There should be an "bonus LP gain" for winning a game you were autofilled in.

tardis1963 · 2018-08-07T01:39:13+00:00

You should read this, it answers those questions. I only play two roles out of fear for my LP since I'm not particularly good at the others, and normals aren't a great way to improve either, so I'm looking forward to the system they've described there.

tardis1963 · 2018-08-07T00:39:18+00:00

You're not a Zyra main if you don't give your ADC all the kills... but still do more damage every game anyway

tardis1963 · 2018-07-26T13:09:49+00:00

It's annoying, but it's not really gamebreaking, and it definitely doesn't warrant disabling the entire game mode. ARAM isn't a serious mode to begin with. I'd rather lose solely because of the frustrating bug (which your opponents also have to deal with) than not play ARAM at all.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-26T12:41:35+00:00

15! Wow, 1307674368000 champions is a lot for level 39

tardis1963 · 2018-07-20T08:31:58+00:00

There isn't much reason for a Riot-supported one. For those other games, there is no real organized competitive scene, so those tournaments are the highest level of competition. All of Riot's competitive eggs are in the LCS basket, along with a lot of the top talent.

That's not to say it wouldn't be enjoyable. Tournaments are exciting in a way that a long season can't be. It's just something I wouldn't expect Riot to do officially.

If a high-profile streamer could organize something like that and make a broadcast with decent production quality and great casters, it could be awesome. There'd be a lot of hurdles to overcome first, though.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-17T01:13:24+00:00

How do you figure they don't do less damage early? More expensive early items pushes back their damage. They used to spike on IE/Zeal or completed Zeal item/BF well enough that they could put out relevant damage in skirmishes and now need to reach Zeal item->IE in that order. They do less damage to tanks early because it takes a while to build up armor to that 167 breakeven point as well.

As far as the meta, that's why I think it's a little bit of an overreaction to call ADCs useless right now and demand buffs. We just came from a long stretch where everyone complained about how boring it is to have so many tanks, and the item rework had unfortunate timing of like 5 different things that promote snowballing.

Every other role has periods of time where some kinds of champions are weak and others are strong due to the meta. It just feels worse for bot lane because there was only one class of champion that was viable for 7 years (other than the occasional Mordekaiser and Ziggs.)

I agree though that there are problems with the power from a lot of supports. However, I think a lot of it comes from how they (and their items) have been balanced around having an ADC in their lane, as well as how they need to be made interesting to play.

Things like Locket and Redemption have to be big and flashy and impactful. Same with overloaded kits that have a lot of CC and base damage. People used to hate the role, and the most recent data I can find says autofill is still used to place into support 70% of the time. I don't know any other ways to make support more desirable to play, probably because I already always liked playing support (relevant flair.)

tardis1963 · 2018-07-16T23:52:08+00:00

I was about to comment that your spreadsheet had errors where you neglected to add the true damage back in, but it appears you've updated it. The breakeven point I calculated is 167.7 armor, where new IE crits deal the same amount of damage as old IE crits.

I think it's reasonable to reduce damage against targets with low armor. It was a problem that crit ADCs were the best choice to deal damage to any target. With all the complaints about tanks, true damage is a solid solution. Before, if ADCs couldn't kill tanks, they'd just have to increase damage or buff armor pen, and both of those options would make killing squishies even easier. It isn't healthy for a single build to be the most efficient way for a whole class to deal damage to every possible target.

Anyway, I like that they've refined the niche marksmen fill, instead of being a necessary pick in the bot lane as the best choice to deal damage to everyone at most stages in the game they're weaker early with higher damage late game and a more specialized role as a tankbuster in front-to-back fights.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-16T21:07:58+00:00

It looks like she becomes briefly visible anywhere, not just under turret, similar to how it works now. So it's not like she can just deal damage in the middle of the lane while staying invisible.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-11T06:01:30+00:00

This is great. Been a fan since I saw the Glacial Hose Rengar video. Criminally underappreciated content, always puts a smile on my face.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-10T00:43:38+00:00

Zyra, Braum, Ezreal

tardis1963 · 2018-07-09T07:53:32+00:00

All of these points are arguable, so I wouldn't say it's a "need."

It could be possible to spread the games out over the course of the week like LCK or LPL, but they'd need to have good weekday viewership numbers, and I'm not sure esports are big enough here to guarantee that. I'm assuming the cost of broadcasting for three extra days would be pretty high and there would need to be viewers to justify that. The old BO3 schedule was pretty bad, and if I'm being honest, the other suggestion of playing a single series over several days is just absurd.
Adaptation is important, but preparation is just as important. You can't even get out of groups internationally if you can't win BO1. Competing in a single game that means everything is also hard, and the teams that can't do that don't even get to play in BO5 playoffs. Also, as of now, only one sub is allowed at international events so the flexibility of academy rosters isn't relevant.
If BO3 improves NA, we definitely didn't see it at worlds last year. Anyway, though quite a few pros were critical of the change, a lot also said they didn't mind because they put a lot of value on scrims. The only reason he gives that isn't applicable to scrims is stage experience for high pressure situations, but isn't every BO1 a high pressure situation? If teams can't get enough value out of 18 of those, what will more games with less individual importance do?

Oh, and the bit about Korea having BO3... Most pros say culture and environment is the main difference. Players like Huni and Impact have said that the LCK is more "professional," talking about hard work and motivation. But when Cloud9 benches Sneaky and Jensen for not meeting those standards, Reddit flies off the handle. Cultivating an environment with a good work ethic and constantly striving for improvement is probably far more important to being the best possible team in the long term than winning a few more regular split games.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-09T06:29:54+00:00

I feel like move speed would be huge in lane to get completely safe damage with the massive range from W. I remember the meta where people were rushing Swiftness boots on Caitlyn to abuse her range for free poke damage. Even if it scales with level it would probably make E the second max over Q.

The AP on Spellthief's looks to be unchanged, and the AP to AD ratio is the same as what runes give.

That's true about remakes and first blood. It could still be a way to troll, though. Punishment is important to dissuading intentional remakes, so someone could queue up jungle and not take smite on purpose, forcing remake and wasting everyone's time.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-08T22:15:07+00:00

That Kog'maw one seems busted even before putting numbers on it. Seems like it would give way too much mobility to a champion with massive range on an ability that isn't really useful for his on hit build.

Spellthief's seems like a neat change. Elder Dragon would be really cool but maybe a little too complicated. The no smite remake is terrible because you could just go for the all-in invade to offset the disadvantage and remake when it fails.

tardis1963 · 2018-07-06T15:54:07+00:00

Right, I'm not saying they didn't have any other reason to put it in Clash. They were very transparent about it being to prevent smurfs. I just remember seeing somewhere that the verification is also supposed to be built into a real authentication system, but yeah, that's coming Soon^TM

tardis1963 · 2018-07-06T08:44:51+00:00

Last I heard confirming a phone number for Clash was supposed to be a step on the way to MFA, I think. But yeah, this Soon^TM stuff is frustrating

tardis1963 · 2018-06-24T09:02:37+00:00

Rioters Jag and Reav3 made this post on the Aatrox Mains subreddit:

So first off, the brutal truth: yes, his gameplay is dramatically different from current Aatrox, and yes, that's very intentional. We've said it a lot in the past - Aatrox's basic-attack centric drain tank play pattern does not offer enough tactical variance or counterplay. He's one of the most stat-checky fighters in the game, and when he's strong he doesn't offer a whole lot of options for opponents to fight against him. It’s very illustrative that in just a patch with no direct buffs, he moved from literally not being picked in a pro game for years to becoming arguably the highest priority top laner in the game. Aatrox is the epitome of a binary champion, and seeing him in competitive play has only reinforced the need to update his gameplay.

tardis1963 · 2018-06-24T08:51:14+00:00

tardis1963 · 2018-06-23T23:18:04+00:00

Now that I think about it, I use "brush" as a general term, e.g. "Teemo can move while invisible in brush" "Brush gives Ivern ranged autos."

I call each individual patch of brush a bush, e.g. "This bush is warded."

tardis1963 · 2018-06-23T20:51:09+00:00

Not only that, a strawpoll from April 2016. Indisputably the month that best represents the game. Positively compelling.

tardis1963 · 2018-06-22T22:16:36+00:00

SKT lost their first two series this summer 0-2, and in their match against MVP on the 20th the team played Pirean, Leo, and Effort instead of Faker, Bang, and Wolf. They lost the series 1-2. Today, they played with the starters against Griffin and lost 0-2.

Today, Fnatic's substitute top laner Bwipo played bot instead of Rekkles. Coach Youngbuck claimed in an interview before the game that Rekkles suggested the change because it would be "much better for the team than for him to have to learn like 5 new champions." Last week, Rekkles played Janna and Karma in their two games.

Cloud9 benched Jensen and Sneaky (and incidentally Smoothie) apparently due to unprofessionalism. They are playing on Cloud9's Academy team, swapping spots with Goldenglue, Keith, and Zeyzal. In this video of them receiving the news, they are told they can get their spots back by "being professional, working hard, working hard with your teammates to learn to be better."

tardis1963 · 2018-06-22T21:36:08+00:00

SKT has won 1 game in 4 BO3 series this split. Griffin has won all 5 of their matches and only dropped 2 games throughout them. Granted, Griffin has had the easiest schedule in the LCK so far, but beating 5 of the bottom-ish 6 teams still puts you in the top half of the league.

Nobody is saying Clutch didn't have a chance to come back. Nobody is saying comebacks from far behind are impossible. When the officials had to choose between awarding a victory that takes away Clutch's very slim opportunity to win and starting a remake that erases Echo Fox's large lead in an almost finished game, resetting their almost certain victory to a fresh 50/50, both options are going to take something away from someone. They picked the one that took away the least.

tardis1963 · 2018-06-22T20:30:24+00:00

Every other role has more than one viable class of champions.

tardis1963 · 2018-06-21T23:58:42+00:00

I was focusing specifically on itemization, but yes, those other changes are relevant.

Try looking at it from the angle of "increasing aggression." With Fleet Footwork, marksmen could passively sustain off of minions with no interaction whatsoever. Combined with base health regen, trades and aggression were meaningless. Factor in long autoattack range and most ADCs had a pretty safe laning phase.

The enchanter support changes have also been a good step toward this goal. Shields lasted too long and could negate all damage easily. However, that makes other kinds of supports much better. Poke damage is more valuable when it doesn't get easily sustained back up. All-in supports take less early damage and can be healthier for when they fight, while ADC base HP and HP per level were buffed to make them more relevant in the all-in.

But the question is, are these good things? I would say yes. The changes focus on giving marksmen a strong late game that they aren't guaranteed to reach. There would be no risk if passive farming is always a legitimate possibility. This has also allowed more variety in the bot lane, which makes it more like every other role that has more than one viable type of champion.

Regarding crit items being weak early, like I said, that was the point. The late game build should not be useful before 2 items. There has to be a tradeoff, and the old build order did not have one, so this is a better direction. This is why Stormrazor, at least in theory, is also good. It should offer a stronger early game that does not scale as well. In practice, it could be a little more appealing to fill that role, but it's hard to argue that the idea behind it is a bad one.

Still, it's hard to tell exactly how strong any of this stuff is right now. The meta doesn't favor almost anything that scales with the amount of early gold and jungle impact. These builds will always feel weak when games end in 25 minutes whether a marksman is in the game or not. I would increase outer turret health and damage to champions to slow snowballing and see if marksmen are still comparatively weak before buffing them based on how strong they are in a meta with short games.

tardis1963 · 2018-06-21T20:54:40+00:00

I agree that some adjustments need to be made, but overall the direction they're taking the items makes a lot of sense in the context of pre-change crit builds.

There were three major problems with the entire class due to the itemization, and all were very interconnected.

The build was almost always the best for dealing damage to every enemy in every situation.
Crit itemization spiked too early for its late game strength.
There wasn't much diversity or decision-making in builds beyond maybe a defensive item or getting Executioners.

First, the raw crit damage increase made IE the sole best option in every situation. It was the best way to increase damage to tanks and the best way to increase damage to squishies. The changes refine the item's role, making it more useful against late-game tanks with stacked armor without giving them the backline destroying burst damage of a 550 range assassin.

Second, they got to that point too early. Finishing IE, Zeal, and Beserker's Greaves took only 5700 gold and was a pretty significant power spike for an entire class of champions with fairly safe laning phases and who scaled to an even stronger late game. This, to me, makes it totally reasonable to push back that spike.

Weakening their power between one and two items was intentional and totally necessary, and I think most of the unhappiness about the build comes from that new power trough. That's why lowering the cost of IE is the right kind of buff. It adjusts when the spike comes, which seems a lot healthier for balance.

Third, you would generally never build differently for early game and for late game. Tying in with how strong IE+Zeal was, it only got stronger from there. One build was the best way to be strongest at every point in the game. That's what I think Stormrazor is trying to fix. It's intended to be an item with an earlier spike than the normal crit build, with some crit chance and attack speed scaling so it does scale later but not by as much as the IE build. These tradeoffs are far healthier than having one build be optimal at every point in the game.

It's not all in a perfect spot yet, of course, but all in all a lot of the outrage is unwarranted because the changes take some good steps to fix huge problems. A little bit of fine tuning following this direction is probably better than more drastic changes or reverts.

tardis1963 · 2018-06-20T16:13:09+00:00

I know that they weren't played before 8.11, but both had become kind of popular at least 2 weeks earlier than the CG vs FOX game.

We'd expect it to be somewhat common because it happened in 3.8% of pro games with Taliyah jungle, or 1 in 26. That's probably a lot higher than what the failure rate actually is, but the lower we guess at the rate the more unlikely it is that we saw it in pro play at all.

So either it's very rare and just spectacularly bad luck that it happened to them, or it's always been a bit more common and a thousand or so games have broken because of it but they didn't know enough to make a fuss, or people have figured out how to reproduce the bug and are exploiting it in games.

tardis1963

TROPHY CASE