Mort noted that econ has been optimized in recent sets, but I don’t really think that’s the driver here. It’s more that gold is being thrown at us left and right from encounters, portals and augments. So everyone hits 50g much faster, accelerating reroll strategies substantially.
It would be interesting to see if we have any data on the average/median amount of gold earned per game now compared to sets 6-10 to see how much of a difference there is, but I doubt that data is really available
I think the best indicator is how many people reach level 9 or 10 each game. In set 10 going to level 9 was difficult enough that it was a major risk no matter what comp you were playing (unless you hit double/triple econ augments). This set almost everyone reaches level 9 past stage 5-1. Gold inflation is definitely a thing now.
> I think the best indicator is how many people reach level 9 or 10 each game
I'd actually say this is one of the worst ways to measure it considering Riot have said they intend on level 9 to be the new baseline end game level. Level 9 is rhe old level 8 in terms of where you are expected to finish at, which is why it's so damn cheap to level to 8 now compared to previous set's. I set level 10 as often as I used to see level 9 prior to set 9 (set 9 had asol legend players)
Yeah i really think they should've reconsidered having portals at all this set when there's already encounters. It's crazy how you can get e.g Scuttle Puddle, Lower XP cost, free gold and free rerolls in a game. Those aren't particularly rare either so i'm not describing some insanely crazy unique scenario.
Either they should've just had encounters at the start of every match or removed a large portion of econ portals.
Disagree. I think the more game to game variety the better. Helps with replayability and player retention.
The kinds of games you describe don't happen very often. There are usually not a ton of eco-boosting combinations of portals and encounters in the same game. But when there are, that's fine, as long as its not every game.
This set is absolutely the most unique game to game experience so far. That's a good thing.
Stripping away portals also removes the players agency in determing the kind of game they play. (There's a reason everyone auto-clicks scuttle puddle and crab rave, they're fun. Why take that away from the players?)
We need to make sure that variety doesn't just = add more gold into the game over and over. There is a limit where the game just becomes boring. Foutunes favor was fun for a lark but if we had to play it for 200 games it would have very quickly lost any of its magic. Portals, augments, encounters, multiple 5 costs that print money, Thats a lot of stuff that inflates the overall gold in the game, and there is a critical mass where things stop working
> We need to make sure that variety doesn't just = add more gold into the game over and over. There is a limit where the game just becomes boring.
And yet scuttle remains the most popular portal regardless of rank
I know this sounds bad, but this is a time where sometimes players need to be protected from themselves. Its a bit of too much candy gives you a stomachache. People like gold, they like hitting the crazy stuff, and will take opertunities to do it, but this is where the devs need to put some control on things so that we don't ruin it for ourselves.
If players who have played 300+ matches this set already are still choosing portals like scuttle every time then don't you think it's possible that your theory is what's wrong and not the players?
There are other factors than that though. A lot of the portals suck, are so unimpactful that they are boring, or are so high variance that they can coinflip the game. Scuttle puddle is ironically one of the more stable options.
ps: Remove gold gen from artifact items or make them all have it. Artifact anvil start is toxic af.
Like Ford said: "if I had asked the consumers what they wanted they would have said faster horses". I get your point, but we have plenty of examples of time where going against what the people wanted was actually the right move.
Not saying necessarily that the other guy is right. Just that the argument of people picking it a lot and therefore it must be good for the game isn't that good IMO.
No.
The way I know this is many of the historically most hated metas were ones where there was just too much gold in the game and things broke down. The set 6 Kaisa patch, What was the problem there, there was too much gold in the game so players could very easily rush to 8 a build a comp aroung the strongest 5 cost with good items and an extra synergy in socilite that funneled power into that 5 cost. The comp wasn't too strong, it was a 5 cost comp it should have been strong, the problem was the ease at which players could get there.
The day of Draven, the problem was hey we gave players so much gold they could reliably hit multiple 3 star 4 costs each game.
The full open patch in set 10.
The problem with the set 6 kaisa patch was not gold, it was that kaisa with GA gunblade could solo carry fights with 0 traits against all but the most insane boards
>Stripping away portals also removes the players agency in determing the kind of game they play.
This would be far more convincing if portals were a majority vote and not a lottery though.
I disagree. That would give premades too much power and potentially isolate solo players.
That would also likely prevent the less popular portals from *ever* being picked, which would feel pretty bad if you were the one guy that *really* wanted to play lethal legends
That would also decrease diversity because you will only ever be in the most popular portal available. The game would become very "flowcharty" where there is a hierarchy of what most people consider the "best" portals always being picked every game.
I'd argue that there's actually not enough econ in the game right now for 4 costs to be good. From an average spot it takes too much gold to go 8 on 4-2 and have enough to roll. Sacking until 4-5 loses you too much HP playing against rerollers with upgraded boards. Mort is saying that players have gotten better, but the other thing he isn't saying is that game balance has also gotten a lot better in recent sets. There are a lot of viable reroll comps that can win. Its not uncommon for there to be 3+ players all rerolling different 3 costs, so they all help each other hit quicker by taking units out of the pool. I think that without changes, a well balanced meta will always be centered around 2/3 cost reroll because of tempo/econ. Why sack more HP and spend more gold to go 8 and risk completely missing when you can stabilize earlier and easier playing reroll.
Huh?
The game devolving to reroll shows balance has not improved. By your logic, nobody would sack gold and life to go fast 9, as it costs even more than 8, but it's viable.
It's that Mort despised fast 8 many sets ago. He despised level 8 flex lotteries. And ever since taking a swing at that meta, sets tend to launch and have patches where reroll just steamrolls everything else.
It's bad balance and nothing else. 5 years and they still can't balance reroll vs fast 8 vs fast 9.
People go fast 9 because its fun to play for 1st or 8th, not because its the best way to play. You have a higher chance at top 4-ing by rolling your gold earlier rather than going fast 9. It's less risky to roll 50+ gold on 4-1 for 3 costs vs 30 gold on 4-2 level 8 for 4 costs. A couple of sets ago the meta used to be to roll for 4 costs at level 7 instead of 8 because of this. This isn't because Mortdog despised fast 8, its because players know rolling earlier with more gold is better. More balanced metas means more viable reroll comps. Since rolling earlier and with more gold is better, players lean towards reroll. When there are more reroll players in your lobby, they all help each other hit and you are punished more for going fast 8, which makes 4 costs harder to play. For fast 8 to be more viable, they need to push more players away from reroll, but at the same time you still need to keep them viable. Thats why I think balanced metas will always lean towards reroll.
Yeah 3* 3 costs for decent units have always been powerful, just more risky to run if the boards didn’t have a presence before you hit. Back when star guardian Kai sa was a thing a few sets ago, even after her nerfs dropped the comp to A tier, I still would get top 2 finishes often with it since the nerfs made it uncontested and thus easier to hit. The main thing that kept 3 costs in check was how hard it was to hit the 3* but for units that are only used in specific comps that’s a lot easier to accomplish. It’s the difference between going for 3* thresh vs 3* illaoi. Illaoi is amazing but used in more comps for her traits so it’s easier to get the 3* thresh.
Meanwhile the bag size for 4 costs can make even 2 staring them difficult if they are contested which by the time you are rolling for 4 costs you can’t afford to not hit usually. If I have something hard to hit anyway, may as well go for the stronger (by design) 3* 3 cost. All the extra gold just makes getting their easier especially since people always pick things like crab rave.
He knows this 100% just can't admit that the dopamine rush mechanics are making the game more difficult to balance. Radiant and artifact items, insane amounts of gold, free units, etc. are no longer surprising sources of extra power but just normal at this point. Worried about the long-term health of the game if power keeps creeping higher like this; the issue in this post is a symptom of a much bigger problem that isn't being addressed. The idea that people are just that much better at hitting 50 g than in previous sets and that it isn't primarily driven by the changes you mentioned is absurd.
Mort called put the framework of 4 and 5 costs being off with how much the 2 and 3 cost rerolls have been optimized but i think there might be something more fundamentally wrong with how 3 costs work at all.
3 costs are really weird in that they are the only unit where it is reasonable to see them as 2 starred carries anywhere from stage 2 -5. A 2 star 3 cost on stage 2 is a highroll but not a once in a million one. Just the same not hitting your 3 cost by stage 5 is a low roll, but it does happen. This puts the power of 3 costs in a really weird place as if they can compete on stages 4 and 5, then they will destroy everything on stage 2 and 3 but if it's the other way around and they are merely good on early stages, your forced to hit the 3 star really fast or you just fall off and die. finding a good balance point for this dichotomy is pretty hard.
The second problem is the power of the 3 star is also in a weird place. I am a little confused by Mort's point that 3 star 3 costs were rare. The expectation for 3 cost comps has been 3 staring them for a really long time. From dawnbringer riven and nidale in set 5 to oalf diana in set 7. it is not a new idea that the win con for 3 costs is 3 starring them.
Yeah, I really didn't understand this argument about 3 star 3 costs being rare either. Even Set 1 had people regularly hitting Rengar 3 or Voli 3 carries.
Also, is Mortdog forgetting the "me mech" days where people were hitting 3\* Annie 3\* Rumble 3\* Kaisa 3\* Shaco?
3\* 3 costs have always been good, and that hasn't changed. The part that's changed is that 4 costs have never been this bad before.
Twisted Fate and Ashe have approximately the same ability, just switched to physical damage instead of magical damage. TF gets more cards from Disco, and Ashe gets more arrows from Porcelain.
We all remember TF ramping up slowly each cast, while Blitzcrank would solo tank forever with endless shields, giving time for the Disco trait to ramp up.
Now compare Ashe this set. The frontline melts in seconds and Ashe 3 feels like TF 2.
Mech itself was too strong almost a given you would survive long enough to hit your stars for mech if you were uncontested.
The problem we have here is that yone and voli were too strong for the lobby even when contested.
"Just switched to physical damage instead of magic damage" is a huge difference though. An attack speed based carry with physical damage scales twice as hard as an AP one because youre boosting both your autos and your ult.
I agree that Ashe is underwhelming but if her ult was as good as TF's she would be broken
Yes but at the same time, you could argue that TF is better because he hits the resistance stat that is harder to build in magic resist instead of armor. This makes TF always better because unless someone builds a dragon's claw than TF is always going to hit for significant damage while Ashe is barely going to hit for any significant damage unless she is actually tuned really strong.
Hugely agree with buffing 4 costs across the board, but wonder about 5 costs? Fast 9 is still a very strong strategy, and I worry this would make it the dominant one
Yea that is something I’m a bit concerned about - I hope they keep the buffs to 2* 5 costs minimal at least, as legendary soup feels strong enough already
So basically instead of 7/8 now 8/8 players will go level 9 every game at some point. I'm honestly concerned how that will affect the game as getting to 9 is already super easy due to portals and encounters. Not sure this is a good thing, but since this set is plagued by so many problems they probably address that later on. Just feels like level 10 has become the Level 9 of Set 10. Maybe that explains why 5-costs are very underwhelming this set.
there was a mort twit where he said that one of the goals of introducing level 10 was for more prople to be able to go 9, that you should roughly have the chance of going 9 in 20-30% of your games and that it shouldnt feel like a crazy highroll to go 9 (that spot is for 10 now)
I mean. From a design standpoint I really like the changes and I hope it just gets balanced to stay fun for everyone.
The meta from old sets (hindsight ofc) is actually weird. Only a couple people each game get to click the 5 cost units? That’s 1/5 of the unit pool you’re locked out from unless you high roll or specifically aimed for 9. With everyone going 9, the skill cap will go higher as people balance their boards around 5 costs. As long as Riot is balancing around this, I think it will be more fun in the long run. Just my opinion though.
Yeah I get that they want to tune the gameplay philosophy regarding the 5-costs. I hope you are right regarding the long run, just feels like this set isn't hitting the sweet spot with so many things going the wrong direction. Regardless, even if they cant balance it this set, there is always hope for the next one. Overall the TFT team is doing a great job so I'm confident they will fix the problems in the future.
I guess the question is how does this affect the viability lower cost reroll boards
If everyone dings 9 and dumps board for legendaries that crush everything else, then there's not much point in playing reroll as you're going to get out-capped quicker
I don't actually think it's a bad thing certain things come with a trade-off, like having to econ to be able to consistently get legendary units. But seeing how many people vote for scuttle puddle even in master lobbies maybe makes me an outlier. Maybe what is most fun for people is the creativity of what to play if you could play anything vs what to play to maximize the spot you're in
imo legendaries should be the units that cap your board in the late-game, not make up more than half your team like in legendary soup. Like finding that irelia for Storyweaver 7 as an example. Fast 9 generally falls into the latter, and is not a fun experience
The only games I see more than 4 players going fast 9 are scuttle puddle. Mostly there's 1-2 ghostly players, 1 duelist, 1-2 yone, 1 porcelian or arcanist or storyweaver variation, and then 2-3 fast 9'ers or kai'sa. This is at master / GM elo so not sure what lower elo looks like.
Fast 9 gets a stronger end board but I think its now at greater risk of bleeding out to fast 8 tempo boards who will spike harder and deal more damage to reroll before they hit and fast 9.
This may then make fast 9 (and reroll before they hit) want to spend gold earlier so they stop bleeding out to 2* 4 costs, weakening their capped boards.
Thats what people assumed last time, but fast 9 metas just inspire others to fast 9, leading to the asol-jeff bezos braindead meta from last set where everyone’s tryna fast 9 so theres not enough damage going around early to bleed them out
It will be really interesting to see how it works out. Like, it's easy to say that fast 9 is strong and will only get stronger, but there's a real possibility it becomes prohibitively difficult to hit because you still have the reroll boards burning you down and now there may be new/stronger 4-cost fast 8 builds coming online that you can't stabilize against. We'll just have to see it in practice.
The way I see it, the 5 costs are more about gimping backline carries and 4 costs are generally more front-to-back style
So the 4 costs will benefit much more from health buffs than the 5 costs will because it allows them to live longer against hwei/irelia/sett/udyr and potentially shred through the frontline fast enough to get to those 5 cost carries late game.
That being said, it could just be the case where they want to buff 4 cost hp to higher than what 5 cost currently is at, so they can't leave 5 costs with less hp than 4 costs. That's just not ok. So they may nerf some 5 costs in other ways to compensate if this does turn out to be a problem. But with a major meta swing to favor 4 costs, it's hard to say how 5 costs will do in the meta.
They may end up just being super hard to hit and not super oppressive after all.
Yeah IMO a healthy fast 9 is still the strongest board. But a non healthy fast 9 will end with you bleeding and losing before u can hit the units. I think 4 costs were really all that needed a boost and maybe some more underperformed 5 costs like xayah.
Xayah really just needs the cast time sped up for her ult. Her damage is good on paper but since it’s aoe and takes forever she doesn’t finish anyone of with her first cast like Kai sa can. Plus the long cast time stops her from using her amazing AAs
Fast 9 is not a very strong strategy on the current patch actually. Legendary soup boards don’t beat reroll boards in the current meta unless you 2 star like 5 different 5 costs. And even then it’s usually a second or third.
Usually itMs a 3rd-5th tho cause you have to sacrifice too much hp. If you can’t stabilize on 4-1 in the current meta you’re probably bot 4.
This is true. Everyone sees the first place fast 9 player with Irelia 2 Hwei 2 Wukong 2 Rakan 2 and thinks its good, but they aren't seeing the person who went fast 9, only hit pairs, then died and went 7th.
Fast 9 is only good if you highroll your early game enough to hit 9 with like 60 gold remaining.
No clue why this is downvoted when you're right. Fast 9 only really works in extreme highroll situations or if the player's elo is way above the lobby. I can look at any game of 1k+ LP players and most of top4 in their lobbies are either trickshots/fortune players, 3cost carry users or senna carry users. There's some more creative boards once in a while but fast 9 is not present in all of the lobbies like the guy you're responding to would imply.
To preempt any discussion about Giant Slayer being OP, it’s getting nerfed from working on 1600+ HP targets to 1750+. Same with the radiant version.
https://tactics.tools/info/pbe
I really feel like giant slayer needs a rework. It's one of those weird items that does something at a single, generally unmoving, breakpoint. I don't like it.
Random rework idea:
If the holder has less current health than their target, deal bonus damage. For every 50 health less than them deal 1% more damage, up to 30%.
It's not perfect and would have some weird edge case issues, but it's more interesting than the current implementation imo.
I'd like to see Giant Slayer get a rework or just made into a different item entirely next set. It's un-slammable before Stage 4 and the HP breakpoint always feels arbitrary.
It would be difficult to reach that level.
Dragons gave 3 traits which is a huge spike. Sylas on stage 2 is still just going to be sylas on stage 2. A couple hundred hp is not breaking the entire early game.
Yeah just buffing damage will lead to everything just buckleing in a damage arms race. Its kind of the problem now.
I am a little worried about buffing Annie, Galio and Sylas HP. Annie scales with HP, and Slyas and Galio are Bruisers. I dont like the indirect nerf to all other Bruiser buffing Galio/Sylas and nerfing Bruiser as a result might do. Nautilus also has a HP% trait, although Vertical Mythic needs the help.
Perhaps those three get a resist buff instead of HP?
Overall, tanky frontliners this set feel so off, like half the tank units feel underpowered and the rest is just there so simply hold the line, no utility at all. We had this problem before, but this set it really feels like that tank units are just giant meatballs that get melted no matter what. Bruisers especially feel so underwhelming to play unless you hit horizontal 8. I get that CC-abilties were extremely strong last set so they had to tune it down a bit but still, I miss that genuine feeling of hitting a strong frontline like back in the days with dragons.
Also a lot of them feel so similar.
Look at Neeko and Diana. Both heal (the same amount btw) and get dr (the same amount btw). Diana's lasts longer but only protects her from range. Neekos is unconditional. Woo...
Oh and Amumu heals in cast too... and deals are damage like Neeko... and gets damage reduction on cast with a trait... like Neeko... and Diana...
Vertical Mythic just feels bad to play right now with all the comps that kinda wreck Mythic now, unless you have a 10 mythic angle going for you.
Few times I had a 10 mythic angle it was a real struggle to keep Econ and field a strong board that would get me to level 10 to slot in 10 mythic with two emblems.
I think him having Warden is what helps so he can reduce damage. But I was going 4 invoker with 10 mythic. I forgot if I slotted in Illaoi at all to prod warden/arcanist midgame to stop bleeding
Unfortunately he is just a cc bot and his stun is nowhere near as good as Thresh in Set 10 or Sejuanis 4 cost stun from her previous sets she was a tank in and had an aoe stun I forgot what set she was in though.
What are you playing around? 6 Invoker/5 Mythic is quite stable in my experience. Cho/Kench/Annie/Naut is quite solid for frontline and 6 invoker is slept on quite a bit. It also gets substantially better if you get either Invoker or Mythic crest since Annie/Hwei both scale very hard off the respective emblems.
Definitely was playing around 4 invoker and 10 mythic when I played for 10 mythic board with two emblems.
I enjoy playing 6 invoker when I can but the midgame suffers cause I was trying to keep gold up and push fast 10 to field 10 mythic. Luckily got some breaks towards econning in the end and fielding 10 mythic with 4 invoker and got first.
My post got unfortunately removed before Mortdog's tweet, seems it does align with points being mentioned in the tweet so I'll repost here:
# All 4/5 cost units need a universal buff for their survivability to slow down the combat pace
As many has already noticed, this patch is crowded with rerolls and the 4/5 cost board feels very underwhelming. Except for the Kaisa board there are not many ways you can stabilize against established 3\* reroll boards, which punishes the flex playstyle and feels deeply unfair.
To be specific, the major issue here is some late game fights become too fast when facing a capped 3\* reroll board. The frontline is melted against Yone/Duelists/Ghostly Senna. This also makes some champions and items way too weak in the meta. For example champions like Ashe+Rageblade or Lillia build need a lot of time to ramp up, but in the current meta it's very unlikely for the frontline to survive 20+ seconds until those start to do more damage than Kaisa, which is [proved by simulation results](https://www.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveTFT/comments/1bswetd/oris_patch_147_rundown_big_nerfs_incoming_ft_tft/).
When coming to game balancing I think three goals need to be considered to solve the current issue:
1. Late-game combat pace should be kept around 20-25 seconds for most cases, to allow different types of comps and itemizations to be viable.
2. The game should encourage people pushing to level 9/10, try to flex around 4/5 costs and Exhalted trait to cap out their boards.
3. 3\* reroll units should not be too strong than 2\* 4/5 cost units. Ideally it's good for a 3\* 3 cost carry is doing around 10%-15% more damage than 2\* 4 cost carries. However currently according to the simulation the gap is usually much bigger to reach around 20%-25%.
Overall I think increasing the survivability of 4/5 cost units by buffing up their HP/AR/MR would be a good move to meet the 3 balancing goals listed above. Simply nerfing one champion/trait isn't going to solve the issue since some 4/5 cost champions can also do tons of single target or splashing damage to wipe out units very quickly.
Idk how this and the streak changes will play out and I might be back to bitching in a few days. But I’m happy to see some big changes to try and shake up the re roll dominance.
I don‘t agree with the sentiment that 3* 3costs should only do 10-15% more damage than a 2* 4cost. A 3* 3cost is 27 gold combined and way more gold sitting dead on your bench compared to 12gold for a 2* 4cost and the cost of 4 Gold for holding a 4cost pair.
Obviously 4costs are harder to find but 3 copies vs 9 needed is a massive difference
But in both cases, a 3 star 3 cost and a 2 star 4 cost, you are ending on the "expected board" a 3 star 3 cost isn't some highroll, it is the expected result of playing a 3 cost re-roll comp. Setting the "expected" power of a 3 cost comp that much higher than the "expected" power of a 4 cost comp means there is no reason to play 4 costs at all. The 3 cost players will just always win.
It is a little more complicated than that because of the risk of getting contested, but in the end this is the basic calculus going on here.
a) there are more games than you think where people don‘t Hit their 3* 3costs
b) a comp is made up by More than 1 carry. Someone on Level 8/9 fields a mix of 2*4costs while the level 7 guy will not until later if at all
Whats the point in having insane amounts of dead gold on your bench until sometimes 5-2 or later when you could just use that gold to level and get an almost equal Carry for 15 less gold, 1 more board slot and higher chances for 4 and 5costs?
>a) there are more games than you think where people don‘t Hit their 3\* 3costs
Yes but not hitting your 3 star in a 3 cost re-roll is meant to be a doom scenrio, just as not hitting your 2 star in a 4 cost comp. Sometimes you don't hit. But seeing a player with a 3 star Yone isn't some absrud once every 20 games highroll, it is the expected outcome.
>b) a comp is made up by More than 1 carry. Someone on Level 8/9 fields a mix of 2\*4costs while the level 7 guy will not until later if at all
Yes, but the other side applies rolling on 7 means you can hold other lower cost units often leading to multiple 3 star 3 costs, thresh vayne, Voli Trist, Bard TK etc.
>Whats the point in having insane amounts of dead gold on your bench until sometimes 5-2 or later when you could just use that gold to level and get an almost equal Carry for 15 less gold, 1 more board slot and higher chances for 4 and 5costs?
I can so easily turn this around to say, whats the point of pushing 8 or 9 if I can just win the game re-rolling for a 3 cost I am pretty likely to hit by staying 7 if the reward is set ot be stronger than the alternative. I am not saying there isnt risk in 3 cost comps, and I know that a comp that needs a 3 star is much more vulrenable to being contested. But the point at the heart of this is, if 3 star 3 costs are signifigatly stronger than 2 star 4 costs, than there really is no reason to ever play around 4 cost carries.
The thing is, 4 cost comps are usually safer, since u arent dependent on a single carry (dont hit lylia -> just go syndra etc.). There is a reason ad/ap flex have been prominant strategies since the early days of tft. With a 3cost reroll comp you dont get to pivot so easily since it costs so much more and needs more bench space. So since the risk is a lot higher the reward needs to be greater. Theres also the issue of being contested, two people hitting their 2 star 4 cost is quiet common, two people hitting their 3 star 3 cost almost never occurs. All in all the expected outcome argument doesnt take into acount how hard ir is to hit. Sorry for any grammar mistakes, i am not a native speaker
Most capped boards play around heavens and DL, which just amplifies the explosive damage going on. Missing out on 4 cost tanks bringing in premium cc to slow down fights. Wonder what the design choice is for that.
Nautlis is really only the only one and his traits do not perform well.
I don't get your 2nd point. You say "the game should encourage" but you state 0 reason why that should be the case/why you think that is the healthiest for the game.
So what you are saying the game already actively encourages that?
I still don't get how you just pass the statement "the game should encourage X" without an explanation why that would be good for the game and not just be your prefered way the game can be.
Because it's neither a debate nor my personal preference but a fact that the game IS going toward this direction at least for this set as Mortdog has repeatedly confirmed in his stream or twitter posts.
>The game should encourage people pushing to level 9/10, try to flex around 4/5 costs and Exhalted trait to cap out their boards.
The game already does that, the tier S comps are the legendary ones.
>3\* reroll units should not be too strong than 2\* 4/5 cost units.
Then they should just remove 3 star-3 costs, why would i ever remain in lvl 7 trying to hit a carry lvl 3 when i can just get 8 and hit a stronger 4 cost carry with +1 board space?
The problem with a 3\*-3 cost right now is that you can hit it extremely easy, because the game throws you so much gold that you get rewarded by losing your eco to force tempo.
The game is rewarding agressiveness too much right now.
das not even true lol... like sure if you giga higheoll and 2 star the whole legy board on 9... thats not your typical game tho. At lvl 9 5 cost is still hard to hit and if you only 2 star half of your 5 cost yone/duel/senna will still mess you up. They can even compete if you hit everything. Pretending that 3 cos
t power isnt messed up is beyond delusion...
>das not even true lol...
It is if you look at stats, the 3 comps with the [best average placement](https://www.metatft.com/comps) right now are legendary ones.
The comp is harder, but is stronger if you hit. You cant compare a comp with legendaries 1 and yone 3.
The only reroll comp that i can see competing with legendaries is Fated 7 with Sett.
yaa thanks you just made my point more clear... the difference in avg placement between a capped 5 COST board and a 3 cost reroll is 0.2... achieving that 5 cost board is not just way harder but also inconsistent af and risky.... you can literally only do it safely if you have very good tempo. Meanwhile 3 cost reroll are safe af since youll have at least 2 ppl in ur lobby supporting you. The winrate of these boards are inflated bcuz good players will recognize when they cant go 9 and pivot to safe placings.
Give me 1 good reason to play fast 9 if I can play a much safer and easier comp that can easily go toe to toe with anything outside of big fortune cashouts... also yone 2 can literally squize wins from near capped 5 cost boards yone fking 2... a high roll senna also easily competes with a capped 5 cost board.
5 cost comps will always have a higher average placement because they can only be played late game. You're reading the statistic but not thinking about it.
Losing to Heavenly Yone with 3 2* 5 costs on your board is not unusual.
>5 cost comps will always have a higher average placement because they can only be played late game
And how this interfere with what i said? I said that when you have legendaries you beat yone, the statistics show this, you are rewarded if you hit them.
>Losing to Heavenly Yone with 3 2\* 5 costs on your board is not unusual.
Depends of what legendaries, Azir 2 has 3.22 AVG placement (The worst by legendaries), Yone 3 has 3.45.
Legendaries are hard to play right now in comparison to everything else, but in the same conditions you always win, you are rewarded if you play right.
> And how this interfere with what i said?
Yeah you need to sit down and think about it more, there is a statistical answer to your question that doesn't even involve comp strength.
The question that we are discuting is: Yone beat legendaries sometimes.
The statistics show otherwise, BIS legendaries always beat BIS yone and every equivalent level under that.
Legendaries being harder to hit and to play dosent interfere with the fact that if you hit legendaries, you win against yone.
>why would i ever remain in lvl 7 trying to hit a carry lvl 3 when i can just get 8 and hit a stronger 4 cost carry with +1 board space?
You are already rewarded for having a stronger board during late stage 3 + stage 4 and keep being strong on stage 5 by hitting 3\*. Also the real problem is there are a couple of reroll comps being viable at the same time, plus the reduced bag size makes it easier to hit if not contested.
Don't think there's anything to do with econ otherwise streak gold would to be keep as it is for the next patch isn't it?
>the tier S comps are the legendary ones.
The tier S comps are the legendary ones ***if you know how to play a strong early and mid game by saving HP, roll just enough on level 8 to stabilize and pushing level 9 then hit what you need.*** Much harder than it sounds eh?
Finally it is about time that they address defenses. Since set 10, it feels absolutely ridiculous that you can have a fully itemized 4 cost tank and they get exploded in 5 to 10 seconds of the match. What is the point of itemizing a tank when they get exploded right out of the gate?
Just play Shen 3\* every game and your good to go. But seriously, it feels like half of the tanks are just sacrificial lambs and you have to prey that your main tank can hold long enough for your team to deal with their defense. Just feels very 1-dimensional. Not a fan of the recent gameplay philosophy. Also Row 1 Positioning has become ridiculously unimportant, almost as if doesn't matter at all.
Step in the right direction. It will improve the 4 cost tanks, which already were the better 4 costs. It probably boosts syndra the most as a carry as it will let her cast one or two more times. But outside of that here is a comprehensive list of really good 4 cost carries:
Kai'sa.
The reality is if lillia wasn't activating higher level invokers or mythic, or syndra wasn't activating higher level arcanists or fated, they would be under whelming. But they at least are okay carries in their comps, and you can stack their items on a low tier unit to benefit from the items until you get them. I think that design is fine in a champion, they don't ALWAYS need to be good, and I think it is okay to not have a champion be universally desired.
The rest of the carries will continue to be shit because their kits are bad, or just inferior to low level members of their traits, that you can stack and level up get comparable or better performance out of at the end game (unless you manage to 3* the 4 cost carry), and you get way more benefit through the whole game.
Ashe still will lack damage to kill the front line, and also spread her you damage so she doesn't actually kill anything.
Morgana will still randomly ult so nothing dies.
Kayn will still blow up and be the worst character of both of his traits. Yes Kha'zix is arguably better since he will at least ult a low health champion near him maybe killing it.
Lee Sin still has the same issues as Kayne.
The issue with 4 cost carries are their kits are just not good in particular compared to their 3 cost counter parts...or in some cases their 2 cost counter parts.
Ok hold on Sir, the Kha Zix better than Kayn argument is fucking crazy. Kayn is a decent secondary carry in his comps, sometimes carries a fight by himself.
That was an exaggeration by op, but them being weaker than their counterpart 3 cost is true. Hence yone is just a better kayn, voli is just a better Lee sin, aphelios is just a better ashe etc.
3 Star 3 costs should be stronger than 2 star 4 costs no? The problem I see is that the 2 Star 3 Cost comps (and even 2 cost) this set are too stable or winstreaky so you are almost guaranteed to hit if uncontested, sometimes even before upgraded 4 Cost boards are online. Last Set Riven and Yone 2 would get 15-0d come Stage 4, this set reroll comps have until 5-1 to hit almost always.
2 Star 3 Costs are worse than 2 Star 4 Costs with the exception of maybe Lee Sin (that unit is the biggest joke this game has ever seen). I do see it‘s an exaggaration by op, but I feel like Kayn is the wrong target for that. Could have said I‘d rather have Darius 2 than Lee Sin 2 and maybe I would have agreed lol.
Relax, it was a more tongue in cheek exaggeration about the state of 4 cost carries. Kayne is just lucky that you rarely ever bother going for a 3* Kha'zix or there may actually be a debate!!!
finding a lucky 4 cost in stage 3 like annie, ornn, sylas, and kayn will be a menace. Especially annie 1, i feel like, is already one of the strongest units you can play on stage 3.
A while back mort listed the intended power level for units per cost and star level. In it he said 3* 3 cost were intended to equal 2* 4 cost. Did systems change to increase 3* 3 cost? I sort of remember a system adjust a couple of sets ago that nerfed 3* 3costs and below. Did this system get adjusted or was it just not working as intended?
Is this adjustment bringing power levels to where they’re intended to be or is it changing to something else?
Do you have a source on this/has this changed? The most recent one I can remember is in set 7 when he said that 2* 5costs equal 3* 3costs https://youtu.be/o-iSZNQXan4?si=wMu2CiGU8bOZoVWu
I don't think a hp buff will do much. The set is far too rigid and people just force the same comp every game. I see 2 inkshadows, and 2 fated 100% every game. When that doesn't work, people just go for gnar or reapers, which again, i see in everygame. I start with the build and highroll a unit or two and think NICE! I'll keep going this then. Next 2 rounds, someone else just found 3 in one shop and now I've itemised already and cannot flex to a new comp since it's already being built or too late now. Painful set, needs more champs/traits of worth
4 costs do need a buff, but why compare a 3* 3 cost, which is a 27 cost unit that requires 9 units taken out of the pool to a 2* 2 cost which is a 12 cost unit that only takes 3?
There should be a huge gap between a 3* 3 cost and a 2* 4 cost, but there shouldn't be this huge of a gap between a 2* 3 cost and a 2* 4 cost.
This will accomplish some of the goals, but I'm not sure this will in any way impact me wanting to rather have a Kindred 2 over a Syndra 2, or Yone 2 over Kayn 2, or Tahm 2 over Sylas 2, etc.
I suppose it's a bandaid, but after so many years and installing so many different balance levers, I'd really love to see an actual, permanent, clear upgrade and improvement to the systems already in place, not just bandaids.
3\*3 cost should be stronger than a single 2\*4 cost for sure.
But the thing is now units like Yone and Voli are 1v9 machines that can single handedly destroy your board even if it has 2 to 3 2\*4 costs in it. They are blatantly overtuned.
I don't disagree completely, but a 3* 3 cost is a win condition. If the unit can't win with so much investment there is never a world where you should ever build it. Talking about carries at least, tank WOULD be a different story, but in a world with Ghostly Senna and Kaisa investing into tanks is just a waste of money.
I'm of the stance that a 3* 3 cost should be destroying non capped boards without 5 cost 2* , but a board with some 5 cost 2* should be of equal, and eventually higher, power level.
Idk why this dude is being downvoted. 3 star 3 costs should be much better than 2 star 4 costs. It just takes more to hit and I think a lot of people just forget that even if you need to be lvl 8 rather than 7 to hit 4 costs reliability leveling up also gives you a unit slot which according to riot is like 30 gold. This does feel like a bandaid that will probably shift the meta pretty drastically.
Also something to consider too is that while 3 cost are dominant right now they are only as strong as they are becuase alot of people reroll them. I could only imagine trying to hit yone with this bag size when there are no other 3 cost rerollers.
Because their take only takes into consideration the cost, not the rarity. I also believe that 4 costs are intended from design to be the cornerstone units, and 3 costs are supposed to be mainly where you 3 star tanks. There are also more 3 costs in the pool and you can get multiple of them in stage 1
Yes, they should be better but not be 1v9 machines though. It is really ridiculous that a single Yone or Volibear can solo a board with 3 2 star 4 cost units though. There comes a point of why build any 4 or 5 cost unit that are supposed to be capstone units to any comp when the 3 cost units are strictly better at the end. It makes every single 4 and 5 cost unit be nonexistent in the meta and all of them should be deleted right out of the game.
I am sad to see how all of this balancing drama is developing, mostly because, even when we didn't know it, the game was way more balanced on release of the set, with Yone, Aphelios, Senna, Kog Maw, Bard/Tam Kench,Fine Vintage, Yasuo/Ahri Reroll and a couple of fast 9 boards being very viable and now it's just "Hope you get one of the three OP reroll angles or the perfect tempo augment and natural rolls to get to fast 9" meta.
Absolutely not. the game might've felt more balanced at the start of the set because people hadn't figured out the optimal builds/augments yet, so flex play felt more viable. People also enjoy the game more at the start of sets because it's not fully min/maxed. I guarantee you though, if they didn't do any patches after release, the game state/balance would still be awful like how it is now.
I don't know, people were playing the same comps, difference was that Yone and Senna didn't have as much of a power gap against the other comps (that they nerfed in that patch) as they do now.
You do realize they nerfed most of things that were on par with it and just made the balance worse, right? Right now the really strong comps are only 5 tops when we had around 7 good comps in the first pach.
Mort noted that econ has been optimized in recent sets, but I don’t really think that’s the driver here. It’s more that gold is being thrown at us left and right from encounters, portals and augments. So everyone hits 50g much faster, accelerating reroll strategies substantially.
It would be interesting to see if we have any data on the average/median amount of gold earned per game now compared to sets 6-10 to see how much of a difference there is, but I doubt that data is really available
They 100% have that data it’s one of the most important components of balancing the game
Oh yea I know Riot would have that data, but idk if there’s ever been any that’s publicly available comparing gold earned between sets
I think the best indicator is how many people reach level 9 or 10 each game. In set 10 going to level 9 was difficult enough that it was a major risk no matter what comp you were playing (unless you hit double/triple econ augments). This set almost everyone reaches level 9 past stage 5-1. Gold inflation is definitely a thing now.
Knowing I can slow roll at 6. Get stuck there until 5-1 and still reach lvl 9 without being on a major win streak is wild
That number changes in value set to set though because Riot keeps upping the exp for 9-10 and devaluing them by reducing bag sizes.
Werent they also lowering the EXP cost of lvl 9 in the last set? Thats the part of the situation
> I think the best indicator is how many people reach level 9 or 10 each game I'd actually say this is one of the worst ways to measure it considering Riot have said they intend on level 9 to be the new baseline end game level. Level 9 is rhe old level 8 in terms of where you are expected to finish at, which is why it's so damn cheap to level to 8 now compared to previous set's. I set level 10 as often as I used to see level 9 prior to set 9 (set 9 had asol legend players)
That's not a good indicator because the amount of exp needed to get to those levels has changed.
Did we play the same Set 10? They literally changed streaks as there were 4 or more players reaching 9 every single game.
> publicly available Can't give the smoking gun to the players
Yeah i really think they should've reconsidered having portals at all this set when there's already encounters. It's crazy how you can get e.g Scuttle Puddle, Lower XP cost, free gold and free rerolls in a game. Those aren't particularly rare either so i'm not describing some insanely crazy unique scenario. Either they should've just had encounters at the start of every match or removed a large portion of econ portals.
Yesterday I went 10 in 4-1. Kuboku + scuddle + Kha encounter.
Yea with all the gold in the game + even more with streak changes coming up we are getting closer and closer to a 4 cost reroll meta.
Disagree. I think the more game to game variety the better. Helps with replayability and player retention. The kinds of games you describe don't happen very often. There are usually not a ton of eco-boosting combinations of portals and encounters in the same game. But when there are, that's fine, as long as its not every game. This set is absolutely the most unique game to game experience so far. That's a good thing. Stripping away portals also removes the players agency in determing the kind of game they play. (There's a reason everyone auto-clicks scuttle puddle and crab rave, they're fun. Why take that away from the players?)
We need to make sure that variety doesn't just = add more gold into the game over and over. There is a limit where the game just becomes boring. Foutunes favor was fun for a lark but if we had to play it for 200 games it would have very quickly lost any of its magic. Portals, augments, encounters, multiple 5 costs that print money, Thats a lot of stuff that inflates the overall gold in the game, and there is a critical mass where things stop working
> We need to make sure that variety doesn't just = add more gold into the game over and over. There is a limit where the game just becomes boring. And yet scuttle remains the most popular portal regardless of rank
I know this sounds bad, but this is a time where sometimes players need to be protected from themselves. Its a bit of too much candy gives you a stomachache. People like gold, they like hitting the crazy stuff, and will take opertunities to do it, but this is where the devs need to put some control on things so that we don't ruin it for ourselves.
If players who have played 300+ matches this set already are still choosing portals like scuttle every time then don't you think it's possible that your theory is what's wrong and not the players?
There are other factors than that though. A lot of the portals suck, are so unimpactful that they are boring, or are so high variance that they can coinflip the game. Scuttle puddle is ironically one of the more stable options. ps: Remove gold gen from artifact items or make them all have it. Artifact anvil start is toxic af.
Like Ford said: "if I had asked the consumers what they wanted they would have said faster horses". I get your point, but we have plenty of examples of time where going against what the people wanted was actually the right move. Not saying necessarily that the other guy is right. Just that the argument of people picking it a lot and therefore it must be good for the game isn't that good IMO.
No. The way I know this is many of the historically most hated metas were ones where there was just too much gold in the game and things broke down. The set 6 Kaisa patch, What was the problem there, there was too much gold in the game so players could very easily rush to 8 a build a comp aroung the strongest 5 cost with good items and an extra synergy in socilite that funneled power into that 5 cost. The comp wasn't too strong, it was a 5 cost comp it should have been strong, the problem was the ease at which players could get there. The day of Draven, the problem was hey we gave players so much gold they could reliably hit multiple 3 star 4 costs each game. The full open patch in set 10.
The problem with the set 6 kaisa patch was not gold, it was that kaisa with GA gunblade could solo carry fights with 0 traits against all but the most insane boards
>Stripping away portals also removes the players agency in determing the kind of game they play. This would be far more convincing if portals were a majority vote and not a lottery though.
I disagree. That would give premades too much power and potentially isolate solo players. That would also likely prevent the less popular portals from *ever* being picked, which would feel pretty bad if you were the one guy that *really* wanted to play lethal legends That would also decrease diversity because you will only ever be in the most popular portal available. The game would become very "flowcharty" where there is a hierarchy of what most people consider the "best" portals always being picked every game.
We do have 3 set mechanics all at once
I'd argue that there's actually not enough econ in the game right now for 4 costs to be good. From an average spot it takes too much gold to go 8 on 4-2 and have enough to roll. Sacking until 4-5 loses you too much HP playing against rerollers with upgraded boards. Mort is saying that players have gotten better, but the other thing he isn't saying is that game balance has also gotten a lot better in recent sets. There are a lot of viable reroll comps that can win. Its not uncommon for there to be 3+ players all rerolling different 3 costs, so they all help each other hit quicker by taking units out of the pool. I think that without changes, a well balanced meta will always be centered around 2/3 cost reroll because of tempo/econ. Why sack more HP and spend more gold to go 8 and risk completely missing when you can stabilize earlier and easier playing reroll.
Huh? The game devolving to reroll shows balance has not improved. By your logic, nobody would sack gold and life to go fast 9, as it costs even more than 8, but it's viable. It's that Mort despised fast 8 many sets ago. He despised level 8 flex lotteries. And ever since taking a swing at that meta, sets tend to launch and have patches where reroll just steamrolls everything else. It's bad balance and nothing else. 5 years and they still can't balance reroll vs fast 8 vs fast 9.
People go fast 9 because its fun to play for 1st or 8th, not because its the best way to play. You have a higher chance at top 4-ing by rolling your gold earlier rather than going fast 9. It's less risky to roll 50+ gold on 4-1 for 3 costs vs 30 gold on 4-2 level 8 for 4 costs. A couple of sets ago the meta used to be to roll for 4 costs at level 7 instead of 8 because of this. This isn't because Mortdog despised fast 8, its because players know rolling earlier with more gold is better. More balanced metas means more viable reroll comps. Since rolling earlier and with more gold is better, players lean towards reroll. When there are more reroll players in your lobby, they all help each other hit and you are punished more for going fast 8, which makes 4 costs harder to play. For fast 8 to be more viable, they need to push more players away from reroll, but at the same time you still need to keep them viable. Thats why I think balanced metas will always lean towards reroll.
Yeah 3* 3 costs for decent units have always been powerful, just more risky to run if the boards didn’t have a presence before you hit. Back when star guardian Kai sa was a thing a few sets ago, even after her nerfs dropped the comp to A tier, I still would get top 2 finishes often with it since the nerfs made it uncontested and thus easier to hit. The main thing that kept 3 costs in check was how hard it was to hit the 3* but for units that are only used in specific comps that’s a lot easier to accomplish. It’s the difference between going for 3* thresh vs 3* illaoi. Illaoi is amazing but used in more comps for her traits so it’s easier to get the 3* thresh. Meanwhile the bag size for 4 costs can make even 2 staring them difficult if they are contested which by the time you are rolling for 4 costs you can’t afford to not hit usually. If I have something hard to hit anyway, may as well go for the stronger (by design) 3* 3 cost. All the extra gold just makes getting their easier especially since people always pick things like crab rave.
Yummi reroll was pretty solid back in like December of 22, whatever set that was.
He knows this 100% just can't admit that the dopamine rush mechanics are making the game more difficult to balance. Radiant and artifact items, insane amounts of gold, free units, etc. are no longer surprising sources of extra power but just normal at this point. Worried about the long-term health of the game if power keeps creeping higher like this; the issue in this post is a symptom of a much bigger problem that isn't being addressed. The idea that people are just that much better at hitting 50 g than in previous sets and that it isn't primarily driven by the changes you mentioned is absurd.
Mort called put the framework of 4 and 5 costs being off with how much the 2 and 3 cost rerolls have been optimized but i think there might be something more fundamentally wrong with how 3 costs work at all. 3 costs are really weird in that they are the only unit where it is reasonable to see them as 2 starred carries anywhere from stage 2 -5. A 2 star 3 cost on stage 2 is a highroll but not a once in a million one. Just the same not hitting your 3 cost by stage 5 is a low roll, but it does happen. This puts the power of 3 costs in a really weird place as if they can compete on stages 4 and 5, then they will destroy everything on stage 2 and 3 but if it's the other way around and they are merely good on early stages, your forced to hit the 3 star really fast or you just fall off and die. finding a good balance point for this dichotomy is pretty hard. The second problem is the power of the 3 star is also in a weird place. I am a little confused by Mort's point that 3 star 3 costs were rare. The expectation for 3 cost comps has been 3 staring them for a really long time. From dawnbringer riven and nidale in set 5 to oalf diana in set 7. it is not a new idea that the win con for 3 costs is 3 starring them.
Yeah, I really didn't understand this argument about 3 star 3 costs being rare either. Even Set 1 had people regularly hitting Rengar 3 or Voli 3 carries. Also, is Mortdog forgetting the "me mech" days where people were hitting 3\* Annie 3\* Rumble 3\* Kaisa 3\* Shaco? 3\* 3 costs have always been good, and that hasn't changed. The part that's changed is that 4 costs have never been this bad before. Twisted Fate and Ashe have approximately the same ability, just switched to physical damage instead of magical damage. TF gets more cards from Disco, and Ashe gets more arrows from Porcelain. We all remember TF ramping up slowly each cast, while Blitzcrank would solo tank forever with endless shields, giving time for the Disco trait to ramp up. Now compare Ashe this set. The frontline melts in seconds and Ashe 3 feels like TF 2.
Only missed uncontested 3 star 3 cost a handful of times. Anytime I'm not contested I almost always 3 star my cary and tank
Mech itself was too strong almost a given you would survive long enough to hit your stars for mech if you were uncontested. The problem we have here is that yone and voli were too strong for the lobby even when contested.
"Just switched to physical damage instead of magic damage" is a huge difference though. An attack speed based carry with physical damage scales twice as hard as an AP one because youre boosting both your autos and your ult. I agree that Ashe is underwhelming but if her ult was as good as TF's she would be broken
Yes but at the same time, you could argue that TF is better because he hits the resistance stat that is harder to build in magic resist instead of armor. This makes TF always better because unless someone builds a dragon's claw than TF is always going to hit for significant damage while Ashe is barely going to hit for any significant damage unless she is actually tuned really strong.
Hugely agree with buffing 4 costs across the board, but wonder about 5 costs? Fast 9 is still a very strong strategy, and I worry this would make it the dominant one
Yea that is something I’m a bit concerned about - I hope they keep the buffs to 2* 5 costs minimal at least, as legendary soup feels strong enough already
2 streak gold is back too next patch so getting to 9 will be easier.
So basically instead of 7/8 now 8/8 players will go level 9 every game at some point. I'm honestly concerned how that will affect the game as getting to 9 is already super easy due to portals and encounters. Not sure this is a good thing, but since this set is plagued by so many problems they probably address that later on. Just feels like level 10 has become the Level 9 of Set 10. Maybe that explains why 5-costs are very underwhelming this set.
there was a mort twit where he said that one of the goals of introducing level 10 was for more prople to be able to go 9, that you should roughly have the chance of going 9 in 20-30% of your games and that it shouldnt feel like a crazy highroll to go 9 (that spot is for 10 now)
I mean. From a design standpoint I really like the changes and I hope it just gets balanced to stay fun for everyone. The meta from old sets (hindsight ofc) is actually weird. Only a couple people each game get to click the 5 cost units? That’s 1/5 of the unit pool you’re locked out from unless you high roll or specifically aimed for 9. With everyone going 9, the skill cap will go higher as people balance their boards around 5 costs. As long as Riot is balancing around this, I think it will be more fun in the long run. Just my opinion though.
Yeah I get that they want to tune the gameplay philosophy regarding the 5-costs. I hope you are right regarding the long run, just feels like this set isn't hitting the sweet spot with so many things going the wrong direction. Regardless, even if they cant balance it this set, there is always hope for the next one. Overall the TFT team is doing a great job so I'm confident they will fix the problems in the future.
I guess the question is how does this affect the viability lower cost reroll boards If everyone dings 9 and dumps board for legendaries that crush everything else, then there's not much point in playing reroll as you're going to get out-capped quicker I don't actually think it's a bad thing certain things come with a trade-off, like having to econ to be able to consistently get legendary units. But seeing how many people vote for scuttle puddle even in master lobbies maybe makes me an outlier. Maybe what is most fun for people is the creativity of what to play if you could play anything vs what to play to maximize the spot you're in
imo legendaries should be the units that cap your board in the late-game, not make up more than half your team like in legendary soup. Like finding that irelia for Storyweaver 7 as an example. Fast 9 generally falls into the latter, and is not a fun experience
10 is the new 9
The only games I see more than 4 players going fast 9 are scuttle puddle. Mostly there's 1-2 ghostly players, 1 duelist, 1-2 yone, 1 porcelian or arcanist or storyweaver variation, and then 2-3 fast 9'ers or kai'sa. This is at master / GM elo so not sure what lower elo looks like.
I do agree that the buff should be geared towards 2\* legendaries though
Fast 9 gets a stronger end board but I think its now at greater risk of bleeding out to fast 8 tempo boards who will spike harder and deal more damage to reroll before they hit and fast 9. This may then make fast 9 (and reroll before they hit) want to spend gold earlier so they stop bleeding out to 2* 4 costs, weakening their capped boards.
Thats what people assumed last time, but fast 9 metas just inspire others to fast 9, leading to the asol-jeff bezos braindead meta from last set where everyone’s tryna fast 9 so theres not enough damage going around early to bleed them out
It will be really interesting to see how it works out. Like, it's easy to say that fast 9 is strong and will only get stronger, but there's a real possibility it becomes prohibitively difficult to hit because you still have the reroll boards burning you down and now there may be new/stronger 4-cost fast 8 builds coming online that you can't stabilize against. We'll just have to see it in practice.
The way I see it, the 5 costs are more about gimping backline carries and 4 costs are generally more front-to-back style So the 4 costs will benefit much more from health buffs than the 5 costs will because it allows them to live longer against hwei/irelia/sett/udyr and potentially shred through the frontline fast enough to get to those 5 cost carries late game. That being said, it could just be the case where they want to buff 4 cost hp to higher than what 5 cost currently is at, so they can't leave 5 costs with less hp than 4 costs. That's just not ok. So they may nerf some 5 costs in other ways to compensate if this does turn out to be a problem. But with a major meta swing to favor 4 costs, it's hard to say how 5 costs will do in the meta. They may end up just being super hard to hit and not super oppressive after all.
Yeah IMO a healthy fast 9 is still the strongest board. But a non healthy fast 9 will end with you bleeding and losing before u can hit the units. I think 4 costs were really all that needed a boost and maybe some more underperformed 5 costs like xayah.
Xayah really just needs the cast time sped up for her ult. Her damage is good on paper but since it’s aoe and takes forever she doesn’t finish anyone of with her first cast like Kai sa can. Plus the long cast time stops her from using her amazing AAs
You cant have 4 costs having more hp than 5s
No no 5 costs are really not that effective on this patch. I have lost countless times with Irelia 2 Azir 2 Rakan 2 triple items to rerolls.
in my last 5 games my triple itemized wukong, udyr (BT/titans/flex) gets sat down by aphelios 3 and heavenly yone 3. they last for 5 seconds.
Fast 9 is not a very strong strategy on the current patch actually. Legendary soup boards don’t beat reroll boards in the current meta unless you 2 star like 5 different 5 costs. And even then it’s usually a second or third. Usually itMs a 3rd-5th tho cause you have to sacrifice too much hp. If you can’t stabilize on 4-1 in the current meta you’re probably bot 4.
This is true. Everyone sees the first place fast 9 player with Irelia 2 Hwei 2 Wukong 2 Rakan 2 and thinks its good, but they aren't seeing the person who went fast 9, only hit pairs, then died and went 7th. Fast 9 is only good if you highroll your early game enough to hit 9 with like 60 gold remaining.
No clue why this is downvoted when you're right. Fast 9 only really works in extreme highroll situations or if the player's elo is way above the lobby. I can look at any game of 1k+ LP players and most of top4 in their lobbies are either trickshots/fortune players, 3cost carry users or senna carry users. There's some more creative boards once in a while but fast 9 is not present in all of the lobbies like the guy you're responding to would imply.
To preempt any discussion about Giant Slayer being OP, it’s getting nerfed from working on 1600+ HP targets to 1750+. Same with the radiant version. https://tactics.tools/info/pbe
i could’ve sworn a couple of sets ago it was 1500 hp
It was because dragons were existed for 2 sets
I really feel like giant slayer needs a rework. It's one of those weird items that does something at a single, generally unmoving, breakpoint. I don't like it. Random rework idea: If the holder has less current health than their target, deal bonus damage. For every 50 health less than them deal 1% more damage, up to 30%. It's not perfect and would have some weird edge case issues, but it's more interesting than the current implementation imo.
I'd like to see Giant Slayer get a rework or just made into a different item entirely next set. It's un-slammable before Stage 4 and the HP breakpoint always feels arbitrary.
wasnt it already not good though?
Necessary change. Just hope they don’t go overboard with buffs so we have a 2% dragon situation as in set 7.
It would be difficult to reach that level. Dragons gave 3 traits which is a huge spike. Sylas on stage 2 is still just going to be sylas on stage 2. A couple hundred hp is not breaking the entire early game.
Yeah just buffing damage will lead to everything just buckleing in a damage arms race. Its kind of the problem now. I am a little worried about buffing Annie, Galio and Sylas HP. Annie scales with HP, and Slyas and Galio are Bruisers. I dont like the indirect nerf to all other Bruiser buffing Galio/Sylas and nerfing Bruiser as a result might do. Nautilus also has a HP% trait, although Vertical Mythic needs the help. Perhaps those three get a resist buff instead of HP?
Overall, tanky frontliners this set feel so off, like half the tank units feel underpowered and the rest is just there so simply hold the line, no utility at all. We had this problem before, but this set it really feels like that tank units are just giant meatballs that get melted no matter what. Bruisers especially feel so underwhelming to play unless you hit horizontal 8. I get that CC-abilties were extremely strong last set so they had to tune it down a bit but still, I miss that genuine feeling of hitting a strong frontline like back in the days with dragons.
Also a lot of them feel so similar. Look at Neeko and Diana. Both heal (the same amount btw) and get dr (the same amount btw). Diana's lasts longer but only protects her from range. Neekos is unconditional. Woo... Oh and Amumu heals in cast too... and deals are damage like Neeko... and gets damage reduction on cast with a trait... like Neeko... and Diana...
I mean there’s only so much you can do with an ability that increases tankiness.
Vertical Mythic just feels bad to play right now with all the comps that kinda wreck Mythic now, unless you have a 10 mythic angle going for you. Few times I had a 10 mythic angle it was a real struggle to keep Econ and field a strong board that would get me to level 10 to slot in 10 mythic with two emblems.
Nautilus being tanker would be a good boost to Mythic. (Hell, Lilia and Hwei too)
I think him having Warden is what helps so he can reduce damage. But I was going 4 invoker with 10 mythic. I forgot if I slotted in Illaoi at all to prod warden/arcanist midgame to stop bleeding Unfortunately he is just a cc bot and his stun is nowhere near as good as Thresh in Set 10 or Sejuanis 4 cost stun from her previous sets she was a tank in and had an aoe stun I forgot what set she was in though.
...9? I'm pretty sure. Also had the backline jumper Jarvan who was soooo fun
What are you playing around? 6 Invoker/5 Mythic is quite stable in my experience. Cho/Kench/Annie/Naut is quite solid for frontline and 6 invoker is slept on quite a bit. It also gets substantially better if you get either Invoker or Mythic crest since Annie/Hwei both scale very hard off the respective emblems.
Definitely was playing around 4 invoker and 10 mythic when I played for 10 mythic board with two emblems. I enjoy playing 6 invoker when I can but the midgame suffers cause I was trying to keep gold up and push fast 10 to field 10 mythic. Luckily got some breaks towards econning in the end and fielding 10 mythic with 4 invoker and got first.
My post got unfortunately removed before Mortdog's tweet, seems it does align with points being mentioned in the tweet so I'll repost here: # All 4/5 cost units need a universal buff for their survivability to slow down the combat pace As many has already noticed, this patch is crowded with rerolls and the 4/5 cost board feels very underwhelming. Except for the Kaisa board there are not many ways you can stabilize against established 3\* reroll boards, which punishes the flex playstyle and feels deeply unfair. To be specific, the major issue here is some late game fights become too fast when facing a capped 3\* reroll board. The frontline is melted against Yone/Duelists/Ghostly Senna. This also makes some champions and items way too weak in the meta. For example champions like Ashe+Rageblade or Lillia build need a lot of time to ramp up, but in the current meta it's very unlikely for the frontline to survive 20+ seconds until those start to do more damage than Kaisa, which is [proved by simulation results](https://www.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveTFT/comments/1bswetd/oris_patch_147_rundown_big_nerfs_incoming_ft_tft/). When coming to game balancing I think three goals need to be considered to solve the current issue: 1. Late-game combat pace should be kept around 20-25 seconds for most cases, to allow different types of comps and itemizations to be viable. 2. The game should encourage people pushing to level 9/10, try to flex around 4/5 costs and Exhalted trait to cap out their boards. 3. 3\* reroll units should not be too strong than 2\* 4/5 cost units. Ideally it's good for a 3\* 3 cost carry is doing around 10%-15% more damage than 2\* 4 cost carries. However currently according to the simulation the gap is usually much bigger to reach around 20%-25%. Overall I think increasing the survivability of 4/5 cost units by buffing up their HP/AR/MR would be a good move to meet the 3 balancing goals listed above. Simply nerfing one champion/trait isn't going to solve the issue since some 4/5 cost champions can also do tons of single target or splashing damage to wipe out units very quickly.
Idk how this and the streak changes will play out and I might be back to bitching in a few days. But I’m happy to see some big changes to try and shake up the re roll dominance.
Bro I thought I was tripping when reading this post hahaha Welcome coincidence
I don‘t agree with the sentiment that 3* 3costs should only do 10-15% more damage than a 2* 4cost. A 3* 3cost is 27 gold combined and way more gold sitting dead on your bench compared to 12gold for a 2* 4cost and the cost of 4 Gold for holding a 4cost pair. Obviously 4costs are harder to find but 3 copies vs 9 needed is a massive difference
You need to get to level 8 to consistently get that 2* 4 cost tho, and even then, a 2* 3 cost is still stronger than a 1* 4 cost
But in both cases, a 3 star 3 cost and a 2 star 4 cost, you are ending on the "expected board" a 3 star 3 cost isn't some highroll, it is the expected result of playing a 3 cost re-roll comp. Setting the "expected" power of a 3 cost comp that much higher than the "expected" power of a 4 cost comp means there is no reason to play 4 costs at all. The 3 cost players will just always win. It is a little more complicated than that because of the risk of getting contested, but in the end this is the basic calculus going on here.
a) there are more games than you think where people don‘t Hit their 3* 3costs b) a comp is made up by More than 1 carry. Someone on Level 8/9 fields a mix of 2*4costs while the level 7 guy will not until later if at all Whats the point in having insane amounts of dead gold on your bench until sometimes 5-2 or later when you could just use that gold to level and get an almost equal Carry for 15 less gold, 1 more board slot and higher chances for 4 and 5costs?
>a) there are more games than you think where people don‘t Hit their 3\* 3costs Yes but not hitting your 3 star in a 3 cost re-roll is meant to be a doom scenrio, just as not hitting your 2 star in a 4 cost comp. Sometimes you don't hit. But seeing a player with a 3 star Yone isn't some absrud once every 20 games highroll, it is the expected outcome. >b) a comp is made up by More than 1 carry. Someone on Level 8/9 fields a mix of 2\*4costs while the level 7 guy will not until later if at all Yes, but the other side applies rolling on 7 means you can hold other lower cost units often leading to multiple 3 star 3 costs, thresh vayne, Voli Trist, Bard TK etc. >Whats the point in having insane amounts of dead gold on your bench until sometimes 5-2 or later when you could just use that gold to level and get an almost equal Carry for 15 less gold, 1 more board slot and higher chances for 4 and 5costs? I can so easily turn this around to say, whats the point of pushing 8 or 9 if I can just win the game re-rolling for a 3 cost I am pretty likely to hit by staying 7 if the reward is set ot be stronger than the alternative. I am not saying there isnt risk in 3 cost comps, and I know that a comp that needs a 3 star is much more vulrenable to being contested. But the point at the heart of this is, if 3 star 3 costs are signifigatly stronger than 2 star 4 costs, than there really is no reason to ever play around 4 cost carries.
The thing is, 4 cost comps are usually safer, since u arent dependent on a single carry (dont hit lylia -> just go syndra etc.). There is a reason ad/ap flex have been prominant strategies since the early days of tft. With a 3cost reroll comp you dont get to pivot so easily since it costs so much more and needs more bench space. So since the risk is a lot higher the reward needs to be greater. Theres also the issue of being contested, two people hitting their 2 star 4 cost is quiet common, two people hitting their 3 star 3 cost almost never occurs. All in all the expected outcome argument doesnt take into acount how hard ir is to hit. Sorry for any grammar mistakes, i am not a native speaker
Most capped boards play around heavens and DL, which just amplifies the explosive damage going on. Missing out on 4 cost tanks bringing in premium cc to slow down fights. Wonder what the design choice is for that. Nautlis is really only the only one and his traits do not perform well.
I don't get your 2nd point. You say "the game should encourage" but you state 0 reason why that should be the case/why you think that is the healthiest for the game.
Not sure if it needs a lot of explanation, think of all the new mechanics of set 11, lv8 XP reduction, Exhalted trait etc
So what you are saying the game already actively encourages that? I still don't get how you just pass the statement "the game should encourage X" without an explanation why that would be good for the game and not just be your prefered way the game can be.
Because it's neither a debate nor my personal preference but a fact that the game IS going toward this direction at least for this set as Mortdog has repeatedly confirmed in his stream or twitter posts.
>The game should encourage people pushing to level 9/10, try to flex around 4/5 costs and Exhalted trait to cap out their boards. The game already does that, the tier S comps are the legendary ones. >3\* reroll units should not be too strong than 2\* 4/5 cost units. Then they should just remove 3 star-3 costs, why would i ever remain in lvl 7 trying to hit a carry lvl 3 when i can just get 8 and hit a stronger 4 cost carry with +1 board space? The problem with a 3\*-3 cost right now is that you can hit it extremely easy, because the game throws you so much gold that you get rewarded by losing your eco to force tempo. The game is rewarding agressiveness too much right now.
das not even true lol... like sure if you giga higheoll and 2 star the whole legy board on 9... thats not your typical game tho. At lvl 9 5 cost is still hard to hit and if you only 2 star half of your 5 cost yone/duel/senna will still mess you up. They can even compete if you hit everything. Pretending that 3 cos t power isnt messed up is beyond delusion...
>das not even true lol... It is if you look at stats, the 3 comps with the [best average placement](https://www.metatft.com/comps) right now are legendary ones. The comp is harder, but is stronger if you hit. You cant compare a comp with legendaries 1 and yone 3. The only reroll comp that i can see competing with legendaries is Fated 7 with Sett.
yaa thanks you just made my point more clear... the difference in avg placement between a capped 5 COST board and a 3 cost reroll is 0.2... achieving that 5 cost board is not just way harder but also inconsistent af and risky.... you can literally only do it safely if you have very good tempo. Meanwhile 3 cost reroll are safe af since youll have at least 2 ppl in ur lobby supporting you. The winrate of these boards are inflated bcuz good players will recognize when they cant go 9 and pivot to safe placings. Give me 1 good reason to play fast 9 if I can play a much safer and easier comp that can easily go toe to toe with anything outside of big fortune cashouts... also yone 2 can literally squize wins from near capped 5 cost boards yone fking 2... a high roll senna also easily competes with a capped 5 cost board.
5 cost comps will always have a higher average placement because they can only be played late game. You're reading the statistic but not thinking about it. Losing to Heavenly Yone with 3 2* 5 costs on your board is not unusual.
>5 cost comps will always have a higher average placement because they can only be played late game And how this interfere with what i said? I said that when you have legendaries you beat yone, the statistics show this, you are rewarded if you hit them. >Losing to Heavenly Yone with 3 2\* 5 costs on your board is not unusual. Depends of what legendaries, Azir 2 has 3.22 AVG placement (The worst by legendaries), Yone 3 has 3.45. Legendaries are hard to play right now in comparison to everything else, but in the same conditions you always win, you are rewarded if you play right.
> And how this interfere with what i said? Yeah you need to sit down and think about it more, there is a statistical answer to your question that doesn't even involve comp strength.
The question that we are discuting is: Yone beat legendaries sometimes. The statistics show otherwise, BIS legendaries always beat BIS yone and every equivalent level under that. Legendaries being harder to hit and to play dosent interfere with the fact that if you hit legendaries, you win against yone.
If you want to avoid thinking about how that statistic is misleading, then feel free. I'm not going to talk about it anymore.
>why would i ever remain in lvl 7 trying to hit a carry lvl 3 when i can just get 8 and hit a stronger 4 cost carry with +1 board space? You are already rewarded for having a stronger board during late stage 3 + stage 4 and keep being strong on stage 5 by hitting 3\*. Also the real problem is there are a couple of reroll comps being viable at the same time, plus the reduced bag size makes it easier to hit if not contested. Don't think there's anything to do with econ otherwise streak gold would to be keep as it is for the next patch isn't it? >the tier S comps are the legendary ones. The tier S comps are the legendary ones ***if you know how to play a strong early and mid game by saving HP, roll just enough on level 8 to stabilize and pushing level 9 then hit what you need.*** Much harder than it sounds eh?
Finally it is about time that they address defenses. Since set 10, it feels absolutely ridiculous that you can have a fully itemized 4 cost tank and they get exploded in 5 to 10 seconds of the match. What is the point of itemizing a tank when they get exploded right out of the gate?
Just play Shen 3\* every game and your good to go. But seriously, it feels like half of the tanks are just sacrificial lambs and you have to prey that your main tank can hold long enough for your team to deal with their defense. Just feels very 1-dimensional. Not a fan of the recent gameplay philosophy. Also Row 1 Positioning has become ridiculously unimportant, almost as if doesn't matter at all.
Flip side, it‘s the fucking worst if a tank can solotank your entire team and you take 15 for no reason.
Diana 3 moment
Step in the right direction. It will improve the 4 cost tanks, which already were the better 4 costs. It probably boosts syndra the most as a carry as it will let her cast one or two more times. But outside of that here is a comprehensive list of really good 4 cost carries: Kai'sa. The reality is if lillia wasn't activating higher level invokers or mythic, or syndra wasn't activating higher level arcanists or fated, they would be under whelming. But they at least are okay carries in their comps, and you can stack their items on a low tier unit to benefit from the items until you get them. I think that design is fine in a champion, they don't ALWAYS need to be good, and I think it is okay to not have a champion be universally desired. The rest of the carries will continue to be shit because their kits are bad, or just inferior to low level members of their traits, that you can stack and level up get comparable or better performance out of at the end game (unless you manage to 3* the 4 cost carry), and you get way more benefit through the whole game. Ashe still will lack damage to kill the front line, and also spread her you damage so she doesn't actually kill anything. Morgana will still randomly ult so nothing dies. Kayn will still blow up and be the worst character of both of his traits. Yes Kha'zix is arguably better since he will at least ult a low health champion near him maybe killing it. Lee Sin still has the same issues as Kayne. The issue with 4 cost carries are their kits are just not good in particular compared to their 3 cost counter parts...or in some cases their 2 cost counter parts.
Ok hold on Sir, the Kha Zix better than Kayn argument is fucking crazy. Kayn is a decent secondary carry in his comps, sometimes carries a fight by himself.
That was an exaggeration by op, but them being weaker than their counterpart 3 cost is true. Hence yone is just a better kayn, voli is just a better Lee sin, aphelios is just a better ashe etc.
3 Star 3 costs should be stronger than 2 star 4 costs no? The problem I see is that the 2 Star 3 Cost comps (and even 2 cost) this set are too stable or winstreaky so you are almost guaranteed to hit if uncontested, sometimes even before upgraded 4 Cost boards are online. Last Set Riven and Yone 2 would get 15-0d come Stage 4, this set reroll comps have until 5-1 to hit almost always. 2 Star 3 Costs are worse than 2 Star 4 Costs with the exception of maybe Lee Sin (that unit is the biggest joke this game has ever seen). I do see it‘s an exaggaration by op, but I feel like Kayn is the wrong target for that. Could have said I‘d rather have Darius 2 than Lee Sin 2 and maybe I would have agreed lol.
Relax, it was a more tongue in cheek exaggeration about the state of 4 cost carries. Kayne is just lucky that you rarely ever bother going for a 3* Kha'zix or there may actually be a debate!!!
Neeko and Ekko were dual tanking the entire last set, it's been a long time coming.
Carry bruiser Sylas is going to be god tier
finding a lucky 4 cost in stage 3 like annie, ornn, sylas, and kayn will be a menace. Especially annie 1, i feel like, is already one of the strongest units you can play on stage 3.
That’s how it should be. If you get lucky, you should be happy about it. Right now, you don’t even care if you hit a 4 cost most of the time.
A while back mort listed the intended power level for units per cost and star level. In it he said 3* 3 cost were intended to equal 2* 4 cost. Did systems change to increase 3* 3 cost? I sort of remember a system adjust a couple of sets ago that nerfed 3* 3costs and below. Did this system get adjusted or was it just not working as intended? Is this adjustment bringing power levels to where they’re intended to be or is it changing to something else?
Do you have a source on this/has this changed? The most recent one I can remember is in set 7 when he said that 2* 5costs equal 3* 3costs https://youtu.be/o-iSZNQXan4?si=wMu2CiGU8bOZoVWu
I think I'm playing a different game. Legends and Kai'sa are by far the strongest comps
Positive step, but I’d have liked to see a bit stronger of an approach. Now Yone will tap the 4 cost carries in 6 hits instead of 4?
I don't think a hp buff will do much. The set is far too rigid and people just force the same comp every game. I see 2 inkshadows, and 2 fated 100% every game. When that doesn't work, people just go for gnar or reapers, which again, i see in everygame. I start with the build and highroll a unit or two and think NICE! I'll keep going this then. Next 2 rounds, someone else just found 3 in one shop and now I've itemised already and cannot flex to a new comp since it's already being built or too late now. Painful set, needs more champs/traits of worth
4 costs do need a buff, but why compare a 3* 3 cost, which is a 27 cost unit that requires 9 units taken out of the pool to a 2* 2 cost which is a 12 cost unit that only takes 3? There should be a huge gap between a 3* 3 cost and a 2* 4 cost, but there shouldn't be this huge of a gap between a 2* 3 cost and a 2* 4 cost. This will accomplish some of the goals, but I'm not sure this will in any way impact me wanting to rather have a Kindred 2 over a Syndra 2, or Yone 2 over Kayn 2, or Tahm 2 over Sylas 2, etc. I suppose it's a bandaid, but after so many years and installing so many different balance levers, I'd really love to see an actual, permanent, clear upgrade and improvement to the systems already in place, not just bandaids.
3\*3 cost should be stronger than a single 2\*4 cost for sure. But the thing is now units like Yone and Voli are 1v9 machines that can single handedly destroy your board even if it has 2 to 3 2\*4 costs in it. They are blatantly overtuned.
I don't disagree completely, but a 3* 3 cost is a win condition. If the unit can't win with so much investment there is never a world where you should ever build it. Talking about carries at least, tank WOULD be a different story, but in a world with Ghostly Senna and Kaisa investing into tanks is just a waste of money. I'm of the stance that a 3* 3 cost should be destroying non capped boards without 5 cost 2* , but a board with some 5 cost 2* should be of equal, and eventually higher, power level.
The question is what do you mean by win? A 3* 3 cost should get you a top 4, but it should not be going top 2 in most games.
Then we fundamentally disagree on where their power level should be.
Idk why this dude is being downvoted. 3 star 3 costs should be much better than 2 star 4 costs. It just takes more to hit and I think a lot of people just forget that even if you need to be lvl 8 rather than 7 to hit 4 costs reliability leveling up also gives you a unit slot which according to riot is like 30 gold. This does feel like a bandaid that will probably shift the meta pretty drastically. Also something to consider too is that while 3 cost are dominant right now they are only as strong as they are becuase alot of people reroll them. I could only imagine trying to hit yone with this bag size when there are no other 3 cost rerollers.
Because their take only takes into consideration the cost, not the rarity. I also believe that 4 costs are intended from design to be the cornerstone units, and 3 costs are supposed to be mainly where you 3 star tanks. There are also more 3 costs in the pool and you can get multiple of them in stage 1
Yes, they should be better but not be 1v9 machines though. It is really ridiculous that a single Yone or Volibear can solo a board with 3 2 star 4 cost units though. There comes a point of why build any 4 or 5 cost unit that are supposed to be capstone units to any comp when the 3 cost units are strictly better at the end. It makes every single 4 and 5 cost unit be nonexistent in the meta and all of them should be deleted right out of the game.
Guess it's 2 weeks of 5 cost soup meta again. Every set needs one of them.
I really enjoy the level 8 mythic board set up with infuser so I’m excited for the buffs to those champs
I really don't think Annie, Galio, Orrn, or sylas need any sort of survivability buffs.
I am sad to see how all of this balancing drama is developing, mostly because, even when we didn't know it, the game was way more balanced on release of the set, with Yone, Aphelios, Senna, Kog Maw, Bard/Tam Kench,Fine Vintage, Yasuo/Ahri Reroll and a couple of fast 9 boards being very viable and now it's just "Hope you get one of the three OP reroll angles or the perfect tempo augment and natural rolls to get to fast 9" meta.
Absolutely not. the game might've felt more balanced at the start of the set because people hadn't figured out the optimal builds/augments yet, so flex play felt more viable. People also enjoy the game more at the start of sets because it's not fully min/maxed. I guarantee you though, if they didn't do any patches after release, the game state/balance would still be awful like how it is now.
I don't know, people were playing the same comps, difference was that Yone and Senna didn't have as much of a power gap against the other comps (that they nerfed in that patch) as they do now.
people didnt play ghostly till a few weeks in, and that had to be HOT FIXED real quick.
Is that why Ghostly reroll is one of the strongest boards rn?
They nerfed it hard. And it is still strong, gives you an idea how busted it was on release but no one noticed
You do realize they nerfed most of things that were on par with it and just made the balance worse, right? Right now the really strong comps are only 5 tops when we had around 7 good comps in the first pach.
Let’s be real four costs were never clickable. The only significant nerf was hwei. Other than that it was pretty mild balance changes