Quote (Verius @ Aug 1 2010 09:41pm)
Ranga tego goscia na forum lola oznacza ze zostal wybrany przez riota jako ktos kto zna sie na grze zajebiscie, doradza im w sprawie balansu, gra od bety i takie tam, z pewnoscia jest zalamany, ze nie zgadzasz sie z jego lista. To nie kwestia gustu, te listy odwzorowuja wybory wszystkich dobrych graczy. Ani Ty, ani ja nie jestemy dobrymi graczami, ale oni wszyscy nie moga sie chyba mylic?
gdyby te tierlisty byly "prawdziwe", nie bylo by 200-300 stron dyskusji na ich temat.
ostatecznie jest to poprostu osobista lista dobrego gracza, nic wiekszego ona nie reprezentuje.
zreszta sam nie ogarniam tej listy, dlaczego niby taki warwick mialby byc wyzej od fiddla/karthusa/poppy/ryza?
Quote
I think a lot of people, despite numerous explanations, don't understand the intent and practical applications of a Tier List. I wanted to touch on that in hopes of getting rid of some of the less useful feedback in the thread.
A common critique I see to the tier list is how low a character someone enjoys is on it. The person will then add something along the lines of "champion X has W, Y and Z! How can he not be good?" This type of feedback misses the entire point of a tier list and focuses on obvious things that the character does and is supposed to do.
Tier lists are not "what can this champion do?", they're "when choosing among all options, what characters offer the most, relatively, to the other choices you can make?"
Let's use Malzahar as an example for a properly-placed low-tier character that I think some players misunderstand. Elementz places Malzahar in the bottom tier/unwise choices bucket. Some players respond saying how they own with Malzahar, or how his ultimate can get kills easily, how his Q has a silence and how his DoT can push a lane really well.
While these might all be true, they don't address his location at the bottom of the list. People are aware how his skills work and how they can be used - that's obvious - what puts a character low in the tier list is how much value, in power and utility, the champion adds to the team.
So, in our Malzahar example, try to think of anything he brings to the team that is not bested by one or more other characters;
* Damage: a high number of champions offer more reliable, higher damage (both burst and sustained) than Malzahar.
* Crowd Control: most champions focused on disables do it better and more reliably. His Q is easily avoidable and his one stun is a long cooldown, stuns himself, and only effects one target. Compare this to options like Pyromania, Dark Wind, or Dazzle.
* Jungling: Malzahar is a poor choice for jungling, so this is less applicable in this example.
* Initiation: Malz is a squishy champion with poor initiation ability. Many champions perform this role better.
* Area-Effect: This is the one thing Malzahar can do, but it remains lackluster. His W takes a long time to reach any sizable damage, Q is slow and unreliable, and his DoT spreadis avoidable by paying attention.
* Pushing: Malzahar pushes better than many casters, but worse than dedicated pushers (while offering little else on top of it).
So, if we look at his value-add to a team comp, it's much lower than other champions. This puts him in low-tier, and makes him a choice that is constantly outshined by other options when choosing your character in a draft mode when your priority is strong team composition.
This does not mean he's not fun, or can't do ANYthing, or will always feed, or it takes a pro to get the most out of him, or any other such nonsense. He's a character who adds less value to his team than others do, and players choosing him should understand and accept the handicap they're putting themselves and their team in.
Tier lists exist to compare characters' total strengths in the perspective game. The best team is not all comprised of only Tier 1 characters - it's the aggregate of role diversity, synergy, power, and counter-picking that makes a strong team.
This post was edited by Shald on Aug 1 2010 01:57pm