What are Champion roles really?

Ed2Cute·Aug 15, 2014·1 votes·4,486 views

More and more it seems roles mean less and less. We all know LoL is hilariously imbalanced. However, in a seriously competitive game, is it okay for it to be so imbalanced that you can have a champion jump smoothly between two completely opposite roles and/or fulfill both at the same time? Logically, when you see Lulu, Karma, and Morgana on the enemy team, "Which one is mid?" should not be a valid thought. The proper question would rather be, "Wow wtf? 3 people fighting for support on their team and we had to force our last guy to pick it." There are many imbalances in the game, but this one, I think, would be the easiest to fix. Simply remove the damage scaling or change it to scaling into something else. Supports are utility based, not assassins. So why do they have .8 ap ratios on their abilities? When this game was for fun, you could play it your way with Alistar top. But it's serious now. It's a competitive game not being designed for the casual player anymore. There has to be rules and guidelines to play by. Otherwise I might as well have my goalie run the ball from one end of the field to the other and dive into the enemy goal for points.

44 Comments

Hyrum GraffAug 15, 20148 votes

There's nothing illegal about a goalie running the ball upfield; it's just a terrible strategy. Similarly, it's a terrible strategy to run a team of 5 adcs. Having flexibility in the game - where champs can pick different roles and lanes - keeps it interesting. We need more of that, not less.

The issue is balance. Those champs have to be balanced for both solo lanes and duo lanes. IMO, this can be solved by designing all champs to be able to scale with gold, and then buffing the gold of the support role.

Ed2CuteAug 15, 20141 votes

By "run the ball" I mean with it in their hands. They have to stay in the penalty box if they want to use their hands.

I think it only adds "cancer" (as the kids call it) to the game. I mean you have Lulu, designed as a support, that ends up shitting on basically every top laner in the game for a large chunk of time. Now we have Alistar, designed as a tank, that will straight up 1v1 a high damage champion under turret and walk out like, "You can't even count all the fucks I give on one hand... because I give none."

Last I heard, and still hear, Riot does not officially endorse any meta. You're free to do what you want. But they go back on it with things like, "The new champ is a top laner!" or giving a champion no scaling power with certain things. WHAT IF I WANT TO PLAY AP RIVEN!? That is my life's desire is that I play AP Riven and you just can't because she can't scale with AP. All power into Lichbane. :(

Balance is the issue... but if you actually complain about balance the dingus brigade full of 10 year olds comes out from under the bridge and says you're dumb for doing math and knowing what is fair and fun. Playing the game = fun. Not playing the game = not fun. CC = not fun.

Hyrum GraffAug 15, 20144 votes

designed as a support,

I think this is the real problem right here. "Designed as a support" used to mean, "Able to function with no gold."

This creates an annoying scenario (IMO) where only champs who are designed as supports are able to support, and those champs can't do anything else. I like having flexibility, especially in the meta, so I want to see us move away from this paradigm.

Imagine if lulu were nerfed so that she's balanced in lane. Now, give the support role more gold. Now lulu is still balanced in the support role, and she can go both places without being oppressive in either, because you don't have to do this crazy design thing where champs are balanced whether or not they're getting cs.

lichbane riven

Diversity of champion builds is a completely different conversation from diversity of strategy.

balance brigade boys

I guess. I find when you make a well thought-out and fair post, people usually respond in kind.

CC isn't fun

On the other hand, NO CC isn't fun, either. At least, when their team has Yi and Kat.

Ed2CuteAug 15, 20141 votes

only champs who are designed as supports are able to support, and those champs can't do anything else

Not technically true. That's why people have been taking Syndra support and shit.

Diversity of champion builds is a completely different conversation from diversity of strategy.

In a way, yes it is. I mean, support Lulu and AP Lulu are different builds.

I find when you make a well thought-out and fair post, people usually respond in kind.

I've not found that. I've been clear, sited my sources, laid out the math, and broke it down step-by-step. And I just get people who are like, "YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT!" Despite clearly displaying I have some comprehension of how this game works.

On the other hand, NO CC isn't fun, either. At least, when their team has Yi and Kat.

That's not a problem for cc to fix. That's a balancing issue. And that's the reason why nobody plays Yi or Kat anymore. One spell and they're completely useless. And the meta is just full of it. You can have like 14 roots and stuns on your team with the right comp. And that has literally no defense. At most 4 can be cleansed if you're Olaf/Gankplank. And the items/abilities that cleanse it have a much longer cc than the actual cc does. So they WILL get you pretty much no matter what. And not playing the game (because you're cc'd to death) isn't fun.

Riot knows it's a problem. That's kind of why they got rid of Ryze and a few others in URF Mode. Yeah they couldn't just ban every champ with cc, but everyone hated getting permastunned by Brand and shit. It's just not fun.

Hyrum GraffAug 16, 20142 votes

Not technically true. That's why people have been taking Syndra support and shit.

I was talking about last season. This season was a step in the right direction, IMO. We just didn't get all the way there.

In a way, yes it is. I mean, support Lulu and AP Lulu are different builds.

Support Lulu can build AP, though, instead of supp items.

People

I guess some of these exist, but I just downvote and move on, and don't worry about them.

And that's the reason why nobody plays Yi or Kat anymore.

According to lolking, Kat has the 13th highest pick rate this week, and Yi has the 21st. Not exactly unplayed.

You can have like 14 roots and stuns on your team with the right comp.

If you think you can come up with a team comp that CC heavy that still has the other things necessary to win fights (damage, tankiness)... I'd be interested to see it.

And that has literally no defense.

Spread out your damage. have your adc build their defensive item earlier, and have your tank(s) build sunfire capes. Have your apc build tanky AP. Sure, they can chain cc you, but they won't be able to chain cc ALL of you, and you'll be killing them while they deal minimal damage to you.

Urf Mode

Urf is not a good point to bring up when you're talking about balancing the game. Like, the point of URF (and many featured game modes) was that's it isn't balanced, because champions are not designed to have 80% cdr and no mana.

Ed2CuteAug 16, 20141 votes

I was talking about last season.

Support Lulu can build AP, though, instead of supp items.

And AP Lulu can build support items/tanky.

I just downvote and move on

I suppose that's valid. I don't like to downvote without at least trying to compromise with them on it... unless it's like a "Do you like my champ idea?" thing. Then the vote says it all.

Not exactly unplayed.

Can you link? I don't see them on most popular ranked games. Or highest win ratios. If it's normals or arams or whatever, then that's a different story because people are playing just to play those champions. Hardly to really win.

I'd be interested to see it.

This is by any cc: Maokai (3), Leona (3), Nautilus (4), Lissandra (3), and Ashe (2). That's 15 including slows, roots, stuns, and knock-ups. Out of all of those like 3 are slows.

Spread out your damage...

They can chain cc the people who do damage (mainly APC and ADC) OR chain cc the front line and mow down the back line super easy.

Urf is not a good point to bring up...

I think it's semi-valid because it's a glimpse into what could be. I mean, One-For-All and especially One-For-All: Mirror Mode showed us that nobody would mind playing the exact same champion. Doom Bots showed us that everyone fuckings hates the enemy having like a million bullshit effects. And URF showed us what it would be like if you could either never not have mobility or keep someone in place 100% of the time not playing the game.

RiotGhostcrawlerAug 18, 20148 votes

Having flexibility in the game - where champs can pick different roles and lanes - keeps it interesting. We need more of that, not less.

The issue is balance. Those champs have to be balanced for both solo lanes and duo lanes. IMO, this can be solved by designing all champs to be able to scale with gold, and then buffing the gold of the support role.

This is actually the direction we'd prefer to go. Now not every champion will be able to fill multiple roles (though Morgana feels close at times :) ), but we'd like to see players try more exploration of these sorts of things and not feel wrist-slapped by us when they do. Historically we feel we've been a little over-reactive in this regard -- as soon as someone steps out of "their lane" or tries something different than "their build," we try to swoop in and quickly make changes. It keeps the game balanced (maybe...), but it's boring.

One of our design values is Evolution, and part of that means being okay with players using the game more as a sandbox and feeling less constrained by the Riot approved (tm) way to play. If players find different ways to play champions, as long as it doesn't squelch diversity for other champions, and as long as our other design values (such as teamplay and counterplay) are maintained, then we want to try and support it!

Melee top, Mage mid, ADC + Support bottom has proven to be a reasonably healthy state of the game, but surely there are others, and wouldn't it be nice if players discovered some of them instead of Riot engineering them all.

ItemsGuyAug 19, 20141 votes

Having flexibility in the game - where champs can pick different roles and lanes - keeps it interesting. We need more of that, not less.

The issue is balance. Those champs have to be balanced for both solo lanes and duo lanes. IMO, this can be solved by designing all champs to be able to scale with gold, and then buffing the gold of the support role.

This is actually the direction we'd prefer to go. Now not every champion will be able to fill multiple roles (though Morgana feels close at times :) ), but we'd like to see players try more exploration of these sorts of things and not feel wrist-slapped by us when they do. Historically we feel we've been a little over-reactive in this regard -- as soon as someone steps out of "their lane" or tries something different than "their build," we try to swoop in and quickly make changes. It keeps the game balanced (maybe...), but it's boring.

One of our design values is Evolution, and part of that means being okay with players using the game more as a sandbox and feeling less constrained by the Riot approved (tm) way to play. If players find different ways to play champions, as long as it doesn't squelch diversity for other champions, and as long as our other design values (such as teamplay and counterplay) are maintained, then we want to try and support it!

Melee top, Mage mid, ADC + Support bottom has proven to be a reasonably healthy state of the game, but surely there are others, and wouldn't it be nice if players discovered some of them instead of Riot engineering them all.

One thing about champions having "their role" (at least, the role they are optimized towards and more suited for), is that when you design a champion around, say, being a duo lane tank (Braum, who is much less powerful without an ally and can't build damage efficiently) or a pure mid-lane mage (Twisted Fate, who relies on solo lane gold and the map presence that mid grants), you can design with purpose. You can have a much more concrete goal in mind, creating a finer criteria by which that champion's balance is judged. Lulu, for example, is a very healthy champion when played as a duo lane support, but fudging that optimization by allowing her to scale off of AP more than a support typically would created a domineering solo lane beast that could bump off a lot of the competition. Of course, stuff like this is what I assume you're talking about when you say you want to maintain design values. AP Tryndamere is another area where this went wrong, if I recall, and it was properly addressed (even though people claimed it was just "Riot killing creativity').

Flexible champions (as in, champions who are flexible in their role by design, and were created with all the intentions that come along with that) certainly do have a place in the game, but letting people run rampant with experimental builds that become as optimal as what the designers had originally intended can cause harm outside of unhealthy play patterns (AP Trynd's clear 'n heal, AP Trist's 0 counterplay nuke kitchen), such as conflicting with the champion's intended playstyle and theming/fantasy (which tie into readability--AP Alistar being a hulking minotaur that...can bump into you for half your health but pops if you look at him?).

Also, if players are getting bored because they can't build a champion for more than one role, do you think there might be a bigger problem at hand? (By this I am implying that many champions--especially the older ones--are not very engaging/don't provide as wide a variety of gameplay experiences as they should/tend to be almost indistinguishable from others within their role, and while it's something that has started to become addressed with some of the recent gameplay updates, it's still something that must be kept in mind)

Hyrum GraffAug 19, 20142 votes

+1, Agreed on all counts.

While I have your attention, I'd be interested in hearing your (and/or Riot's) opinion on any/all of this. Of course, I understand if you're not prepared to talk about this yet:

#Part 1: Supports/Gold I've been in a number of interesting discussions recently regarding diversity of pick and strategy. I think a core issue holding back diversity right now is the gold income disparity. As long as certain roles have less gold than others, champs have to be balanced for those roles and then nerfed if they leave those roles (because, in order to survive on the lesser amount of gold, they need overloaded bases/kits, so if it ever turns out they can scale, their playstyle becomes unhealthy. See fig. 1: Lulu). **If roles had equal gold income, champions could be balanced as champions, into niches, instead of into roles.** I think Braum is a shining example of this. He's got a primary role as a bottom lane support, but he's also a decent toplaner, where he becomes a really, really, freakin' tanky disruption tank (getting his passive on everyone, forcing the enemy adc to focus him w/ his shield).

#Part 2: The Jungle As an aside, Morello recently mentioned not being sure the direction that you want to take the jungle. If I might be so bold as to suggest one...

I think the jungle should be the strategic core of league. The jungler should be calling objectives and rotations, and applying map pressure. They should ALSO feel like they are strong enough to make things happen, when they are present during pushes, etc, so powerfarming the jungler should be a viable strat as well.

Pressure can be applied in basically 3 ways:

Ganking (duh)
Invading the enemy jungle.

It forces the enemy jungler to either counter-invade or ask his team for support to drive you out - all rotations, in a manner of speaking.

Powerfarming your own jungle.

Think FF release-era. If you let Yi powerfarm his jungle for 20 minutes, he comes out a monster, so it forces you to invade. Forcing map rotations = creating pressure.

When you nerfed Feral Flare, you stated that "it doesn't seem fair that a champ can powerfarm their jungle, where there's little risk, and then come out and wreck solo laners who have had to contend with an enemy while trying to cs." I think this wasn't actually the issue (OK, it was way too strong, my point is that the idea of "junglers shouldn't be as strong as laners" was incorrect). I think the issue was that the other strategy - ganking - wasn't rewarding enough, and the direct counter - invading - was too difficult.

Therefore, here are my suggestions for a pre-season jungle rework:

Increase jungle itemization to allow for carry-style junglers

There should be jungle items for most combinations of: Early or Lategame; Tank or Damage; AP or AD.

Make invading easier/more rewarding Options I thought of:

Give more or better-placed entrances/exits from the jungle
Allow a jungler to cross from one side of the enemy jungle to the other without taking a tower hit would help this (he would be seen, though)

Make ganking more rewarding (jungle items give bonus gold for kills or assists?)

#Part 3: Masteries There are two ways to do this:

Rework the utility mastery tree so that's where the gold that puts supports/junglers and CSers on even footing.
Rework the utility mastery tree so it's more focused on utility. Supposedly, the deeper in the tree you go, the more applicable the points are to late game. However, many of the deeper (past 9) utility masteries are focused on the early game, and keeping supports' gold income/xp closer to CSers'.

Thanks for reading, Hyrum Graff

ArizelAug 19, 20142 votes

If this is true, Why did you guys Begin to completely removing AP/AD ratios from some champions? Gragas did not completely evolve into an APC, you guys just REFUSED to decrease his ratios to a level that would encourage his actual role, a Hybrid Tank/Bruiser. But because you guys wanted to preserve the HASH TAG BIG PLAYS you decreased his passive tankyness, lowered the high bound burst aoe burst damage a bit, REMOVED all AD bruiser aspects from his kit, and turned him into an AP Bruiser and only an AP Bruiser Where before he could literally play in all lanes with multiple ap/ad build options that actually had meaningful differences.

I also remember way way back in Beta, Ashe used to have 9 arrow volleys that penetrated all targets (a bit op I know) but in addition to that, her Volleys scaled off of AP Ratios as well! Allowing you to have the option of going adc, or an AP kite with a sniper arrow on low cooldown due to CDR...

KinaroAug 19, 20142 votes

Hey Ghostcrawler, I hope you have time to read this.

If you are really considering giving the ~~support~~ 0 CS position an equal amount of gold I would be so happy and you can probably ignore the first paragraph. I'm "fighting" for the 0 CS position for quite a while now. I see no way that a champion can be equally strong in two positions that have different gold income (right now). Champions designed for the 0 CS position are compensated for the lack of gold by having more power in their kit. If those champions would gain more gold it can only cause problems (gold power + kit power = too much). Champions designed for high gold income on the other hand are just a lower version of themselves when played in the 0 CS position.In short: The 0 CS position (not champions) is just weaker than all other position. Right now this is compensated more powerful kits that only work in this position.

One way to solve this problem is by increasing the gold generation of the 0 CS position to be similar to high gold positions. While this may work I think it also makes the position a bit boring. More interesting would be a design like this:

utility power of champion X in the 0 CS position > utility power of champion X in a high CS position

damage of champion X in the 0 CS position < damage of champion X in a high CS position

This could be implemented like this (example!):

Ancient Coin Something special for abilities used on an allied Champion, like heals, shield or other buffs. Example: increase power of said abilities.

Spellthief's Edge Something special when you use CC on enemies. Example: reduce cooldowns by x seconds or %hp damage when triggered.

Relic Shield Something special for taking damage from enemy Champions. Example: Increase HP regeneration for x seconds.

More here: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=45036113

KairosCrowAug 19, 20141 votes

+1 Please, do move in this direction. Let us explore, and innovate, and try champions in new positions. Please, be willing to support off-builds, and non-meta picks alike. Simply knowing that you prefer to open up these kind of possibilities, rather than perpetually wrist-slapping everything new is one of the best things I've read in ages. Viva la Evolution!

Ed2CuteAug 21, 20141 votes

omg it's Ghostcrawler. :O

The idea, in theory, is nice. To have any champion do just about anything. I mean, you pretty much just have that right now with Bruisers like Xin Zhao, Vi, and Lee Sin. Get a single damage item and go full tank bruisers are like, "Lol what adc? lol what mid? lol what enemy team?" And it's extremely annoying because tank Vayne or tank Ahri isn't gonna do anything but be a hindrance. While damage Vayne and Ahri aren't gonna do anything because they're dead.

Also, having any champion fill any role makes it even more boring. Half of the fun is picking a team-comp that works. Getting your adc, top, jungle, etc. And having players play that role well vs. the same thing. Then it's a game of skill if it's adc vs adc.

Having any champ do anything ruins strategic positioning. I mean, right now you can make a huge play on a 4v5 when the enemy wants to split-push or just went back. But if role doesn't matter, then you'll just have 4 durable cc bots smacking 5 durable cc bots and whichever group of cc bots has more gold at the moment wins because they'll probably have more items.

I know what I'm saying sounds like I'm only looking at one possible result and... well I am. It's just like when One-For-All: Mirror Mode happened. That game mode could not be more balanced. It was 100% skill the max, baby. You had everything they had, and they had everything you had. Who was smarter at builds and who was better at mechanics decided the victor. Buuuut then we saw what the League community did. "Pick Nidalee/Ziggs. Let's play dodge ball." And a meta was born looking for easy wins and it became stale. Just like if any champ can do anything, the people will just say, "Oh well go bruisers. If they go damage, combined with our tankiness, they can't outdamage us. GG."

It will take FAR more balancing work to be done to change every champion into puddy that you can shape to what you want than to assign champions a role and let them play that role. Champion changing involves changing every aspect of the game. What we have now is the TEAM concept that's getting a little out of hand. It's easier to real it back in than to go back to the drawing board and change the foundation of the game.

Ironclad DragonAug 15, 20143 votes

Nothing but a miserable pile of code.

ShadowKnight1224Aug 18, 20143 votes

I really, really, really dislike this mentality, strongly. I am for more flexibility and diversity instead of less. The idea that "supports must be this and nothing else" especially bothers me to no end (given that I main support).

The idea that Karma, Lulu and Morgana can mid or support is not a problem with the game, but a feature, and throwing around the word "imbalance" to lend your argument any shred of credibility is rather disingenuous.

Roles are about gold, plain and simple. Top, mid and bot lane carry derive their gold income from csing, the jungler farms the jungle, and the support has a specific gold item that adjusts for her specific playstyle.

Things like utility, champion damage, tankiness, wave clear, map pressure, sieging power and mobility are team-wide necessities, rather than being tied to a specific champion.

And from a philosophical standpoint, I loathe needless, petty restrictions. I like flexibility and freedom, and having a game that says "if you think you can take this champion to that role, be my guest; it's not what we originally thought up, but I'm not gonna make it any harder on you to do so" rather than "HOW DARE YOU DEFY THE LAW OF LEAGUE! I MUST NOW IMPOSE EVERY POSSIBLE PENALTY ON YOU FOR YOUR DEFIANCE!"

Ed2CuteAug 21, 20141 votes

Having any champion do anything is a ridiculous thought. The whole point of having a party is so that you can fulfill the roles necessary to have a strategically advantageous team comp. I mean, if you've played any MMOs, you have tanks, healer, and dps. You'd be pretty pissed if a ret paladin queued up as tank.

Now, the counter-argument here is, "Well paladins can be anything!" And that's true. Healers, tanks, or dps. However, depending which they are, they get a new set of abilities and passives. They change dramatically. And not even all classes can do that. The only other class that can is a monk. The others are limited to two roles or even just one like rogues and warlocks and mages.

Back to League, it makes actually supporting useless. That's why we don't see Taric or Soraka anymore. You can't just get a bit of damage on them and suddenly become a massive threat to the stability of the universe. Those are true supports that are supposed to be in the support role and so people pick something like Annie or Syndra who has huge scaling and CC.

ShadowKnight1224Aug 22, 20142 votes

You find the idea of champions belonging to multiple roles ridiculous, well, I happen to find the idea of artificial restrictions ridiculous as well.

A good game allows you as much freedom as can be coded, but adds a risk for every decision you make. Having a damage-heavy team with very little utility runs the risk of not having an answer to being caught by surprise or being against an extremely tanky team. Likewise, the extremely tanky team can be kited around endlessly, and so on.

Being punished for deviating from the "ideal" teamcomp is awful game design. Being rewarded for following it instead is good game design. Having an ideal teamcomp should be rewarded in the form of all-around safety and a lack of glaring weaknesses, while unorthodox teamcomps trade the safety of a balanced team for a high-risk/potentially-high-reward playstyle.

Restrictions kill games. Once a game gets predictable and unchanging, it removes progress and evolution, turning it into a stale exercise in "who can play these specific champions at these specific roles better". If markspeople can only stay in bot lane, there will eventually be one that's better than the rest, so games boil down to "who can play Lucian better".

Ed2CuteAug 22, 20143 votes

Having the freedom to play what you want and freedom to go against guidelines, intelligent build, and logical placement are two different things. You can play any role you want. However, Karma (based around her intention and kit) should not go top lane or build AD Bruiser. Allowing that is just saying, "We lack creativity and mathematical know-how to make things balanced without being the same. So do whatever you want." I mean, at that point LoL should just be open source and champions should be downloadable mods.

You keep using punished like the Riot devs will ban you for going AD Bruiser Karma. The only real punishment is when you lack an impact on the game because you chose an ineffective build for your champion. That's what makes the champions unique, fun, and pick/ban phase so important. If you just want to play any champion any way, we might as well all be Ziggs and just give him some tank scaling and make his autos work better with AD. Wow so fun game.

No, that's untrue. 1.) League comes out with new champs, new game modes, etc. It is not stale. 2.) That is literally how it already is. It may not be as black and white as "X is best adc, Y is second..." but if you watch even 10 games of LCS, you'll see maybe 20 different champions out of a possible 100 different champions. 3.) Even if it boiled down to Lucian being the best ADC, it wouldn't be "who can play Lucian better." It would be "who can pick Lucian first."

ShadowKnight1224Aug 22, 20142 votes

You use all these nice-sounding words to make your argument sound rational, but it's really not. It's purely preferential. You don't like X champion used in Y way, so you say that doing that goes "against guidelines, intelligent build and logical placement", when in reality it's entirely your preference (derived from what you think is the role for the champion in question).

When every patch nerfs some aspect of some champion or item because they weren't used as intended, that's punishing the community from deviating from the meta. It's literally taking away their fun for not doing what the devs wants them to do. Instead of doing so, what they should do should offer greater rewards for using the champion in the role they envisioned. If they don't want Lulu used a solo laner, they should reward her support playstyle without nerfing so hard she's barely good at anything but support.

If every champion must fit a role, every champion begins to require certain mechanics for its role, and there's a finite number of combinations and variations. Once every champion came out, he would be compared to the top champ of its role and placed in the tier lists accordingly. Then he would either become irrelevant or top pick. This is stale. 2) Yes, and it would be even worse if we didn't have options like Lulu top, Tristana mid or Morgana support. Riot needs to move in the opposite direction to avoid having obvious picks and bans. 3) Yeah, but even then, it would all boil down to skill with specific champs, instead of actual teamwork, strategy and tactics. No longer would it be about coming up with clever team comps or unexplored synergies, but pure mechanical skill. Whoever has the least lag, the most twitch and the most practice will win every game.

Ed2CuteAug 22, 20141 votes

You don't like X champion used in Y way, so you say that doing that goes "against guidelines, intelligent build and logical placement", when in reality it's entirely your preference

It's not preference (indicated at least by intelligent and logical). If Karma was supposed to fit that damn AD Bruiser role then she would have some goddamn AD scaling and some goddamn bruiser scaling, wouldn't she? But she doesn't, and that makes her unique in how her AP Support role is played. And it shouldn't be changed so she could because that just makes her a generic as fuck jack of all trades.

what they should do should offer greater rewards for using the champion in the role they envisioned.

Basically what you're saying is: when the class is playing basketball, the kid who's playing dodgeball in the middle of the game should get a lolly, but the other kids should get two lolly's. Simply giving incentives to behave isn't what makes kids do the right thing. It's a combination of punishing the bad and rewarding the good that works.

1.) I defer you to Diablo 3. Endlessly build a hero any way. Game is stale as shit because it's repetitive story and objectives (like League's only 2 objective games). 2.) It would be worse if there was no strategy to a strategy game? 3.) That's actually how it should be for a game that boasts about it's skillful players.

ShadowKnight1224Aug 22, 20142 votes

And like I said, you use words like "intelligent" and "logical" to obfuscate your personal stake on the matter. There is nothing inherently more intelligent or logical in using a champion in the role it was intended. If the champion performs well in another role or with another build, intelligence and logic dictate that those choices are equally valid, as proven by their results.

FYI, Karma can't be a bruiser because she's ranged and squishy (therefore defying the very definition of bruiser). If you were arguing about ADC Karma, well, why not? Try it out, see what happens. Maybe the shield and snare give you an edge against other ADCs. Shutting down things because "that's not what they were intended for" is being the Fun Police, telling people to stop having fun because you don't approve of what they're doing.

As for the punishment/reward system, this is a game, it's not an obligation. This is something you ostensibly do for fun. Being punished for having fun your way is the antithesis of good game design. If someone ruins a game for you by playing something unusual and being truly, horrendously awful at it (as opposed to playing decently, but simply losing, which is a thing that happens every game to one of the teams), report them. There's "unskilled player" in the list of reportable offences for a reason. If they are doing their thing and not ruining anyone's fun? Leave it be. There's literally no need to police what everyone else is doing and how they're playing the game. Play the game your way, and if things bother you so much, there's a reason you can be the captain in team builder and get the power to choose who you take for any role. And in ranked, just form a ranked team with your friends or people who think alike (these boards can help you find like-minded people) and just play with them.

Completely different genre. I could point out extremely successful RPGs who have thrived on giving players the freedom to do as much as possible within the game's coding.
Restricting champions and builds to specific roles and stifling diversity reduces strategy, rather than enhancing it.
Mechanical dexterity is not the entirety of what composes skill. Skill also involves decision making, strategy, creativity and teamwork. Promoting mechanical dexterity and rote practice above everything else withers the actual range of skill to simply "who can micro better". This reduces the complexity and richness of the game.

Ed2CuteAug 22, 20141 votes

There is nothing inherently more intelligent or logical in using a champion in the role it was intended.

Actually, there very much is. Are you gonna use your damn monkey wrench as a hammer or straight edge? I'm doubtful. I bet you'd rather use your hammer or straight edge to drive the nail in or get that angle right.

FYI, Karma can't be a bruiser because she's ranged and squishy (therefore defying the very definition of bruiser).

Stop being the fun police, please. I want to build my AD Bruiser Karma and you're not allowed to tell me I can't.

Shutting down things because "that's not what they were intended for" is being the Fun Police

League isn't about fun. Riot is all about that e-sports scene right now. This is a serious game to be played seriously.

Being punished for having fun your way is the antithesis of good game design.

No, it's not. That's why not every game is some wild cacophony of everything players want. There's a reason why games ban hackers/cheaters/modders. And they're still highly successful.

There's "unskilled player" in the list of reportable offences for a reason.

There's not really a reason. It's a "feel better" button for you.

If they are doing their thing and not ruining anyone's fun? Leave it be. There's literally no need to police what everyone else is doing and how they're playing the game.

If "their thing" makes the game basically a 4v6, yeah it ruins the shit out of my fun.

And in ranked, just form a ranked team with your friends or people who think alike (these boards can help you find like-minded people) and just play with them.

Not everyone has the same schedule. I have a job, other's probably do to. If I play to actually rank up and do well, I need people on the same schedule, of at least my skill level, and get a long. The other two aren't a huge problem, but the schedule thing is when one cannot dedicate their life to the game.

1.) That actually have a larger story and lots of side-quests or dungeons/raids. Diablo 3 has 5 acts and like 5 side-quests total. And nothing varies depending on class. You can play how you want, but the actual game has 0 replay value outside of 10 years later and nostalgia takes hold of you. 2.) It doesn't. It enhances it greatly. You need to better think out your team. Having 10 ADCs that do different things means you need to pick the right one in order to deal with their heavy dive team. And having the enemy champions only do one role means you can better select your counters and they can better select yours (as the pick orders dictates). 3.) Decision making, etc. are irrelevant to your skill of what champion your playing. Those skills apply to your ability to comprehend the game. Your skill with a champion varies per champion and does not effect your overall game sense.

ShadowKnight1224Aug 22, 20142 votes

Actually, there very much is. Are you gonna use your damn monkey wrench as a hammer or straight edge? I'm doubtful. I bet you'd rather use your hammer or straight edge to drive the nail in or get that angle right.

If you are skilled enough to use a monkey wrench as a hammer, logic dictates it's an equally valid choice as a hammer, because you obtain the same result with both.

Stop being the fun police, please. I want to build my AD Bruiser Karma and you're not allowed to tell me I can't.

There's a difference between term definitions and the meta. You actively cannot be a bruiser with a ranged character because they simply don't fit the definition of the role. All bruisers are melee. Even they are sometimes ranged (like Gnar or Nid), they can still transform into a melee form. Some of the definitions are quite flexible (like 'support', which merely means 'any champion that obtains gold from a specific item instead of csing'), but other definitions are very clear. Bruiser (or fighter) is one of them. It's not that you can't build AD and tanky Karma, it's that she can't be a bruiser because she's ranged and she can't stop being ranged. Marksperson is another similar definition, they are all ranged. You cannot play Fiora as a marksperson, even though you CAN play her in bot lane as your AD carry.

League isn't about fun. Riot is all about that e-sports scene right now. This is a serious game to be played seriously.

And I am seriously defending the right of players to play the game however they want.

No, it's not. That's why not every game is some wild cacophony of everything players want. There's a reason why games ban hackers/cheaters/modders. And they're still highly successful.

The reason games ban hacking and cheating is because it's unfair to other players who lack those resources. Many games have extremely active modding communities, and modding the game becomes one of its main selling points (such as Skyrim or any of the TES series games). Other games instead are all about the choices that you make and actively promote diversity in order to increase the range of choice (such as simulators, RPGs, strategy games).

If "their thing" makes the game basically a 4v6, yeah it ruins the shit out of my fun.

I can play a perfectly meta pick and still do as horribly as the guy who picked something different. Both us are making the game basically a 4v6 due to our utter incompetence. Why is my failure more forgivable than his, simply because I chose to obey the meta and he didn't?

Yes, story and content are sources of diversity, which keep the game interesting and fresh. As you say it yourself, once you've seen everything the game has to offer, you feel no need to play it again. That's exactly what would happen if you shackled the game down with restrictions.
I completely and utterly disagree. There is no need to think about anything if you already know which champion belongs to what role and who is the best champion at it. It's simply a matter of who has the most mechanical skill. Counters are irrelevant, because once you discover who is the best ADC and who is the second best (or his counter), the entire meta sorts itself out. You get absolutely no choice. First pick picks the best ADC, second pick picks his counter. May the most mechanically practised player win.
The ability to choose different champions in different roles is based on your understanding of the game at large, of your creativity, strategy and teamwork with the other players. Lulu is not designed to top, and she'll never beat her opponent in lane (she'll just stall forever) but if her player understands all the things I mentioned previously, he can turn her into a teamfight asset by mid and late game, allowing her to act as a disruptor with tremendous peel for her carries. Team-wide, this may compensate for an unusual choice in support, for example. All these ways of looking at the game holistically and inventing new strategies cannot happen if you force rigid restrictions upon the game.

Ed2CuteAug 22, 20141 votes

because you obtain the same result with both.

Yeah, I could walk from Utah to Texas to see my mother and sister... or I could fly. Same result so they're both just as logically sound to do, yeah?

You actively cannot be a bruiser with a ranged character because they simply don't fit the definition of the role.

Fun fact: Quinn, Swain, Thresh, and Ryze are all bruisers/fighters. So you were saying about ranged? Before you mention Quinn... no, her being in her ult doesn't make her a fucking bruiser because she can be melee. It's on an ult-sized cooldown and she is forced to turn back.

And I am seriously defending the right of players to play the game however they want.

That's not competitive. It's incomprehensible pile character models.

The reason games ban hacking and cheating is because it's unfair to other players who lack those resources...

Every player has access to those resources if they have the game. The reason they ban them is because playing it "your way" means one-shotting nerds and getting an 11-kill streak off of one kill is stupid. And the games that have modding as their main selling point are hardly a game at all. Basically those games, after the first play through, become an entirely different experience because the initial run through was so damn boring and lame they need to anything to spice it up. A range of choice does not mean you get to do anything. Yes, if you're ONE character you can pick a lot of jobs, classes, etc. But you can't just select to be a rogue and wield a shield+wand and all plate gear. That's not a fucking rogue and you will be useless.

Why is my failure more forgivable than his, simply because I chose to obey the meta and he didn't?

Yeah, pretty much. Picking a meta pick or taking a champion where it is understood they go means you made a conscious effort to win the game at least in the beginning. But this fucker AD Bruiser Karma top lane threw caution to the wind and said he's doing what he wants no matter how stupid it is.

1.) No, because even now the reason League isn't stale is because every game have a new setup of players and champions and so it's a new experience getting to the same goal. What you're trying to explain is Caitlyn vs Vayne on Howling Abyss every single match always. Just one person versus one person. One playing Caitlyn, the other playing Vayne. THAT would be stale. THAT would crash League's community. 2.) But it's not only vs that ADC. And no shit, that's how a game based on skill should be, best player wins. Wtf are you complaining about "skill matchup is so dumb" for? This game isn't Rock'Em Sock'Em robots, m8. And I don't care if Lucian is the best ADC and Ashe isn't his counter if I land that arrow on someone and my team nukes them and anyone else that tries to get frisky when we're taking the base. 3.) Yes, they absolutely can happen. They just can't happen with your support not being a support. Like, I'm not complaining that Lulu goes top. I'm complaining that she can make me her bitch when she's supposed to be a damn support and not an assassin/bruiser/fighter. And if any champ can fill any role, there won't be strategy either. Everyone will just make a 15 CCs comp, go high damage, cc the enemy to death, and end the game. It would be so easy and the game would get boring and stale because you'd be in champ select, see they got Maokai, Alistar, and some other heavy cc dude and then you'd just drop champ select because that's a loss.

ShadowKnight1224Aug 22, 20141 votes

Yeah, I could walk from Utah to Texas to see my mother and sister... or I could fly. Same result so they're both just as logically sound to do, yeah?

Replace "walk" with "drive" and you have a roadtrip. Which is a thing that people do for fun, even though flying is faster. And I am sure that there are

Fun fact: Quinn, Swain, Thresh, and Ryze are all bruisers/fighters.

Not all melee are bruisers, but all bruisers are melee. There are many characters, such as Fiora and Master Yi, who are fragile glass cannon assassins with a lot of upfront damage, and that doesn't make them bruisers. To further clarify the definition, bruisers are usually tankier than assassins and need more time to deliver the same amount of damage that an assassin can deliver in a burst.

That's not competitive. It's incomprehensible pile character models.

And I would argue that the absence of choice generated by petty restrictions is not a game but a system to test mechanical skill.

And the games that have modding as their main selling point are hardly a game at all. Basically those games, after the first play through, become an entirely different experience because the initial run through was so damn boring and lame they need to anything to spice it up. A range of choice does not mean you get to do anything. Yes, if you're ONE character you can pick a lot of jobs, classes, etc. But you can't just select to be a rogue and wield a shield+wand and all plate gear. That's not a fucking rogue and you will be useless.

This is clearly your personal bias shining through. Skyrim was a huge success. The customisation in the Saint's Row games has been critically acclaimed. The Sims are an extraordinarily lucrative franchise. RPGs and other types of simulators have a loyal following (particularly brand-name RPGs).

Campaigning against something that doesn't harm anybody simply because you don't like it is rather selfish and petty.

Yeah, pretty much. Picking a meta pick or taking a champion where it is understood they go means you made a conscious effort to win the game at least in the beginning. But this fucker AD Bruiser Karma top lane threw caution to the wind and said he's doing what he wants no matter how stupid it is.

Why do you assume that any non-meta picks are innately less effort-based than meta picks? It strikes me as the complete opposite. If you are taking someone who is not meant to be somewhere, you have to be more cautious and prepared, not less. You need to surmount the difficulty of being outside your ideal zone, which requires extra effort in your part. It requires more practice to excel outside your meta role than to excel within.

If we had it your way, we'd end up with that on a larger scale. There would be 1 top ADC, then second best (or her counter), then 1 top support and second best (or counter), and so on for every role. Every single match would be a combination of 16 champions, accounting for bans (and don't think that bans would keep this interesting, there would be a mathematical equation for which champion is most beneficial to ban if you don't have first pick).
We've been over this before. Skill is more than its mechanical component. Arbitrary restrictions on roles would reduce League's definition of skill to "purely mechanical".
That's a problem with the champions, not the roles. If a champion has too much CC, damage and tankiness, then they have too many strengths and not enough weaknesses. That's a problem with the champion specifically, and he must be nerfed in a specific area to give him weaknesses. If you pick a high-cc teamcomp, you should have either no damage or no tankiness, in order to give your team a meaningful weakness. That's a problem with the balance department that has no bearing on roles.

Ed2CuteAug 22, 20141 votes

Replace "walk" with "drive" and you have a roadtrip. Which is a thing that people do for fun, even though flying is faster. And I am sure that there are

You're missing the point. Both are modes of travel which would get you to a destination in an amount of time, but one is more efficient than the other and that's why it's encouraged. Yeah, if you do driving you probably didn't want to pay for a ticket, so your options were limited for you (or you had a lot of friends coming that didn't want to pay). In order to apply it to league it would be like: Zyra is a support champ and that's where you're going to take her UNLESS someone after you picks Sona and is being a troll, so you're forced to take your champ elsewhere or dodge the game.

Not all melee are bruisers, but all bruisers are melee... who are fragile glass cannon assassins with a lot of upfront damage, and that doesn't make them bruisers.

Really? Because I could have sworn I named like four champions that are ranged and bruisers. It does make them bruisers when they build at least half of their items as tank items.

And I would argue that the absence of choice generated by petty restrictions is not a game but a system to test mechanical skill.

Being strategic means using your options wisely and making the most of your resources. Look at chess, HearthStone, StarCraft, any strategy game ever. Your pieces, minions, etc. all do a specific thing. Strategy comes in when you use them at the right time in the right way instead of summoning Kuriboh and being like, "Oh and now it fucking has black hole and it's not effected by it. Bye." It's like the episode when it was Merik vs. Yugi on Kaiba's blimp and you're like, "DUDE!? WHERE THE FUCK IS RA GETTING ALL THESE ABILITIES!?" It's childish.

Skyrim was a huge success... Saint's Row games has been critically acclaimed...The Sims are an extraordinarily lucrative franchise... RPGs and other types of simulators have a loyal following

Because of it's modding scene. You do realize that half of why Saint's Row is so good is because it's "hysterically dumb"? One of it's defining features is that it is stupid. League is a serious game. You're not getting mountable sharks with lazer beams on their heads and can breathe fire in League. The Sims let's you customize a character, but you're are still absolutely limited in what you can do. It's probably the most limited thing on your list in it's raw code. Your Sim has to get a job, has to eat, has to clean, etc. Unless you cheat, your freedom is actually pretty limited. You're so limited in RPGs and especially simulators. Flight simulator is you flying a plane, end of game. Train simulator is you conducting a train, end of game. Those better support my statements than yours.

If you are taking someone who is not meant to be somewhere, you have to be more cautious and prepared, not less.

No, it's less cautious because you know the risks of taking it there and you said "Fuck it, I'm doing it." You purposefully put yourself in a disadvantageous spot because it was fun(ny)? And imagine putting that practice into a meta champ and taking it where it goes. Probably get way better results.

1.) You obviously don't understand how balance works. Lucian has weak range, but lots of mobility so there are champs that can deal with that. Targeted/well timed CC and any adc with more range, sustain, or trading ability. There's not just one adc who ranks above the others if you do it right. And making Lucian go against a fully effective tank Caitlyn is not intelligent game design. That's trying to just let another carry not die to their opponent. 2.) NO, IT WOULDN'T! Not fucking diving 1v5 into dragon pit does not matter what champion you are! It's a stupid decision no matter what. 3.) That has every bearing on roles because tanks and supports are supposed to be utility and carry the cc. But high burst mages like Syndra and Ahri have strong cc as well. And Ashe has strong cc too. You can have an effective team comp with 15 cc and no blaring weakness.

ShadowKnight1224Aug 22, 20141 votes

From what I gather from your posts, you have a profound disrespect for people who don't do things the way you would do them. You give people not a single chance, and instead watch them like a hawk, ready to pounce on them at the first mistake they make.

Clearly, from what you say, you cannot grasp the idea that someone may disobey the meta and be good at it, obtaining results that justify and validate their choices. For you, every meta-breaking person is either a bumbling fool or a troll deliberately out to ruin your day. How can I reason with you like that? You are already convinced that if I take AP Nasus mid to counter Fizz, even though I have utterly crushed every Fizz I have ever laned against, that I am out to ruin your day. It doesn't matter that I win lane, it doesn't matter that I carry the game to victory. You don't care. For you, the game was over at champion select, and I find that incomprehensible.

I don't know what else to tell you. You are intent on eliminating freedom and choice, and that is something I will always oppose with every shred of my being. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree.

Ed2CuteAug 23, 20141 votes

No, I'm not out to ruin freedom of choice! In SC2, building 50 Thor's is going to lose you the game. You need proper units and to utilize specialties appropriately. There's literally 0 strategy in just, "Let's build this one thing and win the game ez-pz." That's boring.

I can't even really understand how you're sitting there like, "I can't do anything I want in the world, I must have no freedom." You wanna play tank? There is a slew of tank champs you have the freedom to chose and play. If you want to ADC, there is a slew of ADC you can play. Not every champion should have the ability to play every role and that's not limiting your freedom that's making it worthwhile to have different champions in the game. Might as well just make a Mii and get to choose all your abilities and specialties every game because that will be fun.

And I don't just hate everyone who has a different idea than myself. But if someone is just adamant about being retarded... yes, it pisses me off.

ShadowKnight1224Aug 23, 20141 votes

It may be hard for you to put yourself in another person's shoes, but I urge you to try: for many (many!) people, arbitrary and petty restraints are not fun. For others, they are. I have a friend who thrives on restrictions because he says they let him flex his creative muscles to see what he can do with the extremely limited tools he's given. I can empathise with him and put myself in his shoes.

However, for other people (like myself), having the freedom to break away from tradition is in itself a fun activity. Our creative muscles are flexed from finding ways to break expectations, and to find a way to make something work when it shouldn't. To find new synergies, new team comps, new builds, new combinations of things. We aren't doing this to troll, we want to win just as much as you, and we want to find ways to make our unexpected choices work.

You are absolutely fixated with the idea that breaking the meta or going against tradition is inherently stupid and unserious. That's where the problem lies. You cannot conceive that an un-meta pick might work in spite of how unusual it is (I'm pretty sure you'd positively flip out if you saw my AP Nasus support, and yet we always win lane when I take him because I generate such an enormous pressure on the enemy, from such a long range, that they cannot out-sustain or out-poke me, and they can't all-in us because they're always at half-health or less). And yet, in many cases, they do.

This is an aspect where you are just 100% wrong. You are not a diviner or telepath. You cannot glimpse into the minds of others. You cannot know that the person who picks something un-meta is always trying to troll you or lose the game. Many of us are trying to win as hard as you, and we are hoping that our un-meta pick will give us an advantage over a traditional meta pick because either the opponent will be unprepared for it, or we have found a synergy with someone else on the team that we hope to exploit.

Knight SoIaire Aug 15, 20141 votes

i said a lot and i will say it again supports should get diminished effects when they use their buffs on themselves lulu mid or top exists only because its insanely good counter to assasins
soraka is the same morgana was supposed to be a midder but she has good base damage iand s quite tanky, typical support pick does not offer so much its either medicore dmg or tankyness, so morgana just outclasses

riot is working tm

Ed2CuteAug 15, 20142 votes

supports should get diminished effects when they use their buffs on themselves

I don't think it should just be buffs. Diminishing returns are a great idea for CC too. As far as I know, WoW is the only one that has that (but I haven't really PvP'd in most other MMOs) and I never really rage about being CC'd in WoW.

lulu mid or top exists only because its insanely good counter to assasins

No, Lulu top is good against just about everyone. She could easily kite the bruisers and just poly'd them if they got too close for comfort. Same with assassins.

Morgana just outclasses

And that's the problem. It's not by just a bit. Her Q and W have HUGE ap ratios and Zhonya's is a core item in her build. So she does a ton of damage and has phenomenal CC. The Q hitbox is huge and is a 3 second root while her ult is a pretty strong slow that turns into a stun. And Riot is "working on it" but they think her shield was the overpowered thing in her hit. If just about anyone has to pick one, they'd say the Q hitbox is too fucking huge.

Knight SoIaire Aug 16, 20141 votes

No, Lulu top is good against just about everyone. She could easily kite the bruisers and just poly'd them if they got too close for comfort. Same with assassins.

bruisers and assasins yes but what about long range mages who dont give a crap about her shield or hp buff just because they can poke her for couple more hours from outside of her range ? lulu wins with anyone who has to get in her face and burst her down

And Riot is "working on it" but they think her shield was the overpowered thing in her hit.

riot wants to nerf her as a support without gutting her as a midder they learner from raka nerfs, raka was played top and after the nerf was unable to support, which means a complete fail of the nerfing

in my opinion solo lane supports work only because they can take all the power they give to their teammates to themselves and get even more reward from it that from giving it to their allies

Ed2CuteAug 17, 20141 votes

lulu wins with anyone who has to get in her face and burst her down

Lulu did fine mid lane as well. She could push to hell, was difficult to gank, and could mitigate a lot of damage and turn tower dives very easily. Most mids are assassins, and the only one who could really instantly 100-0 her without any reaction speed mattering from Lulu was LeBlanc... but now her silence is gone. :(

riot wants to nerf her as a support without gutting her as a midder

Which is stupid. Morgana is a support. Everything about her kit is a support. Magic/CC barrier, long root, debuff aoe, and team slow/stun. She is literally a support. She's not a mid because her Q travels too slowly and is too easily blocked by minions (when there is but one real target). Like yeah she could push like damn hero, but her shield wasn't really enough to save her from ganks and Q is too unreliable to put that much need for it to hit on it. She would need a huge rework in order to be a mid. Probably even more drastic than Karma.

Knight SoIaire Aug 17, 20142 votes

riot made a midder named morgana asnd they want to keep her as a midder just like they made ad yi and they wanted to keep him as an ad champion

Ed2CuteAug 18, 20141 votes

Just like made Evelynn an AP Melee assassin and they kept her- oh wait.

Knight SoIaire Aug 18, 20141 votes

evelyn is a problem because perma invisibility is toxic riot cant make her a proper assasin cause it would be too stronk and toxic (look at the constant gutting and reworking rengar when he can go stealt only for like 10 seconds) so she took a wave of nurfs to the knee

Ed2CuteAug 18, 20141 votes

What I'm actually pointing out is that she runs tanky AD now. Something like the exact opposite of what she was designed for. Nobody minds. She's not broken right now. Yeah, invis is annoying kind of OP, but stealth champions (other than Rengar) usually lack in other areas. That's why we don't see Teemo, Twitch, or Eve all the time in LCS.

Knight SoIaire Aug 18, 20141 votes

oh and i forgot the old way of riot designing champions it said that it does not matter how you build it, it has to work, thats why ap yi had good ratios ap trynda too, and thats why we have ad and ap sion and evelyn in eve's case ap assasin was op so it got nerfed, ad was still good so ppl went with it cause it was better, its not toxic as ap yi or trynda so riot wont delete it. this part of history is quite important cause riot dropped it once lcs went big, now they have to ballance the game according to $ instead of their vision so additional scalings exist to boost scaling with items like trinity force, the examples are hecarim gnar yasuo lucian jinx, basicaly every new champ who is not fully ap gets some ap scalings just for the trinity

Ed2CuteAug 22, 20141 votes

Idk, Darius gets it and he doesn't have AP ratios. Though he may be in for some balancing soon.

And I know Riot would like the game to be for fun, but they enabled a professional and competitive game too much. Now they have have to take it seriously and seriously balance it out otherwise it's laughable as a competitive scene. I used to like LCS like A LOT. Now I basically watch it because I think Sneaky and Aphromoo are hilarious on stream and I just wanna see how they're doing when the pressure is on. I don't follow e-sports for shit anymore because I think the state of LoL is going down the drain and I've been thinking more about quitting than ever before despite having already put down about $1,400 on this game. I REALLY supported it through the years and it upsets me to see where it's going and how it's being handled.

Knight SoIaire Aug 22, 20141 votes

Idk, Darius gets it and he doesn't have AP ratios. Though he may be in for some balancing soon.

lol any champ can get it, ap ratioos are just given to guys who should scale with it (the pattern of cast a skill autoatack and cast another skill and autoatack again , is intended, darius just spamms his skills autoatacks to get stacks and ults)

And I know Riot would like the game to be for fun, but they enabled a professional and competitive game too much. Now they have have to take it seriously and seriously balance it out otherwise it's laughable as a competitive scene

more nad more champs is focused on playmaking potential instead of raw power, also this insane counterplay hype that riot is making yes they do ballance the game around lcs, but i dont think its too bad, it makes the game more skill reliant instead of rolling ryze on keyboard

e-sports for shit anymore

its the same for me besides the "anymore" part

Ed2CuteAug 22, 20141 votes

ap ratioos are just given to guys who should scale with it

Quinn got like a .2 AP ratio for trinity on her Q. Seems just a little pointless though, don't you think?

yes they do ballance the game around lcs

Well that's what I'm saying they should keep doing. Making it a competitive scene means that Darius is a tanky AD champ and building him full AP "for teh lolz" should not be encouraged. And his scaling with either tank or ad should be limited so as to keep him from going hybrid but being as effective, if not stronger, than the champions who are designed to only build tank OR AD.