Those pictures are a giant ugly spider which happens to have half a naked woman sticking out for no obvious reason. It could be worse, I'll admit.

I don't want a spider queen, and I don't want a Beholder. I don't want things which you only want because they've been done a million times before, or because it feels cool to want the thing which Riot said shouldn't happen. How many games need to have an Arachne character?

There's only one type of champion I'd ask for from Riot: something completely unexpected. (Which can jungle.) I much prefer the other threads which ask for things like a champ who uses a whip, or a boxer.

The difference is that these requests get at the heart of a mechanical concept, but allow the character itself to be interesting and unique. What do you want out of a spider queen? You want a web and poison and probably spiderlings. To me, that sort of prescribed, almost implied content makes for a shallow, boring design concept.

Sure, a spider queen or Beholder could be made fun to play--but why bother, when you could make a champ which is fun to play AND unique and interesting? You're asking for such a specific, narrow view of what could be a great whole.

When Riot tried to fix this problem of implied content with the spider queen, it came off as silly--but how would you do it any better? Which characters are the most memorable, the fan favorites? Do you love Cassiopeia? Because I don't, and I don't know anyone who does.

Why do you suppose people don't love and overplay the best mage in the game?

Your argument is flawed. Firstly don't tell me no one likes Cass, but then forgot to mention Alistar, Swain, Fizz, Ahri, or any champ with animal like attributes. I don't see anyone whining about boring or unremarkable the rest of them are. Secondly how does coming up with one idea automatically make her limited and boring. It's not always what a champ can do, it's how it's executed.

Take Darius for example. He has a close range AOE( like Hecarim), an on hit proc(like so many other melee champs), a gap closer(again like so many other champs), and a true damage ult(like cho) with a possible refresh(Yi and Kat). Not to mention all the complaints his design had before he was even on PBE. Yet he end result was a very satisfying champion.

Lastly, "How many games need to have an Arachne character?" sounds like a pretty stupid question to me. Just like "How many dudes with weapons do we need in games?" or "How many well endowed chicks do we need in games?" Clearly if they keep showing up, then there's a want for them.

No, you missed the reason why I singled out Cassiopeia: she's a snake-woman archetype, a Medusa. Much more popular in games even than a minotaur, and certainly I don't know of many games with a ruthless tactician who transforms into a demon bird. Maybe you have a better idea as to why people tend not to play the best mage in the game? To the "it's how it's executed" part, I already argued against that: it's unnecessarily limited. Have cool kits on more interesting (less cliche) character concepts instead.

Darius doesn't really fit in with this discussion, since it's about requesting very specific monster archetypes. Darius is actually an example of what I said I liked better: instead of a champ with a whip, he's a champ with an axe. He's an example of wish fulfillment: what would you like to do if you could run around killing everything with an axe? It's true that, as a character, his design could be more interesting, since he's just a normal human, but there is plenty of demand for human champs. Just look at how many new players automatically gravitate toward Garen, who is probably the most generic human concept in this game.

The last argument doesn't make much sense, either, since you're basically ignoring what I've been saying all along. Things like Beholders and spider queens are in every game, but they're generic enemy monsters or bosses; they're easy designs for teams which need 100 different monsters in a game. LoL could have them also, but why bother, when we could have something more interesting?

Learning gap.

The same argument could be made for Zombies like Sion, Fox people like Ahri, animal shifters like Nidalee. Plus, the champions related to the Void are inspired by Lovecraft and that concept has been done to death by almost everything. Are you saying because something is over done, it is not interesting?

To add, look at HoN's newest hero: Bramble.

That's a Malboro from the Final Fantasy series. No doubt about it. Would you want to play that hero, just from looking at him? Is he appealing?

I think his kit seems interesting, although I lack experience with HoN to determine how it works in the context of the game. But suppose he were the new best jungler in the game, faster clears than Mundo, better ganks than Nautilus.

Would you want that character in LoL? I wouldn't. If I want to fight Malboros, I'll play FF Tactics.

Priscilla 2012.

Next to Flans, Malboros are my favorite monster in FF series. And you never get to play them. So yeah, I would want to play one.

Bump

Bump.

Weird I thought a lot of people loved cass, including myself. She is similar to a medusa, yes. I'd take that over yet another generic human any day. Can you really think champs like darius are more creative/interesting?

I do agree that they should be done in different ways, for example I hope spider queen is nothing like brood mother or have the obvious web on ground and spawn baby spiders.