: >First off: your math is wrong. At the two item mark against a squishy champion, live outperforms PBE. Dummies have 100 armor, at the two item mark no squishy has that much armor. Second, you're ignoring the effect of those items coming online 700 gold later, with a less forgiving buildpath. The point of these changes is to delay powerspikes and reduce burst damage, and that is what is happening. The point isn't to make ADCs invest significantly more money only to be less effective after jumping new hurdles. Lastly, Last Whisper is an ungodly inefficient item, and its passive has countersynergy with IE's true damage. Actually, because of the higher crit chance at 2 completed items, the new infinity edge is slightly stronger even against squishy targets. Assuming that squishy has ~60 armor (a 37.5% reduction; pretty normal for the mid game with no armor items), the difference in new vs old infinity edge at 2 completed items is ~1.015*AD*attack rate dps versus 1.09*AD*attack rate dps. Versus tanks, that dps difference is even more pronounced. Granted, each individual crit against a squishy is slightly weaker (~12.5% increase to damage at 60 armor, compared to a 25% increase from live), but the crits are happening 20% more often, so the overall DPS increase is actually higher. Also, having 20% of your damage be converted to true damage means ADCs aren't required to build armor pen in the late game to deal with tanks like they are now. They can instead get another lifesteal or defensive item so they aren't quite as fragile. Also any ADC (or yasuo/trynd) can solo baron after IE + BT + double zeal item now, because the true damage bypasses the damage reduction debuff. That may not seem like a big deal, but it significantly reduces the risk of taking baron, as most of the team can focus on zoning out the other team or pressuring other parts of the map while baron is being taken, and the team can finish baron without anyone losing HP. As far as the rest, the only other compelling option for the crit ADCs is Stormrazor, because it allows for a single item powerspike, which will be immensely helpful for carries with weak early games like Twitch (Basically brings back the old ghostblade/sword of the divine assassin builds that were the go to on Twitch before the items were reworked/removed). It delays the full crit build power spike, but it should compensate pretty easily. Only caster ADCs like Corki and Ezreal are really likely to go for the new essence reaver, though it may make them more viable with 2 item max CDR after trinity force.
You're not actually disagreeing with me. The difference between the two item spike live v PBE on its own is negligible, but on live you get there 500 gold faster. At same amounts of money invested into stats, live outperforms PBE. As I said, the goal of the changes is to delay powerspikes, and well as reduce the impact of singular critical hits, and for better or worse, these changes do that. You need not one but two no-component B.F. Swords to build IE. IE in itself is now useless without critical hit. If you're ahead on live you can hope to finish IE first, not anymore, and your Zeal items are less efficient. This is a significant weakening of the two item powerspike. Poster made a good point about how on PBE you don't need to finish *the second* Zeal to get the full IE payoff, but looking at the changes holistically, even at that point you have builds that rival the DPS of IE, a completed Zeal item and Zeal while also being superior up until that point. It's not just Stormrazor, BotRK has been buffed back up to the exact same price that got it nerfed. Historically, every time we've had a compelling non-crit option that's a one-item powerspike, it trumps IE, and we've just established that IE itself *can not* be a one item purchase anymore, as it's been in the past. The stage is set for IE builds to be overthrown. I touched on LW, but I reiterate, it's countersynergystic with IE, and Last Whisper (the component) is ridiculously undertuned currently. Compare a 1100 gold Serrated Dirk, which grants 7 or 8 armor penetration, 25 AD and a damaging passive to Last Whisper, that costs 200 more gold, grants 10 AD, and 10% armor penetration in a game where *at least* 6 champions are not going to exceed 100 armor on buy time, if ever, and nothing more. As I said, maybe the numbers are off, but those can be tuned. It's absolutely a good discussion whether ADCs should be having access to 100% crit at the 7800 gold mark, no objections there. But the key thing to mind here is that the goal isn't to make ADCs pay more for less, it's to change the way they impact the game. Getting baited by these kinds of posts that are built on the expectation that ADCs lose "15 to 20%" damage, magically so, is counterproductive to balance discussions, and those already feel like fools' errands on PBE.
: Kinda defeats the point of Ashe's passive to have RNG damage spikes, though, no? I understand why it works on a technical level, I just don't think that was quite what was intended.
You clearly don't understand... And RNG damage spikes is the whole point of critical hit. Ashe's autoattacks use the same crit chance rolls as everyone else, I'm not sure why you expect the behavior to be different. Although Ashe's flattened crit-scaling damage model is indeed broken by IE and could definitely be modified to interact differently with it, the mechanic is currently exactly what you'd expect.
: The new Infinity Edge is overtuned, stronger than live game & completely avoids the proposed problem
First off: your math is wrong. At the two item mark against a squishy champion, live outperforms PBE. Dummies have 100 armor, at the two item mark no squishy has that much armor. Second, you're ignoring the effect of those items coming online 700 gold later, with a less forgiving buildpath. The point of these changes is to delay powerspikes and reduce burst damage, and that is what is happening. The point isn't to make ADCs invest significantly more money only to be less effective after jumping new hurdles. Lastly, Last Whisper is an ungodly inefficient item, and its passive has countersynergy with IE's true damage. It's true that sitting on a second Zeal might defeat some of the purpose of the changes (it's not changing the fact that by that time you've already paid 600 gold more than live, and had to farm for 1300 gold backs in 4 separate occasions), and that IE doubling critical hit is not a very inspired way of making fundamental changes to the marksman class, but it's still failing to see the forest for the trees. There are new compelling options for one item powerspikes as well as midgame options that can compete with IE Zeals. As is common, you're forgetting that this is a starting point for balance; what you're supposed to be looking at is if the changes make for a good baseline for power adjustment. If they decided those spikes were too strong, they can just alter the numbers on the true damage conversion, by adding scaling, for example. "This solution would reduce the damage ADC's are dealing by about 15-20% without doing too much harm to the Crit Based Bruisers (Yasuo/Trynd/Graves)." This is no solution, and the overall problem with this thread. You outlined absolutely nothing as a concrete action, and expect ADC damage to go down by as much as 20% because... why exactly? **The point of the changes isn't to cripple ADCs, it's to change the way they deal damage, and at which points in the game**. The changelist achieves that, even if it ends up being retuned.
: [Closed] PBE Bugs & Feedback Thread: Heartseeker Quinn!
Look, I'll be the first one to confess that I don't particularly enjoy the Heartseeker line, but I'm extremely disappointed with how out of character this is. Quinn's posture does not play nice with sexy schoolgirl. What's more, I may sound like a prude saying this, but the slutty outfit combined with the expression and the hairdo just makes a would-be badass character look like a bimbo. She looks cheap, and these are things I would have never wanted to be saying about my favorite champion, even about a skin. Please, if you must do this, find a way to inject some class into this skin, because it looks tawdry.
: Is the new Duskblade abusive on ranged stealth?
Phylol has to create content in order to stay relevant. Often his videos are based on speculation that allows him to talk for 10 minutes, such as the one where he explored what it would mean for Youmuu's ghostblade to be melee only when Riot clearly stated that was something that was in consideration for *Duskblade of Draktharr*. Anyone with basic level reading comprehension would have understood that if they read the post, but it's better to stick to the drama for content. This is another episode of drama. Vaynes cancel their invisibility before a full second has passed. The time it takes you to find a comfortable position is under 1 second. If Vayne chooses to wait out the entirety of her invisibility she's actually losing out in DPS. Vaynes wait out their invis *sometimes* because it takes longer to find a safe position, but doing it *every time* would yield less damage than simply autoing when it is natural to do so, even if you proc DB on every Q. It's somewhat good. A critical hit outdamages DB's true damage by a lot even after mitigation. This isn't being understood.
  Rioter Comments
: [PBE Support Itemization Notes - 6.22] Redemption, Knight's Vow, Ardent Censer, Crucible, Locket...
Hmm. Initial reaction is that Redemption is overpowered. I'm not sure why a support item can unleash an ability that deals 10% of a champion's health in an AoE, delayed as it might be, in true damage *on top* of healing your teammates for an ultimate-worthy amount and also have guaranteed launch since it can be used from death, from massive distance. For 2100 gold. With a reasonably good, agnostic statline. To say I'd be surpised if that item went by without changes is the mother of all understatements. Otherwise, I like the look of the items a lot. I look forward to playing with them and offering feedback. I will say that I deeply dislike the decision to decrease Ardent Censer's AS buff. It's been steadily going down with iterations and it feels negligible now when it used to be the central element of the item. I don't see how this iteration of Ardent Censer differs from the last one in terms of optimal usage. It doesn't really feel like it's pressing the issue, and it keeps losing scaling power in favor of early-specific, autoattacker-specific utility that becomes unreasonably difficult to justify if there's a more pressing item due to the time constraint. The healing + damage reduction > understandable since the drain will compensate for the loss (for an autoattacker, anyway. I'm afraid heal/shield recipients who don't typically auto get the short end of the stick, as has become an exceedingly common theme with this item). Please consider further reducing the damage on hit but making it true damage since it makes you feel powerless in the sense that you wish you could maximize the damage output but you cannot itemize for penetration, and it's simply another feature about censer that goes steadily down throughout the game. Please keep an eye on Censer during this period, I have a strong feeling it won't find a place in a support's inventory.
: I can't quite agree with your argument. Sure, engage type supports might see the value in the item (on one more front - defense) but that's really just an excuse for saying that offering some other stats with the support items can skew the vision for who the specific item was designed for. Talisman wasn't designed for enchantress-type supports, i believe that the item was designed for supports who play passively and the effect that can provide a getaway or engagement is an added bonus. They too can appreciate tank stats and movement speed boost the Raptor Cloak provides, as they can as well return to the lane faster and contribute sooner to their teams. They too can get caught in the line of fire and being entirely squishy is always a bad thing. Even Soraka sometimes decides to get Warmogs and not because it's a great support item. It isn't an item designed for tanks, it is an item designed for champions that want to increase their health pool. Tanks most usually get it but so can the champions who would see a reason to pick it up. Soraka isn't really AP constrained and Warmog's effects allow her to regenerate her HP in rapid succession and continue her ambulance duty. Even if tank supports decide to skip Nomad's, they are returning to lane with tank stats and forgoing the lane sustain and increased gold generation that in the end, delays item purchases. They won't automatically win when they get the Talisman because the item doesn't offer flawless engages. To drive one more point further, having a perfect synergy item for a specific champion WILL LIMIT THEIR POWER to the item at hand. It would make the item a mandatory purchase in order for you to be an optimal champion. It's what happened with old Vladimir and WotA. Vlad was intentionally kept underpowered until he has gotten his WotA because he has historically been a problem when he was strong on his own.
The reason why Soraka gets Warmog's is *not* to become tanky, that's the whole point. Soraka *distorts* the item because she actually *dislikes* HP as it makes the cost of W rise, but she wants access to the unlimited regeneration. The fact that ranged supports will incidentally appreciate the stats granted by Raptor's Cloak does not mean that's what they want to spend their gold on. Everyone autoattacks, that doesn't mean everyone wants AD. If Talisman gave AD, the same point would stand. It's not about the item giving wasted stats, because armor is always good, ms is always good. That does *not* mean that the item isn't streamlined for divers, roamers, frontliners. It's about having an item streamlined, like Face of the Mountain is. It's having Xypherous say "coin is meant for casters" and adding a raptor cloack that pulls in the *opposite direction* of casters. "Even if tank supports decide to skip Nomad's, they are returning to lane with tank stats and forgoing the lane sustain and increased gold generation that in the end, delays item purchases. They won't automatically win when they get the Talisman because the item doesn't offer flawless engages." This is anecdotal and it does not change the fact that these champions will make better use of both the build path and the completed items than the champions they were designed for, even if we define that as "supports who play passively", which is a blatant misrepresentation. Who typically buys the item when it is viable? That is the pertinent question. these champions are *no longer the optimal users*, tanks are. Leona, Taric, Blitzcrank will have a field day with it and outperform the likes of a Janna with it *by a mile*. "To drive one more point further, having a perfect synergy item for a specific champion WILL LIMIT THEIR POWER to the item at hand. It would make the item a mandatory purchase in order for you to be an optimal champion. It's what happened with old Vladimir and WotA. Vlad was intentionally kept underpowered until he has gotten his WotA because he has historically been a problem when he was strong on his own." Then explain why it's being done for Leona, Taric, Blitzcrank and the like. Which part of this item do they not like? Mana regeneration? Because blitz consumes more than a third of his mana bar with a Q level one. Pray tell. Taric is mana hungry. A trigger happy Leona burns through mana *fast*. You're also acting as if Talisman is or has ever been *perfect* for enchantresses. Do tell what's the use of the passive and stat HP regeneration on a champion whose philosophy is to avoid damage. These arguments make *no sense*.
: This argument is based on two points - both of which I fundamentally disagree with - which is where the problem is coming from: 1. Coin is "supposed" to be for enchantress style supports. 2. Every style of support should have an item that is "perfect" for them and "worse" for everyone else. I disagree fundamentally for both points - as first and foremost - my goal is to ensure that there are two options that are worth considering for every support champion - not looking at some kind of archetypal - well, I'm an X - so I should build Y. The point that frequently gets glossed over is that - if you are an **optimal** item user - your champion baseline power level is going to be much less than it would otherwise as it is tied up in the power level of the item. Perfect item sets for champions **nerfs** them in the end by making them incredibly binary and item dependent - something that should be incredibly worrisome for enchantress style supports who are contingent on having allies as a large part of their success criterion. This is an unavoidable facet of the item system, unfortunately - but it does not mean that you chase perfect items for champions. It's pretty much a cost you have to pay when you're making powers and abilities that you need to be restricted onto a particular subset - but it always comes at a cost of flexibility and choice for those champions involved. Essentially - the path you're pushing forth is that item scaling should be the same across characters. Each character should scale with the item system at roughly equivalent power levels and have a set of items that scale them roughly the same. I fundamentally disagree with this notion - as it's always going to be champion specific as to whether or not they should scale more or less. In the end, unfortunately, the base thing to recognize is that our goals are fundamentally at odds with one another. I'm not saying I'm correct in the end - the world might be better off if we just made like 7 items that were perfect for Singed - and make sure that everyone has 7 items that they were perfect on. Seeing the effects of things like Brutalizer or any time we've actually made perfect binds - I've generally really disliked the result - as those champions became incredibly performance bound and binary due to it.
Just so my point is perfectly clear: If Riot removed the melee restriction on the minion execute on the Targon line and replaced the Kindlegem with the new Forbidden Idol, having the final stats be 250 HP, 10% CDR, 50% HP Regen, 50% Mana Regen and the 15% increased heal/shield effectiveness with the same activem imagine in that scenario someone pointing out: "Uh. I don't exactly *mind* those stats as a tanky support, but you're making me use gold on less-than-ideal stats. Moreover, I think this version of the item much better suits a champion like Soraka who will abuse the shield + increased shield/heal effectiveness. Soraka already has optimal build paths; isn't this item made for me? Why repurpose it to favor Soraka? I don't heal or shield all that much." And the response being: "Well, we think FotM's active as been used improperly by its typical users because they tend to engage ahead of their carries, so the optimal use of the shield is often unfulfilled. We're opening up the item for champions who can peel effectively with it, which we believe to be the focused use. We fundamentally disagree with your observation because FotM isn't *meant* for tanky champions, and having this item not be perfect for you ensures we can balance you for you and not for you + FotM, though that's admittedly an implication of the item system." Everyone shields *and* heals with FotM due to its passive+active. That doesn't mean +heals/shields suits the kind of champion that builds it. Everyone takes physical damage and likes moving fast, but that doesn't change the fact that Raptor Cloak at its core is a roam/dive item, and so are the items that build off of it. Just like having FotM be a range-agnostic, healing shielding sustaining machine would leave tanky supports feeling disenfranchised, so does the planned change act for enchanter type supports. Yet I could create a by-all-accounts sound argument for why such a thing might be good ("Talisman active isn't being used optimally") and desirable. What you guys are saying here is "you know what? This item was never fantastic for its users and it's currently rarely bought. Wouldn't it be better if we did this that makes more sense as a whole and, on top of that uses this cool, underused item? It's not like they don't have Spellthief's anyway." Talisman does look more solid, and even makes better sense, but the champions it was designed for (perhaps not designed for but certainly those who typically bought it) don't really appreciate the change all that much because it doesn't really empower their playstyle, because they aren't typically roamers, divers or frontliners, just like FotM users aren't typically healers/shielders/dedicated peelers. What's more, you're taking support from them and allocating it elsewhere to a niche that is already supported by the item system, and giving them even better tools than they had. the coin line isn't very interesting in and of itself, but instead of seeing how you could change ts mechanics to make it be more complex than "sit behind and reap rewards" for enchanter types, you simply left those uninspiring mechanics untouched in a way that doesn't really allow you to allocate streamlined power and focused on *the other side of the build path* and repurposed it for another type of champion that coin line wants (your words, not mine) entirely. Yes, your idea for Talisman is great. No, that version of Talisman is not desirable for the champion class that bought it most. As a side note, I think you're overburdening Spellthief line by forcing ranged supports to buy it. Spellthief's proliferation happened for two primary reasons: the dreadful state of the coin line and the implications of Spellthief's for competitive play. Spellthief's like provides unique advantages to pro players in that in increases the amount of damage dealt to turrets in laneswap scenarios, vital for those first moments where they exchange outer turrets + in grants gp10 that rewards the support for roaming and the scripted moments in the game where they're away from creeps, which makes for an substantial part of the earlygame and only grows bigger. People tend to emulate what happens in pro play which is why Spellthief's, along with the fact that Talisman was inexplicably gutted, became the standard for all ranged champions, even those who are pathetic at making use of it like Janna. I don't think that's healthy because over-proliferation usually leads to nerfs, but when you force a huge category of champs to buy that item because there's no desirable alternative, you end up harming bystanders just for being unsupported by the item system. All tanky support champions generally want to do the same thing, and even when they differ, FotM supports their playstyle. Neither part of that statement is true for ranged. The two ranged options made sense, but seeing as you removed one option from viability, they're currently all piled up in the other. I don't know if that'll be true with the new Talisman, as much as I'm reasonably sure rangeds will not gravitate toward it there's really no certain way of knowing, but from the get-go, if one class needed additional options to avoid overburdening one line it was ranged supports, not melees, in my opinion.
: This argument is based on two points - both of which I fundamentally disagree with - which is where the problem is coming from: 1. Coin is "supposed" to be for enchantress style supports. 2. Every style of support should have an item that is "perfect" for them and "worse" for everyone else. I disagree fundamentally for both points - as first and foremost - my goal is to ensure that there are two options that are worth considering for every support champion - not looking at some kind of archetypal - well, I'm an X - so I should build Y. The point that frequently gets glossed over is that - if you are an **optimal** item user - your champion baseline power level is going to be much less than it would otherwise as it is tied up in the power level of the item. Perfect item sets for champions **nerfs** them in the end by making them incredibly binary and item dependent - something that should be incredibly worrisome for enchantress style supports who are contingent on having allies as a large part of their success criterion. This is an unavoidable facet of the item system, unfortunately - but it does not mean that you chase perfect items for champions. It's pretty much a cost you have to pay when you're making powers and abilities that you need to be restricted onto a particular subset - but it always comes at a cost of flexibility and choice for those champions involved. Essentially - the path you're pushing forth is that item scaling should be the same across characters. Each character should scale with the item system at roughly equivalent power levels and have a set of items that scale them roughly the same. I fundamentally disagree with this notion - as it's always going to be champion specific as to whether or not they should scale more or less. In the end, unfortunately, the base thing to recognize is that our goals are fundamentally at odds with one another. I'm not saying I'm correct in the end - the world might be better off if we just made like 7 items that were perfect for Singed - and make sure that everyone has 7 items that they were perfect on. Seeing the effects of things like Brutalizer or any time we've actually made perfect binds - I've generally really disliked the result - as those champions became incredibly performance bound and binary due to it.
Sorry to be responding this late, I hadn't checked back. I have to say I disagree. I don't think support items are "supposed" to be perfect for a class, but I do think that they should support a single class class better than another that is already supported. In this, I defend the old, and even the current version of Talisman, underpowered as it is. It isn't *perfect* for enchantresses. The HP regeneration is often superfluous, and the active empowered your team but in ways more complex than its undoubtedly best use: a go button. You use it for rotating, for saving a teammate, for reaching your group, for vacating a dangerous objective site. It's not perfect, but it's good, and forces decisions smarter than "are we going in? If yes, press 1". You yourself wrote the introduction for the items on the support rework patch, I believe, and while you didn't outright say that the items were "supposed to be" for a class, you did say that you wanted each of these lines to reinforce their unique identities, with coin supporting the playstayle of those supports whose patterns has them hanging back. More offensive caster supports had the spellthief line that rewards their offensive positioning both by passively adding damage, offering multipliers and the old AoE slow passive. I don't think the idea that the support items were fundamentally designed to reward some patterns, indeed champion classes, better that others is just an impression of mine. Both the rhetoric surrounding the items and their practical usage/mechanisms points to the idea. If having Relic Shield only execute minions for melee champions isn't a soft class lock, I don't know what it is. The same goes with Spellthief's passive being unappealing for a support that doesn't routinely harass, like a melee support. You say you disagree with support items needing to be "'perfect' for them and 'worse' for everyone else", yet the mechanisms in those items that you introduced have that exact feature. Ultimately, I think you're contradicting yourself in more ways than that: * For one, you're crating a perfect item for tanky engage supports. There is no part of this item that doesn't appeal to a support like Leona, Taric or Blitcrank. The only second thought these champions will have buying Talisman will be "I could have bought relic shield for an easier early lane", but as I said, historically support items have reinforced their optimal cases by way of mechanisms designed to favor a class *within the item itself* not by way of cost of opportunity, which already exists (Talisman being underpowered skews this, though). * Second, you're creating a build path that rewards casters with one part, saying the item is supposed to reward those patterns, yet the other part does *nothing* for the champions that exhibit those patterns, other than provide them with movement speed at their outer turret. The parts pull in entirely different directions, they don't support one another except for the, incidentally, perfect cases of Leona, Blitzcrank, Taric, Braum, etc. On another point, you do not believe Talisman to have been historically well used by their typical users, which I disagree with, as coin passive/statline has always rewarded laning/sustaining/attrition patterns better than the other items, something typical of its users, and active uses are versatile and clever for these champions precisely because they aren't reduced to "go". Also, the natural positioning of typical coin user has them be hub for their team, guaranteeing they tag a high number of champions with every use,something that suits their playstyle beautifully. You're invested in having each type of support have two viable options, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but in my opinion you're failing to recognize the current Talisman *is* a legitimate choice for tanky supports, it's just overnerfed. Thresh and Blitzcrank are examples that support this claim. The change isn't giving them an additional option, it's just making the already existing option amazing. Man, I like the planned version of talisman. I can't wait to play Leona with it. I'm just as hyped as you for it, but I can *see* that the framework for the changes does *not* match what these items have historically been about, and it's not a matter of me wanting "perfect items" or having enchantresses have exclusive access to power. Champions whose identity had been uniquely accentuated by their coin line are having it muddled by giving them uncomfortable power, only to give that benefit to another class of supports that already have an optimal choice. That's my point. I think you came across something cool, and It's perfectly understandable that you want to defend it, but that doesn't mean that the change comes from a place of coherence and philosophical deliberateness, that's not what is being shown here. (PD: seems strange that Bead gives 50% HP regen only to lose 25% on Nomad's Medallion).
: > Talisman You are making a fairly strong assumption here that Talisman of Ascension is 'only' for Enchantress Supports - I may be reading too much into the words 'encroach' and 'empower them especially.' Targon's users will forgo a significant amount of healing for their carry if they go down this route - in favor of more selfish power in lane and more team power later on - it seems like an appropriate tradeoff. Blitzcrank, for example - seems like an ideal fit for either mobility incarnation of coin. He is definitely not an enchantress. > Why was the old iteration of Talisman something you disliked? It was super solid and a perfect fit to the champions it's designed for. We disfavor coin traditionally because the champions that it's designed for also aren't encouraged to do anything active to win. By doubling down on this concept - you make an item that is perfectly tuned to a playstyle that we have deemed ultimately incredibly problematic when allowed to be strong. Concentrated identities only work when the identity in question is supportable. Lastly, you can design 'perfect' items for champions. The net result is typically that the champion gets weaker overall at the end of the day - because the item isn't flexible enough to support a wide variety of playstyles - and thus the champion gets a portion of their power carved out into the item system. The heal items might actually suffer from this in the long run - were it not for the fact that AP also scales heals/shields pretty well.
I'll try to explain myself: no, I do not expect each family of support items to be *just* for the class it was designed for. What do I mean with "the class it was designed for"? Well, it's like you did now when you said above the coin line was meant for heavy spell usage champions. Those champions often end up being from the same subclass. Obviously Targon isn't meant just for tanks (Thresh is a bit of an impostor, really, and the best example of this) but it's very streamlined for them. This is undeniable, it goes as far as to limit its ability to execute minions for melee champions. If we can agree that these families are fairly streamlined for the champions they were designed for and that this distinction is important enough as to merit some mechanics that limit the ability for one class to opt into another family without giving up a key component (in a direct way, not in he form of cost of opportunity), you can understand my concern better. My concern is that Talisman as it's outlined will cease to be *best* on the type of champion it was designed for because the most meaningful part of Shurelya's has always been the active, not necessarily the stats. I don't believe that mana regen is enough of a turnoff stat for the class of tank/engage supports not to displace caster supports as the best users of this item. Sure, Blitzcrank is an example of a champion that likes Talisman a whole lot because of multiple factors: the way he positions in fights, his synergy with burst movement speed, his monumental mana costs in lane... That doesn't mean that Blitzcrank's class is better at using the item than the enchanter supports Talisman has historically catered to. Why? Because the principle I outlined in the last paragraph has been in place: the stat line for Talisman is unappealing for them due to the lack of defensive stats. They could be better users of the active, though... and there's the problem. With this change, Blitzcrank's class becomes the best at using the active, as they've always been, but will also benefit from most of the stats provided by item, including coveted defensive stats ranged supports are not too excited about due to their playstyles, and roaming ability, which has historically been a melee support strength, not so much a caster support one. What item they're giving up shouldn't be in discussion: Talisman users are foregoing increased lane presence by foregoing the Spellthief line. This doesn't make up for the fact that if you don't have the tools to reliably proc Spellthief charges, you're not an optimal spellthief user. I don't know if I explained myself well enough: what makes an item optimal for a certain class is enforced by the items themselves, that's the tradeoff for choosing it off-class. with this change, there is no reasonable in-item mechanic for a class that already has the Targon line as their hallmark item to dissuade them from opting for the Coin line. The end product is better suited for engage champions, tanks, than -ultimately- enchanter-type supports, who are the historical champions of Talisman, just like poke supports have been the Spellthief users by excellence. This leaves supportive-caster type champions bereft of an item best suited for them, which is what I meant with encroaching. No one argues that the spellthief line is better on Sona than it is on Janna, but you will without a doubt say that Talisman is better on Leona than it is on Soraka when that shouldn't be the case, given that Leona already has an item in which she's undoubtedly superior to Sona in FotM. The other concern I mentioned is that Talisman's identity is being muddled unduly: if the coinline is for sustained spell users, why add Raptor's Cloak as a component to the end item if that component contributes to nothing to the champion class the family is being primed for? As I said before, tankiness and roaming ability rewards another type of champion entierly, and in the end the item pulls in two very different directions and the coin flip is ultimately decided by the heaviest side. Shurelya's active tilts the coin toward Vanguards. A tank will return to lane with Raptor's Cloak, not Nomad's Medallion, and will save up the money necessary to buy the full item if need be, and will only be minorly bothered by having to buy mana regeneration if they don't, since it's not like they can't make use of the stat. This path is better for tanks than Nomad's Medallion is for enchanters, so they'll be more powerful than the supposed-to-be optimal users.
: [6.13 Planned] Adjustments to.. more Stuff! [Part 2 - Teleport / Support Items]
I'm concerned about Talisman's path granting such a large amount of armor, or even armor at all. The champions that build Talisman generally seek to avoid damage rather than tank it. That doesn't mean they make poor use of defensive stats, obviously, but making the item this good in terms of defensive stats might mean that champions that usually go the FotM family will have a powerful item that is no longer uncomfortable to build due to unsuitable stats. The supports that historically build Talisman don't seem to get much mileage out of the added stats, and with the sustain from Targon's being at an all time low, I fear tank supports will encroach on enchanter supports territory by making better use of the item designed to empower them especially. Also seems strange considering the new passive on Forbidden Idol would be a better thematic match to enchanter supports than Raptor Cloak. Perhaps Soraka is playing too important a role in the decisions made around this item. Talisman of Ascension reads like a mess in this iterations. Too diffuse an identity, frankly. Why was the old iteration of Talisman something you disliked? It was super solid and a perfect fit to the champions it's designed for.
Rioter Comments
: @Riot from Quinn Mains: Context, please
Hey guys. There's been *a lot* of comments on the subreddit but most don't own accounts on PBE in order to participate. I'll try to summarize the main points of what's on their minds. I guess the primary concern are not the nerfs, per se, but the fact that they come together. We're okay with the idea of reducing nearsight's duration as a nod to the frustration of playing against it, but the cooldown nerf implies that the problem goes beyond simple discomfort, since that's a power level nerf, not a frustration nerf, one that we feel isn't justified given Quinn's particular strengths, but especially given her weaknesses. I and many others wish Riot would act sensibly and nerf one thing or the other before moving forward, because if the nerfs have the consequences we fear (and we have people with over 1000 Quinn games over there; I'm close to that number myself) then Quinn will remain playable, but almost certainly not viable, and that's something no one side should want. There's been some concern that she might be getting nerfed because she's viable in many roles, but that's wrong in multiple levels. For one, there's the opinion that Quinn has "spilled out of botlane". How is this wrong? Well: * Quinn has never, at any point, been a viable botlane ADC. She's playable in the role, but the nature of her kit, she's subobtimal for many reasons: a non-combat ult, low range with no AoE prowess to speak of in order to compensate, no on-demand steroids and a historical difficulty in accessing those she does have, poor performance in everything needed out of an ADC such as teamfight prowess, siege potential, tank-killing ability and an overall counterproductive-to-the-role ult that better rewards splitpushing and flanking, both things that botlane ADCs can't do without compromising their team. This is the reason why, even at her strongest, Quinn doesn't appear competitively as an ADC, except for a handful of failed tries, iirc in their entirety. The reason why people play Quinn as an ADC even today is because she was originally sold to us as an ADC at a time when those belonged almost exclusively to the botlane; her play rate bot before the rework was ~80% ADC even though that wasn't, hasn't ever been her optimal role. Today, it's her least favored role, but there are hardcore Quinn players true to what they've played forever, regardless of her talents. * In that vein, make no mistake, Quinn was, by [her designer's will](https://www.reddit.com/r/QuinnMains/comments/3m0j3v/deciphering_what_repertoir_has_in_store_for_quinn/cvc11yv), reworked to be optimized a solo laner. Quinn is a solo laner, so it's frustrating to read people who resent her "getting out of botlane" when that was never her place. * In fact, it's due to her increased popularity that people have become aware that Quinn is able to be played in multiple positions, however, *this has always been the case*. Old Quinn was a better jungler than new Quinn because Q used to blind (except on the first auto) the entirety of the camps, as well as having a stronger spike level 6 and being an overall better ganker. The difference between old Quinn and new Quinn in the jungle is that the patience system enabled her beyond old Quinn's ability to weather the jungle. She's still not particularly viable in the position because warrior simply fails to offer Quinn the tools she needs to snowball a game before she becomes useless, and while it's a good bundle of stats, it can't be compared to the powerspikes all competitively viable junglers receive when they finish their jungle item. Melee, non-warrior junglers are the S and A tier because of this, as well as the increased importance of Herald, that greatly reduces ranged damage with Quinn having no alternative melee states like Elise or Nidalee. In essence, people seem to be calling for nerfs due to nearsight itself, not her power level. In fact, most detractors seem to detest the mechanic and ask for it to be removed, in which case these nerfs are not going to satisfy either party. It feels like the nerfs are trying to appease the "masses", and that's not fair to Quinn players. Nearsight is frustrating, I agree, nearly all of us do, but understanding that some abilities, even though they're frustrating, are core to a champion's kit is the key to balancing correctly. I always use the example of Yasuo's Windwall, which I find the most frustrating ability in the game, because even though I hate it, I understand why he needs it in this state in order to function, and why Yasuo's designers readily call him the best of his class, melee carries, in terms of health and ability to express power. Fizz's Playful/Trickster is another such example. The point that's being made here is that the people frustrated by nearsight will hate Quinn regardless of Q's cooldown, so balancing with that in mind invites arbitrary changes. In turn, we refuse to accept that a single targeted ability tied to a skillshot that's difficult to hit consistently be generically branded as "lacking counterplay" or any such misrepresentation, especially when the CC it inflicts allows for action despite its strong disconcerting power. It is precisely because we agree the power of confusion to be strong that we'd see the duration of nearsight lowered, but the cooldown on Blinding Assault bears little to no relation to this matter. To be quite honest, some of us even think that the nerfs won't be that impactful, but then again, these changes are being challenged not because they don't leave Quinn playable, but because they most likely leave her unviable. Q is Quinn's fallback pattern; nerfing it in this manner, while it might not much affect Quinn's core strengths, harms her ability to provide value for her team outside of her best case scenarios, which has always been Quinn's problem. Quinn has always been a lane dominant champion that could run away with the game by stretching her influence across the map if she got far ahead enough, but she had never been viable before the nearsight change. A change of this magnitude might not seem like much to the untrained eye but for those of us who played with Quinn for the entirety of her inviable period see it as a threat reminiscent of her feast-or-famine status, a thing we're not eager to relive and something Repertoir certainly wanted to steer away from.
Rioter Comments
: > Well then why not just get rid of Skystrike? I was actually in favor of this approach for quite some time, but we thought it was something that players would be attached to, and that keeping it around at low power budget would be best. > Also, question on the side, does W still work while using Tag Team? Yeah, W still works during Tag Team without cancelling Tag Team. You can also cast Q and E from Tag Team, but they will remove you from Tag Team.
You thought players would be attached to a counterproductive mechanic so you kept it but you removed blind and Valor as a playable unit? I don't have issues with the changes themselves, but it seems like a weird argument to make for the conservation of Skystrike considering you removed features that were far more "core" to Quinn than Skystrike.
: This is the most important question: **If we don't like this. And we find it weak. Are you willing to say "we messed up" and find a different avenue of fixing her.** Or will you do the typical riot thing of "we like this change so even if you don't , get used to it" Because I know I haven't actually played her yet, meaning my complaints are not backed up. They're less than valid. But I know what I like about Quinn, I know what makes her strong, I know what makes her weak, and know what makes her fun, and this isn't it. And my greatest fear is that my thoughts and feelings will fall on deaf ears like every other mistake riot has made. And hopefully this isn't a mistake, maybe there is some good in this. I won't know till I actually play her. BUT IF IT IS. CAN YOU ADMIT **IF** THIS IS A MISTAKE.
Considering they stubbornly refused to admit the Cassiopeia changes were poorly thought-out until they had to, very recently, announce a second rework, I wouldn't count on it. I have no opinion on Quinn changes as of now, but I *am* worried about her role in a team with this update. What does she DO with superior speed if she's no longer a top tier duelist nor an assassin and she's always been a weak teamfighter?
: Quinn PBE Feedback Thread
* Will we be getting a champion spotlight for Quinn? * How would you describe Quinn's play pattern with these changes?
: Quinn PBE Feedback Thread
Be honest: how do you feel about these changes? A few specific questions: * Is the channel time on Tag Team a standing still kind or more of a Twitch Q one? * Is the Harrier change meant as a nerf? Quinn has always had troubles stacking important amounts of AD and now the build requires her to get AD, crit and a mandatory BotRK. * How would you describe Quinn's role now that her dueling and assassination patterns are either gone or diminished? I'm fairly optimistic about the changes, but I'm having trouble finding a use in my mind for Quinn's mobility. If she's good at offensive waveclearing and mobility, she sounds like a good splitpusher, but if her dueling took a hit and she lost her biggest strength in forcing fights with R (it was by far the most impactful feature of her kit, this is undeniable), we're left with a champion that has always been bad at teamfighting with no new workaround tools. Quinn top was viable because of her skirmisher/duelist/assassin strengths. Do any of these strengths remain?
Rioter Comments
: To be fair, though, AP toplaners tend to get pretty abusive and when they dominate the meta, they push most of the melee toplaners out of viability. there was apoint when the toplane was dominated by Lulu and Ryze, and it was a nightmare.
That has little to do with the fact that they're AP and more with the fact that they're overpowered in Ryze's case and overloaded in Lulu's. Lissandra was a case of "won't let the meta shift away from her naturally" and saw all of 0 play after nerfs folks at Riot thought would only be a minor hit. Meta shifted away from her regardless and she was buried.
: Core Defense Items Pass [5.16]
These changes bury Lissandra, who was already taken out of competitive viability, to the depths she once roamed. We have no reason to play her midlane because of the Q nerfs that struck her earlygame and a single Spectre's Cowl top where the changes weren't as severe will simply shut her down.
: Utility ratios are mostly trash. Traditional supports that build AP do so for their usual AP ratios, not the utility ratios. Sona isn't stacking AP to increase her slow%, she's stacking AP to increase her heal. Janna has a good ratio on shield. The only thing the establishment of AP as a viable build path on traditional supports accomplishes is pushing them out in favor of mage supports (which I assure you we'll see if/when new Zeke's comes live). You think I'm gonna waste this item on a Nami or Sona? No way! I'm building this on "support" Annie or "support" Zyra.
On top of the things you cited, Janna gets 10 AD on her shield per 100 AP, 25 raw damage on an IE crit. She gets 60 extra heal per ult tick (180 total) and various other minor bonuses. Nami gets increased returns on E, 5% extra slow on W, 10 extra MS that scales with %MS sources on passive. Lulu gets ridiculous. Annie won't stand within 1000 range of the AD or help in charging because she has to hold her stun. Zyra is indeed a good choice since she'll hang back and spam spells, peel for the AD and enable it to do damage. Zekes enables everything about her playstyle AND gives her damage. If you build something like sightstone, zekes, banner, twin shadows, you'll get a very utility heavy build with a respectable amount of AP and tankyness. You simply don't like the idea of a support that deals damage or enables doing damage as a build. You don't have to run Mikaels Righteous Glory to be utility focused. Supports have generally good AP ratios between utility and damage (from Lulu levels of amazing yields to Janna levels of "good-but-not-that-good-unless-you're-the-ADC.") These builds carry risks but generally scale much better into the lategame. I, for one, am excited to see how Zekes will shape AP leaning support builds and their teammates' in turn. If I go Zekes, my AD might be able to spike earlier by building Shiv or even Youmuu's. If I'm playing a shield/heal support, my teammates might focus more on items with resistances than HP, which usually come with increased damage potential though CDR or passives or plain damage. My midlaner might stack less AP and go more utility builds if I use Conduit on him and not the AD. I want to see how making support's innate abilities more powerful fares against the ubiquitous power of meta items, unlock more ways to playing support than pressing 1 to 3. These are exciting prospects.
: Hmm. Obviously, I haven't tested this out in-game or anything, at this point, but I'm really not liking the theme of the new Herald. * Old Zeke's Herald was very unique and had a specific purpose for being bought that depended on your team's composition. New Zeke's doesn't seem all that situational. It's either going to be strong enough for every AP Support to get, regardless of team comp or matchup, or it's going to be too weak/expensive to bother picking up. * New Zeke's seems like yet another AP/Mana/CDR item that Supports will buy and misuse instead of choosing utility items that provide reliable benefits. We have enough Mejai's Jannas, already. We don't need Zeke's-Mejai's Jannas, as well. I don't think we should be encouraging Supports to build high-AP items to utilize the pseudo-Deathcap effect of the new Zeke's. Not enough Supports buy the already-existing and underrated utility items like Twin Shadows, Banner of Command, Mikeal's, etc. * Why wasn't this just introduced as a new item? It seems really weird to shift an item's purpose so drastically. Deathfire Grasp got deleted and Luden's was a new thing, even though those two had much more in common than Old Zeke's and New Zeke's. I would actually rather you just remove Zeke's Herald if you don't want any trace of the old item in the game, rather than having a completely different item keep its name and icon. * I liked being able to buy Zeke's Herald on the beefier Supports that don't stack AP items, like Thresh, Leona, Braum, Alistar, etc. They're more likely to survive a long time in a fight and use the effect (whether it's a Life Steal Aura or a Superpowered Ally Bind) to its full potential. They get pretty much nothing out of this new version. There are better CDR items, better Armor Items, better utility items. Squishy AP Supports are more likely to die easily, so the new effect seems a bit mismatched, to me. * If I'm interpreting the item description properly – The Support activates the item to choose an ally, like a Kalista bind, right? Then once fully stacked, the effect will automatically start when either of you deal damage to anything? I think it would be much better if the Support could choose when to activate the effect, rather than have it go off right before a big fight because your ADC wanted to farm Raptors or poke some enemies with long-range spells. Anyway, maybe I'll change my mind after I see the thing in action. Initially, though, I'm not very excited about it. I'm glad to see you guys taking a look at some of the forgotten Support items, even if this particular change doesn't seem right to me.
As is, this item is broken. 50% crit for 6 seconds is an invitation to go ham. IE PD BT and you erase everything in sight while boosting your lifesteal so you can hardly die, especially when the item is in the hands of Janna/Nami. It's fine if you don't like AP stacking supports, but pretending traditional supports weren't reworked so they could have access to scaling on their utility is petty. It's a genuine buildpath for traditional supports, so I don't see why it shouldn't be encouraged as a valid choice. As it is, supports are Sightstone + Locket + Talisman/FotM/Righteous Glory + Mikael wearers. This item would just encourage them to buy those underrated existing items because of its AP synergy, not limit it further. The whole "on damage" activation is the most important gate on the item, it would be ill-advised to remove it. Otherwise it becomes an on-demand 50% crit chance that could very well come with on hit buffs/shields from a support boosted by their AP. I agree it's strange such a different item is taking the place of Zeke's. They don't bear any resemblance. I say good riddance to Zekes, though I love it in those rare cases it's useful (full AD comps, double AD comps - the vamp route is just absurd, however), but replacing it for this is odd. It's just a annoyance, in any case. I think 50% crit is far too powerful, but the stats are great and the AP scaling seems balanced enough.
: New HUD Feedback
I hope this doesn't get buried because you missed a very important detail. I think the TAB screen is oriented wrong. Think about it: if you're allowing us to drag champions on the scoreboard it's because you're optimizing comparison, right? Well, if you look at what you do with the spectator HUD, you'll notice the most important information is located *closer to the line that separates one team's score from the other*. In fact, data starts from the center line to the edges [ (items, CS, champion portrait) | (champion portrait, CS, items) ] so I can, at a glance, compare stats fluidly without having to direct my sight to opposite sides of the screen. The way the HUD works now isn't optimal in that sense, I'm doing roughly the same effort I was doing before to draw comparisons because I have to focus on two far points on the screen to compare CS or gauge gold advantages by items, whereas on the spectator HUD I just need to look at the center and get information in one sitting. Those should probably be reversed.
: It was supposed to make her a better support, not bolster her mid lane
> [{quoted}](name=Jbels,realm=PBE,application-id=2EAF660193FA3B668D7234B3AEBB530C5AB7F651,discussion-id=nzdkxObI,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2015-05-20T06:24:03.992+0000) > > It was supposed to make her a better support, not bolster her mid lane Think it through. It's a nerf to every kind of Karma, not just mage Karma. Support Karma benefits just the same from a 10s ult reduction than mage Karma. In any case I'm not making a case for returning the damage, I'm making a case for returning some of the power lost that I feel wasn't allocated somewhere else. * RW lost damage, gained a base cast ratio increase, increased root (which is an increase in potentail damage from teammates, if not from Karma because you won't get another Q off with the extra CC time). I feel this is equivalent. RW is weaker as a dueling ability, and weaker in the way that it interacts with Karma's kit, but W got stronger (it needed the love) and while it doesn't nearly make up for the damage she loses, increased root time enables your team to deal extra damage that could very well compare or surpass the old effectiveness (especially is it's an ADC hitting the target). * E lost its high AOE damage, gained increased shielding on the main target and slightly increased shielding on the secondary ones. She lost 40 base value off her E, but it got a very strong cooldown reduction and a mana adjustment. The cooldown reduction was deemed too high, so it went from 6 to 8 (2 less than live). However, RE also lost its capacity to proc her passive and there's just no compensation for this anywhere else unless you consider the change to her passive one, and it still falls short as a compensation method. Old Karma simply will get off more Rs during a teamfight than this Karma and that hurts both her variations. Before her E cooldown reduction got brought back a little, I thought the budget was fairly reassigned considering base E got an upgrade similar to what W got, but now that it got nerfed in the last iteration, it seems like the reduced cooldown and mana cost is a compensation for the loss of ~20% base value and nothing else. I think if E on a 6s cooldown was too strong but you'd hit a budget reassingment you were comfortable with, you could have diminished the cooldown to an acceptable number, like it did, and returned that power you took and touched other levers like base ratio (average for shields), shield duration (below average for shields), speed-up strength (average for speed-ups) or speed-up duration (way below average for speed-ups). As it is, it only got nerfed because that much powers focused on a single lever was too strong, but that doesn't mean the same power across levers would be also. The dynamic of her E is certainly weaker now.
: @ricklessabandon Karma Mantra E interaction with damage and her passive.
I think the "rework" is great except for this part. I don't think they compensated for the fact that you will lose power you got from passive procs on RE. I think they should tune up base E a little to compensate much like they did for W considering RW took a big hit damage wise. Maybe E on a 6s CD was too strong, I don't know, but now it feels like the skill just lost 300 + 0.6 AP and potentially 10 sec off her ult for an important buff on the main shield and a minor buff for the secondary ones that doesn't quite add up. Otherwise they accordingly balanced the reduced CD on base E by lowering its value. Maybe they should keep the old mana costs but also the old base values? I don't know, but it feels like she came out a little shortchanged with that power trade. EDIT: Now that I think about it, even if they don't reduce the CD further, there are plenty of levers to give back power on E. There's shield duration, shield strength, shield scaling, speedup duration and speedup strength to consider.
Rioter Comments
: > Flat penetration turning into a percent shred is not counter-intuitive. That was my assumption when we started on the item, and the first few iterations actually worked this way. We moved away from it because the response was pretty overwhelming that it wasn't working out. Just one of those things you discover through playtesting.
> [{quoted}](name=Riot Axes,realm=PBE,application-id=2EAF660193FA3B668D7234B3AEBB530C5AB7F651,discussion-id=bFVlOf4J,comment-id=000500000000000200000000000000010000,timestamp=2015-04-18T21:56:07.624+0000) > > That was my assumption when we started on the item, and the first few iterations actually worked this way. We moved away from it because the response was pretty overwhelming that it wasn't working out. Just one of those things you discover through playtesting. There is absolutely no reason for that testing not to go to PBE, discarding it so soon in the process. You're dead-set on releasing the item as you introduced it to PBE - you even forewarned the only change you were going to make DAYS AGO, before any testing was done: nerfing the movement speed bonus. Seems to me like you're less interested in having the community pitch in as just going through the motions to get your preferred setting live. We have raised interesting questions about the place for new BC and you've addressed exactly none. It's discouraging.
: The number of champions who would consider it as a rush item (1st or 2nd big buy) is relatively small (Darius comes up because of what Phage does for him, Gnar comes up because HP) - but the amount of armor you face early in the game is also pretty small until a bit later on. A lot of it comes down to who you actually see building the item, and when. If it's {{champion:80}} and {{champion:91}}, then yeah, they don't want either item it builds out of or really care for the final stats very much, at least compared to {{item:3074}} or similar. I've seen it on Pantheon and it works out ok, but Pantheon ends up feeling quite different from usual, unless he's super fed. On the flip side, as a followup to {{item:3068}} on {{champion:86}}, or as a rush item on {{champion:150}} or a few others, building those items make a lot more sense. Just to lay out goals: I'd like a smallish set of champions to really like the item in most games - mostly the more heavy fighter types. I'd like a larger set of the fighters (and maybe a few champs in different roles, e.g. a few ADCs buying it sometimes sounds cool) to want to consider it later in the game, mainly if they're facing off against multiple tanky opponents or something like that. If it lands in a spot where everyone buys it or a lot of champions need to buy it every game (the CDR is the biggest risk there, as a number of people have pointed out), we'd take action on that, and if it lands in a spot where nobody really wants it, we'd look to buff.
Axes, why would I rush an item that shreds armor before a) the enemy builds armor, b) my team can make use of it regardless because laning phase isn't over? These champions can rush better items to suit specific needs for earlygame. The small set of champions that can make use of this item basked in the brutalizer, those who train on the tank regardless of being toplaner or whose AoE damage tags tanks on the way to the backline (Wu, for example). The components don't particularly help either of those classes. You're making mountains out of molehills. Flat penetration turning into a percent shred is not counter-intuitive. An item that transitions from earlygame power to lategame utility seems to enrich the repertoire, not confuse it. This item is riding on 20% CDR in order to be successful live instead of its purpose of aiding people to shred tanks. Please reconsider.
: They did remove the raw armor pen... so I mean the power is still there but just takes longer. It's more useful on tanky bruisers like Darius or Garen.
The finished item is, but the success of their laning phases often relied solely on the power they got from sitting on a brutalizer until they were ready to buy BC (enemy armor became significant.) Considering how effective setting that class of champion behind early is at shutting them down, I'd say losing the brutalizer actually makes this item weaker in comparison to live, even if that's solely because of a superior buildpath.
: The item looks nice, but I don't understand why Black Cleaver is being so radically changed. I understand that the % armor shred and flat armor shred doesn't make much sense, but the new version of Black Cleaver seems to be worse for almost everyone who currently uses it. AD Assassins and ranged AD fighters (Urgot, Jayce and Quinn) all rely on this item more heavily than the AD fighter class, who stands to benefit the most from this change. If AD fighters need an AD/CDR/Health item, why not make that separately, but rework Black Cleaver into an item that's still useful for those who use it right now? Black Cleaver could even be built out of a component that leads to a tankier item (PBE Black Cleaver) or more AD focused item (closer to current Black Cleaver without the double armor pen.) Looking back at the last 10 patches, AD assassins and ranged fighters have only received nerfs to their itemization, mainly through the IE nerf, while most other classes have received itemization buffs and increased diversity. After the jungler role, tanks and tanky fighters have received the most new items, so it seems unnecessary to convert an item used by another class into another item more suited for tanky builds. The big problem for AD Assassin and ranged fighters is trying to break away from ADC itemization. Building like an ADC just doesn't make sense for most of them, and makes it harder to balance the ADC class without having a large fallout (again, the IE nerf.) Black Cleaver should stay mostly as it is to accommodate for this class, or there should be another item on the way some time in the next few patches that AD assassins and ranged fighters can make use of. **Tl;dr:** Change stands to lower itemization diversity of almost everyone who currently uses it, a class that's already been suffering from lack of itemizaton. If tanky fighters need a new item, make a new item for them, or make a new item for all the champions that the Black Cleaver is being taken away from. I still agree about the whole double armor shred deal being stupid, glad to see that taken out.
> [{quoted}](name=Faceplosion,realm=PBE,application-id=2EAF660193FA3B668D7234B3AEBB530C5AB7F651,discussion-id=bFVlOf4J,comment-id=001d,timestamp=2015-04-08T17:07:28.307+0000) > > The item looks nice, but I don't understand why Black Cleaver is being so radically changed. I understand that the % armor shred and flat armor shred doesn't make much sense, but the new version of Black Cleaver seems to be worse for almost everyone who currently uses it. AD Assassins and ranged AD fighters (Urgot, Jayce and Quinn) all rely on this item more heavily than the AD fighter class, who stands to benefit the most from this change. > > If AD fighters need an AD/CDR/Health item, why not make that separately, but rework Black Cleaver into an item that's still useful for those who use it right now? Black Cleaver could even be built out of a component that leads to a tankier item (PBE Black Cleaver) or more AD focused item (closer to current Black Cleaver without the double armor pen.) > > Looking back at the last 10 patches, AD assassins and ranged fighters have only received nerfs to their itemization, mainly through the IE nerf, while most other classes have received itemization buffs and increased diversity. After the jungler role, tanks and tanky fighters have received the most new items, so it seems unnecessary to convert an item used by another class into another item more suited for tanky builds. > > The big problem for AD Assassin and ranged fighters is trying to break away from ADC itemization. Building like an ADC just doesn't make sense for most of them, and makes it harder to balance the ADC class without having a large fallout (again, the IE nerf.) Black Cleaver should stay mostly as it is to accommodate for this class, or there should be another item on the way some time in the next few patches that AD assassins and ranged fighters can make use of. > > **Tl;dr:** Change stands to lower itemization diversity of almost everyone who currently uses it, a class that's already been suffering from lack of itemizaton. If tanky fighters need a new item, make a new item for them, or make a new item for all the champions that the Black Cleaver is being taken away from. I still agree about the whole double armor shred deal being stupid, glad to see that taken out. Agreed. I just think it should retain the brutalizer in its path so the class that uses it live retains it as a viable item, since the kindlegem/phage combo sets them behind immensely. I think it's fine they're reworking the item to focus is as a tank shredding item instead of a (not really) "best" of both worlds item. I just think it should be the tank shredding variation/product of brutalizer as opposed to the squishy melting one in Youmuu's Ghostblade. The finalized BC is still very usable by the champions that build it live, but the new path would be a huge deterrent to buying it. It baffles me because both the AD tanks and the fighters loved sitting on the brutalizer, it justified buying BC later when armor stacked up. I don't know if this new item justifies having to sit on a kindlegem + phage mismatched combo for any amount of time at any period of the game for any class, to be honest. Renekton/J4 would rather Tiamat, Garen would rather bruta into Youmuu's because it's so integral to his sucess in lane, Darius also would transition to Youmuu's. Hecarim doesn't want anything other than Trinity and wont stack Rage passives. Wukong cries with this change. Most of the champions that are candidates for it dive the backline, and new black cleaver won't help them do that. In the end you're right, it's fighters like Urgot/Jayce/Quinn that use this item the best because they train on the tank during the teamfights. Expecting this item to be successful because some champions fortuitously AoE damage tanks in their way to the backline seems somewhat uninformed.
: Let's talk about The Black Cleaver
I am excited for this small rework and like the general idea of this item. I'm optimistic, but if I am to be completely honest, I don't think you'll hit the mark. Crudely put, not with that build path. The end item is pretty good (it's a circumstantial item despite its solid base stats), but the path is inferior to most other options the champions this is intended for have. Bruisers that bought brutalizer into cleaver wanted to access to early power that leads into generalist power. You and I understand that "generalist power" makes tuning BC pretty hard, which is why it's been at this subpar state for some time. And while this finished BC has defined power, it loses the convenient, fitting buildup old BC had to justify buying a weakish item. As many other have pointed out, the path also fails to relay the intention for the completed item. That's not only a problem in logic, but also in practical uses. It's an offensive item in nature: you want to access the CDR, Rage and, most importantly, the armor shred. Sure, the HP is nice and ubiquitous, but it's not central to what you intend to achieve by building cleaver. It's necessary to cement it as a bruiser item, but the fact that HP is made the main stat offered by the path makes it at odds with its nature. If you want to buy it first for power, a phage is a good buy for first back and leads naturally to BC. Kindlegem isn't. Kindlegem is a conservative buy in lane. If you accept that, building a phage, an offensive item, on top of your kindlegem seems counter-intuitive. The inverse is true: if I buy a first back phage and I intend to finish an offensive item first, building a kindlegem as a follow-up seems lackluster in comparison to, say, what I'd get if I'm going for first item Hydra: Tiamat and Vamp, two resolutely offensive, synergistic items. If you want it for later, then having a phage or a kindlegem sit in your inventory at the period when you want to be building defensive items reactively, as a response to the threats that rose during laning, seems undesirable, whereas before, having a brutalizer in your inventory was no hardship considering its efficiency, and left appropriate space in your inventory since there isn't much difference between forking the full price after bruta than after buying the uncomfortable ruby crystal. I think if you kept the brutalizer in the recipe, you'd see a very successful item. I understand you're weary about having BC lose its native flat Arpen, but I don't think it's negative. Brutalizer would build into an item meant to burst squishies (YG) by doubling its native Arpen or an item you shred tanks with by losing its native Arpen and having it become an unique passive. It's more intuitive than you give it credit for. It would also remain useful for the champions that rely on sitting on a brutalizer until enemy armor stacks up in live, which you're hurting inadvertently. I firmly believe the recipe for this item should be brutalizer + phage, (which also creates very rich decisions when buying either base items - do I go for Trinity now that I got a few kills I didn't count on when I bought phage? Do I go YG now that I know Gnar is going full AD?) have Black Cleaver's base AD be 45 and subtract the equivalent amount of HP from it to compensate. As far as I can tell from the other posts, many echo this sentiment. I hope you'll adjust, I'm very excited for it and would be very disappointed if it turned out to be a dud. Keep up the good work.

Zephiel

Level 30 (PBE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion