I enjoyed reading your reworks and think there very well though out. Although hypothetically cutting out a large chunk of champions from a future game wouldn't fly. Especially when your list of champs that wouldn't make the cut are either the unpopular champs or the problem champs.

If people want to play the cut champs, then by all means, play LoL! If something doesn't fit up to the raised standards of LoL 2, however, it doesn't make it in.

While I try to keep as much of LoL's content in LoL 2 as possible, I will by no means put its structural integrity at stake just to please everyone. I'm keeping a very strict champ cap on LoL 2, so for every lackluster or unworkable champion that would make it in, that's one less good design that would be able to fit.

I acknowledge that some people would miss these champions, but the amount of content their removal would make room for should be able to make up for it. And again, there's always Vanilla LoL! I don't want to take away anyone's fun, but rather give LoL a chance to start anew with the advantage of time and experience behind it.

I fully and wholeheartedly support these changes; imagine if you dunked someone as Darius and actually felt like you deserved to do so! Ahh...

Glad you agree with us!

Currently snatching Galio from the cutting board. Was going to scrap him at first because the "gargoyle" play style was going to be too similar to the "scarecrow" play style, but taking the Yorick redesign to heart (was originally going to be scrapped because of Karthus), I'm taking another look at him and making him work.

Might nitpick Thresh and Vi in the future, if I have the time!

I do want to note: There are a lot of placeholders.
Blitzcrank would be replaced with Ronan, something very much fitting to his appearance.

Basically, a lot of elements or abilities you'd miss are actually still there, but better.

That said, what's wrong of cutting the most problematic champions ? Urgot has been one of Riot's well-known mistakes, not only does he have random abilities slapped onto his appearance with no theme at all, the dude is 'ugly for the sake of being ugly' - Morello has stated countless of times they will never do something like Urgot again, he said the same about Trundle, yet the ugliness is part of his character, not needlessly added.

Soraka ? Don't get me started on Morello and heals in a MOBA game.

Irelia ? 'Better nerf Irelia' - she has the huge nerf history for a reason.

Like Peri here has said, I've taken everything worth keeping from these champions and built entire champions around them! Gonna miss throwing out your hook as Blitz and pulling in unsuspecting champions? Ronan's all about that (plus balanced more around it--I made a point of not giving him the snappiness/mobility Blitz has currently and replaced it with tools that revolve around that pull)! Liked Kha'Zix's (now Teek) old flow? Quetzal's keepin' that nice and warm for you. Miss the satisfaction of nuking someone (everyone) from across the map as Karthus? Fulgore does just the same with a bolt from the blue--now with a bit more counterplay and mindful thinking about it, due to it not being readily available at full power at all times.

Again, if something was worth keeping, I've found a way to do just that! I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, but I'm certainly not going to pour the bathwater into the crib.

If you have any questions regarding whether or not something you love would be making it into the (theoretical) sequel but don't feel like slogging through every redesign and OC, just ask me and I'll point you right to it (or give you the bad news--sorry Soraka heal!).

(Also, if you're having any questions as to why I'm cutting, say, Urgot or something, I can explain that as well. Everything I do or don't do is done--or not done--for a carefully considered reason!)

Meanwhile new Redesigns will be added soon - also, I hope we really get a red here soon, I'd love it if IronStylus did what he said he might be doing; 'heck I'll might show this to the designers for the sake of it'


Hail the parrot. If there are any questions, fire them at us ! Note: All of this is for a sequel yet again, people often forget that.

Have you checked out some Redesigns aswell ? Just out of curiousity.

A lot of people tend to read the OP, agree as we make sense but don't apply the same philosophy when it comes down to all of those Redesigns, just because they think the current champions are fine. (eventhough I explain in some detail what the problems are of the current state of those champions)

So yeah - out of curiosity, have you checked out a few ? Wich ones did you like ?

UPDATE: Added Galio Redesign to the Redesign section !

A long read, but generally a good discussion, and one we have internally quite a bit. Let's chat about some of these issues, see where we agree/disagree, and what our design philosophy is. I'm at the office, so this will not be the complete, comprehensive post :P

Theme: I think this is an area we're inconsistent at a lot of the time. When we're "on", we get Vi - she's cohesive, distinct and fills in a new character archetype. When we're off, we get something more akin to Zyra or Syndra...specifically, there's a good idea of something in there, but it's too dialed-back/not fully realized.

This is actually one of the things I'm personally focusing on this year. Regardless of one's interest in lore/story, theme is something most of us can get into, and it being good just makes champions a better experience. It's worth the time and effort to make right, and my thought is that champions like Vi, Draven and Kog'Maw are good from a theme perspective. They're definitely memorable and distinct, and if we can consistently do this, then people will be able to find the theme that suits their individual taste.

Depth: I think we agree on the concept, but likely disagree on the specifics. I don't think Fiddlssticks and Annie are shallow, but I also don't think DotA's original Invoker is deep (ie; it's just complex). Depth is something we think is important, but I think each champion requires a different approach (and different people want different types of depth).

In design, I equate depth to execution and decision-making density. The more interesting nuances (and a large part of where I think counter-play exists) of how things can be used can create long-term depth. The reason I wanted to speak on that Darius thread is because he doesn't contain that set of nuanced decision-making (and frankly, I think many fighters also suffer from this) - where someone like Fiddlesticks has to do a lot of setup and play differently to set up a Crowstorm, or that his drain is so susceptible to CC effects. The more high end of this is someone like Orianna where there's additional object-positioning elements that stand out, and I think characters with tradeoffs tend to have more depth (and why I prefer slower skillshots/longer CD's).

Let me ask you this: are you guys generally fans of complexity as a mechanic (definitely a player archetype I fall into)? Do you think there's a possibility you might be confusing depth and gameplay distinction/strategic diversity? I think League actually has a good amount of depth overall, though I don't feel all of our characters are, as you said, as awesome as they could be - you're correct in bringing up the Darius example here as representative of this issue.

I also apologize if I've come off as a tough nut to crack - that's likely me ineffectively communicating in some way. My attitude on the matter is much more lenient than I think I represent, but I think I get frustrated by emotional arguments too easily. Food for thought for me when writing.