LoL eSports Discussion

[PJ.]

almost definitely not true

[PJ.]

ojn both counts

[BROseidon]

When did u start playing and what's your peak player % (not rank since comparing remade latter to s1-s2 ladder is dumb)

[BROseidon]

I was top 3% s1 and top ~2% s2

[PJ.]

12% in S3.

started end of s1

[PJ.]

which is irrelevent cause you know next to 0 about the game as currently played

[BROseidon]

Okay so I've been playing longer and was (relative to the time) a better player. So don't come at me because I stopped playing for a while because the fundamentals of game design don't meaningfully change over a 2 year span.

If you want to say "Leona and Janna have a closer play pattern than Ashe and MF," make a real argument

[BROseidon]

which is irrelevent cause you know next to 0 about the game as currently played

Not having item builds and jungle paths memorized is relatively irrelevant here. Core design principles don't change over time

[PJ.]

there's nothing to say because ou don't know ashe or mf.

it's literally the same diff as janna and leona

[BROseidon]

"Champ Xs wants to be proactive vs defensive at time Y, vs Champ Z's power spike" is an important diversity to have in a game but also different from "champ x vs champ y force you to do completely different things"

[BROseidon]

there's nothing to say because ou don't know ashe or mf.

it's literally the same diff as janna and leona

Uh none of these champs have meaningfully changed since the Ashe rework, which didn't really change the fundamentals of how she plays that much vs just modernize her kit.

[BROseidon]

The core mechanics around spacing, kiting, etc are all the same. Just because they are strong in different comps and at different times doesn't make their play patterns different the way that Leona and Janna do literally opposite things

[PJ.]

If you think being hyper aggressive in lane and pressing lethality advantage vs farming and playing defensive/kiting for 3 items the same play pattern, then Janna and Leona are basically the same champion.

Plus MF has the AoE bomb/dark harvest situation.

[BROseidon]

That is a less meaningful distinction and only true for the laning phase

[BROseidon]

For 1/3 of the game you do a different thing to be able to do the same thing at a specific point in time very similarly

[BROseidon]

Like I'm not saying "these are literally the same" but you're using a lot of the same skill and one over the other doesn't fundamentally rethink how you play vs something like a heimerdinger or Brand bot

[BROseidon]

Also fwiw I do wish that supports had more diversity (high-base, low scaling burst mages pls)

[PJ.]

MF has more in common with Brand as a champion than she does with Ashe.

[BROseidon]

Ah yes because brand too primarily does damage through auto-attacks, has an aa reset, and has 0 damage downtime as a result of being aa-based

[zoraster]

I don't think MF is more similar to Brand, but if you want to test the idea that MF and Ashe are fundamentally similar, one way to look at it would be to look at their win rate by patch, though you'd want to note any time either of their kits had major changes. You'd probably also want to throw in a couple of ADCs that are DEFINITELY different, like Tristana and Ez. If MF/Ashe have win rate movement that mirrors each other, then (particularly if Tris/ez move opposite), you might get a sense that they're really similar to each other. You could also look at their win rate by game length to to see if their curves are similar.

I don't think of Ashe as very similar to MF though other than both are fairly immobile ADCs (though MF's movement speed buff is nice). Just thinking team composition-wise, I don't think the reasons you'd pick Ashe or MF would be very similar. Ashe brings a ton of utility to the team that MF doesn't, for one thing. And I mean... for the past couple of years their builds have been truly different.

I've heard Bro's complaints about ADCs before which have basically not changed. I remain unswayed as to whether it's a bad thing or even as to the reason that ADCs have been a very consistent fixture in the game, though I at least think there's some merit as to that.

[BROseidon]

Eh there's a lot wrong with that post but I can't really break it down on my phone rn. Will address when I get home from work

[RayFrost]

I'd like to go on record stating that how you play ashe and how you play mf would be two different things.

If you want to simplify their jobs to "deal a lot of damage in teamfights" and "push down towers" then sure. They're exactly the same.

But you could also simply janna and leona's jobs to "make the enemy team unable to kill your team" and "enable your team to kill the enemy team" in the same fashion.

So it's not a valid way to look at it and should be dismissed.

MF aims to abuse a strong early game to snowball and then transitions into an aoe-based, ult-reliant bursty adc.

Ashe aims to use a long range poke / disengage tool to stall out the early game until the mid to late game where she transitions into an engage-enabling, auto-attack reliant adc.

If you're purely wanting to talk about powerspikes, then you'd be looking at the times that the respective adcs are most likely to be able to win games. MF in general will have a higher winrate in games that last less than 25-30 minutes. Ashe will in general have a higher winrate in games that last 30+ minutes.

Reason being that their scaling is different, and what they have to offer is different.

The concept that ADCs are forced into the game because they're needed to bring down towers is a bit silly to me, since you could just as easily argue that junglers are forced into the game because they're needed to maintain non-tower objective control and level/gold efficiency. Or arguing that supports have to exist for similar reasons. There are mechanics about the game that lead to people feeling these choices are the best. This doesn't mean the game is inherently broken for those mechanics existing that reward the aforementioned style of play.

This is not to say that rito shouldn't keep attempting to fine tune the game and respect identity while improving variation, just that the whole "ashe and mf aren't as different as leona and janna" stuff is a bit silly to me.

Anyway it is three in the morning and I have work tomorrow but I hope y'all remember to stay hydrated

[BROseidon]

I don't think MF is more similar to Brand, but if you want to test the idea that MF and Ashe are fundamentally similar, one way to look at it would be to look at their win rate by patch, though you'd want to note any time either of their kits had major changes. You'd probably also want to throw in a couple of ADCs that are DEFINITELY different, like Tristana and Ez. If MF/Ashe have win rate movement that mirrors each other, then (particularly if Tris/ez move opposite), you might get a sense that they're really similar to each other. You could also look at their win rate by game length to to see if their curves are similar.

That doesn't really hold because differences within a class can also be meaningful. "ADCs are systemically broken" doesn't mean "all ADCs are broken at all times." In fact, it can't, because every team having 1 ADC (in most metas/with a few exceptions) means that ADCs as a class will even out to a 50% winrate. In addition, once you get past "ADCs are required on all teams," the difference WITHIN the class become more meaningful b/c every team HAS to have one.

I don't think of Ashe as very similar to MF though other than both are fairly immobile ADCs (though MF's movement speed buff is nice). Just thinking team composition-wise, I don't think the reasons you'd pick Ashe or MF would be very similar. Ashe brings a ton of utility to the team that MF doesn't, for one thing. And I mean... for the past couple of years their builds have been truly different.

Except they are both ADCs. They both provide 0-CD AD based sustained damage. They both stay at range and use a certain spacing skillset. Most importantly, those things are very valuable at taking objectives (especially sieging turrets)

I've heard Bro's complaints about ADCs before which have basically not changed. I remain unswayed as to whether it's a bad thing or even as to the reason that ADCs have been a very consistent fixture in the game, though I at least think there's some merit as to that.

It's very the case that ADCs are required because they're decently balanced for every part of the game except taking turrets where they are the best class. There are other champs that provide great scaling, sustained damage in fights (Karthus and Cass, for instance), but they've NEVER been meta in bot lane because, well, try sieging a turret with Karthus lol.

[BROseidon]

If you want to simplify their jobs to "deal a lot of damage in teamfights" and "push down towers" then sure. They're exactly the same.

Yes this is literally what I am talking about and the latter point (specifically, turret-taking being severely undertuned in how it impacts balance) is why ADCs have always been required on every team forever.

[BROseidon]

But you could also simply janna and leona's jobs to "make the enemy team unable to kill your team" and "enable your team to kill the enemy team" in the same fashion.

This is a reasonable essentialization of support vs tank.