I think this question deserves an answer.

PhearBunny·Sep 12, 2018·1 votes·591 views

Why are mechanically overloaded champions allowed to deal more damage than non-mechanical champions? Shouldn't the tradeoff for mechanical advantages be less damage than that of non-mechanical champions?

2 Comments

DuskDaUmbreonSep 12, 20185 votes

They deal more damage because of successfully pulling off the mechanics.

If the reward for playing a mechanically-intense champion well isn't better than the reward for playing a simple champion, then you're just having higher risk with no real rewards. Riven played at maximum skill should always do better than Garen played at maximum skill, because the minimum that Garen does is much higher than Riven's minimum, due to Garen just being easier.

Kai GuySep 13, 20181 votes

Its way to common for players to treat complexity as overloaded.

Akali passive. On paper we have energy reign, bonus range, extra damage, movement speed. Its tied into moving out of a circle and back into range to auto in a window. It does nothing if you cant trigger the requirements.

Many would say OMG SO MUCH SO OVERLOADED. But its complexity is what helps balance it, makes it unreliable, enables counter play.

If we take the circle away, take the ms, take the range, take the energy , nerf the damage, nerf the ratios. If becomes a very simple ability, hit champions, empower next auto. It would end up being a buff to her. Despite no MS, no range, no energy, lower damage. The removal of complexity is a buff.

Many simplistic champions, you find them being a case of hard counter or hard countered. Your kit can deal with theirs or it cant. The reliability of a kit with low mechanical requirements or skill is a positive trait. Its power. Reliability is strong and often times its unengaging.