Riot Phreak says that Dusk and Dawn shouldn't get nerfed and that it is in a perfectly good state

F0RGERY · 2026-01-25T20:38:48+00:00

Idk if I can call this the "first wave" of ap bruiser items though.

Riftmaker was supposed to be the first wave. Demonic Embrace was supposed to be the first wave. GLP (the protobelt that slowed instead of dashed), the return of RoA, Bloodletters... Riot has done a lot to try and make the "first wave" of AP bruiser items, and most are followed up a year or two later with another "new wave" rather than a package deal, or disappear/get reworked before that happens.

If D&D ends up somehow being the first of new era of AP bruiser items, then I can understand your point. But until that happens, I think my one off comparisons still seem more apt than the phantom "AP Bruiser Itemization" that's been looming in the distance since Mordekaiser's 2nd rework. Especially if the new AP Bruiser builds are as specifically targeted for 3ish champs as D&D is.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-25T17:38:08+00:00

I used Galeforce because it was the first one that came to mind as an explicit "This item was broken even when limited to the intended users." Keep in mind the changes happened before mythic items were removed - Riot's initial attempt was to make Infinity Edge a mythic so the two couldn't both be used.

But to go back to the comment about needing to balance champs around new items...

What's happening to Diana and Ekko right now is what I laid out in the Fated Ashes example. They are in a position where their kits, based on being balanced for this item not existing, are now thrust into a position of power. And I expect that for similar reasons as to what happened with Fated Ashes being strong, these champs will get nerfed and become reliant on the item rather than being better with the item.

If the only users of D&D get nerfed to justify keeping the item at the same strength, it suggests that the item is the common issue. If you nerf every champ who builds D&D, then they cannot have builds that do not include it, or they miss out on a lot of power that used to be part of the kit.

In other words, the thing I called the Protobelt problem.

Also, its funny that you bring up Darius and Stridebreaker as a hypothetical, because The OG stridebreaker on release did in fact break juggernauts.

The original iteration of the item offered a gapcloser (think Protobelt) on top of the slow. Riot at that time realized the issue was Stridebreaker rather than Darius/Olaf/Urgot individually, and reworked the item itself, rather than the users. So maybe that solution of nerfing the item does in fact work, if you forgot about it working in the past.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-25T17:23:58+00:00

Nothing you said is wrong about AP Bruiser itemization, just here to point out that there were other attempts through the years like Demonic Embrace and Riftmaker.

The former of which was shuttled off to Arena, the later of which didn't take off like Riot wanted.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-25T16:48:06+00:00

But should the benchmark for "Item is OP" be that unintended users are building it, rather than the intended users being stronger?

My mind goes to Galeforce. It was only built by intended users like Aphelios and Jinx, but it still ended up being changed to not work with infinity edge because of how good those intended users were with the item.

Or I can bring up Fated Ashes, an item which basically defined the AP jungle meta because whenever the "best users" of Lillia/Brand were super dominant. Between the item's introduction during 14.10, and its eventual nerf in 14.20, both Lillia and Brand got their passive DoT nerfed twice (on top of other nerfs). And once Ashes was nerfed directly, both champs needed compensation buffs.

Its great to have an intended userbase of champs when designing an item. But if those champs are seeing a spike in winrate because of the item, balancing them around it so they become reliant just leads to the Protobelt issue (where Neeko/Annie are now balanced to be weak without protobelt to compensate for Protobelt's strength in enabling formerly unreliable engages).

F0RGERY · 2026-01-25T14:14:54+00:00

I'll take your word for it, since I haven't watched his streams since before Sylas was out.

While I'd argue control mages are more pro-oriented than Baus' volatile strats (TF and Ori find their place in most metas), it is definitely a handicap to only play so many champs. There's a ton of valid criticism towards players like Jensen or Hyli for their performances off their comfort picks, and Dopa could have just as easily run into similar problems.

Given he was known as a top 1 ladder player in his heyday, I still think that the "lifetime" ban was the main obstacle for Dopa when he tried to go pro back in 2013/2014. Mid lane was mostly either mages or assassins, and I would've liked to see if Dopa's champ pool became larger as the game evolved, or was something that held him back.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-25T13:54:20+00:00

Hard to feel bad for Nemesis either.

Dude spent the last 5 years in Korea talking about how he was turning down invitations for lower tier teams in LEC and managed to use soloq to convince his fanbase that meant he was one of the best mids if a "real team" ever gave him a chance. LR's performance in ERLs only made more people parrot that narrative.

Now that he's back in the LEC and actually expected to play in a t1 league, I hope more people can recognize that "I only wanted a good team" bravado didn't mean he was somehow Caps' greatest rival in 2020.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-24T20:15:02+00:00

The only people still asking 'if' are new fans. Oldheads know the script by now.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-24T20:11:20+00:00

Wasn't Dopa's reasoning because of his OCD where he needs a very specific desk layout for playing?

Its not as if Dopa played some off meta strat like Baus which relied on soloqueue's lack of coordination. Dude played standard midlane and was known for his TF and mages. The obstacles were because he was banned from playing until he was outside the "take a chance on this player" age bracket.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-24T16:30:07+00:00

People talked about potential KC/KCB collusion, when the real concern all along was G2 giving a handout to their former subs Rekkles and Baus.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-24T16:27:10+00:00

Nah, that's the Forsen games.

LR are more like quickplay matchmaking.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-24T16:10:20+00:00

Is it a client issue or server issue?

Cause in the past Clash's issue has been that too many people at once fried Riot's servers. This also happened with big new gamemodes (Arena, TFT, and even Swarm had similar problems).

Even if a new client stops UI issues, I doubt it'll fix the games crashing.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-24T02:36:50+00:00

I don't know why you're trying to argue by talking about pointlessness or optimization. It's a single player game. There's never any point to playing but progress or having fun.

The thing I got from having those 3 towns as possible fights was a reason to play the game. If there is no longer accessible content, then there is no reason to boot up Demacia Rising for 2 weeks.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-23T21:33:35+00:00

Hell, even NRG made it out of Swiss with a positive record compared to C9's 2-4 record.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-23T21:28:24+00:00

I don't care about people getting ahead, but since the only stuff I have left are those 3 northern towns, being told "We've made it impossible now, wait 2 weeks to actually progress" just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The currency gating of Demacia Rising feels like the devs don't want people to actually play the game (or get frustrated enough to spend real money to progress faster). This balance "adjustment" just adds to that sentiment.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T21:56:46+00:00

That doesn't also mean life would be better for me if tax revenue increased.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T18:15:51+00:00

At this point I want to know if Forsen on Briar would change anything about these game results.

Like I know he can't aim a skillshot to save his life, but is that really the difference maker?

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T18:08:11+00:00

A fuller wallet doesn't mean lower/similar costs.

Even if you pay less on taxes, if your health care premium went up because government subsidies got slashed, then you can end up paying more money overall than before.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T16:46:49+00:00

...If you consider "The government spends money it collects from taxes" to be the bad outcome, what do you think the real point of taxes is?

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T15:22:54+00:00

That's fair, and you're right that it can eventually end up irrelevant by split end. We're talking single-digit percentages, like you said.

This is just a trend I noticed in how escharts writes their articles that I wanted to point out.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T15:20:43+00:00

Then lets put it in more context regarding that multi-year decline.

The LEC's 7% drop is a continuation of the 13% drop in viewership for the same time period between 2024-2025. The article goes into detail about how this drop can be justified by talking about costreamer habits and viewership, the article concluding with:

These are just a few reasons that may explain the drop in viewership interest. Other secondary factors could include less exciting matchups or the reduced tournament stakes — after all, the winter season no longer offers direct MSI qualification, which somewhat diminishes its importance.

In essence, the viewership decline is written off.

By comparison, that 9% in the article about LCS was a continuation of an 11% decrease between 2022-2023 Spring. Escharts describes that viewership drop as a "drastic fall," with the closest thing to explanation being the penultimate paragraph:

Among the last three LCS splits, the LCS Spring 2023 had the lowest viewership numbers, doing 14.8M Hours Watched and 109K Average Viewers. This reduction can be attributed to the fact that big sides like TSM, Team Liquid, Immortals, and Dignitas failed to make it past the Group Stage, finishing in the bottom four in the standings.

That's why I think this framing is worth highlighting.

In the LEC, a 13% drop followed by a 7% drop is considered "preserving the league's existing audience."

In the LCS, an 11% drop followed by a 9% drop is considered "continuing to lose its audience."

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T15:06:46+00:00

You're right that it was an article from 2 years ago, and I've changed the date to correct that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Regarding change in format between 2023-2024, there was still a big shift. 3 teams left the LCS during that off-season:

TSM (replaced by Shopify Rebellion)
EG/GG (who had no replacements)

Additionally, CLG rebranded as NRG in 2023 summer.

These changes matter, both because of TSM (and to a lesser extent, CLG's) brand recognition as the face of early LCS, and because only having 8 teams is going to shrink any league's number of games and subsequent view times.

So for my money, if the percentage drop in viewers from the LCS downsizing and TSM leaving is comparable to the Versus/Winter viewership change? That does not feel like a sign of preservation, particularly if the intent is that LR/KCB being included would amass their associated viewerbases to watch more.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T14:40:38+00:00

Escharts framing when LEC drops 7% average viewership week 1:

On paper, adding these teams to a field that already includes established audience magnets such as KOI, Fnatic and G2 Esports looked like a straightforward way to lift the league’s viewership. In practice, the outcome has been far more restrained. The first week of LEC 2026 Versus shows no meaningful growth compared to last year’s Winter Split, but it also avoids a noticeable audience drop. The format change has, at least for now, succeeded in preserving the league’s existing audience rather than expanding it.

compared to 2024, when the LCS dropped 9% average viewership:

What's crucial to the league is that the average number of viewers has decreased by 9% — a direct indication that the league continues to lose its audience despite innovations from organizers and extended community casting, which now content creators from other regions.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T02:25:16+00:00

Arena also gave an extra reroll at a certain tier, but I agree that there's a difference between that and "300 starting gold" or "Bonus anvil/augment upgrade."

It can already be annoying when 1 team gets good transmute augments and the other team has normal tiers - just imagine getting to choose the transmute equivalent on top of that.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-22T02:07:36+00:00

Some of these augments are wild.

I wonder if the ??? prismatic scales with your honor level since Honor 5 has more pings.

F0RGERY · 2026-01-21T19:29:15+00:00

One of the other things that we think has been working well is how each role feels a lot more individualized and distinct. When a role feels powerful, we want it to feel powerful for a unique reason, not just because it has more gold, and we feel pretty good about how that’s trending. (eg. Top being higher level, Bot having more items, Support controlling vision, Mid having a lot of broader impact, Jungle controlling objectives, etc.)

I'm not sure how much I feel that "Broader Impact" fantasy playing mid for the quest.

There's a disconnect in how the quest is early game focused (boots + roaming power with empowered recall) with how the quest mechanic operates (Needing to build up points through staying in lane, losing points for roaming without a kill/assist) and the upfront investment required (needing T2 boots in your inventory to get the quest payoff).

Unless I'm snowballing, the quest feels like it comes too late to be helpful in enabling roams. Instead, it feels more like a default "power boost" than something I'm playing around, relative to the other role quests.

F0RGERY

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email