I don't know how many of you play LoR competitively, but I just today found a post on the LoRCompetitive subreddit that has an article explaining all of the best resources available for a competitive player.
Here's the link. Absolute gold mine of info for anyone trying to climb the ladder.
I also find this kind of gamemode fun, getting away from standart and facing the same exact deck 20 times in a row
Maybe the problem in these modes is just its too random, some times we have to pick one of the worst cards ever while may end facing an opponent with perfect synergy, also likely many players are not interested into learning these gamemodes, like cards that are terrible in standart but good in draft, and lastly its the rewards, i don't think anyone other than a veteran will ever achieve high rewards, combined with the last factor (No interest in learning) they may never open again after first try.
I literally just had this happen to me. Opponent had a deck that was literally all just puffcap synergy. The 4/4 that gives two puffcap spells - he played that guy three times. Peddler. At least two copies of Hexcore Foundry, etc. The turn before I was going to attack for lethal, he pumped a bazillion puffcaps into my deck, and I went from nearly full health to -20 during the next turn. Freaking absurd to have to deal with that kind of junk in a draft-style format.
Expedition can be summed up quite easily as this: Get offered puffcaps, or lose.
Yeah, any draft mode is about the challenge of building a decent deck from random stuff. But it happens too often in expedition that your random stuff just doesn't work.
This is a good thing, guys. They are not permanently removing a Draft gaming experience. They are going to re-create it in a different way later.
Yes, there will be a gap where nothing exists in that space, but hopefully when it comes back, it will be a much better version of draft.
MTG and Eternal did draft in a way that was significantly more compelling than Expeditions (and in Eternal, you even got to keep any cards you drafted as a permanent part of your collection - not saying the LoR should do that part though - especially not with champions).
It looks like a very solid fit for Soraka, who really desperately needed another partner option besides Tahm. The biggest problem for the entire archetype, however, is that a 3-mana card, Culling Strike, kills everything in it.
This needed spellshield in order to be a viable wincon. And I don't think it would be unreasonable to give it spellshield. If Starshaping (which heals your nexus 5) is allowed to find you a Great Beyond (9-cost with elusive and spellshield), then this guy is allowed to have spellshield also.
It is totally normal patch cadence which is to say they can patch what they want when they want.
Pretty sure the Braum overall was pre expansion and that literally changed how that character played.
Instead we got a Kindred mana reduction, pretty nice but not exactly game changing.
Its usually more exciting when they say reduced the number of jarvan strikes from 4 to 3 or if they had undone the nerf on TF to make him level able again.
But I'm not gonna spend all night going over why Champs are bad again, and how they could be better. Because those changes won't get made as long as people think that flipping as a lose condition is unacceptable in a game about leveling Champs.
How is any of this related to patch timing? I mean, yeah, plenty of champions are weak/unplayable. But it's literally impossible to have all of the champions be in the meta. No matter how well they balance champions, there will always be some that are stronger and some that are weaker. It's completely unavoidable. The ones that are stronger will be meta and the others won't.
So maybe you buff the weaker ones, making them become stronger. Well, now those buffed champs probably become the new meta, while the previously stronger champs drop out of the meta.
So, do you then buff the champs that dropped out of the meta to make them stronger again? Yes?
Great, now they take over the meta again and the other champs get knocked out of the meta ... I think you can see where this is going. I'll say it again - no matter how close to balanced all of the champions are, some of them will always be stronger than the others, even if it isn't by much. And the nature of a competitive game is that the strongest champions are the ones that become meta.
Side note: the current meta is mostly champion-focused decks. Even if you're using the mobalytics tier list (which I do NOT recommend), 12 out of their 15 meta decks are champion focused. The only ones that aren't are Pirates, Poros, and Spiders.
As meisterz39 pointed out, they explicitly said they are doing balance changes with the expac launch.
This is a completely normal patch cadence. Patches every two or three weeks, alternating between bug-fix patch and balance patch. Last time was a balance patch. This time it's a bug fix patch. Next time is a balance patch + expac.
The only way that Pirates can claim winrates like that is if you are doing data for the entire ladder.
But that's no longer a "meta" anymore, because people can climb with literally any deck through Iron, Bronze, and even Silver as well. You can technically still climb with a winrate below 50% through those tiers, meaning that people's deck choices (and therefore match results) are not relevant to "the meta" for any tier less than Gold. And most meta reports ignore Gold as well, focusing only on what people are playing in Platinum, Diamond, and Masters.
The decks in Plat, Diamond, and Masters are the decks that have proven themselves to be strong and viable in "the meta" as it stands right now.
And I can tell you with complete certainty that Pirates is NOT in the meta for Plat, Diamond and Masters. It's not a good deck right now, unless you're fighting mostly bad decks or bad players. Sure, it will post great winrates through Iron, Bronze, and Silver, but not past there.
I browsed through three different meta reports (who all filter their data for only Plat+) and Pirates is not even on the list for any of them, in any form - neither playrate nor winrate. Even in this cheeky article, featuring 26 "high-performing blends ... for the discerning part-time ladderista," none of the decks is the traditional pirates list (though it does have a pirates list that uses Ionia instead of Noxus).
EDIT - I found meta data where Pirates shows up at about a 54.5% winrate (and a 0.9% playrate in that data set). I only recently resumed playing LoR, and today was my first time breaking back into Gold IV (I had to start at the very bottom of Iron). So, I decided to test the waters with Pirates at the bottom of Gold. I do have experience playing it in the past, and my opponents didn't strike me as particularly good - but even so, I did win 3 in a row. So, maybe I'm being too hard on the deck. It's better than I thought it was.
I guess you can count Scouts too, but that's mostly a Demacia deck with like 6-9 Bilgewater cards.
It depends on the version. I've been playing a version that doesn't include Bannerman, and goes instead for more Bilgewater cards, like Marai Warden, Island Navigator, and Jagged Butcher.
Edit - Here's yet another Meta Report. I like the way this one gives a bunch of little snapshots of different aspects of the meta, with pretty good visualizations.
I honestly don't know where you get your meta reports from. Maybe just browsing the tier list on Mobalytics? Wherever you get your reports, you need a new source.
Here you go, all gift wrapped and served on the proverbial platter. That guy posts a new report every Monday to the LorCompetitive subreddit.
If you don't like that one, Dr. Lor also makes a weekly meta report. He's late for this week, but here's a link that will take you to his list of reports.
Now, with all that out of the way, I'll summarize what the first link says about the meta.
Top 6 decks by playrate (in order): Scouts, Darkness, Lurk, Kennen Ahri (Shurima), Zilean Zerath, Kennen Ahri (SI).
Top 7 decks by winrate (in order): Kennen Ahri (Shurima), Taric Pantheon, Kennen Ahri (SI), Fizz Lulu, Scouts, Shyvana Pantheon, Elise Trundle
Not exactly dripping with Bilgewater. Also, no spiders at all. No pirates either.
You were totally reasonable to think that Falling Comet would work there. I actually would have expected that to work as well, but I think I know now why it failed. I also think I know why they worded and coded Ancient Hourglass and Entomb the way they did. So, let me explain:
Both of these spells have the same wording, and both of them replace a unit with a landmark. However, they do not transform the unit into a landmark. They obliterate the unit and then summon a totally new landmark that holds a new unit with identical stats to the original unit.
Here's the key - when a unit is obliterated, it is completely and utterly removed from the game. You can never get it back in any way shape or form, even with revive effects. It's just completely gone. So, you targeted a unit that was on the board, but that unit got entirely obliterated from the game. It was not transformed into the landmark. So, when the obliterate happened, your spell's target disappeared. It was the same effect as the unit being killed off and not replaced.
This is why the spells use the Obliterate keyword - they automatically negate any spell that targets the unit they protect. (Though the opponent could still respond afterwards with a fast or burst spell, as always ... but the original spell will always be negated by either of these protective spells.) Note - I've been playing the game for about a year and a half, and I actually just learned something by thinking through this question.
TL;DR - The target of your spell was obliterated, so your spell no longer had a target and therefore fizzled.
We might be in a situation where they could revert the nerf to Relentless Pursuit and let it be fast again. That could be one way to make Demacia champs more relevant (especially Lucian, since it's literally his champ spell). Poor Lucian sitting in the bottom half of all champs, with just under a 48% winrate overall. He's seen better days.
"But, over the past few months I’ve seen most of his posts come out quite differently. Much less arrogant and more engaging. During this time I’ve seen other people on the forum remain caustic towards Nifty"
His main posts (like the one above) - you are probably right about those. If I had seen this thread without any previous context, I would probably not think too badly of it. But Nifty doesn't just make main posts - and when he responds to other people's posts, he's still pretty caustic. He also rarely actually interacts with the ideas other people bring up, but instead just keeps repeating his same ideas, as though he's incredulous that other people don't agree with him.
(To Nifty - sorry to discuss you in third-person tone. Feel free to respond to this, if you like.)
The game is far from dead. And the thing Grapplr did in that video was literally a joke based on a single game error, probably in response to comments very similar to what Nifty is doing here.
And incidentally, it's not harmless to make a thread with this kind of theme - if enough people start proclaiming loudly enough that a game is dead, then potential new players might hear that and decide not to even try it, because no one wants to be in a dead game. In other words, regardless of the actual state of the game, if enough people start claiming it's dead, it becomes a self-fulfilling proclamation.
I just recently got back into playing, and I'm definitely having fun.
I think I'm a bit weird in this small community, given that I actually play on ladder, and I don't really get stressed about it. After the recent balance changes, I played a fair bit with Daring Poros, because I will always have a soft spot for those guys. My first ever Masters was accomplished with Poros, back when no one thought they were any good.
Still, I did want to play a bit with some actual champions, so I have also been using Lulu/Ahri and enjoying that as well.
When not competing on the ladder, I've managed to clear Path of Champions with the first 5 champs and got the rewards and all. It was definitely engaging, but I'm not sure how much motivation I'll have to keep playing that. At least not as much as I had for playing the old, original Lab of Legends.
What about the rest of you fine folks? What are you enjoying these days?
I don't know how many of you play LoR competitively, but I just today found a post on the LoRCompetitive subreddit that has an article explaining all of the best resources available for a competitive player.
Here's the link. Absolute gold mine of info for anyone trying to climb the ladder.
https://masteringruneterra.com/lor-data-sites-part1/
I literally just had this happen to me. Opponent had a deck that was literally all just puffcap synergy. The 4/4 that gives two puffcap spells - he played that guy three times. Peddler. At least two copies of Hexcore Foundry, etc. The turn before I was going to attack for lethal, he pumped a bazillion puffcaps into my deck, and I went from nearly full health to -20 during the next turn. Freaking absurd to have to deal with that kind of junk in a draft-style format.
Expedition can be summed up quite easily as this: Get offered puffcaps, or lose.
Yeah, any draft mode is about the challenge of building a decent deck from random stuff. But it happens too often in expedition that your random stuff just doesn't work.
This is a good thing, guys. They are not permanently removing a Draft gaming experience. They are going to re-create it in a different way later.
Yes, there will be a gap where nothing exists in that space, but hopefully when it comes back, it will be a much better version of draft.
MTG and Eternal did draft in a way that was significantly more compelling than Expeditions (and in Eternal, you even got to keep any cards you drafted as a permanent part of your collection - not saying the LoR should do that part though - especially not with champions).
It looks like a very solid fit for Soraka, who really desperately needed another partner option besides Tahm. The biggest problem for the entire archetype, however, is that a 3-mana card, Culling Strike, kills everything in it.
This needed spellshield in order to be a viable wincon. And I don't think it would be unreasonable to give it spellshield. If Starshaping (which heals your nexus 5) is allowed to find you a Great Beyond (9-cost with elusive and spellshield), then this guy is allowed to have spellshield also.
Super unique and cool idea though.
Attach: Double-Attack, as well as Attach: Elusive -- both of those are definitely going to be abused. I don't know yet how exactly, but they will be.
Some of these cards look VERY good.
How is any of this related to patch timing? I mean, yeah, plenty of champions are weak/unplayable. But it's literally impossible to have all of the champions be in the meta. No matter how well they balance champions, there will always be some that are stronger and some that are weaker. It's completely unavoidable. The ones that are stronger will be meta and the others won't.
So maybe you buff the weaker ones, making them become stronger. Well, now those buffed champs probably become the new meta, while the previously stronger champs drop out of the meta.
So, do you then buff the champs that dropped out of the meta to make them stronger again? Yes?
Great, now they take over the meta again and the other champs get knocked out of the meta ... I think you can see where this is going. I'll say it again - no matter how close to balanced all of the champions are, some of them will always be stronger than the others, even if it isn't by much. And the nature of a competitive game is that the strongest champions are the ones that become meta.
Side note: the current meta is mostly champion-focused decks. Even if you're using the mobalytics tier list (which I do NOT recommend), 12 out of their 15 meta decks are champion focused. The only ones that aren't are Pirates, Poros, and Spiders.
As meisterz39 pointed out, they explicitly said they are doing balance changes with the expac launch.
This is a completely normal patch cadence. Patches every two or three weeks, alternating between bug-fix patch and balance patch. Last time was a balance patch. This time it's a bug fix patch. Next time is a balance patch + expac.
Awesome! Expac incoming in 2 weeks.
The only way that Pirates can claim winrates like that is if you are doing data for the entire ladder.
But that's no longer a "meta" anymore, because people can climb with literally any deck through Iron, Bronze, and even Silver as well. You can technically still climb with a winrate below 50% through those tiers, meaning that people's deck choices (and therefore match results) are not relevant to "the meta" for any tier less than Gold. And most meta reports ignore Gold as well, focusing only on what people are playing in Platinum, Diamond, and Masters.
The decks in Plat, Diamond, and Masters are the decks that have proven themselves to be strong and viable in "the meta" as it stands right now.
And I can tell you with complete certainty that Pirates is NOT in the meta for Plat, Diamond and Masters. It's not a good deck right now, unless you're fighting mostly bad decks or bad players. Sure, it will post great winrates through Iron, Bronze, and Silver, but not past there.
I browsed through three different meta reports (who all filter their data for only Plat+) and Pirates is not even on the list for any of them, in any form - neither playrate nor winrate. Even in this cheeky article, featuring 26 "high-performing blends ... for the discerning part-time ladderista," none of the decks is the traditional pirates list (though it does have a pirates list that uses Ionia instead of Noxus).
EDIT - I found meta data where Pirates shows up at about a 54.5% winrate (and a 0.9% playrate in that data set). I only recently resumed playing LoR, and today was my first time breaking back into Gold IV (I had to start at the very bottom of Iron). So, I decided to test the waters with Pirates at the bottom of Gold. I do have experience playing it in the past, and my opponents didn't strike me as particularly good - but even so, I did win 3 in a row. So, maybe I'm being too hard on the deck. It's better than I thought it was.
It depends on the version. I've been playing a version that doesn't include Bannerman, and goes instead for more Bilgewater cards, like Marai Warden, Island Navigator, and Jagged Butcher.
Edit - Here's yet another Meta Report. I like the way this one gives a bunch of little snapshots of different aspects of the meta, with pretty good visualizations.
I honestly don't know where you get your meta reports from. Maybe just browsing the tier list on Mobalytics? Wherever you get your reports, you need a new source.
Here you go, all gift wrapped and served on the proverbial platter. That guy posts a new report every Monday to the LorCompetitive subreddit.
If you don't like that one, Dr. Lor also makes a weekly meta report. He's late for this week, but here's a link that will take you to his list of reports.
Now, with all that out of the way, I'll summarize what the first link says about the meta.
Top 6 decks by playrate (in order): Scouts, Darkness, Lurk, Kennen Ahri (Shurima), Zilean Zerath, Kennen Ahri (SI).
Top 7 decks by winrate (in order): Kennen Ahri (Shurima), Taric Pantheon, Kennen Ahri (SI), Fizz Lulu, Scouts, Shyvana Pantheon, Elise Trundle
Not exactly dripping with Bilgewater. Also, no spiders at all. No pirates either.
Saviors of Uldum was my favorite spoiler video (that song was REALLY good).
And the fact that it was probably the most even representation of all classes ... I think that was probably the peak of best balance for HS.
You were totally reasonable to think that Falling Comet would work there. I actually would have expected that to work as well, but I think I know now why it failed. I also think I know why they worded and coded Ancient Hourglass and Entomb the way they did. So, let me explain:
Both of these spells have the same wording, and both of them replace a unit with a landmark. However, they do not transform the unit into a landmark. They obliterate the unit and then summon a totally new landmark that holds a new unit with identical stats to the original unit.
Here's the key - when a unit is obliterated, it is completely and utterly removed from the game. You can never get it back in any way shape or form, even with revive effects. It's just completely gone. So, you targeted a unit that was on the board, but that unit got entirely obliterated from the game. It was not transformed into the landmark. So, when the obliterate happened, your spell's target disappeared. It was the same effect as the unit being killed off and not replaced.
This is why the spells use the Obliterate keyword - they automatically negate any spell that targets the unit they protect. (Though the opponent could still respond afterwards with a fast or burst spell, as always ... but the original spell will always be negated by either of these protective spells.) Note - I've been playing the game for about a year and a half, and I actually just learned something by thinking through this question.
TL;DR - The target of your spell was obliterated, so your spell no longer had a target and therefore fizzled.
We might be in a situation where they could revert the nerf to Relentless Pursuit and let it be fast again. That could be one way to make Demacia champs more relevant (especially Lucian, since it's literally his champ spell). Poor Lucian sitting in the bottom half of all champs, with just under a 48% winrate overall. He's seen better days.
I think it was this one. If not that exact one, it was very similar to that one.
"But, over the past few months I’ve seen most of his posts come out quite differently. Much less arrogant and more engaging. During this time I’ve seen other people on the forum remain caustic towards Nifty"
His main posts (like the one above) - you are probably right about those. If I had seen this thread without any previous context, I would probably not think too badly of it. But Nifty doesn't just make main posts - and when he responds to other people's posts, he's still pretty caustic. He also rarely actually interacts with the ideas other people bring up, but instead just keeps repeating his same ideas, as though he's incredulous that other people don't agree with him.
(To Nifty - sorry to discuss you in third-person tone. Feel free to respond to this, if you like.)
The game is far from dead. And the thing Grapplr did in that video was literally a joke based on a single game error, probably in response to comments very similar to what Nifty is doing here.
And incidentally, it's not harmless to make a thread with this kind of theme - if enough people start proclaiming loudly enough that a game is dead, then potential new players might hear that and decide not to even try it, because no one wants to be in a dead game. In other words, regardless of the actual state of the game, if enough people start claiming it's dead, it becomes a self-fulfilling proclamation.
I just recently got back into playing, and I'm definitely having fun.
I think I'm a bit weird in this small community, given that I actually play on ladder, and I don't really get stressed about it. After the recent balance changes, I played a fair bit with Daring Poros, because I will always have a soft spot for those guys. My first ever Masters was accomplished with Poros, back when no one thought they were any good.
Still, I did want to play a bit with some actual champions, so I have also been using Lulu/Ahri and enjoying that as well.
When not competing on the ladder, I've managed to clear Path of Champions with the first 5 champs and got the rewards and all. It was definitely engaging, but I'm not sure how much motivation I'll have to keep playing that. At least not as much as I had for playing the old, original Lab of Legends.
What about the rest of you fine folks? What are you enjoying these days?