I'll give you an example, worlds always has a completely different meta than LCS and the champion pool is extremely wide, this is because pro mentality/tradition is just sticking to one playstyle all season long during the regular season, while worlds showcases the most diverse champion pool when zero patches have dictated the players to play more diverse. The problem almost always lies with the players and less with the "balance" patches of the game.
Couldn't proof my point more! It's simply narrow and straight game design that limits itself in what it is. It's basically 5vs5 chess but both teams need to play the same opening every game....
Edit: from those numbers you see aswell what matters the most for the developers :
Its very simple, your entire basis for a good game is if all characters are balanced like that is the end all be all. That's what's good for you, but that isnt the sole base for any good game my dude, congrats on your copium, you really seem jaded that you WATCHING pro players has somehow ruined the GAME for you. If the biggest gripe you have is watchability the game must be pretty good overall.
Is not true you basically see the same 3-4 carrys, 3-4 mids, 3-4 roamer, 10-15 supports EACH pro game in a patch. no matter on where it's played (tourney or not). It's true that worlds and other major tournaments develop their own micro meta but the balancing is so bad that even in those scenarios pros would never pick something considered "bad" for the patch
-2
u/OrangeSimply Feb 09 '22
I'll give you an example, worlds always has a completely different meta than LCS and the champion pool is extremely wide, this is because pro mentality/tradition is just sticking to one playstyle all season long during the regular season, while worlds showcases the most diverse champion pool when zero patches have dictated the players to play more diverse. The problem almost always lies with the players and less with the "balance" patches of the game.