Boards›Gameplay

What's the difference between Abuse and Innovation?

AirKingNeo··1 votes·680 views

Everyone these days throws around the buzzword "abuse" as if champions shouldn't be building certain items. Yet, at the same time, people also rage at riot when they kill off "off-meta" things. Today I simply ask, what's the difference between innovation and abuse?

Is Lucian abusing armor pen items? Is Lucian innovating to the meta by using armor pen items to be relevant early game? You could apply the case to many things but you understand my point. Why shouldn't Lucian, or some other champions, not build to be relevant or stronger? Because they aren't meant to use said items? Then what's the point in innovating? What's the point in strategic diversity when it's apparently broken?

Clearly if one build for a champion that's unintended is better than the intended, there's a problem with either set of items. Of course that just stems back to the problem with critical strike as far as Marksmen go.

21 Comments

Big Lincoln5 votes

If they're ranged it's abuse

doodlebob6661 votes

special addition for ap melee assasins when they suddenly grab a sheen item that is not lichbane

Troy2426213 votes

Not saying I agree but I think this is their distinction:

Innovation

  1. Isn't the conventionally used build/play style
  2. Works as well or better than the conventional build/play style
  3. Isn't necessarily an intended interaction but is within the bounds of acceptability
  4. May be niche, or meta dependent.

Summary: May be unintended but isn't overpowered.

Abuse

  1. Developer overlooked gross synergy
  2. Exploiting a game mechanic or item(s) in an unintended way
  3. Is too effective/overtuned
  4. Degenerates the game in an unhealthy way, or may be game warping.

Summary: Either unintended and overpowered or is unintended and degenerate.

Having said all of this, I think it's arguing semantics, they both have the same goal: Deviate from the conventional route to be more effective. It's just labelled abuse after the fact if the innovation turns out to be too effective, or the interaction is too unhealthy.

AirKingNeo2 votes

Respectfully disagree, for those can be extremely line blurred. Take onhit Muramana Varus as an example. It's very unconventional. It does work better than critical strike builds due to a smoother power curve. It's good in basically any meta that doesn't make him auto lose. However the interaction with Rageblade and Muramana is grossly insane. The damage output is massive. It's auto attacks, which many of the boards find "degenerate."

May be niche, or meta dependent.

That doesn't have to do with innovation or not. Innovation simply is adapting to be better; it has nothing to do whether it is niche or not.

Isn't necessarily an intended interaction but is within the bounds of acceptability

Well isn't that the worst argument you could possibly come up with. It's literally "if people don't like it, it's abuse".

Basically I'm telling you you're completely wrong. I could literally knock down all of your points simply by applying it to the other. Apply any case people like to call "abuse" and it fits both categories.

Troy2426211 votes

{quoted}

Respectfully disagree, for those can be extremely line blurred. Take onhit Muramana Varus as an example. It's very unconventional. It does work better than critical strike builds due to a smoother power curve. It's good in basically any meta that doesn't make him auto lose. However the interaction with Rageblade and Muramana is grossly insane. The damage output is massive. It's auto attacks, which many of the boards find "degenerate."

That doesn't have to do with innovation or not. Innovation simply is adapting to be better; it has nothing to do whether it is niche or not.

Well isn't that the worst argument you could possibly come up with. It's literally "if people don't like it, it's abuse".

Basically I'm telling you you're completely wrong. I could literally knock down all of your points simply by applying it to the other. Apply any case people like to call "abuse" and it fits both categories.

Innovation need not exhibit all of those listed traits, but rather it tends to exhibit at least one of them. I also stated the argument is virtually semantics, and that abuse is innovation that proves to be too successful or degenerate.

So, no, you didn't knock down any of my points, but rather failed to read them all. I even prefaced my post with "Not saying I agree but I think this is their distinction."

AirKingNeo2 votes

I read all your points and knocked them down with Muramana Varus or pointed them out as clearly just bias. You obviously lack analysis skills. Now you're just getting frustrated about being pointed out as fundamentally incorrect.

Also you're saying innovation shouldn't be successful? Why not? Also here's the answer, there isn't a distinction. You all just keep using the word abuse wrong.

Troy2426211 votes

{quoted}

I read all your points and knocked them down with Muramana Varus or pointed them out as clearly just bias. You obviously lack analysis skills. Now you're just getting frustrated about being pointed out as fundamentally incorrect.

Also you're saying innovation shouldn't be successful? Why not? Also here's the answer, there isn't a distinction. You all just keep using the word abuse wrong.

I'm not upset, nor am I the one resorting to ad hominems. Some points apply to both lists because an abusive innovation is still an innovation. However, it is one that is either too effective or too unhealthy, and this it is referred to as an abuse case.

Once again, it's an argument over semantics. Call it whatever you'd like, that's what people are referring to. You can refute that criteria until you're blue in the face, that's still what people uphold.

AirKingNeo2 votes

You just accused me of not covering your points. I did in fact.

It's innovation/adaptation regardless.

DrCyanide1 votes

I think abuse could more accurately be described as using an item(s) that is over tuned at present (what most Lethality users were). Contrast that with picking an item that's stayed the same for a while, or doesn't seem to be over tuned (new BotRK?).

There will be those who will call an old build "abuse" if they feel a champion shouldn't be able to use an item in the first place (see Blue Ezreal), but I think the rest of the time it's just people being frustrated at how effective a build is.

Cubíx1 votes

I guess Innovation applies to more of counterplay, for example it was innovative when they started to play MF support into Zyra. It was an obvious counterpick, or in a sense it was used to stop something that was notably strong.

Abuse however is something that is overtly powerful, things like "rageblade devourer"; as a combination they were extremely strong and could be used on a surprisingly large pool of champs (from Vayne to Nautilus could be seen effective with this build).

I guess I see your statement though I'm not really sure the whole lucian armor pen is "abuse" but it could relate to a bigger picture that armor pen might be abused. I mean I don't know for certain, but its potentially on the table considering many champs from adc to bruisers are able to use it effectively.

EDIT: Rewt pointed this out, simply change the "armor pen" in my statements to "lehtality"

Rewt2 votes

We do need to make sure that we understand that armor pen isnt the issue, but lethality is. (There is an important distinction here) Armor Pen Lucian would actually be kind of a shit build. But the reason that people call Lethality Lucian Abuse is because of the incredible power that lethality has against squishies and off tanks. Now we do need to understand that the reason its often called abusive is due to the fact that lethality is not a tradeoff to purchase. In many cases items with lethality are statted enough to be a real issue.

TLDR: Lethality and armor pen are 2 different things and the reason people call it abuse is because riot gave items that have lethality good stats for ADs on top of that making them some of the most efficient items in the game as long as you arent going for a crit build.

Cubíx1 votes

You know, you are correct, thats my fault. I'm kinda in a boat where I see armor pen and lethality being the same thing to an extent, because I'm so used to calling it one thing even though I mean the other (like calling raptors "wraiths" for example). I also agree with your statement that its not as much the actually stat of lethality as it is the items with lethality: I guess the best comparison is dragon types from pokemon (the type itself wasn't op but most of them had very high stats to back them up).

Though that doesn't mean lower the power of lethality is a bad option if they wanted to tweak something with those builds.

AirKingNeo1 votes

Abuse however is something that is overtly powerful, things like "rageblade devourer"; as a combination they were extremely strong and could be used on a surprisingly large pool of champs (from Vayne to Nautilus could be seen effective with this build).

Yes but it still fits in with the definition of innovation so I don't see where you're going with it.

I guess I see your statement though I'm not really sure the whole lucian armor pen is "abuse" but it could relate to a bigger picture that armor pen might be abused. I mean I don't know for certain, but its potentially on the table considering many champs from adc to bruisers are able to use it effectively.

Just brought him out since he's the most known. It's still being innovative.

Cubíx1 votes

I suppose yes its technically innovative, based on the definition, but I guess that it lies with the question of: "is it healthy?" My example from before "rageblade devourer" I would say that it wasn't a healthy innovation, it put most on hit champs in a position where post-20mins they could carry their team. While relating to healthy innovations (things like MF support in response to Zyra or Ziggs in an adc role) they never stand out as a definitive pick, as in the best or not necessarily the highest of tiers.

That in mind, I suppose they way people use the term "abuse" it relates to an extreme variant of innovation. Yes, some crazy full AD Ahri build might be innovative but if it stands at the S tier of marksmen or whatever role I don't think its very healthy, and can be seen as abusing her kit in a sense. Writing that down makes me think of Tank Ekko, for a time he was objectively one of the best tanks and jungle/top laners, did people complain about how strong he was? I think thats a decent way to explain why some innovations are "abuse" and other aren't.

WalkingInACircle1 votes

Strength of tactic, intention of design. Good balance wants to give players meaningful choices, which means the choices must have some parity between them.

woodvsmurph1 votes

In base terms: innovation: finding a new and/or better way to do something abuse: (in league) when something or someone has an unfair advantage

I know that isn't really going to clarify if something is one or the other in most cases, but let's take an extreme theoretical example to start with and go from there. Kayle has ad and ap scaling on many abilities and is often build hybrid or ap - almost never ad. But let's say someone tries full ad kayle, and realizes she wins every matchup - even ones where she got destroyed or lost as ap or hybrid. Let's say she can legit 1v4 with this build at any point after 2 items no matter who her enemies are or how well they play. While innovative, this is also abuse. But if there is a tradeoff - such as her being only mildly stronger in teamfights, but going oom much faster and her heal being much weaker, then it would just be innovation.

I don't play adc, so I can't comment on how it feels in lane as an adc with new bork, bc, etc. builds. As a tank support, I can say they feel stronger earlier on. Not sure if their scaling compares to former scaling - game never lasts that long. As a toplane bruiser, I feel they are mildly stronger early/mid game, but not abusing. The only way I feel abused is when my bot lane gave the enemy adc like 10 kills in laning - at which point the enemy adc SHOULD feel op. But I would need more games vs these builds to say with certainty.

Jbels1 votes

Abuse is taking something that was made for one purpose and using it successfully for a different / unintended purpose. Innovation is taking something that was made for one purpose and using it successfully for a different / uninten-...wait a minute, ha ha, shame on you League of Legends xD

AirKingNeo1 votes

Someone here might have the answer.

The Sword Saint1 votes

Innovation is when you are on the cutting edge of new ideas and tactics, coming up with new ways to get an edge on your equally skiled opponent.

Abuse is when you see someone else innovate something and then spam in in ranked for as many games as possible for lp until it gets nerfed, then look for the next thing someone has innovated.

Generally speaking it's high level players who innovate, and lower skill players who copy them and abuse new op things until they get nerfed to inflate their winrate. They wouldn't be able to maintain their success without taking advantage of something thats overtuned so they just wait until someone else finds that op thing and then only play ranked when they can use that to cover for their other 'skills'.

Not every innovation leads to abused though, sometimes it's just an interesting tradeoff that someone discovers is useful for niche situations or to help in certain matchups. These kinds of things aren't abusable by their nature since for example some innovation that is discovered to make laning vs teemo easier doesn't help you against champs that aren't teemo, so you can't exactly use that to cheese your way up the ladder unless you somehow face a hundred teemos in a row (unlikely).

AirKingNeo1 votes

Innovation is when you are on the cutting edge of new ideas and tactics, coming up with new ways to get an edge on your equally skiled opponent.

Armor Pen Lucian was a new idea once.

Abuse is when you see someone else innovate something and then spam in in ranked for as many games as possible for lp until it gets nerfed, then look for the next thing someone has innovated.

It's still being innovative by adapting to the meta. I don't see how this puts a clear difference.

The Sword Saint1 votes

Innovation isn't something people can do after someone else has done it before. The first armor pen luciens were innovative, everyone after is not.

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 AirKingNeo

Consider this Preseason the ultimate and final trial for the Balance Team
Gameplay250 comments
230
votes
We need Nerf Master Suck Town to return
Gameplay106 comments
159
votes
Rageblade is losing over a net amount of 1000 gold in stats because Varus and Kog'maw abuse it
Gameplay214 comments
102
votes
Riot has no idea how to balance Black Cleaver.
Gameplay280 comments
90
votes
Riot, you cannot ignore this preseason. Bruisers are a joke.
Gameplay142 comments
80
votes
Thank god for the Mallet revert
Gameplay94 comments
75
votes