There may be a few spoilers regarding MLG Dallas in this post. Consider yourself forewarned.
There were many fantastic games over the weekend, but rather than highlight any particular one game I'd like to focus on an interesting trend I've noticed across all of LCS and Season 3 thus far. It's something Gambit Gaming has picked up on and made central to their strategy. Specifically, Dragon is more valuable early than turrets.
The strategy Gambit Gaming, and some others, employed was to simply take every Dragon during the early-game, even if it meant committing all five members of the team and losing a turret. Dragon is considered more valuable because the outer turrets are almost guaranteed to fall eventually. Thus, taking a turret in exchange for Dragon will only temporarily keep the teams even in gold. The team that prioritizes Dragon has an advantage because they evenly trade a permanent advantage for a temporary one, and eventually the other team will have to pay the piper.
The key to the strategy is the initial mid-game team fight. If the Dragon-hoarding team wins that first, crucial team fight they'll easily gain several thousand gold on their opponents due to all of the easy objectives within reach, regardless of their relative position before the fight started. Even without a decisive win, it's far harder to defend outer turrets than inner ones, meaning even a disadvantaged team is likely to make up ground. The result is a near-guaranteed slingshot effect, where the team which had yet to take towers will catapult forward.
This is not an invincible strategy, but it appeared to be a very reliable one for Gambit Gaming. It took them all the way to the international exhibition finals, and almost made them the victors. It was only KT Rolster B's superior early game pressure, consistently shutting down Darien, which kept Gambit in check.
I've mentioned this to a number of people in a number of places, and the reaction has been largely the same every time. Practically everyone becomes immediately concerned about map control, citing how the loss of one's jungle, increased necessity of wards, and the like negates any benefits. Given how prominently this strategy was on display, especially during the first two games between Gambit and KT Rolster B, I myself was, in turn, surprised by the reactions.
Map control is an issue, but I believe it to be nowhere near as dire as others seem to believe, at least competitively. Against a coordinated team who wards as a team and reacts as a team, jungle invasion and aggressive map control are risky even with turrets down. The potential for the defending team to intercept incursions is high with proper warding, and the likelihood that there are unsuspecting players to catch out of position is low. Especially with GG Edward prioritizing warding and clearing wards over personal development, the map control issue seems born out of solo queue experience more than competitive. At the very least, Gambit Gaming was not particularly inhibited by this.
It's also important to note the progressive nature of the exchanges. One does not instantly trade three turrets for Dragon, but does so over the course of 12 minutes. For much of that time map control is still assured due to the remaining turrets and the developmental stage of both teams. It's only when the mid-game is effectively in progress that map control becomes a major issue, and that's when the strategy calls for team-fighting in order to begin making up the difference.
Again, the strategy isn't perfect or without counter, but I believe it's more effective than many players will realize. It has potential applications in both solo queue and ranked 5s, and should be carefully considered by any competitive player.
Showing posts with label mlg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mlg. Show all posts
Monday, March 18, 2013
Friday, November 2, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Thought: Competitive Ethics
The finals between Curse and Dignitas this weekend have created quite a stir. There are a wide range of opinions flying around, and mine would only add to the chaos. Instead, I'd like to try to throw some facts and objective analysis into the mix.
The first and most important fact is that while this is League of Legends' first major match-fixing incident, it is not the first (nor will it likely be the last) case of match-fixing in eSports. StarCraft, StarCraft 2, and even Counter-Strike have all had match-fixing scandals in the past. Match-fixing is as problem for all eSports, not League of Legends specifically.
Second, match-fixing is damaging to any sport, but particularly eSports. Currently eSports are attempting to gain mainstream traction. Whenever an incident of this nature occurs it undermines the credibility of eSports and the organizations associated with them. We are still in the crucial developmental phase of eSports, and scandals like this roll back the efforts of thousands of people.
Finally, League of Legends is currently in an especially sensitive position as an eSport. It currently dwarfs all other eSports in terms of viewership, and in many ways is doing for eSports in North America what everyone hoped StarCraft 2 would do. It's also taken off like wildfire in Korea, the home of eSports. League of Legends is, in many ways, the eSports leader worldwide, which means anything adverse that happens in its competitions can have far ranging impacts.
So while it's unfair to ignore the history of match-fixing in eSports when considering the events of this weekend, League of Legends is naturally under greater scrutiny than other games due to its privileged position and the tenuous situation of eSports. Despite the small scope of this incident it is nonetheless a big deal because of the context.
In the long run I don't believe this particular case will do more than provide fodder for meaningless "DotA vs LoL" or "LoL vs SC2" discussions, but had this been a higher profile event or involved throwing matches rather than simple prize-splitting and ARAMs it could have been much, much worse.
The first and most important fact is that while this is League of Legends' first major match-fixing incident, it is not the first (nor will it likely be the last) case of match-fixing in eSports. StarCraft, StarCraft 2, and even Counter-Strike have all had match-fixing scandals in the past. Match-fixing is as problem for all eSports, not League of Legends specifically.
Second, match-fixing is damaging to any sport, but particularly eSports. Currently eSports are attempting to gain mainstream traction. Whenever an incident of this nature occurs it undermines the credibility of eSports and the organizations associated with them. We are still in the crucial developmental phase of eSports, and scandals like this roll back the efforts of thousands of people.
Finally, League of Legends is currently in an especially sensitive position as an eSport. It currently dwarfs all other eSports in terms of viewership, and in many ways is doing for eSports in North America what everyone hoped StarCraft 2 would do. It's also taken off like wildfire in Korea, the home of eSports. League of Legends is, in many ways, the eSports leader worldwide, which means anything adverse that happens in its competitions can have far ranging impacts.
So while it's unfair to ignore the history of match-fixing in eSports when considering the events of this weekend, League of Legends is naturally under greater scrutiny than other games due to its privileged position and the tenuous situation of eSports. Despite the small scope of this incident it is nonetheless a big deal because of the context.
In the long run I don't believe this particular case will do more than provide fodder for meaningless "DotA vs LoL" or "LoL vs SC2" discussions, but had this been a higher profile event or involved throwing matches rather than simple prize-splitting and ARAMs it could have been much, much worse.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Post-Mortem: MLG Anaheim 2012
Big tournaments are always a chance for dissecting the thought and valuations of pros, and this past weekend's MLG Spring Finals were no exception. As a jungler I'll primarily dig into that aspect of the tournament, but there's plenty more that could be analyzed.
Three jungle picks clearly stood out amongst the others in both frequency and effectiveness: Mundo, Nautilus, and Nocturne. While many other junglers made cameo appearances, these champions were the most frequent bans and picks throughout the tournament. With just a cursory analysis it's pretty clear why these champions were so highly favored.
These three champions have absurdly good fundamentals. All three can start anywhere, start with various items, clear without blue, clear quickly, hold a lane well, and gank effectively. Very few junglers can do all of those things well. Because they are not only jacks of all trades, but [i]masters[/i] of all trades they were head and shoulders better than other options.
Beyond the basics all three also brought incredible utility to their teams. Mundo is ridiculously tanky and has the best poke of any jungler. Nautilus has incredible initiation, lockdown, and peeling. Nocturne completely bypasses wards to gank, can split-push, and can ignore enemy frontlines and peeling to hit a high-priority target. They aren't just better fundamentally, but their more advanced applications crush most of their peers.
You can absolutely expect to see all three nerfed in the future. You've already seen a few minor changes aimed at weakening them, but they're barely noticeable. If these three continue to see play in future tournaments you can expect far larger changes aimed at opening up the jungling field.
As a side note, Kayle really shown during the finals. While it was a laning Kayle instead of a jungle Kayle, similar principles can be applied. Combining Kayle with a champion like Karthus, whose high damage is balanced by his vulnerability, is deadly. Abusing that type of combination can lead to devastating victories.
All in all it was an exciting tournament, and well worth watching. If the VODs ever become publicly available I'm inclined to do some in-depth analysis of some of the more interesting jungle choices that were made.
Three jungle picks clearly stood out amongst the others in both frequency and effectiveness: Mundo, Nautilus, and Nocturne. While many other junglers made cameo appearances, these champions were the most frequent bans and picks throughout the tournament. With just a cursory analysis it's pretty clear why these champions were so highly favored.
These three champions have absurdly good fundamentals. All three can start anywhere, start with various items, clear without blue, clear quickly, hold a lane well, and gank effectively. Very few junglers can do all of those things well. Because they are not only jacks of all trades, but [i]masters[/i] of all trades they were head and shoulders better than other options.
Beyond the basics all three also brought incredible utility to their teams. Mundo is ridiculously tanky and has the best poke of any jungler. Nautilus has incredible initiation, lockdown, and peeling. Nocturne completely bypasses wards to gank, can split-push, and can ignore enemy frontlines and peeling to hit a high-priority target. They aren't just better fundamentally, but their more advanced applications crush most of their peers.
You can absolutely expect to see all three nerfed in the future. You've already seen a few minor changes aimed at weakening them, but they're barely noticeable. If these three continue to see play in future tournaments you can expect far larger changes aimed at opening up the jungling field.
As a side note, Kayle really shown during the finals. While it was a laning Kayle instead of a jungle Kayle, similar principles can be applied. Combining Kayle with a champion like Karthus, whose high damage is balanced by his vulnerability, is deadly. Abusing that type of combination can lead to devastating victories.
All in all it was an exciting tournament, and well worth watching. If the VODs ever become publicly available I'm inclined to do some in-depth analysis of some of the more interesting jungle choices that were made.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)