Quote:
Originally Posted by Affinity2
I'm sure someone has brought up the idea already... but why not put a passive on smite? Something like 20 to 50 percent gold increase from neutral monsters then, adjust the gold values on the neutrals until the gold for the jungle is the sufficient amount and there is now a small trade off for having lanes farm the jungle. It seems like an effective way to adjust the numbers easily and opens up more thought to the game. If I'm the carry should I take this camp or leave it to my jungler to farm. Will he get there before it respawns, or will i be making him lose out on more gold than I gain?
I can see some abusive scenarios such as double jungle become more potent and a larger sacrifice for oppsing laners to invade the jungle. But it seems slightly more effective than just adjust the ambient and jungle gold. The jungle gold change most should most exponentially favor farmers according to your goals. I believe this is an effective way to do so while opening more options for counter play.
|
I actually like this idea, facilitating gold gains almost exclusively through being a jungler via smite. It seems Riot is scared of touching camps yield, so this might be a good alternative.
Also, whoever mentioned catering to a "smiteless jungle", good luck with the rest of the smart junglers bullying the living daylights out of you (I've done it before, it's fun
) and taking all your buffs past your first clears because you were "too cool" to pick smite up. There's a reason the jungle was virtually balanced around this summoner spell, and you're doing a disservice if you're not providing a smite on your team. One person on the team should get smite at least, and the Jungler logically benefits the most out of it.
??
Senior Member
