Are Champions As Awesome As They Could Be? @Morello @Feralpony @IronStylus @Xypherous

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

Whyumai

Senior Member

01-19-2013

because I only just finished with Item Guy's reply. Might as well put a few quick points down.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
He's not designed to destroy towers - it just happens his kit is really good at doing that as besides that he still has insane good poking abilities with his rockets and grenades, that's what kills him, that's the reason he has always been either UP or OP. His kit is too good at too many things unless they are nerfed to a level where he is underpowered aka Jayce Syndrome, aka Lee Sin syndrome, aka Irelia Syndrome.
I completely and entirely disagree with the belief that he's not designed to destroy towers. I mean, his grenades used to damage towers so he'd destroy them quicker. It's what he does. He's the tower pusher mage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Currently it is toxic because there aren't solid counters to these pushing strats, it's the reason all of the backdooring (TF ult especially) has been nerfed to prevent these strategies from being used as the majority of champions are designed to play the 'normal way', wich is 'let's kill the other team in a similar way of how they will try to kill us and then push for baron or towers.'
Don't entirely agree. I think it's toxic because it's not fun. Fun being the most important part of any game. If it's not fun, it's toxic to a game. I believe it's not a fun way (imo - and it's very subjective) way to win, and it's not a "fun" (and remembering that losing isn't really that fun to begin with) way to lose. Having said that, it's effective.





Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
I'd say she's an Assasin that strikes from stealth - Teemo is more of a scout, he literally scouts ahead and leaves a shroom granting some vision, if Teemo moves he does this to scout and drop a shroom, if Evelyn moves she moves because she wants to kill stuff from stealth - there's the difference.

PS: There will always be champions doing extremely well at low Elo ranges.
True about there always being champions doing well at low Elo ranges, I suppose it's a fair point. However, I do feel Eve's too good (atm) as a scout. It's disconcerting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Now, I'm pretty sure you are going to agree with all of the stuff I wrote above this, though respond if you want, now talking those suggested Redesigns, you haven't really said anything about them:
To be fair I was discussing the point I was talking about. Which wasn't actually the redesigned section. Part of that is because I do feel it's subjective but also because it's not just about how things look on paper (i'll get to this point further on later in regards to thresh) but how it feel when it's being played. Everything from animations to individual mechanics can influence the entire feel of a champion. Trundle being a prime example. More on that soon™ (as in this post)


Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Wait what ? It's a problem in both ways, in both theming/playstyle aswell as in terms of counterplay.
'You'll eat this spear because you are in range' is toxic and doesn't match the 'manly spartan theme'.
To be honest, I think the spear is fine. I actually think it's quite in tone with the ideals of the spartans. Fine with it being targeted. Half his abilities are "skillshots", half aren't. Seems ok. (and yes, I'm counting his ultimate as a skill shot - you can miss you know).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
I personally like Trundle a lot, his Q, W and E are very characteristic and make sense being a nasty ugly troll - hence he still has these abilities in the Redesign, but when it comes to his ult it has two problems;
Entirely disagree. While it's subjective I honestly believe he isn't fun. That's the deal breaker for me. He's not fun. The rest of it doesn't matter. Lore, appearance, play style, whatever. He's not fun. Part of that is that he's not rewarding as a champion. He doesn't feel rewarding as a player to be playing Trundle. Partly it's his abilities are very much uninteresting. Partly it's that proper placement of his abilities doesn't seem to give much satisfaction in comparison to other abilities that are similar (ie: Cho knocks up and slow and deals damage - trundle makes a rock that slow and is boring). Partly it's because he's very much a passive power champion all debuffs and buffs with really only one actual ability that "attacks" (arguably his ultimate does as well, but so it's so lackluster and uniteresting). He's not fun. There's no pay off. It's just bad and frankly needs to be remade. Of course, you may not agree and from the sounds of it you like Trundle. I don't. Above are reasons, I have more, but it's starting to sound like a rant. Basically he's just awful. Pretty much what I said at the time tbh.




Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Read the Malphite Redesign aswell as the explanation under the malphite hotlink, you'll understand why he is very problematic right now and it has NOTHING to do wich options of items he can choose.

Especially the part of his ultimate is currently toxic, the counterplay: 'well i guess we should initiate before this guy does' - not really fair right ? Well read the Redesign.

I hope you realize that the more distinctive a playstyle is the more counterplay there is to it.
Firstly, his ultimate is a skillshot (I know it's not a hard skillshot - but even in tournaments there's instances ~and this is in top level play ~ of play designated around Malphites ultimate and avoiding it with blinks -> mostly Flash) but it is.

Secondly, Banshee's Veil. I know. Poke First no veil, but still.

Thirdly, I actually disagree that Malphite is toxic because he can initiate, I feel because he can initiate that actually counters certain more toxic team combinations (god I don't want to play against poke teams ever again) and that it creates an impactful moment for that champion. That's what Malphite is designed for: that moment when he ults and blows everything in one big explosion. That's why he's fun. He's not the only champion that can do this and it's all around actually hitting his ultimate in the exact right spot at the exact right time. It's really quite a cool thing to watch: malphite is an action guy and that's cool. There is counter play though. You can bait him out, force him to burn it early (it's his only good escape), initiate first on him, counter him with Janna ultimate (after he ultimates assuming his target is still alive), etc. There's counter play options there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
The travel time is slow - but that only means the stun will hit after a delay, there's no way you can prevent the stun from actually hitting you if it is casted on you - that's toxic, there is no counterplay involved, there's just a slight delay on when you get hit.
You can't avoid it, but, you can often determine where it hits you. With proper placement there's counter play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
I bolded the part where you say Taric is boring, we agree ! Read Taric Redesign, not only does he have a new E in place of his stun that provides more counterplay, he has way more depth and a defined 'Battle Medic' playstyle !

I completely agree - Taric is pretty dull, way too straightforward, very low skillcap.
It's more the fact that he doesn't do much. Straight forward is fine, he just doesn't do much. I feel like it's too much passive power.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Almost slapped myself here again - there's nothing wrong with his HP scalings, it's the fact he can tear through an entire team without you being able to do anything about it. Read the Redesign (only changes on his ult/Ragnarok)
The point being Olaf is popular (atm) because he itemizes well. His strength is that he itemizes well (atm). That's why he's played. It's not really about his play style being inherently more interesting. His HP scaling is irrelevant except that it's part of why he currently itemizes well. Interestingly, Ragnarok is actually interesting since it's an example of passive power that actually creates unique and cool game play. It does feel sort of like tryndamere's ultimate in that for x amount of seconds olaf can do what he wants (only you can kill him). So it's interesting, it's got a good "feel" to it as an ultimate (currently). Perhaps you have issues on counterplay. It's an valid point, I just don't know where the balance should be and in who's favor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
You should stop thinking about builds, stats, cooldowns, ratio's and all that stuff for one second. We aren't saying Thresh will be OP or UP or will be balanced, we are looking at him as a champion, how good he is designed.
Reading a lot into the word of "stats". There's always a potential problem with any champion that may infinitely scale. Certainly it will depend on how the champion mechanics actually function in the game.

It's problematic also as a determinate of the future of supports. I'm not entirely enjoying the fact that it seems like we are seeing more tank-support aggressive lane hybrids. It feels like there's a dilution in the role of support now days.

Also, looks like Thresh will probably be jungling, solo top, support bot, and maybe even mid playing champion. There's a clear lack of focus that worries me. Having said that, it's probably just players being players and putting the new guy everywhere. Hope so anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
His abilities all match his theme, therefore creating a theming playstyle that is extremely readable while providing enough counterplay. Regardless of how effective he'll turn out, he's extremely well designed.
Hard to say. I don't like commenting too much on anything until I've had a chance to play against, play with, and play as Thresh. I do have some concerns though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
I hope you slept well - I'm excited for your response, I really hope you get to understand that the more attached a playstyle is to the theme of a character, the more counterplay it provides.
meh. Sleep is what it is.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyumai View Post
.
Could you stick around for 10 minutes ? Please ?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Whyumai

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Could you stick around for 10 minutes ? Please ?
sure why not. getting a coffee.

i use the word interesting and interestingly alot when i'm tired. pfft. re-reading. don't do it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyumai View Post
sure why not. getting a coffee.
Cool - gimme a sec.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyumai View Post
Heimerdinger
We think he could be more of an inventor enriching the players experience of playing an actual inventor, we feel his current kit waters the experience down of him as an inventor, this is our opinion. Suit yourself, IronStylus has said he finds this analysis very interesting. - regardless of how he currently works or doesn't work.

Quote:
To be fair I was discussing the point I was talking about. Which wasn't actually the redesigned section.
In the OP we explain why we feel champions should fit themetically for as much as they can - the Redesigns are a possible suggestion of doing that. On top of that we adressed issues such as counterplay and depth of champions, something ItemsGuy has tried to fix with these redesigns aswell (apart from theming and readability).

Quote:
To be honest, I think the spear is fine. I actually think it's quite in tone with the ideals of the spartans. Fine with it being targeted. Half his abilities are "skillshots", half aren't. Seems ok. (and yes, I'm counting his ultimate as a skill shot - you can miss you know).
It provides no counterplay apart from 'i should get out of his range or he'll hit me' - suit yourself, i suggest you read up the arguments morello has made on Vladimir and Yorick - he hates them as design because they have devastating antifun mechanics offering no counterplay.

Quote:
Trundle
Guess what ? Your opinion in terms of fun on the champion does not matter, from a designers perspective - do you think Trundle could be more of a troll ?

Could you please read the explanation behind Trundle Redesign ? All of the explanations under the hotlinks.

EDIT: I could seriously give two sh*ts about Teemo Redesign, I don't like to play him, i don't like to play against him, I think he's a stupid champion and I don't find him fun. I just was openminded enough to consider how he could be more of a scout - hence I don't care about my opinion on him but trying to acknowledge him in a designer-perspective, coming to the conclusion his concept and theme could be pushed - regardless of my opinion on him.


Quote:
Malphite
Read the explanation behind his Redesign, counterplay is not his only current flaw, it's also theming and readability.

Sidenote: Banshies veil would still be very good against him, this is not an argument.

Quote:
Taric stun - You can't avoid it, but, you can often determine where it hits you. With proper placement there's counter play.
Exactly - the only counterplay you have: stay out of range.

Open up a thread and ask why morello dislikes vladimir and yorick, you'll get the same answer; barely counterplay involved. Anti-fun.

Quote:
It's more the fact that he doesn't do much. Straight forward is fine, he just doesn't do much. I feel like it's too much passive power.
Excuse me - you are right, straightforward is just fine, he would still be pretty straightforward in terms of 'you'll know what to do with your spells immediately' yet he still does alot more than he does now currently, I suggest you read Taric Redesign and the explanation underneath the hotlink.

Quote:
Olaf
We weren't discussing why Olaf is picked currently - I was trying to discuss and prove that if Olaf would get to behave more like a berserker he'll provide more counterplay, as currently there's no counterplay involved with a ghost ulting Olaf.

I suggest you read the Olaf Redesign aswell as the explanation under the link - all of these will frankly take like a minute or 2, could you please do this ? I think you'll be surprised.

Quote:
Reading a lot into the word of "stats". There's always a potential problem with any champion that may infinitely scale. Certainly it will depend on how the champion mechanics actually function in the game.
Quote:
It's problematic also as a determinate of the future of supports. I'm not entirely enjoying the fact that it seems like we are seeing more tank-support aggressive lane hybrids. It feels like there's a dilution in the role of support now days.
Alot supports in League have literally more or less designed to be lame as their kits revolve around literally babysitting stuff (Janna Q and R define a good Janna player - while her W and E do that aswell they are way more simple and less impactful purely to babysit her allies or help in a very minor way).

Yes - Riot has chosen to design supports less impactful, hence people started realizing some mages could do extremely well as supports instead as sometimes have more to offer, Zyra ! (Thresh is a really good new direction with supports, I hope he won't get nerfed but that they'll realize they should buff the other supports, they are the perfect example of powercreep)

Much like Blitzcrank is considered to be OP because he is more impactful than the other typical supports.

Quote:
Also, looks like Thresh will probably be jungling, solo top, support bot, and maybe even mid playing champion. There's a clear lack of focus that worries me. Having said that, it's probably just players being players and putting the new guy everywhere. Hope so anyway.
Mwauh - think he'll do best as support - but from a design perspective, the perspective i want you to view things in, he is absolutely great in terms of theming and counterplay.

Please dig through the Redesign section and check-out the redesigns for Olaf, Taric, Malphite, Pantheon - just make sure to read the explanation before you read the redesigns.

If you want to discuss the current state of champions (wich you have done from the start) you should know how they COULD'VE been, checkout the Redesign section where we acknowledge the current flaws of all of these champions and provide a rework fixing those.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Whyumai

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
We think he could be more of an inventor enriching the players experience of playing an actual inventor, we feel his current kit waters the experience down of him as an inventor, this is our opinion. Suit yourself, IronStylus has said he finds this analysis very interesting. - regardless of how he currently works or doesn't work.
Yeah, fair enough. to each their own. Part of the problem is I still think he's designed to push towers which is a unique play style for a mage.

I dunno. it's one of those things. It's an opinion based decision. Basing him around a theme isn't a bad idea, it's just right now I feel he's being punished for essentially being what he's designed to be. I feel bad for Heimer and I like Heimer.

I suppose he does need to change: I'm just not sure if losing an entire unique play style is really the right move. While it's toxic in it's current form, it is entirely unique. I do feel if you could keep the core ideals behind the play style that's not toxic (holding a position), and make them into something to base a play style around it might be really fun to play as.

Theme aside, I'm interested to see what you think of the concept of the play style (somewhat different to basing an champion on a theme).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
In the OP we explain why we feel champions should fit themetically for as much as they can - the Redesigns are a possible suggestion of doing that. On top of that we adressed issues such as counterplay and depth of champions, something ItemsGuy has tried to fix with these redesigns aswell (apart from theming and readability).
Don't get me wrong, from what I've seen you have done alot of work. It's also alot of reading at the moment. Having said that, keep it up. Even If I don't agree with some of the core concepts that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. At the very least the idea of discussing and promoting the discussion of champion design is certainly a step in the right direction.

Let me be clear on these points:
  • I like that you are going out of your way to create counter play.
  • I like that you are discussing and promoting the discussion of champion design
  • I like that you are passionate about what you're talking about.
*btw: bullet points: you likely? Yeah. you do. You know you do, ItemGuy.

Dunno if I agree with the entire concept of basing everything around themes. I just feel like it's limits options. If I find an interesting play style I'd like to create does it really matter if I make a champion based around that play style? If the play style is fun and the champion is fun to play isn't that a worth goal in and of itself?

I think my point is there's room for both. I don't agree that every great champion always comes from a great theme. Although alot of bad ones have come from no real theme. So, take that as it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
It provides no counterplay apart from 'i should get out of his range or he'll hit me' - suit yourself, i suggest you read up the arguments morello has made on Vladimir and Yorick - he hates them as design because they have devastating antifun mechanics offering no counterplay.
See, there's a fine line I think. Vlad's problem his Q is pretty crazy really. Yorrick is frustrating.

I dunno, I think the spear in and of itself as an actual theme (spartan) actually fits. Although, I would expect it's probably a javelin rather than a spear, but that's besides the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Guess what ? Your opinion in terms of fun on the champion does not matter, from a designers perspective - do you think Trundle could be more of a troll ?
I guess my point is the other parts don't matter if the whole doesn't work. He's not fun, and that (imo) take priority over every other decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Could you please read the explanation behind Trundle Redesign ? All of the explanations under the hotlinks.
Yeah. Just later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post

Read the explanation behind his Redesign, counterplay is not his only current flaw, it's also theming and readability.
K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Sidenote: Banshies veil would still be very good against him, this is not an argument.

Exactly - the only counterplay you have: stay out of range.

Open up a thread and ask why morello dislikes vladimir and yorick, you'll get the same answer; barely counterplay involved. Anti-fun.
[/quote]

Yeah. I dunno. Vlad's Q is the problem with Vlad imo. Yorrick again, I feel he's a harder one to nail down since he's not someone I use frequently, I suspect his slow is targetted. Also his ghoul mechanic (i think) makes his slow last longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Excuse me - you are right, straightforward is just fine, he would still be pretty straightforward in terms of 'you'll know what to do with your spells immediately' yet he still does alot more than he does now currently, I suggest you read Taric Redesign and the explanation underneath the hotlink.
k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
We weren't discussing why Olaf is picked currently - I was trying to discuss and prove that if Olaf would get to behave more like a berserker he'll provide more counterplay, as currently there's no counterplay involved with a ghost ulting Olaf.
I feel it's an issue of a ultimate feeling worthy of being an ultimate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
I suggest you read the Olaf Redesign aswell as the explanation under the link - all of these will frankly take like a minute or 2, could you please do this ? I think you'll be surprised.
I'd honestly rather take my time and read through it entirely.




Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Alot supports in League have literally more or less designed to be lame as their kits revolve around literally babysitting stuff (Janna Q and R define a good Janna player - while her W and E do that aswell they are way more simple and less impactful purely to babysit her allies or help in a very minor way).

Yes - Riot has chosen to design supports less impactful, hence people started realizing some mages could do extremely well as supports instead as sometimes have more to offer, Zyra ! (Thresh is a really good new direction with supports, I hope he won't get nerfed but that they'll realize they should buff the other supports, they are the perfect example of powercreep)

Much like Blitzcrank is considered to be OP because he is more impactful than the other typical supports.
I dunno. I feel like Janna is actually surprisingly impactful in a game with her ultimate which is probably while she's always getting random nerfs after tournament games I guess. I dunno. again, I'm not entirely sure whether I like the new approach to supports. One of the things about the old supports is that they are a very clutch playstyle. You have to do it right at the exact right moment (kayle's a good example with her ultimate) if you do it right you are amazingly well rewarded. It's a really feel good moment. Soraka with her ultimate to a lesser extent. Janna with her ultimate is another example. Sona with her stun ult is another example. Even LuLu has her ultimate that really is quite clutch (although to a lesser extent). That's where the enjoyment of those champions are after the lane phase (the lane phase being where they are poking/baby sitting). I'm not sure about Thresh whether he will have that really clutch feel or whether he'll move more towards Blitzcrank where it feels like you are punishing the opposition more than you did something well.

This is of course completely a matter of opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBilbo View Post
Mwauh - think he'll do best as support - but from a design perspective, the perspective i want you to view things in, he is absolutely great in terms of theming and counterplay.

Please dig through the Redesign section and check-out the redesigns for Olaf, Taric, Malphite, Pantheon - just make sure to read the explanation before you read the redesigns.
Perhaps. Would have to see him in game. Does sound interesting though.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyumai View Post
Yeah, fair enough. to each their own. Part of the problem is I still think he's designed to push towers which is a unique play style for a mage.

I dunno. it's one of those things. It's an opinion based decision. Basing him around a theme isn't a bad idea, it's just right now I feel he's being punished for essentially being what he's designed to be. I feel bad for Heimer and I like Heimer.

I suppose he does need to change: I'm just not sure if losing an entire unique play style is really the right move. While it's toxic in it's current form, it is entirely unique. I do feel if you could keep the core ideals behind the play style that's not toxic (holding a position), and make them into something to base a play style around it might be really fun to play as.

Theme aside, I'm interested to see what you think of the concept of the play style (somewhat different to basing an champion on a theme).
That's your opinion right there - wich is totally fine. We are all about theming as it makes a champion readable and enriches the players experience if the theming is strong, making the champion more fun in general.

A good example of this is Edmund, also located in the redesign section, Alistar Redesign gets to play more like a bull while Edmund is a placeholder of Alistars current kit, Edmund's visual appearance completely fits with Alistar's current kit - meaning he is readable and now themetically tied to the kit, great.

So that's the indirect answer of me to you: if you could come up with a specific archetype/theme that completely screams 'THIS GUY IS GOING TO PUSH AND WRECK BUILDINGS' i would very much approve of designing a pure 'towerpusher' kit around that, as it would themetically fit and would be readable.

Heimerdinger Rework is more of an inventor but as you said, probably changes his role/playstyle in a game.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, from what I've seen you have done alot of work. It's also alot of reading at the moment. Having said that, keep it up. Even If I don't agree with some of the core concepts that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. At the very least the idea of discussing and promoting the discussion of champion design is certainly a step in the right direction.
Despite you being some though nuts to crack as I really wanted you to take a step back and look at champions from a design-perspective, +1 for you, you are so humble. You have all my love.

Quote:
Let me be clear on these points:
  • I like that you are going out of your way to create counter play.
  • I like that you are discussing and promoting the discussion of champion design
  • I like that you are passionate about what you're talking about.
*btw: bullet points: you likely? Yeah. you do. You know you do, ItemGuy.

Dunno if I agree with the entire concept of basing everything around themes. I just feel like it's limits options. If I find an interesting play style I'd like to create does it really matter if I make a champion based around that play style? If the play style is fun and the champion is fun to play isn't that a worth goal in and of itself?
Absolutely - if something is fun it's a good reason to do it, if you make it readable and fit themetically however, it's even better. This is what we opt for.

Quote:
I think my point is there's room for both. I don't agree that every great champion always comes from a great theme. Although alot of bad ones have come from no real theme. So, take that as it is.
We aren't saying that champions are bad if they don't fit themetically, we say they could be more specific and more distinctive and more unique on their own, pushing their concepts and their theme to create an extremely unique playstyle creating more variety among champions.

Quote:
Champions that have no the at all - don't think I have to say anything about that, it's just horrible IMO. Doesn't mean the champions is not fun (lee sin, jayce, irelia), they would be WAY better if they would fit themetically.

See, there's a fine line I think. Vlad's problem his Q is pretty crazy really. Yorrick is frustrating.

I dunno, I think the spear in and of itself as an actual theme (spartan) actually fits. Although, I would expect it's probably a javelin rather than a spear, but that's besides the point.
Obviously the spear fits and is readable because Pantheon wields the spear and spartans are known for their spears, it's just a bit watered down and a bit '******ish' version of what you would expect this manly spartan to do, it's a pretty girly move on top of the fact that it provides no counterpaly.


Quote:
I guess my point is the other parts don't matter if the whole doesn't work. He's not fun, and that (imo) take priority over every other decision.
Oh god - take a look at the redesign from a designer perspective, you do realize even other designers at Riot wil have their opinion about champions but can still confirm how a champion would be better or not ?


Quote:
Yeah. Just later.
I look forward to you returning.

Quote:
K.
I look forward.



Exactly - the only counterplay you have: stay out of range.

Open up a thread and ask why morello dislikes vladimir and yorick, you'll get the same answer; barely counterplay involved. Anti-fun.
[/quote]

Yeah. I dunno. Vlad's Q is the problem with Vlad imo. Yorrick again, I feel he's a harder one to nail down since he's not someone I use frequently, I suspect his slow is targetted. Also his ghoul mechanic (i think) makes his slow last longer.



Quote:
k.
I look forward to you returning.



Quote:
I feel it's an issue of a ultimate feeling worthy of being an ultimate.
The redesign lays more emphasis on being a berzerker while getting the toxic part out there.



Quote:
I'd honestly rather take my time and read through it entirely.
Do that.

Quote:
I dunno. I feel like Janna is actually surprisingly impactful in a game with her ultimate which is probably while she's always getting random nerfs after tournament games I guess. I dunno. again, I'm not entirely sure whether I like the new approach to supports. One of the things about the old supports is that they are a very clutch playstyle. You have to do it right at the exact right moment (kayle's a good example with her ultimate) if you do it right you are amazingly well rewarded. It's a really feel good moment. Soraka with her ultimate to a lesser extent. Janna with her ultimate is another example. Sona with her stun ult is another example. Even LuLu has her ultimate that really is quite clutch (although to a lesser extent). That's where the enjoyment of those champions are after the lane phase (the lane phase being where they are poking/baby sitting). I'm not sure about Thresh whether he will have that really clutch feel or whether he'll move more towards Blitzcrank where it feels like you are punishing the opposition more than you did something well.

This is of course completely a matter of opinion.
This is what I had to say on a thread that was titled 'Will Thresh be unplayable like Blitz in draft ?' - as the OP feared Thresh would be one of those supports having way more impact than the other supports, therefore being banned all the time most likely;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Explosion View Post
Thresh is a very DotA-style support, which is quite a good thing-- DotA supports are probably the most fun elements of that game. (Disruptor, Dazzle, and the like.)

Largely because they are proportionally powerful relative to carries and bursters. They can do stuff on their own, and without a lot of farm.

That's one reason League supports are not seen as particularly fun or popular-- they don't really have the tools to make plays on their own, or even survive being near an enemy damage dealer.

In DotA, a zero-item Dark Seer will wreck your day. Presumably Thresh was designed to do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perifear ^
YES, thank you !

Please for the love of god, GD community and Riot, this is how ALL supports SHOULD'VE BEEN in the first place.

A support should be a character that is to be feared, they can do stuff on their own and have huge impact with the combination of damage from their teammates, while still being useful without gold, while having a new approach to the game/having a new playstyle.

Thresh is absolutely like that.

-He has impact, he actually gets to do something
-He has a specefic unique playstyle, in this case the playstyle of a 'jailer' or a 'jailer-playstyle'
-He isn't helpless without teammates, he can still screw you over/he has some tricks up his sleeve to get away from you or to actually get to you and lock you up.

Take Janna for example, what does she do, what makes her cool, what makes her lame ?

'Windmage playstyle ?' - Not that much, her Q and R are some very cool and impactful abilities that totally define a good janna player, yet her W and E are somewhat lackluster; they are there specefically to babysit your teammates, this doesn't mean those skills can't define a good janna player, it just means these skills are less impactfull, therefore mostly more lame to play/less viable to have in your team.

If janna would be the ultimate 'wingmage playstyle' all about disruption of the enemy team (wich her Q and R are currently perfectly fitting) plus potentially speeding up her allies, she would have a more defined and impactful role, you wouldn't get Q'ed up by janna, slowed and then she shields herself helpless while she tries to escape yet it's still fairly easy to catch her, no, she should be the ultimate disrupter with wind and should be feared: 'You ain't cathing a Janna' - imagine her W and E were changed into spells that define this disrupting playstyle with wind yet still contribute tons to her team.

Alistar: Rampaging bull ? Not that much, this dude will knock you back and knock you up, than this guy will pop his ult and hopes he survives, you don't expect this kind of helplessness aka 'I can't do sh*t without a teammate' from a character that looks like a giant aggressive bull.

TLDR: Supports in League are the ultimate example of powercreep; they've ****ing nerfed supports for the sake of nerfing them, people started realizing supports are more or less literally desinged to be less impactful, wich is lame, hence people picked up Zyra, seeing that she has way more impact than the general support.

If it happens that Riot or the Community thinks that they should nerf Thresh, forget about that, buff other supports, make supporting fun and impactful.

EDIT: If people disagree, please feel free to explain why less impactful Supports suit League better. IMO every champion should have it's individual defined strength and that strength should not be 'babysitting' to be less impactfull, therefore supports shouldn't be an exception of not living to that mindset.
PS: If you are interested in a Support that ItemsGuy has designed (a character that has a defined unique role/playstyle that offers some great stuff to a team while still being able to do this without that much gold) - I can send you a link to that design, I find it pretty dang awesome.

And really this: If you want to discuss the current state of champions (wich you have done from the start) you should know how they COULD'VE been, checkout the Redesign section where we acknowledge the current flaws of all of these champions and provide a rework fixing those. - I know you are going to check them out later, but it's still the truth. If you've read the explanations and the redesign, then we can talk : )


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

01-19-2013

bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ItemsGuy

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyumai View Post
The problem here is the location of the fight is set: You will fight @ the minions. But, darius can actually extend his range by moving into your brush (assuming you're top) near the mid point of the lane. This extends his range further. Remember that most auto attack range isn't actually that far.
Keep in mind that "extending into your bush" directly involves "stepping over the gank line"--which, since this is a team game, means that if you can't deal with that, you can call for a gank (which Darius can't avoid because he has no escape mechanics). There's a limit to how aggressive Darius can be in lane, so it's not as mindless as it looks.

Quote:
If you mean champions with pokes. Then it's typically an issue of whether or not he can avoid your pokes or not. Note at no time does Darius actually have to use his Q. In fact, he has higher threat if he doesn't use his Q. He just sits there farming or zoning you out so you can't even get Xp. Depending on the champion he's playing against, till he's high enough level to stomp you (assuming no outside influenece such as junglers). Although, getting junglers to gank his lane is actually in his favour as well, long as he's been careful. Since, if the jungler doesn't force him out of lane or kill him, the jungler will be behind. This is not a QQ about Darius btw, it's just his play style. He dominates. That's what he does in lane.
Which is Darius's entire point--what you're doing here is stating his strengths while completely glossing over his weaknesses and why those strengths need to be there. Darius NEEDS to be an aggressive presence top-lane because he has no defensive steroids, no sustain, and no way to fight against certain things (like ganks and range). He NEEDS to constantly push that aggression because if he doesn't he'll be left in the dust. You can be passive with other champions and still succeed (Irelia), but with Darius, that isn't the case. You can't simply farm to win as Darius, because he doesn't scale into late-game as well as other top laners do. He needs to hold his opponent's head underwater with great force or else he will fall flat.

Quote:
It's not so much that he lacks counter play (actually i stated in my post actual counters to Darius - if you use the fundamental ideas I discuss in my post you can beat Darius with a number of other champions) it's that it's harder to counter Darius than actually play Darius while forcing the lane phase to be about Darius rather than whoever he's playing against.
It's not ever about "is it easier to punish him than it is to play him," it's about whether that ability to punish is readily accessible (though defined weaknesses) and how much he suffers when he IS counterplayed. A Darius that can't get into melee range and make drawn-out fights happen is hopeless, just as a Darius that can do those things will dominate. That's how it works. Likewise, with the Heimer redesign: with those turrets up, Heimer is strong, but without them, he's weak.

Having trouble against Heimer? Remove his machines from the equation. Having trouble against Darius? Don't allow him to punish you in-lane, take advantage of his poor mobility and reliance on melee range. If you need help to do either of these things, you have access to it. Matchups won't always be in your favor, but the important thing is that you account for your strengths and weaknesses and build the team around them.

This isn't really prevalent in LoL because strengths and weakenesses tend to be either very vague or very watered down, but in LoL 2, team composition is going to be a pretty big deal--since it's no longer about "which champions can we abuse," planning out the game from the team comp stage becomes an actual part of the game. Different champions covering the weaknesses of their allies and/or amplifying/enabling the strengths of others, and so on.

Quote:
It's a typical melee issue: since Melee champions are all about getting into "range" once they are in range they typically dominate whoever they are up against. Darius is just more tuned to this.
Which is how it should go. Melee champions should have dominance in melee, while ranged champs should have dominance at range. That's how things work, and it's not an "issue" to any degree. Darius's strength of "being in range" is there to offset his glaring weakness of "not being in range and having a difficult time of getting there." Whereas other bruisers have instant gap-closers (Xin, Irelia, Jax), some sort of movement-increasing ability (Garen, Riven, Jarvan), etc., all Darius has are his pull (which is best used post-initiation unless you'd rather have your enemy flash/blink/etc. out) and his slow. Darius in general is weaker than other bruisers when it comes to enemies that have a range advantage, so as per the sliding scale, he is generally stronger in melee range than they are.

Quote:
it's not even an issue that is unique to Darius. It's a pretty common Melee issue. They must get into range and then they will stomp. So the play tends to revolve around keeping them out of range rather than anything else.
This is all about wording--you could easily say "it's all about making sure you're always at your optimal range, and melee champions have to figure out how to get you out of that range." Either way, it's incorrect--it's a game of tug of war, about who can stay at their optimal range.

Quote:
If you look at Brand, playing against Brand is about avoiding his abilities (not just one, all three of his basic abilities before level 6 and how they work together) while trying to force him into your abilities (assuming it's two mages facing off against each other - say Veigar vs Brand). There's back and forth play - Brand tries to hit his spells, Veigar tries to hit his spells and back and forth it goes.
Which is fairly bland, to be honest--"who can hit their spells/get their full combo off first" is pretty one-dimensional and is more about basic elements of play than acting and reacting to defined strengths and weaknesses.

Quote:
With Darius it's all about Darius. Brand against Darius is Brand staying out of Darius's range while poking. There's no more play in the lane than that. If Darius gets Brand typically Brand is dead.
Then to Darius it's all about Brand--Darius against Brand is Darius trying to eliminate Brand's range advantage and avoid his advantage of poke damage. If Darius can't get to Brand, Darius is typically dead (or zoned).

It's amazing how many bunk arguments you've managed to pull in the past few pages alone, I really am impressed.

Quote:
Actually, blowing all their abilities at the get go is a mage thing.
No, actually. Dealing magic damage through their abilities is the mage thing. If you say "dealing burst damage is the mage thing" you're wrong, because Karthus's damage is DPS and he's still a mage. Same thing goes for "blowing all your spells"--redesign!Ziggs is a mage yet is more focused on setting up areas and dominating set zones.

If all the depth available to a champion is "just blow through all your abilities as quickly as possible and make sure all of them his," then that's pretty lame, isn't it? The only way to increase skill ceiling at that point would be to make the player jump through hoops to land those abilities (through awkward mechanics or complicated combos/skill shots), and that's just "fake difficulty"--which Morello isn't too fond of, and for good reason.

Quote:
Most tanky AD bruisers that relay on autoattacks aren't this way. Irelia comes to mind.
While autoattacks tend to weigh in more for these champions, you're still encouraged to use their abilities whenever they're up (for the most part), since they either involve some sort of damage, crowd control, or utility--which you want access to as frequently as possible. If you jump on an enemy with the intent to kill them as Irelia, the only ability you might hesitate to use is her awkward slow/stun--otherwise if you don't jump on them with Q, activate your true damage, and pop your ult, you're at a direct disadvantage because you're staving off your own damage output for no reason. One of the things I like with Darius (and especially Morello's theoretical redesign) is that there's some tension there--if you just blow his slow, you're not going to have it as often as possible compared to if you had waited for Hemo stacks. If you blow your pull, you're not going to have it when the enemy flashes or blows their escape mechanism. If you blow your ult even a split second before you should've, you're not going to have it again for another 90 seconds.

Quote:
Actually, that's the problem. Darius is all about using Darius's weakness against him. It's actually not about your strengths at all. There's a problem there.
Like with my previous statement regarding TF and co., it's not a problem about Darius being too defined and having these defined weaknesses that can be punished, it's a problem with the vast majority of the roster that doesn't have defined strengths and weaknesses--they're all very vague, and usually more technical than they should be.

Quote:
I don't agree. Honestly from both sides of the fence, Darius doesn't take that much skill. He's not a high skill champion. There's not a huge difference between a great Darius an a good Darius (imo).
Not saying the execution of his abilities takes any great amount of technical skill, but playing Darius requires you to have a better grasp of basic functions of the game (positioning, overextending, judging power level between you and your opponents, etc.), and is generally more unforgiving--to both his player and his opponent.

"Make no mistakes."

Playing Darius means you can't slip up because he has no get-out-of-jail card. Playing against Darius means you can't slip up because he's designed around punishing stupid mistakes (which is why GD in general has a lot of trouble with him). He also requires a bit more active play than other bruisers, because unlike them, he can't afford to be passive. If Darius can't harass and zone with Q, he loses. If Darius can't instigate duels, he loses. If Darius can't intimidate his opponent, he loses. It's like Rumble, except Rumble actually has escape mechanisms.

Quote:
This isn't about Darius being OP or about how Darius is designed it's about the play style. He's all in because that's how he's meant to be. If he gets to go all in he usually wins. Therefore it's all about trying to make sure he can't go all in. That's the problem. it's all about Darius.
Also, you're forgetting to say how this is a bad thing. You know how you keep on saying how "it's all about Darius"? It's not a fact of the game (which I've pointed out above--it's all about point of view, and they're both wrong; it's tug-of-war, just like any other scenario), but rather a potent mix of two things called presence and authority, Presence and authority mean you can't afford to ignore Darius. Presence and authority mean that Darius has the tools to gain full command of your attention. This is important to Darius, because unlike a number of other champions, he has very little utility. Darius's role in the late-game is all about making it so that your opponents simply can't afford to ignore him and go straight for his carry. This, of course, is an illusion created by his design--it's nothing hard-coded into the game, like a Taunt. Simply ignoring Darius and going straight for his carry is always the better option because unless they are 0/10/4, Darius's carry will always be doing more damage than he does.

He punishes your for ignoring him, however, and getting slammed by his ultimate because you let him get his Hemo stacks on you is something you probably won't forget--this is where the intimidation sets in, where your entire team focuses Darius, where his carry gets a penta and escapes with 50% health.

Quote:
To be honest that's more a matter of preference. Regardless of whether it's the play style for you, it actually is distinct. Personal preferences aside, you don't actually have a point other than you don't like it.
It's not about preference, but about design. This is a science, not an opinion. The notion that there is nothing holding Irelia's kit together thematically is a fact. The notion that Irelia doesn't have a defined playstyle, but rather a set of abilities that she has at her disposal to fulfill her role is a fact. The notion that Irelia has little counterplay to her and has a kit that is not very readable (why did she stun me this time? why did she get to jump twice? why is she suddenly healing off of her attacks and doing more damage than usual to me?) is a fact. She's designed around "functions a bruiser/assassin should be able to fulfill" instead of being shaped by a readable, thematic, and unified playstyle all her own (jumping in with a gap-closer and proceeding to melt a squishy's face isn't defined nor is it unique to Irelia), and it shows. Boy does it show.

She's widely regarded as a mistake (like Yorick), and for good reason.

Quote:
Jayce and Lee Sin, yes. Actually, both are problematic for different reasons but i do agree they can do alot. Irelia can't (in comparison) it's just that Irelia has passive strength (which is a entirely separate issue).
Irelia has a gap-closer, two forms of crowd-control, single target true damage, sustain, crowd control reduction, and AoE damage. Why? "Because a bruiser-assassin would have those!"

She can do a lot simply because she was designer around fulfilling a role, instead of creating a playstyle that then lends itself to a role.

Quote:
Disagree. He's actually got a solid play style at the moment.
Incorrect. He's half-poke, half-fortification--by definition, structurally unsound. Also, one thing that you seem to be missing is that when we mention "playstyle" here, we're not simply talking about "things X champion can do" (the fact that Heimer is good at pushing turrets isn't a playstyle, just something he happens to excel at--his playstyle isn't about pushing towers, it's just really the only thing he can do because his two mage abilities can't make up for the fact that the existence of his turrets means he can't mage as well as other mages do--read my Heimer quote in the OP).

Can Annie gank? Yes. Are her ganks strong? With a nuke and AoE stun, who could say no. Is she designed around ganking? No--she just happens to be good at it, and it is in no way an integral part of her kit.

Can Twisted Fate gank? Yes. Are his ganks strong? With a stacked deck and gold card in hand, there's not much he can't do. Is he designed around ganking? Yes. He foregoes the typical teamfighting strength that most mages have, and trades it for increased ganking power. It defines him as a champion, and is why you'd pick him over any other mage. It's not something that "just happened"--he's entirely designed around this.

While there could be a champion that's actually designed around pushing turrets, Heimer is not that champion. He's not really designed to do anything, really, which is the problem. He has some nukes, a slow, and a turret--a mish-mash of abilities that don't all lend themselves to one common goal. The only thing that really lends itself to pushing towers are his turrets--other mages have powerful wave-clearing AoE abilities--and that's it. He's not defined around pushing towers, it's just something he excels at. On top of that, it's not even that defined--it's a basic function in the game, whereas, with his redesign, it would capture the "ultimate Inventor playstyle"--which is what champions should live up to (because having two inventors would be redundant and reduce options for champions in the long run).

If there's anything you gain from the OP, it's that the ideal for champions should be "the ultimate X champion." Olaf is the "ultimate berserker champion." Rengar is the "ultimate trophy hunter." Redesign!Graves wouldn't just be "a good ranged carry," but the "ultimate shotgun champion." Redesign!Swain would no longer be "a mage with crowd control and sustain," but the "ultimate tactician champion," and so on. It's one thing for a champion to be balanced or fit into a role--this is all basic stuff. The step above that is to be able to be true to a readable theme and be 100% about that, creating readability (as well as defined strengths and weaknesses, variety, a wider array of competitively viable champions, etc.) in the process.

Quote:
His turrets and his stun. The reason you can't invade his turrets isn't just the damage it's the stun. He uses his rockets to poke from his turtle position. The play style does work as a turtle style. Wish he had a "real" ultimate though.
So what makes him any different from any other mage that can poke with their abilities? Heimer's turrets are incredibly weak in comparison to his nukes. The fact that he needs his other abilities to make his turrets not instantly die is a testament to this. While it does show shades of a "turtling" playstyle--I won't deny that--it could be enriched into a playstyle that's not only all about turtling, but doing it in a way that only Heimer is capable of (while being readable to boot). He would be all about turtling and fortifying with his machines and inventions, and be helpless without that--whereas current Heimer is just about as strong without turrets as he is with them, since they're fairly weak in comparison to his two nukes, and die very, very quickly (the fact that he has to wait quite a while before he can put another one up also factors into how weak they are--whereas he can constantly churn out grenades and rockets, which are, consequentially, where his power comes from).

Quote:
I do not agree as above. His abilities are all focused around holding a single point till he can crush the enemies tower in his lane.
Which is done in a very vague way that provides very little in terms of counterplay. Instead of "Heimer relies entirely on his inventions--if I destroy them, I can put things in my favor," it's "if I get close to Heimer I will take damage."

Quote:
Look. it's fine. This is one of those part where you say you can't hit with his stun. That's fine. I get that. It could be that I'm bad for suggesting that it's possible to reliably hit with a skill shot.
His grenade is incredibly slow and the stun requires that he sweet-spot it. This really only happens at point-blank or if your opponent isn't good at dodging incredibly slow skillshots.

Quote:
it could be that you're bad because you can't hit with a skill shot. It's pointless to argue. It's all about how the play style works, not if you have enough skill to actually pull it off. BtW, killing heimer isn't actually the bad thing about Heimer. The bad thing about Heimer is that his turrets die to accidental AoE damage while someone is trying to gank him so Heimer doesn't actually get to deal the damage that he should be dealing. It's pretty amusing when that happens. That's a side issue though. It's also part of the reason why I feel Heimer is currently forced into a pushing tower role rather than doing something actually more fun. Like. I dunno. Killing champions.
So you admit that his turrets are a very minor part of his kit. Know why? Because his two nukes are there. As long as he has those two nukes, his turrets will never be as satisfying and powerful as they could be. As long as he has those two nukes--which make him more like every other mage--the reason that someone would pick up Heim over any other mage is left in the dust.

Here's another flaw with a number of your arguments (and something that pisses me off, quite frankly)--you assume that what you enjoy (killing champions) is what defines fun for anyone else playing the game. For this reason, a lot of the game design talk in this thread will probably go over your head. You simply can't grasp that someone else might like something you don't like doing, that your point of view isn't the only one that exists. It's incredibly narrow-minded, and that narrow-mindedness explains quite a bit of the bunk arguments you've presented me with today.

I had a similar argument against the Zyra redesign: "why not turn her into an old lady gardener if shes all about making plants and not nuking people"--if you want to play redesign!Zyra, you're playing her because you want to be a chessmaster with her plants. If you want to do crazy nukings, you'd play redesign!Veigar. If you wanted to be an impenetrable, immovable fortress of machinery, you'd play redesign!Heimerdinger. If you want to zip all around the map and be free of the movement constraints other champions have, you'd play redesign!Ezreal. If you wanted to turn the entire map into a nightmare for the enemy team, you'd play redesign!Fiddlesticks. If you wanted a distinct tactical advantage and the ability to hold the enemy team at a standstill, you'd play redesign!Swain. If you wanted to bounce around teamfights with boundless energy, you'd play redesign!Kennen.

Everyone has their own idea of "fun." A game that can capture as many of these as possible while still maintaining internal balance (defined strengths and weaknesses) and readability to newcomers and spectators (thematic unity) is one that could truly rise above the best.

Quote:
It's one of those things where you say stuff in a mean and hurtful manner and I try to remind you that the inverse is actually true as well. Think about it.
My abrasiveness is only there to match your thick-headedness. You know, the more skull there is, the less room it leaves for a brain. This also has nothing to do with the point I made.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ItemsGuy

Senior Member

01-19-2013

Quote:
I disagree. I feel while I'm biased towards my viewpoints (of course, they are mine after all) that doesn't mean I'm entirely wrong (or even entirely right - the chance that's I'm 100% right or wrong being extremely unlikely).
The difference here is that I actually know what I'm talking about, and have spent years developing my own game design philosophy by looking critically at video games and analyzing the science of play--and more recently, acquiring education from (working) professionals in that field. I have the advantage of knowledge on the subject matter as well as the capacity to think critically about it that comes from years and years of dedication. I'm not being subjective about this at all--which tends to happen when you break things down to a science (as I have done with champion design).

The fact of a matter here is that a well-designed champion is all about the ideals expressed in the OP. Staying true to theming creates greater readability and also tends to lend itself to defined playstyles, with prominent strengths and weaknesses. The more prominent the strengths and weaknesses, the greater variety of champions that can be "viable," the more dynamic the game becomes, and the more involved interaction between players becomes--and this last point is at the very core of competition of any sort, this dance of sorts between opponents. "Play" is something that has existed long before humans were around to define it. It's a science, not a matter of opinion. It's like coming to a nuclear physicist and just saying that the data his research provides is wrong because you "just don't think it's right."

Quote:
Firsrtly, I guess the problem here is i'm talking about play style (which is about how I understand the champions to be played), and you're talking about what could potentially happen in a game with these champions. It's like you think this is a Darius QQ. It's really not. I'm not saying he's OP. It's not actually important to me. It's about the play in the lane that Darius is in.
This has been discussed. Also, it may be my fault--whenever I say "playstyle," I'm talking about "defined playstyles strongly rooted in theming to increase readability and better define strengths and weaknesses"--it's the "Best Possible Outcome" for what a playstyle could be, while the playstyles you mention are vague at best, and disjointed/nonexistent at worst. What a player can do when they have access to abilities isn't a playstyle, it's the mindset that's enforced though them. THAT is what enriches the play experience, and is what's at the very core of what I (we) are trying to achieve.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm sure it's possible that Darius could be ganked by a jungler fifty millionity times in a match. Or perhaps not at all. That doesn't actually change the inherent play style of Darius at all. Darius will be played in a certain style which he is designed around to be played as.
Which is good! Everything in his kit lends itself to this very specific, characteristic, and readable style of play, and also provides him with very defined and prominent strengths and weaknesses. This is what can allow there to be 100+ champions in a game while still having all of them no more and no less viable in-game. It's all sliding scales, folks.

Quote:
While this might be adjusted somewhat he's not suddenly going to massive change the play style of the champion because that player is going badly. All things being equal this doesn't mean he's OP or not. It's about how he's played and the ideas around which his play style is based around. I'm not saying he's OP. I'm talking about the play in a lane with Darius and his play style. I'm not taking your baby away. it's not personal. Step down off the ledge. We need the wood.
When did I mention he would be un-defined? Morello agrees with me on this, and I (in turn) agree with him--while Darius is very defined right now, he could be pushed to be even more defined. That means strengths AND weaknesses. With Morello's suggested changes, he'd still be a very dominant presence in the enemies' eyes--and this isn't a bad thing. Darius should always punish you for ignoring him, that's what he's all about. I really don't see what point you are trying to make aside from "Darius has bad gameplay because he has the advantage of presence and authority that some other champions don't have (at least to the degree Darius does), at the cost of not having some things that they have (like sustain and mobility)." That's a bunk point, and I really don't know what you're trying to get at.

Quote:
Secondly, Heimer does bring something new and unique to the table. He's the tower pusher mage. He's still bad because he's the tower pusher mage. That's why he's bad. I'm serious here. That's the reason.
Again, that's ill-defined. Other mages can push towers, but Heimer can do it slightly better/faster. That's also not very defined, to boot--you should pick Heimer because he's the Revered Inventor, just like you should pick Twisted Fate because he's the Card Master (Peri goes into greater depth on this), just like you should pick Olaf because he's the Berserker.

Also, it's not like there are other champions that are good (if not better) at pushing towers--they just don't happen to be mages. Why pick Heimerdinger over Rengar or Talon? They both have their own flavor to bring to the table (hence why I haven't touched them with redesigns or cut them from LoL 2), when they can incidentally push towers while also being good at other things? Likewise, with redesign!Heimer, while he could incidentally push towers (better than he can now, actually), you pick him over any other champion because he can fortify with his inventions--that's what Heimerdinger would be all about. No other champion would be able to set down units like Heimer (redesign!Zyra would be all about growing her plants and then moving them around the map), so if you wanted to do that, that's why you'd play him. He'd have something defined, flavorful, and unique that other champions wouldn't have, and would bring his own defined strengths to a team instead of simply fulfilling a role and being able to fulfill arbitrary functions to some sort of degree.

Quote:
Greater definition of weakness isn't always a great thing. Look at Heimer. Kill Turrets. Giggle while he runs. Seriously, he runs oddly. I have defined his weakness and it's pretty amusing.
Are you talking about current Heimer, or rework Heimer? With current Heimer, you can destroy his turrets and he still has two nukes to throw at you. He hardly has defined weaknesses, just generalized ones (no escape mechanism = easy to gank--this is nothing special to Heimer).

With his redesign, he'd have defined strengths AND defined weaknesses--whenever we talk about this, you seem to forget one or the other. Heimer is strong because of his machines. Heimer is weak without them. If Heimer can make it so that he keeps his machines fully operational at all times (and fortifies himself with them), he wins. If you get rid of Heimer's machines or catch him while he's away from them, you win. Defined? Check. Readable? Check.

Quote:
Greater Diversity by having three roles for everyone in maps where the maximum players is 5 for each team. Yes, I'm taking what you said out of context and making it sound nothing like what you meant. I know, it's awful isn't it?
You're mistaking roles for styles of play--there are still tanks, mages, carries, supports, bruisers, and assassins. However, each champion falls into either Defensive, Aggressive, or Control-based play--and on top of that, while they are confined to their roles and respective style of play, they still play like their own champion and there remains a reason to pick any one over the others. Every champion is a competitive pick because they don't have to fight for the same spotlight.

Quote:
Btw: all of Irelia's abilities work together when used properly. She's actually designed to be used in a certain manner that's why her skills are the way they are. I honestly believe Irelia is designed around her play style.
"I have 5 abilities and still fulfill my role effectively" is bare-bones. It's like going "well, this thing I made with these ingredients won't kill you when you eat it" and being proud of yourself. Is her playstyle defined? No--she just does what a bruiser with a gap-closer can do. Is her playstyle readable? Not by a long shot. Is she tied together by a readable theme which makes room for and enriches the previously mentioned playstyle, while lending itself to crystal-clear readability? Of course not. She doesn't fit these standards. These standards are higher than where she currently stands.

She has no place in League if League is to be the best game it can be, with the best-designed champions it could have. She is not well-designed. You can't say that and be right at the same time. You can say "she's designed." That's about it. She's a champion that has been designed and can fulfill her role by using her abilities, to varying degrees of success depending on the skill level of the player.

Quote:
Oh man, really > yeah. Generic Viking Guy is "TOTES" different to Generic Evil Clown Guy.
Yes, actually. I don't know why you tried to sound sarcastic while saying that. "I'll admit that he's right but I'll say it sarcastically so it sounds like he's wrong!"

Quote:
Honestly: it's a matter of prespective. You say that Heimer is bad because he's a generic mage type champion with turrets. Other players will tell you to leave their inventor alone!!!! (insert chris crocker picture here).
But he's not an inventor, is the thing. It's not a matter of perspective, which is where you're wrong every time you say it. He's not defined, and this is a fact. You can't say he is without being wrong at the same time. This is something you don't understand, and why I'll leave all future responses to you in the hands of Peri--he's much more patient and tolerant in the face of contrarians and bunk arguments than I am.

Heim being a generic mage is what prevents him from being the best champion he could be, or at least seeing serious competitive play. As long as those nukes are there, his Q will never be strong. As long as that Q is there, he'll never be as good a mage as other mages are. This is a fact. It's all about numbers, about sliding scales. These things are concrete, which is something you simply won't grasp (I won't assume you're too stupid to understand it because that's mean and not giving you enough credit--I've decided to believe that you simply can but choose not to).

Quote:
Again, what you consider generic is probably really cool and characterful to other players.
Then we can have one or two champions that do that (redesign Veigar, and more accurately, redesign Ryze--both are all about throwing down spells and devastating their opponents with magic). Sacrificing variety so more champions can live up to that idea of "fun" or "cool" is toxic to the game. It prevents positive growth, so I am naturally against it.

Quote:
Meanwhile, generic viking guy throws axes & generic evil clown guy throws shivs and you love them; Generic engineer mage guy throws wrenches and he's bad. Poor Heimer.
The thing is--there's only one generic viking guy, and one evil clown guy. If you want either of those experiences, you can have access to them. If you don't like those playstyles? Don't touch them, that's up to you.

Also, Heim throwing wrenches has nothing to do with this??? I really don't understand why you said that. He's not a generic engineer guy, he's a generic mage with a pinch of engineer. He's not entirely his own thing, and that's why I dislike his current design. You really do love misinterpreting what I say and using that to fuel your own bunk arguments, don't you?

Quote:
Either way it's not really about play styles though, is it? I mean, you compared Olaf who's not an assassin to Shaco who is. They have entirely different styles of play. Frankly if i picked any AD bruiser and compared them to an assassin they are going to have entirely different styles of play.
How about this then: redesign!Anivia and redesign!Ezreal? Both solid designs by my standards, both mages, but are both played completely differently. Anivia is all about blowing enemies away and freezing them up, while Ezreal is all about zipping around the map and moving around as much possible. If you try to play Ezreal the same way you play Anivia, you're going to do very poorly.

Also, I didn't compare Olaf to Shaco, I just mentioned them side-by-side. They're both champions that do a very specific thing, and fulfill their respective roles in a very defined and characteristic way. They're good examples, of which there aren't many (hence why there are so many redesigns).

Quote:
You're actually comparing the actual character of the champions and frankly: Heimer has character but you think he's bad. Since he makes all his stuff on the battlefield from what he can find, he's actually pretty impressive (imo). He might suck, but, he's got character.
So you're admitting to not having read the OP? Heimer does have character--with the redesign, we'd be making his playstyle reflect that, just as Olaf's playstyle reflects his character, Shaco's playstyle reflects his character, Rengar's playstyle reflects his character, and so on. Champions with character are given playstyles based around that character and around their theme (which informs the character). Champions without character or theme are scrapped.

Heimer's "playstyle" (or lack thereof) doesn't reflect his character apart from his turrets. In-game, he isn't the little inventor dude that specializes in building things, he's a walking nuke generator. You could slap any skin on his rockets and grenades and they'd make just as much sense--but reskin his sentry turrets, and they'd still feel like sentry turrets. It's all about frictions.

Quote:
I think it clearly lacks rainbows. This is bad. On a more serious response, it's one of those things. It's very much a personal perspective of how each champion is that will determine how each champion needs to be changed according to the matrix that you seem to be presenting. Invariably that's champion balance and design I suppose. Since each member of that team has to make decisions based on biased opinions on certain elements and their overall importance however I also feel some of the terms are clearly lacking in definition. "Dynamic flow" sound great, except, Irelia actually is entirely based around her play style. That's how they made her. You can argue that she's not actually based around a theme. And I'll grant you that being true (imo - I can't say for sure). Certainly each and every one of her (remembering she only has 4 so it's not like it was rocket science to begin with) abilities are based enabling her play style.
Every aspect of a champion should inform the others. This doesn't happen with Irelia. She doesn't have dynamic flow--she has abilities that she can use to do things. She's not defined past her role, which is bare-bones. Everything she does is in place because "a bruiser should be able to do that" (which is the same thing that happened with Nami, which is why she's such a mess of a design). "A bruiser should be able to close gaps, deal damage, sustain, and have some sort of AoE damage." And there you go, Irelia.

She's a mistake--the champ design team as a whole agrees on this.

Quote:
Tired. Sleep. Bullet points weren't actually bullets so I'm somewhat disappointed. Dashes aren't the same. Go Advanced, Man! Explore your options!
Again, this is the last time I'll respond to you--for now direct your inquiries and general contrarian nature to Peri. While he may not have all the answers, he's much more patient than I am, and also not quite as busy.

Also, from now on, you will not get a response to anything not pertaining to the subject at hand. In other words, if you can't explain why champions as they currently exist are more readable, defined, and have more counterplay than their redesigns, you have nothing to prove, and nothing to say. We're not here to talk about how champions currently work, but how they could've been if they were designed around the ideals Riot presented in the champion retrospective (this stuff isn't just something we've pulled out of nowhere--these are Riot's own ideals, and they've indirectly agreed with quite a few things we've said)--and how they could be if Riot decided to start fresh with a sequel.

That is all.

EDIT:

For the time being, I'm going to let Peri here deal with all the people that come in here with the intention of stating how current champions work.

I'll be in charge of discussing the redesigns themselves, and either clarifying elements of those kits if I need to (like with the Akali ultimate) or discussing possible changes to them (like the possible changes to the Annie redesign discussed in the previous thread).

I take honest criticism to heart when people provide it, but if you're just here to be a contrarian, I can't guarantee a soft-serve response. I'll leave that and the reiteration of things we've mentioned in the OP for Peri, because I don't like looking unprofessional!