Boards›Gameplay

The Mobility Meta

Hoi Im Temmo··10 votes·3,052 views

SECOND EDIT:

This got A LOT longer and more attention than I thought it would! I am glad so many people are interested in the meta and changes to the game, even if we dont always agree :D thanks for caring guys.

The following is a block quote from a discussion I'm having in a thread, and I feel like it deserves to some extent, its own discussion.

EDIT: basic complaint about mobile meta, for easier discussion purposes.

but basically, my view is that any champion who doesnt have counter play (regardless of how) is a negative influence on the meta.

A champ who can full burst (100%-0) is no fun, and broken. In the most literal sense. Yet a champ push, dive, and get caught, and not care is just as unfun, because the correct play becomes to just not fight them.

That is EXACTLY my point - the mobility meta has 3 basic problems (there are a few others, but these are the big ones)

As you said, a large part of the game is being in position, and playing smart - high mobility champs destroy this aspect of play. Examples: (before the nerf) Why play safe with Lucian? If anything happens he can dash away. Why do I care about tower shots? I can run in, burst you, and dash away. An overly high mobility champ doesn't as much play the against the opponent, as he does the game. Second example: Lulu - there is no combat in lane. She range basic attacks, slows you, and can run faster than almost everyone else (ok, for a duration - but its more than enough) - for lulu, its not about outsmarting, play safe, trading properly, farming well....its about "they moved towards me, slow and run" "they backed off, start attacking them, or minions" "someone ganked, slow and move buff to tower" - some lulu's dont even bother warding, because they can getaway anyway. Thats not an increase in the need for skill - its a champion who is far to forgiving of mistakes and bad play.

You mentioned the importance of being mobile - the second problem is that there are so many champion who ARE NOT already. So long as high mobility auto beats low mobility, picking these old champs is as good as intentionally feeding. Examples: If I play, say, Annie vs Kassadin, the Annie cannot getaway, cannot be properly positioned at any time, and etc. They ONLY way she can compete is to out damage Kassadin so hard as to burst him in 2 seconds (so that he doesnt just run) - so now, we have a toxic game style of either combo someone with no chance at counter play, or play a champion who is mobile.

Which brings me to the last problem - negative experience. The ONLY way to kill a high mobile champ is a: massive, Examples: You play Gragas Mid vs me as Veigar. You can always poke from afar, body slam away, etc. etc. So my ONLY option is to dodge about, way behind the minion line, and farm. That is, until I get a DFG, and can go stun->W->Ult->Q. So this mid lane is now you playing a game of throw the barrel and run away, and me play Ranged Nasus Farm Simulator 2000. There is no strategy at that point. Its simple cause and effect.

So, there are a few solutions:

we keep the high mobility meta, never release a low mobility champ again, and rework every champion to fit the meta (or just consider them bad, and watch as they go Urgot on us).

We have a meta of High mobility vs Instagib and people on both sides calling op, broken, and flaming riot.

We get rid of the mobility, and make people learn to play strategically. (Oh the horror?)

I know that in these solutions, I am biased - but seriously, what other option are there?

Edit: also - I'm not against champions having mobility either - but the number of them, and the oppressiveness of it is stifling. When Riot adds it to a champion, it should take up more of their over all power than it currently does.

What are other thoughts on this? Am I wrong in my point? Do you agree? Do you have something to add, or other suggestions?

59 Comments

xWildflower6 votes

I especially agree with the part about mobility decreasing the need to be aware of your positioning. I see no reason for an ADC to be caught alone against 3 people and survive just because they can dash through walls.

The Red Warden5 votes

I believe that the more mobility a champion possesses the weaker the rest of their kit should be

MrSc0tty5 votes

Seems to me that, in general, that is the case.

Let's look at a comparison between Kassadin, and an immobile midlaner, like Annie, as the OP posted.

Kassadin has lower ratios. Kassadin is melee. Kassadin has no hard cc.

If we put kass's defensive power (the shield) equivalent to Annies shield (defensive stats), she still has a stronger targeted nuke, a stronger cone (in terms of AP ratio, she does lack the 1 second slow) and a huge nuke ult in exchange for kass's usually damage-less ult. Plus all the benefits that come from a very long attack range, higher than some ADCs. I think the big issue people have with mobile champs in soloqueue isn't that their damage is any kind of absurd or anything like that, but that they feel like the mobile champs have more "cards in their deck" so to speak. they have safety, engages, particularly the nasty wall jumps, and they can solo carry quite well. Immobile champs tend to be far more "combo oriented" like Taric's stun-smash-ult taking up most of his kit. However, I tend to think of it this way while playing immobile champions-their damage doesn't multiply. Practically ever. There are very, very few mobile AOE nukers. If the enemy is leblanc, she can drop her burst combo on ONE person. That's her damage. I can, as Viktor, drop equivalent damage that she just dealt to a single person, to two, three, even up to five people if I'm patient and wait for my mark.

Mobile champs are valued in pro play for their versatility, safety, and abiity to pick off enemies. If you're playing an immobile champ, you have to know your strength lies in the fact that when two teams mash their faces against each other in a 5v5, NOBODY mashes harder than you do. If you're veigar, hell yeah you're going to be playing ranged nasus farm simulator 2014, you have a 2.5 second huge AOE stun, a single target instagib AND an aoe nuke in your pocket late game. Anivia can divide an entire team in half, drop an AOE stun, nuke a squishy, deal enormous DOT damage to the entire enemy team, drop the mic and walk off the stage.

SilverDrake5 votes

I don't think it these kind of problems come directly from mobility. Sure champs with high mobility are part of this meta problem. I think comes done more to way people think. i.e if you think back to before the twitch VU, twitch was in the bottom 20 champs played and was almost never in the lcs. But then his visual update came he be came op. There weren't any changes to his kit. He just became more favorable and people came to except and work around his weakness. Any way what i'm saying is there is two many variables and no band-aid fix that will fix this problem. It will take alot of work to get this game to a point where we can say its balanced.

Hoi Im Temmo2 votes

I'll add this to the OP - but basically, my view is that any champion who doesnt have counter play (regardless of how) is a negative influence on the meta.

A champ who can full burst (100%-0) is no fun, and broken. In the most literal sense. Yet a champ push, dive, and get caught, and not care is just as unfun, because the correct play becomes to just not fight them.

Tyverus5 votes

I honestly believe its an underestimation of the power of mobility. We gave these champs so much maneuverability without stopping to think "hey they can close the distance AND nuke", where's the counter-play in this? there isn't. we get champs who appear from nowhere, delete an enemy, then get out without a scratch. sure some plays this way can look cool for lcs but being on the receiving end of this makes flipping tables go from a hobby to an obsession.

Phoneixflare1 votes

the counterplay is dont be in position for them to use their mobility and nuke you. outrange them and use tactics (also known as teamwork) to defeat them. That is counterplay, like, by definition.

Tyverus1 votes

its not that simple with some champs. Yes on paper each and every champ has weaknesses. but when the adc can be sitting in perfect position, teams together, and all of a sudden explode with only a small yellow exclamation point appearing a half second before? that's not a fun and exciting way to go when your team is counting on you. It's easy to say "Oh just buy pinks" or do X, but in game. The whole reason Xerath was reworked, is still a key problem with many if not all assassins. Sure you could argue that by definition it's just what assassins do. but that's not really satisfying for either side here and adds nothing to the meat and potatoes of this conversation.

Phoneixflare1 votes

It is though. If you have proper positioning and ward coverage, you should see the rengar coming. When rengar does hop on your adc, if they are smart, they would either immediately flash and/or use their escape if they have one or maybe even both. then your team can collapse on Rengar and get a free kill. Like, I don't know how many times that has happened for me when I'm playing against Rengar and without being in the hands of a pro I don't even think he's that strong. He's too reliant on ganks and getting stacks and if he doesn't get them he's significantly less useful.

Also, yes. by definition that is what assassins do. They SHOULD be able to explode people like that otherwise, what good are they? That is EXACTLY their intended role when Riot created those champions.

The whole reason Xerath was reworked was because his damage and range were so great that it was extremely difficult to deal with even WITH both an escape and flash. His ulti range and aoe width was so large especially when he was using locus of power. and his pokes were extremely good too at that range in lane without any real consequence. Proper dodging would help in lane, but when he would ultimate, in the hands of a skilled player, there was no dodging at least 1-2 of his ulti shots. When you're dealing with that kind of range as an enemy player, there is very little you can do outside of having proper ward coverage when you can blow both escapes(dash/flash) and still get hit and force an engage on you or back. That's why Riot changed Xerath. Also, Xerath wasnt much more useful after that. He didnt have a lot of power outside his poke in lane and he didnt fit in that well in most team comps because his damage was super reliant on him being in range or immobile and that doesnt offer many choices. Now, he has even more range, BUT the aoe is incredibly small and that means its way more skill based/skillshot oriented and they are easily dodgeable. Plus there is a range indicator seen by everyone so you can get out of the range now. More counterplay options!

MrSc0tty5 votes

So here's the problem. There's a gulf between pub play-disorganized, less communicative, and in general less coordinated-and professional play, which is much more of all those things.

Mobility's power is amplified in professional play, and the power of AOE spells (and their immediate, multiplicative influence) is amplified in pub play.

This is why every champ who relies highly on mobility is less successful in pub (see winrates on lee Sin, Yasuo, Leblanc and Elise) and champs with AOE are disproportionately more successful (pub winrates for Sejuani, Amumu, and Sona for example).

So the problem becomes, what do we balance for? Professional play or pub play? I feel like everyone really wouldn't like the results if Riot balanced right for a straight 50% winrate in pub for all champs, and professional players would essneitlaly be playing an identical meta for eternity. Lee sin, Yasuo, and Leblanc would get buffs.

Balancing for pro play would give us a situation not unlike DoTAs. Pub winrates for DoTA champs range from 40% to 60%, but their pro meta is incredibly fluid, and nearly every hero is used.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

Hmmm. Very excellent point. I feel like pro play should be what Riot balances for, because so many people play based on what goes on in pro level (the number of times I have been told a champion is unplayable, not because the person knew even the champions passive, but because they had never seen a pro team use the champion, is MIND BLOWING) - so the pro scene, being the area people watch, should be the area balanced. Pub does at least rotate a bit with popularity - pro is much more strict.

MrSc0tty1 votes

It is, for the most part. I guess my whole point is that mobility is really really over-valued by pub players because of how strong it is in pro play.

Lee Sin, for instance. If the enemy team picks Lee Sin, and I pick say a Rammus jungle, by the pro meta, I am utterly outclassed. However, by pub winrate Rammus boasts a strong 53%, while Lee is down among the lower end at 47%-and this is across all elo levels.

Riot clearly balances around pro play, otherwise Lee, Elise, Eveylnn, Kassadin, Yasuo, et al would never have been nerfed-they all had sub fifty winrates before the nerfs.

At times, the benefits and power of AOE and less mobile champs does reach pro play. Syndra for instance is a staple for her enormous unavoidable burst. Orianna, for her very difficult to avoid AOE ult. Thresh, who translates his mobility to others rather than himself for the most part. But you're right, there is a small core of champions who are currently outclassed, and largely by mobility creep.

I would say Taric, Mordekaiser, Urgot, and Galio will never be salvageable with their current kits due to mobility being such a huge factor. Everyone else is doable, but these four will require reworks. Other than that, I feel for the most part immobile champs can compete at least at a pub level, often far beyond what their mobile competition can do, if the player has the correct mindset when using them.

Hoi Im Temmo2 votes

Ok - sorry to be that guy.....but I can't stand quoting win rates. they are skewed statistics at based.

to use a comment from another discussion in this section:

Everyone brings up win rate: but consider the following, as an example: if a champion is REALLY hard to play, than only people who know what they are doing (generally) play that champion, to the point that less than .1% of games see him. But, because of the people playing him, this champion could win over 70% of the games he is in.

In short, win rate mean literally nothing, unless a high pick rate goes with it.

This is quoted from me, by me, from later down in this thread T_T

you are correct however for the most part of your comment.

Anarchomagus2 votes

going to self-quote over here as well:

if the 'devoted mains' argument were valid, the most infrequent picks would show the highest win rates consistently. they don't. http://www.lolking.net/champions/

'devoted mains' is a common argument claiming that win rates for infrequently picked champions are not indicative of balance because these champions are primarily played by groups of skilled mains who skew win rates upwards.

i strongly disagree with it for a couple reasons.

  1. even the most skilled mains rarely reach more than 60% win rate on their champion of choice, mostly because win rates higher than that are extremely difficult to sustain over long periods of time; you'll rapidly climb into an elo that you can't win in. there is unlikely to be significant skewing from percentages that close to 50%

  2. assuming that there is a core group of 'devoted mains' for infrequently picked champions that skew win rates would imply that most or all infrequent picks should have high win rates; this is not the case. of the 48 (or 40% of) champions picked less than 5% of the time, 3 (or 30%) of them make the top 10 for win rates; that level of representation suggests that high win rates are rather evenly distributed among the champion pool. source: http://www.lolking.net/champions/

  3. a more likely theory is that a relatively fixed percentage of players that play any given champion will choose to 'main' that champion. a more popular champion will attract more 'mains', and assuming 'mains' always produce above average win rates, they collectively exert an equivalent upward pull on the win rates of all champions

there is some validity to the idea that the smaller sample sizes for less-played champions make their win rates more volatile; but given the sheer amount of LoL players, i think it's safe to say that even the win rates of these champions are measured with sufficient precision

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

Perhaps: but still, take a look at wins per all games rather than wins per games picked. It is very different numbers.

Example: Tristana, another serious mobility offender:

Tristana: pick: 33% / win: 51% / total win rate: 16.83%

urgot: pick: .4% / win: 43% / total win rate: 00.17%

i picked them cause they were the top and bottom on popularity, now lets do win rates.

Amumu: pick: 13% / win: 55% / total win rate:0 7.15%

Leblanc: pick: 5% / win: 42% / total win rate: 02.10%

so basically, this method shows, out of 1000 games, this champion will average that many wins. So the average wins per 1000 are Tristana: 168.3 games Amumu: 71.5 games Leblanc: 21 games Urgot: 1.7 games.

Lets assume for, just a moment, all champions were completely equal and balanced (snickers and giggles begin) 120 champions exist. 10 champions per game. so in 1000 games, that 10,000 picks. perfectly average, each champ should be PICKED 83 and third times. each game, 50% of them win. So average win rate would be about 41 and 2/3.

Here are some more examples, but only there wins per 1000.

most popular (after Tristana) Morgana 152.9 Leona 147.9 Thresh 125.7 Caitlyn 129.5 Lucian 125.2 Lee Sin 111.8 Vayne 107.4 Jinx 112.2 Vi 104.8

Highest Win rate (after Amumu) Rammus: 24.4 Fiora: 38.3 Warwick: 76.0 Fiddlestisks: 39.5 Swain: 19.2 Talon: 33.3 Katarina: 79.9 Janna: 31.9 Vel'Koz: 17.1

So, regardless of power etc, some champs get played a lot - but as they get played more and more, they begin to play against other people playing the same champ, and lower and lower elo players begin to play them (there are only so many high elo players) - so their numbers should drop out and not get ridiculous, even if a champion is really popular. and yet ^^^^

Anarchomagus1 votes

i'm sorry, i'm just not sure what you're getting at here. i don't quite understand what the 'wins per 1000 games' stat proves about champions. what numbers are you referring to that are 'getting ridiculous'?

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

Lets assume for, just a moment, all champions were completely equal and balanced (snickers and giggles begin) 120 champions exist. 10 champions per game. so in 1000 games, that 10,000 picks. perfectly average, each champ should be PICKED 83 and third times. each game, 50% of them win. So average win rate would be about 41 and 2/3.

basically, in a perfect meta, each champs would have about 42 wins per 1000 games - now, the better champions tend to have people flock to play them, leaving the worse champions dry (even if they are not that much worse, and even better in some respects.) So, usually, in a healthy game style (this is all theoretical) we would see "really strong" and popular champs get to say double that, and champions like urgot (queue the laughing) get down to half or even the single digits of wins per 1000.

Looking at JUST the win rate, urgot has a 43%, he must be better than LeBlanc who has a 42%, right?

This is obviously not true. In picks per 1000, Leblanc: 21 games Urgot: 1.7 games. Leblanc beats out urgot (as is expected)

Pick rate usually shows the meta more, but I prefer to include win rate, for a more realistic view of the champions strength.

Thunder Dreamss2 votes

All you're doing is combining pick rate and win rate into one number that tells us less.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

Meh. Depends on what information you want - it basically says champs with large number are popular and win a lot, champions with low numbers are...not. Its pretty straight forward, and tends to be more reflective of the meta and champ strength.

MrSc0tty1 votes

Ok - sorry to be that guy.....but I can't stand quoting win rates. they are skewed statistics at based.

to use a comment from another discussion in this section:

Everyone brings up win rate: but consider the following, as an example: if a champion is REALLY hard to play, than only people who know what they are doing (generally) play that champion, to the point that less than .1% of games see him. But, because of the people playing him, this champion could win over 70% of the games he is in.

In short, win rate mean literally nothing, unless a high pick rate goes with it.

This is quoted from me, by me, from later down in this thread T_T

you are correct however for the most part of your comment.

I mean, yes, but if a champ has more than a 10% pick rate then they're a "household pick " rather than one that people necessarily main, I would argue.

And who wins out at that point? We've still got the major "mobility creepers" down at the bottom with the "trash tier", and we still have the champions whose playstyle benefits most from the disorganized nature of Soloqueue at top.

Jarvan, Amumu, Wukong, Katarina-AOE nuke/cc champs, all teamfight focused. Blitzcrank, with his grab that should logically be countered bars by the mobility meta. Jinx and Miss Fortune, the two most AOE heavy carries have the highest win rates. Warwick and Tryndamere, dedicated split pushers are up there and have >10%. Leona, Sona and Janna, the AOE focused team fighting supports are miles above Thresh and Braum, the mobile supports. Any champ with a strategy that requires less coordination to pull off, or more coordination to counter.

I agree that winrates can sometimes be flawed statistics. But when every statistic clearly follows an easily definable trend, I tend to look at that and go " huh, you know now that you mention it, how many times have I seen a Lee Sin come into lane to gank when I'm out of position, and I've juked his Q and he's not accomplished anything? Certainly many more times than I've been successfully juked as my own jungle main Rammus." In Soloqueue it's about consistency rather than capability. And winrates with a large player base can be viewed as a measure of that consistency.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

OK, but here it the win per 1000 list: consider how this follows the current meta. they are the top ten of each section.

Most picked Tristana: 168.3 Morgana 152.9 Leona 147.9 Thresh 125.7 Caitlyn 129.5 Lucian 125.2 Lee Sin 111.8 Vayne 107.4 Jinx 112.2 Vi 104.8

Highest Win rate Amumu: 71.5 games Rammus: 24.4 Fiora: 38.3 Warwick: 76.0 Fiddlestisks: 39.5 Swain: 19.2 Talon: 33.3 Katarina: 79.9 Janna: 31.9 Vel'Koz: 17.1

Most Banned (added for emphasis and giggles) Kassadin: 28.8 - but banned 722 times Yasuo: 51.7 - but banned 671 times Braum: 61.4 - but banned 651 times Maokai: 57.7 - but banned 636 times Morgana: 152.9 - but banned 503 times Rengar: 60.1 - but banned 348 times Nidalee: 72.5 - but banned 324 times Evelynn: 31.7 - but banned 283 times Tristana: 173.6 - but banned 175 17times Fizz: 61.0 - but banned 145 times

So, some of the number on win rates, which most sited base SOLELY upon ranked, are warped because the 3 of the mobile champs are banned over SIXTY PERCENT of the time. holy crap, people seem to not like these guys?

Notice how much the popular ones completely outclass the the win rate ones? The theory that I believe is that Lower picked champions, out of popularity tend to be picked not by the masses wondering who to play next - they are wanting to play the broken easy win champions. The one's playing things like Fiora and Swain are the people who specifically play those champions.

MrSc0tty2 votes

Ban rates reflect people's perception of the strength of a champion, win rates reflect their actual performance. Pick rates reflect the popularity of a champion.

Two of these factors are heavily influenced by the picks of pro players, who as I stated know how to turn mobility into a far greater power than it is for a pubber. I'd argue that Kassadin Nidalee and Rengar are at present "perception bans" while Tristiana Morgana and Maokai are the "good money bans" for Soloqueue. You want to ban for what's likely to win and what your opponent is likely to play, and I just can't bring myself to ban guys with sub 47% w/r because even if they are strong played at a peak level, that peak is miles away from the peak level of someone like Maokai, who turns on ult and hits W in a teamfight and contributes a massive amount. Or good god Morgana-you want to talk about trading mobility for raw power let's talk about this mother. Massive ratios, up to 5 seconds of continuous cc on one target or a 2 second AOE stun nuke, and a possible 5 seconds of ally cast able cc immunity.

So I guess what I'm saying is, it is possible for a mobile champ to be OP. Trist and Braum sure are/were. But it is also possible for an immobile champ to be OP and I'd say that it happens more often than the ratio of immobile champs to mobile champs.

Recent memory we've got Annie support, Syndra mid, Orianna mid, Taric support (briefly post rework), Soraka top, Kog maw bot, Morgana support, Nasus top, Zyra support, Jinx ADC....

Yes there are a few immobile champs who are consistently outclassed. Galio Urgot Garen Darius to name a few. But there are also mobile champs who are outclassed-Poppy has a speed boost and a dash , remember. Ezrael was crud for the longest time. Graves has been crap for a while as has Quinn. Kennen, Akali, Talon, Shen...there are just a lot of weak champs.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

True enough, but they can be re-balanced for being weak - why can't overly strong and dominant champs be re-balanced for being meta defining?

MrSc0tty1 votes

Are you saying they aren't?

Most of the reworks we've been seeing have been for these highly mobile dominant picks, and most of the major "do it right" relaunches are for the longstanding crap picks.

Right now we've seen nerfs/role redefines to: Nidalee Kassadin Gragas Lee Sin Yasuo Leblanc Lulu Thresh Braum Lucian (all mobile you'll note)

Major buffs or reworks to the "dormant" champs like: Skarner Maokai Alistar Trist Kog

With Viktor, Sion, Poppy and Yorick in the works, it certainly seems like Riot is going out of their way to redefine "good at everything" picks and bring dormant champs out of the woodwork.

Just recently we've been seeing some big shifts where people are picking champs not seen in a long while. Talon, Swain, Maokai, Irelia. Alistar...midlane top and jungle are really being shaken up and I wouldn't be surprised to see eyes on botlane before long.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

Sorry! Didn't mean that at all. This isn't supposed to be aa "qq i dont like mobility" thread - it is an examination of "does the meta of mobility make the game better or worse?" I am arguing against it...but its about the discussion, not "I'm right, you are wrong."

And yes, riot has done a great job of reducing dominance. I am very happy with the trend, and hope it will continue - but wanted to see if others felt that way aswell.

As far as balance, lulu and yasuo are probably the only one still needing some nerf.

MrSc0tty1 votes

I mean I guess my argument is that "in solo queue there isn't a mobility meta so much as a teamfight/late game meta"

And in professional play, mobility is only king in top and jungle currently. Which isn't always the case either-top has had a tank meta, a bully meta, and then a range meta before that. And jungle went from the previous tank meta to it's current mobility duelist meta.

Mid is currently in a poke/siege meta, and not in a hypercarry meta.

The big perceived issue with mobility is how many options you have vs your opponent. But there's no guarantee you'll be taking the best option as the mobile champ, and mobility does come with a very real reduction in overall power in most cases. For instance, I find Yasuo to be one of the easiest opponents to gank as Volibear-if he uses his dash through me, my flip catches him halfway through and leaves him completely boned. That's the kind of conditional mobility I actually think is cool in game-Yasuo has areas where he's massively dominant and areas where he's a fish out of water, and if you catch him there it's an easy fight. In contrast, someone like Udyr has his easily kite-able nature balanced by the fact that he's nigh impossible to fight. Which, in my eyes, is just massively borinh

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

But there's no guarantee you'll be taking the best option as the mobile champ

but the problem is that now, its out of the hands of the defender if he survives - its dependent on the skill of his opponent. Not fun :/

MrSc0tty1 votes

Is it? While the immobile champ has less access to "tactical choices" than the mobile attacker, they almost always have the same strategic choices, with more impact than the attacker.

In my most recent game, we had a Jinx playing against an enemy katarina. Katarina is extremely mobile and deadly compared to Jinx, and tactically if kat closed there would be absolutely nothing Jinx could do. But knowing that, she made the strategic decision to sit close to me, the support Lulu, in a fight, positioning herself back away from the fight until Katarina was sighted. We would then rotate ourselves into a favorable position and give Katarina a nice juicy target to come in on when the fight began. Itemization wise, Jinx also picked up a Banshee's veil, which would block the damage from Kat's thrown Knife, preventing her from killing her without ulting. So Kat's option boiled down to A) be useless in this fight or B) engage on just Jinx standing apart from the rest of her team and hope that Lulu wasn't nearby to employ all her cc to take her out. Which I was, every time-since my kit didn't give up a move slot to just mobility, Jinx and I had more than sufficient damage to kill Kat while she was cced for a total of 2.5 seconds.

in the heat of a fight, mobile champs have more options. But strategically they often only have enough of a kit to do one thing. Leblanc MUST try to instagib someone. Yasuo HAS to come in this his ultimate if he can. Master Yi has all of a single button to push as an option after he gapcloses and its his meditate to try and survive. Immobile champions like say, Nami, have an entire toolbox that can be used in multiple ways to maximum effect.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

However: In the katarina example, you are talking about needing yourself and mobile champion ally to deal with her, because you lack the mobility to do it yourself, yes? So now both of you are forced to remain together or disengage to prevent the rest of your team from a possible 3v4. So, by tying you up, she gets victory just by the stand off. So, option C: allow her team to do dragon, buffs, or towers while she pressures is the correct choice for her, yes?

Regardless: you do make a good point in your second paragraph. Generally, high mobility champions have less options on play style and more options on choosing the engagement. That is to say: a large portion of strategy is creating a situation in which you have the upper hand, following up with a forced engagement, and and properly leveraging your advantage.

While a highly mobile champ may have less options of HOW to do this, they can basically force a fight at any time - less mobile champs are unable to disengage and have GREAT difficulty engaging on them. This can be off set with stuns/roots/slows but those mechanics are often also considered "unfun" by players, and riot values them greatly (usually...stares at lulu) as high power on champions.

So Riot insures that CC is generally difficult to use, to prevent its over dominance - which in turn strengthens mobility as a side effect.

EDIT: Holy crap, this is the 11th post in this discussion O.O

MrSc0tty1 votes

Well, first off, in the above example:

We were essentially zoning Katarina, the most fed enemy champ, ourselves, holding her out of the fight, then instantly killing her when she engaged. She could, I suppose, have split pushed, in which case we would have simple dove her team 4v5 and demolished them. And Jinx takes towers a WHOLE lot faster than Katarina. Secondly, she didn't need "a mobile ally" she needed an ally with cc. If you're counting Lulu as mobile, because she has a speed boost, you'll have to count champs like Garen, Volibear, even jinx had more mobility than I did because of her passive.

Also, I could argue that cc is given about as much power as mobility in a kit and given tr same power. A Morgana can engage with her snare just as well if not better than a Lee Sin with a QWR combo because it puts her at no risk, has no window to cc her and leaves her with 3/4ths of a kit still to use.

MrSc0tty1 votes

Yeah it's an interesting discussion :)

I guess it all comes down to how WELL a champ can do their option. Let's look at, say, Kass and Brand. As you note, Kassadin can engage when he wants and juke brands engage. But what can't Kassadin do?

In a teamfight, Brand has a stun, an AOE, and a huge team melting nuke at his disposal. AND he gets the luxury that he'll be using them from over 600 range. Three of Kassadins moves are melee only or nearly. He's got one form of soft cc. Sure he's got more options vis a vis avoiding getting caught, picking someone off, but Brand just outclasses him in terms of damage potential by a factor of three or four if timed right.

Anarchomagus3 votes

the vast majority of mobility complaints really boil down to "why isn't [insert nonmobile champion that i like] viable??"

but if you put aside all the nonsense about mobility not taking skill to use (when the most mobile champions often have the highest skill caps), the belief that somehow mobility is drastically rising over time (it isnt, and riot has shown data to prove it), and nebulous claims that mobility is making the game stale...

the truth is that mobility is fun.

its no coincidence that mobile champions consistently see high usage rates and consistently produce the biggest plays. mobility adds an element of unpredictability to the game that makes it more exciting, because players know that situations can change drastically. it allows for dynamic and unexpected plays, and gives players a chance to demonstrate their skill.

mobility is what keeps LoL from becoming stale.

Hoi Im Temmo2 votes

Not really? While on one hand, you can have your opinion (I can't stop you), how does mobility add to the game?

As stated in the op, its not about if its fun to play a mobile champ - of course it is. Its about the concept of mobile champs strictly outclassing non-mobile champs. The point you miss in your post is that its not about rising number of mobile champs, one ANY few, specific champs not being viable - its about a meta of ONLY the champions who are mobile - of Ahri Akali Braum Fizz Gragas Jax Kassadin Leblanc LeeSin Lucian Lulu MasterYi Nidalee Tristana Vayne Vi Yasuo Zed there are more champs played, mostly Morgana Thresh who excel at cc vs these high mobile champs. Basically, its about there not being ANYTHING fun when the competitiveness of a champ hinges on strictly their mobility.

Anarchomagus4 votes

competitiveness doesn't hinge solely on mobility, as evidenced by the prevalence of champions like morg, annie, and kog'maw. other totally non-mobile champions like nasus, cho'gath, and karthus have seen play at different points. but i think much of the perception that non-mobile champions are so underpowered is due to the fact that strictly speaking, there are actually fairly few of them: Anivia Annie Ashe Brand Chogath Darius Heimerdinger Jinx Fiddlesticks Karthus KogMaw Lux Malzahar Mordekaiser Morgana Nasus Olaf Sion Soraka Swain Syndra Urgot Varus Veigar Velkoz Viktor Zyra i've included champions with extremely situational, limited, or unreliable mobility (re: urgot fiddles jinx darius viktor) and left out TF who i consider highly mobile in light of his ultimate. this represents about 23% of LoL's champions. lolking's win rate chart says that only 8 of these champions are below 50% win rate. elophant places 11 below the 50% line. they aren't underperforming in terms of overall win rates, in fact if anything theyre overperforming with 19 out of 27 above the 50% line, and mind you, these are the absolute least mobile champions in the game.

your claim that they are 'strictly outclassed' is patently false, because if low mobility was a predictor of low performance, these guys would be at the bottom of the pile for every queue. not only are they not, there isn't even a slight correlation between low mobility and lower than average win rate. your comments reflect the perspective that playing against mobile champions as immobile champions isn't fun for you; but it doesn't mean that they're collectively underpowered.

what does mobility add to the game, then? it gives champions more choices in positioning, makes aggressive plays possible, and makes teamfights dynamic. largely immobile champions mean that safe positioning becomes critical and stalemates are drawn out because engagements tend to be a one-way street. low mobility makes the game more passive, less exciting to watch, and ultimately less fun for the majority of players. you mention veigar; a champion that thrives in incredibly passive lanes where he can farm until he's able to instantly kill enemy champions.

that is the pinnacle of stale, non interactive gameplay. you take your non-mobile champion, and instead of making plays, you sit back and farm until 30 minutes, at which point you wander around the map instantly killing people while they're stunned. would the game be better if everyone did that?

the final point i'd like to make is that mobility isn't just a free pass to never dying and getting away with ridiculous shit; every mobility spell has a cooldown, which presents a huge window of opportunity for an opponent. moreover, a mobility ability always comes at the opportunity cost of an ability slot that could house an offensive or protective spell. veigar may not be able to dash away from ganks or dodge barrels, but if he could, that power would have to come at the expense of his infinite ap scaling Q, instant wave clearing W, aoe stun E, or massive burst R. could he lose one of those skills without being totally gutted as a champion? on the flipside, that gragas body slam that saved him from your stun is an ability he can't use to damage you. so if you were to flash and force an engage, your rotation would probably kick the shit out of his.

thus, mobility finds balance

EDIT: holy shit this got long. props to anyone who reads it all

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

I read it all <3

Anyway: my response:

competitiveness doesn't hinge solely on mobility, as evidenced by the prevalence of champions like morg, annie, and kog'maw.

two of them are anti mobility, kogmaw is a HYPER carry, and there have been literally discussions on why he is played DESPITE of his lack of mobility.

nasus, cho'gath, and karthus

But then, nasus is a hyper carry, cho gath has seen much play since 3rd season (and even then not much) and karthus has global presence (and still doesn't see close to as much play as the main mobile offenders)

but i think much of the perception that non-mobile champions are so underpowered is due to the fact that strictly speaking, there are actually fairly few of them: Anivia Annie Ashe Brand Chogath Darius Heimerdinger Jinx Fiddlesticks Karthus KogMaw Lux Malzahar Mordekaiser Morgana Nasus Olaf Sion Soraka Swain Syndra Urgot Varus Veigar Velkoz Viktor Zyra

Alistar Amumu `Cassiopeia DrMundo Gangplank Heimerdinger Leona Malphite Maokai Nami Nocturne Pantheon Poppy Rengar Rumble Sivir Taric Thresh Xerath XinZhao Yorick You forgot these: there is a difference between strong initiation, and true mobility - and ults tend to not matter, because of their timers - Example: mundo is definitely not mobile.

lolking's win rate chart says that only 8 of these champions are below 50% win rate.

Everyone brings up win rate: but consider the following, as an example: if a champion is REALLY hard to play, than only people who know what they are doing (generally) play that champion, to the point that less than .1% of games see him. But, because of the people playing him, this champion could win over 70% of the games he is in.

In short, win rate mean literally nothing, unless a high pick rate goes with it.

your claim that they are 'strictly outclassed' is patently false, because if low mobility was a predictor of low performance, these guys would be at the bottom of the pile for every queue. not only are they not, there isn't even a slight correlation between low mobility and lower than average win rate. your comments reflect the perspective that playing against mobile champions as immobile champions isn't fun for you; but it doesn't mean that they're collectively underpowered.

My mains are mundo and teemo O.o Dafuq you mean "playing against mobile champions as immobile champions isn't fun for [me]"?

"your claim that they are 'strictly outclassed' is patently false" - is it? Check Yasuo's play rate/win rate vs say anivia. :/

"these guys would be at the bottom of the pile for every queue" You know you(not me, in my add on) listed Anivia Ashe Brand Mordekaiser Sion Urgot Viktor <- right? They ARE the bottom of every queue. In fact, some of these are considered troll picks to the point, that i have been reported for PICKING THEM.

"there isn't even a slight correlation between low mobility and lower than average win rate" um...yes there is?

ummm......I ran out of room.... T_T' uhhh.....there will be a follow up post attached to this one......

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

what does mobility add to the game, then? it gives champions more choices in positioning, makes aggressive plays possible, and makes teamfights dynamic. largely immobile champions mean that safe positioning becomes critical and stalemates are drawn out because engagements tend to be a one-way street. low mobility makes the game more passive, less exciting to watch, and ultimately less fun for the majority of players. you mention veigar; a champion that thrives in incredibly passive lanes where he can farm until he's able to instantly kill enemy champions.

These are EXCELLENT points - you brought up a seriously redeemable quality of high mobility play! I will get back to this.

However, the flip side is: "what does mobility add to the game, then? it gives champions less punishment for bad positioning, makes diving without cost plays possible, and makes teamfights a nightmare. largely immobile champions mean that safe positioning becomes critical and stalemates are drawn out because engagements tend to be a one-way street. low mobility makes the game more passive, less exciting to watch, and ultimately less fun for the majority of players. you mention veigar; a champion that thrives in incredibly passive lanes where he can farm until he's able to instantly kill enemy champions."

Veigar is my main example, because he is the epitome of how t fight a high mobile champion. I like playing veigar, I admit - but basically, a champion with high mobility can easily escape almost anything. So you HAVE to 100%->0 their health. Both forms of play, in my opinion are negative experiences.

OK - the fast paced games, that are dynamic, and fun to watch - ok sure, the audiance has a good time - but if i sit down to play a strategy game, I want strategy to be very important - I don't want to play street fighter on a 3d map. So, perhaps our disagreement comes from wanting different things out of the game?

[Veigar] is the pinnacle of stale, non interactive gameplay. you take your non-mobile champion, and instead of making plays, you sit back and farm until 30 minutes, at which point you wander around the map instantly killing people while they're stunned. would the game be better if everyone did that?

thats actually my point - that while Veigar is fun from time to time....if I have to pick between that or high mobility to remain competitive in a game, I'm not having fun.

"the final point i'd like to make is that mobility isn't just a free pass to never dying and getting away with ridiculous shit; every mobility spell has a cooldown, which presents a huge window of opportunity for an opponent." Somehow, when a Lucian (ok, he is honestly the champion that brought this debate to a head for most people, the basic last straw) dashes away, and sits near turret for the 15 second cooldown, I have never once thought "nows my chance to dive him!"

"moreover, a mobility ability always comes at the opportunity cost of an ability slot that could house an offensive or protective spell." Um....on almost ANY non-mobile champ, there is at minimum one ability I would gladly lose for a dash or blink. Not even a thought.

"veigar may not be able to dash away from ganks or dodge barrels, but if he could, that power would have to come at the expense of his infinite ap scaling Q, instant wave clearing W, aoe stun E, or massive burst R. could he lose one of those skills without being totally gutted as a champion? " So long as I have my q+r, I can gib you. I would prefer to lose the W at that point, but the stun is an acceptable price.

"on the flipside, that gragas body slam that saved him from your stun is an ability he can't use to damage you. so if you were to flash and force an engage, your rotation would probably kick the shit out of his." But now we are talking flash for a basic ability, to secure a kill he didnt have to flash to get away from. thats lost value, cause flash has a lot longer cooldown than his, so now I am OUT my escape, in the hopes that im flashing for a kill not a fail, or 2/3 v1 on the other side.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

My post was long than yours :3 its ok if you don't want to read it.

Anarchomagus2 votes

in the interest of curbing the escalation of post length, im going to try to be brief this time. i did read it though :D

two of them are anti mobility, kogmaw is a HYPER carry, and there have been literally discussions on why he is played DESPITE of his lack of mobility. ~ But then, nasus is a hyper carry, cho gath has seen much play since 3rd season (and even then not much) and karthus has global presence (and still doesn't see close to as much play as the main mobile offenders)

this quality of being 'hyper carries' or possessing global presence is exactly a counterpoint to high mobility; these champions exchange mobility for a tremendous ability to put out and absorb damage based on infinite scaling (nasus) or gamechanging global damage (karthus). these are not exceptions to the rule that non-mobile characters are weak, but rather the defining quality that non-mobiles should possess: high power level in certain fields to compensate for their reduced ability to choose their engagements.

You forgot these: there is a difference between strong initiation, and true mobility - and ults tend to not matter, because of their timers - Example: mundo is definitely not mobile.

many of your picks have reliable gap closers XinZhao Maokai, spammable movespeed buffs Rumble Malphite, or both Nocturne . i'm not totally sure what you're defining 'mobility' as. do targeted gap-closers not count? are movement buffs not mobility? does not having a specific escape make you non mobile? either you're going to have to add a whole lot more champions to the non-mobile pile or remove a bunch if your definition is consistent

Everyone brings up win rate: but consider the following, as an example: if a champion is REALLY hard to play, than only people who know what they are doing (generally) play that champion, to the point that less than .1% of games see him. But, because of the people playing him, this champion could win over 70% of the games he is in.

if the 'devoted mains' argument were valid, the most infrequent picks would show the highest win rates consistently. they don't. http://www.lolking.net/champions/

You know you(not me, in my add on) listed ~~~ <- right? They ARE the bottom of every queue. In fact, some of these are considered troll picks to the point, that i have been reported for PICKING THEM.

i'm not arguing that mobile champions aren't more popular. when i refer to the bottom of every queue, i mean win rate.

Veigar is my main example, because he is the epitome of how t fight a high mobile champion. I like playing veigar, I admit - but basically, a champion with high mobility can easily escape almost anything. So you HAVE to 100%->0 their health. Both forms of play, in my opinion are negative experiences.

agreed; but there's a big difference between 'highly mobile' and 'escapes everything', especially because the most mobile champions tend to be very fragile, with a few outliers. LeeSin

OK - the fast paced games, that are dynamic, and fun to watch - ok sure, the audiance has a good time - but if i sit down to play a strategy game, I want strategy to be very important - I don't want to play street fighter on a 3d map. So, perhaps our disagreement comes from wanting different things out of the game?

agreed. i would argue that a mobile LoL retains alot of room for strategy, but i can definitely see how high mobility increases the value of reflexes and instinct relative to strategic thinking.

Somehow, when a Lucian (ok, he is honestly the champion that brought this debate to a head for most people, the basic last straw) dashes away, and sits near turret for the 15 second cooldown, I have never once thought "nows my chance to dive him!"

while this is an extremely safe way to play, it also means that lucian is going to miss 15 seconds of CS. if he does it frequently he will lose the lane by attrition as long as his opponent is CSing consistently.

limit hit :( still long as hell

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

limit hit :( still long as hell

Lol

"but rather the defining quality that non-mobiles should possess: high power level in certain fields to compensate for their reduced ability to choose their engagements."

SHOULD. So at this point, to maintain viability of champs, are we talking reworking every non-mobile champ, just because we chose to not check power creep?

"i'm not totally sure what you're defining 'mobility' as"

Sorry - mobility, as far as the serious offenders go, are the champions who have a "move to target location," or a movement buff, OR a seriously spammable move steroidYasuo

If there are limits placed on it (when/how it can be used) its not so bad. I'm not against mobility, I am against rampant ability to play a no-risk playstyle for many popular champions.

"if the 'devoted mains' argument were valid, the most infrequent picks would show the highest win rates consistently. they don't. http://www.lolking.net/champions/"

You miss understand - here is what i mean. To get an idea of if a champion is TRULY strong, you cant look at flat win rate. Try building your own chart of the following stat: win rate per ALL games, not games this champion is present in.

(Example: so out of 1000 games, how many times will a Lucian win (even though he may not be in all 1000 games) vs how often a Brand won in the 1000 games)

"while this is an extremely safe way to play, it also means that lucian is going to miss 15 seconds of CS"

not if he uses abilities and such right. He can play really safe and still farm, unless you get really aggressive and pushed, leaving yourself open to a gank.

Anarchomagus1 votes

SHOULD. So at this point, to maintain viability of champs, are we talking reworking every non-mobile champ, just because we chose to not check power creep?

the problem isn't that severe. theres a couple champions that just have really dated kits, but the vast majority have been previously nerfed with a particular meta in mind, and are now seriously undertuned for today's game. Mordekaiser Ashe Anivia Sion have all had periods where they were briefly considered quite powerful in competitive and casual, only to be overnerfed and forgotten not because of their raw power but because of their unhealthy play patterns.

(Example: so out of 1000 games, how many times will a Lucian win (even though he may not be in all 1000 games) vs how often a Brand won in the 1000 games)

lucian is picked about 7 times more than brand so even if brand was winning 100% of his games lucian would still rack up more wins than him; that statistic would be meaningless or equivalent to pick rate

not if he uses abilities and such right. He can play really safe and still farm, unless you get really aggressive and pushed, leaving yourself open to a gank.

i hate to get caught up in the minutiae of theoretical lane matchups, but i'm certain that a lucian using his abilites to last hit is going to run out of mana rapidly and push the lane hard, both of which are counterproductive to laning safely

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

the problem isn't that severe.

But its getting worse.

lucian is picked about 7 times more than brand so even if brand was winning 100% of his games lucian would still rack up more wins than him; that statistic would be meaningless or equivalent to pick rate

THATS THE POINT! Doesnt it bother you, that a champion who hasnt been nerfed or anything is considered so unviable, that even if he always won when he was played, he would still be dwarfed by another champion? How is that possibly balanced?

i hate to get caught up in the minutiae of theoretical lane matchups, but i'm certain that a lucian using his abilites to last hit is going to run out of mana rapidly

Nah. He q's twice to last hit during the time, basic attacking twice after each q, last hitting that way, with not really much chance to engage while his escape is down.

Anarchomagus1 votes

THATS THE POINT! Doesnt it bother you, that a champion who hasnt been nerfed or anything is considered so unviable, that even if he always won when he was played, he would still be dwarfed by another champion? How is that possibly balanced?

i'm just not seeing your point with this. yes, hes going to have a greater number of wins. but a match that doesn't have brand in it doesn't say anything about whether brand is balanced or not. he isn't being 'dwarfed' at all, he's simply influencing a smaller sample size. his performance within that sample size tells us whether he's helping win games, not his overall presence in all game wins

the point is that even if brand was so OP that he single handedly won every game he was in, at his current play numbers he would still be getting less wins than lucian

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

Not really.

Look across the boards - there have been a LARGE number of people, all saying they want to learn a new champ, and asking the community to pick from a list. How many of them included the latest popular champion? How many included the old forgotten ones?

To see the balance of a champ, win rate can be a good indicator. But not in RANKED play - which is what most sites go on. This is because, even if some players are wanting to learn, say Brand, he isnt going to be picked, unless he thinks he can win (obviously) - So I (personally ) prefer viewing wins per 1000.

the point is that even if brand was so OP that he single handedly won every game he was in, at his current play numbers he would still be getting less wins than lucian

True - but that constraint is unrealistic. If Brand was better, at least in the eyes of the community, he would be picked more.

People naturally pick the strong champions, the ones who are overpowered, at least in the mind of the community, and ignore the rest.

The point of wins per 1000 is to view popularity AND win rates. If you go to lol king, hit the organize by win rate, and look, "most" of the champs are underplayed. How can you claim that a win rate alone gives an indication of strength? If anything, the pick rate would be more indicative of such a value. But a champion everyone plays, but constantly loses is obviously not a problem - and the same goes for a champ who constantly wins but is never picked. A champ who is constantly picked AND wins? That is dominating play.

Phoneixflare1 votes

Having access to mobility ALLOWS for counterplay though. It also promotes play to FORCE someone to get rid of their source of mobility. For example, If mobility did not exist on Lucian, his kit would not be nearly as effective. He's not reliant on mobility, but it allows for him to have an answer to situations that would likely kill him. When he's just out of range of a Q or auto, he can actually get the kill without having to burn flash and put it on cd for 5 minutes...Also, being able to combo someone does still take skill and is risky if you don't get them from 100%-0 then you are probably dead yourself. I don't believe the mobility meta is bad in any way. It's fun and exciting. Most champions(with the exception of Ashe) have some sort of compensation for their lack of mobility if they have it. I think that the meta is in a good place that allows for players to constantly pull out ways to counter the enemies mobility or outplay the enemy with it or take away their mobility and then act on that timeframe where their mobility is very low. It's interesting though, because as you point out, you have high mobility vs high burst damage. Both are equally viable in my opinion, however, in terms of in laning phase when its mostly 1v1, or 2v2 sometimes, mobility has an upper hand to get into position to cast spells. This was one of the biggest reasons behind Leblanc's power was she could get in and get out with 0 counterplay. Leblanc was a terrible combination of mobility AND burst damage on top of which she had a silence...luckily that got removed.

Anrui1 votes

But the issue is not "mobility doesn't take skill", it takes a lot of skill to play extremely mobile champions such as Lee Sin, Leblanc, etc etc. But the issue is that older champions that are more based on knowledge than sheer mechanical skill can barely compete against a highly mobile champion than can easily jump in and out. For example a Lee Sin can go into fights and then hop out if things get nasty for him without a consequence, half the time flash isn't even needed.

I went against an Ahri mid with Annie and I do consider myself to be pretty proficient with Annie since I've been playing her since the first day I ever played League (and she is one of my favorite champions) and although I did decently for a while, dodging her Q's and Charms however once she hit 6 she instantly went all in on me to get positioning for a point blank taunt and burst me down in one quick moment. After that I simply couldn't hold my lane with her anymore, even under tower, with my stun up she could all-in me and simply dash away after finishing me off. I died to her 3 times, which may not sound like a lot to most but to me it's a pretty big deal because I usually am a very safe player who often just farms safely under turret until an opportunity arises (unless I'm playing a big lane bully like Renek). I admit, I made a mistake dying the first time. She basically did what I usually do when playing a bursty champion which is all-in them as soon as you hit 6 and I played pretty lax towards the middle of the lane trying to trade with her as I had been doing all game and she punished me for it with a great play. After that though, I only died directly under tower (I know towers =/= impunity). Anyway, the point is that even with my stun ready if there was a single Q that I didn't dodge she was going to kill me under tower. Maybe I shouldn't have gone Catalyst against her cause I thought that I would be safe farming under tower with the danger of my own burst and threat of stunning her under tower...I was wrong. I feel like Annie is a really strong mid and I got outplayed by a more mobile champion who has just as much burst as a fed Annie.

Anarchomagus2 votes

ahri is a known annie counter though, not only for mobility but for having superior range. you could have easily picked another non-mobile hero (ala swain) and countered her easily.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

Having access to mobility ALLOWS for counterplay though. It also promotes play to FORCE someone to get rid of their source of mobility.

The thing is, unless "flash" is their mobility, then that "force" is pointless (unless you can kill them anyway) - in the case of Lucian, he burns his mobility, and then hides until its up again. Big deal. That's not counter-play, that avoiding play.

For example, If mobility did not exist on Lucian, his kit would not be nearly as effective. He's not reliant on mobility, but it allows for him to have an answer to situations that would likely kill him. When he's just out of range of a Q or auto, he can actually get the kill without having to burn flash and put it on cd for 5 minutes

That is exactly what I am pointing out here - Lucian gets away with a 18 or less second cooldown - ashe, varus, sivir, etc. get away with their flash. Why is that REALLY frustrating? because lucian is strong enough to compete even WITHOUT that added mobility - sure it makes him a fun and interesting champ - but it makes so many other champs outdated.

Also, being able to combo someone does still take skill and is risky if you don't get them from 100%-0 then you are probably dead yourself. I don't believe the mobility meta is bad in any way. It's fun and exciting.

there is NOTHING exciting about getting 100%-0'd. thats boring, no response time gaming. How much fun did you have the last time you played vs a veigar, and got utterly rolled when the entire game was stun and dead, no chance to get away? (just as an example)

Most champions(with the exception of Ashe) have some sort of compensation for their lack of mobility if they have it.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. The only champion that is really true for is Kog'Maw, and one or two others (mostly talking about adc's here though - too many champs to go through them all, sorry)

In response to the rest of what you said - the idea of a meta of burst vs mobility is mind numbing. Its literally a meta of trying to see who can play against the opponent the least.

The mobile champs want to farm until they can kill you, with as little interaction as possible in between; the burst champs want to run away until they can 100% to 0% you.

(For those of you who play magic, its like the only two decks are RedDeckWins and Blue White control. The format is boring, and frustrating to everyone, even its participants)

Phoneixflare1 votes

Why were you caught out of position when veigar's stun was up knowing full well he can 100-0 you? That's part of the point of veigar. He doesnt even have a huge range on his stun or his other abilities. But if he gets there, he blows you up. He has to put himself at high risk for high reward, which is basically, a kill, maybe more.

And what you said about getting 100-0'd isnt really true. Because there is counterplay to it. Take Leblanc for instance. Previously when she had her silence in her kit, there actually WAS no counterplay to her because silence prevented the use of flash. However, even when she had her silence, she still was not unbeatable(ala, there is counterplay to pre-nerf leblanc, and even more so now) especially proven by play in the LCS. If Leblanc with her huge nuking potential and mobility were this powerful and meta-defining, Leblanc would've had a 80+% winrate(I don't think she did, if she did then screw this point in my argument I'm honestly to lazy to research right now) to match her incredible power in the game.

Since you brought up magic because I play...I consistently beat RedDeckWins and U/W Control with my own homebrew standard decks...I am never frustrated and I think that especially in this example you are putting way too much emphasis on the POSSIBILITY or THREAT of power given by what those decks can do, in the same way I feel you think of mobility in League of Legends. The way you beat those decks is to purposefully sideboard against them or have an answer built in that is also able to beat other decks, and to in matches outplay your opponent with your brain and force mistakes or force them to play spells when they don't want to. That is the beauty of magic and the beauty of League, it's equally a mind game rather than just pointing and clicking your mouse to get last hits. You have to think in both these games and constantly be on your toes and THAT excites me personally. Having to worry about someone with mobility makes me adapt and think differently and allows me to grow as a player...Since so many champs have mobility I am more than likely to encounter that tactic again so what I learn from it is to change my playstyle based on my opponent and the enemy team as a whole WHICH IS WHAT A TEAM BASED MOBA GAME SHOULD BE ABOUT.

This is why, in general, I don't complain about metas. Remember when Kha'Zix was OP? I loved playing against Kha'zix because it forced me to play completely differently than before and made me constantly analyze my capabilities as a player and as the champion I was playing as. I think this is healthy. Make your players think. Good job Riot.

Hoi Im Temmo1 votes

I dont mind op - i mind a lack of strategy and counter play.

How do you counter play a TRULY fed veigar? Really? the answer is by not going near him, or EVERYONE jumping him at the same time to rush him down. ooh, exciting.

How do you kill pre nerf lucian? by killing him fast enough to not let him get away - again, oh boy, that sounds like a close game with plenty of chance for turn arounds centered on highly skilled play.

To respond, I need to quote individually, for organization purposes:

Why were you caught out of position when veigar's stun was up knowing full well he can 100-0 you? That's part of the point of veigar. He doesnt even have a huge range on his stun or his other abilities. But if he gets there, he blows you up. He has to put himself at high risk for high reward, which is basically, a kill, maybe more.

I strongly disagree. His stun actually has pretty good range, because you place the center of the stun - this adds some extra range. Caught out is usually to mean alone or out of position - veigar can go in and 100-0 an adc with 3 more members there, just leaving them stunned and running for it. Its more like strategically playing safe and waiting for low risk - high reward situation to prevent themsevles.

And what you said about getting 100-0'd isnt really true. Because there is counterplay to it.

Please give an example -not to say there is no counter play at all, but when its literally "stun->dfg->lock on ulty-> dead, stun wasnt half way through...there is no chance in that combo to survive.

I consistently beat RedDeckWins and U/W Control with my own homebrew standard decks

(First, props too you. I HATE net decking with a passion, it annoys me for a multitude of reasons.) The example I made was slightly misstated, sorry - it is meant in the concept of a meta where every single player is utterly forced to play red deck wins or blue-white control. Even you. there are no other options. You sit down, and either try to rush your opponent down as fast as you possibly can ignoring the danger to yourself, or do all you can to draw the game out and stall to whittle them down safely with as little interaction as possible. THAT is the epitome of a stale, boring format.

Having to worry about someone with mobility makes me adapt and think differently and allows me to grow as a player...Since so many champs have mobility I am more than likely to encounter that tactic again so what I learn from it is to change my playstyle based on my opponent and the enemy team as a whole WHICH IS WHAT A TEAM BASED MOBA GAME SHOULD BE ABOUT.

I disagree (kind of); yes, it is important to learn and grow in skill via the experiences in league - but thats not what i am arguing against. i am arguing against making a single style of play so dominant. If the point is TRULY to learn from multiple situation and adapt, dont there need to be a plethora of institutional possibilities rather than binary game play?

This is why, in general, I don't complain about metas. Remember when Kha'Zix was OP? I loved playing against Kha'zix because it forced me to play completely differently than before and made me constantly analyze my capabilities as a player and as the champion I was playing as. I think this is healthy. Make your players think. Good job Riot.

eeehhh.....i can see your point, but i would rather play two balanced champions against eachother (you did call kha op there) - As a top lane main, it is fun to have close matchups, of low health trying to get that slight advantage that allows you to win a close situation. There is nothing fun about being totally outclassed.

Phoneixflare1 votes

the problem with this is that no one FORCES you to play champions without mobility. If you have fun when you play champs without it that's all fine and dandy but how is that the meta's fault when you choose to play them...

In respect to Veigar, he has no mobility. Thus, without this, he needs something else to not get 'outclassed' which is his ability to burst down a target. If you consider veigar busted and taking no skill, then tell that to every combo mage, such as syndra, or ahri, akali, ryze even. They do take skill, because PART OF SKILL IS POSITIONING. This is my point: Mobility helps positioning, but does not define it outright. The counterplay to mobility is positioning yourself properly. This is why pro's are able to do what they do because they understand the role of positioning in this meta. This is why a lot of people take ghost/flash on mids now because positioning(and mobility) are important.

The counterplay to veigar is to flash over his stun or not be in position to get caught by the ring. Like I said, proper positioning and knowing the range of his abilities(mechanics) mean you wont be on the receiving end of his burst. then, when your jungle comes to gank, kill him. make sure he doesnt have vision of the jungler(ie use sweepers/pinks) and make sure he dies.

More from Gameplay

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

More by Hoi Im Temmo

Can we get "botting" as a report option in game?
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous110 comments
210
votes
Teemo Rework?
Gameplay22 comments
8
votes
[Contest Champion] Subject One
Community Creations36 comments
6
votes
URF, and the people spamming threads about it.
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous30 comments
6
votes
Lulu, A Disscussion
Gameplay9 comments
4
votes
Teemo Blind
Report a Bug10 comments
4
votes