It's time for the 2025 Season 1 Guide Contest! Create or update guides during the following 6 weeks to compete for the $3,750 prize pool. š
To optimists "any champion can be viable under the right conditions"
To cynics "some champions suck so bad they dont do anythng for their team so they aren't viable"
To realists "some champions are niche picks meant to be hard counters to certain champs. But other champions bring nothing to the table and could be better off left un-played"
Viability simply refers to a champions capacity to be a SUCCESSFUL pick in a team comp.
Player skill is always a factor, but in evenly matched skill levels typically better champions have a better chance of winning.
But that's my opinion.
To cynics "some champions suck so bad they dont do anythng for their team so they aren't viable"
To realists "some champions are niche picks meant to be hard counters to certain champs. But other champions bring nothing to the table and could be better off left un-played"
Viability simply refers to a champions capacity to be a SUCCESSFUL pick in a team comp.
Player skill is always a factor, but in evenly matched skill levels typically better champions have a better chance of winning.
But that's my opinion.
Indeed545
<Member>
<Member>
Slaak
<Member>
<Member>
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
To optimists "any champion can be viable under the right conditions"
To cynics "some champions suck so bad they dont do anythng for their team so they aren't viable"
To realists "some champions are niche picks meant to be hard counters to certain champs. But other champions bring nothing to the table and could be better off left un-played"
Viability simply refers to a champions capacity to be a SUCCESSFUL pick in a team comp.
Player skill is always a factor, but in evenly matched skill levels typically better champions have a better chance of winning.
But that's my opinion.
thx very much for the great explanation. It just sparked my interest when i was reading a Vladimir guide, and he felt the need to clarify that he was still "useful" post-nerf.
To avoid confusion and pages and pages of rambling and arguments, I will put this here;
All champions are viable casually.
Only the absolute best champions are viable competitively. (AKA, top 2 or 3 champions for their respective categories.)
All champions are viable casually.
Only the absolute best champions are viable competitively. (AKA, top 2 or 3 champions for their respective categories.)
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
non viable champions are usually
a) generally low in terms of power (eve)
b) hard to place on a team (dr mundo)
c) they could also have a higher skill cap than others, usually in combination with the other 2.
that doesn't mean that they are completely horrible, you just have to know exactly what you are doing. for example, most people consider eve to be the least viable champion in the game.
a) generally low in terms of power (eve)
b) hard to place on a team (dr mundo)
c) they could also have a higher skill cap than others, usually in combination with the other 2.
that doesn't mean that they are completely horrible, you just have to know exactly what you are doing. for example, most people consider eve to be the least viable champion in the game.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
And again, this is an example of casual viability, which every champion is.
Competitively, that's a different story.
Competitively, that's a different story.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
NinjaGinge
<Editor>
<Editor>
Jeffys explanation is perfect.
Example:
strong ap mids like ahri and the like are always considered viable because they are generally just really strong.
The old Jax on the other hand (and the new one too but I think more-so the old one) was mostly chosen for his ability to counter auto attackers. Against a team with none of those, he was often a mildly weak champ.
Then there are champs like Teemo, Twitch and Eve that are often considered unviable. That's because they demand very specific play styles and builds to be effective in any way and there are other champs that usually do their job just as well if not better. In the right hands they work fine, but they just done have a spot right now that says OH WE NEED THIS CHAMP
Example:
strong ap mids like ahri and the like are always considered viable because they are generally just really strong.
The old Jax on the other hand (and the new one too but I think more-so the old one) was mostly chosen for his ability to counter auto attackers. Against a team with none of those, he was often a mildly weak champ.
Then there are champs like Teemo, Twitch and Eve that are often considered unviable. That's because they demand very specific play styles and builds to be effective in any way and there are other champs that usually do their job just as well if not better. In the right hands they work fine, but they just done have a spot right now that says OH WE NEED THIS CHAMP
The most in depth guide to Twitch around.
Props to wRAthoFVuLK for the beastly sig and putting up with my request XD
Hey, you should help me on acquiring Medieval Twitch!! :D
http://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=507f1031d2ab3250817727
Eve and Twitch are intentionally underpowered by Riot.
Good LUCK making them competitively viable.
However, casually viable, yes, they are.
See what I'm doing here?
Good LUCK making them competitively viable.
However, casually viable, yes, they are.
See what I'm doing here?
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
You need to log in before commenting.
After looking at several guides on some champs that have been patched; the author puts that their champion is still viable. To what extent does this mean? and who would a non-viable champion be?