: Let's go over your original pitch one more time: > Your abilities deal X% less damage, but burn the target for (Y*AP)% of their maximum health per second for Z seconds. Reapplying the burn adds to the existing burn. > Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that Liandry's should make you worse off than when you didn't have the item. It should still make you more effective than before at killing low health targets, but not as much as a death cap. It's still opportunity cost, not a net loss in any situation. The crux of your disagreement is that you don't think the opportunity cost is high enough - considering the relative power gain from Liandry's vs. the relative power gain from Deathcap at rewarding you vs. High Health targets vs. Low Health Targets. > Yes, you might be dealing overall less damage, but if you can still get the job done in regards to assassinating a squishy then it doesn't matter. By purchasing Torment, you gain 80 AP and a current health burn that is only full power when you have a slow effect. By purchasing Deathcap, you gain (162 AP + 35% of your remaining AP). If you fundamentally believe that there is no difference between these two items and your actual game performance in terms of being able to get the job done in murdering a squishy - we're going to have to kind of agree to disagree as we're essentially arguing at degrees here back and forth. > I know you said that penetration needs work, but this seems like a red flag to me. The two concepts - % and flat pen - are intended to have opposing goals, yet currently building one makes the other more effective due to calculation order. Regardless of how you calculate penetration and % penetration orders - you will always amplify the effects of the other. The net effect is that you are going to be better at countering resistances - in general. So the decision here mostly comes down to whether or not you want to punish players for changing paths or not - and how powerful their first purchase should be at deciding the rest of the game. > Since most damage in the game interacts so heavily with penetrations perhaps solidifying the role and correct implementation of that role should be prioritized. I think this statement and neatly encapsulates most of our disagreements actually. If either of us read that statement - the next step is obvious - however, we'll draw completely different conclusions from it. The correct implementation of penetration for me reading that - is one that punishes the player the least when they have to change their decisions down the line. Since Penetration is so important to the overall damage curve - the net negative effect to the player could be enormous if he chooses wrong and has to react to his opponent - hence, it needs to be more lenient. However, by your statement - the correct implementation of penetration is the one that punishes the player more for not concentrating his focus and thus, if he guessed wrong - he should be setting himself up for a future build that is less effective than either focused build. You have a completely valid philosophy that whatever decisions you make should keep narrow'ing the focus of your character and close him off from other paths. This makes a ton of sense in a lot of other archetypes with multiple units or fast respecc'ing. However, I fundamentally disagree with you that it is healthy for a 5v5 game without fast respecs. While item decision making is a skill to be rewarded - you have to ask yourself how rewarding it should be relative to all the other skills that are going on in the game and how rewarding or punishing it should be to make a mistake in this skillset. The thing to keep in mind is that rewards for particular types of skills are zero sum. The more important you make champion / comp selection - the less your in-game lane/strategic decisions matter. The more you reward macro or strategic decisions - the less your micro tactical decisions can matter. The more you reward correct itemization decisions - the less you reward dexterity and finesse in combat. Ignoring all that though - Let me keep stressing that I agree with you that this is a huge power push for Liandry's - and potentially in the wrong direction. I am admittedly pushing Liandry's much harder than I would usually be comfortable with were it not for the current environment of the game. Let's just leave it at that. :P
> Let's go over your original pitch one more time: I realized this morning that my pitch was not the correct implementation of what I meant and have edited it. Here it is for reference: Your abilities burn the target for (X + Y*target bonus health)% extra damage over Z seconds. Reapplying the burn adds to the existing burn. > The crux of your disagreement is that you don't think the opportunity cost is high enough - considering the relative power gain from Liandry's vs. the relative power gain from Deathcap at rewarding you vs. High Health targets vs. Low Health Targets. This is not exactly the crux of my argument. Your argument below is right in that Deathcap is much better if you have even decent ratios. My argument is more that a lot of things about the item come together to make it awkward. It's an item that favors those that can continuously reapply it. Of those champions, the ones that have poor ratios don't really get much out of the AP while the ones with good ratios would benefit from other items more. I'll elaborate more below. >By purchasing Torment, you gain 80 AP and a current health burn that is only full power when you have a slow effect. Don't forget the flat pen. Assuming the base 30 MR you're getting about 12% more damage from bases as well as ratios. >By purchasing Deathcap, you gain (162 AP + 35% of your remaining AP). >If you fundamentally believe that there is no difference between these two items and your actual game performance in terms of being able to get the job done in murdering a squishy - we're going to have to kind of agree to disagree as we're essentially arguing at degrees here back and forth. It's not that the current Liandry's is stronger (it clearly isn't). Liandry's niche is that it's supposed to be the go to item for mages to counter high health, low resistance targets. However, due to its implementation it's only effective if you meet a lot of preconditions that most mages don't meet. So Liandry's is most effective if you have a slow, low CDs, higher bases, and lower ratios (hello, Lissandra Q) while Deathcap is effective if your kit scales off AP in general. Liandry's isn't a practical buy for general mages, and if you want to make it a practical buy *by buffing the AP* then you need to buff the AP a lot. But it's a problem that exists not because the item has low AP, but because most champions can't make use of the passive. I don't have a problem with giving Liandry's a competitive amount of AP; I have a problem with giving it more AP to make up for the inability to use the passive. > However, I fundamentally disagree with you that it is healthy for a 5v5 game without fast respecs. I think you're strongly overvaluing the inability to respec quickly, and the inability to swap out items without cost goes both ways. If the other team is Maokai + Sej you know they're going to be building armor, and even so you can start building LW once you see them start building armor. It's not like they can just sell their FH/Randuin's without taking a loss. There's no reason to commit to the LW before it's effective. At the same time you know that their ADC and mid aren't likely to have tons of armor. So I don't even consider making an incorrect choice an issue. It's not like the ADC can unexpectedly build a Randuin's and make you think, "Oh darn, my LW is more effective now." >While item decision making is a skill to be rewarded - you have to ask yourself how rewarding it should be relative to all the other skills that are going on in the game and how rewarding or punishing it should be to make a mistake in this skillset. >The thing to keep in mind is that rewards for particular types of skills are zero sum. >The more important you make champion / comp selection - the less your in-game lane/strategic decisions matter. >The more you reward macro or strategic decisions - the less your micro tactical decisions can matter. >The more you reward correct itemization decisions - the less you reward dexterity and finesse in combat. Balancable vs balanced. A healthy Liandry's being too strong means that all mages equally are shutting down high health strategies too easily, but it's still still not an optimal pick against low health targets. Current Liandry's being too strong means that the mages that can't make use of the passive are too strong because of the AP, yet still aren't very effective against high health targets. I don't think 80 AP Liandry's will be too strong - especially not in the general mage case - but I think there's no reason to buff the AP to make it a more desirable pickup until the other problems are fixed.
: The main difference between LoL and an ARPG is that you can **swap back** in an ARPG - but you cannot in LoL - therefore, the items need a relatively larger amount of difference and specialization to stand out from one another but it is completely doable since there is zero cost to swapping them back and forth. In LoL - the swap cost is huge (again, gold driven) - and frequently you are making some aspect of the decision before you fully know what your opponent is actually threatening. You cannot change course as easily - nor can you reverse your previous decisions without cost - therefore, unless the item provides a baseline level of security - the item basically has to make you auto-win if you guess right - because if you guess wrong, you lose. > It's not the low AP that makes your kit feel ineffective; it's that the passive has little to do with you kit that makes your kit feel ineffective. If his basically reduces down to 'I don't like HP burns and I want more burst damage on tank targets' - you are perfectly valid in disliking the fact that Liandry's is a slow burn that synergizes based on how much of a poke / kite pattern you are rather than how much of a burst/rapid caster you are. That said, that's not a comment on trade-offs - that's a comment on the play pattern feeling generally unsatisfying on most burst mages. > that's making it more effective in the wrong direction. The crux of the issue that I'm trying to point out is that - many utility mages require a high amount of AP for their utility spells to function well (most notably, shield effects). There's another side to this where many poke/kite mages are also catcher syle mages - and thus - a large part of their contribution is the ability to threaten squishies out of nowhere. With Torment being a relatively inefficient source of AP - all buying Liandry's meant was - you can't do the things your mage is expected to do - even if you've correctly identified there are high value targets on the other side to burn. There are a ton of options that exist that can further enhance what your mage is supposed to do - so Torment sandbagging you in this aspect meant that it's not an option when you want to choose to react to your opponent. Torment does not need a built-in penalty in order for there to be a huge contrast to another potential item buy. > On a related note, what do you feel is the purpose of armor pen and magic pen? Do you feel it's a general damage amplifier or that it's there to counter defensive stats? Both? Neither? What do you consider the purpose of flat vs percent and reduction vs pen is? Flat Penetration, generally speaking, acts as a target focus. It doesn't currently but that's due to it being entirely item driven rather than kit driven. The more you rely on Flat Penetration - the smaller your available pool of targets gets. % Penetration, on the other hand, broadens your range of targets and makes you more agnostic to who you're actually fighting. We're using both of these statistics pretty poorly at the moment, to be perfectly honest - but it'll require a deeper pass to get this one right.
I realize I made a pretty big mistake for what I intended my proposed effect to be, so I redesigned it from > Your abilities deal X% less damage, but burn the target for (Y*AP)% of their maximum health per second for Z seconds. Reapplying the burn adds to the existing burn. to > Your abilities burn the target for (X + Y*target bonus health)% extra damage over Z seconds. Reapplying the burn adds to the existing burn. So going with some simple but probably unbalanced values to demonstrate, let's say X and Y are 5 and 0.015 respectively. A 1000 damage Veigar ult would deal an extra 50 damage to a target with no bonus health, while the same ult would deal 200 extra damage to a target with 1000 bonus health.
: Thanks for the feedback! We all play ARAM (and other game modes) pretty regularly and Mark/Dash has been a really fun addition. I used to play ARAM back when it was on SR and people would rush a mana manipulator haha. If certain champs become too strong we will look for other solutions to address those problems!
>Imagine Galio, a champion that's already extremely strong in HA especially against all of those AP poke comps people think are OP. He's going to have a jokingly easy and low cooldown way to get ults off. Same thing with Alistar, Kat, Amumu, Fid, Maokai, etc. There are so many champions that are already extremely strong that are going to get pushed way over the top by M/D. In return you're giving champion you think are weak a tool they didn't need. {{champion:3}} 65% {{champion:32}} 54% {{champion:9}} 57% {{champion:57}} 60% The rest are still at least a bit above 50%. Meanwhile... {{champion:77}} 42% {{champion:266}} 43% {{champion:84}} 39% {{champion:23}} 42% Trying to resist saying I told you so but you (not *you*) absolutely deserve it. M/D is a miserable novelty that got old before it was introduced and made balance worse. Why is it still in the game?
: The main difference between LoL and an ARPG is that you can **swap back** in an ARPG - but you cannot in LoL - therefore, the items need a relatively larger amount of difference and specialization to stand out from one another but it is completely doable since there is zero cost to swapping them back and forth. In LoL - the swap cost is huge (again, gold driven) - and frequently you are making some aspect of the decision before you fully know what your opponent is actually threatening. You cannot change course as easily - nor can you reverse your previous decisions without cost - therefore, unless the item provides a baseline level of security - the item basically has to make you auto-win if you guess right - because if you guess wrong, you lose. > It's not the low AP that makes your kit feel ineffective; it's that the passive has little to do with you kit that makes your kit feel ineffective. If his basically reduces down to 'I don't like HP burns and I want more burst damage on tank targets' - you are perfectly valid in disliking the fact that Liandry's is a slow burn that synergizes based on how much of a poke / kite pattern you are rather than how much of a burst/rapid caster you are. That said, that's not a comment on trade-offs - that's a comment on the play pattern feeling generally unsatisfying on most burst mages. > that's making it more effective in the wrong direction. The crux of the issue that I'm trying to point out is that - many utility mages require a high amount of AP for their utility spells to function well (most notably, shield effects). There's another side to this where many poke/kite mages are also catcher syle mages - and thus - a large part of their contribution is the ability to threaten squishies out of nowhere. With Torment being a relatively inefficient source of AP - all buying Liandry's meant was - you can't do the things your mage is expected to do - even if you've correctly identified there are high value targets on the other side to burn. There are a ton of options that exist that can further enhance what your mage is supposed to do - so Torment sandbagging you in this aspect meant that it's not an option when you want to choose to react to your opponent. Torment does not need a built-in penalty in order for there to be a huge contrast to another potential item buy. > On a related note, what do you feel is the purpose of armor pen and magic pen? Do you feel it's a general damage amplifier or that it's there to counter defensive stats? Both? Neither? What do you consider the purpose of flat vs percent and reduction vs pen is? Flat Penetration, generally speaking, acts as a target focus. It doesn't currently but that's due to it being entirely item driven rather than kit driven. The more you rely on Flat Penetration - the smaller your available pool of targets gets. % Penetration, on the other hand, broadens your range of targets and makes you more agnostic to who you're actually fighting. We're using both of these statistics pretty poorly at the moment, to be perfectly honest - but it'll require a deeper pass to get this one right.
>The main difference between LoL and an ARPG is that you can swap back in an ARPG - but you cannot in LoL - therefore, the items need a relatively larger amount of difference and specialization to stand out from one another but it is completely doable since there is zero cost to swapping them back and forth. >In LoL - the swap cost is huge (again, gold driven) - and frequently you are making some aspect of the decision before you fully know what your opponent is actually threatening. You cannot change course as easily - nor can you reverse your previous decisions without cost - therefore, unless the item provides a baseline level of security - the item basically has to make you auto-win if you guess right - because if you guess wrong, you lose. I hadn't made my argument with swapping in mind (in both cases I assumed you choice was permanent). You're right that it would feel punishing to choose wrong, but I really think it should. It shouldn't decide the outcome of the game in either direction, but it should definitely be more of a factor. That's a great kind of decision to have in your games. If the enemy team has a moderately healthy top laner and 3 or 4 squishies then you really deserve to have a hard time if you build a health buster item. It won't make you lose, but you'll have a harder time. At the same time, if the other team has a Mundo top, Sej jungle, and Cho mid (for argument's sake) then you deserve to be rewarded for making the right choice. Again, it's not an auto win, but it's enough to reward your adaptability. All of these cases are avoidable from an opponent's perspective with forethought. You shouldn't be picking a bunch of high health champions that are all countered by the same item in the same way that you shouldn't pick all magic damage. Obviously there's an extreme where the item means you can't play high health champions at all, but that seems more like a tweakable balance issue assuming the item itself is healthy. Right now I don't think the item is healthy. >If his basically reduces down to 'I don't like HP burns and I want more burst damage on tank targets' - you are perfectly valid in disliking the fact that Liandry's is a slow burn that synergizes based on how much of a poke / kite pattern you are rather than how much of a burst/rapid caster you are. >That said, that's not a comment on trade-offs - that's a comment on the play pattern feeling generally unsatisfying on most burst mages. That's not what I intended to say. I don't care if it's a burn or burst, nor should my personal playstyle preference matter. The current effect itself is affected by the enemy's current HP, CC applied to them, and the number of times you can apply it. A Veigar will deal the same amount of damage from Liandry's with 0 AP and 1K AP. All that matters is that the effect was applied. A pure tank Shyvana would deal more damage than a Veigar with any amount of AP through Liandry's solely because she can apply the effect more often (I'm not sure if she actually can apply it more often, but my point stands). The item is operating in a vacuum, and that feels very wrong to me. > With Torment being a relatively inefficient source of AP - all buying Liandry's meant was - you can't do the things your mage is expected to do - even if you've correctly identified there are high value targets on the other side to burn. If you're buying Liandry's you're admitting that one threat is more worth building for than the threat from your traditional targets. If you can address the health threat and still be able to be the same threat to squishies then where is there *any* trade off? Yes, you might be dealing overall less damage, but if you can still get the job done in regards to assassinating a squishy then it doesn't matter. It's a matter of killing someone versus overkilling someone vs not killing someone. It's meaningless to go from overkill to just enough to kill. >There are a ton of options that exist that can further enhance what your mage is supposed to do - so Torment sandbagging you in this aspect meant that it's not an option when you want to choose to react to your opponent. Torment does not need a built-in penalty in order for there to be a huge contrast to another potential item buy. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that Liandry's should make you worse off than when you didn't have the item. It should still make you more effective than before at killing low health targets, but not as much as a death cap. It's still opportunity cost, not a net loss in any situation. >Flat Penetration, generally speaking, acts as a target focus. It doesn't currently but that's due to it being entirely item driven rather than kit driven. The more you rely on Flat Penetration - the smaller your available pool of targets gets. To clarify then: You intend for Liandry's to be a niche item for addressing high health and low MR? The flat mpen on the item is intended to work towards the goal of focusing on low MR targets, correct? >% Penetration, on the other hand, broadens your range of targets and makes you more agnostic to who you're actually fighting. I know you said that penetration needs work, but this seems like a red flag to me. The two concepts - % and flat pen - are intended to have opposing goals, yet currently building one makes the other more effective due to calculation order. Since most damage in the game interacts so heavily with penetrations perhaps solidifying the role and correct implementation of that role should be prioritized. >We're using both of these statistics pretty poorly at the moment, to be perfectly honest - but it'll require a deeper pass to get this one right. I'm glad you recognize there's an issue here, but I know it's a separate discussion so I'll try to keep this relevant to my point. In your mind do you think that penetration is and/or should be a responsive stat or a core stat?
: In a world where your items were free - I think that your approach to items has definite merit. Or perhaps, if the decisions were made in a context where swapping and trading between options had relatively little cost. However, the inherent tradeoff that already exists in the game is the opportunity cost of the item over a similar item. For example, choosing to be good vs. tanks -or- good vs. squishies in this case isn't the option of buying Liandry's. It's the option of buying Liandrys **over** Lich Bane or something with a higher spike potential. The tradeoff is inherent in the Gold price of the item. In a game where items were free to swap in and out (like, an ARPG for instance, where the decision is between do I put this item in this slot vs. another item) - I think your rationale makes perfect sense. However, in a game where you are already making tradeoff decisions due to spending Gold that could've gone towards another item - the tradeoff can be created by the existence of other items (In this case, Deathcap / Luden's / Lichbane would all be way better squishy murderer in most cases.) All that said, however - I admit I am pushing the power of Liandry's a lot. Perhaps too far, as you're pointing out.
Thanks for holding a conversation and not just making it a one off :) Super tired so this might be slightly incoherent... Aside from the inclusion of gold I don't see a difference between the ARPG scenario and the LoL scenario. In both scenarios you're provided with the option of choosing one item over another to fit your situation with a limited number of options to take. The only differences is that in LoL you need to buy it. Assuming you have enough gold to buy either option it's the same choice. Which one is better? That's the heart of what I'm saying. When I look at Liandry's it should really mean something to choose it over Luden's. As is, Liandry's burn feels very ineffective compared to other options, but the flat mpen and health are amazing early game stats for reasons totally unrelated to the item's niche. There are circumstances where Luden's feels like a better tank killing item if you're spammy enough. It doesn't at all feel like an item that most mages would pick up even if they did want to do better against a tank. Raw AP or other effects feel like they get the job done better. That being said, a buffed Liandry's doesn't feel good for anyone involved. As the buyer I feel like regardless of which option I choose I'll still be effective against anyone. It's not a fun decision because in the end the amount it matters isn't enough to make it interesting. As an opposing tank I feel cheated because you made a choice to more effectively counter me, yet you sacrifice little for it. As an opposing squishy I feel cheated because you made a choice to target someone else, but you're still very strong against me as well. On part of the Liandry's section of the post that I really agree about is that it feels like your kit is ineffective. Your kit should feel good to use, not the item (a sentiment I strongly feel towards virtually all support itemization). To make up for your kit feeling worse you're straight buffing AP, but that's making it more effective in the wrong direction. It's not the low AP that makes your kit feel ineffective; it's that the passive has little to do with you kit that makes your kit feel ineffective. I'm not trying to push my own mechanic, but it's the kind of mechanic that keeps your kit feeling fun. It doesn't depend on how often you can apply the effect or "coincidental" things like that. It's *your* damage that's causing the burn effect. It's just that its effectiveness is skewed to another class of targets. On a related note, what do you feel is the purpose of armor pen and magic pen? Do you feel it's a general damage amplifier or that it's there to counter defensive stats? Both? Neither? What do you consider the purpose of flat vs percent and reduction vs pen is?
: If you have a single item pivot hard counter - what you essentially do is force two players into a state where they can't really interact with anything besides each other. While you do get clear tradeoffs - the gameplay involved reduces pretty far down to -> I can only threaten the enemy Mordekaiser. Therefore, I don't really get to do anything interesting besides the narrow focus I've locked myself into. While this is great in a strategic game where you can customize a large number of units for specific functions - I don't think there's quite enough units or there's few enough functions that this kind of focus would actually result in more interesting gameplay overall - as you get a bunch of narrow 'hosers' that don't really interact with with any other piece. There is an additional consideration that once you make a specific narrow hard counter to a particular style - the most likely outcome is that players simply opt out of playing that style - because it's so easy to get countered.
I feel like the same can be said of any stat though (or in some cases, it should). For example, Last Whisper should be a decision to counter large amounts of armor while being less efficient against lower amounts of armor. Building a heavy MR item is a clear response to an AP heavy team. How do you feel about thornmail? To me, thornmail is a very well designed item. It's good at one thing, but it's not overbearing; If your team is AA focused it provides a clear weakness. In the same way, if you stack nothing but healthy tanks then you'll have a clear weakness. What I'm seeing instead is that if you want to be strong against one or two people on a team that have a lot of health you build Liandry's and are still extremely effective against squishy champions. I'm not saying the numbers on the passive I suggested should make you only effective against health, but there should be some tradeoff to take into consideration. The point isn't to make it a hard counter in the sense of "I get this item and I win against health" , but at the same time it shouldn't be a no-brainer, general use item. A style being easily countered doesn't mean players will opt out of it. I see heavy AP all the times that know the other team will stack MR, but then have a big AD threat. You're saying, "Hey, you can counter me, but it means you'll have a really hard time against my ADC." That's interesting and fun gameplay.
: [5.13] Core AP Items Pass
> Liandry's Torment Recipe Change: Haunting Guise + Blasting Wand Total Cost: 2900 G --> 3000 G Ability Power: 50 Base AP --> 80 Base AP >Liandry's Torment is designed to be able to fit as a High Health / Low Resistance shredder (hence the combination of health damage + flat penetration). However, the lower AP on the item frequently meant your kit didn't actually work. Aggressively pushing the power of this build to be able to compete with the more immediate damage type builds - like proc builds. Please no. This item has a great niche but a very poor implementation of that niche. You're saying you want this item to be strong against high health targets without a lot of resistances. Most APs that have a hard time dealing with these kinds of champions are long CD burst champions. 1. The burn mechanic is stronger for people who can reapply it as the effect wears off. This is pretty much the complete opposite of long CD burst. 2. You don't need to provide *any* magic pen if you want this to be an effective item against low MR targets. See 3. 3. TRADE OFFS. This change screams lack of trade offs. You have an item with fairly strong AP and flat mpen which on their own are strong against low health, low MR targets. Right now the only trade off is the opportunity cost of not having a stronger item. Liandry's Torment should be redesigned. If you want it to actually fill its niche then you should change the passive to something like the following: > Your abilities burn the target for (X + Y*target bonus health)% extra damage over Z seconds. Reapplying the burn adds to the existing burn. There's a very clear trade off here. Your kit still scales well, but you focus your kill potential on high health targets.
: Adding Mark/Dash is an awful idea and it's going to destroy any notion of balance that ARAM has. The vast majority of those champions that you're targeting by adding M/D don't have a problem because they can't get into a fight. They have a problem *early game* because they can't poke, and if they do engage they're guaranteed to take damage that they'll have a hard time healing back. Adding M/D won't change that, but it'll make engages *for everyone* stupidly strong. Imagine Galio, a champion that's already extremely strong in HA *especially* against all of those AP poke comps people think are OP. He's going to have a jokingly easy and low cooldown way to get ults off. Same thing with Alistar, Kat, Amumu, Fid, Maokai, etc. There are so many champions that are already extremely strong that are going to get pushed way over the top by M/D. In return you're giving champion you think are weak a tool they didn't need. Meanwhile, you're adding Warmog's which is going to make giants belt double rejuv starts extremely good. That helps the weak early game that melees have while making tank late games even stronger than they are. Adding Warmog's is the correct way to make melee stronger all around, especially early. That being said, adding M/D with Warmog's is way over the top. It's like your balancers made two separate changes and didn't coordinate with each other. Finally, M/D wasn't the thing that made champions like Akali ridiculously strong in Poro King. It was mostly To The King because divers could dive way further than they should be able to get away with and just return back to the king. It basically gave everyone the second activation of Zed's ult. --- For all of you that think melee are hopelessly weak in ARAM, here's some help for you. You are weak early game, but almost unanimously strong late game if you don't feed. Start regen (lifesteal/spell vamp if you can make use of it). Stall the game out until you get stronger by wave clearing. Sometimes that means waiting until 6; sometimes it means waiting until 2+ items; sometimes it means waiting until level 16. You are going to lose your first tower eventually, but the longer it takes for the other team to get the tower without getting any kills the stronger you're going to be later. Don't waste your skills on losing poke trades, especially if it means you're poking instead of wave clearing. If your team needs help engaging have someone rush Righteous Glory. In most cases someone should rush Locket. You have *plenty* of options for engaging already. M/D isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse for you by making already strong picks stronger. The only extremely frustrating and forever one sided scenario is a strong poke comp with a lot of zone CC that can kite back any engage easily. These are incredibly rare and ***should not be balanced around***. The only thing you should be doing to stop this is to make it even less likely by unlocking all champions in ARAM. No offense Riot, but I don't think your ARAM balancers are ARAM players. Most of the changes you make on ARAM seem like something an SR player who plays ARAM on occasion and puts no effort into actually learning the game would do. Do not balance around those players. Balance around non-ARAM-smurf players that play ARAM nearly exclusively and know how to play difficult comps. --- All that being said, I do have (mostly positive) feedback for the other changes that I'll put in a reply.
I like the Warmog's and BT additions. Sanguine blade was a strong rush item, but it was nearly all around weaker than other lifesteal items. I expect there will still be a worthwhile decision about picking Essence Reaver vs BT. ER is much stronger in HA than in SR since the CDR and mana sustain is much more important. That being said, there is no longer a cheap lifesteal item. Warmog's was the correct answer to weak melee/tank early games, though I expect it'll be a little strong on tanks. With health regen becoming a function of base health regen tanks became stronger past level 3 or 4 (which you start at on HA) and *much* stronger late game. Something I'd like to see addressed related to Warmog's is allied healing. Healing was extremely strong, but it's not the only reason healers were so strong. Sona, mainly, was strong because she is constantly giving 5 man auras. Her heal costs 80 mana at level 1 and heals allies for 16, yet she still has a crazy high win rate. Healing has been nerfed to the point that it's really just unsatisfying, especially if you're killing yourself as Soraka. I'd like to see an experiment with Urf's approach to healing: >MORELLO'S REVENGE: All direct healing effects are 50% less effective at the beginning of the game, increasing by 1% every 30 seconds (Up to 100% effective at 25 minutes) The reason I'd like to see this now is because allied healing has gotten gutted while self healing has been immensely buffed. A 50% gap is healing effectiveness was IMO over the top without Warmog's. Adding Warmog's is the tipping point that make the 50% gap too big. Additionally, having the effectiveness of allied healing ramp up will parallel high regen build paths without being overpowering early on.
: ARAM Improvements Incoming!
Adding Mark/Dash is an awful idea and it's going to destroy any notion of balance that ARAM has. The vast majority of those champions that you're targeting by adding M/D don't have a problem because they can't get into a fight. They have a problem *early game* because they can't poke, and if they do engage they're guaranteed to take damage that they'll have a hard time healing back. Adding M/D won't change that, but it'll make engages *for everyone* stupidly strong. Imagine Galio, a champion that's already extremely strong in HA *especially* against all of those AP poke comps people think are OP. He's going to have a jokingly easy and low cooldown way to get ults off. Same thing with Alistar, Kat, Amumu, Fid, Maokai, etc. There are so many champions that are already extremely strong that are going to get pushed way over the top by M/D. In return you're giving champion you think are weak a tool they didn't need. Meanwhile, you're adding Warmog's which is going to make giants belt double rejuv starts extremely good. That helps the weak early game that melees have while making tank late games even stronger than they are. Adding Warmog's is the correct way to make melee stronger all around, especially early. That being said, adding M/D with Warmog's is way over the top. It's like your balancers made two separate changes and didn't coordinate with each other. Finally, M/D wasn't the thing that made champions like Akali ridiculously strong in Poro King. It was mostly To The King because divers could dive way further than they should be able to get away with and just return back to the king. It basically gave everyone the second activation of Zed's ult. --- For all of you that think melee are hopelessly weak in ARAM, here's some help for you. You are weak early game, but almost unanimously strong late game if you don't feed. Start regen (lifesteal/spell vamp if you can make use of it). Stall the game out until you get stronger by wave clearing. Sometimes that means waiting until 6; sometimes it means waiting until 2+ items; sometimes it means waiting until level 16. You are going to lose your first tower eventually, but the longer it takes for the other team to get the tower without getting any kills the stronger you're going to be later. Don't waste your skills on losing poke trades, especially if it means you're poking instead of wave clearing. If your team needs help engaging have someone rush Righteous Glory. In most cases someone should rush Locket. You have *plenty* of options for engaging already. M/D isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse for you by making already strong picks stronger. The only extremely frustrating and forever one sided scenario is a strong poke comp with a lot of zone CC that can kite back any engage easily. These are incredibly rare and ***should not be balanced around***. The only thing you should be doing to stop this is to make it even less likely by unlocking all champions in ARAM. No offense Riot, but I don't think your ARAM balancers are ARAM players. Most of the changes you make on ARAM seem like something an SR player who plays ARAM on occasion and puts no effort into actually learning the game would do. Do not balance around those players. Balance around non-ARAM-smurf players that play ARAM nearly exclusively and know how to play difficult comps. --- All that being said, I do have (mostly positive) feedback for the other changes that I'll put in a reply.
: Nidalee Gameplay Update Feedback/Bugs Thread!
After trying her out for a few games I have a few comments: Edge cases where a hunted target was just inside or outside the pounce range weren't really clear. I'd like to see something to indicate that a hunted target is in range, like turning the hunted icon a different color. This is a problem I have with all dashes that dash toward the mouse. If I click somewhere on the minimap and click pounce while the mouse is over the minimap it used to dash forward (correctly). This is no longer the case, since I now jump toward the bottom right corner of the screen. I mentioned on the non-pbe thread that it would be nice to see what hunted abilities apply to each target. I didn't have an issue at first, but I did after I started landing multiple javs/traps or missed part of a combo. It was especially noticeable when I got CCd mid combo. Swiping after pouncing seems difficult to land, but I might just not be used to the new targeting. Her mobility in the jungle feels extremely strong with the new pounce targeting. One thing that slowed her down before was that she had to approach walls from certain directions. Without that restriction she seems over the top. Her late game cougar burst seems strong, even without hunted. She has a very strong level 3 if she lands a jav/trap. The CD on her R seems miniscule. I'll have to play her more to see what impact it has, but I think it could stand to be a little longer. The jav hitbox might be a little too small now. I get that it was massive before, but I've had a few instances where I could swear it's going through people. She's still really enjoyable to play and feels the same for the most part. Hitting a jav is still really feels really rewarding.

Mandaari

Level 30 (PBE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion