Boards›[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+

Can we stop please with "because high ELO" arguments and look at the bigger picture?

GripaAviara·8/27/2018, 11:00:17 PM·47 votes·37,225 views

I think one of the most unhealthy and divisive things in this game is: "ah you see that champion, he's weak in high ELO so stop complaining"

I find it baffling how people think is ok to point out that argument when 90% of the players are gold and below (https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/rankings/rank-distribution) . We are not just talking about the slight majority here, or even a great deal of, we are talking about almost every player. If the game doesn't cater to almost every player then how is that ok?

And while the logic goes: " Yeah but dude that's where the champions are actually played with and against at the fullest and optimal potential". And yes, whilst this is very true, it's not the whole picture.

And I think besides damage here is the most frustrating part of the current game, on that persists since the dawn of the game.

The game is a 5v5 game where you have almost 0 control on 4 or at best 3 of your teammates. More than half the team is a big variable in this equation and should be factored in when talking about balance. You can play the most optimal "high ELO" way and still, the game is out of your grasp.

Yes, I'm talking about hyperscaling champions in general.

Like for example how polarizing Master Yi is. If you as the average player you'll hear he's OP. If you ask the high ELO players, he's average to bad. And who's right? Well, both are. Because the game is a completely different experience with highly skilled teammates vs average ones.

And this is because of his flawed design. Before continuing, no, master yi is not the only champion in this position, it' just an example.

In a perfect game on both sides, he power spikes very hard late mid game and early late game. He then goes back to average in end game. This is what makes him meh .. if you are a pro and look at his kit. Games are shorter, so he won't be much good in the meta and for a slow starter you want an end game beast, and you get an average ninja.

Now let's look at the other side of the coin, actually in 4 of 5 out of 90% of the games (low ELO), that's like 70% (almost 3 out of 4) of the games. In this ELO people don't play safe and make tons of mistakes. Because of the sheer average amount of early kills happening in game, it's easy with a hypermobile champion to grab a low hanging "kill" by simply waiting a little more, punishing overextension, etc. That late mid-game hard power spike gets way earlier. And the disaster assures. You get a hypermobile killing machine with little counterplay other than a cc chain.

Ok, not convinced? Well, there's a reason why I picked Yi. Gold Funneling. Yi hasn't got PVP nerfers since gold funneling, only affecting lane creep farming.

And that technique was exactly what's happening in those 70% of the games. Easy gold for a faster powerspike. It was that broken because he is that broken in those games, just he doesn't have the tools to actually do that in a safe high ELO game.

Stopping gold funneling didn't solve the overall problem, just the problem of bringing low ELO problems in high ELO games.

I think this game needs to look at those champions and get rid of this flawed game design. Not only it makes those champions a hell in low ELO, but they are rarely ever used or useful in high ELO.

So the question naturally arises: Why keep them in this state if they are unbalanced (both over for low and under for high) for any ELO?

107 Comments

chipndip18/28/2018, 2:11:36 AM37 votes

There is a very strong reason as to why the "weak in high elo" argument exists.

For ANY competitive game EVER, you don't balance around the average players. You balance around the better ones. Better players exploit the game better and more often. Better players make the most out of the tools they're given. Better players define the meta. Better players are more dependent on an actually balanced game in order to enjoy the game, whereas lesser players are more casual and don't even realize when something might be awry balance-wise until it's made readily apparent (they won't think something like Janna's OP as quick as they think a carry champ like Yasuo is OP). Thus, better players are a better standard to balance the game around. No competitive game worth its salt would ever make a majority of its balance decisions around lesser players. Like...IMAGINE how absolutely bonkers Ryze would be if we had to wait for him to be "pretty good" in low elo before dealing with him? He'd be absolutely insane.

Now, to answer about champion design and how it correlates into this discussion, Riot's been steadily trying to go through the list of champs like Yi to make them healthier game play experiences so there's less discrepancy between their low, high, and pro elo power levels. In other words, Riot probably agrees with you and is hoping to deal with Yi one day. However, that's "one day", not "today".

Fízz v28/28/2018, 5:47:18 PM14 votes

I think the game should be balanced around high elo because.. lets look at 2 examples:

Say you main Camille, GP, Taliyah, or Azir back when he was meta. Your champ isnt doing very well in your elo, but there is something you can do about that. You can just get better at your champ, then suddenly they are god tier.

Now lets say you main Fizz, your champ is fine up until ~high diamond-master +. But once you get better and try to get into those elos.. you realize that your champ isnt good enough, and Riot cant/wont buff him because lower elo players will complain. You cant do anything about it.

Thats the difference, if the game/a champ is balanced around very high elo, people have something to play and get good for. But if a champ is balanced around low elo, high elo players of that champ cant do anything to make their champ viable, except smurfing I guess.

I mean look at Westdoor, wasnt he literally known for his Fizz, back when Fizz was actually playable in high elo/competitive? Pretty sure he is a jungle player now lol.

ModKnightsKemplar8/29/2018, 1:11:29 AM9 votes

I see a lot of the responses claiming that they don't want to see champs gutted for high elo. I don't think the OP is suggesting that.

The game survives because of sheer volume. Low elo players spend money on League, and retaining them is important to the future of the game. High elo players don't have a game without everyone spending some money. So, it behooves Riot to care about low elo.

I don't think Riot has often nerfed champions into the ground simply because they were too good in low elo (I'm sure there are a few cases). But it would be much better for them in the long run to balance around everyone. There are plenty of champions that don't have a huge difference in high and low elos; Riot's goal should be designing such that this is the case. It will never be perfect, but it already is one of their goals, and that's a good thing. Lots of players is a huge part of what gives League staying power, and I think it's smart to design around that.

AirKingNeo8/29/2018, 2:01:42 AM7 votes

The big picture is what you aren't looking at.

The game is a competitive game. It should be balanced around the competitive level. The competitive level is high ladder. If a character is weak in high ladder, then they're weak at a competitive level, which means they aren't good.

If low ladder are getting cheesed, they should just get better at the game. Clearly, the players who are a higher rank (factually better) than them, aren't losing to bad picks. That means the low ladder players clearly have room they need to improve in.

What about casuals? That's actually a fair point. What if you're a casual who just wants to have fun. The answer is surprisingly simple. Don't talk about balance because you don't have a competitive mindset. For casuals, one day a shit champion like Yi beats you and another day you lose to Kai'Sa. That's how casual play tends to go.

And if you're a competitive casual? Then you realize Yi is a shit champion by the stats and you improve at the game. You aren't aiming for Diamond+, but you certainly wanna be decently good.

It's kinda similar to Yu-gi-oh with casuals complaining. They don't understand how competitive play goes to actually know what's broken and what not. A competitive casual at leats pays attention to competitive at some point and would know the top decks.

DeathBurst9/5/2018, 4:34:40 PM3 votes

There is a fundamental problem in balance.

A balanced game MUST be balanced for the top players. Ideally, it SHOULD be balanced for everyone, but it absolutely, totally must be balanced for top players in particular.

See, if the game is NOT balanced for top players, and say, champion A is OP at high skill level, well, there is no point in playing the game anymore, it's not whoever is better wins, it's just who gets champion A. And since everyone is playing very close to perfectly, there isn't any possible solution, there isn't anything else to do.

So the game MUST be balanced for top players, and that's why the "high MMR" argument exist.

Now, where a lot of people get it wrong is when they insist that the game SHOULD be balanced ONLY for top players. THIS is bullshit, and should be strongly refuted. The game SHOULD be balanced for everyone, it's just fucking hard to do, and it MUST be balanced for top players, but this is not a choice, this is a constraint of the system.

To be fair, Riot does try hard to balance a bit for everyone, and they do rework what you call "flawed designs", but it just takes time. There are a lot of champs, and removing flaws is not as simple to do as a number nerf.

SomeOneButNoOne8/28/2018, 1:16:31 PM3 votes

I'm going to give you a simple example of why they can't balance for lower elos.

Now, release Azir, one of the most broken champions that has ever seen league's competitive scene, was sitting at a 46-47% winrate in high elo's on release.

So, in lower elo's I'll make an estimated guess, that due to his complexity, his winrate was around 44-45%, if not less. Now, in higher elo's, in 2-3 patches, his winrate skyrocketed, while in lower elo's his winrate remained approximately the same. Now, imagine if Azir got a bunch of buffs, to make him "low-elo playable". He was a complete competitive monster, in high elo he was pick or ban, because if you were matched against a good Azir, you had no counterplay. Even Assassins couldn't shut him down if played properly.

If the balancing was done around lower elo, the entire high elo would end up being demolished by completely imbalanced champions. Ryze, Azir, Cassiopeia, Ivern, Syndra, Zoe... Vladimir... GP & Riven... Lets not even discuss how overpowered Lee Sin would have to be to hover on 50% w/r in lower elos. [zombie-nunu-bummed]

Galiö8/28/2018, 4:07:39 PM2 votes

I beg to differ that 'but in higher elo is a good argument' even with most of the player base being in gold and below.

It's like playing a competative cardgame.

Imagine in said cardgame there is an effect that overwhelms 'units' with an effect.

In lower elo everyone just throws a bunch of strong units in their deck without any regard for a silencing card to end unit effects.

Lower elo players will complain that said unit is stomping all their units and is unfun/unhealthy due to lack of counter play.

Higher elo players all have a silence in their deck so they very rarely use that 'dominating unit'lower elo players are complaining about without a specific strategy or preparation.

You cant just destroy a card because no one wants to learn how to build a deck.

Cptn Han SoloQ8/28/2018, 9:17:01 AM2 votes

They have to balance around higher elo. If they balance around low elo, high elo games will be completly destroyed by high skillcapped champions that got pushed to a 50% winrate in elos were people are just to bad to pilot them, and then have over 80% winrate in high elo because once u can use the champion right it is suddenly unstoppable. Ofc this can exist the other way around, were some champions feel unplayable in low elo because u need to be good with them to actually get rewarded, what helps there is either getting good at the game or realising ur lack in skill and playing something else. [ofc this is all said in the perspective that u play to win, otherwise u really do not even think about balance especially in low elo where no game is decided based on a pick but by which player fcks up the least][slayer-jinx-wink]

Speeedy9/4/2018, 8:56:26 PM2 votes

So with the current ranked system in NA low elo is a fiesta. You need to change the way the ranked programs work to give players more fair games. The problem is this you have 27 ranks between bronze 5 and challenger/masters (25 ranks to D1). In 10 ranks, bronze 5 to silver 1, you have 70% of the ranked player base. Then you have 30% for 17 ranks. Assuming you did even distribution for the ranks as the player base sits Bronze 5 to Silver 1 = 7% of players, then from gold 1 to challenger is 1.7% of players. The odds of getting someone who is having a bad game or just unskilled for the division is much higher in low elo. A more even distribution of players among the ranks needs to occur to plat 1. This gives low elo players less of a chance of a landslide game with more balanced teams.

Attticus Finch10/2/2018, 4:49:26 AM2 votes

There is no sport in history that is balanced around the unskilled majority.

Automated Riven9/1/2018, 4:25:29 PM1 votes

No. Balance should be around optimal levels of play. If you feel like, for example, yi is overpowered. You can just get better at the game and your frustrations go away.

And before you act like I am a high elo player. I was silver 1 last year.