It could be stronger and a lot longer, but I am not sure it would really add that much more.
I can (and have actually, just not in a post) about how much I hate Vlad. His whole kit is so obscene to me. I just went over it briefly to avoid writing for days about how much I hate that damn champions design.
I also cherry picked a few easy examples. I really wanted to highlight the concept and provide a few good examples. There are a lot more though.
Yi is based on his silly AP build. It is a farming machine which is hard to gank and hard to stop from healing. Tryn too. Their AD builds are generally fine, but those AP builds are seriously grossly unfun.
Not really, forcing your opponent into an item dictates builds and that is a form of power in itself. And you cannot use it to check everything in an area.
Liken it to old Eve where you had to spend gold on pink wards to stand even a chance.
This would be extremely hard.
Just the other countries meta alone is difficult. I would have to watch a heck of a lot of footage from each region and then break down which champions are just player preference, team style and other factors.
Would it be interesting? Certainly, but the amount of work it would take could make me give out 6 more articles on other subjects.
Quote from EnaiSiaion »
Fun is something you have to earn, it shouldn't be given to you.
When you crush your opponent, even if it's Teemo (especially if it's Teemo) you have fun. When you get owned, you won't have fun even if it's Ziggs. Is it fun to get chronosphered by void and killed before it wears off? No, but it's your own fault for letting him get that fat, and you still have counterplay: split push, blink dagger and stun him before he can hit bkb, etc.
I strongly disagree. While winning is a great feeling, it should not be the basis by which champions are designed.
There have been plenty of games I have had fun winning and losing. Same in the reverse as well.
But I almost never have fun playing against Teemo, Vlad or Shaco. Their basic design is fundamentally infuriating and fun for only the person playing them. Even Elise, a complete B**** in lane, has more interaction in lane than some of them.
That seems like a very odd definition.
Nerf might have meant something stronger in the past, but it really just means "reduced in power" now.
But debating definitions is not the most helpful.
No, she needed nerfs and badly. There is a difference between "I beat casters" and "I beat any mid-laner and can stand toe to toe with top laners easily."
The nerfs that brought her back were reverting the changes to W and her ultimate. The Q nerfs remain and she is still rocking.
Urgot is still good in the right situations. I've seen people get success out of him going top and he can still wreck bottom lanes. If anything, he is better now than he ever was with black cleaver and Muramana.
Play against/with Vlad a lot. You understand what Toxic means.
*(%# that champion.
Small changes to abilities are adjustments. Adjustments are less impactful than nerfs.
The things you describe are nerfs. The complete removal of effects from abilities is most definitely a nerf.
