123 champions, only about 40 get used.

Scrimshäw·Mar 25, 2015·3 votes·662 views

348 fully evolved Pokemon, almost all are considered viable in one way or another.

16 Comments

BeersteinMar 25, 20152 votes

Who is this "Pokemon" everyone keeps talking about anyways?

SEKAIMar 25, 20152 votes

You have no childhood if you don't at least heard of and know pokemon.

BeersteinMar 25, 20152 votes

{quoted}

You have no childhood if you don't at least heard of and know pokemon.

If "Pokemon" is some grammar thing I guess I should be thankful.

SEKAIMar 25, 20151 votes

Really bro?

Just do a Google search then.

Not knowing pokemon is like not knowing what microsoft is.

RetroRage96Mar 25, 20152 votes

Isn't that a kind of fabric insulation?

67chromeMar 25, 20152 votes

348 fully evolved Pokemon, almost all are considered viable in one way or another.

Not in the same mode, and only if you ban a lot of picks.

At least Riot is attempting to make all of their champions balanced and useful, even the weakest tend to sport a ~45% win rate. In Pokemon some of the pokemon are supposed to be crazy OP and some are designed to be garbage. Why use a Unown when you can use Mewtwo? (Why even use legendary birds/dogs when you can use Mewtwo?) That's not an Urgot vs. Zed comparison, you can easily beat Zed as Urgot. That's like a caster minion vs. a level 18 full-build Zed.

And if you're going to include all the modes and game styles that make most pokemon actually worth using, you'd have to include URF, Mirror, ARAM, Dominion, Treelines, Doom Bots, etc. for that to even be a fair comparison.

DeadlyQuestionMar 25, 20151 votes

Eh, I think 80% of what you said is bullshit, but as a whole I agree with your point. What I agree with in your post is the implication that there are so many Pokemon that many of them can be considered the same monster in terms of function, or that why would you use one of this type when a different one of the same type is naturally more powerful? Because it looks cuter? That's foolish.

There are several reasons why OP's comparison is horseshit, but the one that is the most glaring to me is that the only two things that makes a Pokemon potentially different (again, in terms of function) is it's type (compared to LoL champion classes/roles) and that nearly every single Pokemon's abilities aren't set in stone like LoL champion abilities are. For Pokemon, sure, every monster has a list of ability restrictions, but two of the exact same pokemon with the exact same stats can be playing 20 different ways depending on the four abiltiies you teach it/allow it to learn, while most LoL champions can generally have a maximum of 3 different effective playstyles, if they even have more than one.

insaiyanbaccaMar 25, 20152 votes

i have played almost every single champ (haven't gotten a chance to try eve or elise yet) and i can tell you every single one of them is viable and you are able to win with