Almost every balance problem traces back to the pros vs. pubs problem.

ModCaptainMårvelous·May 7, 2017·58 votes·3,630 views

Why does a champ get reworked?

Because they're too dominant in pubs but nowhere in pro play. (Or vice versa)

Why is the pro scene so cluttered with similar picks?

Because Riot makes consolation buffs/nerfs to make sure champs can still be played in pub play.

Why are champs like Kalista, Azir and more considered design failures?

Because they can't fall on the spectrum of "Easy for anyone but hard to master" and are useless in PUB play yet dominant in pro play.

We're rapidly approaching the point (If we haven't already hit it) where Riot will need to make a call. To try and balance a game for bronze-to-gold or diamond plus. This half-measure of constantly trying to balance for everyone isn't working. We're already seeing the cracks with all these champions.

Almost a decade. We had a good run, but you can't keep playing half-n'-half here Riot.

91 Comments

LankPantsMay 7, 201726 votes

We're rapidly approaching the point (If we haven't already hit it) where Riot will need to make a call. To try and balance a game for bronze-to-gold or diamond plus. This half-measure of constantly trying to balance for everyone isn't working. We're already seeing the cracks with all these champions.

Is this even really a question? Diamond+.

A bronze player can potentially get better and learn to play against a champion they believe is OP but actually isn't. You can't expect the pro player to just play worse so a champ who isn't viable becomes viable or a champ who's OP becomes weaker in their hands.

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 7, 20179 votes

Oh I am in absolute agreement. The game should almost solely be balanced around Diamond+.

However, as a counterpoint, the majority of your playerbase is bronze and/or unranked. Which means business-wise it makes more sense to cater to them. I'm not saying it SHOULD but an executive looking at this would go "Nyeh see. Gotta make the dollars see? Go nerf Garen s'more, see?"

Akali is SO HOTMay 7, 20173 votes

But if that happened then Riot wouldn't have a reason to constantly nerf Assassins and other melee champions that can kill ranged champions and we can't have that now can we?

manbearswineMay 7, 201711 votes

[{quoted}](name=Akali is SO HOT,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sEKxxTKg,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-05-07T06:46:12.297+0000)

But if that happened then Riot wouldn't have a reason to constantly nerf Assassins and other melee champions that can kill ranged champions and we can't have that now can we?

You realize that the higher elos are far from being "fine with assassins", right? Assassins are cancer everywhere, they aren't nerfing them for lower elos.

JoxcabMay 7, 20172 votes

Except assassins are balanced regardless, it's just that they're occasionally strong but not broken? Outside of a few exceptions right around initial rework? Which were all fixed?

manbearswineMay 7, 20173 votes

{quoted}

Except assassins are balanced regardless, it's just that they're occasionally strong but not broken? Outside of a few exceptions right around initial rework? Which were all fixed?

Where did you see me talk about balance? assassins do tend to have more issues with that than other classes, but that's not where their problems end.

Their design tends(pretty consistently too) to be really obnoxious and horrible to play against, even at the highest skill levels(everything outside of professional play, where people are payed to play) this is still a game, and a game is supposed to be fun, assassins(historically, it's not necessarily something they are, but as far lol is concerned that was pretty much always the case) don't fit well there, hence they are pretty much always a problem.

AmazoXMay 8, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Where did you see me talk about balance? assassins do tend to have more issues with that than other classes, but that's not where their problems end.

Their design tends(pretty consistently too) to be really obnoxious and horrible to play against, even at the highest skill levels(everything outside of professional play, where people are payed to play) this is still a game, and a game is supposed to be fun, assassins(historically, it's not necessarily something they are, but as far lol is concerned that was pretty much always the case) don't fit well there, hence they are pretty much always a problem.

Bruh pls.

In Season 6 Marksmen dominated the Meta for 8 months with Armor penetration, And they even abused Sterak's Gage. Both Assassins and Juggernauts took an arrow to the knee because Marksmen were abusing those items.

manbearswineMay 8, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Bruh pls.

In Season 6 Marksmen dominated the Meta for 8 months with Armor penetration, And they even abused Sterak's Gage. Both Assassins and Juggernauts took an arrow to the knee because Marksmen were abusing those items.

I don't know what rock you live under, but the only variation on who dominates the meta is from jungle to mid and form mid to jungle, has been that way for years.

manbearswineMay 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Is this even really a question? Diamond+.

I mean naturally I agree(for obvious reasons), but...

A bronze player can potentially get better and learn to play against a champion

...He can, but then he won't be bronze anymore. The league community is in a sense known(okay well sort of known) for it's...Eh... insistence not to adapt to anything, the moment a bronze player is capable of something like this, he simply won't remain bronze for long. Or silver, or gold, or even plat for that matter.

Hell let me give you one of my favorite examples: Back in season 6(approximately?) gromp and golems spawned earlier and didn't give much more exp to the jungler than others(before the jungle change that well, changed that), and so bot lane had a "tendency"(100% of the time in high level play) to start there, since if one side did them and the other didn't, it would pretty much auto-win the lane for them.

Now naturally it had a couple of effects:

Affected power of supports(and to a much lesser extent adcs), tanks would skip their weak earlier phases faster, could tank the camp better, and would take it down faster as well(part of the perks of being melee)
Affected the power junglers(If you NEEDED bot lane to clear that first camp, don't pick that champion).
Affected support itemization balancing(relic shield was particularly good here)

Now capitalizing on this advantage, and pulling it off(doing a short pve fight) was pretty trivial(you hit level 2 first and force a fight, if they back off you zone them from gold and exp, remember that you will hit level 3 first as well, and every time you have such a level advantage early game they can't even get near you), and yet it was pretty much never done below diamond, and rarely done in lower diamond, while eventually being nearly constantly done in high diamond+.

Other instances of this remind me of the "korean meta"(lane swap by default, that was before gromp/wraith was introduced), but the other servers just refused to budge.

The league community at this point has been cuddled beyond repair, they WON'T adapt, and you can't make them, they will cry until smashing their head into a brick wall will once again become a viable strategy.

they believe is OP but actually isn't. You can't expect the pro player to just play worse so a champ who isn't viable becomes viable or a champ who's OP becomes weaker in their hands.

This is why riot likes to pretend shit champs are actually secretly good, cause winrates. Why deal with a problem when you can trick people to believe it's not there?

LankPantsMay 7, 20173 votes

...He can, but then he won't be bronze anymore.

That's kinda the point. If you're a lower rank player and you actually care about improving then your goal should be to learn how to abuse champions weaknesses as you go. Part of learning how to improve should be learning to play around almost every champion in a game balanced around high level play.

SteelMankindMay 7, 20173 votes

...He can, but then he won't be bronze anymore.

BS. There are a ton of people, who like me, never play ranked, yet are still pretty good at their main champs because they have like 3k normal games played on them over the course of 3-4 seasons. Really sick of this attitude that no one in bronze/silver/gold is good at their champs because if they were, they'd be higher elo.

You don't get to rank up playing only normals, but you do get to improve.

manbearswineMay 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

BS. There are a ton of people, who like me, never play ranked, yet are still pretty good at their main champs because they have like 3k normal games played on them over the course of 3-4 seasons. Really sick of this attitude that no one in bronze/silver/gold is good at their champs because if they were, they'd be higher elo.

You don't get to rank up playing only normals, but you do get to improve.

God I'm sick of this absolute bullshit, I play normals almost exclusively, you don't see me making excuses for being silver, nor do you see me in actual silver.

BS. There are a ton of people, ~~who like me~~, never play ranked, yet are still pretty good

I happen to know some of these people, and I can assure you, there are VERY few of them, they also know that they are good and know what I'm talking about, and know how it affects them even if they don't have a visible elo number, so they don't need to write bullshit like this.

SteelMankindMay 7, 20172 votes

I happen to know some of these people, and I can assure you, there are VERY few of them, they also know that they are good and know what I'm talking about, and know how it affects them even if they don't have a visible elo number, so they don't need to write bullshit like this.

Sadly, I have pretty low self-esteem, so I actually do need to. Objectively, I know I'm better than silver, because I am typically the only one without a Plat/Dia border in the loadscreen, but when people challenge the notion that a low elo player can know a thing or two about their main champ's mechanics, I get defensive.

And for the record, I really struggle against people D3 or higher, and can only play one or two champions anywhere close to that level, so I'm not one of those delusional low elo players who thinks they can hit Master/Challenger. I don't know how to freeze, for instance, and I'm sure I make macro mistakes every game that I don't even realize I'm making. I also RQ if anyone insults me, so yeah, definitely not gonna climb very high even if I were to try.

But put me in lane against a Plat player who gets cocky thinking they'll just faceroll me, and I'll disprove the notion that low elo is entirely filled with players who are garbage at EVERY aspect of the game.

Even if you don't believe anything I just said because it's biased or whatever, consider this. A lifetime videgame player, doggedly pursuing mastery on a handful of champions through hundreds of normal games. Objectively speaking, it would be pretty odd if, after all that, they were still bad at their champs, no? Perhaps you never learn the more nuanced aspects of the game playing like this, but you certainly can, at the very least, become proficient at your champion.

manbearswineMay 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Well there's a bunch of different things to address here, each about something entirely different, so let's start with this:

Sadly, I have pretty low self-esteem, so I actually do need to.

Thing is my posts(and well pretty much everything else here), talks about skill level, not about your visible elo, if you only play normals on a challenger skill level this applies to you the same as it applies to someone who only plays ranked on a challenger skill level(well actually playerbase is a bit thin on the challenger skill level, but you get the point), there's really no mention of the elo shown, elo and rank here are purely used to describe skill levels, not whatever your rank is.

So even if you feel the urge to argue with people who say that everyone who doesn't play rank is noob, this is just not relevant here, as it isn't something I've said or is actually relevant to the arguments made.

Also, if you have low self-esteem won't a higher rank possibly improve it?(I'm not gonna question why a video game rank would matter to one's self esteem, as it apparently matters quite a bit to a lot of people)

Objectively, I know I'm better than silver, because I am typically the only one without a Plat/Dia border in the loadscreen, but when people challenge the notion that a low elo player can know a thing or two about their main champ's mechanics, I get defensive.

Well I want to reply to it, but one thing I want to say first is that this has nothing to do with anything said so far, anyway there are two sides to this problem:

You claim to be of diamond(or at least plat) skill level, yet also claim yourself(fine, heavily imply) to be a "low elo player", that makes no sense, there's an obvious contradiction here.
You kinda need to understand the point of view of others talking(or writing, whatever) with you, if you're truly diamond material you can prove it, instead they need to analyze your match history, people here(and in general) are used to people having an inflated ego, it's sensible for them to doubt your claims that you are unranked with a diamond skill level, as many claim to be so, but very few actually are.

I've tried my luck with seeing how good sites are at deriving your skill bracket from your performance and it his been a huge pain(They just throw you a number, which either it's not clear what it means, or its meaning doesn't seem feasible), so I've just opened your match history and tried to see what the average skill level in games is(which again was a huge pain) and seems to be mid-low plat(I mostly see stuff ranging from low diamond to low gold), granted we can start an argument that my sample size was small, but in a discussion where skill is important, and where everyone will naturally be expected to be inflating everything about themselves(it's the internet after all), is expecting them to go through your match history really sensible?

And for the record, I really struggle against people D3 or higher, and can only play one or two champions anywhere close to that level, so I'm not one of those delusional low elo players who thinks they can hit Master/Challenger. I don't know how to freeze, for instance, and I'm sure I make macro mistakes every game that I don't even realize I'm making.

You need to remember that even people who play ranked don't bring out their best picks every game, and tend to try less hard at normals(especially if they mostly play ranked), which can easily inflate one's opinion of his own rank when beating a drunk challenger.

I mean if you want to make me believe you're plat skill level then after going through all of this data(mostly so I could have first hand experience at what a pain it is to obtain, easily 30-60 minutes for someone who doesn't constantly do it...which is no one), then it's plausible, as far as more than that, I just don't see anything solid to imply that, not saying that's definitely not the case, it would just be irrational of me to believe it.

I also RQ if anyone insults me, so yeah, definitely not gonna climb very high even if I were to try.

Muting everyone at game start is a thing...apparently.

But put me in lane against a Plat player who gets cocky thinking they'll just faceroll me, and I'll disprove the notion that low elo is entirely filled with players who are garbage at EVERY aspect of the game.

It sounds to me like you rely on your unranked status to cause people to underestimate you...I don't think people would see that as a good way to express one's skill.

consider this. A lifetime videgame player, doggedly pursuing mastery on a handful of champions through hundreds of normal games. Objectively speaking, it would be pretty odd if, after all that, they were still bad at their champs, no? Perhaps you never learn the more nuanced aspects of the game playing like this, but you certainly can, at the very least, become proficient at your champion.

Unfortunately I think we've both heard and seen cases of people with thousands of hours in this/other game still sucking at them, so I could definitely see it as plausible.

Even if you don't believe anything I just said because it's biased or whatever,

Well I think we can both agree that you're biased. But you tell me, based on all the information that I have before me(which was a nuisance to obtain and I generally won't expect people to go through that effort), do you think it would be sensible of me to believe you're of diamond skill level?

SteelMankindMay 7, 20171 votes

I'm not diamond skill level, and I never claimed to be. All I said was that its possible to be good on a champion if you have a low elo rank but primarily play normal games. That there are players who have sunk thousands of hours into this game and still suck doesn't disprove the existence of players who are skilled in some areas of the game but are unranked/low elo from mainly playing norms.

Sort through my match history of Aurelion Sol and Ekko games if you like. You'll find that I typically am playing with people in Plat, not people in Silver, which is the elo I had the last time I played ranked games.

http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-history/NA1/217932936?champion=245 http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-history/NA1/217932936?champion=136

On Ekko specifically - it's not like a higher skilled player magically takes less damage than a lower-skilled player. A champion like Ekko, who has such tremendous damage and outplay potential in his kit, is more than capable of winning lane against an opponent who's a much higher rating than you. If you are experienced with landing the champion's abilities and know how much damage to expect, you can easily get solo kills against opponents in diamond. Such as this Taliyah, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egr8Gv-Cbgg

And yes, I know that's anecdotal, and you could find an example of me messing up in any game I've played. But the fact remains that if it were impossible for low-elo players to be good at their champs, the above situation would never happen, because they would fail every time. That it happens often enough for me to have match histories like those is proof that low elo players can be skilled at the champs they play.

manbearswineMay 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I'm not diamond skill level, and I never claimed to be. All I said was that its possible to be good on a champion if you have a low elo rank but primarily play normal games.

It depends on what your skill level actually is.

That there are players who have sunk thousands of hours into this game and still suck doesn't disprove the existence of players who are skilled in some areas of the game but are unranked/low elo from mainly playing norms.

Yes, there are players who are good and their rank doesn't display it, because they don't play ranked.

Sort through my match history of Aurelion Sol and Ekko games if you like. You'll find that I typically am playing with people in Plat, not people in Silver, which is the elo I had the last time I played ranked games.

http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-history/NA1/217932936?champion=245 http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-history/NA1/217932936?champion=136

That's cherry picking, the champion you play does not affect the skill tier you play at.

On Ekko specifically - it's not like a higher skilled player magically takes less damage than a lower-skilled player. A champion like Ekko, who has such tremendous damage and outplay potential in his kit, is more than capable of winning lane against an opponent who's a much higher rating than you. If you are experienced with landing the champion's abilities and know how much damage to expect, you can easily get solo kills against opponents in diamond. Such as this Taliyah, for example:

Sure, diamond players mess up, they are also sometimes drunk, and sometimes try new things in normals, it just doesn't say much.

And yes, I know that's anecdotal, and you could find an example of me messing up in any game I've played.

So what's the point?

But the fact remains that if it were impossible for low-elo players to be good at their champs, the above situation would never happen, because they would fail every time. That it happens often enough for me to have match histories like those is proof that low elo players can be skilled at the champs they play.

That's not true, there was even the video of faker dying to the gold brand, and that brand was very much not good at his champ.

If you're good at any champ you won't stay at a low skill bracket(in whatever que mode you choose to play), that's all there is to it.

SteelMankindMay 7, 20171 votes

I posted my Sol and Ekko match histories because they are the champions I'm confident in and proud of my skill with, not because the skill level of the players is any different.

I haven't seen the video of the gold Brand, but I'm assuming it involved either ult bounces with a siege minion, or landing a stun and oneshotting. Doesn't mean the gold player is anywhere close to Faker's level, but it does mean that the player is, at the very least, not terrible at Brand.

And yeah, my load screen border may be silver, but the borders of my teammates are typically platinum. I dont have the audacity to call myself a plat player, however, since I'm not going to take on the stress of playing ranked.

EDIT: I missed the begining of your last post, it seems we're in agreement on the existence of normals-only players who are good at some aspect of the game. As for whether I belong in that category, I think the abundance of plat players in my games is proof that despite having silver rank, I can play at a platinum level.

manbearswineMay 8, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I posted my Sol and Ekko match histories because they are the champions I'm confident in and proud of my skill with, not because the skill level of the players is any different.

I haven't seen the video of the gold Brand, but I'm assuming it involved either ult bounces with a siege minion, or landing a stun and oneshotting. Doesn't mean the gold player is anywhere close to Faker's level, but it does mean that the player is, at the very least, not terrible at Brand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZxdMA6XFaA

Could've googled it but oh well. And no, it's just faker going full retard.

The brand player is also far from good, the way he does pretty much anything is awkward as hell, faker just underestimated him more than he should've, or was drunk, whatever.

And yeah, my load screen border may be silver, but the borders of my teammates are typically platinum. I dont have the audacity to call myself a plat player, however, since I'm not going to take on the stress of playing ranked.

Ranked is only as stressful as you decide to make it, for example I take normals more seriously than I take flex que.

EDIT: I missed the begining of your last post, it seems we're in agreement on the existence of normals-only players who are good at some aspect of the game.

It's not some aspects of the game, I've seen enough(like 5 maybe?) unranked people who could've hit diamond easily if they played ranked the same way they play normals, they're not good at some aspects of the game, their good at the game itself(unless you consider diamond as bad, then I've seen some master/challenger tier players too, but I think there was only two of them, one of which started playing ranked when the community dwindled, and is challenger now).

As for whether I belong in that category, I think the abundance of plat players in my games is proof that despite having silver rank, I can play at a platinum level.

Thing is a lot of people who play ranked don't take normal seriously at all, and just use them to try new things, it's just hard to tell with certainty.

FrightningMay 8, 20172 votes

{quoted} ~~snip~~ Even if you don't believe anything I just said because it's biased or whatever, consider this. A lifetime videgame player, doggedly pursuing mastery on a handful of champions through hundreds of normal games. Objectively speaking, it would be pretty odd if, after all that, they were still bad at their champs, no? Perhaps you never learn the more nuanced aspects of the game playing like this, but you certainly can, at the very least, become proficient at your champion.

Surprisingly enough, I've seen counterexamples to this. I used to play the original CoD all the time, and eventually got very good at it. Yet in that entire time, I saw some people pick the game up and reach a high skill level in a very short time (read: maybe a year or 2 instead of the 4-5 it took me) and I saw others that improved some, and then seemed to 'flatline' and not get any better (I eventually surpassed those people), and I even saw a few people that played all the time and yet never seemed to get any better.

The only explanation I can think of for these observations: A player's skill has an upper bound set by how they approach the game and learning it. Those who bring their thinking caps and intend to learn things as they play will gradually improve but not in the smooth fashion that people imagine, rather, skill increases happen in fairly distinct steps contingent on the player mastering a new skill or technique and then learning how to apply it productively in game. Those who don't come as willing to learn, or feel that they have 'learned' the game will stop improving. They very best players are eternal students of the game, always learning. I myself had a pretty noticable and significant skill increase when I finally understood how to macro play effectively. I promptly went on a massive winning spree and increased my W-L diff by about over +20 in just 100 games. I noticed the caliber of play from the other players in my games increase over the course of that as well.

junglerboy16May 7, 20172 votes

I think the key to doing that is Riot has to stick to their guns on it and not budge if people whine. Players will only learn and improve if they take the time to learn why they're getting crushed by another champ regardless of what Riot balances for, so this will just make what should be a core facet of gameplay that much more important. If anything, it should help push those who do have the mindset and capability to climb out of wherever they're at because they'll have to invest in beating the pub stompers.

A DoorknobMay 7, 20179 votes

Riot should simply start making rules and guidelines for creating champs and item in general. Some champs are so overly complicated that once mastered, they don't truly have any real raw weaknesses and become infuriating to play around. Had they made any actual guidelines or rules for themselves, a lot of it would have probably been avoided straight from beginning. Now were stuck with a shit ton of overloaded champs and riot has no idea how to balance anything anymore, so instead they simply overload everything in attempts at balancing the game. Almost like they're stuck in a catch-22.

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 7, 20173 votes

They have an idea how to balance. The problem is that it's not enough in either direction. Champions who need tiny touches for solo queue but sledgehammers for pro play end up with the "happy medium" of a baseball bat. Which ends up not doing enough for either queue.

There's also the fact that the rules are different for pro-and-pub play. Let's not pretend a champion like Kalista is going to be a bronze terror. Conversely, let's not joke that any Garen rework that keeps him mostly the same is suddenly going to catapult him into pro-play spotlight.

Sadly, you can't "avoid" this problem. The inherent problem of trying to balance between two drastically different skill levels will show itself. It's only now, several years later when the skill disparity is higher than ever before, that we see the issue with pros vs. pubs. (Hell, I bet if you put Season 7 teams in Season 2, they'd smash EVERYONE. )

A DoorknobMay 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

They have an idea how to balance. The problem is that it's not enough in either direction. Champions who need tiny touches for solo queue but sledgehammers for pro play end up with the "happy medium" of a baseball bat. Which ends up not doing enough for either queue.

There's also the fact that the rules are different for pro-and-pub play. Let's not pretend a champion like Kalista is going to be a bronze terror. Conversely, let's not joke that any Garen rework that keeps him mostly the same is suddenly going to catapult him into pro-play spotlight.

Sadly, you can't "avoid" this problem. The inherent problem of trying to balance between two drastically different skill levels will show itself. It's only now, several years later when the skill disparity is higher than ever before, that we see the issue with pros vs. pubs. (Hell, I bet if you put Season 7 teams in Season 2, they'd smash EVERYONE. )

Had Riot created rules and guidelines to character creation and/or item creation, a lot could have been avoided. For instance; if riot decided that all champs should only have 1 passive and that If any champ has more than 1 passive then all champs shall have more than 1 passive; a guideline like this could've have avoided BS like Vayne having an added passive like Silverbolts to her kit or take perhaps the much hated Yasuo with his overloaded kit. A lot of issues stem from Riot having a lack of discipline to character/item creation. I understand character diversity, but we've come to the point that where if a champion isn't somewhat offering some form of complicated form of gameplay, whether it's Lucian to Thresh, they'll eventually lag behind as their kit is too old to continue, hence, champs like Garen, Mundo, fall behind while Ryze hits an all new high in character reworks. Such Guidelines could've forced Riot to make sure all champs/items remain relevant or at least more balanced.

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 7, 20173 votes

My issue there is that it stifles design. Rules/Guidelines shouldn't be forever word-of-god-static-things because the game and players change. Especially in a game like League or DOTA. If you make a hard rule such as "You can only have one passive", it stifles design. The point here is that the design isn't what is at fault but the balance. (Just as a fun example, compare DOTA2's Sven or Wraith King to a hero like Ember Spirit or Earth Spirit. The difficulty scale is off the charts by comparison because the design evolved.)

The other issue is that when all gameplay is simple, you end up with even worse situations. Oh, sure, not for bronze-to-gold but for the highest echelon, you absolutely do. Why do you think pro play got to the point of "Here are the ten best characters"? Mostly due to how many champions are too close together. Hell, your argument doesn't even work all -that- well because there are some unreworked champs from incredibly early seasons which still see play. Alistar played exactly the same for years and yet he was still a terror. Gragas' only huge change was moving his W from a channeled buff to an empowered AA and yet he's still everywhere.

All this is just design arguments however. Which is fine if you want more simple champions. I'm of the mindset we need less of them and that we need even more complex champions. The problem goes back to the balance issue. Because Riot thinks they can somehow make a champion like Azir playable and balanced in every single queue.

It's not going to happen and they need to understand and accept this.

Only AxesMay 7, 20177 votes

{quoted} To try and balance a game for bronze-to-gold or diamond plus.

Poor plats, always forgotten.

morris1May 7, 20175 votes

bronze-to-gold

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 7, 20174 votes

Christ man he has a family.

Exercise85May 7, 20177 votes

For perspective, i just hit lvl 30 and am not the most knowledgeable about league in general. I do have experience at high levels in other PvP oriented games so I can hopefully offer something to contribute to this discussion. I see quiet a few people here advocating that balance should be centered around diamond and higher, and this way of thinking isn't new or unique to league. When you visualize the player-base of any game like this, it becomes a pyramid, with the top of the pyramid only existing because of the base. The top players are only on top because of the millions of people who log on every day and lose games, and the company only exists to provide this game because of those millions of players spending money. According to league of graphs, bronze and silver players make up roughly 70% of the player-base. Imagine if all of them left, do you know of any company that could survive a 70% lose of revenue? Again if this happened, the top players now would become the below average players tomorrow. Gold the new bronze, plat the new silver and so on. Everyone would shift left. So what about those diamond players today who would be gold tomorrow? they didn't suddenly lose game knowledge over night, nor did they actually get any worse mechanically. They just suddenly fall under the arbitrary "you must be this good to have an opinion line" that by definition can only exist because enough people are "bad" enough to be under it. The top players will always adapt, they will always learn faster and play smarter than the lower ranks. You cant balance around them because they are good enough to play around whatever balance changes are made. But what is a minor annoyance for the top 10% can be absolutely game breaking for the bottom 70%, and that is a terrible way to run a business.

In the interest of fairness I will admit that in other games, when I was at at the top .5% level i also believed that only the opinion of the higher ranks mattered. "Why should they listen to you about class balance, clearly you don't even know how to play your own class, let alone speak to larger issues of game-play" . But at what level of play do you magically decide that an opinion matters?

DreampodMay 7, 20172 votes

The reason that it makes more sense to balance towards high level play rather than low level is that skill variability and character familiarity are much more influential to outcome than character balance at that level. Only when players are performing at a relatively consistent level and with characters they understand how to properly use does it the relative power between characters become truly important for determining outcome and thus something that needs to be balanced. As long as the extreme outliers where the skill to utilize something very powerful is much lower than the skill to counter or outplay it (old Yi) then the game will remain fun at the lower levels and create a incentive to get better in order to beat the strong characters whose execution and counter skill levels are similar.

I would say that Riot would be better off spending their time looking at champions that feel oppressive because they deny opponents agency (Yasuo, Eve, Fizz) if they are going to do work to keep people from leaving the game because feeling helpless is a major disincentive to keep playing. While they aren't statistically overpowered they fall into the category of the skill to execute being significantly lower than the skill to counter which doesn't offer a path forward for players to feel good about learning to play against them.

ThugWalrusMay 7, 20173 votes

When you said "what is a minor annoyance for the top 10% can be absolutely gamebreaking for the bottom 70%." I actually think the opposite is true. When it comes to champions at least, lower level play always has a higher level of diversity by default as lack of proper macro and micro play by your enemies allows champs that would normally be oppressed some breathing room, while lack of mechanical prowess can make "oppressive" champs seem fair.

On the other hand, top-tier and pro play is so finely tuned, as minor disparities in power can result in large advantages. This results in only a select number of champions being picked at these levels to begin with. If you stopped giving priority to top tier play, the staleness would set in very rapidly and be far more persistent than in lower levels of play.

I also think that lower tiers adapt almost as easily as pro-players, just in different ways. Even somebody in Bronze 5 is capable of adapting to balance changes, it will look far different than what a diamond player does, but it doesn't mean it will less effective for their level of play. It's not like the 70% would just stop playing if Riot starting balancing exclusively for top-tier play anyway. Some would probably leave, but you would still have a huge playerbase with the "pyramid" in tact. I think you are overselling the impact that it would have. Balancing for pros probably wouldn't even be an official decision, but rather something Riot just started doing behind the scenes, so you wouldn't have the protest people exiting on principle, just the same grumbling and speculation about Riot only caring about pros.

SaevumMay 8, 20172 votes

You are not knowledgeable?

Bro, you just stated the contrary with that gold comment of yours.

Feel free to comment anytime soon.

Exercise85May 9, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You are not knowledgeable?

Bro, you just stated the contrary with that gold comment of yours.

Feel free to comment anytime soon.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I will choose to believe in your sincerity.

skyskee008May 7, 20177 votes

Well Kalista and Azir were cancer everywhere not just pro play. Let's not forget that.

JedenVojakMay 7, 20173 votes

The correct choice is for Riot to ignore pubs and diamonds and pro players all, and just balance the champions around whatever seems coolest.

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 7, 201713 votes

LeeSin

Troll for TrumpMay 7, 20172 votes

I think they should keep half-and-half.

I'd prefer League to stay League.

What you're suggesting, and the way you refer to SoloQ as pubs suggests turning this into DoTA.

League is already slowly meshing with other MOBAs and ditching it's traditional "values."

The similar picks part isn't true, you have certain champs in LCS that aren't played as much in soloQ, such as Varus or Ashe shortly before.

Kalista and Azir are indeed failed champs, because they were meant to cater to the pro play.

By trying to pick a side, they created those two failed champs

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 7, 20176 votes

Do you know why DOTA became a F2P game with major cosmetic options? Do you know why HotS has a skin system that features a sliding scale of skins from recolor to complete new voice over? Do you know why the MOBA genre itself exists as it is?

Largely in part due to League's influence. I'm not saying it's the grandfather (That's still Aeon of Strife and DotA All Stars) but many of the things Riot did with league resonated and became standard for the genre.

You should not be afraid to borrow aspects of other games that work. It's why DOTA and League adopted small parts of HotS, or why DOTA's loot system found its way into league. It works so they copy it.

And no, the onus of a designer shouldn't be to make everyone happy. When you do that, you make nobody happy. They should release pro specific and noob specific champs. If you can't play well enough to use them, too bad. Either get better or just watch gameplay. League needs to evolve, not roll around in the muck even if it's the most profitable muck.

dim2aMay 7, 20172 votes

I don't think this is an inherent balance problem at all. There are over 100 champions, it is fine if, say, about half are used in pro play. It's also OK if only about half are strong at low ELO. So as long as no champion is too overpowered at either end (looking at you, Lee Sin), the game is fine, there is enough champion diversity. A game where some champions are sub-par on some level is perfectly fine, as long as there is enough diversity at every level in strong (for that level) champions, as long as no champion is by far better than majority of others at any level, and that is achievable. Now whether riot has achieved that, is a different question. I would that they did not, their balance is not perfect. But they are doing better than any other large online game I have seen.

P.S. For example hearthstone had Dr. Boom. It's like taking tank ekko at its height, increasing his stats and mobility, and insisting for a couple of years that he is balanced, and then figuring out "OK, lets remove all champions released more than 2 years ago from ranked solo/duo to keep the meta fresh", rather than addressing balance concern with old champions. Yeah, riot is nowhere near that bad, though there is some room for improvement.

macromiteMay 7, 20172 votes

You see, they need to balance around lower tier play because if they don't they are essentailly telling something around 70% of the playerbase to go fuck themselves.

Keep in mind that the top 25% still has silver in it.

honestly they should just not balance for pro play, in most games its pretty normal for top tier player to have very limited choices to make when it comes to character selection or strategies to employ.

EDIT: Should have also mentioned that D+ (which is what everyone thinks we should balance around for some reason) is 2% of the playerbase, and is essentially too small for riot to properly balance with.

KrullyMay 8, 20172 votes

ditch the lcs

Ancient LeagueMay 7, 20171 votes

Well .. think of League of Legends as a Rock, Paper, Scissor, game with over 150 different possibilities (champions) . Then think of each one of the possibilities having 5 or more skills that have 5 levels of growth. Now add in Masteries and Runes and all the Items you can buy.

Okay, now lets talk about how you could possibly balance that, specially when you want to release a new champ every 2 months.

The players that are at the top of their game are the only ones that Riot uses to gauge a champions "Balance" because its easy for Riot to be shown a Champion being used to its full extent. The failure is that you can never match-up one champion with every other champion effectively, so other variables must be used to "Balance" each champion. Riot has no end of information on every game that is played. We only are shown a small percentage of the information that is from our past games. There is a massive amount of information that is being created in every minute of game-play. This information could be used to create a better Balance, but I do believe that it is virtually impossible to ever obtain a "balance" with in the Champions

I also believe that for every Champion you add, the difficulty balancing, increases exponentially.

Zilean Computer gaming since 1979 (Atari 400 Computer w/Star Raiders) Yes I call myself "Ancient" for that reason :)

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 7, 20172 votes

Champ release times have actually gotten drastically larger. Around 50% of the cast was introduced in the span of S1 and S2. A new champion almost every two weeks. Which is also why there is such a rework frenzy to fix these champions that came out but didn't really "do" much in terms of new.

While I agree runes/masteries are a problem, the core game is far bigger. Hell, at a bronze level, runes masteries don't mean piss. In the highest tier of play, not having that +0.5 AD can absolutely put you at a huge disadvantage. Which further exacerbates the issue of pubs vs. pros and only pushes the problem to absurd degrees.

As for information, Riot has oodles and kaboodles of it. Both from a pro level and to a pub level. The issue is the path they take. I'd recommend watching Ghostcrawler's talk about balancing League, because it explains their base idea and the reasoning behind their balancing.

Sexy Fish NamiMay 8, 20171 votes

Ah yes... The old diamond + balance vs majority of player balance. A fight that never seems to end.

My position? diamond + rank balance.

Why?

Because no matter who you are, you can learn the game and be at the same level of the top 1 player in the game with time.

Lower rank balance is, most of the time, going to be balance around prejudice. For exemple, take yasuo for instance. Now, not everyone in the lower elos think hes broken, but many people want him nerfed. Does he need a nerf? no. Is he obnoxious? yeah. Is that a reason to dump him with nerf? apparently, if we go with the lower elo mentality, of course we should.

But then again, why should we focus on the 1% of the population of a server? this does sounds really unfair, I will agree. However, balancing around diamond will bring more rational balance, though riot is riot so I dont expect perfection, then balance around bad experiences.

But isnt league supposed to be fun? Why should we have to learn to not get dumped?

Well the answer from me is simple: League is a competitive game. Learning in league is, at least for me, part of the fun. Now this is completly subjective if you agree with me or not, but if you honestly think league is not a competitive game, give me the facts that tells me otherwise. Im not saying normals should be competitive, but in the end, they are. Alot of people plays normals to learn a champion and thus, they are going to try their best in the game to learn that x champion. The only time i dont see much competitive aspects when i play, is when I play with my friends in normal. We just fuck around most of the time.

In the end, all of that is my opinion on the matter and I would appreciate if someone thinks im wrong to give me their feedback on the reason why!

Gl Hf in your games!

Exercise85May 8, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nami Fish Hentai,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sEKxxTKg,comment-id=0017,timestamp=2017-05-08T00:28:51.843+0000)

Ah yes... The old diamond + balance vs majority of player balance. A fight that never seems to end.

My position? diamond + rank balance.

Why?

Because no matter who you are, you can learn the game and be at the same level of the top 1 player in the game with time.

Lower rank balance is, most of the time, going to be balance around prejudice. For exemple, take yasuo for instance. Now, not everyone in the lower elos think hes broken, but many people want him nerfed. Does he need a nerf? no. Is he obnoxious? yeah. Is that a reason to dump him with nerf? apparently, if we go with the lower elo mentality, of course we should.

But then again, why should we focus on the 1% of the population of a server? this does sounds really unfair, I will agree. However, balancing around diamond will bring more rational balance, though riot is riot so I dont expect perfection, then balance around bad experiences.

But isnt league supposed to be fun? Why should we have to learn to not get dumped?

Well the answer from me is simple: League is a competitive game. Learning in league is, at least for me, part of the fun. Now this is completly subjective if you agree with me or not, but if you honestly think league is not a competitive game, give me the facts that tells me otherwise. Im not saying normals should be competitive, but in the end, they are. Alot of people plays normals to learn a champion and thus, they are going to try their best in the game to learn that x champion. The only time i dont see much competitive aspects when i play, is when I play with my friends in normal. We just fuck around most of the time.

In the end, all of that is my opinion on the matter and I would appreciate if someone thinks im wrong to give me their feedback on the reason why!

Gl Hf in your games!

The problem with this as myself and a few others have pointed out, is that historically this will kill the game. While this is a competitive game, the money doesn't come from the high end competition. I think much of this mentality can be blamed on the push for Esports to be recognized as a legitimate sport. This may seem off topic, but lets compare the LCS to the NFL to illustrate why balance needs to be mostly centered around the largest player base. The NFL has millions of viewers tune in each week that havnt touched a football in years, and a large majority of them have never played 1 full football game themselves. Compared to the LCS, almost ever viewer is an actual player of the game. The NFL does not rely on sales of footballs at the local sporting goods store to stay in business, because they dont gather viewers primarily from existing players. Riot on the other hand, does get its revenue and viewers primarily from existing players. In the NFL the spectacle of the game is the end product, that is what is being sold, but for riot the top level play is just the billboard for the game, the end product is a large player-base. Is it fun to watch and talk about with other like minded players, absolutely. We should not, however, kid ourselves into thinking that top level play is anything more than marketing. Its something flashy to incentivize players to pay money for something. Which would hurt the game more, the top 10% (diamond +) of players leaving, or the bottom 40% (unranked and bronze)? I do realize that there is a difference between diamond level and the LCS, but really, with the LCS being a thing why should they listen to lowly diamond players when they have a pool of current and former pro players to talk too? it all depends on where you want to draw that line.

Sexy Fish NamiMay 8, 20171 votes

First of all, thanks for replying!

Second of all, i think you are right. I didnt think of the economical point of view of the game. Then again, my only worry with the low rank balance is that teh game might get broken from it. Sure, it might be fun at some point for some, but what i liked about the game was learning the game. People from all elo might be like me and this might make them leave the game.

Then again, I dont think your point is wrong. Riot is a company after all.

Thanks for writting and gl hf in your games!

VectrosMay 8, 20171 votes

I've thought this for a while...

Why can't Riot make 2 separate states of balance? One for ranked, one for unranked?

I believe this is possible, just a lot of work. We know they can create different items and balances for different modes, which means they SHOULD be able to make 2 separate states of balance for ranked vs unranked.

Unranked would cater to lower Elo. Pub stompers like Yi would see nerfs; the harder to use champs would see buffs.

Ranked would be the opposite. It'd be balanced around pros-a champion not seeing any play there will get buffed. One who is picked every game gets nerfed, etc.

There's only 2 issues I can think of with this system. The first being the time it'd take to make 2 separate patches. Then again, this is the most popular video game in the world. I imagine Riot has some extra cash lying around that could go towards hiring a second balance team.

The other issue would be getting used to having separate balance patches in ranked and normals-which arguably could make practicing for ranked difficult. However the kits would remain the same-no reworks between the two, simply number buffs/nerfs in each to fit the environment it's going for.

I don't believe this would ever happen but I can't think of a good reason not to do it. Thoughts?

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 8, 20171 votes

Simple: A core draw of League is the idea that you can go from bronze-to-LCS by just being good enough. The problem you're running into is that if that's the case, you're essentially playing different games. So imagine, if you will, Little Jimmy sees Garen picked in the LCS and sees him stomp face. Golly gee, can't wait to play this character.

Jimmy picks him up and gets wrecked. "What's wrong? Hauntzer played a godlike Garen" "Yeah in pro patch. Garen is trash on our patch."

You can't have that disparity because it removes the element of grinding until you get to a pro level, in addition to the difficult of balancing 2-4 different games.

VectrosMay 8, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Simple: A core draw of League is the idea that you can go from bronze-to-LCS by just being good enough. The problem you're running into is that if that's the case, you're essentially playing different games. So imagine, if you will, Little Jimmy sees Garen picked in the LCS and sees him stomp face. Golly gee, can't wait to play this character.

Jimmy picks him up and gets wrecked. "What's wrong? Hauntzer played a godlike Garen" "Yeah in pro patch. Garen is trash on our patch."

You can't have that disparity because it removes the element of grinding until you get to a pro level, in addition to the difficult of balancing 2-4 different games.

If Jimmy decides to jump straight to ranked with Garen because he saw them do it in the LCS, Jimmy is an idiot and won't get past Bronze 3 anyways, regardless if there's a different patch.

And if they did that, it's not like they'd keep it a secret. In fact it'd be highly advertised-probably the first time you click it, a huge ass banner would pop up saying it runs with different numbers for balance purposes, with a link showing who is buffed/nerfed. A permanent banner/warning would probably get placed when you're selecting ranked in red letters as a reminder.

Also you totally missed the entire idea of this. Garen should be balanced separately in each patch, so that he isn't weak nor strong regardless of where you are. If Garen is doing exceedingly well in ranked, he would see nerfs in the ranked patch. Likewise he shouldn't be trash in the norms patch-he's well off in ranked for high elo, and well off in unranked at low elo. Plus, there's plenty of players who do this exact thing right now anyways, with the exact same result; they suck at the new fotm champion. Were you around for MF becoming big in support? Probably, it wasn't too long ago.

Low elo totally missed hte why when she was picked, so they'd grab her in any random game and it'd go horribly. That's the scenario you just described.

Theoretically if they did this and they did it right, Jimmy the bronze 5 will do just as well as Hauntzer with Garen due to the tweaks made in order for him to be good in pro play (because realistically right now, this scenario is actually backwards-Garen is bad at high levels but can perform well vs low elo who don't know how to fight him)-assuming Jimmy is playing unranked that is.

An idea I just thought up, in this scenario that will never actually happen but I feel would be a good idea: Practice Ranked mode. It is not actually ranked mode, but has the ranked patch, allowing for players to try out the ranked version of a champion and get good with them before putting Elo on the line. I realize this is all a bit convoluted, but to me that's fine if it means the majority of the roster is usable at high and low elo alike because of separate patches.

ModCaptainMårvelousMay 8, 20171 votes

You're getting a bit too hung-up on the example.

The point is that the things in the LCS should be imitateable in all games. That's not to say you're going to be able to pick up Lee and suddenly pull of stupid crazy combos but you CAN do it if you have the skill. The goal, for people who play ranked, would be to get better to the point of being at a pro level.

As another example, imagine if after you pass Gold rank, the game says "Hey guess what you're now playing on the platinum+ version of league best of luck". It could mean that all the skill you had in the previous versions is now either worthless or greatly reduced. You were effectively playing a different game with different balance and now you're suddenly thrust into a brand new world. It would be akin to playing Street Fighter VI and then being moved onto Street Fighter V when you surpass a certain rank.

But I'm just arguing the philosophical side of things and the feelings. Business-wise, you're asking to balance two separate games for two drastically different sets of people. I can't think of a single game in history that has balanced differently for pros vs. pub play beyond mods and editions (Such as SSBB vs. Project: Melee). It's not cost-effective, it requires balancing between two different teams and it makes balance messier and messier with each patch.

VectrosMay 9, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You're getting a bit too hung-up on the example.

The point is that the things in the LCS should be imitateable in all games.

Which most people can't imitate the LCS anyways, so this is a moot point. They can try, but they'll usually fail. Also, I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm not saying to rework any kits entirely; only number changes. Garen, as an example, tends to do poorly at higher elo. Increase his movespeed boost for ranked, maybe up his defensive steroid or his E's scaling. Something like that. Functionally identical, but the level of power needed for him to be effective for a pro player is vastly different from bronze and silver. Therefore, change the numbers.

That's not to say you're going to be able to pick up Lee and suddenly pull of stupid crazy combos but you CAN do it if you have the skill. The goal, for people who play ranked, would be to get better to the point of being at a pro level.

How does having 2 different patches prevent this? If you can play Lee in unranked, you can also play him in ranked; his numbers might be different (most likely lower), so you may need to get used to doing less damage-but if you're a smart player who can hit high elo of his own skill then this damage nerf isn't going to stop that.

As another example, imagine if after you pass Gold rank, the game says "Hey guess what you're now playing on the platinum+ version of league best of luck". It could mean that all the skill you had in the previous versions is now either worthless or greatly reduced. You were effectively playing a different game with different balance and now you're suddenly thrust into a brand new world. It would be akin to playing Street Fighter VI and then being moved onto Street Fighter V when you surpass a certain rank.

Haven't played anything past the 3rd street fighter so I don't know the differences between the two...but I imagine it brings new characters, new moves, nerfs/buffs...which isn't at all what I'm asking for. I'm asking for numerical changes to balance at high/low elo in ranked/unranked respectively. You're completely blowing out of proportion what I'm asking for. I asked for a car, you're giving me a train. Like, what?

But I'm just arguing the philosophical side of things and the feelings. Business-wise, you're asking to balance two separate games for two drastically different sets of people.

True, which is why I said it's probably never going to happen.

I can't think of a single game in history that has balanced differently for pros vs. pub play beyond mods and editions (Such as SSBB vs. Project: Melee).

I can't either, but I'd also argue most games don't have nearly the issues of League-in that it has over 130 champions, but only 30 or so get consistent pro play/banned, with maybe another 30 as niche picks/comfort picks. Which gets pretty boring being able to predict every damn game who's going to be picked and banned-it gets held back because of low elo, they don't want to ruin the balance for the masses.

It's not cost-effective, it requires balancing between two different teams

Wouldn't disagree.

and it makes balance messier and messier with each patch.

Maybe. It's hard to say I think. Theoretically though-just run with this thought for a minute-Riot actually does this, makes 2 balance patches. They're able to fine tune it to the point where every champion is considered viable in unranked for the masses, and LCS sees fairly equal usage of every champion, as well as a large variety of bans on the roster.

If they've hit this point, when a new item comes out that throws off the balance of high elo, you really only have 1 patch to balance. You don't have to worry about low elo since they aren't making good use of the item, so now you just determine how to best make it balanced for the pros. Unlike now, where they try to fix it for the high elo, but still keep in mind low elo, which often ends up in a big mess. If they could actually manage to get things fairly balanced for ONE of the elos, future balancing for that elo would become significantly easier.

Also, as far as money goes according to Wikipedia, they earned 1.6 billion in 2015. That's not the net worth, that is the excess revenue they put in the bank. You're telling me they can't afford to higher another 5 man team alongside the current one to start working on balance? Again, that is the money after the bills are all paid, not before.

Let's just do a quick mock payment for these guys. Let's say they are paid 50 an hour. Assuming all 5 work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year...that will cost them 520,000 . Out of 1,600,000,000. That's .0325% of what they banked. 50 an hour is probably high payment for a team like this (though I'm also not a major in this or anything, so I could be completely wrong)-I gave a high number to account for other costs that may come with having a new employee that I did not consider.

I already stated this would be somewhat of a hassle for them to do, and would cost them some money-but given how much they're worth, how many players this would, in my opinion, be good for-I think it'd be well worth it being done, though I don't believe Riot would ever go for this.