Thought: Critical Strike Runes

Critical Strike runes are generally considered to be a cheese, used only for luck-based wins during laning. However, when I made a spreadsheet to compare physical damage runes on AD carries I was surprised to find that Critical Strike runes were actually one of the best late-game rune options. In fact, the only runes which provide more damage than Critical Strike late-game are Attack Speed and AD/Level.

In retrospect it shouldn't be all that surprising. Critical Strike is one of the key scaling factors which make AD carries scary late-game, but is the only one which is directly affected by Critical Damage. Meanwhile Critical Damage is itself utterly dependent upon Critical Strike, and Armor Penetration is devalued by Last Whisper. These factors give Critical Strike an edge in the late-game.

It's not enough of an advantage to make Critical Strike the best mathematically, but it's possible to argue that Critical Strike is the best overall. Attack Speed is only better on paper if the carry has no Attack Speed steroid or external buff, and requires the player be able to continuously attack in a fight. Even though it's hands down better than Critical Strike in all scenarios late game, AD/Level is nearly useless early on. Because Critical Strike is a rare steroid, does not exist as a buff, and has early game value it can be far more valuable than Attack Speed or AD/Level.

The big downside to Critical Strike is the RNG game you play during laning. If you do not crit, which is possible, you're at a disadvantage during trades. Moreover, your last-hitting can be screwed up by errant crits on creeps. It's risky to run Critical Strike and right now most players, even pros, are very risk averse.

Still, Critical Strike runes are very much worth considering on AD carries. If you're going to be aggressive early, but still want late game strength, Critical Strike runes are the best option available.

Quote: On Prediction

"People ask me to predict the meta, when all I want to do is prevent it. Better yet, change it."

-Ray Bradbury (22 August 1920 - June 5, 2012)

Patch Day: Draven

The Darius patch is finally live. There's not a lot here for junglers, but there are a few points of note.

The nerf to Jax' empower only barely affects his jungling. It's his ultimate, passive, and items that really drive him past level 6. That said, a nerf's a nerf and this will impact how quickly Jax can kill Dragon.

Nautilus' W has had its damage nerfed at later ranks. This change will slightly slow down his later jungling, but not by enough for most players to notice. Nautilus will still be a top tier jungler without question.

Nocturne's passive has been adjusted in an attempt to hit his early sustain. The 5 health will add up fairly quickly on his first clear, but ultimately this punishes people who can't tailor their rune pages more than it nerfs Nocturne.

Shen's Ki Strike nerf will slow his jungling, not that he's a common jungler. There aren't any adjustments to be made for this, it's just a nerf to Shen.

Overall the patch lacks any sweeping changes, save for the introduction of Draven. While he can jungle it's not all that great. He's almost certainly an AD bot or top lane champion given how well he scales with farm and levels. Draven is ban worthy if only because the majority of players are going to try him and find out they can't catch axes to save their lives, but the mechanically strong players who can will utterly crush people.

Quote: On Eve

"Eve is very misunderstood. Eve, I suggest, may be the oldest victim of bad press."

-Michael Jackson

eSports: On Carmac

Michal Blicharz, aka Carmac, recently made an interesting post regarding eSports sustainability. To summarize, Carmac states that eSports in general are not sustainable because there's no incentive for the developer or publisher to support them. That's a great insight, and one worth digging into.

Carmac's thoughts are particularly valuable because he's primarily concerned with money. Most discussions of a game's eSports potential center on its competitiveness, depth, or broad appeal. That's only natural; those are the areas that matter to the gamers driving the discussion. Gamers often forget that money is a huge driving force behind sports, and therefore eSports.

Though that is the case, I believe Carmac makes three critical mistakes in his thought process:

1. He neglects sources of support outside of the developer or publisher.
2. He assumes that games which do not change will become boring.
3. He believes that an eSport must maintain its playerbase to survive.

While the developers and publishers are important, they are not the sole sources of support, financial or otherwise. Much of the history of eSports to date has occurred in spite of the developers and publishers rather than because of them. StarCraft didn't take off in South Korea because of any effort on Blizzard's part, but because of simple popularity and the subsequent establishment of KESPA and other organizations to support eSports. Ultimately demand is the most powerful force of support, and where it exists organizations will appear with supply.

Sports stand as a living rebuttal to the notion that an unchanging game will become boring. The rules of most popular sports have hardly changed in decades if not longer, yet they continue to pull in millions of viewers and fans. What keeps these games fresh are the efforts of the teams and players, not continual changes to the rules. Perhaps the continual state of flux that LoL exists in helps keep it from fading, but it's by no means a requirement.

Finally, more people watch sports than actively play them. While it's important for a sport to have a healthy base of players to draw new blood from, it's not necessary for its base of viewers to play. So long as the spectators can understand simply by watching they can be participants in the sport or eSport without having to actually play.

Carmac's insights are helpful, but in the end he's oversimplifying an incredibly complex and only partially understood phenomenon. We gamers could pay more attention to the money side of things when discussing eSports, but if becoming a sustainable eSport was as simple as choosing the right business model LoL wouldn't have been the first.

Quote: On Ranked

"I believe in the existence of a Supreme Unintelligence pervading Ranked."

-Thomas Edison

Quote: On Matchmaking

"There is an algorithm which has the control of our matchmaking, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of AD carries."

-George Washington