Search Results
7/16/2025, 5:48:25 PM
>>531427356
the first iteration of the rune system had this to an extent, you could set up runes to tailor your matchups. people didnt like it because they felt it was pay to win, which I think is debatable but over the years, this is the ONLY argument ever presented on why the old runes are worse than the new ones.
Then yes as others have stated, there was more build diversity back then than now. Example at worlds 2012 - Shy picking Yorick vs Stanley as Nidalee. Lane is mostly an even matchup but Yorick would outscale until Nidalee makes a chalice purchase, neutralizes one of yoricks win conditions (sustain) with Nidalee (endless mana, E spam). Over the years, building vs the lane has been outpaced for just building the most efficent core items that are unchanging every game. You just build the same shit each matchup, dont put much thought into it, and if you lose the game you go next and blame the bad matchup/team.
It's all so tiresome.
the first iteration of the rune system had this to an extent, you could set up runes to tailor your matchups. people didnt like it because they felt it was pay to win, which I think is debatable but over the years, this is the ONLY argument ever presented on why the old runes are worse than the new ones.
Then yes as others have stated, there was more build diversity back then than now. Example at worlds 2012 - Shy picking Yorick vs Stanley as Nidalee. Lane is mostly an even matchup but Yorick would outscale until Nidalee makes a chalice purchase, neutralizes one of yoricks win conditions (sustain) with Nidalee (endless mana, E spam). Over the years, building vs the lane has been outpaced for just building the most efficent core items that are unchanging every game. You just build the same shit each matchup, dont put much thought into it, and if you lose the game you go next and blame the bad matchup/team.
It's all so tiresome.
Page 1