but certain champions are already better than others. why not make it so the harder ones are a little bit better than having easymode MF be the top carry in game

there is too much to read so sry if i restate wut sum1 else said.

If they want balance than thats too bad coz it aint gonna happen. So long as we have different types of champs (tanks, dps, caster, support, carries etc.) there can never be balance.

For example, casters will have very high magic dmg but weak in everything else, so a dps can just come along and absolutely rape them as they have very high dmg, decent armour but sucky magic.

This iswhy they created items. Obviously the champs cant be balanced so they made items so that we can balance them ourselves.

Another example, a soraka will never be balanced against a tryndamere, but given the right items she'll be able to last long enough to escape to her allies and then rape him.

So balance isnt sumthin that Riot can fix. Everyone has there own idea on how to balance champions. Riot therefore invented items to give a wider variety of choice and an easy way to balance matches.

Insightful stuff isnt it.

Because "harder" champions being OP is what already happened with Ezreal and look what it became: he actually became the easiest carry to win a game with because of how strong he was. You could argue that they could've nerfed him less, but the fact remains that there would be no reason to play "less difficult" champions in a tournament setting if you purposely made harder ones much stronger.

No. Not everyone finds "hard" champs hard. Just because Ezreal is hard to play for some people doesnt mean he's hard to play for everyone, so why should the people who find him easy to play have an advantage over other champs?

Sona...? qweqweqweqweqweqwe

Sure they are, that's why they try to balance them. Also there are ban slots to minimize unfairness in competitive games.

Why would you want to introduce unbalance to the game?

It can be difficult to say, since in game balance, especially of this variety, you shouldn't ever be able to use the word 'best' or 'better' since it should be all situational when one exceeds the other, granted one could be better in more situations, but that still shouldn't make them 'better', regardless of how difficult they are to use. There should be counter picks and champions that work better in certain line ups than others, you can usually tell when a champion is slightly 'OP' when they fit perfectly into every line up (morgana, sona).

It's usually the characters skill set, more than anything else, which can result with them being over powered. Endless auras and an instant aoe disable, or how about a snare and the ability to make your carry completely immune to CC, debuffs, and all other negative effects? The ability to bring yourself into the rest of the team (distance closing) which basically negates the only down side of your ultimate which is also an instant aoe disable (amumu). Why pick shen who has a difficult time initiating when amumu can close distance and his aoe disable is much larger? Why pick rammus if he can close distance but can only disable one target? Well, for rammus the case could be argued that is ganks are comparable to shaco's, but after level 6 Amumu can guaranteed some kills if bandage toss lands.

Personally, I don't find Veigar to be that much harder to play than Annie, in fact, they're basically the same thing in terms of how you burst. Annie R>Q>W>Q (stun+burst; burst; burst; burst) Veigar E>W>Q> R being situational, you're just mashing buttons, the reason Annie is a better is because her skill set fits the role of an AP carry better than veigar (early game dominance) where as veigar is more of a late game AP carry, which is not what AP carrys are suppose to be used for late game, late game their primary purpose is their utility.

This was the intention with Ezreal and LeBlanc. We see how well that worked out.

Basically, Riot shouldn't do "hard champions that are better when played to full potential" because this doesn't work. All this means is that in high-skill settings, they're absolutely required to be picked. People can keep practicing until they can play a champion to its full potential.

What the game needs are risk/reward champions, rather than straight difficult to play. This means characters like Nasus. All of his skills are relatively straightforward, however, the risk is that you're going to be quickly outpaced by better players if you don't farm SS. Farming SS opens you up to harassment during the laning phase, and means that you can't really use it as a harassing tool yourself. The reward is knocking off half or more of a squshy's health in one hit and having the durability of a tank, and making towers crumble with ease.

remember, different champions have different unlock costs: the IP values are 450,1350,3150,6300. so it's not too suprising that a 6300 champion, like Vladimir or Kogmaw would be able to defeat a 1350 champion like Annie or Ryze! it's simply a different kind of balance!

the fact that any character can use any spell or equipment also helps balance somewhat.

But what if sarah was just as good as fred? What if when you were struggling to preform as good as a regular champion sarah was qwerqwerqwerqwer'ing to victory? Why would you ever play fred when there is a very large chance of you just failing outright when you could be playing sarah and masturbating while simulantaneously winning?