After watching the recent LS video I have been left with questions. I was hoping people more familiar with him could chime in.

Topic: Meta Adaptation.

LS was not pressed enough on this topic. Lets break down the argument he is making. To paraphrase:

‘I believe, that despite knowledge that something is better, players refuse to adopt new tech.’

What LS is arguing for, is that experimentation and exploitation of new champions and compositions should be much higher, as it provides substantive visible benefit. Benefits which have won world championships and leveled differences in player skill. Yet there contention in this debate that I want to raise.

Items

I think, that this argument is valid for a few reasons when it comes to items. It can be tested and shown. Two, new item builds are easy to adapt to (unless they are a total subersion of a characters normal playstyle: see Lethality Aatrox.). The adherence to meta builds, I think, is evidence that pro-players are not meta pioneers. And criticism of their lack of knowledge on builds, should be leveled almost entirely on their system: coach, team and environment. I can understand frustration at insane item choices.

Champions and team compositions

When it comes to champions, it is possible to contest the ‘adoption mentality’. Mainly, we can take a ;human limitation perspective’. Here players develop understanding of the game in the way they operate. ADAM is perhaps the best example of this. His playstyle is built around a specific exploitation of power from a few champions. Overall, in this model, what we find are blocks to adoption:

  1. The team has to re-learn how to play with the new champion. This is particularly important if this champion is playstlye warping, for example, Ivern. This means that adoption is resource intensive.

  2. It is ignorant of player skill, and team dynamics. If you have Ruler, you play towards him. You have your compositions designed around strong meta picks that enable him to carry. Recent examples include, Zeus getting Yone in the finals, TheShy getting counterpick in the Semi-finals. Meta based champion picks, independent of player. The theory is simple: (layer 1) A player has a style, (layer 2) that style is manifested into the game via their champion, (layer 3) team compasitions that suit a player further enable their ability to impose effects. A player with multiple styles, will thus have a much wider potential champion pool, see for example, keria on ranged supports, melee supports or on BARD.

  3. Continuing the point about styles. Player Champion pools take years to develop, and distruption of these can cause lasting damage. Learning new champions to a pro-level is difficult, but there are two types of players: generalists who play league of legends and specialists who warp the game around them. The classic example is the degen Singed player. We can add another layer of complexity, carry and role players, considering that certain players like the focus and certain players do not, the limitations to a champion pool are further highlight.

  4. Benefit. Innovation in the meta, that is, the resources it takes to find, develop and exploit a champion, item or pick are easy to steal. This is perhaps the weakest argument, as the above 3 points illustrate that the developmental ability for adapting to the meta, that would enable a team to play varied styles, would mean that their style would be impossible to copy fully, particularly with champions.

Summary,

So what we find, is that LS exists in a theortical world, that is not inhibited by the practical roadblock that exist for all teams. Yet the generalist teams have emerged in recent years are apparent. I feel his thinking has infected two teams particularly: T1 and G2. Meta flexibility defines these two teams that are willing and able to adapt their approach to the game - by picking hard counters or thematic counters. Overall, I believe that there is great potential innovation that could come from LS’s theory.

Of interest, a distinct advantage to teams comes when they stays toghther. They will have a much easier time moving into meta styles that used in the past or champions in their history.

  • VantaBlack2_DevB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    LS’s theory is the same theories applied in RTS games and card games.

    League attracts much more of that, competitive arena fighter group then it does the strategical group like card games pull.

    Even people adamantly against anything LS will ever say can agree that there is a genuine lacking in the strategic part of league. The best of the best in card games are the ones who find even the slightest chances of increases their win probability, the best of age of empires would laugh at you for purposely not practice something that will give you even a 1% extra chance to win just because you don’t want too.

    We know pros have complained about playing certain picks in scrims, we know some pros can’t play certain champs. Thinking back to how 369 had to be yelled at by his teammates for his inability to pick up Gnar. These sorts of things sprout from a community built upon the “the better the hands the better your odds of winning” mindset. Which of course is true, however, ignoring strategies and the such is not smart just because you have better hands. If league had no micro skill, and was pure macro, we’d see so much more innovation as thats the community that would foster, and thats how you easily increase your odds of winning.

    Pros just don’t like spending hours for such small increases in chance to win, that won’t really follow you over to the next team you go to unless you spend more time learning this information fully yourself instead of just working with your coach.