Boards›Gameplay

Why we should not play fantasy LCS for balance purposes.

Espy Psyche··8 votes·1,512 views

The major complaint about League of Legends balancing is that most balancing seems to be done at the highest tier, ignoring 99.98% of the player base and focusing on less than a thousand players. This is, of course, because Riot makes more money from LCS-related sources (LCS merch, LCS tickets, LCS ads, etc.) than non-LCS sources (players buying RP for skins/champs/etc.).

Real sports get around this by having different rules at each level of play. For example, people watching professional basketball like to see big dunks. To allow for more big dunks, the NBA has special rules for traveling that allow for more big dunks but still allow steals to happen. Children's basketball is a teaching program, designed to teach the fundamentals. For this reason, in children's basketball the rules on traveling are far harsher than in the NBA. In the children's programs, they want the kids to learn how to dribble, pass, shoot from the field, shoot beyond the arc, and play defense. In women's basketball, the rules favor beyond the arc shots more than in men's. This is because someone who would watch the women's game over the men's game prefers to see 3-point shots, else they'd watch the men's game with bigger dunks.

Riot can't do this, they need to pick. Which is more important to them, the 0.02% or the 99.98%? Currently, it's the 0.02%. And this is why we shouldn't play fantasy LCS.

Fantasy LCS helps them make even more money from LCS compared to skins and champions. To be able to get meaningful Fizz/Lee/Zed/Orianna nerfs, or new maps, or Urgot/Ashe buffs, or increased tankiness, we need to reverse the money flow. Cause Riot to make more money from the 99.98% than the 0.02%. How to do this is to boycott fantasy LCS and instead buy champions and skins.

12 Comments

LaughingStapler4 votes

Balancing is meaningless except at the highest tier. It has everything to do with representing reality and nothing to do with LCS $. The definition of balance is equal opportunity when champions are played competently (preferably to full potential).

Ideally, balance would be based on perfect play. Anything else and you're butchering the very concept of balance. There is no such thing as balance for X level. That's like saying, "I forget to ult. as Tryndamere half the time so he needs buffs in X, Y ,Z to balance him for me." Maybe you can come up with a new term for it. It's a logical contradiction to even suggest balance be based on anything other than the data from the best players.

The Red Warden4 votes

They arn't even balancing based on perfect play though, why did Jax get buffed before Urgot did in 4.21. Everyone pretty much agrees that Urgot was weaker than Jax then but he was still buffed before Urgot was. They don't balance based on perfect play otherwise Gangplank wouldn't be as weak as Lee sin is strong.

Raptamei1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Red Warden,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=jkKvUFeX,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2015-01-19T01:27:06.713+0000)

They arn't even balancing based on perfect play though, why did Jax get buffed before Urgot did in 4.21. Everyone pretty much agrees that Urgot was weaker than Jax then but he was still buffed before Urgot was. They don't balance based on perfect play otherwise Gangplank wouldn't be as weak as Lee sin is strong.

Just because they fail at balancing for perfect play doesn't mean they're not trying.

Remlap12232 votes

Then explain why Jax was nerfed when he was at a 90% ban rate in normals? Riot needs to stop balancing at "just the pro level" and "just the normal level" and balance for diversity. Maybe then we'll stop seeing the same bullshit in the LCS every year. I don't watch it because I don't like what it symbolizes; Riot balancing a game for being fun to watch instead of fun to play.

Azireal4 votes

the inherent flaw in your logic is the assumption that the top tier of players seeks balance in the game. They don't, it makes no sense for them to. If they want to win games, preferably important ones, they need imbalance in everything so that they have something to take advantage of, hence meta. The game isn't really about out playing each other, not after a certain point, it's about exploiting riot's decisions to find the optimum arrangement of numbers. If everyone were made 'balanced' then the top level players would have nothing to exploit, and thus no way to guarantee victory.

Oh, and it's not a logical contradiction to suggest that balancing can be applied in a tiered structure. it is a logical fallacy however to not consider reality and assume that everyone is going to make the perfect play at every moment. It's also elitist to believe that just because the players aren't the best or don't always play their champions perfectly, that they don't matter or do not get to have an impact on the decision. Riot should always appeal to the majority of their players versus the smaller communities, because if they fail to do so, then the majority of their players won't stick around, and without the majority, no matter how much the top tier players enjoy the game, they will leave eventually.

Think about it, the top tier players don't practice their craft for hours and days on end to sit in hour long queues and only ever play against others who have invested the exact same amount of time and effort, that would be silly and arduous.

LaughingStapler1 votes

{quoted}

the inherent flaw in your logic is the assumption that the top tier of players seeks balance in the game. They don't, it makes no sense for them to. If they want to win games, preferably important ones, they need imbalance in everything so that they have something to take advantage of, hence meta. The game isn't really about out playing each other, not after a certain point, it's about exploiting riot's decisions to find the optimum arrangement of numbers. If everyone were made 'balanced' then the top level players would have nothing to exploit, and thus no way to guarantee victory.

Oh, and it's not a logical contradiction to suggest that balancing can be applied in a tiered structure. it is a logical fallacy however to not consider reality and assume that everyone is going to make the perfect play at every moment. It's also elitist to believe that just because the players aren't the best or don't always play their champions perfectly, that they don't matter or do not get to have an impact on the decision. Riot should always appeal to the majority of their players versus the smaller communities, because if they fail to do so, then the majority of their players won't stick around, and without the majority, no matter how much the top tier players enjoy the game, they will leave eventually.

Think about it, the top tier players don't practice their craft for hours and days on end to sit in hour long queues and only ever play against others who have invested the exact same amount of time and effort, that would be silly and arduous.

Of course, they exploit what is strong. That's why dominant picks in the highest tier are scrutinized more. If this game were entirely balanced, there would still be a winner. The strategies and champions themselves aren't carbon copies. It wouldn't be just an endless stalemate. You're basically suggesting that the picks themselves win the game and if they didn't, no one could use their skill to win. Having a balanced game would just open more strategic options and champion choices.

The majority is usually wrong and yes, it really absolutely 100% does not matter for balance decisions. How can you assess the true strength of a champion if you aren't seeing him played or countered correctly? Data arising from such situations is meaningless. There's nothing "elitist" about this. It's just pure logic. It's the same as for chess openings. You don't analyze the strength of an opening based on "what if my opponent blunders." You do it based on the assumption of proper play. Whether the majority likes it or not, that's what balance means. Your claim that many would leave etc. is not pertinent to an analysis of game balance.

I don't comprehend the last point. It's actually exactly who they practice for. They're expecting to face other players of similar skill either in LCS or Solo Que. It's also how match making works. That's why I find it silly when people claim how "bad" someone is on a team as if they aren't all in a comparable ELO.

Main Was Nerfed3 votes

I agree. Buff Urgot.

UberAffe2 votes

I agree that we should help switch their focus on to the larger portion of the community but what part of fantasy lcs contributes to their income?

CounterSnipe2 votes

I miss having older champions who could just wreck people. Is this broken? Yes. But don't forget that back then you were playing against champions who could also wreck you! So all was fair :D

manbearswine2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Espy Psyche,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=jkKvUFeX,comment-id=,timestamp=2015-01-19T00:50:24.374+0000)

The major complaint about League of Legends balancing is that most balancing seems to be done at the highest tier, ignoring 99.98% of the player base and focusing on less than a thousand players.

This is extremely short sighted,say a champion is being problematic in lower levels of play,but not really in LCS(/etc) in plenty of cases(there are exceptions) you just need to learn how to deal with said champion(admittedly,riot is pretty damn unwilling to give you the tools to do so,but still),so now every time something new shows up and people need to adapt riot will just nerf it instead,turning the game stale and only allowing the same champions to be viable.(those who people already learned how to play against)

when a champion is a problem in lower levels of play in most cases this is something you can adapt to and learn how to deal with(though again,riot is awfully unwilling to give you the tools to do that),when a champion is a consistent problem in the highest levels of play...well...

Spacesuit Spiff1 votes

Another way to consider balance is "a ratio of skill going in to power coming out". And in a lot of cases, they do this. That's why a lot of champions are set up to be easy to play, and you're at the mercy of your opponent who may or may not execute the correct counterplay. So in this case it can be "inverse ratio of skill and counterplay" because a champ that's got enough meaningful choices to adapt to anything can be strategically powerful Vayne even though it's easier to just play Annie and hope people let you melt them.

And in a lot of cases they more or less fail at this. Riven is a good example; she's not so much about all sorts of options as she is "you have tons of chances to do what you need to do". The theorem works properly in a BoxBox highlight reel or whatever because good players actually utilize her full potential, but for most players all that potential is just chance after chance instead of forcing you to utilize every bit of it. (I'm not hating on Riven, she's by no means OP, that's just how her design feels to me)

Raptamei1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Espy Psyche,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=jkKvUFeX,comment-id=,timestamp=2015-01-19T00:50:24.374+0000)

The major complaint about League of Legends balancing is that most balancing seems to be done at the highest tier, ignoring 99.98% of the player base and focusing on less than a thousand players. This is, of course, because Riot makes more money from LCS-related sources (LCS merch, LCS tickets, LCS ads, etc.) than non-LCS sources (players buying RP for skins/champs/etc.).

Or because the game should be balanced for people who play correctly and not for idiots who don't know what they're doing.

They rarely make changes for the sake of low elo and only when people cry too hard (Leblanc).

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by Espy Psyche

Poro King Yorick?
Concepts & Creations6 comments
10
votes
Queue into already existing 4v5 match
Player Behavior12 comments
8
votes
Okay. Dr. Mundo.
Gameplay16 comments
7
votes
Maybe we can protest the Sona nerfs in a meaningful way.
Gameplay11 comments
5
votes
How to fix current AD Carry dominance
Gameplay21 comments
5
votes
The solution to #LC$BIGPLAY$: Boycott LCS!
Gameplay4 comments
4
votes