The difference between pro and low elo play and what makes certain champions bad.

Rock MD··4 votes·3,229 views

If you've watched high elo games lately, you'll notice a couple champions are just completely absent. One you might not notice until someone lists his absence is Nasus.

Nasus (unless you're sirhcez), is on the high elo "shit list". It's a champion that nobody dares to pick up until he's so broken in low elo that low elos have insisted he's been overpowered for months. So how was it so hard for high elos to notice?

It's because between the elos, there are two totally different metrics for measuring champion strength. I call them raw strength vs. meta strength. For example;

Viktor is a B tier in terms of raw strength. He's pretty okay compared to a lot of mages in his class and he does his job effectively if you put in the practice time.

HOWEVER,

Viktor is D tier in terms of meta strength as a scaling champion without a super impressive 1 item spike has no place in the meta.

And if you wanna compare it to the meta from months ago

Talon was S tier in terms of raw strength, and he was able to push, roam, and kill his lane. He was a truly independent midlaner and hard carry.

He was also S tier because the itemization favored him and no meta champions were particularly effective vs. him.

the reason that assassin meta lasted longer for low elo than high elo is because the shift to mages botlane made it particularly difficult for a lot of assassins. How is a Zed/Yasuo/Talon going to dive a Vladimir? Or a Swain/Donger with Stopwatch? How do they outplay Fiddlesticks' Fear? So while assassins remained S tier in terms of raw power, their meta power fell, and high elos dealt with them accordingly.

Another reason Talon was particularly good was his "open ended" play. Talon had multiple ways to get around and get to you that could create success. Champions like Nasus and Wukong only have 1 way to get in and one way to combo. Even in cases like Wukong's, where the meta is good for him, he still isn't good in high elo because you're thinking, "okay Wukong only does one thing and I should be waiting to see where he comes from when he does the one thing."

In Nasus' case, the champion will never be good in high elo unless you can circumvent his Q stacking. Running up to your target, Withering them, and hitting them with Q's until they die is, in the same way, extremely one dimensional. It's very easy to play around in full blown teamfights and so the only Nasus builds that are good anymore are ones that circumvent Q stacking to be strong in the midgame and fight in mid-game skirmishes where your opponent cannot CC you.

This does not mean you cannot play these champions, as Annie is considered a bad champion but is particularly effective all the way up to D3, and risti just onetricked Garen all the way up to Master. However, it does mean that these champions are not going to be as favored once you pass a certain elo.

3 Comments

Disembark5 votes

That's the problem for balancing around low elo. Why should a champion get worse the more time you put into them/the game? Also, overall player skill increases as time passes.

If every champion was 50% win rate in silver, then it would be super unbalanced in other elos. Why should someone pick up a champion like Nasus, spend time to master him, and suddenly realize he's not longer viable and you simply cannot climb past Master elo because the champion is actually holding you back. Instead if you spent the time mastering Orianna, you could probably get Challenger.

Fact is - people can learn how to play better or play against a certain champion. It would suck if champions, if both players play perfectly, are completely unviable. Then there is no point in putting time into that Champion.

Rock MD1 votes

{quoted}

That's the problem for balancing around low elo. Why should a champion get worse the more time you put into them/the game? Also, overall player skill increases as time passes.

I mean naturally if you have champions that get better as the skill gets higher, you'll have the inverse as well. The question is should you limit these champions because of their performance in low elo?

If every champion was 50% win rate in silver, then it would be super unbalanced in other elos. Why should someone pick up a champion like Nasus, spend time to master him, and suddenly realize he's not longer viable and you simply cannot climb past Master elo because the champion is actually holding you back. Instead if you spent the time mastering Orianna, you could probably get Challenger.

Fact is - people can learn how to play better or play against a certain champion. It would suck if champions, if both players play perfectly, are completely unviable. Then there is no point in putting time into that Champion.

tbh when I hopped on a smurf, and everyone was unorganized, Nasus felt really scary because I knew nobody on the team could deal with the split besides me, and I was the mid/adc so I got chewed alive. As soon as I hopped onto main, he's completely irrelevant. I feel bad for Nasus mains.

boricCentaur11 votes

If we balance for low elo the player base will get worst since they are not learning how to play against champions.

More from Gameplay

More by Rock MD