs when they're very, very rarely the ones tanking it in the first place.

See, that's the thing. In League there's some consideration about who has to tank the turret shots in late game sieges and dives.

In Dota 2 it's like LOL, who fucking cares? And you're delusional if you believe a melee carry like Juggernaut's ability to 100-0 someone defending a turret with no counterplay and then taking the turret without needing backup from minions doesn't have the tiniest amount to do with making them viable.

If you believe you need someone ranged simply for turret-taking, explain why DPS mages are not a viable alternative to ADCs. Oh, right. **The exp penalties League has for duo+ lanes. **

... because only two DPS mages build any attack speed?

Cassiopiea is a DPS mage, but she is not nearly as effective as an ADC at pushing down a turret.

The only one who might come close is Kayle, who builds a lot of attack speed, but since she's more about stacking on-hits than raw AP I doubt it.

Let's see...another League-specific reason that you need ranged ADCs...AoE/waveclear is too common, too powerful, and too low CD, and minions (at the very least melee) have no AoE reduction.

Dota 2 has just as much easily applicable waveclear, lol. Not only do abilities wipe out the wave, but carries waveclear so easily due to itemization (battle fury, mjolnir, etc.), abilities in their kit (Sven's cleave, Medusa's split shot, illusion heroes' ability to kill waves with armies of themselves, everything that fat asshole Nature's Prophet does), or raw DPS (pretty much all of them late game).

Now, don't get me wrong, this might necessitate ranged ADs in League... but that's once against because League doesn't have all those traits I mentioned Dota has. Who cares about waveclear when you can easily siege a turret with no minions due to Dota turrets being sissies?

Its not "because DotA 2 has" its "because League has". Its a very League-specific issue.

Right, and what League has makes it much more conducive to have ranged ADCs in the game since it doesn't have all the things I mentioned before.

How do you propose to allow melee carries to be a viable alternative to marksmen? How do you propose we make them no longer prone to getting harassed and killed before they can get into the fight by virtue of being melee?

Man... if only abilities didn't scale so well in League, and if only melees had some item they could buy that would make them much harder to lock down...

PermabannedGarenDec 20, 20162 votes

{quoted}

All it requires is a lower XP penalty for duo lanes and for Riot to actually address the ranged vs melee dynamic properly for the first time since they made the game. Jungle might not even be mandatory in every single game then either.

The XP penalty reduction is probably the only constructive idea you've offered in this thread, but it still doesn't address the simple fact that ADCs need levels far less badly than any melee champion, even one like Yasuo who can lane just fine bottom lane and is the closest champion to being a viable ADC replacement. He still doesn't get played bottom lane because a Yasuo who is relatively underleveled dies too easily.

CatastropDec 21, 20161 votes

I have to disagree about your take on supports in DotA2, especially the gold starved part as it's a non-issue imo. Unlike League supports, DotA supports actually gain their power from levels and don't need gold. To say a support is laughably weak late game is kind of a stretch considering how impactful they can be with literally only boots and a blink dagger.