so the new abyssal is on hold

Critmaster Garen·May 29, 2015·4 votes·376 views

thank god, i hope it will never make it to live like that.

according to riots own design standarts, it was a horible item. when they nerfed and removed atmas, they complained that the item was badly designed, because it countered itself. an ad/armor item that was best countered by buying it, when your opponent picked it up. (of course completely ignoring at the time, that ap/mr items were a common thing).

guess what the new abyssal was... a high mr/health item with, with the mr shred on it to counter its own stats. how do you best beat that item on your opponent? by buying the same item.

i wish they would stick to their own design ideals now and then, instead of constantly changing their opinion to justify whatever theyre doing at the time.

its like riot has multiple different design teams instead of one, with each one having a different opinion on how the game should be balanced.

4 Comments

Neo CyrusMay 29, 20152 votes

I have no idea what they were thinking with this new Abyssal. For it to be effective you basically have to be on top of your opponent for a long time, longer than any mage can do without being killed. It needs to be made into a new item, leave Abyssal Scepter the hell alone, it's the ONLY item in the game that fills that niche.

There is no other item that gives MR shred (particularly as an aura), AP, and MR at the same time. There isn't a remotely similar item, and remember magic reduction is NOT penetration. They're calculated differently.

If the change goes through it'd be effective on AP tank/bruisers, not mages. And it'd basically be a nerf to short/melee range mages. Remember, the range is only 700, and just to fuck with us it has no indicator.

qetzelMay 29, 20151 votes

I thought the problem with Atma's was the damage for building defenses thing. If this is true then there is no inconsistency.

Critmaster GarenMay 31, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I thought the problem with Atma's was the damage for building defenses thing. If this is true then there is no inconsistency.

that wasnt the reason. in a way, atmas was not much different than rod of ages. it was an item that started out ok-ish and became more cost effective over time, as you built hp with it and gained hp by leveling up. the "getting damage from defenses" agrument was misguided and why a lot of people complained, but not why they removed it. there are a lot of examples in this game where defenses increase a champions damage and they still have their place. %health scaling damage in champions kits, or resistance scaling damage. galio, rammus, taric, malphite, sejuani ... and technically thornmail, and sunfire cape just to name a few.

technically all the item ever did was grant 45 armor, 15% crit and between 30 and 70 ad (depending on game time and item build). it was therefor not different than the ap counterparts abyssal or athenes that simultaneously grant a large amount of ap and mr.

the way the scaling worked off base health, just made it very very cheap for the stats it granted.

at a certain point it was deemed too powerful by midgame, because the base hp of most champions were already enough to make it very cost effective without building much else.

though that could simply have been fixed by increasing the %bonus of the passive, but making it scale with bonus health instead, delaying its power more into the lategame.

riots argument was always that the item countered itself, and that between 2 ad bruisers 1 buying the item, it was best countered by getting it yourself, as it simultaneously reduced the damage you would take from your opponent and increase your own damage.

according to riot it was always the stat combination and how it made the item a must buy during the lane phase in most situation between ad bruisers.

the new abyssal would have done exactly the same for ap tanks and bruisers. an item with 60 mr, health, magic damage and a large amount of mr shred. the defensive stats would best be countered by buying the item yourself.

qetzelMay 31, 20151 votes

Thanks for the info.