Support NeoGAF

[garath]

dimb, what do you level on Sejuani? I tried W->Q->E last night. I felt it was pretty solid. I was doing some good damage early game but mid game I was squishier than I wanted (mostly because of a fed LeBlanc) and didn't do enough damage to carry my team. Her CC is just flippin amazing though. I was involved in 75% of my teams kills throughout the game.

I almost want to max Q first for the mobility but the higher mana cost will hurt jungle clears.

I ran a standard AP page (AP quint, mag pen red, armor yellows, MR blues) and felt pretty good about it. But I'm open to suggestions. I remember using an attackspeed/movespeed page on her before and not liking it too much.

I prefer to play ranked because I tend to have more 'even' games when I play. It's not always a massive stomp or a massive 'get stomped' game. Having a tonne of these in a row is just boring after a while.

I can accept when I lose and win games in most of my ranked games because I can see where I/my team get outplayed or see some decent/excellent plays at the level i'm at. There's no spike in skill by one person who carries the entire game by himself for the entire game. Playing against that or being the person that is doing that is just boring to me.

But fuck division 1 of anything. That shit is just toxic and infuriating to play in. When I go on my ranked rage sprees on here and in GAF-chat, I'm in division 1. I seriously don't feel like it's even about skill in most of my division 1 games. It's just about the unfortunate team who gets the division 5 who doesn't care or the bigger rager who gives up or is too busy typing to cs or do anything properly.

I couldn't agree more with the Division 1 hate. I've been to 90lp in Silver I twice now. Third time's the charm I'm sure. If I start playing ranked again.

 

[Boken]

Very interesting post by Morello on balance etc., including why 2 v 1 as the dominant strategy in competitive LoL is bad for the game.

I totally agree with him.

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=40536148#40536148

completely disagree
his rejection is based ultimately on a gameplay perspective - that the dueling laning phase is more fun. this is true. but pro gamers dont play for fun, they play to win. 2 v 1 isnt even a strategy that is viable in most pub games so i dont see why he even has to bother to touch this.

ultimately, mobas are about interaction AND strategy. 2 v 1 games still have interaction, and all games have team fights. but to completely kill a strategy from a 50-60% appearance rate to a 5% gambit is fucking ridiculous

 

[Leezard]

It's not necessarily a bad thing if one of the 3 or so phases of the game is more about tactics and individual skill rather than being the result of a strategy chosen at champ select. There is Dota if you prefer that.
2v1 lanes are common at higher ranks, even if they're not at pro level.

 

[scy]

It's not really about "fun" itself so much as it is that "we value an actual laning phase." 2v1s as a thing to negate the laning phase of an entire lane isn't really ideal for LoL's design.

 

[Boken]

you can have a laning phase AND have 2v1

i think what he wants is dueling, and you want dueling because its fun

 

[Archie]

you can have a laning phase AND have 2v1

i think what he wants is dueling, and you want dueling because its fun

2v1 ends the laning phase earlier than Riot wants.

I liked that post. I generally can't stand Morello, but he did a good job articulating his position and what works best for his game.

 

[Boken]

2v1 ends the laning phase earlier than Riot wants.

I liked that post. I generally can't stand Morello, but he did a good job articulating his position and what works best for his game.

what i meant is that you can embrace the standard and make the laning phase as long as you want through balance

 

[PhillipCostigan]

you can have a laning phase AND have 2v1

i think what he wants is dueling, and you want dueling because its fun

but you can't. 2 v 1 is designed to entirely bypass the laning phase, and I don't think there's much interaction at all. It's "get down these outer towers, who cares about that one guy trying to farm under the tower, ignore him unless he comes too close and just take the tower".

I think that's inherently bad for League. 2 v 1 the way it is now and the way you want it doesn't allow for a laning phase which is bad for LoL.

 

[Leezard]

what i meant is that you can embrace the standard and make the laning phase as long as you want through balance

2v1 isn't really optimal if it doesn't bypass the laning phase, which is the purpose of the strategy. Making the laning phase longer (or just make it harder to kill the towers) means the 2v1 strat would see less use.

 

[Boken]

but you can't. 2 v 1 is designed to entirely bypass the laning phase, and I don't think there's much interaction at all. It's "get down these outer towers, who cares about that one guy trying to farm under the tower, ignore him unless he comes too close and just take the tower".

I think that's inherently bad for League. 2 v 1 the way it is now and the way you want it doesn't allow for a laning phase which is bad for LoL.

if you want to define laning phase as interaction between lane opponents, then sure, 2v1 byasses that. I defined that as "dueling"

laning phase to me is just the early stage of the game where people are generally confined to their lanes and where movement isnt rampant. with that definition you can have both 2v1 lanes with a decently long laning phase

2v1 isn't really optimal if it doesn't bypass the laning phase, which is the purpose of the strategy. Making the laning phase longer (or just make it harder to kill the towers) means the 2v1 strat would see less use.

then the meta has naturally shifted away from 2v1, and thats fine. on the other side, riot can also make 2v1 more desirable so that it is you can maintain a laning phase with it (leezard is using my definition here)

and those that complain about no interaction, you can design champions that function in a long 2v1 phase.

----
basically, im upset at their reaction to the natural development of their own game design. Rather than to organically grow the game from its current state, they'd rather shift it back to their original design goals, even though the game has moved beyond when those visions were made

 

[Leezard]

then the meta has naturally shifted away from 2v1, and thats fine. on the other side, riot can also make 2v1 more desirable so that it is you can maintain a laning phase with it (leezard is using my definition here)


and those that complain about no interaction, you can design champions that function in a long 2v1 phase.

Unless I understood Morello's post incorrectly, that's what he meant, and the tower buff in the last patch was only to make the laning phase longer. The problem is that 2v1 is optimal, rather than it happening.

I agree that 2v1 should be a legit strategy, but it should definitely not be the only way to play.

 

[PhillipCostigan]

if you want to define laning phase as interaction between lane opponents, then sure, 2v1 byasses that. I defined that as "dueling"

laning phase to me is just the early stage of the game where people are generally confined to their lanes and where movement isnt rampant. with that definition you can have both 2v1 lanes with a decently long laning phase



then the meta has naturally shifted away from 2v1, and thats fine. on the other side, riot can also make 2v1 more desirable so that it is you can maintain a laning phase with it (leezard is using my definition here)


and those that complain about no interaction, you can design champions that function in a long 2v1 phase.

Why would Riot specifically design a champion to plug a hole in an issue they don't want in the first place instead of just removing the issue? That's ridiculous.

And lane phase in this scenario that we're talking about is people being in their lanes, fighting each other and trying to beat each other head to head. The winning lanes take the towers and then they group up to take more objectives. Once that starts happening lane phase is effectively over.

2 v 1 skips the first part in favour of immediately taking towers ASAP and then grouping for objectives and roaming as a group. That's not a lane phase, that's skipping it entirely. That strategy removes a core part of LoL, as well as making many champions who do poorly in a 1 v 2 lane completely not viable which is bad for the health of the game. I'm talking League of Legends specifically here.

2 v 1 should be left as a way to try and put certain disadvantages on champions that have a rough laning phase anyway (like Kassadin) or a very specialised strat, not the dominant strategy in the game. It removes a part of what makes League its own game.

 

[Boken]

Why would Riot specifically design a champion to plug a hole in an issue they don't want in the first place instead of just removing the issue? That's ridiculous.

because this metagame has naturally evolved out of riots game design

how is that ridiculous.

you know whats ridiculous? an artifical armor buff to towers that suddenly disappears after 8 minutes. thats basically a bandaid that is hard to communicate and doesnt logically exist other than to fix a mistake. thats not good game design.

 

[scy]

Just to note, it's not the 2v1 that's really the problem (because they're okay with 2v1). It's the 2v1 right into a low economy mid game before the 10 minute mark that they don't want. I do agree that the Armor tweak is a little silly as opposed to just making Minions strip more Armor after X time.

 

[Leezard]

Oh, the towers had a buff that decayed after 8 minutes? Yeah, that's a shitty bandaid. If they wanted to buff the towers they could've been buffed for the whole game.

 

[Boken]

Just to note, it's not the 2v1 that's really the problem (because they're okay with 2v1). It's the 2v1 right into a low economy mid game before the 10 minute mark that they don't want. I do agree that the Armor tweak is a little silly as opposed to just making Minions strip more Armor after X time.

theyre okay with it existing as a "gambit" (5% occurance)

what i want is 2v1s to be approx 50% of the lane strategy, the other being 1-1-2.

all they need to do is to make where the 2v1 lanes are more predictable so that players can plan their lanes better, rather than having every solo laner being able to 1v2

That strategy removes a core part of LoL, as well as making many champions who do poorly in a 1 v 2 lane completely not viable which is bad for the health of the game. I'm talking League of Legends specifically here.

remember the power creep of 1v1 top lanes being bad for the health of the game?

its still there. 2v1 lanes just made it less visible.

 

[PhillipCostigan]

because this metagame has naturally evolved out of riots game design

how is that ridiculous.

you know whats ridiculous? an artifical armor buff that suddenly disappears after 8 minutes. thats not organic or comprehensible.

The meta-game hasn't evolved. 2 v 1 is essentially an exploit. It's people exploiting the sheer amount of global gold early in order to negate laning phase and hit mid-game almost immediately.

It's not even 2 v 1 at this stage. It's 2 (or 3) v Tower. How do you think that's good for the health of the game?

2 v 1 as a strategy can exist. But it can't exist the way it currently does. You want to throw 2 people against a Kassadin in lane to shut him down before he gets super big? Go for it. That still includes a laning phase as your lane is designed to shut someone down, rather than to exploit massive early global gold.

It should be a specific strategy for very specific situations, not THE way to play the game.

 

[scy]

theyre okay with it existing as a "gambit" (5% occurance)

what i want is 2v1s to be approx 50% of the lane strategy, the other being 1-1-2.

Again, they don't like 2v1 as a global gold -> mid game accelerant. 2v1 as a denial or drawn out affair is fine to them.

 

[Boken]

The meta-game hasn't evolved. 2 v 1 is essentially an exploit. It's people exploiting the sheer amount of global gold early in order to negate laning phase and hit mid-game almost immediately.

i believe you would be using the word "exploit" different to how most people use it. global gold is an intentional part of the game design. what they are exploiting is the weakness of towers.

you also seem uncertain about whether you want to argue against 2v1 lanes on length or on a "no interaction" basis.

if length, length can be fixed. if "no interaction" and if "shutting a lane down" as per your kassadin example is a viable form of interaction, then 2v1s have the same amount of interaction in that the 1 is willingly shutting himself down for the betterment of his team.

 

[dimb]

dimb, what do you level on Sejuani? I tried W->Q->E last night. I felt it was pretty solid. I was doing some good damage early game but mid game I was squishier than I wanted (mostly because of a fed LeBlanc) and didn't do enough damage to carry my team. Her CC is just flippin amazing though. I was involved in 75% of my teams kills throughout the game.

I almost want to max Q first for the mobility but the higher mana cost will hurt jungle clears.

I max W first right now. Sometimes Q if I feel like I can get away on it clears because I'll be ganking often or have blue buff.

If someone like LeBonk feels too dangerous I will usually hold off on major armor items outside Tabi to build Warmog's+Visage.

i don't feel like explaining the runes and masteries right now because i've done it a bunch, but they're on my lolking.

 

[Boken]

Again, they don't like 2v1 as a global gold -> mid game accelerant. 2v1 as a denial or drawn out affair is fine to them.

that might be the case, and i totally understand. but i sincerely doubt your second conclusion though

"The laning phase focuses on tons of small, incremental advantages that result in someone beating their opponent, sometimes with help and sometimes without it."

it really sounds like they want laning to be a duel based affair

 

[PhillipCostigan]

i believe you would be using the word "exploit" different to how most people use it. global gold is an intentional part of the game design. what they are exploiting is the weakness of towers.

you also seem uncertain about whether you want to argue against 2v1 lanes on length or on a "no interaction" basis.

if length, length can be fixed. if "no interaction" and if "shutting a lane down" as per your kassadin example is a viable form of interaction, then 2v1s have the same amount of interaction in that the 1 is willingly shutting himself down for the betterment of his team.

Global gold is there to be gained, yes, but at a smooth rate and is obtained over the game. It's not designed to be so front loaded in that you're eating up a massive amount of it to bypass lane phase. The exploit is not getting global gold, the exploit is rushing it early and using the vast amount of it to bypass an integral part of the game, laning phase.

As for length vs. interaction, it's a balance. I want an actual lane phase, people fighting each other with the intention of beating other based on skill and lane play. If that lasts 15 minutes cos it's super even and intense, that's great. If it lasts 8-10 because one team is getting rolled, the other team deserves to take that tower and that advantage into the mid game.

The way it is now offers neither length nor interaction because lane phase simply doesn't exist.

 

[garath]

I max W first right now. Sometimes Q if I feel like I can get away on it clears because I'll be ganking often or have blue buff.

If someone like LeBonk feels too dangerous I will usually hold off on major armor items outside Tabi to build Warmog's+Visage.

i don't feel like explaining the runes and masteries right now because i've done it a bunch, but they're on my lolking.

Thanks. Glad to see I wasn't too far off the mark. I don't have a similar runepage (feeling like I need more pages now lol. 10 isn't enough!) so I'll probably roll with the straight AP one for now.

I went straight for visage after golem and tabi which increased my survivability quite a bit but did not help my poor team. LeB finished 19/6 or something silly like that.

 

[drawkcaB]

because this metagame has naturally evolved out of riots game design

how is that ridiculous.

What is a champion that can function against in a 1v2 scenario?

First, let's recognize that a 1v2 isn't really a 1v2. It's a 1v3 where the 3rd opponent - the jungler - is absent up every now and then. So you're going to need an excellent escape or an excellent defensive ability that makes ganking you risky. And this has to be on one of your normal abilities because the jungler is going to pay you a visit before you hit 6. You'll also need an excellent wave clear ability with good range. Again, this has to be on a normal ability.

So a champion that has excellent and safe ranged wave clear and excellent escape in QWE. That sounds like a champ who's broken in 1v1.

Your solution is for them to artificial fix a natural development is just as much a bandaid fix as tower armor degrading as the start of a match.

(Also, 2v1 lanes aren't in 50-60% of competitve games. If it were I'm not so sure Riot would be hot to fix it. They're fixing it because it's 75%+)

Riot just needs to reduce the advantages and increase the disadvantages that are caused by the 2v1 lane. They can reduce global gold from outer turrets so teams can't get midgame like farm so early. They can change the XP sharing formula so that it takes into account the number of enemy champions in the area (i.e. XP sharing in 2v2 as is, reduces to 50% normal XP if 2v1) to reduce the impact on zoning out the solo laner. They could also introduce a new summoner spell that helps defend in a 2v1, a garrison like spell might work because it could buff your tower and nerf enemy towers to keep it relevant after laning phase ends.

There's lots of stuff they can do. I'm assuming the reason they came out with the tower armor change was because the map layout change and other S4 jungle changes will have a significant impact on lane compositions, so it's best to wait for the picture to become clearer as they test S4.

Thanks. Glad to see I wasn't too far off the mark. I don't have a similar runepage (feeling like I need more pages now lol. 10 isn't enough!) so I'll probably roll with the straight AP one for now.

I went straight for visage after golem and tabi which increased my survivability quite a bit but did not help my poor team. LeB finished 19/6 or something silly like that.

Seems like the bigger problem is that your teammates didn't buy any significant MR items until it was too late, if at all. If your midlaner is too dense to recognize LB's snowball potential and invest in merc treads and a chalice/negatron early there isn't a single item you could buy that would fix their mistake.

 

[garath]

What is a champion that can function against in a 1v2 scenario?

First, let's recognize that a 1v2 isn't really a 1v2. It's a 1v3 where the 3rd opponent - the jungler - is absent up every now and then. So you're going to need an excellent escape or an excellent defensive ability that makes ganking you risky. And this has to be on one of your normal abilities because the jungler is going to pay you a visit before you hit 6. You'll also need an excellent wave clear ability with good range. Again, this has to be on a normal ability.

So a champion that has excellent and safe ranged wave clear and excellent escape in QWE. That sounds like a champ who's broken in 1v1.

Your solution is for them to artificial fix a natural development is just as much a bandaid fix as tower armor degrading as the start of a match.

(Also, 2v1 lanes aren't in 50-60% of competitve games. If it were I'm not so sure Riot would be hot to fix it. They're fixing it because it's 75%+)

Riot just needs to reduce the advantages and increase the disadvantages that are caused by the 2v1 lane. They can reduce global gold from outer turrets so teams can't get midgame like farm so early. They can change the XP sharing formula so that it takes into account the number of enemy champions in the area (i.e. XP sharing in 2v2 as is, reduces to 50% normal XP if 2v1) to reduce the impact on zoning out the solo laner. They could also introduce a new summoner spell that helps defend in a 2v1, a garrison like spell might work because it could buff your tower and nerf enemy towers to keep it relevant after laning phase ends.

There's lots of stuff they can do. I'm assuming the reason they came out with the tower armor change was because the map layout change and other S4 jungle changes will have a significant impact on lane compositions, so it's best to wait for the picture to become clearer as they test S4.

Shifting some of the global gold and xp from the first tier towers to the later tier would be a good change. It's a great idea. Would reduce some of the snowballing in solo queue games to boot. I'd like to see it reduced to as low as 50 gold, shifting 25 to tier 2 and 75 to tier 3. So that team with an early lead and all 3 tier 1 towers only has a 1k gold boost instead of a 3k one.

 

[drawkcaB]

Shifting some of the global gold and xp from the first tier towers to the later tier would be a good change. It's a great idea. Would reduce some of the snowballing in solo queue games to boot. I'd like to see it reduced to as low as 50 gold, shifting 25 to tier 2 and 75 to tier 3. So that team with an early lead and all 3 tier 1 towers only has a 1k gold boost instead of a 3k one.

A teamwide buff of some sort might also be an interesting idea. No idea what that buff would be, just throwing that out there.

 

[garath]

Seems like the bigger problem is that your teammates didn't buy any significant MR items until it was too late, if at all. If your midlaner is too dense to recognize LB's snowball potential and invest in merc treads and a chalice/negatron early there isn't a single item you could buy that would fix their mistake.

Lol. Oh yeah. That game was a trainwreck waiting to happen. I tried to prevent the LB snowball but the TF kept suiciding into her. The top nid kept roaming into their jungle and getting ganked as well. It was a mess and a loss pretty much from min 20. Too bad they refused to surrender.

Just looking at what I did personally and trying to shore up my carry potential with Sej.

 

[bjaelke]

Sabretusk Sejuani 487 RP
Cowgirl Miss Fortune 375 RP
Commando Lux 260 RP


Ahri 487 RP
Leona 440 RP
Lux 395 RP

 

[PhillipCostigan]

I was just about to do the sale -_-

bjaelke pls

 

[Subtle]

Waifu week

 

[dimb]

pro tip: teemo is not a good pick vs. gp.

 

[garath]

Sabretusk Sejuani 487 RP
Cowgirl Miss Fortune 375 RP
Commando Lux 260 RP


Ahri 487 RP
Leona 440 RP
Lux 395 RP

Am I going to feel like a second class citizen picking up the Sabretusk skin?

 

[dimb]

Am I going to feel like a second class citizen picking up the Sabretusk skin?

you should.

 

[PhillipCostigan]

Especially when Darkrider was on sale not too long ago as well.

 

[garath]

you should.

I've looked at the skin spotlight and decided it sucks. So I'll just remain a third class citizen with no skin.

Especially when Darkrider was on sale not too long ago as well.

If only I had given her some more playtime. I've decided I like her now.

 

[bjaelke]

pro tip: teemo is not a good pick vs. gp.

What build were you running?

 

[Newt]

pro tip: teemo is not a good pick vs. gp.

Teemo isn't a good pick in general.

 

[Edwardo]

i got a silver border and play with gold/plat/diamond. nobody has said anything.

Why would ppl say anything negative about that? Doesnt it mean that you've improved..

Sabretusk Sejuani 487 RP
Cowgirl Miss Fortune 375 RP
Commando Lux 260 RP


Ahri 487 RP
Leona 440 RP
Lux 395 RP

My rp is safe... for now....

 

[drawkcaB]

I've looked at the skin spotlight and decided it sucks. So I'll just remain a third class citizen with no skin.



If only I had given her some more playtime. I've decided I like her now.

I suppose the sale on her commie skin is over? Because that's fantastic skin.

 

[garath]

I suppose the sale on her commie skin is over? Because that's fantastic skin.

yes

I actually would have picked it up. But apparently it was like 2 days or something.

 

[drawkcaB]

Got jump on the capitalist pigs' sales, comrade. 1 skin bad. 2 skins good.

 

[bjaelke]

Aatrox came out on June 13th. They certainly took a step away from that 2 week release schedule.

 

[Einbroch]

Teemo isn't a good pick in general.

My brother rode Teemo all the way to (the equivalent) of Diamond last season.

Underrated little fella.

 

[dimb]

What build were you running?

standard on hit build.

finally lost a game. support akali. : l

 

[bjaelke]

standard on hit build.

finally lost a game. support akali. : l

Ah thought you played Teemo.

 

[dimb]

Ah thought you played Teemo.

plz. i don't even own teemo.

 

[kayos90]

I blame the jerks that stopped me from finishing Hurricane last night. =/

 

[Wolf Akela]

Lux, Cait, Lux, MF, Anivia, Sona, Vlad, Lux... my ARAM rolls are so damn good I'm wondering what happens when the bad rolls start coming.

standard on hit build.

finally lost a game. support akali. : l

I actually just had a support Warwick who just built pure tank and wards (not from sightstone). It wasn't too bad since I was Vayne. Still next to useless in lane against Varus whoever his support was.

 

[Newt]

My brother rode Teemo all the way to (the equivalent) of Diamond last season.

Underrated little fella.

Donger>Teemo

 

[kiunchbb]

I blame the jerks that stopped me from finishing Hurricane last night. =/

You got blow up so fast you could be building 5 rageblade and it wouldn't matter.