Never Go Full Meta - On the state of the LoL metagame and its effects

Pyro·Jul 13, 2014·25 votes·5,518 views

WARNING: WALL OF TEXT. If you seek to upvote memes, this isn't the post you're looking for. There's a TL;DR at the bottom.

##Full Meta Strategist

Metagame means "the game outside the game" and refers to unwritten set of rules that the written rules lead to. Most often it means predicting your opponent's strategy basing on your knowledge about them or popular trends, and adjusting your own strategy in anticipation of predicted moves. A good example would be using specific counter cards in collectible card games (MTG, Hearthstone). You do not want to use a card that counters a certain deck if that deck is not popular or if your deck already has a good solution against it. The phenomenon of playing around the predicted strategies in game is called metagame, the game about the game.

For the purpose of this essay we'll put aside all gimmicks that worked this one single game and "broke the meta" and stick to strategies that can win games in a consistent pattern. So no Leona - Jarvan IV kill lanes, for now. We will take both blind and draft pick into consideration, though.

This essay's topic is only assessing and explaining the situaton, and possibly voicing some concerns and drawing comparisons to DotA 2 in order to shed some light on some people's complaints.

##Death From Afar

Every MOBA game revolves around carries. Carries have insane, consistant damage (DPS) and use it to murder the enemy team and destroy their base. Problem is, in LoL it seems like only the ranged carries are viable. Yeah, you can pick a champion like Tryndamere, Fiora or Master Yi, but they sure as hell won't make up for a loss of a ranged carry.

What ranged carries do in LoL that melee ones can't?

Siege towers
(some) Poke enemy champions (like Ezreal or Corki)
Provide consistent DPS in teamfights
Farm safely in 2v2 lanes

These are the things that melee carries simply cannot do. In 5v5, they get stunlocked and blown up way too easily. This leaves two things for the likes of Yi: splitpushing and/or cleaning up teamfights. Sure, a fed Jax is scary, but even he cannot replace the ranged carries in 100% of their role.

This is purely a "fight fire with fire" situation, especially in blind pick - you have to picka ranged carry to optimize your strategy. You can win without a ranged carry, but you have much better chances with one. This, paired with the unmatched harass/farm capabilities in 2v2 and 2v1 lanes, makes ADCs the main pillar of the metagame.

##Five Commandments of Meta

There needs to be a ranged carry. Every team needs one marksman.

Marksmen get all the gold they can get. If there's a minion to kill, marksman kills it if he can, unless it's a blue buff.
You can put a marksman in a long lane, as long as they get help.

Every marksman is babysat by a support.

You can cheese a non-standard support pick, but the role is the same: be in lane with carry, never get creeps.
Supports can get gold from gold generation items and spend it on team utility items or wards. Supports are the main source of vision control.
The duo lane goes bot to increase your power in Dragon fights.

Every team needs a jungler in order to:

use the jungle goldstream, leaving the lane resources
gank lanes, applying pressure
secure dragons/barons with Smite
A jungler starts at a big buff at 1:55. Jungling is a dedicated role. There is no possibility of laning first and jungling later.

You put two champions in solo lanes.

Short middle lane is typically for an utility mage like Orianna who can control teamfights and output significant spell damage, or an AP/AD assassin like Twisted Fate or Zed who can roam to side lanes and pick up kills.
Midlane means safe and easy experience from solo lane, which is very important for ability-oriented champions.
Midlaner gets access to blue buff whatever side you play on. Sending your dedicated blue recipent to top lane is an unreliable strategy since it works only on blue side.
Long lane is typically for a fighter who can withstand long trades, since going back under the tower isn't as easy as in mid lane.
Toplaners can use Teleport to remain in a difficult lane, splitpush and/or join teamfights.

Types of all the three solo lanes (top, mid, jungle) are dependant on the state of the meta, and picks very from game to game.

Stacking a single damage type against a team that can easily itemize for a certain resistance can cause trouble. See: Thornmail, Banshee's Veil.
Laning phase is still important; you pick champions that are strong in their lane matchups.
If the items, runes or masteries favour a particular subclass, it will affect viable champion picks in all lanes (tank toplane meta, assassin midlane meta, etc.).
Generally, jungler is meant to initiate fights (ganks, teamfights). There was an attempt to make carry junglers viable. It didn't go well.

You can argue that you can pick almost anything (with 25% of picks being useless in competitive play), but this set of unwritten rules severely limits what and where you can play even in a low-level ranked game. 1-1-2 meta is failproof and set in stone.

##The Devil You Know

Why try so hard to change the meta, though? Are we unhappy? Stable meta can mean ease of access to new players, but it sleo means you have to learn the meta in order to play properly. In a more open game, whatever you pick, you can succeed. In an "everyone plays this meta" game you need to lea rn how to play jungle/support/solo lane wight away, or else you will put your team at an disadvantage.

Eventually it comes down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". As long as it works, there is no apparent reason to change anything... or is there?

##Game of Efficiency

There's a reason Starcraft became overrun by Koreans, and it's s set of factors.

Internet quality in Korea was way higher than anywhere else at the time of Brood War
The game grew insanely popular. Bigger playerbase and more playtime equals better and bigger pinnacle of pro gamers
The game became static, allowing to define all optimal strategies

The last point is the most important. When all strategies and asnswers are known, the only skill becomes manually performing the sequence of commands with hundreds of thousands of keystrokes and mouse clicks. And if there's someone who can spend years perfecting this technique, it's Koreans.

Is LoL endangered by one-nation domination as well? The game is already in a state where South Korea has a hermetic league of a dozen teams who can sweep the floor with foreigners at any international event and no NA team has ever won a single match in the bracket stage of season 2 or season 3 World Championship. Is this inevitable, or does the game design favour Koreans again?

The short answer is: yes. Simple and stale metagame means there is a limited number of possible strategies and team compositions. Everything eventually comes down to mechanical efficiency and some tactical maneuvers, narrowing down possibilities to "what do I pick for this role".

How different could it be, then?

##The Older Brother

Dota 2 is a carbon copy (with new visuals) of Defense of the Ancients, the game that LoL was based on. It's worth noting that DotA wasn't even exactly a game - it was a map for Warcraft III, with all the benefits and drawbacks of the system it operated in. This is where all the core concepts of MOBAs originated: towers, basic attacks, abilities, ultimates and six item slots.

Before we get to "how", let's bring up some single facts: in the last two world championship tournaments, LoL has been overrun by Asian, especially Korean teams, while Dota 2's The International lived up to its name and had a much bigger diversity without dominance of any particular region. How is it possible? I see two most probable answers:

a) The Koreans haven't picked up Dota 2 yet. Once they do, they'll stomp that game as well. b) Dota 2 has more strategy elements that outmatch the mechanical proficiency.

I know it's simplifying things, but I believe it's the latter option. Dota2 allows for much, much more flexible setups, with melee carries, multiple ways of approaching the jungle (leashing to lane, moving to jungle later, etc.), viable roaming strats, etc.

A short summary of what can happen in Dota:

Jungle is optional
Trilanes (3-man kill lanes designated to make the enemy carry miserable)
Dedicated roaming heroes
Double support
Viable 2-1-2

##Why, Nunu, Why

Why does it happen, though? Why does Dota get all those different strategies while LoL has only one? Again, it's a huge sum of factors. Let's bring up some important ones.

Different means of acquiring gold

You can deny your own creeps. This allows melee heroes to stay even with ranged ones (it's easier to deny against a ranged hero)
You lose part of unspent gold on death. This promotes cashing in small amounts of gold over saving up big money
It's possible to leash and stack jungle camps (you lure the group out of its camp right as the timer checks and spawns the new group since the camp is empty - then you fight two camps at once)

Reversed gold efficiency on items

In LoL, the more the item costs, the better its gold efficiency is. In DotA, it's quite the other way around.
Early items provide a lots of stats for a low price. Think Doran's items on crack
Finishing a big item can take a huge amount of gold
You can remain relevant with cheap but efficient items

Attributes: Strength, Agility, Intelligence

Aside from the usual damage, attack speed, health, mana and regeneration statistics, heroes have those three attributes that enhance two statistics at once (health+regen, speed+armor, mana+mana regen)
Primary Attribute of a hero gives him Attack Damage bonus. STR hero will gain AD from STR, AGI hero wil gain AD from AGI and INT hero will gain AD from INT
This solves the fighter problem that LoL has - heroes scale from items differently if the're supposed to be tanks and they scale differently if they're supposed to be carries

No ability power scaling

In Dota, supports don't need gold generation items, because they're designed to be useful without gold
Mages are designed to fall off lategame, they often use support items with CC to remain relevant

Asymmetrical map

Side lanes are uneven, there's a short "safe lane" and a long "hard lane". One team's safe lane is another team's hard lane.
This, paired with denying, stronger CC etc. allows for different approaches to laning phase

Higher power level - abilites and items are more powerful in their effect

There's a carry item that gives you spell immunity for a short duration (think Olaf ultimate paired with Kayle's), and so on
All abilities are much more powerful in terms of crowd control. What is a basic ability in DotA would often be an ultimate in LoL.
Long durations of CC and powerful carry items allow melee carries to do their job
Turn rates disallow ranged carries to hit-and-run with no consequence

Hero diversity

The similarity between hero skillsets is very low. In comparison, LoL champions are quite generic
Best example of Lol champions who could pass as DotA heroes are {{ci|Thresh}} and {{ci|Braum}}.
Dota 2's metagame is about combining different heroes (best parallel from LoL would be compositions centered around {{ci|Yasuo}} or {{ci|Orianna}})
Hero power curves are way stronger - at the beginning, "early heroes" wipe the floor with "late heroes", and likewise the other way around, to a much greater extent than in LoL

##Why Can't We Have Nice Things

Up to this point, you might have come under the impression that I claim that Dota 2 is a better game than LoL. That is not correct. I merely described why it's a game with much more depth than LoL - it's not necessarily a good thing. Unreal Tournement was more complex than Counter-Strike, and we all know which game came out on the top.

##For-Fun Design

There's a reason for LoL's popularity and it's not just the role of the first commercial title on the market. Riot Games has stated many times that their primary concern is the fun factor for the millions of casual players. That's why CC is shorter, that's why the mana pools are biogger and there are no obscure mechanics like mana burn, that's why you don't lose gold on death, that's why you can't forcefuly move your teammates around. In Dota, it's possible to stun an enemy indefinitely. Think of a time you got stunlocked in LoL. Now imagine standing helpless for 7 seconds, unable to do anything. Congrats! You've just witnessed one single ability, Enigma's Black Hole. It's an ultimate, but it tells you about the type of things yo u have to deal with in this game.

That is also why Riot is content with a set-in-stone metagame. Stable metagame means the game is easy to pick up and noob-friendly, and also important, that there's not that much discrepancy between a mateur and professional play. You can even build the same items as the pro players and be very successful. Even though TI4 assembled a $10 000 000 prize pool, LoL still remains the better spectator e-sport - for now.

##Death of Innovation

So, the game is easy to learn, readable, enjoyable while spectating. What could go wrong?

The death of any MOBA game would be stasis. When the game reaches a state where every strategy has been thought through, only efficiency counts. That is something that I'm afraid already happened. Riot keeps the game alive by frequent patches, item changes and new content, but I'm afraid this isn't enough. Dota 2 doesn't need major changes to remain fluid and fresh - every game is different. It's apparent in the pick&ban statistics - in LoL the lane matchups limit the champion pool, making only 33% of champions eligible for picking in more than 10% games. In DotA, about 50% of heroes were picked in more than 10% of games.

Does this mean the game is about to die? Hell no. Not yet. It's quite certain, though, that the Korean domination in the current environment will continue to grow.

##What Should Be Done Then?

In my opinion, the meta needs to break.

As of now, the only viable carries are ranged. The only reasonable setup is 1-1-2 with jungle. This needs to change. Other options need to emerge and not take over, but oompete with the current setup. I believe this would be the best way to prolong the game's longevity past its currently forseeable lifespan.

Otherwise, I believe the game will lose it's freshness and eventually begin to decline. Not in a year. Not even in five. But in a decade, DotA will be growing strong celebrating twenty years from creation, while LoL might begin its inevitable end once the next genre takes over the casual playerbase. This does not need to happen.

##TL;DR - Summary

LoL has a stable metagame that allows every player to follow and understand the pro scene.

It takes a while to learn how to perform in every one of those roles, as they have a strict set of unwritten rules, but once you get a grasp of it, you play every game in more or less the same way.

The possible drawback is that in a stable enrivonment the game becomes less about strategy and innovation and more about tactics and mechanical execution. This is why Starcraft and LoL are overrun by Koreans while Dota 2 has a fairly diverse set of finalists.

##Addendum

Feel free to leave any positive or negative feedback. Both are appreciated.

If you want to use this article, feel free to do it, I'd just appreciate if you gave me credit.

38 Comments

NeofederalistJul 13, 201412 votes

Nice detailed analysis.

However, I don't think you're giving enough credit to how much variation there currently is within the meta and how much it's changed even just this last year. Remember back near the end of season 3 where purple side always lane swapped into 2v1 lanes? Or the variation afterwards which had 4v0 hard push where both sides rushed down a tower or two in a lane and accelerated the midgame? And then that became 1v0 slow push with 2 people in the jungle with a roaming support.

It sounds to me like you're defining the "meta" as "team composition" when there's really much more to it. And even if we're just talking about standard lane setup, team compositions often handle extremely differently. Just looking at the NA LCS summer split, we saw C9 run basically 4 support champions with Kog'maw, and Complexity run Yasuo + 4 champions with displacement. They both won their games. Sure the COL game had Tristana doing a lot of the damage, but Yasuo was the centerpiece of the comp, not her.

There are other questions as well. Do you run a utility top laner like Lulu/Kayle or do you run a tank like Shyvanna? If your mid laner is Twisted Fate, you can bet that your team is going to try to play differently than if you have Orianna, which plays differently than if you have Fizz, which plays differently than if you have Yasuo, etc.

None of these things are strictly better than one another. A Yasuo knockup composition doesn't auto win against a TF global pressure pick comp (ignore the fact that TF vs Yasuo is a horrible individual lane matchup for TF, for a minute). Neither of these strategies is strictly optimal. As long as there is enough variation within the meta such that different team compositions can win by focusing on different win conditions, having a "standard meta" doesn't mean the death of the game.

PyroJul 13, 20142 votes

Remember back near the end of season 3 where purple side always lane swapped into 2v1 lanes? Or the variation afterwards which had 4v0 hard push where both sides rushed down a tower or two in a lane and accelerated the midgame?

I do remeber it all too well. The problem, IMO, is that whatever laning strategy emerged, became a must. There was no alternative to Symetrical Fast Push, no counter-strategy but doing the same.

Still, the game eventually went to midgame, and the team compositions and purposes remained the same. All it changed was empowering or shuitting down particular bot/top picks.

It sounds to me like you're defining the "meta" as "team composition" when there's really much more to it.

Meta is about a) Picks b) Lane placement. In blind picks, this is what happens in champion select.

we saw C9 run basically 4 support champions with Kog'maw

I'm not claiming LoL doesn't have any synergy compositions, I've even named "Protect The Kog'Maw", Yasuo comps and Ball Delivery System. I've just made a point that those are extremely rare in LoL, while DotA's core concept is combining different heroes basing on their interactions (the most stupidly broken pairing being the infamous Sven+Pudge combo from last year's The International).

There are other questions as well. Do you run a utility top laner like Lulu/Kayle or do you run a tank like Shyvanna?

I've said already that the three solo lanes allow for some freedom of choice (even though at moments some are dominated by very few S tier picks) . What keeps the creativity down, however, is the foundation stone of LoL metagame, which is Ranged Carry Duo Lane.

We do have variety: there are pick comps, poke comps, full engage comps, push comps - but I don't believe it's as broad range of options as it could be.

RiotPWYFFJul 14, 20145 votes

Interesting post! You raise some good points, although I think as many people have echoed here, there's a strong focus on lane composition as being meta-defining, where we do see a lot of strategic variety (and we promote as such) within those kind of selections.

There's discussion of regional dominance as a defining factor of staleness, but I'm a little unsure of that. Yes, DotA hasn't picked up much in Korea (although MVP made a pretty good push against Liquid!), but Starcraft for all its eastern dominance is still a beloved esport game and held up as one of the defining grandfathers of the scene. To my original point though, I think regional dominance will always go to those who put in the time to create a sustainable ecosystem for growth, of which Korea has always had in spades. Using regional dominance as an indication of a 'solved' game is a bit of a stretch in that regard.

Going to your original point, however, I'd agree the League of Legends 'sandbox' isn't the largest of them all, but it's difficult to attribute a negative or positive trait to that. Games are certainly about player expression and emergent gameplay, but at what point does it get unrecognizable? Or it becomes a completely different game at the highest level versus the mid level? If we want players to win games through counterplay, skill and decision-making (as opposed to champion selection), how do we reward that? Most sports have well-defined positions, but a good coach recognizes the flux in each role. A scrappy, sharp shooting center might want a speedy wingman for puck delivery, or maybe he wants tanky brawlers who can clutter up the front of the net. In Counterstrike most guns do different things but the better player often pulls through.

I'm not saying one is better or that the world is black and white as to what you give away to get something else, but these are certainly considerations.

As for your concern with League being a solved game, I'd disagree insofar as we're dedicated to evolving it with every change. A new champion should change the landscape such that players are now thinking of new kinds of team comps to work around them. Our system changes are directed at ensuring there's parity and strategic tradeoffs to be had in a choice your team makes. We don't always hit the nail with this (see trinkets in our attempt to make lane swapping not so absolutely dominant as a strategy), but it's something we're committed to pursuing.

Regardless, if you do think League is really 'solved' from a competitive or regular perspective then let us know. This is a concept that is always top-of-the-head for us, but your insight is certainly valuable.

PyroJul 15, 20142 votes

Thanks for coming by! Didn't expect a Rioter here :)

There's discussion of regional dominance as a defining factor of staleness, but I'm a little unsure of that.

Hockey is dominated by the North (because of infrastructure). People in central and southern Europe aren't really interested in watching hockey.

Would the football World Cup still be interesting if Brazilians won every title in the last 20 years? I wouldn't call regional dominance a "defining factor" either, but it's definitely a deterrent for spectators.

Using regional dominance as an indication of a 'solved' game is a bit of a stretch in that regard.

Oh yeah, it is. At first this essay was simply meant to touch the question "Why LoL can't have melee carries and flexible compositions", but I guess I went too far with it. :P

If we want players to win games through counterplay, skill and decision-making (as opposed to champion selection), how do we reward that?

That is a direction I don't understand. Why can't champion selection matter? If there's a Jax in the enemy team, it pressures you to win early. If the enemy stacks AP champions, everyone should eventually get a Banshee's Veil, and Galio can suddenly become a good situational pick. Champion selection in draft mode is part of the game. It definitely is decision making.

A new champion should change the landscape such that players are now thinking of new kinds of team comps to work around them.

Yasuo, as troubling and annoying his kit is, was a great addition in terms of opening up new possibilities - but champs like him, Thresh and Braum simply outclass the older designs. CertainlyT's champions in general tend to have those little additional passive ability scalings that go unnoticed, but overload their kits (Thresh's AA harass, Darius's free armor penetration, Yasuo's double crit chance, Zyra's free CDR), making them ridiculously difficult to balance on release.

New interactions are cool - but they kinda show us how lacking the old interactions are.

Our system changes are directed at ensuring there's parity and strategic tradeoffs to be had in a choice your team makes. We don't always hit the nail with this (see trinkets in our attempt to make lane swapping not so absolutely dominant as a strategy), but it's something we're committed to pursuing.

I'm not questioning your good intentions, I'm merely wondering about your allocation of resources :) You gave us a great tool to "break the meta" in the form of Team Builder, but no means to do so.

Laneswaps - I think we're currently at the point where both strategies are possible, and I love it.

Regardless, if you do think League is really 'solved' from a competitive or regular perspective then let us know.

It's not solved. It's just a little bit restricted. Like i said, it has some positive (easy to spectate, easy to build a functioning team) and some negative effects (ranged carry is a must, limited flexibility in team compositions, competitive champion pool changes only with patches).

It's not like the game does not evolve - it's that the evolution is mostly stimulated by champion releases and patches. Look at Hearthstone - it evolves by itself without Blizzard tuning. Popular decks respond to each other. Meanwhile LoL, as long as it's confined to 1-1-2 meta, will not change top picks and strats by itself. If the trend is early junglers (Lee, Elise, Eve), you have no choice but to pick early jungler yourself.

Thanks again for your reply, it means a lot to me. Game design is my hobby - I'm a programmer, just beginnig my career as an intern (Unreal 4), but in university team projects I often make the gameplay design decisions. I love analyzing game systems. Actually in my blog posts at LoL wiki I called the need to rework Aegis, introduce Forbidden Idol and Aether Wisp, and lately the Quill Coat weeks before it happened - of course, at that moment you guys were already testing those solutions internally (besides, aside from Quill Coat they were quite simple, and I was wrong with the direction of the Aegis rework).

AbiwonKenabiJul 21, 20141 votes

That is a direction I don't understand. Why can't champion selection matter? If there's a Jax in the enemy team, it pressures you to win early. If the enemy stacks AP champions, everyone should eventually get a Banshee's Veil, and Galio can suddenly become a good situational pick. Champion selection in draft mode is part of the game. It definitely is decision making.

To comment on this: its not that Riot doesn't want Champion selection to not matter--it certainly still matters. They just would prefer if in-game decisions matter more. If a Tyrndamere gets counter-picked by a Teemo, it will always be tough. However, if he's skilled enough and makes good choices, he should be able to still come out strong. That's what Riot's general philosophy is, as I see it. They don't want to screw you over completely in Champ select.

Lord Graves IIIJul 15, 20142 votes

Regardless, if you do think League is really 'solved' from a competitive or regular perspective then let us know. This is a concept that is always top-of-the-head for us, but your insight is certainly valuable.

It often feels like it does. Its not that unconventional things cant work. Its more that they feel subpar, or are considered such by the community at large.

Until the pros do something it is considered subpar. This perception of being solved is frankly more important than actually being solved. But to be fair, I don't keep up with the pro scene. I just play league sometimes.

It feels like the game is optimized around the conventional meta, and as such an attempt to do something different is met with derision by the community.

I've liked Morgana support since before it was popular, but it was arbitrarily bad for a long time. Yeah the spellthief line really buffed it, but it is good for the same reason I've always felt it was. This perceived immutability is the issue.

Earl EulrichJul 13, 20144 votes

I think you really underestimate the complexity of the "meta" in LoL...1-1-2+1 isn´t set in stone, and it is not at all the one defining meta , as laningphase is just a small part of most games (and heavily influenced by picks&bans aswell).

Currently the following "metas" for laning exist in professional play:

standard: 1-1-2+1
laneswap: either 4-1 or 2-1+2 or 2-1-1+1, depending on picks&strategy
roaming support (KTA is brilliant here, some chinese teams aswell) 1-1-1+2

that´s only for laning though, for the game in general there are some archetype-strategies of compositions:

poke/siege-comp
kite/disengage-comp
splitpush
splitfight/pick-comp
jack of all trades/win lane-win game
wombo-combo/teamfight
dive-comp
(early) push-comp

all have their own strenghts and weaknesses and very different playstyles/powerspikes...and all are perfectly viable depending on the pick&ban-phase (e.g. picking a poke-comp vs a heavy engage/dive-comp is slightly suicidal, while the divecomp might have great difficulties with early-push/kite comps and so on...picks&bans really have a far greater impact on the games as the (fairly flexible) laning-meta).

Koreans don´t dominate the game due to better mechanical executions, but because they have better strategies/a better understanding of their "winconditions" - meaning, they know what must happen in the game for them to come out ahead and what they can do to force this things to happen...other regions just mostly seem to lack this depth in understanding the game and have huge troubles closing out games if they don´t snowball...usually relaying on opponent mistakes more than on their own plays. The mechanically best region in professional LoL currently is China, but you really see their lack in proper gameknowledge/strategy (just to quote Froskurinn: "LPL - that means Challenger-mechanics combined with Bronze 5 brains).

Edit: So I think the best Way to "break the Meta", respectively to broaden variety would be to alternate the pick&ban-phase a tad...which I think truly is the greatest strenght of Dota2 currently. If we had more bans teams would need to prepare a broader variety of strategies in order to have enough options depending on the pick&ban-phase.

XrispiesJul 14, 20141 votes

I completely agree with the suggestion to switch up the pick/ban phase and enable a greater number of bans. You could even think about interspersing picks and bans so that you could force opponents to rethink their team composition/strategy in the middle of picks (e.g. bans x 3, picks x 2, bans x 2, picks x 3). I haven't thought through all of the implications, but I'd love to at least see something like that tested out on the PBE.

WorgslargJul 13, 20143 votes

I wish to congratulate you on a great post. While I do not agree with several points, you made them clearly and then backed them up with evidence.

I feel that the meta of what class of laner( marksman/ mage, etc) goes where is a good idea, as it allows for structured games that players feel comfortable playing without a full 5v5 group.

I feel that many more champions are viable than what is seen in the lcs, and that the game being balanced remotely around the lcs is a bad thing.

The reason a melee carry is unviable as an marksman replacement is survivability. With good positioning in a fight, a marksman can almost stand still and attack, with a high chance for survival. In turn, a melee needs to dive into the enemy team, if they can group, means suicide for the melee, and the inability to pick off even one target. For a melee carry to build enough tanky items to be able to leap into a teamfight, they sacrifice the damage necessary to compete with a marksman.

This is where assassins are strong, diving a carry with the burst damage to kill the marksman before the enemy team can save them. After the carry is dead, the assassin is often dead aswell.

Mainly, ranged carries outclass melees because in teamfights the melees cannot compete with the ability to deal safe( ish) damage to the enemy team.

I believe that league cannot survive without a meta, as the game will descend into chaos and nobody will be able to enjoy a game as only 5 man teams will be able to agree on a strategy.

PyroJul 13, 20141 votes

You have a point; I've mentioned that a stable meta provides a sense of security and familiarity.

I feel that many more champions are viable than what is seen in the lcs, and that the game being balanced remotely around the lcs is a bad thing.

I don't even mean competitive picks in general - Brand, Garen and Quinn are unfit for competitive play, for example - but rather the lack of niche picks that work in certain strategies. Something like the old "Protect the Kog'Maw", new "Ball Delivery System" or the one-trick ponies like the 5 man toplane push with Heimerdinger. Commonday League lacks such interactions on a greater scale, it's all about efficiency in the latest patch. In one split of LCS, you'll see that 15% of champions are picked or banned in 50% of games (or more).

It's not about what champions are fit for LCS and what aren't, it's about how much diversity and freedom do you have if you want to maximize your chances of winning.

The reason a melee carry is unviable as an marksman replacement is survivability.

It's the vulnerability to both burst and CC. In Dota, lategame gold allows carries to build items strong enough to counter CC (Black King Bar) and achieve enough health to survive initial burst (since mages don't have AP to scale with).

I believe that league cannot survive without a meta, as the game will descend into chaos and nobody will be able to enjoy a game as only 5 man teams will be able to agree on a strategy.

There is always a metagame. My point was asking if it should change, not disappear. It's not like DotA has no clear stretegy - there's just more than one that's viable.

PolaritieJul 13, 20143 votes

I think you're discounting the variety of strategies that exists within LoL.

Bottom lane varies heavily between "farm for late game" and "slaughter quickly", depending on champion choices.

Different junglers play differently - routes, invasions, when they gank, etc.

As for larger strategy... split push generally calls for specific compositions. Protect the carry calls for others. There's poke comps built to just siege out the enemy team, whittling them down until they can't fight back. You have the ever fun wombo-combo strategy of forcing a teamfight and then cleaning it up with multiple AoE ultimates to obliterate the other team...

All of these work with very different champions and play styles. I'm pretty sure this season has seen all of them succeed as well.

The actual 1-1-2-J split of champions will probably not change, because there are four major income streams, and you need to put at least one person on each. The support role is often handled by champions who do not need as much damage scaling (or scale terribly like Leona lol), or who can make great use of gold items to keep up, etc. The s4 gold items have helped supports stay closer in income though, as have assist chains and such.

JJMCJul 13, 20142 votes

Problem is meta in Dota 2, makes it so that the compositions and lanes are different. However, metas in League usually revolve around the ingame tactics in terms of protect the carries, splitpush, engage, poke, roam, turtle, and things like that.

ECHOxLegendJul 13, 20142 votes

My 2 cents in staleness, i played dota2 every day for 6 months and loved it, but as you say you can have many option, most of them end with the same result in that you are still fighting, bursting, supporting so all the fun came in combination with your skills, a moba gets all ts life from its characters after all. And one thing that happened once, since you can use all heros for free, which meant for me that I ended up playing all of them way too much, i even used the randomizer but even then it turned into "oh this guy again? Sigh, fine" and the items didnt do anything to help that because yeah, you have lots options , but usually their was a common best option formyour hero. Long story short, it just got boring whereas lol was fresh, but stayed so as new champs were always available because i had the earn them, it was artificial but its still working. Yeah dota is better for meta options as such but as far as im concrnecd, dota is overall more stale simply because of all things that there is to do, ive done them over and over, i coulgdgo back now and feel refreshed but the eventual result would be the same

PyroJul 13, 20143 votes

a moba gets all ts life from its characters after all.

This is something many developers fail to understand. LoL is great in that regard, as even though the champions lost a lot of their personality with the decline of Champion Judgements, the new means of dlivering character design (videos, songs) seem to work really well.

Dota 2 has TONS of voiceover lines and hero/item/gameplay interactions, but characters themselves are a little bit behind LoL. After all, they're carbon copies of Warcarft 3 units - cloneable parts of an army, not always personalities with complex backstory.

However, some people actually prefer the DotA approach, complaining about how every LoL character is an overdrawn superhero. To each other's preference..

ThaddeusMikeJul 15, 20142 votes

Great post. It was thorough and clear. However, in your analysis of Korean dominance you don't really go into things like existing infrastructure and resources available to teams. These are both areas where western teams have made huge growth over the past few years. The west hasn't caught up to Korea yet, and maybe it never will, but what I see missing from your analysis is an explanation for why if the west can catch up in those areas, it would still lag behind Korea.

TheJuzzoJul 13, 20141 votes

One Idea Ive been thinking about here and there, that would address most of this, yet pertains specifically to one section of your post, is one to do with itemization.

I think that tagging champs as to their roll, and having items work differently for different rolls would make itemization less stale, open new avenues for balance, and create options for differing builds on champs (as opposed to one or two correct build paths).

They sort of do this with ranged/melee champs and a few items, but I feel they should go farther.

Break it into assassins, ranged, fighter, jungle, mage, tank...etc etc..The more tags to define champs the better.

Items stats could be different for champs with different tags, this would make it so much easier to say..buff a class through itemization (or nerf it) without causing another class to explode (into OP or UP land)....Or create an item that doesnt get abused by those it was not meant for, on a smaller scale than trying to work with ALL melee or ALL ranged.

PyroJul 13, 20144 votes

Riot was considering class-specific items, but the core concept of champion design in LoL was no hard labels and limitless customization (runes, masteries, items).

I do agree though that items are the problem. It's more than just that, though.

KorazulJul 13, 20141 votes

The only disagreement I have with this is the reason for the death of League.

I think that the main reason why games die is the lack of new players. The negative effect that the Meta has on League is the fact that new players have to follow it.

In the beginning 1-29 levels 2-1-2 is fine cause of the lack of depth of Champions and Runes that players have. It is when a player is going into Ranked that Meta becomes a problem.

Your Dota comparison may have something to say besides differences between the two games. It hints how the two games deal with the meta and their interaction with new players.

In Dota the meta doesn't matter in the beginning because the basics are so much more important to learn and apply than strategy all the way until the mastery of all of the heroes and the basics.

The importance of Meta isn't how to win it is how to interact with players. Yes Meta means what you pick and why you pick it. But Meta does not mean the game itself. When you teach or introduce new players to the game, your success is defined by the how the game is presented not by what is picked or why.

Yes having a static and unchanging game is dangerous. But more dangerous is having players have to play that uninspiring Meta from the beginning.

The Meta will change for League one day and if not, there is always League of Legends 2 but that will only happen when the new players can't replace the exiting players.

PyroJul 13, 20141 votes

Gotta agree. I'd argue that indirectly influx of new players can be stopped by:

a) pro scene being overrun by Koreans to the point of boredom (hermetic regional leagues seem to work so far, but sooner or later every NA team will import Koreans )

b) Stale metagame spreading down to lower and lower levels of play. If you get flamed at level 10 for taking ADC's CS, then something is wrong.

I think Riot is on the right track with the new tutorials they announced.

KorazulJul 15, 20141 votes

Gotta agree. I'd argue that indirectly influx of new players can be stopped by:

a) pro scene being overrun by Koreans to the point of boredom (hermetic regional leagues seem to work so far, but sooner or later every NA team will import Koreans )

The Korean problem is caused by the fact that mechanical skill is so dominant in the Korean League. Not only do they have the infrastructure to take advantage of mechanical skill (with Korean Solo queue and the relentless hours they spend playing the game at a high level.) but as the complexity creep continues to grow with the rise of high skill ceiling champions like Yasuo, Thresh , and even old Lee Sin the Korean league will continue to dominate.

This problem is not something that you can easily solve, you can't make NA into a Korean mirror.

The bar of true professional league right now is a Korean level of mechanical skill.

b) Stale metagame spreading down to lower and lower levels of play. If you get flamed at level 10 for taking ADC's CS, then something is wrong.

I think Riot is on the right track with the new tutorials they announced.

Yes the metagame is creeping into the lower levels, which is caused by the community responding to the concrete meta at the 30 level/Ranked.

Having even Bronze players have to play 1-1-2 and jungle with smite and tele on the appropriate champs is what is causing this meta staleness to creep at the lower levels.

The problem lies that the community doesn't take the good things down with them to Bronze and smurfs at lower levels. The excitement at playing well with loved champions doesn't transition down towards the new players.

And this is the problem with going full meta you make the game as un-enjoyable to the new player as it is to the Veteran player.

CatmanJones89Jul 13, 20141 votes

I enjoyed reading your analysis of the Meta and I agree with a majority of what you said. Currently there is really a small amount of variety in champion selection, simply because everyone is more adept to which champs are "better" than others.

An Udyr/Lee jungle against Khazix is almost hell.
Lucian dominates bot lane(exception to heavy Vayne/Kog'Maw play) as well as Thresh and the addition of Braum's onslaught,
top can differ from a tanky Shyvana or a Jax.
Now I will say i enjoy the diversity of mid lane, no one champ really "dominates" because a Ziggs/Orianna can ruin your day, but not be game defining(yes every champ can have game defining moments but this is generalized)

So, yes the current "Meta of Champ Select" is stale and, although it does change slightly from patch to patch, ultimately will not be enough to sustain the game. An idea to force variety in Ranked would be to add one or two more bans for each team, to a total of 8 or 10. Because honestly without doing serious reworks on champs, the only way to change who gets picked, and to create new strategies, is to force the larger group of "unpopular" champs into the spotlight be creating a higher chance that the "OP", or the champs with the highest pick rate, get banned.

And that's only talking about Ranked matches, I would have to say that the diversity of Blind Pick is quite fun. Sure, you'll get a Lucian, or a Lee Sin, or a Yasuo in a high percentage of matches as well, but it opens the door for the Urgots, Volibears, Sorakas, Kennens and Tarics to be played. You almost can't compare Ranked draft pick to Blind pick, because they are on different tiers if you will. You play random 5v5/3v3 blind picks first, then eventually after 30 when you feel confident you can now play ranked, so you have a higher understanding of the game and it's strategies as well as the players around you.

I love this game and am just getting to the point where I can talk about it coherently and yes, LoL has the capacity to survive for years to come, but only if it can adapt and keep it's fan base on a constant search to find ways to become better at it.

12talesJul 14, 20142 votes

Adding more bans would allow for a higher rate of Urgots, Volibears, Sorakas, Kennens and Tarics being freakin' useless and losing their team the game. That doesn't sounds like much fun, though. Those champs aren't underplayed just because Lee Sin or whomever overshadows them - they're underplayed because they're bad in the grand scheme of things.

If you've got four good champs on your team, and then a Volibear vs. Urgot top lane - guess which role isn't gonna carry this game? Sure, it's more diverse, but it doesn't make for better gameplay, and it doesn't actually address the problems that are preventing those underplayed champions from making appearances in higher level games. What you suggest sounds like a lazy, destructive alternative to the course of action that Riot has already elected to take.

Remlap1223Jul 14, 20141 votes

The whole point of MOBAs, specifically League was the ever changing meta. I'm relatively new to the game (started late season 3 and started ranked play in season 4) and even then the meta changed drastically. Now it's gotten to the point where nothing major is changing. The most major change was the removal of mana tanks top (which is more balance related than meta related) and the removal of casters for AP assassins. These champions have been absolutely stubborn to remove, and it's gotten to the point where there seemed to be no end in sight, until Quinn and Vayne top became a thing. Now there's a light at the end of the tunnel, and more options are available. Occam's razor is not the right answer all the time, but Riot's model is shaped by this. It has lead to a very top heavy meta, and a very static meta, and I for one would be very happy to see that evaporate completely.

NyhverJul 14, 20141 votes

If the meta doesn't change then it will lose its freshness, that's just a fact of the matter. There are two questions that engender out of that, one being will that happen, and two being is there novelty, enjoyment or entertainment that can capture people still. The danger and possibility of the first one is a legitimate concern, but there's definite arguments for the second one being relevant or true for some.

Personally I want the game to be more focused on mechanics than it is, currently. Having an astronomically high action rate isn't the dictating factor in the fights, either, because it's not starcraft, this game is league. If there was more focus on outplay from every champion while being mechanically intensive, (for instance, Garen and Ryze lack a lot of outplay and mechanical intensity, you don't really outplay Ryze or Garen hard mechanically, it usually is a calculation/positioning/bait outplay) I would find this game way more fun to play and watch. As it is, I'm not too concerned with the same picks in the LCS, I'm more concerned that there's so little variation in their fighting patterns, mostly due to the nature of the opponents and allies of the champions. Lee Sin has a really high skill cap, because he has tons of potential and a lot of it is very mechanical, too, but the opponents he fights are boring. I wanted Leblanc to remain a relevant middle instead of Kassadin, Orianna or Ziggs, they're really boring to watch and overrated in terms of difficulty or as far as mechanics and interest goes. If every champion was more like Yasuo, Lee Sin and Zed, I would enjoy this game so much more, and watching it would be fun, too, because there's a lot that goes on in these fights. Barring accurate knowledge assessment of capability due to circumstance (items, levels, whether you'll be backed up by teammates, or not, same with the enemy) fights can be really dynamic. As an example of a fight I think that has a really high skill cap no one is at yet- Zed vs. Zed. Zed almost instantaneously be in 3 places at once, and because of that, with flash, his range of motion is ridiculous. His 'e' can be dodged (being just outside of 'e' range, avoidance mechanic like fizz trickster, dashes, flash, etc.) and his 'q' can similarly be dodged. Add all that up in a Zed vs. Zed, and the mind games, prediction and reaction with micromanaging w, q and e cooldowns and whatnot along with intuition vs. plan, and I think anyone who understands how complex duels can be can appreciate that Zed vs. Zed is probably one of the highest skill cap fights out there. I don't see that in the LCS, though, I see auto attack champions like Shyvana, Jax, Tristana, Kog'maw, Twitch or a bunch of other boring champions being played that lack a lot of mind games and mechanical intensity. I don't find that intriguing or enjoyable. I personally don't mind the lack of diversity as much as I do how boring I find most champions to either play as, with or against.

I don't fault you for it because it's subjective and very gray, but there's also the issue of perceived reality and reality. Part of why there's very low champion pick rates (besides kit being enjoyable) is because of the stigma that people have regarding which champions are weak and strong. This is either close to the truth, exactly the truth, very true, wrong or very wrong. You assume that the perception people have of champion's reflects reality when it could be wrong. As an example, Riot has stated before that they want there to be options but not a singular option- referencing to the dual targon's with no jungler or so, then no one does that anymore. Either due to the reality of the item not being strong enough anymore compared to what a jungler gives, or because of the perception of it, whether the reality coincides with it or disagrees with it.

WorgslargJul 14, 20141 votes

Another thing that came to mind is that when comparing dota 2 to league, regarding picking champs that work well together, is how in dota you do not need to purchase champions, they are all free.

This is a non issue at higher levels of play, but at low levels of play, many players have a limited enough champion pool to inhibit forming combos.

lHikariAiJul 14, 20141 votes

I believe many people aren't really familiar with DotA to understand the difference in depth between both games.

I used to play DotA on a high level, but after years i grew tired of it. I met someone who only played League and since then i'm here. Even now watching League matches is almost a chore compared to watching DotA matches, every game is interesting while in League you already saw that a million times, it's always the same thing, strategies and execution may be different but it's a strategy that you already saw before a million times, too. It's mostly Lane swaps, poke/siege comps, pick comps or teamfight oriented team.

The rest, like invasion, vision control, ect, aren't really a 'strategy', even 5 in a normal game can do that if you ping enough. It's like saying that de-warding or blocking the enemy's pool or camps in DotA is a strategy. They may be part of one, like 'shut down their jungler early to apply pressure, take towers to gain a advantage so our lone druid can get it's radiance and we go for the win', but just by themselves aren't more than smart attempts to gain a advantage that, without a real plan, won't impact the game enough to achieve a win by itself.

AbiwonKenabiJul 14, 20141 votes

I would say the main reason for Koreans dominating most esports scenes has more to do with organization of teams rather than the way the game is: Korean teams have had more structure, things like analysts, coaches, etc. Esports is waaay huger in Korea, these guys are managed more like a baseball team. NA and EU are finally starting to do this type of thing, and while they still aren't quite performing against Korean teams, they are getting there. It has nothing to do with efficiency; I guess it could be part of it, but certainly not the whole story.

Second, Dota2's games are often decided at the hero selection screen, whereas with League, every strategy has a chance. I just don't see how you can say there aren't a lot of comp options when really we have plenty of really fun ones. There's the AOE teamfight wombo-combo, there's a global ults/tele strat, there's Yasuo oriented comps, there's protect the carry, there's feed the Jax and split-push...and so on. The best part about these is some of them can happen even without picking specific champions. For example, if one particular person on your team happens to get fed, you can change your play-style to accommodate for that particular champion's strengths and weaknesses. Katarina's fed? Try to bait out enemy team's CC, allowing her to dive in safely. Your ADC is fed? Use all of your peel for them; if you don't have the CC to do so, try killing the assassin who's after the ADC. Then there are lane swaps and rotations, support roaming, mid-laner roaming and more...and all of these strategies have come in and out of favor. With S3, mid roamed a lot thanks to the assassin meta. Back in S2, supporty tank junglers were favored for their powerful ganks and protection provide for the then strong marksmen. Even just this season, we've seen shifts in what supports are picked (Annie/Thresh-->Morgana, Nami) what mid laners are picked (Leblanc, Lulu-->Ziggs, Syndra, Orianna) and even ADCs (Sivir/Caitlyn --> Lucian, Twitch, Kog'Maw, Tristana). I've even seen Heimerdinger successfully used in EU LCS. And this is only looking at professional levels, not to mention lower level viability.

I don't understand how you can look at the changes during just this season alone and say things are getting stale. Popular picks are constantly changing, and newer champions are more interesting than ever. There are always interesting ways to play this game, and every match is different I think it more comes down to "easy to parrot, hard to innovate."

EDIT: I forgot to mention all the effort Riot is putting into bringing older champions up to par. They plan on taking champs like Urgot and Sion and retaining their identity while updating their skillset to be more usable.

lHikariAiJul 15, 20141 votes

None of this 'bait for Katarina' or 'peel for carry' are a 'real' strategy, you see that on pubs, you're just adapting, there is no real depth in that. It's just basic knowledge of the game. For example, if you're Katarina you'll obviously look for a window there they can't CC you, you don't need to be fed to do that. Even if your ADC isn't fed you'll still peel for him, because he is the ADC. Jax will split-push because he is a Jax, could be a Fiora, Nidalee, Tryndamere or Irelia. Lots of top lanes can split push for days.

And again, the slight change in picks means nothing, it's basically the same thing, it's just that a certain support counters the other support in lane, or this ADC or Mid got buffed, time to pick It's still 1-1-1-2 with the same compositions. Teamfight, poke, pick or split.

AbiwonKenabiJul 21, 20141 votes

What the hell is a strategy then if these aren't strategies? If the basic definition of a strategy is "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim." (Google) then that is a strategy. It may be different from strategies you might see in Dota2 or other MOBAs, but its still a strategy.

Slight changes in picks can mean everything. Depending on what is strong, a pro team will change its goal entirely, often tailoring a team comp to that particular goal. Isn't that the definition of strategy right there? Are you telling me there's no difference in picks and strategy at all between now and last season? Anyone who thinks this is just vehemently arguing that Dota2 is a better game and should probably just go play that game if they think its so much better. Not dogging Dota or anything, just not sure why some fans feel the need to tell us on LEAGUE's forums that League isn't as good.

March of DimesJul 14, 20141 votes

Insofar as you're assessing and explaining the current game, I'd say it's a fantastic post.

However, I have to disagree that the meta is set in stone as is, and I'd question when/how a playerbase learns that a meta isn't the only game in town. Melee carries might be in a bad place in league, but does that necessitate marksmen? Do you need to run a teamcomp focused on sieging? If not, are there other classes you can run in place of marksman that provide the other 3 bullet points you listed? If you're no longer sieging, do melee ADCs start becoming viable again? Etc.

I applaud you for taking a very broad look at the meta and what makes it tick, but I think too often the playerbase uses the meta as a forgone conclusion to motivate why the strengths of this meta are required. Personally, I've had a good time running ranged AOE mage bottom instead of ADC, which farms safely in 2v2, provides poke, teamfights with reliable damage, and trades the better siege of a marksman for better utility/AOE/burst. Sure, my team has a harder time sieging, but we usually don't try to put ourselves in that position, instead opting to force fights either via splitpush, contesting objectives, or hard engaging. Having an additional source of AOE/utility that can actually build defense (contrast ADC) makes taking those fights fairly easy, and taking towers is easy once those fights are over. That's just my personal experience with the meta, and I'd encourage others to actually try breaking the meta before they decide Riot needs to do it for them.

HaestroJul 15, 20141 votes

Part of the reason we have this meta is because of how the game and champions are designed. Unlike DotA, which has a very huge variety (relative to LoL) of champion niches that all fulfill roles slightly differently, LoL has much more overlap. If you want an ADC, they all tend to be around the same strength (there are exceptions) with similar items. Riot doesn't want to create champions who destroy early game but fall off completely late game, but a more consistent output. I realize that all ADC's are not carbon copies of each other, so there is a reason to pick one over the other, but it's not nearly as niche as in DotA.

TL;DR : Riot creates champions which compete for the same role. This enforces the meta more because they don't design champion's with a niche, just a certain lane.

GoumindongJul 15, 20141 votes

I will probably make another post later tomorrow. Your construction has a lot to be desired and your conclusion does not in any way follow from your premise(specifically you simply list aspects of DotA2, but they don't have any effect on meta variance even if you tried to explain how they did). Before that though, i just wanted to highlight this

And if there's someone who can spend years perfecting this technique, it's Koreans.

That is super racist(and not just that statement, the sentiment runs through your post). The Korean's aren't better because they're better at perfecting technique. They're better because they have a better team and practice structure which allows them to play more games in a competitive setting and to spend more time honing skills. Most importantly each organization has two teams. Two teams means that those teams can scrim in house without worry about leaking strategies. On top of this they have more coaches and a more focused and structured work environment(which comes down to a lot of things not really worth discussing at the moment).

It has nothing to do with raw mechanical skill or some inherent quality about Korean's. It doesn't have anything to do with the game, or the meta. It has everything to do with how they practice.

That being said i have another short comment with regards to the DotA2 stuff. DotA2 is amazingly poorly designed. From color palate to primary game mechanics. The reason that it has melee carries and league does not has nothing to do with str/agi/int but because League has committed to a design which requires that all members of a team are relevant at all points in the game, while DotA has not. The reason that DotA has str/agi/int at all is because Blizzard Entertainment wanted to make their RTS game have RPG elements in it and that meant "core statistics" at the time, not because it does anything for the game of DotA(in actuality is limits item choices and hampers clarity of item choices, all bad things for a game revolving around level scaling and item actives).

PyroJul 15, 20143 votes

That is super racist (and not just that statement, the sentiment runs through your post).

That is a very serious accusation, man. My assessment on regional dominance was meant to be an example for possible negative consequences of static meta, not the point of the whole essay.

Some nations are better at some sports than others due to infrastructure, culture and sometimes even genetical predisposition. You can't say Polish football is at the same level as German. You can't say Scandinavia isn't dominating the Winter Olympics. It's a fact people of African descent excel at sprints and Chinese are the world's best gymnasts. Those are very, very small, neglible differences or advantages on average, but at the world's top level it makes all the difference needed.

GoumindongJul 15, 20141 votes

If you don't want to have someone tell you you're saying racist things, don't say racist things. Its that simple

TahaldenJul 23, 20141 votes

It's a bit unfair to call someone out on "being racist", knowing full well it wasn't meant that way and given that English likely isn't the first language (which means certain phrasing can be interpreted wrongly).

To be honest, not once did I feel the post or any comments in it was racist, and always bound to the context of regional differences in skill level (whatever the reasons for those differences are --- practice, infrastructure, dedication, etc).

Great post, Pyro. Thanks for the read :)

GoumindongJul 25, 20141 votes

I didn't say he was racist. I said that what he said was racist. Which it is

PushoverJul 17, 20141 votes

As a player who switched over from DotA in 2011, I would say that the meta in DotA trickled down from competitive play. In DotA at the time, every public game was 2-1-2, unless there was a jungler like Enigma or Lycan, and while carries did get most of the farm, it wasn't uncommon to see double support/semicarry in one of the lanes. For that matter, the 0 CS support basically didn't exist in public games. Competitive play had trilanes, 0 CS supports, and all the stuff we come to expect in DotA 2 games. In the 3 years since then, public play has picked up on many parts of the competitive play. For that matter, when I left, roaming was not considered a common viable strategy even in competitive. Players would make it work, similar to how we can occasionally see strange things like Kassadin top work.

People seem to forget that League is a much younger game than DotA/DotA 2. Many of the pro players of DotA 2 played back in DotA 1, before League of Legends even existed. DotA has had much more time to settle and balance the game. If anyone remembers times where competitive DotA was rather boring, for example the days of 3 carries and Pit Lord (think wider AoE Ziggs). The games were an immense farm fest while 1 of the carries would hopefully take off and be able to 1v5. There have been times in DotA where certain heroes were very common picks/bans, and it's only more recently that picks have become more widespread.

To poke at each of your examples: Different means of acquiring gold: In League, the pressure is placed more on fighting the enemy champion over every creep rather than fighting with attack damage over denying/last hitting the creep. Stacking is a cute way to gain gold or give gold to the carry, and pulling is a cute way to deny part of a wave or generate a push, but it's in some ways a form of PvE in a game that's supposed to be more PvP. Some people prefer stacking and pulling to be part of the game, but it's another mechanic that has to be learned, and it's not an exciting interaction with opponents or allies. Reversed gold efficiency: This is one of the few areas that I think League should follow DotA in, it allows for greater variability of earlygame items, more niche midgame items (since current midgame items in League tend to not have enough of a power spike to warrant buying). It also allows the player to make meaningful choices about inventory space. Do you want another cheap item, or do you want room for wards in the earlygame? It also makes the statstick items worse, so you get items for what unique abilities they provide, not because they provide you with the pile of stats you want. Attributes: They matter in terms of how you build a hero, but the kit determines what sort of hero a Dota hero is. Huskar is still a carry despite being STR based. Windrunner is still a carry or semicarry despite being INT based. Tinker/Storm Spirit are carry and are INT based. Earthshaker is not a tank despite being STR based. Attributes are a suggestion of what items you should build, but not really what role the hero is. While attributes increase the variation between hero builds, it also means that there are about twice as many items that players need to know about. No AP: There's also no MR, you can get more spell resistance in an item, but it's not particularly common. In general you buy health to counter magic damage, and armor and health, just like in League, to counter physical damage. Lategame most damage is physical since carries are the ones dealing damage. It's really a preference whether you like having mages perform a lesser role/utility role in the lategame versus still be strong, albeit not as strong as the ADC. Character limit :(

Even in the Starcraft example, Brood War's metagame was not particularly static. Bisu vs Savior showed how innovation could still occur, when everyone thought that PvZ was static and in Zerg's favor, Bisu evened it up with his innovative new build, upsetting arguably the best player at the time with a crushing victory in the finals of a tournament.