There's no such thing as "unplayable champion"

S0kaX·Mar 30, 2017·22 votes·3,030 views

Just because a champion is weak it doesn't mean they are unplayable. If you are devoted enough you can make that champion work.

60 Comments

Critmaster GarenMar 30, 201714 votes

there are however champions that are not competitive.

every champion is playable. even when he has a 30% average winrate. such a champion is still trash and feels like shit to play, since you have to put in 3 times the efford of your opponent to have an equal chance at winning.

iFearedAMinionMar 30, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kZg99EoP,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-03-30T14:54:57.704+0000)

there are however champions that are not competitive.

every champion is playable. even when he has a 30% average winrate. such a champion is still trash and feels like shit to play, since you have to put in 3 times the efford of your opponent to have an equal chance at winning.

I agree with this. I think the point here is that there are easier champs in the same class to do well with. Doesn't make them unplayable. META though stands for "most efficient tactics available." Easier champs are wayyyy more meta than champs with weird niches and special comp setups therefore making them more playable and accessible to the players in solo q.

manbearswineMar 30, 20176 votes

[{quoted}](name=Jungle Fiddle,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kZg99EoP,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2017-03-30T15:01:38.360+0000)

I agree with this. I think the point here is that there are easier champs in the same class to do well with.

No, the point of this thread is to circlejerk, nothing more than that, it's trash and promotes an attitude which is destructive towards the game(instead of balancing the game properly(or better), just suck enough at other champions to make shitty champions look better)

META though stands for "most efficient tactics available." Easier champs are wayyyy more meta than champs with weird niches and special comp setups therefore making them more playable and accessible to the players in solo q.

This is such a pile of crap, the vast majority(easily >90%) of competitive picks aren't niche champions in the slightest and are just overbearing nearly in complete disregard to any other picks made, sometimes they simply may demand the player to understand the champ/the game better than simpler picks, but it's very rare(basically shen, and sometimes 0-2 other champs) that a champ is good at competitive and bad in solo q, maybe bad when used by bad solo q players, but that's it.

ShahamutMar 30, 20172 votes

I currently have a 63% win rate as Skarner top with a 3.25 KDA over 16 games.

I would also like to mention that there are diamond+ players who got to their spot by maining ANY given champ. (aside from the ones that most recently came out obviously).

In pro-play, you have champions who are just not viable and are completely out classed. This is not the case in solo queue.

manbearswineMar 30, 20173 votes

{quoted}

I currently have a 63% win rate as top with a 3.25 KDA over 16 games.

And I currently am not gold. Wanna see how well I would do on shitty champions(I'm not even talking about skarner in specific, or about any champion in specific really) in gold? Your skill level is decided by your average performance, to do well on any champion really isn't about being actually good at said champion, but just being worse at other things you play. Or just being lucky, whatever.

I would also like to mention that there are diamond+ players who got to their spot by maining ANY given champ. (aside from the ones that most recently came out obviously).

Because wide variances in skill exist at all levels, there were even some cases where in pro play one team trolled the other(out of pure disrespect pretty much) and won anyway. *There's slightly more to this than that(specifically various cheeses which rely on the enemy not knowing what they are playing against, but that doesn't make the champion good in any way)

In pro-play, you have champions who are just not viable and are completely out classed. This is not the case in solo queue.

It depends on how you choose to view things, but I still remember the game(a competitive game, at worlds if I'm not mistaken) where one team picked veigar+nidalee bot out of disrespect, and won anyway, so you could say anything is viable in competitive as well. It's really not the case, but these threads never are about making sense, they are about circlejerking.

ShahamutMar 30, 20171 votes

Pretty sure it wasnt worlds(?) but I think I know what game you are talking about. There is a different game where faker wins a game as Yi mid... out of disrespect for the other team. Pretty sure that was just a Korean tournament though. Definitely not worlds.

I would simply argue that it isnt about being worse at other champions. Sometimes, a particular champion or playstyle just suits you better. Its about being good with THAT champion, not being bad with others.

Its not about your comparative skill with other champions, but your success rate with said champion. Now, that doesn't mean that their are not other champions who are by the numbers better. That is most certainly the case. And if someone wanted to learn champion A over their favorite champion B because A does the same general stuff just better, they would probably have a higher chance of success once they were familiar enough. This is all true.

The point of this thread, and others like it, is to encourage people to play the game and ENJOY it by playing the champions that they personally like. Letting them know that it if you work at getting your champion down, and learn the core mechanics on how to actually win the game, you can climb. Thats all. Certainly not what I would call a circlejerk. (aka Yasuo op/ windwall op/ nerf riven wth threads)

manbearswineMar 30, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Pretty sure it wasnt worlds(?) but I think I know what game you are talking about. There is a different game where faker wins a game as Yi mid... out of disrespect for the other team. Pretty sure that was just a Korean tournament though. Definitely not worlds.

The nidalee-veigar one? I'm fairly sure it was at worlds(naturally not the finals, somewhere in the group stages or something), I don't feel it's a very important point so I won't bother looking it up.

I would simply argue that it isnt about being worse at other champions. Sometimes, a particular champion or playstyle just suits you better. Its about being good with THAT champion, not being bad with others.

It depends how you choose to look at things. For example in competitive you can see, that for the most part everyone is "good" at the same things, naturally some teams tend to be better than others, and this doesn't always hold, but it tends to be the case

Thing is for most levels of play, it is mostly not being as bad at a certain champion as you are at others, chances are that if you are better at some off meta champion than the meta champions, you either suck at the meta champions, or at the game(for example one of the reasons that I'm bad at lee sin(Aside from me being bad at lee sin), is that I'm just not a very good jungler overall, and lee sin is all about abusing his early game pressure to the max, which I'm not good at, due to not being a very good jungler).

Its not about your comparative skill with other champions, but your success rate with said champion.

Due to the way matchmaking works, these two are inseparable, I'd be feeding on pretty much anything in challenger, and getting fed on pretty much anything in gold.

Now, that doesn't mean that their are not other champions who are by the numbers better. That is most certainly the case. And if someone wanted to learn champion A over their favorite champion B because A does the same general stuff just better, they would probably have a higher chance of success once they were familiar enough. This is all true.

Thing is this is more or less true for all champions, as you've probably noticed the competitive scene doesn't really have much niche picks, the way riot balances this game has ended up with most things overlapping pretty hard, it's just a question of who brings more to the table(And to be clear this is very deeply tied to balancing philosophies, there are plenty of niche picks in competitive dota, this isn't something rooted in the game).

The point of this thread, and others like it, is to encourage people to play the game and ENJOY it by playing the champions that they personally like.

Yes, circlejerk crap, this is actually terrible advice.

Letting them know that it if you work at getting your champion down, and learn the core mechanics on how to actually win the game, you can climb. Thats all. Certainly not what I would call a circlejerk. (aka Yasuo op/ windwall op/ nerf riven wth threads)

I think everyone knows you can climb on anything by now, people have proven that by smurfing and playing idiotic shit, I don't think that pretty much anyone(seriously, I dare you to find anyone to disagree with this) doubts this, so this really isn't the point of this thread(why point out something that everyone already knows?), this is all circlejerking.

As far as the yasuo circlejerk goes, it's not an easy one, A LOT of people hate/started hating yasuo on their own(there's a reason he is so wildly despised, he didn't just draw the short straw at a raffle), the lines between a circlejerk and just general opinions gets blurry there.

IcyPepperMar 31, 20174 votes

META though stands for "most efficient tactics available."

It's a convenient acronym, but that isn't where the term "meta" comes from :P

TerozuApr 2, 20171 votes

In the context of League of Legends, yes, yes it is. Just because it has other meanings, doesn't mean those are the meanings being used. In LoL Meta means "Most Effective Tactic Available", everywhere else it refers to a space in which the fictional and or lesser world interacts with a real, or greater world, hence the terms Meta Humor, in the case of 4th wall breaking shows, and Meta-Physical refering to things of a more cosmic mean. But in LoL, it was an accronym adopted to mean Most Effective Tactic Available.

IcyPepperApr 2, 20174 votes

No, it's a reference to metagaming, which is a thing that's existed long before LoL has. Your "most effective tactics available" is just a convenient acronym. And let's not even get into how what's meta and what's efficient aren't necessarily the same thing, otherwise people would stop copying the pros already and work with what actually works at their skill levels and solo queue (as opposed to pro level and cohesive team play).

Support Miss Fortunat was briefly meta. Support Miss Fortune was not always the best idea, but overplayed compared to where it was actually efficient (a specific counter to support Zyra).

The core of metagaming is to use the most efficient tactics possible, but your acronym is derived from metagaming--they're not mutually exclusive. The reason for my correction is that you're trying to tell me here that the effect (the acronym) has replaced the cause (metagaming), when in reality both cause and effect exist in the context of LoL. Meta in LoL came from metagaming, the acronym merely summarizes it.

TerozuApr 3, 20171 votes

Btw meta gaming actually refers to using resources outside the game, to make it easier, such as banning someone's listed best champs, which means you aren't even right in that respect.

LimmieMar 31, 20174 votes

META though stands for "most efficient tactics available."

Do people really not know what the 'meta' prefix actually means? That's something taught in early highschool...

TerozuApr 2, 20171 votes

Do you really not know what slang is? Not everything keeps it's meaning in a change of context. That's something taught in elementary school.

LimmieApr 2, 20172 votes

In this case it seems you went to a pretty shitty elementary school because you can't recognize what is and isn't slang. Metagame isn't slang. Meta is a prefix that is used to refer to self-reflexive concepts. Metalanguage is the language that is used within a language. Metafiction is a fiction within another work of fiction. Metagame is a game within another game. It's not a slang word, if anything it's quite scientific. And it definitely isn't an acronym. Meta in the context of LOL is still the same thing, metagame. The meaning didn't change at all. The word simply got shortened.

You got called out on your bullshit, accept it and move on. It's more dignified than this mental gymnastics for damage control.

TerozuApr 2, 20171 votes

In league of legends META doesnt refer to meta gaming, it's origins come from when peopole were trying to find a good strategy, and one was found it was called the most effective tactic available, whnich was later shortened to META, then people like you came in, heard that, and equated it with the original term meta, in LoL, meta is a slang term, that's what it is, you're the stupid one here.

TerozuApr 2, 20171 votes

And furthermore, that's not Metagaming is, meta gaming is when you use outside resources in the game, like looking at your opponents match history, or their skill levels, and banning their best champs, or like in D&D using outside knowledge ingame, you don't even know what metagaming, that pretty much invalidates your argument, that "meta" in lol refers to it.

TerozuApr 3, 20171 votes

AND FURTHERMORE, that's not what meta means at all, meta is self referential, such as a character aknowledging that they're a character, a book pointing out in narration that it's fiction, you say the prefix meta is taught in early highschool; which by the way, it's taught as early as 2nd grade in the case of my niece, yet you don't even know the proper meaning. Get the heck out of here until you know what you're talking about.

LimmieApr 3, 20172 votes

Oh my god, first of all curb your triggering. Make one reply, not three.

In league of legends META doesnt refer to meta gaming, it's origins come from when peopole were trying to find a good strategy, and one was found it was called the most effective tactic available

Bullshit. Meta/metagame predades LOL and isn't exclusive to LOL. "Most effective tactic available" is a backronym and not even a popular one at that.

And furthermore, that's not Metagaming is, meta gaming is when you use outside resources in the game, like looking at your opponents match history, or their skill levels, and banning their best champs, or like in D&D using outside knowledge ingame, you don't even know what metagaming, that pretty much invalidates your argument, that "meta" in lol refers to it.

Using specific strategies is called metagame because it's a game within the game, because trying to come up with and employing the best strategy is a game in itself. It doesn't have to be from outside sources either.

meta is self referential

Meta is a prefix that is used to refer to self-reflexive concepts

L2r pls.

TerozuApr 3, 20171 votes

You're right, meta gaming predates LoL, but the term Meta, as used in LoL, does not refer to meta gaming, it just got confused over time because of people like you who, once again, can't accept slang. And in the context of LoL, yes, Meta is a slang word.

Using specific strategies is called metagame because it's a game within the game, because trying to come up with and employing the best strategy is a game in itself. It doesn't have to be from outside sources either.

Yes it does, that is the definition of meta gaming, using outside information to get an advantage in the game, that is literally the definition. Also, Self Referential, and Self Reflective, while similar sounding, have different meanings. In particular Referential simply points out information on a work, generally in a meaningful way. Reflective means to look back post action, and figure out what could've gone better. You want it to mean self reflective, but it is self referential, which is why simply put; You. Are. Wrong. How's that for curbed triggering? :b

LimmieApr 3, 20172 votes

does not refer to meta gaming, it just got confused over time because of people like you who, once again, can't accept slang.

Try to split hairs all you want, meta in LoL isn't a special jargon, it's used in the same sense as every other game uses it. Meta is metagame to everyone but you. If you have proof of otherwise by all means show it.

Yes it does, that is the definition of meta gaming, using outside information to get an advantage in the game, that is literally the definition

Where does that super special definition come from, outside of your own head?

Also, Self Referential, and Self Reflective, while similar sounding, have different meanings. In particular Referential simply points out information on a work, generally in a meaningful way. Reflective means to look back post action, and figure out what could've gone better. You want it to mean self reflective, but it is self referential, which is why simply put; You. Are. Wrong.

I see you didn't take my advice and didn't learn to read. Shame. Seems that going to a shitty elementary school really took its toll on you. Maybe your niece can teach you? You see, I said self reflexive, not self reflective.

self-re·flex·ive adjective adjective: self-reflexive containing a reflection or image of itself; self-referential.

But by all means, go ahead make more mental gymnastics to argue how every dictionary is wrong because your personal interpretation of it is the only true one. It's pretty amusing.

How's that for curbed triggering? :b

A vast improvement, congratulations.

TerozuApr 4, 20171 votes

Yes it is, in LoL it is a slang term, whether you like it or not "META" in LoL, and the traditional Metagaming, are two separate things, they have different meanings. Show me proof that's not true.

Where does that super special definition come from, outside of your own head?

"Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. " Wikipedia, and first result on any google search. "The act of using outside or previously gained knowledge within a gaming universe for personal gain or advantage. John was accused of metagaming when he immediately moved his player to the most protected area of the map to snipe the enemy team members, since he had played the map before and knew from experience." Urban Dictionary "A game about games; a game based on exploiting the rules etc. of some other game, at a higher level than simply playing the game normally." Your dictionary.com

Any google search will tell you what metagaming is.

I see you didn't take my advice and didn't learn to read. Shame. Seems that going to a shitty elementary school really took its toll on you. Maybe your niece can teach you? You see, I said self reflexive, not self reflective. self-re·flex·ive adjective adjective: self-reflexive containing a reflection or image of itself; self-referential. But by all means, go ahead make more mental gymnastics to argue how every dictionary is wrong because your personal interpretation of it is the only true one. It's pretty amusing.

You're right here, I misread your word, my bad, doesn't change the centralpoint that there are two Meta's in LoL, with their own meaning.
Oh and btw, stop using alternate accounts to upvote yourself, or if instead, having a friend upvote you, it's really obvious, when even though you should be the ONLY other person seeing these, that there is exactly 1 other person following the convos, and downvoting everything i say, and upvoting what you say, it isn't cool, and doesn't help prove your point, just stop.

LimmieApr 5, 20172 votes

Yes it is, in LoL it is a slang term, whether you like it or not "META" in LoL, and the traditional Metagaming, are two separate things, they have different meanings. Show me proof that's not true.

That's not how it works, you're the one making the claim it's an acronym, you're the one who has to prove it. But since you're obviously either too incompetent or too disingenuous to do it, I'll do it instead. A simple google search of your supposed acronym will yield less than 900 hits, the oldest of which is from 2013. Searching for metagame and League of Legends on the other hand will yield several tens of thousands of hits, and you can see people using metagame and meta interchangeably as far back as season one, all the way to the current season. Meta is metagame, it has always been so.

"Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. " Wikipedia, and first result on any google search.

Are you purposing ignoring the implications of the descriptions you quoted yourself or are you genuinely daft? That's exactly what meta in LoL means, a set of practices, champions or roles that are determined to be the most efficient by the pro and high elo players that is then copied by the rest of the players. It has nothing to do with "meta gaming is when you use outside resources in the game, like looking at your opponents match history, or their skill levels, and banning their best champs", the wikipedia article you quoted (which I assume you didn't read if you think it in any way supports your previous assertion) even gives selecting a character as a counter to another in matchups. It has nothing to do with targeting the players personally, that is all in-game. That is defined by who the opponent player is picking in that specific match, not on their history and or personal skill levels. Again, you're just bullshitting.

Oh and btw, stop using alternate accounts to upvote yourself, or if instead, having a friend upvote you, it's really obvious, when even though you should be the ONLY other person seeing these, that there is exactly 1 other person following the convos, and downvoting everything i say, and upvoting what you say, it isn't cool, and doesn't help prove your point, just stop.

IDGAF about forum votes, I'm against the whole concept of silent arguing so I don't bother down or upvoting anybody let alone ask others to do it for me. If I have something against a post I'll argue with it. The fact you're even bringing it up is ridiculous, and that you're so triggered by it is just the cherry on top. And BTW nobody is upvoting me, when you make a post it makes you automatically upvote yourself so every post starts at 1. If there are two people thinking your bullshit is worth downvoting, it's between you and them.

Asayake 5150glowMar 30, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kZg99EoP,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-03-30T14:54:57.704+0000)

there are however champions that are not competitive.

every champion is playable. even when he has a 30% average winrate. such a champion is still trash and feels like shit to play, since you have to put in 3 times the efford of your opponent to have an equal chance at winning.

That should be true for any high skill champion ( Azir Cassiopeia Riven Bard Lucian Yasuo ) (aka it isn't always true), especially if they're facing a Garen or something

SUPERMOVAMar 31, 20171 votes

So what would be the result if somebody put effort into playing garen - like in my case

Asayake 5150glowMar 31, 20171 votes

{quoted}

So what would be the result if somebody put effort into playing garen - like in my case

It means that you'd be putting the mechanical game into their hands - as it should be, because there's not much you can do better besides managing cooldowns and stuff. That means it's up to them whether or not they will win a duel against you.

Familiarity with the champion means you'll know your powerspikes, and when you're stronger then them, and because of this, you know when you can play aggressive without worrying about misplaying and dying.

Ultra Rapid FyreMar 30, 20177 votes

Go play aatrox for 50 games, then come back to this conversation. Unless you are willing to do that, i think you shouldnt speak

S0kaXMar 31, 20171 votes

It means you aren't devoted enough. I may be bad at Shen and he's also too nerfed, but you don't see me saying he's unplayable since there are some people who can succeed with him, as there are people who can succeed with Aatrox.

Ultra Rapid FyreMar 31, 20172 votes

{quoted}

It means you aren't devoted enough. I may be bad at Shen and he's also too nerfed, but you don't see me saying he's unplayable since there are some people who can succeed with him, as there are people who can succeed with Aatrox.

check again buddy, I am an Aatrox one trick on 3 seperate accounts with a total of 700k mastery points across the 3. Hes the ONLY champion i play outside of special game modes such as ARAM, URF, ETC.

Shen has actually been fairly strong, and is still in a contenting spot. He does his job effectively, hes a tank

Aatrox is designed as a life drain diver / scrapper style champion which he is very ineffective at.

If you actually look at the numbers for aatrox hes currently at 45TH winrate, which is terrible.

Winrate ASSIDE, his average KDA ( this includes assists ) sits at almost HALF of ANY OTHER CHAMPION IN HIS CLASS

Just because someone wins games on aatrox doesnt mean he is effective, in most cases he has a good team comp capable of carrying this lack luster champion.

Aatrox has ONE deticated main above diamond and thats in both NA and EU, so again, you are talking about something i feel like you have not even remotely looked into. Go back to your playable champion

S0kaXMar 31, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Ultra Rapid Fyre,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kZg99EoP,comment-id=001500000000,timestamp=2017-03-31T11:40:57.196+0000)

check again buddy, I am an Aatrox one trick on 3 seperate accounts with a total of 700k mastery points across the 3. Hes the ONLY champion i play outside of special game modes such as ARAM, URF, ETC.

Shen has actually been fairly strong, and is still in a contenting spot. He does his job effectively, hes a tank

Aatrox is designed as a life drain diver / scrapper style champion which he is very ineffective at.

If you actually look at the numbers for aatrox hes currently at 45TH winrate, which is terrible.

Winrate ASSIDE, his average KDA ( this includes assists ) sits at almost HALF of ANY OTHER CHAMPION IN HIS CLASS

Just because someone wins games on aatrox doesnt mean he is effective, in most cases he has a good team comp capable of carrying this lack luster champion.

Aatrox has ONE deticated main above diamond and thats in both NA and EU

And that's unplayable. Unplayable means no diamond or above, but you probed yourself wrong.

Ultra Rapid FyreMar 31, 20173 votes

{quoted}

And that's unplayable. Unplayable means no diamond or above, but you probed yourself wrong.

unplayable has nothing to do with diamond or above.

When only 1-2 people can make a champion work even remotely effective thats an unplayable champion. Every champion in this game has someone who mains them in diamond or higher, but that doesnt mean they are reasonable or viable picks, or even remotely playable in 99% of scenarios.

When you have a champion with only a hand full of people out of hundreds of thousands of players being above 50%, thats unplayable

S0kaXApr 1, 20171 votes

No, it means that champion is too hard/weak, not unplayable.

Project omenMar 30, 20174 votes

Yes there is. Well, not in the literal sense, in which case you are right. It depends on the elo. Take Yasuo, Yi, Garen, Amumu, Sona or Xin Zhao for example. The more you climb, the more "unplayable" they get. Sure, you can make them work sometimes (if you're lucky enough), but you could easily pick up other champions that are more effective with way less effort.

The Sword SaintMar 30, 20173 votes

People on these boards tend to confuse 'viable' with 'top tier'.

They aren't satisfied with a champion who has a 47% winrate in plat+ games. They want their champions to be 51%+ winrate so that just by playing them they get a free statistical advantage.

This ignores many things, like the fact that literally 90% of league players are below plat level so the amount of mistakes in an average game are high enough that theses few percentage points aren't relevant comparatively, that champions maybe be perfectly fine overall but just not be in the best position to benefit from the current meta which could shift at any given patch, and that it's statistically impossible for every champion to have a positive winrate.

Viktor Von LazerMar 30, 20173 votes

Obviously, but the work required to play an Azir properly currently against an Ahri is a bit absurd. No champion is unplayable but many champions, If you are interested at all in actually winning are not worth playing, and thats a problem. Riot continuously does this. They add these idiotic elements to champions that are HORRIBLE in soloQ or normal games but would be great in professional play and higher elo, then nerf interesting champions we enjoy to the ground because of it. Team wide teleport was their next brilliant idea for Ryze, I wonder what theyll think of next.

Another problem is some champions overlap in role, and what they are essentially suppose to do, and one of those champions may just be flat out a better version of another champion (at the moment) so even if you like the lesser champion you feel almost obligated to play the better one if you know how to play it equally well.

DethflashMar 30, 20173 votes

I won a game as Aatox, only took me 4 games trying!

DuskDaUmbreonMar 30, 20173 votes

Very, very true. But some champions are either totally outclassed (Try laning Kindred against any marksman at all), or just not worth the effort required to make them work (See: Azir ). While a skilled enough player can make any champion work, playing some champions just makes you unnecessarily handicapped. Why put the effort into a difficult champion with a mediocre payout, when you could just put less effort into an easier champion for a good payout?

manbearswineMar 30, 20173 votes

No, if you are devoted enough you can stuck hard enough at other champions to make said champ look good in comparison.

LauchmelderMar 30, 20173 votes

I have tried making Azir work for a long time, but I gave up. It's nearly impossible to get him into a decent state before the game ends lately.

While the statement is definitely true, I have to agree with Stevobrine. Making Azir work is just not worth the effort. I might as well build him tank top if I want to play him.

Titanium70Mar 30, 20173 votes

Sure - you could try to make Velkoz work after they reduce his base and scaling by half and changed his passive to magic DMG - but that doen't mean it is a good idea to do so!

Nobody who uses the term 'unplayable' would ever assume there is no way to win with this Champion - but if the proportion between Effort and Reward is non existant, the term kinda hits it spot.

YoungSirJ0eyMar 30, 20173 votes

{quoted}

Sure - you could try to make Velkoz work after they reduce his base and scaling by half and changed his passive to magic DMG - but that doen't mean it is a good idea to do so!

No, that would be, for all intents and purposes, unplayable. Wouldn't be fun, wouldn't be interesting, you could still play him, but there would be no reason to do so.

The point of this post isn't that no champion could theoretically ever be unplayable, the point is that League is incredibly well-balanced, and so no champion ever will be unplayable. Even champs who are intentionally kept weak maintain winrates above 45% unless they're high skill floor champs (see Kalista, Azir, and sort of Ryze).

SwiftKitten88Mar 30, 20173 votes

disabled champions are unplayable...

in all reality though. you CAN have an unplayable champsion... a few patches ago Nidalee had a 38% win rate beating out the spot for the 10th lowest winrate in the history of league of legends. could you play her? yes... but trying to win with her was impossible if you wanted to that win to be anything other than u getting your ass carried, as she was at the point where you could get a hard leash on blue and then be forced to back after your second mob (gromp) after taking both pots, if u didn't want wolves to execute you.

thats pretty fucking unplayable. now she is "playable" with a 44% win rate. but in all reality even as a nidalee main.. she is in such a trash spot i cant effectively climb with her in ranked anymore.

imo anyone with has a 48-51% win rate is fine 47 is "accptable" but not great 52%+ CAN be ok in a fair circumstances. 53+ is almost never ok 54% has to be absolute trash (sub 47) in another elo to ever be considered ok 46-4% CAN be ok in VERY specific circumstances

45% and below is NEVER ok... under any circumstance. in ANY elo. also a winrate should NEVER have a differential of more than 5% between all elos

so yeah if u have a 47% win rate or above in your elo and your crying "my champ is unplayable" then shut your trap and hold still while i get the duct tape...

if your 46%. you might have a point if your sub 45% that's effectively unplayable

Cats Are FoodMar 30, 20173 votes

I personally perform at the same level of efficiency no matter what champion I play (mostly). Any role, any champ. There are, however, some champions I can not seem to find an efficient way to play, and they are the exception to my rule.

While they are not unplayable, their efficiency in actual team play is extremely limited. Due to an inability to farm, lack of synergy with any other champion, or simply because they do not bring anything to the table that is not going to be immediately out classed by anything the opposing team picks for the same role... one can consider them unplayable.

Myself and countless others can still perform fairly well with these champions, but we could literally pick any other and perform better.

ForgiveColourMar 30, 20173 votes

37% winrate azir and kassadin?

GULAG 4 UMar 30, 20173 votes

Yes, but why pick Aatrox when I could pick tryndamere? Trynd trades better, hits harder, pushes faster and waveclears as good. The only con is tryndamere isn't as good in teamfights and doesn't have a knockup. Which Aatrox isn't too good at neither.

Kitty ClarissaMar 30, 20172 votes

Sona I love but at times this dive meta where 4 man gangbangs happens i can't do too much. Also Lucian is popular right now so ill just get bursted trying to poke. I mean but in low elo she is played but higher elo she pops like a fly so i would not call her unplayable but is a high risk pick.

i mean i have about 200k points booked on her but lately i have not had the best games with her (SR wise) , the fact is mainly picking her up or not playing her carefully will end up you feeding the laner a lot pre-6 and knowing she does not have hard CC in her normal spells they just run rampid in bot lane over her and her ADC. Ill still play her neither the less but i have my other picks Zyra Lulu (before she became popular) Karma Janna (needs alot more work doh)

Miku Hime samaMar 31, 20172 votes

If a champion is so bad, you will get flamed and reported for picking said champion, I'd say that fits rather perfectly with the definition of "unplayable." You can pick them, but you will literally be punished for doing so, by both teams.

At this moment I can name several champions just off-hand that fall into this category.