[{quoted}](name=Mandalorian 117,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gVahe954,comment-id=000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-06T00:10:14.667+0000)
I think I’m starting to see the point. It seems like teemo and jayce are the only top laners that effectively kite and poke while other top laners requires you to commit yourself to an engagement. Urgot is arguably like this two, but he has commit himself to. Plus his strategy is more strafeing than poking and kiting. I guess it’s also annoying when I want to play Darius or Mordekaiser, but then I see jayce and immediately have to change to someone I don’t want to play as just to have a less annoying time.
Correct, winning a trade with (anyone) urgot requires proper interaction. However Urgot has drawbacks to his design that have to be taken into consideration, namely his movespeed (which is offset with a shield and so on). Kiting in and of itself is a valid strategy (or champ design) but without some way to bait his knockback (parry, spellshield, or even just blowing his cd) he is allowed to sit back and and pound you. Even if you dodge his combo, he remains a ranged adc that can aa you (fair but the normal counter to that is gap closers) and if you try to gap close he just disengages and we are back to where we started, you lost a trade are hurting and he just continues his ranged assault with no penalty.
But it's also a number of other issues as well, part of champ design is supposed to keep in mind that this is a game, and should be enjoyable, even to play against. To be fair Jayce does have his counters (fiora off the top of my head) and dodging his combo is satisfying, however getting pounded repeatedly with no way to reliably engage on him (without overcommitting) is not enjoyable to play against.
I would add to the list Jayce/Quinn and Gnar/Teemos. But again that's based off of my personal bias against these champs. Ranged champs are fair, but previously it took an increasingly high level of skill to play a ranged champ toplane, any other adc comes top and gets smashed for being a squishy. Creating tanky ranged champs isn't a bad idea but it's like no consideration to where they would lane went into their design. Teemos being the exception, as he is still considered a squish but being a squish really had no viability other than as a specific counterpick (seeing a teemos was almost an instant dodge because someone was trolling). This changed with balance, and maybe it should have but imo he was much funner to play since he was unviable.
But again this is my own biased opinion and probably not an objective assessment, I will admit that, and part of that is not just hatred for being counterpicked by them but also that unrelated changes nerfed my picks so being counterpicked hurt that much more. Bringing ranged top is fair, but is eliminating viability of an entire (bruiser) class (that's already hurting from gamestate nerfs) as a result of that a fair or healthy trade off?
-Unrelated: I completely wrecked a Teemos last night and it felt soooo good after years of pent up Teemos angst.