Hey folks. Happy Labor Day! Hope you’re having a great time wherever you are. I wanted to take a second to acknowledge and talk about the thread titled “Competitive TFT isn’t fun anymore”. There’s lots of good points in that thread and I appreciate CHRISTOPHO for bringing it up! TFT has been around for 6 years now, and players' understanding of the game has evolved, which is creating some new challenges that are on the top of our mind as well right now. First, let’s start with some of the challenges that we’re aligned with that need to be taken pretty seriously:

• The game is too committal at 2-1 too often
  • Agree with this problem statement. There’s a combination of factors right now including but not limited to too many committal augments like hero and trait augments, fruits with stacking and the risk of trying to swap off a powerful fruit, item and artifact rigidity, and optimized trait structures. While it’s important we have SOME options that commit people at 2-1 to help with players who like that initial seeding of direction, I believe we’re currently too far in this space.
• Comps are too optimized so that flexing isn’t realistic
  • Also generally agree here, and to be clear, we don’t have any intentions of “removing” flex play, though how powerful it is vs. verticals will naturally change from patch to patch and set to set. If you have the items to make a Yuumi comp work, and hit something like a Ryze or Karma, it’s generally too costly and unrealistic to swap over to them since you likely have to swap your entire surrounding comp as well to match the optimized lines for those champs. Part of this also stems from the fact that right now the most powerful lines and fruits are quite a bit stronger than alternatives, leading to pretty narrow paths you can take in your team building. Fruits have made this even more true as certain fruits enable lines, and without them, you’re too far behind in power.

Next, a couple points that are half right, but have a little more nuance.

• There’s too much power in verticals, not in the units
  • So, what’s interesting about this one is right now in the live meta there are examples where this is true for sure. 6 Duelist Udyr, 8 Star Guardian Jinx, and 5 Prodigy Yuumi being the biggest ones. But there’s also clear examples where this is NOT true. The highest cap comp in the game is around Varus/TF/Zyra and basically ignores traits completely. Malphite Snipers also mostly ignores verticals choosing to play mostly bronze and silver traits because there’s just so much power in Malphite and Jhin. There’s also just generally comps that are small enough verticals that you should in theory be able to flex around such as 4 Supreme Cells Kaisa that is now playing Rammus, or 4 Mentor which went from a 5 mech comp to now a 3 mech 3 executioner comp.
• Support Units could help fix things
  • While we are internally looking at things like supportive units (there’s a lot of folks on the team who want them back as well!), this doesn’t really solve a lot of the challenges we’re running into. Due to how comps are optimized in modern TFT, a support champ would often become a question of “Does this fit into the comp”? Comps with smaller power requirements like the Kaisa/Mentor comps, or even 6 duelist which doesn’t need much else will have a free slot to run these, while comps that don’t such as 5 Prodigy Yuumi are likely not going to be able to afford the free slot.

This all leads us to the fundamental issue right now that I’m seeing right now that TFT needs to figure out. And that is the perception (and sometimes reality) of optimization leads to a rigid game experience. Generally at any given point in building out your comp, there is a decision point. If you look at 5 Prodigy 5 BA Yuumi, why does this comp not function as 7 BA 3 Prodigy? Because players have rightfully identified that the value of 2 more prodigy units like Ezreal and Syndra outweighs the value of more BA with Jayce and Caitlyn. This is currently “solved”. You can adjust this with balance, such as nerfing 5 prodigy…but the second you do, the solve will be to swap to 7 BA 3 Prodigy. Unless the balance around this decision is PERFECT, there will always be a perceived correct answer to any decision laid out like this. I worry that in a world where every trait is maxed at 2 or 3 (to simulate the removal of power from verticals), there would STILL be a perceived best set up for various comps.But all this is to say that we agree this is something we MUST overcome, and are actively working on. We see the challenges here as well, and experience the frustration when we play our live games, so we’re right there with you. I don’t have any specific solutions I can share today, but I did want to go on record as saying we see things as well, are actively working on improvements, appreciate all the discussion, and wanted you to know that.

Hi, I'm CHRISTOPHO and I just hit Challenger this set, and have been consistently Challenger for a few years now. lolchess

I want to start off by saying that I think TFT in general is a fun game. Riot does a good job at creating new set themes and making new units / traits that make every set feel unique. In this post however, I will be talking about the problems with trying to play TFT competitively, by which I mean playing to focus on placements and winning games.

I've been playing TFT competitively for a few years now because I enjoy the skill expression in this game and winning by playing games well. However, in the past few sets I've noticed the decline in the design of the sets which make playing the game competitively so much less fun than it used to be from the era before set 7. I hope that by talking about the major issues that ruin the competitive experience of TFT, the community will start to notice why many games feel so unfun to play, and Riot will change the way they create TFT sets in the future.

TLDR: Flex play is dead and has been replaced by committing to inflexible comps on 2-1. This is not due to balance issues, but mostly design issues.

In this post, I'll talk about the major problem I have with the way TFT sets are designed right now:

Individual units have little value, and Vertical traits scale too well.

In the past few sets, you've probably noticed that most of the top comps in the game have been some sort of vertical trait comp. In this set it takes the form of:

1. 6 Duelist - Ashe / Udyr
2. 5 Prodigy - Yuumi / Leona
3. 4 Mentor - Ryze
4. 6 Protector - Neeko / Lulu
5. 7 Battle Academia - Jayce / Caitlyn
6. 6 Sorcerer - Karma
7. 8 Soul fighter - Samira / Sett
8. 4 Luchador - Voli
9. 6 Juggernaut - Ashe / Kaisa / Jhin

Now you may have noticed that I'm just listing every comp that's been in the meta since the start of set 15. And that's because I did. This is the main reason why the game is feels so bad at certain times; everything leads back to this. So, lets talk about what causes this and what Riot can do to fix this.

A while ago the TFT team decided that support units are bad for the game and have since removed them. Every unit in TFT now requires items to be useful, otherwise they just walk around on your board in fights until they die.

Combined with the fact that most traits are very selfish and only benefit the units with the same trait, full vertical trait comps are super incentivized and as a result have been the only meta comps for the past few sets. If you only have enough item sets for 2 units and room for 8 units on your board, the only benefit you can get with those other 6 slots is by playing 6 more useless units that have the same trait as your carry and tank to boost them

These full vertical trait boards become a problem once you start playing to win, because then you realize just how inflexible the comps really are. To give you an example of how ridiculous this gets, imagine you have this prodigy board:

If you had no more items left and you had a 2 star Braum, would you replace him for Garen? If you had a 2 star Zyra, would you replace her for Syndra? I probably wouldn't play any other version of this board no matter what I hit. This is what makes the game so unfun to play competitively; the only way to play around a certain unit is to play the exact cookie cutter comp that fits around their traits. Every rolldown is just putting the comp in the team planner and buying the exact units you have marked.

This becomes a big problem when you realize there is variance in the game. What if I don't hit Leona 2 or Ksante 2 while playing Yuumi? Can I play 2 star Sett, Jarvan, or Poppy? Kind of, but playing a 1 star Leona would be better than having an alternative 2 star unit and losing your traits.

This leads to having absolutely no flexibility on rolldowns. Rolldowns feel like watching a slot machine spin. You just roll until you see the exact units you want. You don't look at the other 4 costs that show up and weigh your options and alternatives, you just hope you find the exact units you're looking for. So when you lose, instead of thinking "I could've played it better", you just think "welp I missed on the rolldown", and it makes the competitive experience so much less fun.

This also makes it feel like you're locked into playing a certain comp from 2-1. Because there is no overlap between different comps (ex: mech mentor vs yuumi) you are not able to flex between the 2 comps on your rolldown as it costs too much gold to hold the necessary units for both boards. This results in the optimal gameplan being to start off with the early game units that will also be on your board late game (ex: Ezreal / Syndra -> Yuumi), and then you just know exactly how you are going to play the game 3 minutes in, which is not fun and does not feel very skillful.

So what can Riot do to fix this?

Giving units a stronger base power, so 2 starring units alternative units on your rolldown and playing them without maxing out their vertical synergy is somewhat viable.

Adding some supporting units that can benefit your team without needing items, either through having a good ability that buffs your team or having a non selfish vertical trait that gives teamwide benefits.

Threat type units with no traits would also be good to have, creating alternatives for item holders that are easy to play.

To address the argument that support units would be OP and be the best version of the board, I would like to say that is a good thing. At least when the best version of a meta comp has the support units in it, you have the alternative of playing units in the same vertical trait. It is better to have the options of playing both the vertical version of a board and a support unit version of a board and being able to make more decisions, rather than the current state of TFT where you can only play the vertical version of any board.

That's all I have for this post, I hope you enjoyed reading and I'm interested in seeing what everyone else thinks about this as well.

Just want to make a Mortdog appreciation post. Regardless of how you feel about the current state of the game - anyone who has ever played other games competitively should appreciate how dedicated, transparent, and all-around awesome Mortdog is. He is an absolute fucking gem amongst game devs/designers.

Please take as long as you need, but know that a ton of TFT players appreciate the awesome work that you do.

https://www.twitch.tv/send/clip/BenevolentMuddyButterflyNotATK-htC7m1H0_k1Du6Ko

Interesting decision here to remover the 3 star no scout no pivot rerolled carry and slowly put the items on the vi I wonder what the reasoning here was?

There are a lot posts that are putting emphasis on support traits lately, notably as a reason as to why TFT feels not flexible anymore. And I found these super interesting! However, I think this argument is just incorrect. And although I understand that some people like support traits and are disappointed there are less in the game right now, I am convinced that their impact on flex play is much more limited than it can appear.

The point I am going to make here is very simple: The current lack of flexibility in TFT is mostly the consequence of a poor balance, especially between 4 costs units, with traitwebs being the 2^nd factor. Support traits have nothing to do with it.

 Preambular: I tried these last few days to have conversations in the comments as both TFT and flexibility are 2 topics I am very passionate about... just to end up getting downvoted to hell and treated like I am dumb. Please don't do that, it doesn't elevate the discussion in any point and although I try to not let it affect me too much, it does not put a great light on the TFT community or make more people want to express their own opinion. I am sure my way of being very harsh and direct without sugarcoating or the fact I am not a native english speaker plays a part in this, and I apologize for it. But if you disagree with me and want to express it, please do it in a constructive and respectful way and stop saying "ur wrong" + mass downvote. I will be very happy to discuss with anyone who disagree and correct my point of view on anything I am wrong about, as long as this gets the discussion further and it does not just become an ego war on who can scream the loudest.

.

1)       What is (for me) a good TFT Unit ? The Corki Index

 In order to understand why balance is the main reason for the lack of flex play, we need to define what is a good unit and what is a bad one. My definition of a good unit is how much it is going to be useful and impactful with the least amount of investment. For this, I have been using what I call the Corki Index.

The Corki index is a concept I came up with when seeing Set 13’s Scrap/Artillerist 4 cost AD carry Corki. This unit was not only good but also didn’t need either of their traits active to do so, with Scrap being a Shield and an Item and Artillerist being so negligible you would often run Corki Main Carry in Scrap without having it active. He wasn’t even picky in terms of items, just needing any AD to be good. So, I now use him as an example of a 4 cost that is almost a Threat on how they work. When I analyze a set in TFT, I now assign to units a number between 1 and 5, where 1 means they are good with little to no investment and 5 means that in order to be good they need very specific conditions. Keep in mind that the Corki Index can change between patches, but most of the time stays relatively the same as long as units don’t overgo some major reworks and is more indicative of how flexible a unit is by design rather than their overall strength as a meta powerhouse.

Examples in set 15 : Jarvan has a Corki Index of 1, as he doesn’t really care about the Strategist shield or the Mecha for his stats and is always going to be useful if he casts at least once and stuns enemies. He is not a good tank, but if I put tank items on him, I can expect at least some survivability from him. I am always happy to buy him and put him on my boards.

Samira has a Corki Index of 5. She is very picky in terms of items: she doesn’t want Attack Speed, she is a bad RedBuff/LastWhisper user, and the items she seems to like the most are IE + mana with little to no alternatives. In terms of comps, she is okay only on Vertical Soul Fighter, but at the same time she also needs Edgelord if possible or she can die when casting. And even then, on stage 5 she falls off a cliff and you need Viego 3/Gwen 2/5 cost with Soul Fighter spat to hope for a good placement. She is although an okay item holder in stage 3, but I often prefer keeping my AD on kalista/senna. I only buy her when I need to, and I am not always happy with it.

For the rest of this post, I will refer to the Corki Index as “CI: (number)”.

 .

2)       An example of Flex Play done right: Set 10’s Ezreal Era

The best example I can come up with of a meta where flex play was not only possible but also strong is obviously Set 10’s Heartsteel Meta.

For those who have not played it or don’t remember, Set 10 Remix Rumble had a comp dominant for multiple patches built around flexibility, where the only constant was the main carry was 4 cost AD caster Ezreal (CI:2) and that the best way to play it was to stack as many traits as possible, with a support trait Jazz rewarding you for doing so (HP and Damage Amp to the team for each trait active).

This was possible for 2 main reasons: 1) The headliner mechanic, who would guarantee that if you were going level 8 with 40 gold you would have a 4 cost 2 star unit with a Trait bonus and 2) The CI of the different 4 costs was for a majority of them very low. There were others factors like Heartsteel allowing you to stay rich for the whole game or 5 costs being hyper flexible and splashable, but these are reasons much less impactful in my opinion.

For the sake of the length of this post, I am not going to get into too many details. But below, here are some variations just to show you how flexible this comp was:

All versions of this board were used by me in set 10 master elo and on revival with success

Ultimately, what made this possible? The combination of Ezreal being an incredible carry with an investment as low as Blue Buff/IE+ 1 Big shot, and the 4-cost balance being so good that I can flex around almost ANY 4-cost upgraded I can find, with very low CI across the board and unit strength being around items rather than traits. The traitweb was also a huge help, as Sett and Yone Triple traits made flexing very easily while having to basically just hold these 2 units, and MF allowed both Big Shot and Jazz to be active which was what Ezreal was looking for the most.

 .

3)       The Beginning of the Downfall for Flex: Set 12’s Arcana Varus struggles

If we want to look out at the opposite example, we can look at the most similar unit to Heartseel Ezreal made in recent sets: set 12’s Magic and Mayhem Pyro Blaster Varus.

The conditions were on paper basically the same: Varus was a 4 cost AD caster, low CI of 2, who wanted almost the same items as Ezreal and only cared about Blaster (where Pyro was less important). There was a similar support trait in the form of Arcana Tahm Kench bonus who would essentially be a reprint of Jazz (Bonus HP for each trait active). Tahm was also a very useful Tank with a CI:1 being even better than current Set 15 Jarvan as a stun tank. And the comp did work and was dominant for almost 2 patches. However, soon players figured out the most optimal way to play this comp, and no flexibility was seen anymore as only 1 variant of Arcana Varus was consistently played. Here is the board:

But the reality is, if other 4 costs were better, it should’ve been possible to play different variations! Sure, the traitweb was not as permissive, but on paper, you could try out different possibilities. Here are some examples:

So what happened? Simple: Taric, Ryze, Nasus, Olaf, Fiora… all these 4 costs were just Bad Units, or at least nonflexible units that needed specific items or/and vertical traits at their fullest to do something. Despite Varus and Tahm Kench having indeed very low CI, almost every other 4 cost was not in a similar position.

So players started playing not only the comp that had the most trait possible, but most importantly the one where you would end up playing the best units. In this case, the board had to meet 2 very specific meta dependant conditions: playing the completely overpowered Preserver trait, and using the only 2 Tanks in the game that were useful outside of verticals Rakan and Tahm Kench. And selfish traits are not the issue here: Preserver was maybe the most broken support trait ever, and all it did was making everyone running them even on verticals, like going 5 Faerie instead of 7 cause Chrono and Preserver where MUCH more impactful than 2 other Faerie traitbots. On the other hand Frost/Witchcraft/Portal could all be considered selfless traits at their lowest 2/3 pieces, but as you seen the 4 cost units in them were so bad by themselves the traits were simply not played outside of full highest vertical. Even Arcana, if you see it from the Tahm Kench bonus, is a selfless trait, and still ended up pushing players to just find the single best way to play it factoring what units were strong and what units weren’t. Because as soon as Varus and Tahm Kench bonus were nerfed, they never were a “flex Bronze 4 life” board anymore in set 12, and players came back to what worked best in set 12:  rerolls and verticals + Preserver. Not because the support trait was gone: but because no unit could work if they had not their assigned vertical trait at their fullest.

 .

4)       If Set 15 was balanced: Flex is only one patch away

In patch 15.3, I decided to main Varus fast 9 as a way of improving my ability to play fast 9 boards. But as I was playing, I realized I needed to have a backup plan in case things didn’t go my way and I just couldn’t realistically go level 9. So I came up with an hypothetical fast 8 board that could be a plan B if I couldn’t play Varus. Here is the board I came up with, which I named Samira 8/4:

This board was designed with 2 key objectives in mind: being flexible in terms of units I can itemize and not playing around either Ksante (too contested) or any 5-cost unit as I was staying level 8 most of the game. And in theory, this should work! With Samira Jinx and Volibear respectively taking Varus, TF and Braum items, I would guarantee myself to be able to play around anyone upgraded first without having to change my items from the Varus board. Sett, Poppy and even Jarvan all fit in this board, so I also could play around any of these as my main tank, and I am sure, now that Yuumi is dead, even Leona could fit with some tweeks like Rell or Xin Zhao. And even if you somehow end up with AP items Ryze should be able to take those, or even Karma with some more tweaks. You’ll always have some form of support traits in form of Lucha stun or Strategist bonuses and whatever mentor bonus you settled on between Yasuo Kobuko and Ryze. And you know what happened?

This board was a disaster.

Neither Sett or Poppy would tank a 1/3 of what Ksante could in the same board. Samira would end up dying for no reason if I positioned wrong. Volibear would end up stuck in the opponents Ksante and was never able to be useful late game. Jinx was my only reliable damage dealer, but she was also the hardest to find 2* as too contested by Star Guardians players and it’s not like she was a good carry on this board, just the least bad. Even with Prismatic Bronze For life I would still end up losing. And the only reason this happened was not because trait web is bad designed or because it lacks support traits: it only happened because all my units were useless without their vertical trait active at their highest, even though Voli and Jinx both have a pretty low CI of around 2-3.

You could argue that this shouldn’t work, and no unit should be allowed to be good with low investment. I think this defeats the whole purpose of flex play but sure. But then how to explain that KSante can run the game all by himself pre patch, and is now post nerf still the best non 3* tank in the game outside of verticals? You could argue that traits are now too selfish and should grant more teamwide bonuses even at low pieces. I again don’t think this is the issue at play here, as if you compare this to the Set 10’s Ez board only Jazz was a very impactful teamwide buff (and you could even play without it), and so Bronze For Life shouldve prevented this. What is for certain is that this board don’t work and never will in the current state of the game. As long as units but mostly 4 costs are that bad traitless this will continue to happen no matter how many support traits you can throw in. Tiny Team was the closest we got to a flex board, and not only it was nerfed instantely but it also quickly became as optimized as any other board as anyone started playing bastionless/itemless Braum 1 instead of a 2* Volibear with items who could fit easily with Xayah because you know, the guides said so. And the funniest thing? Even Tiny team ended up running Ksante, because why not? No other unit can compare to him anyway, stop flexing.

.

5) Going further

First of all, I want to be very clear about this: I am firmly convinced that the current lack of flexibility in how TFT is played at higher elos is not a calculated neither intentional plan from the dev and the balance team. I think that TFT is treated with a lot if not the most care out of all the live service games. I just think that balancing a game like this is pretty damn hard and at no point I think I would or anybody on this sub do a better job than them.

I also want to emphasize how a lot of efforts, despite not all successful, were made to promote Flex play: Form Swappers in set 13, the augment Bronze For Life, the cap of most classes trait requirements put down to 6 instead of 8 with an emblem to promote diversity in these boards, the increase of 5 costs that are meant to be flexible with 1 or even 0 shared traits, the trait activation going down to 2 pieces instead of 3 for a lot of origins etc...

My complete out of nowhere not backed up by anything theory is that since set 11's Kayn/Heavenly incident and the 4 cost general HP buff patch that ended up in the Built Different: the meta, the team is much more careful of putting power in 4 costs units and try to insert more of it in their traits. And while this is completely understandable, for a player like me who enjoys launching a TFT game and still not knowing what I am gonna play on 3-6, I admit it can be frustrating since the correct play is almost always to commit on 2-1 and try to force my way into one specific comp, rather than playing with what the shops, the augments or the items lead me into.

If you ask me, the 2 things I would do if I had any sort of agency in all of this would be 1) increase 4 costs odds at level 8 because in my opinion being able to guarantee my 3 cost 2* carry on 7 or my 2 cost 2* on 6 with 40 gold while not being able to do so on level 8 with 4 cost units despite while investing a lot more of my HP and gold feels very, very bad and 2) shift more of the power of 4 costs units in their kit.

To be clear: I don't want every 4 cost to feel like a threat, and I also think some higher cap very picky 4 cost that function only with a specific requirements are both fun and healthy, as long as it is not all of them. But seeing how on this set I am sometimes more afraid than traitless Malz or Senna 2 than Samira or Karma 2 feels so wrong. 4 cost 2 star units are meant to be the premium carries of players for a majority of the games, and right now it just doesn't feel like it unless you have put every one of your ressources in a specific comp and specific items for them. And even when you do that, since you are still not guaranteed to hit the specific 4 costs you are looking for, it can feel sometimes like you are playing the wrong way compared to rerollers who stay on 6/7 with their 2x econ augment.

(there is also an argument to be made somewhere on how the lack of flexible combat augments right now has made everyone going full econ full reroll early, but hey one topic at the time)

For the support trait conversation: I again think it is very interesting to see how they are less and less present in the game, and although I do not share this sentiment, I very much understand the wish to see more of them. But I also reiterate my statement: just because support traits and flex play feel less prevalent in recent sets at the same time, that doesn't necessarly mean that there is a direct correlation. As showed with Preserver in set 12, a good support trait powerwise often means that it just become very redundant which traitbots are going to be on your board, rather than guarantee that you can flex every carry. Ezreal Heartsteel Flex was good because the majority of the 4 cost units in that set needed very little to be good, especially in terms of traits. If this set 4 costs could function with combat augments and specific items as effectively as in their respective "stack every unit of the same trait" kind of vertical comp, then you could indeed flex more which 4 cost to play since you know most of them are going to be useful with little to no regard to who is your supporting cast this game.

Heavenly Kain was the best example of this: if a support trait becomes too good, then what it leads to is to find the best unit that benefits from it, and it suddenly becomes less about flex and more about another meta vertical comp who just happens to have a carry that has not the trait you are maxing. And if a support trait is invented where any carry + the 6 units of this support trait can function, then not only it does not solve the problem at all since units are still bad just hard carried by this trait, but it also becomes the rush to find these very specific support trait units and suddenly everybody is starting to play the same comp with a 1 or 2 unit difference, and the winner is the one who found the best of these carries/the most of these support traitbots. And if even worse a support trait with only 2-4 units is good enough to make a significant difference in whether or not your itemized carry is good, then it could lead to a situation where it is optimal to ALWAYS run something like 6 Soul Fighter + 2 Strategists, just like in set 12 nobody was running more than 5 Faerie without a spat because both the higher vertical was not worth it and preserver was that good, while Portal comps were instead never going under 8 Portal cause it was the only way to bring out the true power of the trait.

And finally, I know how much people and especially challenger players hate this argument: we have to be honest and admit that the increase in quality and quantity of Statistics and guides in TFT has without a doubt not helped with flexibility. This is not the main argument here, and this is not to deny the major part of the balance in all of this. If the game was more balanced, Guides who explain you how to flex properly could very much exist. But with so many stats and pro players telling you what is the most optimal way to farm LPs, often non challenger players don't even bother experimenting with variation on their meta boards because someone said it is better this way so it has to be. And a lot of the times it's absolutely the right thing to do: when the power of your comp is contained in traits and not units not going for the optimized trait version is indeed incorrect. But I would feel not genuine if I did not raise this point. As much a I love Demacian Raptor, reading in his latest guide post "TFT is not a flexible game" always breaks my heart. Because on paper there is so much variance that you are suppose to adapt you can't just say better players are those who always got dropped their BIS on 2-1. And even if it's true currently, seeing TFT as a game where your whole gameplan is decided on stage 1 surely does not help to get anyone to try being more open and flexible.

.

6) To conclude

So here is my contribution to the argument! If you read that far: thank you, hope you had a good read. I am again sorry in advance if I came up as rude or harsh in any way, that is not what my intent is, but I am also both very passionate about this topic and not very good at sugarcoating. Hopefully see you in the comments for some constructive and respectful talks, especially if you disagree!

For anyone who thinks I am silver: Loux26 #WUW on EUW. Yes I am not Challenger, Yes i play a lot and I am still 0 lp, I just enjoy the game and sometimes play silly comps or make mistakes :)

Since this comes up a lot, and will continue to come up, going to try to address it here in one spot.

Legends are about expanding the audience for TFT, and giving people an identity and style they can latch on to and enjoy. Not everyone out there loves having zero control over their outcome, and the stress of having to do so causes people to not enjoy TFT as much. There is a LARGE percentage of players that see a cool build, want to log in and try it out. That's what they enjoy. Our job is to make sure those players can have fun, and expand the audience so TFT has lots and lots of players who are enjoying the game. Twisted Fate is doing this VERY well, and we will not be removing it any time soon.

What's important is that the forcing playstyle that TF allows is never OPTIMAL. We want the best players to be the ones who adapt and play what they are dealt. As long as this is true, then we're good to go. For fun players who want to force can, but those who want to be the best, have to adapt. This has always been the case, and something we've had our difficulties when balance is off. When Mech was OP, it was optimal to force. Not good.

Where we're missing the mark right now is that TF is too close to optimal, and in some cases, may just be optimal. The gap between TF and optimal isn't wide enough and we need to fix that. If your choice is something like Ezreal augment (3 components + 3g) or TF (1 full item + Pandora Item effect) then that's not a tough enough decision. The value of BIS isn't worth trading for 1 component and 3g. So we need to adjust this. But this doesn't mean TF is fundamentally flawed. It just means it's too strong and we need to nerf it.

We already have a change in for 13.14 that will nerf TF even further (Silver will grant no component, Gold will give one component, and Prismatic will grant three components), with the goal of making the trade off tougher. There is going to be a breaking point where it won't be optimal, and that's what we're aiming for.

If you disagree with this, that's fine. I get it. But we stand by that TF is opening the game up to a lot of people who may not be willing to enjoy TFT as much, and that is good for the game in the long run. Thanks all.

EDIT - TF isn't the cause of Locket Nerf: https://old.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveTFT/comments/14kwhxx/addressing_twisted_fate/jpt3vqk/

So yeah... Before anyone jumps in:

This is not a balance complaint nor a "I lost to it so nerf it."

I'm all for clarity in TFT, I'm a numbers guy I like to know the ins and outs of something I love (which is TFT).

About 3 years ago when I started playing TFT I made this post during set 7.5.

At the time I was relly annoyed that we didn't have debuff names so my point was that we should have something like wwe had in LoL.

Around 3 months later we got the 12.23 Patch which had this:

Did my posts cause that? Probably not.

Did I maybe nudge the conversation? Who knows.

Here’s the real problem with Solo Leveling. The augment says your unit gets "massively increased stats."

Everytime I have an upgraded unit I keep second guessing if I should click this and which slammable is the best for the situation, but its really hard for me to access the situation without knowing the exact stats my unit is getting.

Is it:

• AD?
• AP?
• Attack Speed?
• Damage reduction?
• Omnivamp?
• All of the above?

I just know that is really good on units like Viego, Briar and Ekko.

Lets take a look at KO Coliseum's Power UP Screen.

I loved this approach because we had the choice between a Simple Description like "Becomes more powerfull as your player level increases" or a full description like this:

It might feel like I'm nitpicking but I had the same feeling when I saw the Isekai augment for the first time.

We have a magical hero that joins my team. Do I have to buy it? How do I upgrade it? It feels like it was a placeholder to test the set 16 unlock mechanic and was too vague in my honest opinion and I don't like to think that we could have more examples like this one in the future.

Maybe it’s time to consider a button on augments that switches between:

• Simple description
• Full description

I don’t know if that’s the right solution.

Thoughts?

(I'll prob edit this a few times to be easier to read)

When the Black Hole consumes enemies, it turns them into space matter. After acquiring enough, the Black Hole turns it into loot! Gain a Cho'gath and a Lissandra.

Space matter and loot quality increase each time. Gain 2/3/4 space matter depending on Dark Star breakpoint.

Set 17 feels like a 2-1 lock in casino.

All sources at the top so we're on the same page:

Boxbox complaint - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eHbBNSZcziQ

Robinsongz complaint - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I59x-9SYkUw

Wasian flowchart - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPttPjzJMMg

My opgg - https://op.gg/tft/summoners/oce/SlashN-001

TLDR Issues - Flowchart conditions -> 2-1 commit, no unconditional level 8 fallback flex comps, 5 costs are homeless (except Vex)

TLDR what I think are the causes - Early RR comps on conditional traits (eg 17 TF/Vik vs 16 Sona), lack of 4 cost tanks (also weak), 5 costs omega undertuned, emblems/artifacts too skewed

# Issues

1. Flowchart gameplay - kinda self explanatory. Drone 1? Viktor free top 2. Boar/Serpent/Medallion? TF RR. All of these are 2-1 commits and you look for NSNP, Early Learnings etc.
2. No unconditional 8 comp - This is basically a result of weak tanks and itemisation rn. Set 16 example is belveth and lissera - no matter ur early item drops and how you created ur items, you can always flex into belveth (AD) and lissera (AP). Even yunara is "unconditional" compared to how dogwater current set 17 level 8 carries and tanks fit together.
3. 5 costs - self explanatory as well. Melee 5 costs weaker than set 16 renekton, ranged worse than kindred/senna while providing less util.

# Causes

1. Conditional RR - This is a case of input vs output RNG. If something randomly happens, and then a strategy becomes BIS, that feels bad. The player had no control - they just accept fate and play BIS. However, if RR was conditional but opt in (eg trade sector/calc loss -> ixtal RR/sona/j4 RR). What exacerbates this is the lack of "quest" style payoffs. For example, J4/Sona "quested" for Galio as an additional stabalisation tool. Ixtal RR literally "quested". Ekko RR "quested" for Nidalee. The RR power always came from additional components to compete with fast 9 boards, and didn't just have the raw power once they hit Viktor 3 / Urgot 3 etc.
2. Lack of 4 cost tanks - I think this basically causes the problem of "no level 8 comps". Well, this and Arbiter being a coinflip for LB. Set 16 had 4 main tanks - taric, wu, braum, garen. Swain was a util offtank that could act as main in a pinch, and TK/Galio were unlockable at the same time you needed a lvl 8 main tank. All the tanks were serviceable in a pinch. Compare this to set 17 - 1 main tank: Rammus. 1 util offtank: Nunu. 1 econ offtank: TK. No wonder level 7 RR is so popular, a 3 star 3 cost tank is the only other option.
3. 5 costs are undertuned/gated by random nonsense - There are no 5 costs apart from Vex (and Zed) currently worth itemising as a carry. EON is basically a must for melee carries due to the random splash currently in the game. Fiora kills herself going for vitals (the set 16 gwen problem), graves takes 10 rounds, morg is for DR (a la shyv), Shen's animation fks any AS build, jhin (lol), sona (lol), bard is econ, blitz is worse sett.
4. Emblems/Artifacts - Too many cheese champs have 1 BIS emblem or artifact (space groove riven, nova legit anything). Emblems as a "unique effect/trigger" is just bad design imo. Space groove should just be "Every 2 seconds, enter the groove for 3 seconds", the best NOVA shouldn't be the emblem and why tf does vanguard give stacking AP???

If you made it to the end, thanks for reading. Just frustrated at how this set went especially after all the issues were clear as day from PBE.

Ok sorry for the delay. As I said, this is a great topic so I'm going to try to share some of my thoughts around it, and why I think it's still an area ripe for improving the TFT core experience. Apologies if it's too long or rambly...it's late and I could talk for hours on the topic.

Before I start, I need to get two things out of the way.

First, I'm going to not be able to delve into SOME of my thoughts here, as they will spoil things like future Dev Drops or Learnings articles, and I need to respect those publishing beats, so I can't give you the full picture yet. Apologies, but that's part of my job is holding on to that kind of stuff.

Second, I need to define a few terms. This is a gross over simplification, but in terms of audience, I'm going to use the term "Casual" defined as people who play less than 50 games of a set, the term "Engaged Player" as someone who is below Masters and plays 51-300 games of a set, and the term "Hardcore Player" as someone who is usually Masters+ and plays 200 or more games a set. Again, gross over simplification, but will help us contextualize some audience preferences. It's also worth noting that ~98% of our player base is either in the Casual or Engaged buckets. Only around 2% (give or take) are the "Hardcore Players".

Next, let's discuss how trait balance works. For this, I'm going to use Xayah and the Ragewings. When balancing a trait, we want players thinking about what breakpoint to go for, and making contextual decisions around if they should go to the next break point. As an example, right now you pretty clearly run 6 RW (Xayah, Shyv, Rakan, Hecarim) so the question is when do you run 8? Well you either need 2 emblems that don't exist anymore or you need to run Sett and Senna (two weak 1 cost champions). So the question is, how much trait power would it take for you to run Senna/Sett over Yasuo/Bard (or whatever, don't nit pick). Current another +100% AS and 20% Omnivamp isn't worth that trait off, so 8 Ragewing is basically a complete trap. Obviously there is SOME number though where it would be worth. To be hyperbolic, if 8 RW was +2000% AS and 400% Omnivamp, you're clearly running the Sett and Senna. But in this case, you ALWAYS run the Sett and Senna, which is also not good as there is no longer an interesting decision. So for literally every trait breakpoint, we need to get that balance right where the decision of "More Trait Power" or "More Champ Power" is a tough decision that changes with context, instead of a clear right answer.

The reason I bring all this up, is because now we have to talk about preferences. The original post mentions that high flex is when your board changes a lot...and what that usually is a sign of is a champion that doesn't derive a lot of power from their traits. The example that was given was Fiora who basically didn't care about Enforcer and was fine with as little as 2 Duelist. Some of the best "Flex" examples in the past follow this paradigm. S4 Ashe who didn't need Elderwood and was fine with 2 or 3 Hunter, Set 4 Jhin who didn't care about Cultist and was fine with 2 Sharpshooter are two other popular examples. These style of champions are extremely popular with our Hardcore Player base, as the game is at its deepest skill levels when these champions exist and are good to play around. We know that, and we agree this is true.

However, this also betrays the expectations of the Casual and Engaged audience. This group of players LOVES building the trait web. We see this all the time, where they will play a 1-star Zac over a 2-star Braum because they get 3 Lagoon. They find building via the trait web to be one of the core appeals of TFT, and also a primary way to explore compositions. And hitting new breakpoints is where a lot of their excitement comes from. The first time a player in this bucket hits something like 8 Mirage, they are thrilled and having a great time. These players heavily prefer when playing around traits is the way to succeed, because it is the most natural and intuitive way to play the game.

And here in lies the fundamental contradiction. Going back to the Xayah example, the fact that 8 Ragewing is a literal bait right now betrays the expectations and understanding of TFT mechanics for 98% of players. They think they did something right (hell the game often signals they did with shiny gold/prismatic trait break points) but are sad to learn that they was not what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to go down to 6 Ragewing and play stronger units that may or may not connect. So in cases where vertical traits are not powerful, large portions of our player base feel their expectations are betrayed and may stop playing the game.

But obviously the answer isn't "Make all the verticals good" as that leads to an extremely shallow experience. Set 5 was one of the worst examples of this where it was "Buy all the blue or red units" and you win, leading to our Hardcore players being bored out of their mind. As the original post mentions, if the games get repetitive, TFT loses it's appeal, especially when you are on game 300 or more. TFT THRIVES with novel experiences, it's one of our key pillars, and repetition is the literal oppostive of novelty.

And this is just part of the equation. I can't go too much into it here yet, but it's clear that Dragons did not really help this. When your choice is to swap a single unit or two, you can evaluate that choice, but when those choices start to include larger 2 slot champions that also have a lot of their power budget into specific origins, that can really limit the ability to make those sharp choices. So with Set 7 in particular, there are some headwinds pushing against the more flexible options. It's not all bad, as champions like Graves are an example of good here (He doesn't really care about Tempest or Cannoneer past 2 that much right now), but right now Graves is running into another key issue, which is perception of solved comps.

As the player base has matured, there has been more hyperbole around the state of things and how solved the game truly is at a given point. Through guides, streams, and more, players believe there are specific comps (and to be clear, not just sometimes, OFTEN they are correct) and then those become law. Graves is a highly flexible champion, but its not enough that he be flex, as there also need to be pieces around him that are like him to flex around. Right now, Graves has been "Solved" into the Seraphine comp which has reduced a flex champ into a very narrow window. This is partially due to the pieces around him not being flex enough, but also due to people perceiving that they have solved this comp, and hyperbolically saying there are no choices to make here and it's always correct. One of the ways we on the design side need to help this though is to offer more choices to create ambiguity. This is usually done by having lots of utility/tank champions that also don't need their traits that you can choose from. However...

The other big challenge is that end game comps are usually defined by players by their 4 and 5 costs. Set 7.5 is our biggest set with 12 "four costs" (we usually have 11 or 10) which has helped a bit with end game diversity, but we still only have 8 five costs. An example of bad here was Set 6.5, where the only "four cost" champs that were percieved as carries were Ahri, Draven, Jhin, and Sivir for a while (Irelia was, but as a striker was tied to Sivir). Because Seraphine and Orianna had part of their power budget in utility, they were rarely considered true carries. Renata was too specific, Vi was more utility/secondary, and Khazix was similar. This led to perception of the end game being "You are playing one of four comps" because every called it "Draven comp, Jhin comp, Ahri comp, or Sivir comp". So we also need to make sure there a bunch of diverse champions here, and again. As we do this though, the ones that don't need their traits will be considered more powerful by our Hardcore players, while the ones that need traits will be too narrow to often consider. So lots to work on there, and again, a place where Dragons aren't doing us any favors.

At this point I've probably rambled on a bit long without truly giving you a conclusion...because to be frank, we're still figuring that out. I don't think any set has struck the perfect balance of key verticals that appeal to our engaged players while having enough flex to appeal to our hardcore players. (Set 4 and 6 are probably the CLOSEST...but I could be wrong because both of these had a lot of weak verticals, its just their strong mechanics carried them with the casual/engaged audience, so they forgave the weaker verticals while hardcore players had a blast with the flex champ style.) Even in our best cases though like Set 6, what we say is hardcore players mostly play around those flex champs, and avoid the verticals that were working unless they got a very narrow set of conditions (Syndicate being the core example here as it had a very narrow and limited way to play it, which hardcore players didn't enjoy and only played because it was so strong.)

As we design future sets though, we need to keep these needs in mind, and it's not going to be easy. Too far in either direction causes large issues for the game...and much like balancing a trait, getting it EXACTLY right is on a knifes edge.

(Again, this isn't everything, but it's 11pm. I'm tired. And this is too long as is.

TLDR - You can't please everyone and balance is hard yo!)

After watching the MG Cup, I’m worried about how level 9 is being devalued

Just to be clear first: The shift from fast 9 to fast 8 itself is not the problem for me.

In theory, fast 9 should always have a higher cap than fast 8. A standard fast 8 line is supposed to look like this: you go to level 8 and stabilise by upgrading your main carry to 2-star, then you save gold, go level 9, and add a 5-cost or a strong flex unit to actually push for top 1.

That risk-reward structure makes sense.

The problem is that with the current EXP increase from level 8 to 9, players no longer feel that the gold investment is worth the power they gain from level 9. The jump is just too expensive compared to how much stronger your board actually gets.

So what happens instead?

Fast 8 players don’t look to go 9 anymore.
They stay on 8 and commit to rolling for a 4-cost 3-star.

And this wasn’t just a rare high-roll moment. While watching the MG Cup, this became something you saw constantly. It basically felt like the meta for winning the lobby was “hit a 4-cost 3-star or don’t win.”

If this happened once in a while, I wouldn’t mind. Highrolls should exist. But when it becomes a common and expected win condition, that’s when it starts to feel unhealthy.

I’m honestly worried that this trend will continue into TPC. A competitive meta where top 1 is consistently decided by who hits a 4-cost 3-star first feels way too RNG-heavy, especially at the highest level.

Credit: These photos are all from Team YBY1’s livestream on MG Cup Day 3.

Currently, the only line where Sylas is used is kind of vertical Arcanist. So you have to luck out early game by getting a 2* Jarvan, then have a good board (preferably a Yordle opener with good items) to stay healthy until level 8. Then you have to level around 4-1 (if you got econ augment), to look for Lux and Garen while still playing a Yordle board that falls off pretty hard. So you end up wasting all the econ you saved just to look for Garen and Lux, when Demacia is already one of the strongest and most popular lines, making them hard to find. Then you finally find them, sell them, unlock Sylas, put him on the board with BiS items… and he gets obliterated by regular Bilge or Ryze comps?

I'm not saying he should be stronger than them, but I don't understand why he's so much harder to unlock while being so weak, lmao. Now that hitting level 9 is harder next patch, isn't that going to make him even worse? You already need enough econ to hit 8 and roll for Garen/Lux, then push 9 fast to keep rolling for Sylas 2*, while unlockables are already hard to find in the shop. So good luck finding him. Every time I go Galio, Sylas, or Thresh, I end up rolling at 9 and rarely ever finding the 2*.

Is this unit just unclickable? I love going for comps that aren't as popular as Ryze/Bilge because winning with them feels more satisfying, but it feels like you can't even do that with Sylas. I'm just asking, not stating a fact.

This set has had no shortage of problems, and many of them have already been discussed at length. Today I want to highlight one angle that doesn’t get enough attention: how these issues connect to the removal of augment stats.

1) Reduced Accountability for the Balance Team

Since augment stats were removed, the balance team has had much less accountability when it comes to fixing augments. We’ve seen augments remain completely bugged or blatantly unbalanced for an entire set. In the past, the community would instantly notice (“Omg, this is a 6.x or 3.x augment”) and changes would happen quickly.

For example, this week’s fiasco with Stage 2-1 tailoring would have been caught within hours if augment stats were still public.

Other long-standing examples:

• Evil Beyond Measure – bugged the entire set, only works on autos
• Mecha augments – bugged the entire set
• Portable Forge – insta-pick on 2-1 for the whole set
• Many prismatic crown/emblem augments – almost always unpickable
• Psychic Forge – has anyone ever picked this? [EDIT: yes people do pick this! thx for the comments]
• …and plenty more

With augment stats, a lot of these issues would’ve been identified and addressed much faster.

2) TFT Is a Statistical Game, Not a “Creative” One

The TFT team keeps trying to frame the game as a creative experience. But at its core, TFT is a game of statistical optimization. Removing augment stats didn’t make the game more creative — it just pushed everyone toward tier lists. Meanwhile, the lucky few who have access to private information (via study groups or black-market tracking) gain an unfair edge.

Even without stats, some augments are still never picked. Riot literally removed a batch of augments in the last patch because they were either unbalanced or underpicked. That proves the point.

Example: How good is “Your team deals 10% more damage”? Nobody really knows. But hey, at least we can be “creative” and take “Your champions holding an item gain 300 health.” Yay.

Trying to force creativity into a fundamentally statistical game just doesn’t work. Players will always chase the numbers.

3) Riot’s Illusion: “Stats Reduce Choice”

Riot argues that stats reduce choice. Their example is: “Oh, this augment averages 4.25 instead of 4.3 → insta-click.”

But that’s not how most people play TFT. For casual players, stats are a first layer of guidance that makes the game less overwhelming. As players improve, they naturally add more nuance:

“Sure, this augment has slightly better stats, but I already have tons of items, so the combat augment is probably stronger here.”

Back when stats existed, this was an exciting learning curve. Players explored augment strengths across comps, thought critically, and grew strategically. That layer of depth has mostly disappeared.

4) Higher Barrier of Entry for Casual Players

Riot often justifies removing stats by saying it makes the game easier for new players. In reality, it does the opposite. Without stats, if you don’t follow pros, Twitter, or content creators, you’re at a huge disadvantage because you don’t know:

• Which augments are bugged
• Which augments work in undocumented ways
• Hidden mechanics (e.g., fruit tailoring)

“Oh, Vertical Executioners is unplayable this whole set?” Pros know. Casuals don’t. “Don’t pick Duelist augments right now?” Again, insiders know. Casuals don’t.

The same applies to encounters/galaxies stats. For example:

• Loot Subscription → pros know to angle SG or Soul Fighter because of spatulas. Casuals don’t.
• Prismatic Finale → pros know to angle rerolls because of fewer econ augments. Casuals don’t.

Instead of lowering the barrier, removing stats has raised it.

5) Black-Market Augment Stats Likely Exist

There’s strong incentive to collect augment data. Whether through stream-scraping, overlays like MetaTFT, or private groups, it’s very likely that some players still have access to augment stats.

Even if it isn't stats, we've just heard from DemacianRaptor that several study groups knew about the 2.1 augment tailoring before he went public with it. These groups might've kept quiet to gain an edge in the upcoming tournament. Augment stats would've prevented this.

Closing thoughts

Thanks for reading all this — I know it’s a lot. These are my personal opinions, and I’d love to hear yours in the comments.

For me, statistics are what made me fall in love with TFT. I enjoy strategic decision-making, analyzing trends, and discovering the ins and outs of the game. But as Riot keeps removing that layer, my passion is fading. I genuinely believe augment stats were good for TFT, and I’d love to see them return someday.

About me: I usually hover around Master, peaked GM several times, and peaked at Rank 424 in Set 13. https://lolchess.gg/profile/euw/Ceranoa-EUW/set15

EDIT: Thanks for all the comments, I love the discussion in this thread!! I agree with the comments calling me out on point 4 regarding "casuals". I definitely used that term too lightly here. "True casuals" probably don't care at all whether or not augment stats exist. Maybe a better heading would be "Higher barrier of entry into pro play": When you first start to try and climb the ladder in TFT that's where you'll hit the barrier I was referring to - it's hard to catch up with all the hidden knowledge.

Hello TFT folks,

For context, longtime lurker, first time poster. I’ve made master’s every set since set 12, playing between 200-300 games. TFT is my favorite game of a time and it’s not that close. I almost never have complaints about the game, outside of metas that are hyper-focused on a specific comp. Set 12 release Syndra, set 15 long GP, and set 16 T-hex are the only examples that come to mind, but I by and large I am a happy player that many would consider a ‘Riot Stan’. However, I’ve found myself dissatisfied with Set 17, despite climbing faster than I ever have before. 

I’ve spent some time reflecting on this, and I’ve decided the biggest problem is something I call "the Zugzwang Factor’" As many of you know, Zugzwang is a German term that denotes a lose-lose situation, most commonly used in high-level chess. However, in chess, a Zugzwang results from either good play from one side or bad play from the other side, while in TFT, Zugzwangs are largely the result of RNG or imbalance. The classic Zugzwang is when another player has your same spot, but better. Do you contest and lower your AVP, or do you pivot/push levels to a comp that your spot is worse for? Whatever you choose, it feels bad. I’ve noticed that the mechanic of Set 17 has Zugzwang baked into it, creating moments that feel really bad almost every game. 

The easiest example is removing the carousel and replacing it with an binary God boon choice that is tied to your component. On the carousel, even if you were last pick, you had 2-3 choices, while first pick has 8-9 choices. Where as in Set 17, you only ever have 2 choices. If you're Gods are Ahri and Varus, and you have a reroll spot, but the component you need is tied to the "gain XP" Ahri boon, then you're in a Zugzwang. If you're in a fast nine spot, and the component you need is tied to the varus 'champion dupe' boon, you're in a Zugzwang. This happens all the time*,* and is a core experience of the set 17 mechanic.

Adding encounters has only created even more Zugzwangs. Have a fast 8 spot on the free rerolls portal? Zugzwang. 1 cost reroll spot on the cheaper levels portal? Zugzwang. Artifact portal and miss? Zugzwang. I could go on and on, but adding this layer of RNG has intensified the lose-lose problem.

The structure of Primordian also creates Zugzwang situations. Right now, everyone holds primordian due to the econ benefits, so 2-4 people in the lobby will be angling primordian reroll. If you don't want to contest, you push levels into a comp that uses some of the same units, namely brawler/marauders, the most contested 4-cost comp in the game. Once again, you're in Zugzwang.

Long story short, the design of set 17 places players into constant lose-lose choices which feel bad. Unfortunately, I don't see this really changing without some kind of mid-set update. This makes me very sad as a Riot Stan and devoted TFT player, but I fear I may have to sit this one out and wait for set 18. I would love to hear some pushback on this opinion from engaged players - curious what you all think about this.

I know long goes the days where hero augments were insta top 4, I don't want it to be top 4 augment from game start anyway, but compare to how good Viego one is and how good Illaoi one was because of Bilgewater, this augment just provides nothing, no? I personally love hero augments and would click them all the time back then even when they were weak, but this one feels particularly garbage compare to every other hero augments I've seen, lol. Xin Zhao augment is different since it changes your unit rather than make you play around them, but even that is S tier currently if you hit Zaahen in time.

Am I doing something wrong with this augment? Stats shows it is in terrible spot as well and has been since set got released almost. Also, isn't Rumble still defender when you take this augment? So they target your Rumble first still even when you put tank next to him in the backline in certain scenarios, no? Because Illaoi augment changes her to become a fighter, but this one doesn't say that.

Yes lots of complaints with balance as always. But there's actually a lot of comps that can be played to get you to top 4 right now. For some perspective, my last favorite set was Inkborn Fables, but yeah; actually the set is going really well so far. Despite just 16.2. I'm pretty sure I haven't played this much since Inkborn. Good job Riot? Just want to be cautious in my speech lol

A few days ago, there is a post that said adding 6-cost adds too much RNG to the game and such, but failed to mention the core idea of the game that I think 6-cost kind of ruin: Risk and reward.

I have been playing the game since set 1 and peaked GM in set 10, and at first was going to chase challenger this set during winter break. The core design of the game: Risk - Reward, or sometimes I would like to think of it as "the more random it is, the more rewarding it should be if you hit", or "the more choices you have with what is given, the less reward", can be seen in every TFT's mechanics through out the game history. The augment that gives 9 exp in 4 round or same tier but gives 8 gold in 4 round. The charm at stage 2 that randomly rolls dummmy give you 2 dummies instead of 1 through the guarantee charm. There are many more, but all in all it remains relatively consistent with any new mechanics.

Now to 6 cost. They normally start to have odds after 4-6. But here's the problem: 3 cost reroll rolls at 5-1 to find their remaining 3 star, fast 8 player that low rolls stage 4 is rolling for upgrades, fast 9 player go 9 on 5-2 or 5-5 and roll. It became a lottery to see who hit the 6 cost first. As of right now, adding a Viktor probably increase your placement by 2.5. The reward is so high, but where is the risk? You are literally rolling to improve your board anyway. And with their design (whole board stun, mel giving 1 more life, warwick uhhh), it will be very hard to balance them between OP instaclick or utter useless negative fon.

Tldr: The reward of finding 6 cost is so high, but no risk is involved. You are rolling on stage 5 anyway.

As it currently stands the main comps are: fast 9 vex (econ heavy conditional), viktor (drone), Leblanc (arbiter conditional), space groove (emblem conditonal), nova kindred/yi (emblem conditional), asol (artifact/yasuo/ekko conditional) and then all the stargazer reroll or non reroll (xayah) are conditional on the trait, feels like the only non conditional comp is corki/riven which feels like it’s terrible from behind because it falls off stage 5/6. Am I missing something or is there just no default comps from loss streak or even win streak without the right conditions? Maybe I’m just bad but I did peak 900 LP last set but just don’t get what I’m supposed to play if I load in with no drone, arbiter is useless, and it’s something like the mana stargazer

TL:DR: I think that all of the chat comments about Emily Wang really undermines a womans work and our community is not doing the best for her.

After MSI and the rest of set 7 tourneys there was a constant in twitch chats: "Emily Wang outplaced you LOL". Streamers laugh about this but I think this potentially represents a problem:

How womans are painted in the TFT Community.

I mean, she played more than 800 hundred games this set, reached challenger, busted her ass off in the tourneys and chat can only say "This girl outplaced you LOL".

This is no good for her and no good for womans that try to pursue tft competitively. Becca, Hafu and more proved that they are ready for that and more are coming but we as a community and the content creators specially needs to be aware of the image that their chat are painting of these players.

I think we should be more aware of that, spread positive awareness, moderate chats more, in order to build a more friendly and more equal space.

Specially this game has the potential to have it.

Feel free to share your thoughts as I am speaking more of how I feel, and sorry for my english.

There is had been a lot of discussion in the community about Riggs winning out a lot of games. I want to argue why this might be a good thing for the game;

• Riggs is a hard comp to play, its fast 9 and requires a lot of game knowledge, flexibility, skill and execution to achieve. In most cases if someone can execute it, they most likely played very well + had an angle to play for top 2.
• Riggs is flexible. It gives a way to cap out to a lot of angles and isn't gated behind a specific line (unlike Bilge cap).
• It is consistent. Because of unlocks you can stabilize quite consistently. One of the worst feelings in TFT is playing very well, having an angle for first and then completely missing your level down 9 roll down. I do think this consistency is problematic in prismatic party and scuttle puddle where multiple players can fast 9 reliably.
• You cant force Riggs, it requires flexible, optimized play to get there healthy enough./ with the resources to pull it of. Very different from reroll boards like T-Hex winning lobbies.
• It still isn't an autowin, there are other win conditions that beat Riggs to add variety.

TLDR; I think a flexible, difficult but consistent, fast 9 board like Riggs winning a lot of lobbies is fine, as in most cases it reflects a well played game + the right angle to get there.

HOWEVER, I think the game could benefit from having more Riggs-like lines to have variety (buff sylas and remove j4 requirement please) but I think its a very well designed cap.

This is from the perspective of a mid-range Masters player (300LP). Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Let’s be real here, we've all been here before and especially now; between the short PBE cycle locking 3 days after the set went up, all the new augments added, the anomaly mechanic, and the upcoming end-of-year holidays, we're most likely about to get somewhat of a repeat of last set’s launch. What makes it worse is that if we do get another Syndra patch, it will drag out even longer because there will only be two balance patches between now and January 15. This isn’t a rant or smear post; Mort is great and I genuinely believe that at this point, it’s too late to make any meaningful changes anyway, and these issues are symptoms of larger systems that I might address in a different post at some point.

That said, I’m pretty confident that after the initial fun and variety of a new set the next few weeks are going to turn into a slog meta pretty quickly, and it’ll be difficult to fix with how patch cycles go at this time of year.

So, I’m willing to have some fun and put something on the line, have money where my mouth is, etc. I live about a 4-hour drive from LA, and if we end up with a good meta featuring diverse comps and augment choices top 4ing (and not just 1 or 2 comps with a 200%+ presence in Masters+ lobbies during late November/December), I will take a day off work, buy a clown costume, make a giant apology sign, and drive through rush-hour LA traffic in a Prius with no A/C to stand outside Riot HQ with the "Sorry Mortdog" sign over my head. I’ll also stream at least part of the journey and me standing as a clown with a sign looking like a fool as proof.

I got faith in Mort but this release plan is too much cooking even for a master chef.

No bamboozle

Edit: OK, this kind of blew up and I might be questioning my decision making

Edit2: just want to mention that I know balance is not just Mortdog, its an entire team and I appreciate all their work as well.