League is designed around the assumption of a jungler, which means you have 4 more characters to fit in 3 lanes. As such, one of those lanes has to have 2 people in it. It makes more sense to place 2 people bottom in order to have more control over the early game objective the Dragon. However, it is not uncommon to see these lanes shift around in competitive play, often pitting the 2 person team against 1 person in order to order to gain an advantage.
That said, I don't personally consider lane assignments to be the meta. There are fewer possible lane setups than dota, which features the ability to trilane if you so choose, but there are not really any fewer viable champions, nor fewer strategies you can play within the 1-1-1-2 lane setup.
The "meta" argument is always semantics and is dumb. The core part of the argument is "are lane setups flexible in League," and the answer is no, at least not relative to DotA. There are fewer champs in league than heroes in DotA that have multiple valid lanes, and fewer valid lane setups. Whether or not you consider lane setup a "meta" or not pretty much depends on which game you started with because the term implies there is or has been choice in the matter. The lanes in vogue in DotA 2 are the meta because what is played shifts around, but for League you could consider the 1-1-1-2 as much the meta as "buying items" is the meta.
As for fewer viable champions and strategies, I'm not sure of that at all. TI3 had 89 heroes picked (of 102). In the Season 3 world championships, there were a total of 69 champs picked/banned out of a larger pool. Slightly less heroes picked with more rigid roles and lanes doesn't imply that there is greater flexibility in strategies at the top level, just from the stats. Doesn't necessarily mean either game is more fun or better competitively.
I'm not sure your pick/ban stats are entirely fair since TI3 had 2.5 time the games as the season 3 world championships (158 vs 63) and there was still a champ with 100% pick ban rate (which to be fair the season 3 championships had 2 of). In fact the percentage of the available pool used per game (calculated solely on available pool used and number of games) was higher in the season 3 world championships.
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Having a system where you can buy in-game advantages like Runes with your experience points is so totally antithetical to my entire idea of what would be "fair" in a multiplayer game that it honestly surprises me when people advocate it.
I'm well aware that this means I think most multiplayer games are unfair, I just don't... get... why.
FlatEricLeaves from the vine, Falling so slowLike fragile, tiny shells, Drifting in the foamRegistered Userregular
Personally I think masteries are absolutely a good idea, assuming all players involved are level 30 or equal level, thus having unlocked all or the same number of mastery points. I like the idea of being able to tailor a champ to your playstyle, though whether Riot's current system allows that is debatable.
i think the implementation is maybe a little spotty but i like the idea that my ezreal can be different from someone else's ezreal based on what i have put into those pages
Neither runes nor masteries are inherently bad, but Riot's slow metering of them through IP or leveling is increasingly a negative, beyond what they were when the game launched. This is especially the case the more they strive to cement the jungle role, as there is a core part of LoL strategy that is prohibitively difficult or outright impossible for a new player to perform even if they are aware of it before picking the game up. There are top-tier junglers that you simply cannot use until T3 runes, and that is ridiculous.
Runes and masteries are an alright system for a MobA without the IP sink aspect. The implementation pre-30 is annoyingly terrible (esp. regarding jungling) and the grind is bad. The base idea of having some flexibility going into the game isn't bad, though again, I'd love it if it was easier to identify the enemies runes and masteries besides guessing based on the meta and what numbers are green. My preference would be all summoner spells available by default, runes removed, and masteries implemented from the start. Or if you have to unlock things, at least start with a complete T1 page and a couple default masteries unlocked so you can jungle.
As for variability: 89 picks just in the group stage of TI3, which was "only" 112 games. Comparatively, you have 69 hero picks in the LPL summer league, which was 84 games. I'm going to guess that the 69 in LCL and the 69 in World's weren't too different besides possible patch switchups but I'm not willing to do the analysis on that one. It's also pretty obvious that the amount of heroes picked vs. number of games is very nonlinear (In a league match, the first game adds 16 to the champs picked/banned, and obviously the rest do not). I would say that the comparison is about as fair as it's going to get; I would doubt that a League tournament with 30 more games than LPL summer would be likely to add 20 new heroes to the pool, for the same reason that there are 69 picks in both Season 3 and the LPL summer league.
Even past that, I still doubt that the number of 1-1-1-2 setups is similar to the number of potential lane setups of DotA 2. I'm not trying to say it's bad that roles are more rigid; it's just a different experience. I just think it is sort of having your cake and eating it to claim that the game with such rigidly defined roles it's entirely conceivable for League to implement queuing for specific lanes is also as flexible as DotA.
Having a system where you can buy in-game advantages like Runes with your experience points is so totally antithetical to my entire idea of what would be "fair" in a multiplayer game that it honestly surprises me when people advocate it.
I'm well aware that this means I think most multiplayer games are unfair, I just don't... get... why.
I thought like this until the idea of smurfing was brought up to me.
It's sort of a pain in the ass to smurf past the first couple of games. It's not like you can't, but the pool of people you can effectively smurf against remains pretty small unless you are going to grind for them marks.
It absolutely IS a resource sink, among other things, but it does disincetivize smurfing.
I don't know that it is a GREAT system for doing that, but it serves that purpose.
Good smurf detection also does that, though. I mean, in both League and DotA on alternate accounts, I was playing level 30s/in V.high queue (back when you could check that) within maybe a dozen matches, and I doubt the smurf detection on either has gotten worse/more relaxed. If you can detect a smurf and say "put him against people with better runes," you can (and obviously, both games did) just put me against people who actually know how to play.
Having a system where you can buy in-game advantages like Runes with your experience points is so totally antithetical to my entire idea of what would be "fair" in a multiplayer game that it honestly surprises me when people advocate it.
I'm well aware that this means I think most multiplayer games are unfair, I just don't... get... why.
I thought like this until the idea of smurfing was brought up to me.
It's sort of a pain in the ass to smurf past the first couple of games. It's not like you can't, but the pool of people you can effectively smurf against remains pretty small unless you are going to grind for them marks.
It absolutely IS a resource sink, among other things, but it does disincetivize smurfing.
I don't know that it is a GREAT system for doing that, but it serves that purpose.
This is because LoL has smurf matchmaking and matches you against other smurfs the more ridiculously you do.
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
chunka kunkka might be favorite thing in all mobas
Armlet Daed SB ES has far higher chunk potential. It's also really untenable.
However, putting more points in ES's W over Q isn't actually bad in melee lanes since the mana cost is lower and it's a significant amount of extra damage per rank (a full autoattack of damage per rank adds up).
Armlet Daed SB ES has far higher chunk potential. It's also really untenable.
However, putting more points in ES's W over Q isn't actually bad in melee lanes since the mana cost is lower and it's a significant amount of extra damage per rank (a full autoattack of damage per rank adds up).
As for variability: 89 picks just in the group stage of TI3, which was "only" 112 games. Comparatively, you have 69 hero picks in the LPL summer league, which was 84 games. I'm going to guess that the 69 in LCL and the 69 in World's weren't too different besides possible patch switchups but I'm not willing to do the analysis on that one. It's also pretty obvious that the amount of heroes picked vs. number of games is very nonlinear (In a league match, the first game adds 16 to the champs picked/banned, and obviously the rest do not). I would say that the comparison is about as fair as it's going to get; I would doubt that a League tournament with 30 more games than LPL summer would be likely to add 20 new heroes to the pool, for the same reason that there are 69 picks in both Season 3 and the LPL summer league.
Well, I disagree with your assertion that that picks of one region are representative of the diversity of the picks of a tournament of all regions but I am not really willing to argue this with you mostly because I agree with your point that the dota meta is more flexible.
Armlet Daed SB ES has far higher chunk potential. It's also really untenable.
However, putting more points in ES's W over Q isn't actually bad in melee lanes since the mana cost is lower and it's a significant amount of extra damage per rank (a full autoattack of damage per rank adds up).
but es only chunks 1 dude
that ain't manly enough
did you get the admiral his rapier
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Armlet Daed SB ES has far higher chunk potential. It's also really untenable.
However, putting more points in ES's W over Q isn't actually bad in melee lanes since the mana cost is lower and it's a significant amount of extra damage per rank (a full autoattack of damage per rank adds up).
but es only chunks 1 dude
that ain't manly enough
did you get the admiral his rapier
haha god no
but that would be amazing in a complete stomp
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Having a system where you can buy in-game advantages like Runes with your experience points is so totally antithetical to my entire idea of what would be "fair" in a multiplayer game that it honestly surprises me when people advocate it.
I'm well aware that this means I think most multiplayer games are unfair, I just don't... get... why.
I thought like this until the idea of smurfing was brought up to me.
It's sort of a pain in the ass to smurf past the first couple of games. It's not like you can't, but the pool of people you can effectively smurf against remains pretty small unless you are going to grind for them marks.
It absolutely IS a resource sink, among other things, but it does disincetivize smurfing.
I don't know that it is a GREAT system for doing that, but it serves that purpose.
As for variability: 89 picks just in the group stage of TI3, which was "only" 112 games. Comparatively, you have 69 hero picks in the LPL summer league, which was 84 games. I'm going to guess that the 69 in LCL and the 69 in World's weren't too different besides possible patch switchups but I'm not willing to do the analysis on that one. It's also pretty obvious that the amount of heroes picked vs. number of games is very nonlinear (In a league match, the first game adds 16 to the champs picked/banned, and obviously the rest do not). I would say that the comparison is about as fair as it's going to get; I would doubt that a League tournament with 30 more games than LPL summer would be likely to add 20 new heroes to the pool, for the same reason that there are 69 picks in both Season 3 and the LPL summer league.
Well, I disagree with your assertion that that picks of one region are representative of the diversity of the picks of a tournament of all regions but I am not really willing to argue this with you mostly because I agree with your point that the dota meta is more flexible.
It seems like most major DotA events are pretty international (besides the general isolation of China) while League is generally very split up regionally, so it's very difficult to compare tournaments. Given there were only 10 1 pick/ban and 6 2 pick/ban heroes in TI3 group stage, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that a random half of those games would have more heroes picks than League, but there's really nothing to do but eyeball that sort of thing without spending way too much time parsing the totally unsorted data for many tournaments.
So what I'm picking up is basically the jungle is seen as a super reliable and essential source of farm across all skill levels.
It's interesting that the aggressive trilane is not a big thing in league, as in as a casual outsider it seems like the conversation is more about 1-1-1-2 lanes with the tactical discussion being more focused on heroes. Do these runes and mysteries you guys are talking about play a big part in the meta?
Jungle is kinda hard at low skill levels because you are new and don't know how to do it and you'll probably just suicide to a monster or try to gank and get killed by a tower. But later you see a jungler in pretty much every game. Junglers tend not to get as much money as laners, but it's a lot better than if you try to share a lane with someone else.
Trilane isn't really a thing, since XP gets spread out too thinly and if the enemy team responds properly they will quickly outlevel you. That said, you often do see junglers just camping a lane, essentially making it a trilane, but it's not "official".
Runes basically give you bonus stats. More attack damage, more armour, stuff like that. Masteries are kind of similar but have a bit more variety in what they do, and you can't stack everything into one stat like with runes (not that you'd want to in most cases). So you can do stuff like, play someone who is usually an autoattacker as a mage, or increase your attack damage to last hit easier, or beef up your defenses so harassment doesn't hurt as much.
Really though when you're just starting out you can ignore runes and masteries.
Speaking of smurfs, apparently I had two League accounts (one under milski, which is not my level 30 account).
I logged on to it and among other oddities on an old level 5 account, my display name is a string of complete and random gibberish that greatly exceeds the character limit. I kinda like it.
I ate an engineer
0
Options
Big Red Tiebeautiful clydesdale style feettoo hot to trotRegistered Userregular
Masteries are significant for making mage Tristana threatening in lane, given that she's one of the few champs left with the super high legacy AP ratios. It's still a gimmick, but her E has relatively huge base damage and a 100% AP ratio.
Yeah from a new player perspective I gleaned that they're not that great until 30 but it was more like, watching a pro game, is the selection of runes/mysteries seen as an interesting part or not really?
Selection of runes/masteries is occasionally interesting in that new setups emerge and there are some interesting optimizations regarding how fast you can clear the jungle and how safely. But it's not *that* amazing; it's sort of like seeing if a dude starts with a ring of regen or a few branches (the gold value is a little higher, granted).
They are important because they are free stats at the point where minor stat boosts have the most impact.
They are not super interesting because they also aren't going to profoundly impact high level play, and the standards aren't going to be deviated from significantly in almost any situation. While the specific way a carry runes and masteries up with AD and armor pen is important, it's also going to be similar enough to what other carries are doing to not mention too much investigation; again, it's sorta like starting item builds in DotA. They affect the early game a lot, but it's not what the casters are going to spend the warmup phase talking about (unless you're watching Purge casts a Pub or something where you get to laugh at the dumb starts).
Posts
That said, I don't personally consider lane assignments to be the meta. There are fewer possible lane setups than dota, which features the ability to trilane if you so choose, but there are not really any fewer viable champions, nor fewer strategies you can play within the 1-1-1-2 lane setup.
As for fewer viable champions and strategies, I'm not sure of that at all. TI3 had 89 heroes picked (of 102). In the Season 3 world championships, there were a total of 69 champs picked/banned out of a larger pool. Slightly less heroes picked with more rigid roles and lanes doesn't imply that there is greater flexibility in strategies at the top level, just from the stats. Doesn't necessarily mean either game is more fun or better competitively.
I'm well aware that this means I think most multiplayer games are unfair, I just don't... get... why.
Runes, on the other hand, I can't stand.
As for variability: 89 picks just in the group stage of TI3, which was "only" 112 games. Comparatively, you have 69 hero picks in the LPL summer league, which was 84 games. I'm going to guess that the 69 in LCL and the 69 in World's weren't too different besides possible patch switchups but I'm not willing to do the analysis on that one. It's also pretty obvious that the amount of heroes picked vs. number of games is very nonlinear (In a league match, the first game adds 16 to the champs picked/banned, and obviously the rest do not). I would say that the comparison is about as fair as it's going to get; I would doubt that a League tournament with 30 more games than LPL summer would be likely to add 20 new heroes to the pool, for the same reason that there are 69 picks in both Season 3 and the LPL summer league.
Even past that, I still doubt that the number of 1-1-1-2 setups is similar to the number of potential lane setups of DotA 2. I'm not trying to say it's bad that roles are more rigid; it's just a different experience. I just think it is sort of having your cake and eating it to claim that the game with such rigidly defined roles it's entirely conceivable for League to implement queuing for specific lanes is also as flexible as DotA.
I thought like this until the idea of smurfing was brought up to me.
It's sort of a pain in the ass to smurf past the first couple of games. It's not like you can't, but the pool of people you can effectively smurf against remains pretty small unless you are going to grind for them marks.
It absolutely IS a resource sink, among other things, but it does disincetivize smurfing.
I don't know that it is a GREAT system for doing that, but it serves that purpose.
This is because LoL has smurf matchmaking and matches you against other smurfs the more ridiculously you do.
daedelus+shadowblade and boat for MASSIVE CHUNKING
However, putting more points in ES's W over Q isn't actually bad in melee lanes since the mana cost is lower and it's a significant amount of extra damage per rank (a full autoattack of damage per rank adds up).
Should you play Smite? Here are HiRez's Kelly and Bart to sell it to you.
but es only chunks 1 dude
that ain't manly enough
Well, I disagree with your assertion that that picks of one region are representative of the diversity of the picks of a tournament of all regions but I am not really willing to argue this with you mostly because I agree with your point that the dota meta is more flexible.
did you get the admiral his rapier
haha god no
but that would be amazing in a complete stomp
but Smurfing is also a form of cheating
It seems like most major DotA events are pretty international (besides the general isolation of China) while League is generally very split up regionally, so it's very difficult to compare tournaments. Given there were only 10 1 pick/ban and 6 2 pick/ban heroes in TI3 group stage, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that a random half of those games would have more heroes picks than League, but there's really nothing to do but eyeball that sort of thing without spending way too much time parsing the totally unsorted data for many tournaments.
It's kinda bad mannered and unsportsmanlike, but I don't really see how that's cheating
So what I'm picking up is basically the jungle is seen as a super reliable and essential source of farm across all skill levels.
It's interesting that the aggressive trilane is not a big thing in league, as in as a casual outsider it seems like the conversation is more about 1-1-1-2 lanes with the tactical discussion being more focused on heroes. Do these runes and mysteries you guys are talking about play a big part in the meta?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Trilane isn't really a thing, since XP gets spread out too thinly and if the enemy team responds properly they will quickly outlevel you. That said, you often do see junglers just camping a lane, essentially making it a trilane, but it's not "official".
Runes basically give you bonus stats. More attack damage, more armour, stuff like that. Masteries are kind of similar but have a bit more variety in what they do, and you can't stack everything into one stat like with runes (not that you'd want to in most cases). So you can do stuff like, play someone who is usually an autoattacker as a mage, or increase your attack damage to last hit easier, or beef up your defenses so harassment doesn't hurt as much.
Really though when you're just starting out you can ignore runes and masteries.
I logged on to it and among other oddities on an old level 5 account, my display name is a string of complete and random gibberish that greatly exceeds the character limit. I kinda like it.
it's more about buying a deathcap
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
It helps early game.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
The thing is, they can help you get to late game in a good position.
They are not super interesting because they also aren't going to profoundly impact high level play, and the standards aren't going to be deviated from significantly in almost any situation. While the specific way a carry runes and masteries up with AD and armor pen is important, it's also going to be similar enough to what other carries are doing to not mention too much investigation; again, it's sorta like starting item builds in DotA. They affect the early game a lot, but it's not what the casters are going to spend the warmup phase talking about (unless you're watching Purge casts a Pub or something where you get to laugh at the dumb starts).