Why was Irelia made the way she is now???

  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by InverseChirality View Post
    Have you ever looked at trying to fix the biggest problem that people have with supports: the fact that they act like ward-bots and have no gold to build items in the current meta?

    I mean, honestly: being unable to build items is not fun. Building the same mediocre philosopher stone and sightstone every game and STRUGGLING to get boots by 20 minutes is not fun.
    </td></tr></table>
    Yes - Xyph and I are talking about the next step in this now. Much of this is wrapped up in the vision game itself as well.
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by TerminalVeloc1ty View Post
    But don't you think a Satisfying role is EQUAL to power? And power doesn't mean the same thing in everyones eyes, so let me define it.

    Power to me, from a support perspective, how often you can make plays, and how effective these plays are. Whether the play is engaging, or disengaging, or fufilling something inbetween.

    And also, I don't mean, hell, I don't like being the "victimization" bs that you are describing. But how else can a point get thrown out here without it? You're nerfing something that is extremely fragile and difficult to balance due to the context that has already been described with lack of gold and above average power and such?

    What happens when we come to a point where the vast amount of supports can no longer make plays? That's my primary concern here if you haven't noticed.

    Making plays. It's not really about gold, or about anything other than Making plays. And i swear to god it feels like you guys don't like support who makes plays. But logically, thinking with my brain instead of lashing out, i come to the realization of "You don't like supports who makes TOO STRONG of a play".

    So my question to you is, what are the characteristics of a support whos making too strong of a play?


    Answer me that question at the very least.
    </td></tr></table>
    Making plays is part of satisfaction. Power is effectiveness. For example, Aegis of the Legion is powerful, but not really satisfying. Some players derive satisfaction out of other factors, but making plays is pretty consistently satisfying.

    My question, then, is if you derive highest satisfaction of making plays, there's lots of champs (and some supports) that can, with other power tradeoffs. Wouldn't those more suit your style?
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by TerminalVeloc1ty View Post
    I didn't explain myself nearly well enough, I think a lot of things are implied, I have a bad habbit of that.

    The reason why support nerfs suck is because it hits them harder than any other archetype. Why? Because they don't have access to gold, and therefore the masses of items to help facilitate their strengths. All they really have is their kit based strengths, and done have items to back it up.

    This is why support nerfs baffle me because they litterally don't have anything to back up their plays except the play itself.

    Nerfing anyone else is not nearly as big of a deal because they'll always be able to get a lot of gold to help out their base stats and enhance their play making abilities.
    </td></tr></table>
    But this is faulty, even though I understand your feeling. This is, in a nutshell, the source of the concept that is Support Victimization.

    Because the feedback loops and team appreciation for supports is less direct, there's a certain amount of "protected species" feeling about supports from some support players. We did some good work to alleviate some of this in Season 3, but these systems (vision, ward expenditures) need work.

    In the meantime though, that does not affect who we will and will not nerf or balance. Supports get zero special consideration, positive or negative, when it comes to balance. That's why your assertion is off - you're equating how many people find support a satisfying role to its power considerations, which are different problems.
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by Super Explosion View Post
    'Ranged AD carries are the most powerful thing in League of Legends, and define the entire game flow.'

    One thing to note about sustain is that if you rarefy it, but still keep it included and required, it gains even more power. This can be the 'paradoxical' effect of nerfing an integral component.

    There's also this thing about Poke.

    Are medics required in TF2? Hmmm.

    Is healing required in League? Think about it.

    Edit: So because medics exist, they must be popularly picked, right? But TF2 could work without them at all. Can League work with zero sustain? Again, consider how valid such examples are.

    Medics may be necessarily popular. And Ranged AD may be necessarily popular.

    To clarify it even more: Ranged Carries are League's Medics. Not sustain.
    </td></tr></table>
    That's correct - I agree. The comparison to power/popularity holds up in the medic example, though. Ranged AD are popular, so this comparison doesn't apply in this specific example.
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by TerminalVeloc1ty View Post
    TF2 is a poor example.
    </td></tr></table>
    Howso? It's a fantastic example.

    Medics are the most powerful thing in TF2, and define then entire game flow. They're unpopular and grossly powerful.

    Popularity and power are not equated.
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by ChocoKelly View Post
    @Morello , i wont create a new thread sry about irrelevant post but im really curious , Could u reply? Rengar changes where dude where? -_-
    </td></tr></table>
    In the works still, more difficult than we thought.
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by TerminalVeloc1ty View Post
    Why DO you have to nerf supports when they're the least popular role to begin with?

    Personally I'm afraid to play a support other than maybe nami right now, because all other non-nami supports are in danger of nerfs, and with Nami all you've done is buff her. Which is suprising to say the least.

    I'll probably just play Nami and only Nami for a long time should I choose to learn the support role. She can make plays that are visible to everyone, and I like that
    </td></tr></table>
    I make no promises that anyone will have a nerf-free experience with a character. It's a part of playing League!
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by Metronomotopoeia View Post
    Have you considered doing more one-click surveys in the client to see how non-forumgoers feel about champion balance?
    </td></tr></table>
    We are doing quite a bit of this, though sampling is random (so you may not always personally see it).

    I was actually surprised with how well we'd done on the last one - my expectation is that all players hate the balance of every game they play (hyperbole, but you get my drift).
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by emTmyclipin2u View Post
    Have you tried anything with Poppy yet? For example, you"re saying she has no gameplay interaction is mainly with her ultimate, I'm assuming since that is the only part that has no real counterplay, unless you are ulted. Essentially, the idea of the ult is to call for a 1v1 between Poppy and her target, but because it is essentially an Olaf ult and Kayle ult together she ends up putting it on a low damage low cc target and then rushes the carries who can't do anything but run. So, what if you made it so that Poppy deals 20% reduced damage to other targets, and allowed the effect of her ultimate to be ended early by re activating it? This could allow her to still dive the carry and explode them with her ult extra damage, and if the carry gets away she can still contribute to the fight, but if she wants to dive someone other than the person she ulted, she won't be doing a lot of damage to that person, or the person will be allowed to fight back.

    I would also like to hear some sort of feedback from you as to exactly what the problem is with some of these champions. You always just say that something on the champions has no counterplay, or that the mechanics of the champion makes them unable to be strong without being broken, but you have never said what those things are or what mechanics you are referring to.
    </td></tr></table>
    In Poppy's case, much of it is the ult and statistical power of the passive/W. Her charge is awesome, and anything we do with Poppy would work to keep that.

    She also has absurd scaling and little else to offer, so she's a burst mage on top of some of these things. Poppy should be more a Fighter, really - that'd extend her combat window to allow reaction.
  • Quote:
    <table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset; padding:10px;">
    Originally Posted by Zyorhist View Post
    Sadly enough, there are those who would love to be objective about it, myself being one, but the problem about it being open discussion is you would have a very difficult time finding the objective ones from the non-objective ones. In all fairness there are numerous supports who are slightly over the top in power and some who could use a little more umph.
    </td></tr></table>
    Signal-to-noise is a problem here, agreed.