Boards›Gameplay

Why People Don't Like Champions - Strategic vs. Tacitcal counterplay

Winged Hussars·10/28/2014, 4:20:27 PM·23 votes·3,847 views

So it's pretty obvious that a few reworks and balance changes by Riot seem questionable to a lot of players, and while dissatisfaction comes through I notice that a lot of people don't understand or don't agree with Riot's means of changing champions. It seems to me that mostly these are 'power' concerns, but people usually have a very limited definition of power, usually referring to some mechanic that player like about that champion. People like being able to do something consistently. People like harass that cannot miss. People like unconditional steroids and reliable abilities that essentially can't screw up. This doesn't say anything about player skill, but unlike the earlier days of LoL most extremely consistent abilities are weak compared to skillshot or "playmaking" skills. I don't want to clutter up "power" with terms like flashiness or risk/reward, so I'm just going to break it up into two things that a champion can possess.

Tactical Advantage and Strategic Advantage.

Let us start with a strategic advantage.A strategic advantage is a power that a champion maintained throughout the game. something an individual enemy cannot necessarily do anything about. Is this unhealthy? Not always. A champion with an important strategic advantage would be Ryze. Ryze's abilities are all direct target unavoidable skills. If you approach him he will land his combo 100% of the time without fail. While his power as a burst caster is very low compared to champions like Malzahar, he can warp the battlefield simply by existing. A champion can have a 60% chance to win against Malzahar, but against Ryze it will be more like a 90% chance to win or a 90% chance to lose. This is because Malzahar is encouraged to alter his combo based on the situation while Ryze is much more normalized. Ryze's power is locked into his ability to exploit his innate advantage against champions instead of having immediate decision making in a fight.

By contrast, Jarvan has a heavy tactical advantage. His success is predicated upon setting up a situation with his skills to maximize effectiveness, lead enemies, and properly apply an ultimate that significantly affects a fight more than a strategic advantage does, but for a limited time. Tactical advantages are options in combat, ways to play around the enemy and pull a victory from an uncertain situation.

The issue arises when a consistent skill is extremely powerful, because the value of tactical advantages goes down quicklyif the enemy has a stratrgic advantage over that champion. When Soraka and Sona were changed around, they lost a lot of strategic advantage and consistency in return for more ways to play around enemies. S1 Soraka would always do things the same way. She could not pull a situation around unless the enemy was unaware. She was consistent enough that it invalidated the tactical advantage of other champions.

If you were playing a game where you had to roll a die and score higher than the opponent, how would you feel if the enemy did not have to roll the die, but was treated as having a 4? Unfair, right? 3? Both kinds of advantage have their place, but if it is all tactical then every champion is the same but if it is all strategic then every game id decided in champion select.

Just to clarify, since my main point was somewhat obscure - I feel like the best champions in the game are ones that exhibit a combination of strategic and tactical advantages. For example, post-rework Soraka both brings hyper-healing that provides a definite advantage against teams with low burst as well as against champions with long rotation cooldowns. At the same time, her advantage can be mitigated or fought against through much more immediate means than say, Yorick who brings a consistent strategic advantage of guaranteed damage and sustain.

I feel that a champion with a strong strategic niche should retain that niche but not be completely untouchable under favorable circumstances. This is probably why Ryze is getting nerfed along with Doran's shield getting buffed on the PBE. Ryze's consistent disruption of mobility won't be combined with complete domination over most melee champions.

(Mother of spellcheck errors! Fixed some things)

32 Comments

Xenith Circuit10/28/2014, 5:15:08 PM10 votes

While this is a well thought out statement, I have to disagree with your main premise. Yes, people do like harass that cannot miss. Yes, players have a harder time wanting to invest time in a "skill" based champion. However, there are other things you have to consider.

  1. People DO like the champion reworks and new champions. Jinx, Yasuo, Gnar, Azir, Sion, and Soraka have all had a positive response from the community. Sure, there are quite a few people who don't like them. But there are many people who DO.

  2. League of Legends has always had a constantly evolving play dynamic. Riot likes to try out new things. With the release of Gnar, Azir, and Sion we've seen a huge burst of varying play mechanics arise. It keeps the game healthy and engaging.

Now, you seem to stress heavily on "fairness" that some champions are simply unfair. I draw this from your assumed trend of "Tactical advantage goes down quickly when consistent skill is very powerful." While on a black and white view of this issue I can agree with you, I simply cannot agree that these champions and their abilities can be a game breaking factor. NOR Do I agree that you will lose simply because of a champion with a strong consistent skill. Here's why:

  1. Doom Bots. When Riot did Doom Bots recently, I feel like they were trying to establish a point: That "overpowered" champions do not ensure defeat. Sure, people lost a lot to Doom Bots. But winning was not impossible. Why ? Because although the bots were able to spam their "consistent" powerful skills almost nonstop, players were able to overcome them with planned strategic action. (AKA: Kills don't matter. Objectives do.) The team with the stronger ability to work together and strategize with superior synergy is most likely the team that will win. To me, Doom bots was a way for Riot to say "Even If champions are truly OP, you can still win."

  2. Every champion is strong. It's how you play them. Seriously, this statement cannot be truer. When you are limited down to the "meta" style of playing - you are ignorant to this fact. There are over 200 champions in League of Legends, yet we see only the same 50 or so being played at all times because they are considered "strong" or "OP." I posit that this is only because those champions are easy to play, easy to learn how to play, or have been played in the pro scene or higher "ELO" games. Point is that even the "forgotten" champions are just as strong if you play them right. Going back to your example, between preseason 4 and the LCS, Ryze was a forgotten champ especially in the lower ELO. Other champions include Galio, Cassiopeia, Ashe, Corki, Nautilus, Alistar, Veigar, Mordekaiser, Poppy, and more. These champions are all incredibly powerful if utilized correctly. But for some reason, people find other champions (Morgana, Tristana, Caitlyn, Lucian, Akali, Katarina, Diana, Zed, Talon, Vi, Warwick, Udyr, Jarvan, Darius, Garen, Tryndamere, etc...) more attractive due to their easy playability.

  3. Skill level. What you point out in this is only really visible in the lower ranks of skill in League of Legends. Let me point something out to you, based on my experiences. Lower skil levels depend highly on burst damage and high CC. While this is a good tactic that works, it's very limited. There isn't room for the "strategic" advantage as you said. Don't get me wrong, a lot of the champions played here are also played in the higher ranks and even pro. But these ranks have made some of these 'harder' champions attractive because of how easy it is to watch them play the champion and shorten the learning curve. As you get to the higher ranks, you see a lot of people abandon these strong "consistent skill" champions and go for more tactical champions. Examples include Galio, Corki, Mordekaiser, Karthus, Irelia, Rumble, Nautilus, Elise, and so on. These champions are regarded as "weak" in the lower skills because players do not understand the vast learning curve required in order to make full utilization of these indeed powerful champions.

Kingsgrave10/28/2014, 5:29:17 PM5 votes

I don't like that Riot is obsessed with heavily limiting characters for getting bonuses. Like Sion's low health pool for his W passive. Azir's low AS for his CDR passive. Cass AP ratios being abysmally low for her AP gains (which is odd considering veigar exists)

RazorTS10/28/2014, 5:00:03 PM2 votes

Sun is bright and water is wet... So what are you actually saying?

Khodexus10/29/2014, 5:12:55 AM2 votes

Personally I like most of the reworks they've done, though I feel Xerath ended up with a lackluster ultimate, and I absolutely despise what they did to his lore more recently.

I even have had some fun with Soraka, though I hate that she now is penalized for building any sort of max health. It would have been so much better if she gave away that health she spent to her target (similarly to how she used to give away mana).

The one I really have a problem with is Sona, not because I feel she's weaker, but because I feel they took away her identity, without even touching her lore, and she's just not fun to play anymore.

F0EHAMMER10/29/2014, 7:33:10 AM2 votes

I would agree too, instead of strategic or tactical, why not both, it allows champions to be less one-dimensional and have more options.

The Willow Wisp10/30/2014, 12:14:39 AM2 votes

While it may just be my personal experience, I find champions with more Tactical Advantage to be more rewarding and more fun that those who are more Strategic Advantage focused. When the "power" of an ability is related to the way I use it, and not simply that I used it, I feel like my skill is the deciding factor. When I play a champion like Brand or Sion, I feel like the order, timing, and positioning of my abilities can really decide the outcome of a fight. If I play it right, I feel like a fiery badass that just scorched my enemies into nothingness or an undead hulk who just taught my enemies the true meaning of war. When I play it incorrectly, I feel like I could have done better an seek to improve and learn from my mistake(s). With a champion like Ryze, I usually felt more like the reason I won, or lost, was just because I had picked Ryze and the match-up favored, or didn't favor, me. Again, this could just be my personal experience and skill level.

That feeling or outplaying your opponent that champions like Mordekaiser, Pantheon, or Sion gives me is awesome and it always feels great to pull out a really clutch victory in lane or in team fights. Getting outplayed by a champion that has a Tactical Advantage based kit doesn't feel that bad or disheartening to me either, instead it makes me want to find a way to beat them by getting better. Not to say I don't like playing champions with Strategic Advantage, I still play the occasional Ryze game and enjoy it, or that losing to a strategic champion makes me feel terrible.

I think one of the big reasons that people seem to gravitate towards champions with more Strategic Advantage and less Tactical Advantage is because it is, at least as far as I can tell, a bit easier to learn the champ and it gives instant gratification. If you have consistency in what you can do(i.e. can't miss), then you don't have to manage as many things at once. If I know there is a near 100% chance I can wreck Derp #1 if I get to him, then all I need to worry about is getting to Derp #1 and doing so. If, on the other hand, I can only wreck Derp #1 if I get to him and outplay him I have to manage more things at once. In my experience, players tend to move away from champions that are mostly Strategic as they grow because Tactical and mixed-type champions can offer them more in both gameplay and satisfaction.

Rinky Dinky10/29/2014, 11:26:31 AM1 votes

I feel that they bolstered Sona's strengths, kept her identity, and made her even more fun to play. To each their own I suppose. </3

Llanite10/29/2014, 6:09:47 PM1 votes

Post-rework Soraka is awesome. But I don't think Riot is heading to that direction.

For instance, pre-nerf leblanc has a well-mixed kit. Her E has a slight delay before rooting, which people can dash away (counterplay 1), her triggered Q counters (counterplay 1) if she can W into Q, but again, she can be CC during W (counterplay 2), which can break the whole chain. When I first played LOL, It was absolutely stunning, just as epic as WoW bosses.

Time passed, now we have Lulu, Gnar, Yasou, Lissandra, Jayce, Lucian, who have no niche and abilities have little interaction with each other. Dash in, tank, spark and retreat.

Bobb111810/29/2014, 1:24:02 AM1 votes

I feel like this is a disguised Ryze circlejerk

TenSlashTen10/29/2014, 8:09:37 PM1 votes

Cass the definition of champions that are gutted powerwise by riot.

But yes you make alot of good points. Yes alot of people don't understand the rework so they hate it. I personally will never understand karma's rework and have hated it since its release.

But the truth is, you can't please everyone bro. There's always gonna be that salty veteran or new player who was just getting/knew this champ like the back of their hand and wanted to just main them top/mid/support forever and was happy with how wierd their kit was.

ArcxSAGIZZ10/30/2014, 4:51:59 AM1 votes

Anything Ghostcrawler approves is a terrible idea.