so what is the point of having 124 whampions

Oddysseas·Mar 16, 2015·2 votes·451 views

I have said it a tone of times before but people just don't care, imma say it once more hoping someone will support this arguement...

This hame has 124 champions but most of them are unplayable. The LCS is supporting this as EVERY game features the same champions, same picks, same bans, same strategies...

Riot pointlessly nerfs champions just because they are played alot instead of buffing other champions so they get picked more.

It breaks my heart not watching a lucian pick or a quinn pick. I just want alla champions to be playable and competitive at all times.

We haven't seen renekton, shyvana in so long, it's just so disappointing.

6 Comments

3tysonMar 16, 20151 votes

I think this is because countering gives you to big of an advantage

So picking out some champs banning counters pretty much make you safe

unlike what could have happend (getting hard counterd and gg(

OddysseasMar 16, 20151 votes

Man don't tell me that out of 124 champions only 20 are worth seeing in the lcs.

Matthias9119Mar 16, 20151 votes

I think something like 70% of the champion pool was used at least once in LCS last season. I suspect you'll see more tanky junglers now once they're playing on 5.5.

Like the other person who just posted mentioned, counter picking matters a lot in LCS, so "safe" champs that don't have a lot of terrible matchups (hi Lee!) get picked a lot.

As far as the specific ones you mentioned:

. Lucian was a beast for most of S4. . Quinn has seen some play as a top lane bruiser. She's not a traditional ADC. . Renekton and other early game bullies tend not to see pro play because they fall off late game and pros won't give up many early kills to let them snowball (see also: Darius, Riven). . Farm-oriented junglers like Udyr and Shyvana give up too much early map pressure. By the time those champs become relevant, a pro game is usually over.

DaenMar 16, 20151 votes

I think something like 70% of the champion pool was used at least once in LCS last season.

Depending on how you define diversity, this statistic is not particularly enlightening. Even if every champion in the game were used at least once over a period of a thousand games, the spread would be so focused on ~15 champions that those single data points would essentially be statistically irrelevant.

To be clear: This only affects coordinated professional play. For the vast majority of players (everyone except the top 0.002% or so), almost every champion is viable to some degree. Champions like Urgot have some trouble, but for the most part you can play almost anything and be successful if playing well.

Matthias9119Mar 16, 20151 votes

"There are three kind of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." --Mark Twain

I'm not saying champion balance is perfect and Riot should stop trying to improve it. But it's also not quite as dire as people make it out to be, even in LCS. There are a number of champions whose kits are by their nature somewhat niche, and would probably only be used in competitive play as a specific counter pick or as part of a coordinated strategy built around that champion (some examples: Galio, Nasus, Heimerdinger).

DOTA does somewhat better in this regard, because (at least this is my impression) every hero has some ridiculously OP thing they can do. Which is kind of countered by the fact that everyone else has some equally absurdly OP thing in their kit. Also with things like creep denial and jungle stacking, there is more variability in how the laning phase plays out. A trilane isn't worth it in League because you normally can't shut someone's laning down super hard 1v1, whereas the kits are so wild in DOTA that sometimes you can.