Boards›[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+

Why Do Some Champions Have to be Bad?

ModThe Djinn··27 votes·31,072 views

At no point in League's history have all League champions been perfectly competitive across all skill levels -- or even within the same skill level. Should they be, though? I'm going to argue that no, they shouldn't, and that these disparities can be a good thing.

For reference, I'm going to link an article on Magic: the Gathering design that I think speaks to the core of what I'm about to dig into. If you're a game design theory fan, definitely check it out! If you're not, no worries -- I'll cover the important things.

##Assertion 1: Power Levels are Relative to Current Gameplay A champion that split-pushes exceptionally well -- maybe even best in class -- is only good if split-pushing is a viable option. A champion with powerful teamfighting cannot thrive when the game state encourages split pressure and rotations. A champion who synergizes excellently with mages suffers in an AD-heavy environment. With all of the factors in a game as complex as League -- and with the meta-game constantly evolving even without balance changes -- champions will fall in and out of favor based on the way the game is being played. Worlds this year was a good example: the environment of top lane changed without any balance adjustments based solely on the picks people were using elsewhere to influence team compositions.

##Assertion 2: Champions Can Succeed at Any Level If you look up pretty much any champion, you can find people who main those champions in high Master or even Challenger. The number may vary, but players who dedicate themselves to a specific character can find success with them pretty much anywhere but the world stage. Some undoubtedly are harder to succeed with than others at this level of player skill, but it can be done, and that is supported by data.

##Assertion 3: Diversity Rewards Skilled and Knowledgeable Players A player who plays only one character will naturally struggle when facing a good counter. A player who has high-level knowledge of how to play a rough lane will struggle less when facing the same counter. A player who knows the weaknesses of said opponent as well will struggle even less, and a player who has a deeper champion pool may find herself able to make the decision to switch into a stronger match-up -- while a truly skilled player can judge when the match-up advantage is not worth swapping to a less familiar champion. These are all representations of a player's skill just as much if not more than their knowledge of how to play a specific champion, and the existence of relative gameplay is what makes these sorts of decisions complex and interesting.

##Assertion 4: Player Seek Different Things from League

  • Some players want to win at any cost.
  • Some players want to defy the odds and succeed at something considered bad or silly.
  • Some players want to just play a champion they like.
  • Some players want to play easy or simple champions.
  • Some players want to play difficult champions.
  • Some players want to master ever element of a specific kit or role.
  • Some players want to play to achieve personal goals that are not dependent on simply winning games or increasing in rank.
  • Some players seek to experiment.
  • Some players just want to play something they think is "cool," however they define that.

#Inequality Can Be Desirable. Given these assertions, having some inequality in balance brings a number of interesting things:

  • Giving a player the ability to show off their skill through persistence or simply raw mastery. Overcoming the odds to play Garen at Challenger is a huge success for the Garen player, and gives them a personal goal to strive for.
  • Giving a player the ability to learn and grow by realizing when the capabilities of one champion or strategy is unable to contribute at a specific skill rank or into a specific matchup, and then offering them the choice to persist towards raw champion mastery or diversify with their better meta-game knowledge and awareness.
  • Giving a player the ability to experiment with things that are not popular or considered powerful to see if they can find success through unexpected or underestimated picks or team combinations, effectively throwing a wrench into the enemy's understanding of the meta and eking out a surprise win.
  • Giving a player a sense of discovery when facing something that gives them trouble, and encouraging them to explore other builds, strategies, tactics, and champions.
  • Giving a player the ability to define the goals and champions that best suit their playstyle, even if not every champion appeals equally to every playstyle.

Ultimately, I believe that striving for every champion to be viable in ever situation at every skill level would take away a lot of what makes the climb toward true mastery in League interesting, damage the macro-gameplay experience, and also harm the experiences of players who have playstyles that differ from the "climb as high as possible" playstyle. In an asymmetric multiplayer game the time spent trying to achieve this theoretical balance would further detract from other interesting additions and developments that offer players further ways to learn, express their individuality, and enjoy League, for a payoff that would take away some of the aspects that make mastering the game a great experience.

45 Comments

SEKAI20 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-11-01T16:26:10.336+0000)

##Assertion 2: Champions Can Succeed at Any Level If you look up pretty much any champion, you can find people who main those champions in high Master or even Challenger. The number may vary, but players who dedicate themselves to a specific character can find success with them pretty much anywhere but the world stage. Some undoubtedly are harder to succeed with than others at this level of player skill, but it can be done, and that is supported by data.

This is the same as saying because there is a handful of successful black people in the most overtly racist times of USA, therefore it means any person could succeed at any level regardless of skin colour; or how Asians are doing above average in USA today, in spite of the fact most things are institutionalised against them ranging from acquiring a seat in top universities, scoring promotion and raise, to dates (in terms of guys), and many other things. Obviously, you are not just going to ignore the unparalleled extra effort the marginalised people had to go through to achieve the same level of success as the others in this kind of situation.

Champions are the same, just because there is this guy or 2 who manage to play X champ in Challenger, it doesn't suddenly and automatically mean all champs are balanced remotely equal. It is pretty obvious that some mains have to work harder, sometimes multiple times harder, to achieve the same kind of success due to the fact champs are simply not balanced remotely equally and competitively in this game, something you both acknowledge and actively promote.

And that's also quite funny because your entire premise of the thread is that champs should be balance unequally and made many steps to try and justify it, but then turns around and claim that champs are actually all equal as one of the supporting arguments... for promoting that champs should be balanced unequally. I am not too sure what you're trying to imply, is it that because champs are all equal (even though you know and said they aren't) and that's bad and therefore they shouldn't be equal and that's good, or that some champs just has to use significantly more effort than others because fuck them? I don't get it.

........

#Assertion 3: Diversity Rewards Skilled and Knowledgeable Players

A player who plays only one character will naturally struggle when facing a good counter. A player who has high-level knowledge of how to play a rough lane will struggle less when facing the same counter. A player who knows the weaknesses of said opponent as well will struggle even less, and a player who has a deeper champion pool may find herself able to make the decision to switch into a stronger match-up -- while a truly skilled player can judge when the match-up advantage is not worth swapping to a less familiar champion. These are all representations of a player's skill just as much if not more than their knowledge of how to play a specific champion, and the existence of relative gameplay is what makes these sorts of decisions complex and interesting.

And you made a post specifically to promote that the LACK OF diversity is actually a good thing. Wouldn't this argument kind of debunk your own narrative?

........

Given these assertions, having some inequality in balance brings a number of interesting things:

  • Giving a player the ability to show off their skill through persistence or simply raw mastery. Overcoming the odds to play Garen at Challenger is a huge success for the Garen player, and gives them a personal goal to strive for.

This is a meaningless statement. The goal for any player in Ranked is to climb; what other goal is there?

Are you telling me that because you're promoting the notion that no champs should be equally competitive, and thus you want to substitute the champs intentionally balanced weak a sort of participation award where it basically says "here, your champ is destined to suck, and it sucks to be you. But take this, it means you should've been in Challenger division 1. I hope you'll forgive us."

  • Giving a player the ability to learn and grow by realizing when the capabilities of one champion or strategy is unable to contribute at a specific skill rank or into a specific matchup, and then offering them the choice to persist towards raw champion mastery or diversify with their better meta-game knowledge and awareness.

The implication that "meta-game knowledge" and "awareness" are about knowing the absolute tier of champs is imo nonsense.

A player is neither learning and growing when the champ they like is straight up impossible to go beyond a certain rank and they are all funneled into this tiny sector of supreme champs that receive the special treatment of being allowed to be competitive. Neither is it "mastery", because there is nothing about mastering champs, it's just about knowing which champs are destined to suck and you just have to avoid them if you want to be competitive.

And I still don't get how you can interpret deliberate gimping of competitive diversity to be an act of promoting diversity.

  • Giving a player the ability to experiment with things that are not popular or considered powerful to see if they can find success through unexpected or underestimated picks or team combinations, effectively throwing a wrench into the enemy's understanding of the meta and eking out a surprise win.
  • Giving a player a sense of discovery when facing something that gives them trouble, and encouraging them to explore other builds, strategies, tactics, and champions.

Why would any have any incentive to experiment, if the competitive roster is to be deliberately restricted by giving champs a hard tier?

No one stuck in a battle royale would be trying out a shiv if they have the choice to get their hands on knives, firearms, or explosives. If the weapon selection has a clearly visible tier difference, it does NOT encourage experimentation. Experimentation happens if there are a lot of options that all seem viable, NOT when it's very confined power curve.

  • Giving a player the ability to define the goals and champions that best suit their playstyle, even if not every champion appeals equally to every playstyle.

See the first dot point of this section.

........ ........ ........

It is indeed true that games generally would at some point reach an end-state where there is 1 or a couple superior meta that trumps all others. But that happens due to the inevitability of human creation not being so nigh impossibly complex and astronomical in scale thus there has to exist a finite end-points somewhere; it is however, NOT because all game designs have to come with a deliberate restriction on its available competitive approaches within it. The 2 have extremely contrasting dynamics, one is the product of inevitability while the other is a deliberate design choice.

But I mean, wouldn't any game with the rosters, different pawns, and other similar options be centered around having as many options be competitive as possible? If not, and going so far to deliberately restrict the number of competitive options available, then why even bother with the options in the first place? Why would League need 140+ characters when it's intended that only 10-20 are ever going to be competitive and the rest are there enjoying the "alternative" goal of some kind of participation awards and enjoy heating the bench?

I disagree with your ideas, OP. I believe the thing you're promoting is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to the very existence of this game and its genre.

NGCM1012 votes

Too bad i can not give you more likes. Perfect and well thought reply to a post that didn't make much sense.

[slayer-jinx-catface]

[katarina-love]

ModThe Djinn6 votes

This is the same as saying because there is a handful of successful black people in the most overtly racist times of USA, therefore it means any person could succeed at any level regardless of skin colour;

I don't want to get into a socio-political discussion here, but I will say that top-level competitive viability within a video game is, I feel, a very different topic.

champs are simply not balanced remotely equally and competitively in this game, something you both acknowledge and actively promote.

I probably should have clarified -- this is not meant as a "do not attempt to balance" post, but rather as a "the design of some champions limits their ability to be tuned for low/high skill brackets, and some champions will always be more favored by a given meta -- and that's sometimes okay." Huge discrepancies should be addressed, but there's a limit to how far it's reasonable to demand across-the-board viability.

...but then turns around and claim that champs are actually all equal.

They're definitely not. My point was more than you CAN make anything work if you're willing to put the time and effort into it, and that's a playstyle and a goal some players actively love.

This is a meaningless statement. The goal for any player in Ranked is to climb; what other goal is there?

There is much more to the game than ranked, and some people play ranked to have fun with their friends who prefer ranked, or to try to climb with a specific champion even if they know they could do better otherwise. But yes, most ranked players play ranked to climb.

A player is neither learning and growing when the champ they like is straight up impossible to go beyond a certain rank...

Hence calling out that there are Master and Challenger players on pretty much every champion. I'm totally aware that it's hard, but the "this champion is not able to be played past XYZ" is a bit of a fallacy. I understand the point though.

But I mean, wouldn't any game with the rosters, different pawns, and other similar options be centered around having as many options be competitive as possible? If not, and going so far to deliberately restrict the number of competitive options available, then why even bother with the options in the first place? Why would League need 140+ characters when it's intended that only 10-20 are ever going to be competitive and the rest are there enjoying the "alternative" goal of some kind of participation awards and enjoy heating the bench?

I disagree with your ideas, OP. I believe the thing you're promoting is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to the very existence of this game and its genre.

Totally fair! This is definitely a controversial topic, but I do think that I may have hurt my point by focusing too heavily on the core idea -- I'm not suggesting that Riot should stop balancing, nor that striving for more competitive viability is a bad thing -- I'm simply of the opinion that there are some benefits to not achieving perfect balance, and that, ultimately, that may be in the best interest of the game. Close, yes. Perfect? Maybe not necessary.

FenjaminBranklen1 votes

I only play ranked. I don't play it to climb, i play it to play because normals have people who don't know how to play to the degree that it is unfun more than ranked.

PandaNator431 votes

Frankly, I had a really tough time following what you wrote, but you raise some good questions. The OP doesn't connect their assertions to their conclusion very clearly.

The MTG link OP provides has some extra insight in it. I found it easier to relate the arguments in that article to the League of Legends ecosystem. Its definitely worth reading.

ModThe Djinn1 votes

{quoted}The OP doesn't connect their assertions to their conclusion very clearly.

Definitely a fair assessment. The conclusion portion of this was not as clearly laid out as the assertions, and I'll look into revising.

PandaNator431 votes

I'll be excited to read it :)

ModUlanopo10 votes

My only disagreement with this is my feeling that you're saying Riot shouldn't attempt to modulate in the direction of (near) perfect viability. The meta is influenced as much by the practicalities of performance, personal preference and community perception as it is by math. As such, it's a chaotic system and can't be modulated in that way at all.

I would argue that Riot's only responsibility in this regard is to rein in the obvious outliers.

ModThe Djinn2 votes

{quoted}My only disagreement with this is my feeling that you're saying Riot shouldn't attempt to modulate in the direction of [near] perfect viability. The meta is influenced as much by the practicalities of performance, personal preference and community perception as it is by math. As such, it's a chaotic system and can't be modulated in that way at all.

I would argue that Riot's only responsibility in this regard is to rein in the obvious outliers.

I'm not sure I'd suggest that they should never try -- more than there's actually value in not having a perfectly balanced environment, and, at some point, the effort and inevitable failures (no design team can balance a game this large that perfectly) far outweigh the cost-to-benefit ratio of attempting to close the gap past a certain point.

ModUlanopo8 votes

"This champion isn't played by enough people in enough skill brackets" is a very different proposition from "This champion has a negative impact on the game".

I think there's probably already a problem with Riot designating certain play styles as "wrongbadfun". I mean, a Zed can be just as oppressive as a Sona - probably more so - but it's Sona's play style that gets nerfed. That's because, as a designer, those are the choices you make when you move from looking solely at stats into examining how something feels. Riot doesn't necessarily balance for maximum viability. I think they aim for maximum fun - at least as they understand and define fun.

ModThe Djinn5 votes

{quoted}Riot doesn't necessarily balance for maximum viability. I think they aim for maximum fun - at least as they understand and define fun.

Yep! I'd say that's ideal, ultimately -- precisely because maximum viability is ultimately not realistically achievable in a game of this scale.

Papuga1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-02T01:03:13.246+0000)

Yep! I'd say that's ideal, ultimately -- precisely because maximum viability is ultimately not realistically achievable in a game of this scale.

Isn't maximum fun just an amouphous goal as maximum viability. Thinking about it it actually may be a much harder goal to define. At least viability has number that's can be looked at, how does one determine how fun a game is?

I also wonder how similar these two ideal scenarios would be if they could be reached. I feel that aiming for maximum fun might not be great. Since League is so competitive and I feel the 'win at all costs' is a main goal for a large part of the player base then strategies and champs that win more games will be favored and will yield more fun for those players but not be healthy. Ie, I'm sure playing Irelia is a lot of fun but at the moment she is not in a good place.

PandaNator431 votes

These were my thoughts, but stated much more clearly.

Vlada Cut2 votes

Downvote button is missing, bs. All champions should be balanced, why balance for the sake of "balance" when all champions can be equally good or bad? If people really want something "new" or "refreshing" that's what new champions are for, for fullfilling missing roles or purposes and reworked champions so they succeed where outdated designs could not.

ModThe Djinn2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Vlada Cut,realm=EUNE,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-11-02T13:25:05.976+0000)

Downvote button is missing, bs.

This is the case with all Gameplay+ threads, by design.

Vlada Cut3 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2018-11-02T13:25:44.219+0000)

This is the case with all Gameplay+ threads, by design.

Why is that? What if peoole disagree with the OP and have a different gameplay perspective than they do.

ModThe Djinn3 votes

[{quoted}](name=Vlada Cut,realm=EUNE,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2018-11-02T15:32:43.128+0000)

Why is that? What if peoole disagree with the OP and have a different ganeplay perspective than they do.

The purpose of Gameplay+ is to create an environment where the way to show disagreement or inform others of a different gameplay perspective is to engage in discussion and share those things, rather than simply hitting an up or down vote.

Vlada Cut1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-02T15:39:07.340+0000)

The purpose of Gameplay+ is to create an environment where the way to show disagreement or inform others of a different gameplay perspective is to engage in discussion and share those things, rather than simply hitting an up or down vote.

Oh. Okay. At least I brought my view towards this discussion and points then?

DerMangoJoghurt2 votes

I think you should highlight that, although the existence of bad champions can have positive effects, they are generally not desired in League. No champion is designed to be bad or purposefully left in a bad state when they could be improved easily. Even the article you linked states that the main reason for the existence of bad cards is that they simply can't be avoided.

Bansheenoir2 votes

Basically, some champions are pushed for skin sales.

ModUlanopo1 votes

approved

MasterDClone1 votes

Who is it exactly that wants every champions to be viable because for the game to be fun there needs to be champions that are better than others. I don't understand who you are trying to argue with because everything you wrote though well written is pretty much just common sense

ModThe Djinn3 votes

{quoted}Who is it exactly that wants every champions to be viable...

A quick read through the Gameplay boards will find at least a few. It's a fairly common complaint that some champions aren't viable in a specific meta-game or skill rank.

Cheese Chaos3 votes

My impression of Gameplay is that it's full of emotional people that don't want to understand the game.

The Bad Touch1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Cheese Chaos,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-11-02T05:25:21.142+0000)

My impression of Gameplay is that it's full of emotional people that don't want to understand the game.

Actually it's mostly full of pre-TenCent players that want their game back.

notMineskiexo1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Bad Touch,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-03T10:24:32.403+0000)

Actually it's mostly full of pre-TenCent players that want their game back.

So everyone in gameplay boards is from 2011? Nice

EchoZeero1 votes

I think that a champion's viability has more to do with the the level at which the player is able to fill its role. I love to play off-meta picks, not because I want to antagonize my team mates but because I know I can do better with an off meta pick than with a meta one. Sometimes, players having trouble reacting to an off-meta pick has its benefits. I used to play a lot of top AP Nunu and would do very well, and I do very good with support Zyra despite all of her plants bugs. Sure, champions should be balanced and the power level should be somewhat uniform, but a champion's strength usually resides in the hands of the player.

PandaNator431 votes

Well said, I agree with all your assertions, but I'm not sure how to apply them to LoL.

At any environment (pro vs solo vs flex/clash, high vs low elo), a champion can be too strong, and power needs to be shaved off. But if the champion is only over performing in one environment, it doesn't make sense to nerf them for all environments.

Taliyah and Ryze are my favorite champions, but I'm a lowly Silver player, where they're considered weak. I really appreciate Riots mindfulness when nerfing them. Nerfing the parts of their kits that are more powerful in pro play makes sense, as that is where they are overperforming.

So I know Riot talks a lot about nerfing/buffing champions for specific environments, but I don't think that necessarily means they want to force the same win rate for a champions across all environments. I'd say their pivot this year to stop working on Ryze, Kalista, and Azir shows their comfortable with some difference in win rates.

Do you think that's fair? I feel like I might be missing your point... I'm not sure you thinking about win rates or specific champions, but that's what came to mind for me.

TLF brubie1 votes

They've always been comfortable with that, just imagine what bronze and silver would be like if champions like garen master yi and tryndamere would be if they were made viable in the pro scene. I think with Ryze Kalista and Azir, Riot basically gave up because to balance one of those champions reasonably well, they could put the same time and effort balancing like 15 other champions (as we can see from ryze's 5ish? reworks now). I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing per-say, but maybe this will mean they will be able to do more to other champions?

Gilgayu1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-11-01T16:26:10.336+0000) Overcoming the odds to play Garen at Challenger is a huge success for the Garen player, and gives them a personal goal to strive for.

Garen in Challenger... (no offense but is this even possible?)

ModThe Djinn2 votes

{quoted}

Garen in Challenger... (no offense but is this even possible?)

Absolutely.

Linna Excel2 votes

Dong Huap did a video earlier this year about how the first guy to do it in EU got there.

XeroKimo1 votes

Despite what people say, right now I'm sure that as low as C tier champs in their respective role is viable to play, but it's catered around team comps. I'll be forward and say, I hate playing meta champs, I hate people who only play meta champs and think it's the only way to play the game. I love playing champs that are 2-3 tiers below best, figuring out how they can put success even when it's not in their favor, and most of the time I do find success, then find it puzzling that people just see them as useless. Hell some of the champions I play could suddenly be meta and suddenly their mentality of said champion suddenly is "nerf this champ rito pls", and I'll become more surprised because you people said they were useless like a few days ago.

Gilgayu1 votes

{quoted}

Despite what people say, right now I'm sure that as low as C tier champs in their respective role is viable to play, but it's catered around team comps. I'll be forward and say, I hate playing meta champs, I hate people who only play meta champs and think it's the only way to play the game. I love playing champs that are 2-3 tiers below best, figuring out how they can put success even when it's not in their favor, and most of the time I do find success, then find it puzzling that people just see them as useless. Hell some of the champions I play could suddenly be meta and suddenly their mentality of said champion suddenly is "nerf this champ rito pls", and I'll become more surprised because you people said they were useless like a few days ago.

Completely agree (even though playing meta champs to crush your opponents can be fun lol), A lot of champions, especially adcs, are below b tier because their kits don't fit the meta, but it certainly doesn't mean they are useless. For example, Kalista is one of the worst adc right now, but she can still be very strong if she has a support that goes well with her ult, like Alistar. Most people probably have been recked by an ivern main before because we have no idea how its kits work — we just know it's not the "meta" If a champion is in meta or not doesn't really affect its potential, or what is also called the "skill ceiling." This is also the reason why some "okay" champions in lower elo get trash-caned because the pros have gotten to the skill ceiling, and it is too high.

Tiers really doesn't matter that much unless it's god-tier or D. For people who enjoy playing non-metas, I just suggest you to one-trick them. Playing one-trick can be boring at times, but it really helps you learn the position, wave management, and use the right combo at the right time.

Just like how I though Garen had a very low skill ceiling (I mean he just q e and just follows you....), but apperantly its one-tricks can get to challenger too

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=8xAs6LEY,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2018-11-02T17:24:14.431+0000)

Absolutely.

Edit : the meta champions still have significant advantage toward lower tier champions, though

XeroKimo2 votes

That usually depends on the match ups (in lane and/or as a team comp) excluding champs in god tier, along with when, what time of the game, we're talking about here. Even the most god tier champs have at some point of the game, they're weak in, but usually the god tier champs are still as good as an A tier champ at their best time of the game, which is why they usually need nerfs. Meanwhile A-tier champs at their worst time of the game right now can be weaker than C-Tier champs at their best time of the game.

Sleep On Stream1 votes

BUFF BARD

Nik Nikerson1 votes

I think a lot of people forget that League is a game, and at it's core a game needs to be fun. Balance makes for fun game play, but only to a point. There is a break point at which balance actively works against fun. A flat power curve is hypothetically achievable, but it doesn't make for a good game. Rock-Paper-Scissors has a flat power curve, and I don't know that anyone could argue that it makes for an especially good time.

Also, props on the MaRo article. MtG nerds unite!

HaIlMonitor1 votes

I think they all can be, but riot will always favor favorite champs. Champs like Ahri, Lee, ect, ect can sit at higher winrates (be strong) regardless if they are op or not because people don't care. Riot is a business so I think the reality is they don't care about about all champs being good, they care about the game being popular so they make money.

With that being said though, You also have to look at the whole picture. ADC's for example have "blocks" of champs that all do the same thing. For example KogMaw Kaisa Varus Hybrid Damage

Jhin MissFortune Quinn Bursty ADC

Lucian Caitlyn Draven Lane Bullies

So what happens is the meta will favor a batch or a specific champion from a set because they are the strongest, get buffed, others get nerfed. So it will always be this way as long as there are over 100 champs where some have very similar kits/playstyles.

Kaisha1 votes

You know full well if you were to actually balance the game even remotely the playerbase would leave. Don't pretend its about 'diversity' of gameplay or any such nonsense, its about rotating the meta to make as much cash from the store.

Faneseeker1 votes

WTF is an Ivern anyway. how do you play him and how do you play with him. To me every time I get an Ivern on my team he is either bugging me to take buffs as though I owe him my life or he just walks around planting grass....

I won't miss him if he goes extinct.

Linna Excel1 votes

Bringing up that MTG article makes this topic a tough sell for me. The moment I learned about the track printing and WotC flooding packs with garbage rares "for draft" my bullshit alarm starts going off. Then the other day we learned that the next masters set is going to have $15 packs meaning you'll have to pay $45 at minimum for a single draft. Said $15 packs will be filled with junk rares and curling cards. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of things in that article that are fair and I like, but at the end of the day he's being the PR guy trying to distract people from the fact wizards is tricking them out of their money.

For MtG bad cards exist to sell more packs to whales. I mean I get what he's saying, but at the end of the day people crack packs for good cards so bad cards are a part of the skinner box of compulsive gambling.

So on to Cleveland.

Assertion 1: Power Levels are Relative to Current Gameplay

This I both agree with and am fine with in league terms, that being define around a meta. There either needs to be an evolving meta or or enough viable options to make games feel fresh over the long term. The problem lies when champions are never allowed to be good (pre-rework poppy) or when their meta tends to be rare and short (shyvana).

However for MTG, which was the focus of the article, the point is that wizards needs shit cards to fill packs with so people keep buying more and they are focused around draft, which pulls down the quality of cards in general. Mythic rares are a great example of this. They (the good ones) help define constructed but WotC keeps them rare in drafting (3 mythics per pod) and frankly half the mythics are crap. Oh look, I pulled a terrible mythic in the 3rd pack and it's not even a color I'm drafting around.

At the end of the day, champs need to maintain a minimum level of viability and those like Sejuani fail to meet that standard. At the very least every bad champ needs a niche that makes said champ pickable. A Sej main with all her skins right now is sitting on a pile of wasted money. People whose mains are in a terrible state right now or saw their main deworked out of existance aren't going to keep paying riot. That's just burning customers away. So there needs to be a relative floor that no one can fall through.

So the financial reasoning behind overpriced garbage fire curly cards doesn't hold up to LOL.

Assertion 2: Champions Can Succeed at Any Level

Riot is trying to get better at this, but there are still low elo terrors, champs that are unplayable at lower elos, and a too small cast of champs that are picked at the pro level. Ryze basically only succeeds at the pro level. So who cares if a champ is playable by one of the best players who are spending too much time on that champ if that champ can't really be played at the elo you the player are in?

However even if a champ can succeed at any level, you'd have to admit that the extra time and effort to get the bad ones there is hardly fair to the people playing them. As a player, first and foremost I've got to care about the level I'm playing in. Everything else is academic.

Assertion 3: Diversity Rewards Skilled and Knowledgeable Players

This doesn't feel like it belongs in the topic at hand because it is more about the player and less about the champion. Sure things have counters, but having a counter is neither bad nor is people who like banging their heads against a wall the central argument of this topic.

Assertion 4: Player Seek Different Things from League

You forgot to mention weebs in search of their "best girl" waifu.

Gilgayu1 votes

Tbh I think some champions are bad simply because league has so many of them (over 140), and it very hard to really "balance" the game. For example, every time you nerf a champion, you are basicly buffing the champions it counters slightly

Daddy Ants1 votes

When you mean "Why do some champions have to be bad?"

I presume you're referring to champions like Sejuani, Galio, Shen, Ryze, Azir and Kalista?

Sadly that's called Pro Play Syndrome.

TLF brubie1 votes

It's more than that. Many champions aren't allowed to be strong because of gameplay patterns and the opposite of Pro Play Syndrome - Bronze Play Syndrome. Some champions can't be viable at the competetive level because if they were they would be super crazy overpowered in solo queue. There was a time in I believe it was season 1 or 2 where tryndamere and master yi were played proffessionally and they (predictably) became a terror at lower elos. The same thing happened with old akali when she was good proffessionally. Just imagine if Garen was to be buffed enough to be played in lcs. (PS at one point, tryndamere had a dash with the same range as morgana binding and his ultimate lasted 8 seconds)

King I Rat1 votes

Achieving perfection is impossible, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. The game will never be perfectly balanced, most veteran/higher ranked players know this. For one character to have an edge against another is fine, it's when it becomes a "rock, papper, scissors" style of gameplay that you get problems.

A good example would be Graves through most of this previous season. He has been completely unstoppable for most of the season to the point where if I ever got matched against him cause I forgot to ban him or I made the mistake of thinking "Well, maybe they won't pick him this time and I can ban something else" I would just give up hopes of winning, cause there was no matchup I could pick that would be able to fight him. I could bring out 110% of my skill, I could predict every skillshot and stay at a distance and it would never matter, he would still beat me, just cause he was Graves and I was anyone else.

Riot needs to strive for perfect balance, even if they can never achieve it, cause otherwise, what's even the point of playing?

More from [ARCHIVED] Gameplay+

Ally Minion Block Should Be Removed
[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+77 comments
197
votes
The History of CC and Why I Believe it's a Problem
[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+99 comments
165
votes
After 500+ Games Played of Nexus Blitz With a ~60% Winrate, Here is My Feedback
[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+82 comments
114
votes
I've given it long enough: I don't understand the hate for Akali
[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+365 comments
112
votes
I'm actually HEAVILY disappointed in Riot when it comes to Enchanters as an entire concept
[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+203 comments
99
votes
Yasuo's Wind-wall is balanced, but its execution is what breaks him.
[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+81 comments
62
votes

More by The Djinn

@Riot: In-Depth Feedback on Teamfight Tactics
Teamfight Tactics95 comments
114
votes
Veigar's Particles: Please Sell the Ult More
Gameplay57 comments
110
votes
Improving Report Feedback
Player Behavior74 comments
100
votes
Qiyana: Awesome visuals, but one big missed opportunity.
Story, Art, & Sound146 comments
95
votes
Fixing Critical Strike: A Proposal.
Gameplay148 comments
85
votes
Shotgun Knees for Fun & Profit [Urgot Suggestion]
Gameplay140 comments
77
votes