7

Related to this thread: Are questions of champion viability allowed?

How should we treat questions specifically related to champions usage in competitive play?

To me, these types of questions seem much more localized and speculative (from my knowledge of the game) than general questions about champ viability. As soon as the meta changes or the top players change, these answers will change dramatically where the general questions about champ viability will not.

some examples with mixed upvote/downvotes. examples:

Why is Tryndamere not seen in competitive play?

Is Wukong a viable champion?

Why is Kassadin not played in tournaments?

https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/78025/why-dont-i-see-any-gragas-in-tournaments?rq=1

  • Y'know, I'm not sure where I stand on the matter at hand. But it does amuse me peculiarly that we do regularly get such "Why isn't this guy used in competitive play?" questions. – Grace Note Aug 12 '13 at 18:36
  • Thanks for meta'ing this was gonna do it later today, its somewhat frustrating seeing "is so and so viable in competitive" and then clicking the question to see no, only to have just seen them used multiple times that week – Brian Aug 12 '13 at 19:27
  • Now I know this is going to sound off, but aren't these types of questions best left in the community wiki? Also, where is the community wiki, I've been trying to find it – Cole Busby Aug 12 '13 at 23:32
7

Questions about champion viability are clearly on topic. Patches may change the answers to them over time, but we have coped with sweeping changes to Minecraft in the past, and we can similarly cope with this.

To me, questions asking about why certain champions are used in the competitive scene are the same as questions about whether champions are viable, just phrased in a different way.

Rather than, "Is Evelynn viable? I read her skills and she seems neat, but I am not doing well with her.", we're seeing a question like, "I see Scarra playing Evelynn a lot recently. What makes her worth using competitively?"

A good answer to either question would explain what exact aspects of the champion make her viable or not viable.

I think that we may want to consider rewording "Why isn't Wukong used in competitive play?" to "Is Wukong a viable champion?" The asker would still get the answer to the core question he's asking, but the question would be worded in such a way to remove the elements some people seem to find subjective.

  • I think all these questions can just be "Is X champion viable?" By asking about viability, you are implying some level of competitive play. We can leave it to the answers to go over those different levels. – user9983 Aug 12 '13 at 18:40
  • @OrigamiRobot Is that trying to add something to my answer or agreeing with me? Because that's what I was trying to say. – Invader Skoodge Aug 12 '13 at 18:42
  • 1
    Minecraft is a little different in that we aren't constantly worrying about the "balance" of the game which seems very discussion boardish. This seems analogous to having a stack exchange site about weather, with questions constantly asking "Is it a good day to go to the beach in Florida" – Resorath Aug 12 '13 at 18:42
  • @Resorath But balance will only change with patches, just as Minecraft features will only change with patches. Balance doesn't just upend itself daily for no reason. – Invader Skoodge Aug 12 '13 at 18:43
  • 3
    @StrixVaria Just specifying that we don't need both "Is X viable?" and "Is X viable for tournament play?" in case there are any champions for which there are two existing questions. I don't know where I stand on the topic as a whole, but I do know one question per champion should be enough. They should all be changed to just "Is X viable?" – user9983 Aug 12 '13 at 18:44
  • Riot's aim is to make every champion viable (otherwise why have the champion). So if the goal of game is to make every champion viable, do we need to answer is so and so viable? Perhaps if we were to include "Is so and so viable in a solo lane?" it would make more sense to me. – Brian Aug 12 '13 at 19:25
  • 4
    @Brian Riot's aim and the reality of the situation are far from the same thing. That said, your question example is better than a generic question of viability. The more specific a strategy question is, the better. – Invader Skoodge Aug 12 '13 at 19:37
0

I agree with Strix, but I would suggest we take it one step farther by requiring the role/situation when asking about viability.

Instead of "Is Janna viable?" I would ask "Is Janna viable in a solo lane?" or "Is Janna viable as a jungler?". Allowing a simple is so and so viable would open up a wide variety of questions such as "Is Terran viable?" or "Is Ryu viable?".

The fact of the matter is that, if they're in a game, they're capable of being played successfully in general. However, they may not be viable in certain roles/situations.

  • 2
    I disagree with this. One "Is X viable?" question can have answers that cover all roles. I think they'd be far more useful together than apart. – user9983 Aug 13 '13 at 16:34
  • @OrigamiRobot The simpler the question with less complex answers, the easier to maintain they will be. Having an essay answer covering each aspect of viability will have to be updated everytime any portion of the game changes(not that it will be but thats another discussion) where as specific questions with specific answers will have to be updated less frequently. – Brian Aug 13 '13 at 16:39
  • If something changes and causes the answer to need updating, something is getting bumped no matter what. You can have 4 different questions being bumped once each over a certain period of time or one question being bumped 4 times over the same period. There is no difference there. If anything, a broader question could update less frequently as there is the chance that two roles can be updated at the same time. – user9983 Aug 13 '13 at 16:45
  • Not necessarily, you're assuming we have questions for all of them. If the jungle changes in league, the "Is janna viable" would have to be updated, but we may not have a "is janna viable as a jungle?" question :P But I suppose i got us off topic. I'm mostly stating the definition of viable is capable of success, so if its in a game it is always viable, making the question redundant :P – Brian Aug 13 '13 at 16:54
  • does your answer say "yes we should allow these questions, as 'competitive play' is a specific case/role/scenario"? – Colin D Aug 13 '13 at 17:05
  • 1
    I agree with him in that competitive play portion is unnecessary, and asking about viability is more appropriate. However, I'm stating we should take it one step further in requiring a specific case/role/scenario when asking about viability – Brian Aug 13 '13 at 17:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .