Sorry, I probably should have dropped this in this thread, since this is where it was mentioned.
"I gave a quick thought to what you said about lane passivity and assaulting enemy objectives, and then extrapolated it a bit - If passivity no longer becomes a problem, the game will shift to more aggressive play (duh). In what bizzaro world is aggressive play bad? Well, pushing can get kinda icky when it's out of line. While I think there are certain limits on being too aggressive (mana constraints for example) that don't exist while playing passive, there is always a ying to the yang. Obviously the primary objective is to shoot for balanced, less passive play, but I'd like to hear your take on the idea that if the reasons for passive play are removed, then it is thus rewarding to play aggressive in ways that are cheesy rather than healthy. I mean, it makes sense that if there's no reason to play passive, then there's no reason not to be as aggressive as possible, and while the design team is obviously not going to let the pendulum swing to the other side, I'd still like to hear what you have to say from a hypothetical point of view.
Other examples of "Cheesy" aggressive play besides push comping would be hyper-aggressive laning, like Blitzcrank + Alistar. They likely wouldn't kill anybody, but their level 2 CC would definitely give them enough lane control to, upon grab, likely send somebody running back to base, or at least into denial mode. I don't know how many cheesy lane combinations you could come up with - but I'm assuming there's a lot of undiscovered potential in that field (why would higher levels of play, where strategies are popularized, try and make hyper-aggressive lanes in when passivity is so much easier? Thus those kinds of combinations haven't been dug up)."