Crit chance rework: "Precision"

TL;DR: I think the idea of crit chance is inherently flawed, and that landing critical strikes shouldn't be based on luck. I'm suggesting a replacement stat that basically results in the same damage numbers, but with the luck factor taken out.

Note: this is a suggestion about critical strike chance, not critical strikes themselves.

** ** ** **

Hi!

Imagine a champion with 50% crit chance, fighting another champion with 1% crit chance. Both champions have identical stats otherwise, and both can take 3 more basic attacks before they die. They attack each other at the same time.

Despite the clear stat-wise advantage of the champion with 50% crit chance, odds may still be in favour of the champion with 1% crit chance. There’s no guarantee that champion A will crit on 1 of the 3 required basic attacks. Likewise, there’s no guarantee that champion B will not. The chance for such a scenario may be extremely small, but it’s still there. And you bet it would be infuriating and feel very unfair, especially in pro play.

So here’s my point. I don’t think the concept of luck should have any place in a massive, competitive online game like League. While jungle plants and drake spawns are affected by RNG, they can be anticipated, long before they directly affect the game. In this form, RNG makes the game less predictable in a good sense, provoking adaptation and organised action.

Critical strike chance is also based on RNG. However, instead of offering a reaction window, they simply happen. There’s nothing you can do about it. And that’s what separates a dynamic game mechanic from pure luck. So, what can be done to remove this last remaining luck factor, without fundamentally changing the way marksmen and fighters work? The solution is quite simple, and not at all groundbreaking:

** ** ** **

#Precision

I wouldn’t even call this a new stat. Much like lethality was for armor penetration, such would precision be for critical strike chance.

With any value of precision greater than 0%, the player gradually fills up their “precision meter” with every successful basic attack. The amount to be added is equal to the champion’s precision. Upon reaching 100% precision, the champion critically strikes, reducing their precision by 100%.

An example to visualize:

** ** ** **

Champion has 30% precision. Percentages shown below are precision meter values before and after attacking.

1st attack: 0% --> Basic attack --> 30% 2nd attack: 30% --> Basic attack --> 60% 3rd attack: 60% --> Basic attack --> 90% 4th attack: 90% --> CRITICAL STRIKE! --> 20% (120 - 100) 5th attack: 20% --> Basic attack --> 50% 6th attack: 50% --> Basic attack --> 80% 7th attack: 80% --> CRITICAL STRIKE! --> 10% 8th attack: 10% --> Basic attack --> 40% 9th attack: 40% --> Basic attack --> 70% 10th attack: 70% --> CRITICAL STRIKE! --> 0%

And so on...

** ** ** **   Instead of having a 30% chance of dealing double damage on each basic attack, the player consistently delivers 3 critical strikes every 10 basic attacks. As you can see, the output is nearly identical. The only difference is consistency. As such, the items that currently increase crit chance would probably have an equal amount of precision.

Without the luck factor, critical strikes would become predictable for the player, allowing them to play around - and make decisions based on - the fact that their next attack is going to deal twice the damage. Or their enemy's. To emphasize on the predictability, a short (audio)visual cue could be played to notify the player and other nearby players that their next attack is going to crit.

Precision could even be the start of a whole new lot of RNG-independent gameplay mechanics:

• An ADC with a passive that briefly disarms the enemy upon critically striking.
• A minor rune that restores 1% of the player’s maximum health upon critically striking.
• An ADC with a passive that marks the enemy for follow-up upon critically striking.
• A skill that reduces (or resets) an enemy champion’s precision meter value.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

That's pretty much the end of this suggestion. What do you think? I’d highly appreciate any feedback on this. As long as it’s constructive, don’t hesitate to reply. :)