League of Legends General Discussion Thread

[Sullla]

I'd strike a line somewhere between Gustaran and Speaker. Yes, it's true that this is a game where the goal is to have fun, and yes it's possible to be effective with many different champions. At the same time, League of Legends is also a competitive PvP environment, and if you're serious about winning it does limit your options somewhat. As much as you might love that DPS Teemo build, you are going to lose once you start going up against genuinely good opponents, because DPS Teemo is simply weaker than other ranged carries. Going back to Civ4 analogies, it's all well and fun if you want to goof around with silly variants in private or against the AI, but if you were to go on the MP ladder and start trotting out a ridiculous De Gaulle of America pick in a 3 vs 3 Renny game, your team is going to lose unless there's a vast disparity in talent level. (Also, you would find very quickly that no one wanted to be on your team. ) So while I don't want to act all condescending and such, and yes the "tier lists" are overrated, it really isn't a good idea to concentrate your energies on mastering Katerina or Alistair or Fiddlesticks or whatever. Because eventually you'll reach a level where the opponents aren't idiots, and they will stun/silence your Death Lotus/Crowstorm ults and then proceed to rape your team... which is not fun.

What I would like to do is get more of the practice/fun games going where we can indeed goof around and play variants and such. But I don't feel the situation is right for that when playing ranked or normal 5 vs 5 games.

[Dantski]

Mostly agree with what Sullla said, the game is a competitive one and as such if your team plays new 'weaker' champs they haven't got much experience with and the other team plays with champs they know very well after hundreds of games with them which are also 'strong', the game is pretty much decided before minions spawn.

Just because it is competitive doesn't mean you should take things too seriously either though, if we have 4 people queuing for a 5v5 and the 5th random guy we pick up isn't very good, it's much better to give him advice than yell at him.

I enjoy the practice games we play because its a good chance to play different champs (had a good time with gragas!). If no-one is too familiar with their champ it certainly evens the playing field considerably.

[Gustaran]

I think the big question is what "fun" means for you personally when playing a game. Of course everybody likes to win, but once you rise through the ranks there is a price to pay if you want to stay competetive. Don't get me wrong, I like reading theorycraft, checking recommended items/runes/mastery builds and reading guides. My mostly played chars are Vlad and Kog'Maw, both at least viable champs.
But at the same time, I have no problem if some buddy on my friends list loves to play Blitzcrank and can do that really well. And I don't mind if people answer the phone/door during a game or need to go afk to check on their kids even if that means we lose the next teamfight. Don't confuse "low level" with "casual", it's not the same.
Of course, I respect other people's way of playing, too, so I stay away from ranked mode and if I want to test a new champ I will play a practice "test champ" game or you use a low level alt account first.
And last but not least I think picking up a less popular champ and winning will earn you much more "ingame-respect" ;-) from friends as well as opponents. I find it sometimes a little boring if there is an Ashe and Amumu on virtually every other team. That being said, I just checked the latest elementz tier list, and even tier 3 champions are still described as "very viable overall but just aren’t champions you will strive to pick or have in your line up all the time", so he doesn't actually say "pick T1 or you suck".

[Pandajuice]

Yeah I'm somewhere in the middle of this discussion too, though I lean toward Gustaran's arguement because I hate the idea that a game with 60+ champs is really in actuality a game with only 10 "good" champs. That makes me depressed when I think about someday playing ranked games; how boring it must be to always go against the same team. Besides, all the champs I love seem to be tier 3 or lower (Akali, Lux, Singed, Gangplank) which is pretty annoying as that means I'll always be frowned upon for playing them or will never be allowed to play them at all.

I do like Rammus and Vlad though so I guess I'm not totally screwed.

On the other hand one can't deny that some champs are simply better than others so it is worthwhile knowing those if you are serious about winning.

I find this tier list from Elementz a bit more useful and encouraging as it isn't so much a "Tier 3 and down sucks so never choose them" as a "Tier 3 and down require more skill to be good at, so go ahead and choose them if you love them and play them well. They're just harder to play."

I'm also starting to find it pretty annoying that Riot doesn't seem to know exactly how to balance their champs appropriately. Then when they bring out new ones, they slide up and down the overpowered/underpowered scale based on how the last new champ was received. For example, Sona at release was clearly OP(since been nerfed), then they released Lux who was clearly UP and gimped (since been buffed), then LeBlanc comes out who was clearly OP (since been nerfed), then they just released Irelia who is clearly UP to the point where I've only seen her three times since she was released. It's a weird see-saw Riot keeps riding and makes me wish they'd do a little more real world testing of these champs before releasing them.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

What I would like to do is get more of the practice/fun games going where we can indeed goof around and play variants and such.

I'm hoping for practice games where we actually practice with exercises - lane scrimmages, team fights, tower defense, last hitting under harassment....

My guess, though, is that we need to put in more laps first.

[Meciflorean]

First off, that tiers, or (more accurately) a range, of general "hero power" does exist, I can easily accept - with the caveat, as Speaker hinted at, that tier lists are just an approximation of how different champions relate, and can't be perfect, because champions don't exist in a vacuum and aren't measured against a static goal.

Personally, if I care about my team or set out to win, I will do what is best for my team (and by exension, myself), and I'll gladly pick a more powerful hero to contribute more. I'm not the most competitive of players, but I want to see my team do well. Other times I'll play champions because they're interesting or fun with no thought to their relative power level.

However I don't expect anyone else to play with the mindset I do, because there is certainly no one correct way to play this game. The whole "here is how you should play this game" mindset is nonsense to me.

[uberfish]

My question would be: if playing at the highest level means being restricted to a small fraction of the possible characters and strategies in the game, is it really worth playing at that level in the first place? As we're mostly civ4 veterans here I would draw an analogy with civ4 deity level where technically the challenge is the highest, but you are forced to abuse all the broken mechanics in the game to stand a chance making the game considerably less fun.

I understand the MP "win at all costs" mentality and am happy to pick high tier characters for a "serious business" team, but I certainly wouldn't want to play that way all the time. There's no reason both playstyles shouldn't be able to coexist so long as everyone is on the same page before the game starts.

[Cull]

Nobody is saying "here is how you should play this game". What the tier list means is how the champions rate off each other. Why limit yourself to choosing Lux when Morgana or Janna provide similar roles, but do them better? Why Nunu when you could Warwick? Why Teemo instead of Twitch?

One little story from when I started playing: After playing around 10 or so games with Shen, I really wanted to play a dps ranged carry. Right click to win right? That week, Teemo was free. I picked up Teemo, and completely roflstomped around 20 or so games with him. Then, I hit a point where the skill levels were probably around the same. Now, I laned against an Ashe who could last hit as well as I could, not miss a close ulti, knew that her e had a shot range clari feature, and that her q was not to be spammed against creeps, instead of an Ashe with 10 CS at 20 minutes in mid, missed all ultis, was barely aware of her e, and used q on minions. Basically, I played against an intelligent player instead of the very, very low ELO players I did at around lvl 1-7. And I lost badly.

Thats not to say that if you pick X champion, you suck. Rather, when you're playing Ranked, or playing with people whose desire is to win, you should pick champions that would best suit your team. Of course, if you play Sivir since day 1, and don't know anything about that MF that is free this week, don't pick MF. But as a general rule, play those "top-tier" champions as to improve your chance of winning, assuming equal skill level. Its very true that once you hit a certain point in ELO/level, and the players skills begin to flatten out a bit, team comp matters more than playing that favorite champ. Of course, messing around in Custom/Practice Games, or even Normal(assuming everyone is well aware of this) is fine. But in ranked, or playing to win, those "top tier" champs are just better picks.

Not that I've played a single ranked game, or have enough experience to say anything, just thought I'd throw in my two cents.

[Speaker]

Nobody is saying "here is how you should play this game". What the tier list means is how the champions rate off each other. Why limit yourself to choosing Lux when Morgana or Janna provide similar roles, but do them better? Why Nunu when you could Warwick? Why Teemo instead of Twitch?

One little story from when I started playing: After playing around 10 or so games with Shen, I really wanted to play a dps ranged carry. Right click to win right? That week, Teemo was free. I picked up Teemo, and completely roflstomped around 20 or so games with him. Then, I hit a point where the skill levels were probably around the same. Now, I laned against an Ashe who could last hit as well as I could, not miss a close ulti, knew that her e had a shot range clari feature, and that her q was not to be spammed against creeps, instead of an Ashe with 10 CS at 20 minutes in mid, missed all ultis, was barely aware of her e, and used q on minions. Basically, I played against an intelligent player instead of the very, very low ELO players I did at around lvl 1-7. And I lost badly.

Thats not to say that if you pick X champion, you suck. Rather, when you're playing Ranked, or playing with people whose desire is to win, you should pick champions that would best suit your team. Of course, if you play Sivir since day 1, and don't know anything about that MF that is free this week, don't pick MF. But as a general rule, play those "top-tier" champions as to improve your chance of winning, assuming equal skill level. Its very true that once you hit a certain point in ELO/level, and the players skills begin to flatten out a bit, team comp matters more than playing that favorite champ. Of course, messing around in Custom/Practice Games, or even Normal(assuming everyone is well aware of this) is fine. But in ranked, or playing to win, those "top tier" champs are just better picks.

Not that I've played a single ranked game, or have enough experience to say anything, just thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Basically, this. So instead of using your time now, as you learn the game against n00bs, playing the Sivirs, Teemos, and Nunus of the world....learn the game using the better champs.

My question would be: if playing at the highest level means being restricted to a small fraction of the possible characters and strategies in the game, is it really worth playing at that level in the first place? As we're mostly civ4 veterans here I would draw an analogy with civ4 deity level where technically the challenge is the highest, but you are forced to abuse all the broken mechanics in the game to stand a chance making the game considerably less fun.

I understand the MP "win at all costs" mentality and am happy to pick high tier characters for a "serious business" team, but I certainly wouldn't want to play that way all the time. There's no reason both playstyles shouldn't be able to coexist so long as everyone is on the same page before the game starts.

As you get more experienced, you'll see that Ranked games are when you "play to win at all costs," and Normal games are when you play to have fun. My dirty, little secret is that I never once played a ranged carry until you lot started playing. So while I played with a bunch of you at level 1, level 5, level 10, and so on, I learned how to play Tristana and then Miss Fortune. Now I'm pretty good with MF, achieving a 65% win rate and a 4.7:1 kill/death : assist ratio. She's my second best character. You learn how to play new characters in less serious games. For you guys, that would be solo queue Normal games, or practice games. Don't try out new things or use weak characters when you are playing a full premade team with your friends. It's disrespectful.

If you want to play a lesser character, you had better be exceptional with that character. If myself, Mookie, Atlas, or another Level 30 player is nice enough to play with you as you are still learning, provide some tips on builds, map awareness, strategy, and so on, just understand that we are giving up a Ranked (competitive) game to do so. So at least have the respect to give the team the best chance to win, and learn from mistakes made in previous games.

If the other team is Sona, Amumu, Warwick, Galio, and Ashe, and we are MF (me), Teemo, Blitzcrank, Katarina, and Evelynn....well, gg.

[Gustaran]

Why limit yourself to choosing Lux when Morgana or Janna provide similar roles, but do them better? Why Nunu when you could Warwick? Why Teemo instead of Twitch?

Because even if these characters fill the same role, their abilities are very different. I actually find the Teemo's design with a damage-over-time poison and the possibility of using mushroom mines really interesting. Unfortunately, the way the balancing works right now, he is inferior to many other physical dps champs.

It's even worse with tanks: If I want to play the best tank with an amazing teamfight ult, I need to play a crying child mummy
You really like big evil Cho'Gath? He looks just the way a tank should look like ? Too bad....

So the main question is, how much effectiveness are you willing to sacrifice to play a character whose design and artwork appeal to you.
It's probably a good idea to master at least one T1 champ for use in more "serious" games and play your favourite champs in less competetive games.