Full Build Armor should counter Full Build AD

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GutEveryone

Senior Member

06-23-2013

this sounds like a Xypherous topic. maybe Morello. good luck, OP, i'm curious too.

edit: holy hell, i was right.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

jmlinden7

Senior Member

06-23-2013

AD carries have to be able to kill tanks, otherwise tanks just become invincible.

However, tanks should be able to survive AD burst casters like Riven and Khazix.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Faptain Teemo

Member

06-23-2013

Well tanks don't have any kind of vamp/life steal items (which is sensible), and with the way shields, barriers and life steal is deciding who wins the fights, there needs to be more health regen for them. Life steal and spell vamp are coupled with damage items. I think it would be reasonable for more hp5 items on HP items that offer no armor and no MR , or at least a boost to existing hp5 items like shurelyas and Eleisa's miracle.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AlexDnD2

Senior Member

06-24-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumbler View Post
This is an utterly foolish idea. Offense should always beat defense or you have a game where nothing ever happens. You're also ignoring that an AP carry generally does not have enough juice, even fully built, to take out someone with a decent amount of health and MR, even if that person was stacking mainly armor.
There are two types of offense though, I'm saying devoting soley to one type of defense should be succesful.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xypherous

Systems Designer

06-24-2013
1 of 12 Riot Posts

This makes several assumptions on relative game health:

1. You are spending as much gold on defense as they are on damage


It's somewhat unrealistic to assume that a full defense character should have a similar gold income, especially late game - as full damage characters. Full defense inherently takes less risks and opportunity costs for playing the game. Therefore - you are always going to have less gold at some point that players who actually expose themselves to a serious weakness.

We could solve this by severely increase the power of gold for defense statistics compared to offense but going down this line moots the entire point of buying offensive items. Offensive items intrinsically are worth more because they offer more play - people who buy offense can die.

2. That invulnerable characters are intrinsically a good thing for the game


I think this is where we'll probably disagree here - characters that become invulnerable, even to a subset of characters - are simply characters who don't actually wish to interact with a certain subset of opponents.

Invulnerable characters are bad for the game in several ways - because as soon as you reach this threshold, there's very little reason to actually interact or play with the enemy team, outside of simply murdering them because they now can do absolutely nothing against you.

While this would be fun for the invulnerable player - this is less of a game, and more of a 'Man, everyone who bought offense is really bad.'

Consider what happens if this is true - if you buy offense, you can't damage a subset of their team - but you can now be murdered by anyone on their team becomes the norm, and under this state - defense is the only real option.

3. The defining characteristic of a tank is 'immune to damage'

The interesting dilemma here is that the tank role in many respects reads as 'durable' characters. However, the actions that a tank has to do to win any given fight does not rely on durability as much as some other classes - notably melee damage dealers.

A tank dying in a successful initiation has a staggering impact on the success of his team - He has simultaneously started a favorable fight while wasting a large part of the opposing team's cooldowns. Contrast - most fighters need a prolonged engagement in order to actually output value to their team.

Durability - at the end of the day, is a more valuable fighter statistic than a tank statistic - simply due to need / time required to stay in a fight. Tanks have many non-pure durability ways to simulate effective defense, every tank knows intrinsically that disabling their damage dealer for a few seconds is worth a massive amount of durability. If CC is a portion of a tank's kit - they will always have many different ways to mitigate damage - from disabling the opponent's damage outright by stun - or simply making it very difficult for the damage to be applied in time via slows or displacements.

As a side note here, I actually believe that we should be putting more defense straight onto a tank's kit rather than force them to buy it. You should be able to rely on the fact that your tank has a baseline level of durability - rather than that shift wildly based on gold income.

Quick aside on Armor versus Health


Armor, being a net multiplicative statistic influences a lot more than just damage reduction - It also reduces life steal and amplifies the effect of other abilities like shielding effects (which lie on the same multiplicative axis as Health.)

What this does (and did in Season 2) is create an environment where only characters with penetration could reliably damage other characters and negates a large subset of characters like AD Casters, Utility Supports and Tanks from contributing to anything in a late game fight outside of 'Protect the characters with % Pen.'

Shifting away from primary resistances allows you to do a few things - It lets us control the power of in-combat sustain, like life steal or spell vamp because you interact with health more directly. It opens the way for penetration to actually be a counter statistic (though it's not there yet, admittedly) rather than simply the best damage multiplier you can get. It lets more people participate in the damage race because they no longer need both damage and penetration in order to pierce the opponents in-combat sustain.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

WexAndywn

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Recruiter

06-24-2013

Oh god math why.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

US Economy

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

06-24-2013

I wish I was smart enough to understand the things Xyph said


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

InverseChirality

Senior Member

06-24-2013

What I take from your post, Xyph, is that "gold balance" is an important aspect of balancing, and that we will thus never see tanks or supports actually be allowed to get reasonable amounts of gold


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Teemo Support GG

Senior Member

06-24-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Economy View Post
I wish I was smart enough to understand the things Xyph said
^ Truth.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xypherous

Systems Designer

06-24-2013
2 of 12 Riot Posts

Quote:
What I take from your post, Xyph, is that "gold balance" is an important aspect of balancing, and that we will thus never see tanks or supports actually be allowed to get reasonable amounts of gold
Not exactly - Basically what I'm saying is that players who purchase items to mitigate risk should not be rewarded with more gold than players who are purchasing items that maximize their risk.

Essentially - if you rewarded more or equal gold to the player who is trying to 'not lose' - then not losing becomes the best available course of action.

Think about GP/10 - you incur more risk when you purchase a GP/10 item. They give you less raw statistical power than any other equivalent and frequently opens you up to punishment in the short-term - thus it's a great tool to manipulate gold streams so that the support / tank gets a larger share of gold - while not simply building to invalidate opponents.

For example, imagine a world where your towers had passive GP/10 and that taking enemy tower's down gave you nothing - What are you encouraging here, with this gold income model? Then think about how it applies to buying defense versus buying utility/support items.

Quote:
I wish I was smart enough to understand the things Xyph said
My apologies on this. I tend to be really confusing because I just info-dump like the end result of every discussion / debate I've ever had - is there anything that you'd like me to clarify?