New Cool Idea. Take notes, Riot!

Nävë·Jul 19, 2019·2 votes·913 views

So,

as I was wondering how am I supposed to defeat my enemies when they are +1 item and I've got 2 random boxes with coins.

Something lit over my head. [zombie-brand-mindblown]

What if the random boxes were applied like this:

** Every box provides half an item (so you could combine it in one out of the many full items - variety!) **

and

25% chance to give from 1-5 gold (excitement!)

oh and every game must give equal amount of boxes to all players

That will bring the real minds to the table and not the "happened to be lucky". Let luck matter only for the item halves and the champion cards please.

19 Comments

BreganJul 19, 20192 votes

we dont need boxes or coins. we JUST need the item COUNT to be the same for all players. it can be a low count one match and a higher count another match, but the item COUNT needs to be the same. getting 0-1 items and facing the guy that got 4+ feels AWFUL. watching him dominate for 60%+ of the game basically uncontested and rolling in winstreak gold, while you go on a 5+ loss streak HEMORRHAGING health, and even by the time wolves come around, you're still 3+ items fewer than him because he ALSO got items from the pve rounds, is a pretty abysmal excuse for a thrill and feels AWFUL.

ZtokaJul 19, 20191 votes

I agree w/ the box/item drops to be close. Don't have to be identical but each pvE wave should have at least 1 part of an item drop.. More would be a bonus but those rounds where you kill krugs, wolves only to get 1-5 gold, very very anti-climactic. So uncool going up against someone w/ 1 or 2 2 star champs w/ 3 items built at the first pvp round..

Get2Jul 19, 20191 votes

How many games have you played where you did not get items. How did you do? How many games have you played where you did get items? How did you do? What is the disparity?

Because, while I agree that the gold is a bit weak possibly, I don't think you are lost without gold or items in the first minion waves.

NävëJul 19, 20191 votes

{quoted}

How many games have you played where you did not get items. How did you do? How many games have you played where you did get items? How did you do? What is the disparity?

Because, while I agree that the gold is a bit weak possibly, I don't think you are lost without gold or items in the first minion waves.

From the time that I got a good grasp of the game (2 days ago) up until today, 2 wins and 3 defeats. Out of the 3 defeats I had some pretty stacked up enemies and all my first boxes were 1 coin.

I still cant let that sink in.

Get2Jul 19, 20191 votes

So, if I follow correctly, you have 5 games where you did not get items, and of those 5 games, you won 2 (is that 3rd or 4th or better to you?). Sounds like you're close to the right path then, because that is nearer a 50/50 win rate than not. A few more games would flesh that out better. If you're 2/9 on games you got no items, that'd definitely point to a potential issue with the minion outcomes.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 19, 20192 votes

{quoted}

So, if I follow correctly, you have 5 games where you did not get items, and of those 5 games, you won 2 (is that 3rd or 4th or better to you?). Sounds like you're close to the right path then, because that is nearer a 50/50 win rate than not. A few more games would flesh that out better. If you're 2/9 on games you got no items, that'd definitely point to a potential issue with the minion outcomes.

that doesn't take away the reason for losing.

Get2Jul 19, 20191 votes

But that's my point. You can't for sure conclude the reason you lost a few games was based on lack of items and/or the amount of gold you got instead. If you won 2 games under similar conditions as the games you lost, then we can't blame lack of items or limit of gold for your losses either. We need more games to evaluate under similar conditions to find an issue.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 19, 20191 votes

{quoted}

But that's my point. You can't for sure conclude the reason you lost a few games was based on lack of items and/or the amount of gold you got instead. If you won 2 games under similar conditions as the games you lost, then we can't blame lack of items or limit of gold for your losses either. We need more games to evaluate under similar conditions to find an issue.

gold hardly weighs up to items O.o, you can tier 3 all you want, but you won't be getting past a tier 2 braum with warmogs [zombie-brand-mindblown], there is no need to test this, items are more valueable than gold, the only factors being overpowered champions against you, being aatrox, draven, kayle and mf, items or lack of champions, which gold barely has a factor in, since the drop rate affects it more...... when you notice the opponnent has at least 3 to 4 full items against you 1 to 2.

Get2Jul 19, 20191 votes

A tier 2 braums with Warmogs isn't an every game occurrence. Not for me anyway. But I do agree that items are long-term more valuable on paper. Before the patch, you could wind up with no items from the minions at first and still win. Now we get some gold. Not sure it's enough, and half an item has to be worth more than 1-3gold. Where's the balance? Are we close? I think we might be closer than people believe.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 19, 20191 votes

{quoted}

A tier 2 braums with Warmogs isn't an every game occurrence. Not for me anyway. But I do agree that items are long-term more valuable on paper. Before the patch, you could wind up with no items from the minions at first and still win. Now we get some gold. Not sure it's enough, and half an item has to be worth more than 1-3gold. Where's the balance? Are we close? I think we might be closer than people believe.

nah they need to remove the gold drop and just limit item drops to the point everyone gets an equal amount of items per pve match, it doesn't matter which item(s), it isn't just long term, the buff from tier 1 to 2 can be crossed with just items, making a tier 1 defeat a tier 2 in solo battle.

Get2Jul 19, 20191 votes

That presupposes that items aren't an independent strategy, which they are. If everyone got the same # of items, then just remove items completely, because that'd boost RNG losses more likely than not. One should be able to play into the major strategy components of the game to address any situation they might be in. You can't, in other words, always plan and execute an eco strategy because you might have given up a stronger strategy the game was handing you, like tier 2 champs, for example.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 20, 20191 votes

{quoted}

That presupposes that items aren't an independent strategy, which they are. If everyone got the same # of items, then just remove items completely, because that'd boost RNG losses more likely than not. One should be able to play into the major strategy components of the game to address any situation they might be in. You can't, in other words, always plan and execute an eco strategy because you might have given up a stronger strategy the game was handing you, like tier 2 champs, for example.

wtf are you talking about? getting items isn't strategic unless you decide to purposfully lose against minions/monsters O.o the strategy is in the deciding which items work best on which champions..... why would gettinge equal items for everyone add more rng losses???????? there barely is rng in the background anyhow, other than which items drop, considering the pool of champions you pick from can be directly affected by players.

wtf is an eco strategy? please use EXISTING and common terms. with that said,

items aren't part of the economy, since you can't buy or sell them. you are confusing yourself, just because everyone would get an equal amount of items doesn't mean everyone will or can use them the same way, so it wouldn't affect dealing with what you have or can get.

the major issue here is, is that players with less items can come up with any given strategy, but will 9/10 still lose against players with more items, 1/10 players might not be using or placing these items the right way, or are having items that are more or less not or less effective with their team comp, or are simply not placing items at all.

Get2Jul 20, 20191 votes

They are independent. They are meant to be used to enhance strong comps and buff weaker comps so they can compete. I'd argue items are more for helping weaker comps, but either way, they help make up some difference for trying to get into a more solid synergy. Sometimes, they give huge buffs to chaotic builds, but this 9/10 argument you're effectively making is poppycock and you know it.

Eco build meant econ build, missing an N, which I presume you absolutely understood before your rant since your very next paragraph starts off talking about econ strategy. Nice trolling tho.

And blah blah blah to the rest of this argument. You spent too much time trying to make this discussion personal.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 20, 20191 votes

{quoted}

They are independent. They are meant to be used to enhance strong comps and buff weaker comps so they can compete. I'd argue items are more for helping weaker comps, but either way, they help make up some difference for trying to get into a more solid synergy. Sometimes, they give huge buffs to chaotic builds, but this 9/10 argument you're effectively making is poppycock and you know it.

you are wrong there, because if that were true, item distribution would be based on lose/win or team comp, which they are not. so poppy is a trap? [sg-ahri-1] i'm afraid the 9/10 is true, how does a tier 2 gonna win against a pumped up with 3 full items tier 1? i've seen it happen, i've done it myself, overwhelming and winning with a tier 1 team against a tier 2 team, only because of items.

Eco build meant econ build, missing an N, which I presume you absolutely understood before your rant since your very next paragraph starts off talking about econ strategy. Nice trolling tho.

[sg-ezreal]

And blah blah blah to the rest of this argument. You spent too much time trying to make this discussion personal.

none of it is making it personal O.o its an explanation as to why, equalizing the amount of items won't affect strategy the way it is, it would just give players a more equal standing opposing eachother, a chance to actually devise a proper strategy, instead of just losing because you didn't get an item but gold vs winning because you have 2 to 3 full items, since gold can be wasted, and you still wouldn't get the champs you need, items have functions and raise stats.

Get2Jul 20, 20191 votes

---you are wrong there, because if that were true, item distribution would be based on lose/win or team comp, which they are not.

Item distribution is based on RNG. Having items on hand allows you to customize as you see fit. So saving items until later gives you a clearer path to that. If, however, you decide to build items earlier to buff a champion, that's a risk you take. Either you are stronger and better for it, or ultimately, you're just stuck with it and good luck.

Having a later-game pocket item and direction, however, will give you something to use when you see what you're up against and what is weak in your team. I guess whether you see it or not depends on if you're front-loading or back-loading your items.

-----i'm afraid the 9/10 is true, how does a tier 2 gonna win against a pumped up with 3 full items tier 1?

Yes it does happen. But does it happen to you 9/10 times? Are you losing 90% of your games? If not, then it doesn't happen to you most of the time. That you see it but not lose to it is intended. That you see it and overcome it is expected.

So even if it does show up 9/10 times, it's not responsible for your losses 9/10 times. And even if it IS, if you're winning >50% of the time, then you're overcoming that much more, which indicates it's not a huge problem.

-----a chance to actually devise a proper strategy

This right here is the problem with your entire thought process. If you think you're supposed to have a proper strategy by the time you start PVPing, which is exactly what this items argument is about and starts with, then you're wanting the game to hold your hand to a victory right out the gate, and then lead you there throughout.

You either get an early game start or you don't. Part of winning is RECOGNIZING THAT AND PLAYING INTO THE MID GAME. If they make it so everyone knows exactly what to do right off the bat, then it's no longer about you making decisions, it's about you keeping on a trail. Mistakes no longer come from your decisions but from you missing a choice that would have kept you on a trail.

We don't need rails in this game. People just need to be okay with uncertainty and making better, more calculated decisions.

Let me add to this a bit too: where items lend themselves to being an OP part of winning, ITEMS need to be nerfed/reworked. Everyone doesn't need items. If you give everyone items, then you make items THE meta. And I am sorry, but I don't want to play around just items.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 20, 20191 votes

{quoted}

---you are wrong there, because if that were true, item distribution would be based on lose/win or team comp, which they are not.

Item distribution is based on RNG. Having items on hand allows you to customize as you see fit. So saving items until later gives you a clearer path to that. If, however, you decide to build items earlier to buff a champion, that's a risk you take. Either you are stronger and better for it, or ultimately, you're just stuck with it and good luck.

Having a later-game pocket item and direction, however, will give you something to use when you see what you're up against and what is weak in your team. I guess whether you see it or not depends on if you're front-loading or back-loading your items.

what has this got to do with anything? non of this is affected by how many items one has, if there would be an equal distribution, this would still be a viable strategy

-----i'm afraid the 9/10 is true, how does a tier 2 gonna win against a pumped up with 3 full items tier 1?

Yes it does happen. But does it happen to you 9/10 times? Are you losing 90% of your games? If not, then it doesn't happen to you most of the time. That you see it but not lose to it is intended. That you see it and overcome it is expected.

So even if it does show up 9/10 times, it's not responsible for your losses 9/10 times. And even if it IS, if you're winning >50% of the time, then you're overcoming that much more, which indicates it's not a huge problem.

you misunderstand, its not 9/10 loses in overall, 9/10 loses due to not having items, meaning that 9/10 you play with lack of items you would lose 9/10 times against opponents that do have more items than you, not factoring in other wins/lose

-----a chance to actually devise a proper strategy

This right here is the problem with your entire thought process. If you think you're supposed to have a proper strategy by the time you start PVPing, which is exactly what this items argument is about and starts with, then you're wanting the game to hold your hand to a victory right out the gate, and then lead you there throughout.

You either get an early game start or you don't. Part of winning is RECOGNIZING THAT AND PLAYING INTO THE MID GAME. If they make it so everyone knows exactly what to do right off the bat, then it's no longer about you making decisions, it's about you keeping on a trail. Mistakes no longer come from your decisions but from you missing a choice that would have kept you on a trail.

We don't need rails in this game. People just need to be okay with uncertainty and making better, more calculated decisions.

Let me add to this a bit too: where items lend themselves to being an OP part of winning, ITEMS need to be nerfed/reworked. Everyone doesn't need items. If you give everyone items, then you make items THE meta. And I am sorry, but I don't want to play around just items.

no you got THAT all wrong, have you ever played a tactics strategy game like final fantasy tactics WOTL? the difference between an armed unit and an unarmed unit is significant, which is part of the strategy, its not hands holding its just more means to an end, what the problem is here which you don't seem to comprehend is that, in early when you keep winning but getting only gold, you get to pick last during shared draft, which means that players that play bad or lose on purpose get rewarded, and possibly more items than you, so in mid game lets say you only get 1 item, there you are in mid game with 1 full item compared to others that have 3 to 4 full items, thats like fighting with unarmed units against fully armed units, in what possible universe would this be fair? why are you so keen in keeping a game natives vs colonists? one with bows and arrows and the other with guns, you do realize the current system is holding the hands of the bad players, the players that lose, a huge oppertunity is given to them, to win the entire game, even though they play bad. you think its good for players to certainly know they lose due to lack of items? there is no uncertainty unless there is item equality, what items one gets is insgnificant, the quantity of items is important for strategy purposes, this way players can devise startegies based on what items they have, rather than to hope they can out tier opponents loaded with items [zombie-brand-facepalm]

NävëJul 19, 20191 votes

I said "from the time I got a good grasp" which means I have played at least 20 games. That makes it 25 games the least. This aside, I'm also watching videos and guides all over about TFT. I want to believe any strategic/tactical mind would have had enough information to judge at this point I'm at. The last 2 days (5 games) I'm just testing a lot of things and BY ALL MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE I can clearly see my -1 item disadvantage when i get Random Coins from 2 Mc'Boxes.

Was I reasonable enough?

Get2Jul 19, 20191 votes

I know what you said. I narrowed my scope to the games where you got gold and no items. And what did those outcomes turn? Because I've played a few where I got no items, and other than a chompy mid-game, I felt I did fairly well. I even "won" two of those games. So I am just really curious what real disadvantage one has getting some or no gold vs. someone getting items pans out to be.

I get the logistics, but I don't see it in action enough to feel too concerned at this point in my games overall. But I've only played like 10 games since the patch.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 19, 20192 votes

{quoted}

I know what you said. I narrowed my scope to the games where you got gold and no items. And what did those outcomes turn? Because I've played a few where I got no items, and other than a chompy mid-game, I felt I did fairly well. I even "won" two of those games. So I am just really curious what real disadvantage one has getting some or no gold vs. someone getting items pans out to be.

I get the logistics, but I don't see it in action enough to feel too concerned at this point in my games overall. But I've only played like 10 games since the patch.

in the end it still depends on how they use their items or if they get champions, but if they would be on equal footing as you with champions they win, meaning that the average player would fare better with items than gold.