I’m kinda confused here? Was it THAT broken or something? I understand that it creates a “super champion” but also at the cost of having a real jungler, side lane pressure and 2 “support” champions instead of 1.
Subject 53 votesPeople on boards were pretty much all over the boosting strat, even if it took up less than 3% of games . . .
I feel like nerfing a strategy because a community fails to evolve to it is extremely damaging to a game. If currently, there is no counterplay to a certain strategy, the instant and immediate answer shouldn't be: "Well fuck, let's just remove it from the game." The most common examples of this is when somebody out of the ordinary fills a role that wasn't meant to be filled in the first place, via top lane Lulu & midlane Corki. There ARE champions that can beat those two and scale better into the game, but they aren't top laners; or they aren't mid laners. Nobody in the mid-lane could handle them at he time and nobody in the top lane could handle them at the time . . .
But that doesn't mean **nobody **in the entire roster could handle them. Players were just too slow to react and unable to evolve. Because when players see they're bottom lane their instant instinct is: "Pick the meta, only the meta, pick the meta, only the meta." It's like this for EVERY role and it's boring.
Oleandervine4 votes[{quoted}](name=Subject 5,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q7dBYTOU,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-08-06T14:37:32.831+0000)
People on boards were pretty much all over the boosting strat, even if it took up less than 3% of games . . .
I feel like nerfing a strategy because a community fails to evolve to it is extremely damaging to a game. If currently, there is no counterplay to a certain strategy, the instant and immediate answer shouldn't be: "Well fuck, let's just remove it from the game." The most common examples of this is when somebody out of the ordinary fills a role that wasn't meant to be filled in the first place, via top lane Lulu & midlane Corki. There ARE champions that can beat those two and scale better into the game, but they aren't top laners; or they aren't mid laners. Nobody in the mid-lane could handle them at he time and nobody in the top lane could handle them at the time . . .
But that doesn't mean **nobody **in the entire roster could handle them. Players were just too slow to react and unable to evolve. Because when players see they're bottom lane their instant instinct is: "Pick the meta, only the meta, pick the meta, only the meta." It's like this for EVERY role and it's boring.
I think the larger problem to strategies like that is that they become "play it or counter it" if they're allowed to pervade the meta. Ardent Censor, Cinderhulk, etc, are all like that, and when you have singularly dominant strategies that remove pretty much all enemy agency because they can't deal with one element of your team, it sucks the fun out of the game and causes it to stagnate very fast. The funneling strategy basically forced an ally to snowball fast and curb stomp any opponent who tried to oppose them. If you weren't running a funneling strategy, you were going to lose unless you happened to have loads of CC and tanks on your team.
Subject 52 votesI think the larger problem to strategies like that is that they become "play it or counter it" if they're allowed to pervade the meta. Ardent Censor, Cinderhulk, etc, are all like that, and when you have singularly dominant strategies that remove pretty much all enemy agency because they can't deal with one element of your team, it sucks the fun out of the game and causes it to stagnate very fast. The funneling strategy basically forced an ally to snowball fast and curb stomp any opponent who tried to oppose them. If you weren't running a funneling strategy, you were going to lose unless you happened to have loads of CC and tanks on your team.
Whenever the enemy team had an obvious funneling strategy, I just picked 
and it was instantly negated. One strategy can counter the other strategy, if they have a funneling system going on and you refuse to adapt in a ranked game because you're a one trick or desire to pick one particular champion: I think it should instead be "Tough Cookies."
You're letting your team down and yourself down because you're enabling a known meta to confront your own. This is what ranked is all about. Honestly, I believe that forcing the game to be played a particular way is causing the game to be more boring than if it weren't the case.
i cant move wtf1 votes"play it or counter it"
If I play "scissors" you can:
Literally every strategy has only those options.
Jbels4 votes[{quoted}](name=i cant move wtf,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q7dBYTOU,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2018-08-06T15:02:00.105+0000)
If I play "scissors" you can:
- "Play it"
- "Counter it"
- "Lose to it"
Literally every strategy has only those options.
The best games have the 4th option : "Play an alternative strategy that doesn't necessarily counter the enemy's strategy, but will be effective if executed better than the enemy team executes their strategy". This 4th option is dying, and is rarely an option at all in most cases anymore.
i cant move wtf1 votesThat's still a counter. The term "counter" is short for "counter strategy", meaning an alternative strategy. The way most people use the term they reference another term derived from this shortened version called a "hard counter." Rock is a "hard counter" to scissors, but a hard counter has meaning in contrast to a "soft counter" where the strategy is only marginally advantageous. But the term can be used completely neutrally, as I have in my previous post, as simply "counter", meaning an alternate strategy.
Jbels1 votes[{quoted}](name=i cant move wtf,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q7dBYTOU,comment-id=00020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-06T15:48:33.318+0000)
That's still a counter. The term "counter" is short for "counter strategy", meaning an alternative strategy. The way most people use the term they reference another term derived from this shortened version called a "hard counter." Rock is a "hard counter" to scissors, but a hard counter has meaning in contrast to a "soft counter" where the strategy is only marginally advantageous. But the term can be used completely neutrally, as I have in my previous post, as simply "counter", meaning an alternate strategy.
Either way, League has become a game of "Hard Counter" or "Lose, nerd". It's not fun.
i cant move wtf1 votesI think it's not so much hard counters as much as there's always a few champions they randomly buff to make OP for no reason. If anything the fact Riot always nerfs new strategies or builds that crop up through the creativity of the community is the reason the game feels so "pick the right champions and do X to win."
DuskDaUmbreon1 votesThat's...just being pedantic.
What he's saying is not that there is no counter to it, but that there is no reasonable counterplay from an even starting stance.
Hence, it becomes counterpick it, fight an uphill battle reliant on a few specific criteria, or just get completely fucked over.
Counterplay=/=Counters.
i cant move wtf1 votes2 supports and low sidelane pressure doesn't have counterplay? Okay.
Colton1471 votes[{quoted}](name=i cant move wtf,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q7dBYTOU,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2018-08-06T15:02:00.105+0000)
If I play "scissors" you can:
- "Play it"
- "Counter it"
- "Lose to it"
Literally every strategy has only those options.
I pick 
. Rock beats scissors.
[sg-ahri-2]
Eedat1 votesUhhh yeah the community couldn't adapt. Right. The correct answer is there was no proper answer for it. That's why it was even being spammed in LCS games which have the highest level of teamwork to deal with it. It was so effective because supports are already designed to function with very little gold
Clint Orris2 votesBut I’ve seen that strat get CRUSHED by the regular meta many times because of all the other disadvantages that came with it.
Madsin251 votesWhat about funneling on twisted treeline? This change also affected 3s if you did not know.
In 3s you could not beat funneling with a standard comp.
Clint Orris1 votesWell that’s 3s. That’s a whole different meta with different champion, item and gold balance lol. So if it’s an overbearing issue in 3s then it should def get dealt with.
But in the same breath, shouldn’t we be sayin the same thing about the current meta that was created by the player base?
Eedat1 votesIt can be crushed but it relies on them making mistakes as opposed to you playing around it. Even pro LCS teams couldnt deal with it. How do you expect people in SoloQ to pull off even a third of that coordination? The strategy revolves around two people which means it works perfectly for duos. Minimizing the damage requires the coordination of the entire other team which just is never going to happen in SoloQ
i cant move wtf2 votesWhen I heard they nerfed it I was confused as well. The games I saw that were executing it were all really interesting to watch. All the pressure on a single person on the team. I guess we're only allowed to play/enjoy the game one way though.
Sona Ping2 votesBecause it was overpowered, so it got nerfed.
theChibiTina1 votesAs far as I can tell, it's because it's disengaging and avoids conflict and Riot wants more fighting because early game and being passive is boring to LCS viewers. I personally didn't mind watching the laning phase because I don't think it needs to be all action all the time. I felt it calming to see how less chaotic it was in the pro scene compared to low elo. They weren't constantly forcing fights and actually looking to make strategic plays. Objectives were more important than kills. Kills were just a bonus to make getting objectives easier. It was okay to see 30 or less deaths between both sides at the end of the game. That's just my opinion though. I liked it better.
Clint Orris2 votesAh that sucks. League to me is so much more than just constant fighting. I love seeing just the different strategies teams came up with on how they farm, jungle or prioritize objectives. It was very interesting to see the funnel start while it lasted.
Jbels2 votes[{quoted}](name=Clint Orris,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q7dBYTOU,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-08-06T16:14:36.287+0000)
Ah that sucks. League to me is so much more than just constant fighting. I love seeing just the different strategies teams came up with on how they farm, jungle or prioritize objectives. It was very interesting to see the funnel start while it lasted.
Gone are the days when Riot prioritized the player over the viewer. Its ironic, by trying to make their game exciting to watch, they've made it boring to play, and when players realize that what they play is similar to what they watch, they begin to associate the two.
I remember the old days, with the 50-60 minute LCS games. Those were more gripping and exciting to me than any of these 4 second teamfights will ever be, and I know that a huge chunk of the fanbase agrees with me
Oleandervine1 votesI think it basically created a huge steamroller that was hard to deal with and made games incredibly one sided.
Dope Solo1 votesIts because the worst offender was already a broken 1 button wondertrash. 
PandaNator431 votesRiot deemed it unhealthy for the game. Riot likes to encourage interaction between the two teams. Gold funneling was too strong for how low interaction it was.
I forget the post, but Riot acknowledged that a healthy (fun) response to funneling may exists, but it isn't apparent now. So rather than let the game exist in a unhealthy state (with gold funneling) they decided to nerf funneling and push the game to a more healthy state.
What is fun and/or healthy are subjective.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I see both sides of it. More diverse strategies and team comps are really exciting, but I didn't enjoy playing against a funneling team, even though my team won.
theChibiTina1 votesRiot deemed it unhealthy for the game. Riot likes to encourage interaction between the two teams. Gold funneling was too strong for how low interaction it was.
I forget the post, but Riot acknowledged that a healthy (fun) response to funneling may exists, but it isn't apparent now. So rather than let the game exist in a unhealthy state (with gold funneling) they decided to nerf funneling and push the game to a more healthy state.
What is fun and/or healthy are subjective.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I see both sides of it. More diverse strategies and team comps are really exciting, but I didn't enjoy playing against a funneling team, even though my team won.
Unfortunately the game isn't healthy right now. Some of us would rather play more passive and focus on objectives rather than kills, but it feels like most of the time games are decided by brainless fighting where whoever can produce the most cc and damage the fastest wins. It used to be objectives were priority and kills were a bonus. Now it feels like kills are priority and objectives are a bonus. Especially with how weak towers are.