What makes a champion good/bad? (reaction to Domino hate, but not restricted to that)

Title says it, what makes champion good?

(Short version: tell me which criteria make champs good/bad down in discussion)

Imho, it must be combination of the things listed below:

Utility
Immunity
Damage
Range of use/flexibility

Let us test this for 4 champions:

For the previously mentioned Domino:
Utility - not much
Damage - plenty (even with bad RNG)
Immunity - no.
Flexibility - not against DoT nodes, but can be used fairly often. Doesnt hard counter, but can be used as universal dmg dealer, that is undependant on enemy immunities

Now what about other champions? Say Archangel:
Utility - yes (heal reverse, AAR, AAR immune)
Immunity - no
Damage - yes
Flexibility - not much. Against bleed/poison immunes (ca. 1/3 of champs) he loses most of his use

And immunity champ? Let us pick Iceman:
Immunity: triple
Versatility: fairly large, more and more coldsnap immunes
Damage: relies on coldsnap/frostbite, but those do nice damage. Nothing ultra high
Utility: high, can tank sp3 and his immunity has wide use

I could go on for all champs, you probably got the point, so I will list one more champ, not mutant this time: Vision (Aarkus):
Immunity: no.
Damage: above average, not on top levels, but definiely useful
Utility: surely yes, reduces power control, has passive powergain, can get rid of non dmg debuff
Versatility: as long as he can have buffs and place armor breaks (very few champs are armorbreak immune), he is useful.

Conclusion:
I would put these 4 in following order:

Aarkus>Iceman>Domino>Archangel

Is that right? According to common opinion: NO.

Result: my 4 criteria are obviously not matching the general criteria, by which champions are judged by majority of people.

Question: What makes champs good/bad then?

Comments

O0000004

Just three champions
Quake Ghost and Doom
ULTIMATE GOD TIER CHAMPIONS

JessieS

Do you enjoy the champion? Yes? That’s all you need

Rookiie

Why are we always trying to figure out ways to compare who's better or worse using a universal category / framework?
Different champs do different things in the hands of different players
For example
Skilled Quake players claim she is the best champ in the game, players who can't Quake have no use for her
So one could rightly claim she is the best in the game, and another could rightly claim they have no use for her
There is no one size fits all

Giuliameij

Wasn`t that a sarcastic post thou?

Kerneas

Wasn`t that a sarcastic post thou?

Might've been, but it is interesting to think of this "problem" anyway, isn't it?

Dart1981

Title says it, what makes champion good?

(Short version: tell me which criteria make champs good/bad down in discussion)

Imho, it must be combination of the things listed below:

Utility
Immunity
Damage
Range of use/flexibility

Let us test this for 4 champions:

For the previously mentioned Domino:
Utility - not much
Damage - plenty (even with bad RNG)
Immunity - no.
Flexibility - not against DoT nodes, but can be used fairly often. Doesnt hard counter, but can be used as universal dmg dealer, that is undependant on enemy immunities

Now what about other champions? Say Archangel:
Utility - yes (heal reverse, AAR, AAR immune)
Immunity - no
Damage - yes
Flexibility - not much. Against bleed/poison immunes (ca. 1/3 of champs) he loses most of his use

And immunity champ? Let us pick Iceman:
Immunity: triple
Versatility: fairly large, more and more coldsnap immunes
Damage: relies on coldsnap/frostbite, but those do nice damage. Nothing ultra high
Utility: high, can tank sp3 and his immunity has wide use

I could go on for all champs, you probably got the point, so I will list one more champ, not mutant this time: Vision (Aarkus):
Immunity: no.
Damage: above average, not on top levels, but definiely useful
Utility: surely yes, reduces power control, has passive powergain, can get rid of non dmg debuff
Versatility: as long as he can have buffs and place armor breaks (very few champs are armorbreak immune), he is useful.

Conclusion:
I would put these 4 in following order:

Aarkus>Iceman>Domino>Archangel

Is that right? According to common opinion: NO.

Result: my 4 criteria are obviously not matching the general criteria, by which champions are judged by majority of people.

Question: What makes champs good/bad then?

Lol, there isn't a universal hate of Domino, there are just a few people, who are very active in the forums, that seem to have an agenda against her. She is still a very useful and versatile champ that has more utility that you have said in here and does more damage than anyone on your list (barring AA when the opponent can bet both bled and poisoned).

Yes her kit is very RNG based but she has a 50% chance to remove any bleeds on her after 1 second - when this happens she gains power! many parts of her basic attacks are non contact hits so she is great for nodes like an of the thorns nodes or champs like korg. She has increased block profiency. As well as the unlucky passive which counters evade champs. The utility is there, it is just RNG based which is not everyone's cup of tea and her damage is crazy good.

I personally use her quite a bit still, she is not the greatest champ (like doom, Ghost, quake etc) but she is still one of the top and has really good versatility IMO.

Lunae

Its a combination of a lot of things such as where the game was content wise, champion wise, as well as factors such as a champions immunities, utility, high damage and how simple their damage can be accessed.

Domino for example when she was released eventually blew players minds with her damage because of how big and bursty it was, which now seems more like a novelty. She was basically the Nick Fury of her time with him simply over taking her because of his utility. This was also before kabam started drifting towards designing more complicated fights in regards to nodes so her simplicity or lack of utility didn't matter because fights weren't as niche as they are now as in the later parts of act 6. One of the biggest things that had people excited about her as well for example was that she could do LOL and play around its limber by extending the stun duration with her synergies, which was a big deal at time, today not so much with something like ROL being even more irrelevant. Back then during those ROL days Starlord was king, look at him now.

I also think champions like Archangel should be tiered separately. Ranking him among the mutants is always an interesting conversation because of how much immunities hamper an otherwise BGT champion who is practically outmatched if it bleeds. Is he BGT if he's useless against bleed immune fights? What about Nick Fury and Domino?

Sarvanga1_

Its a combination of a lot of things such as where the game was content wise, champion wise, as well as factors such as a champions immunities, utility, high damage and how simple their damage can be accessed.

Domino for example when she was released eventually blew players minds with her damage because of how big and bursty it was, which now seems more like a novelty. She was basically the Nick Fury of her time with him simply over taking her because of his utility. This was also before kabam started drifting towards designing more complicated fights in regards to nodes so her simplicity or lack of utility didn't matter because fights weren't as niche as they are now as in the later parts of act 6. One of the biggest things that had people excited about her as well for example was that she could do LOL and play around its limber by extending the stun duration with her synergies, which was a big deal at time, today not so much with something like ROL being even more irrelevant. Back then during those ROL days Starlord was king, look at him now.

I also think champions like Archangel should be tiered separately. Ranking him among the mutants is always an interesting conversation because of how much immunities hamper an otherwise BGT champion who is practically outmatched if it bleeds. Is he BGT if he's useless against bleed immune fights? What about Nick Fury and Domino?

AA is useless against bleed immunes but not domino.

Fluffy_paws

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.

Sarvanga1_

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.

Most of the time AA does it faster than quake.

Octoberstack

It’s definitely an interesting question to try and break down. At the current state of the game, champs tend to be highly regarded if they can either counter a huge variety of different scenarios (think Ghost and Quake), or if they can perform one or two specific pieces of utility extremely well (consider champs like Magik and Human Torch).

Therefore I think some additional factors that are also important to bear in mind are:

- How well does a champ fulfil a particular niche, comparative to other champs that fulfil a similar niche?
- How reliably, consistently, or safely can you apply a champ’s key piece of utility from a practical standpoint? (particularly important when it comes to gamemodes like Alliance War)

——————————————————————

Using AA as an example here (drawn from your own):

AA’s main piece of utility comes from his Neurotoxins, which apply a passive heal block and a stacking AAR %.

Compared to other champs that also reduce ability accuracy, AA is unique in the sense that his AAR can reduce both defensive and offensive ability accuracy, and can also easily exceed 100% AAR to cancel champion abilities with enhanced ability accuracy.

Now of course, AA’s capacity to stack Neurotoxins is somewhat hindered by purify mechanics and some instances of stun-immunity, and is completely neutered by bleed- and poison-immunities. However, in matchups where his utility is unimpeded, he will almost certainly outperform any other champion within his particular niche (i.e., complete AAR).

And this last bit is what’s so important in breaking down why seemingly “inflexible” champs like AA are still so highly regarded. As competitive gamemodes and late-game content continue to place increasing demands on roster specificity, the value of champs with “surgical utility” will continue to rise correspondingly, even if they’re somewhat hindered by a lack of versatility.

Mauled

I think that one of the most important things that makes a champion 'good' is their rotation - if it's hideously awkward to maximise the best way to play a champion with the best will in the world, 90% of players are going to find them frustrating to use and just not use them. Hela is a good example of this: potentially she's got incredible damage but outside of arena I never use her because I've got a 80% chance to get slapped in the face trying to time her heavies. CapIW on the other hand is a very simple champion to maximise his basic rotation - Parry-Heavy etc.

Outside of this a reasonable level of damage is obviously required. They could have the best kit in the world but if they hit like Groot they're just not going to be used. At a certain point damage can outshine utility: if the damage is high enough it is almost utility in and of itself - Domino's heavies were a pseudo counter to All or Nothing in 6.1 for me because she killed every opponent before they reached their SP3 because the damage she was putting out was so high.

Immunities are now one of the most important things these days, there's so many quests with bleed/poison etc. littered across the late game that having access to immunities is crucial.

SpideyFunko

The problem is people unwilling to listen to facts and bashing people because they don't agree with them.

Kerneas

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.

Like I said: obviously my measuring methods aren't most accurate. Thats why I encouraged you to come up with your own methods

And btw I really enjoy archangel, one of my fave mutants, and although 1/3 of champs are bleed/poison immune, still 2/3 he can shut down.

Mauled

The problem is people unwilling to listen to facts and bashing people because they don't agree with them.

But my opinion is right and therefore yours is wrong. I thought that's how this sort of thing worked

SpideyFunko

The problem is people unwilling to listen to facts and bashing people because they don't agree with them.
But my opinion is right and therefore yours is wrong. I thought that's how this sort of thing worked

oh shush

Kerneas

The problem is people unwilling to listen to facts and bashing people because they don't agree with them.

That is why I tried to do it the civilised way: ask a question, offer my opinion and not state any "absolute truths"

Sarvanga1_

Title says it, what makes champion good?

(Short version: tell me which criteria make champs good/bad down in discussion)

Imho, it must be combination of the things listed below:

Utility
Immunity
Damage
Range of use/flexibility

Let us test this for 4 champions:

For the previously mentioned Domino:
Utility - not much
Damage - plenty (even with bad RNG)
Immunity - no.
Flexibility - not against DoT nodes, but can be used fairly often. Doesnt hard counter, but can be used as universal dmg dealer, that is undependant on enemy immunities

Now what about other champions? Say Archangel:
Utility - yes (heal reverse, AAR, AAR immune)
Immunity - no
Damage - yes
Flexibility - not much. Against bleed/poison immunes (ca. 1/3 of champs) he loses most of his use

And immunity champ? Let us pick Iceman:
Immunity: triple
Versatility: fairly large, more and more coldsnap immunes
Damage: relies on coldsnap/frostbite, but those do nice damage. Nothing ultra high
Utility: high, can tank sp3 and his immunity has wide use

I could go on for all champs, you probably got the point, so I will list one more champ, not mutant this time: Vision (Aarkus):
Immunity: no.
Damage: above average, not on top levels, but definiely useful
Utility: surely yes, reduces power control, has passive powergain, can get rid of non dmg debuff
Versatility: as long as he can have buffs and place armor breaks (very few champs are armorbreak immune), he is useful.

Conclusion:
I would put these 4 in following order:

Aarkus>Iceman>Domino>Archangel

Is that right? According to common opinion: NO.

Result: my 4 criteria are obviously not matching the general criteria, by which champions are judged by majority of people.

Question: What makes champs good/bad then?

I will take the 4 examples here.
First: iceman,vision
There are champs that do exactly the same thing but better like colossus, emma frost, medusa, hyperion.
Second: AA, domino
These two have insane damage outputs and aar.One is hindered by immunities and other by lack of describable utility.These two complement each other pretty well.

Fluffy_paws

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.
Like I said: obviously my measuring methods aren't most accurate. Thats why I encouraged you to come up with your own methods

And btw I really enjoy archangel, one of my fave mutants, and although 1/3 of champs are bleed/poison immune, still 2/3 he can shut down.

Honestly I think it all depends on what needs done. If I've got a Black Widow on spiked armour node and I've got Archangel (one of the best mutants) or Groot, AA is good, Groot is bad.
However if I've got Luke Cage on a 100% bleed node, then Groot would be better bc AA would just flop dead. Groot good, AA sucks.

Now less extremes, Quake (one of the best in game) and Iceman (decent champ). Opponent with true strike and biohazard.
Quake sucks here while none of those nodes bother Iceman.

Conclusion: tier lists are stupid and every champ has their weaknesses.

Thicco_Mode

archangel does have aar immunity which is pretty cool. he's a great option for white mags

edit: red mags, not white

Fluffy_paws

archangel does have aar immunity which is pretty cool. he's a great option for white mags

Red mags. White is bleed immune now

Thicco_Mode

archangel does have aar immunity which is pretty cool. he's a great option for white mags
Red mags. White is bleed immune now

oh yeah he's the one that gets the sucide heals. confused myself there

Sarvanga1_

archangel does have aar immunity which is pretty cool. he's a great option for white mags
Red mags. White is bleed immune now
oh yeah he's the one that gets the sucide heals. confused myself there

Haha people confuse it or they don't even know that white mags is bleed immune now. I was going through incursions with AA and my partner told me to kill white mags with AA. I had to tell him that he is bleed immune. He was quite surprised.

WRIR

It's really easy. What makes a champion good is the ratio of matchups they can handle vs matchups they can't handle, as well as damage. In theory damage shouldnt matter too much, but in reality it does because low damage output is boring and tiresome.

Archangel its easy. There are less bleed or poison mmune champs than the total list. He can handle everything thats not immune. His dps is ridiculously high. Greay champ.

I might add Sym Supreme and Archangel are niche champs, as in during their niche they shred everything, and without it they dont shine. But the point is regardless whether they are generalists like Omega or specialists liek Archangel, great champs can cover lots of stuff quickly.

Grean

I just grade champions out of 4 things
1. Damage
2. Utility
3. Versatility
4. Do they need synergies/awakening/certain masteries

Kill_Grey

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.
Most of the time AA does it faster than quake.

All of the time. It's not even a competition in regards to speed.

Sarvanga1_

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.
Most of the time AA does it faster than quake.
All of the time. It's not even a competition in regards to speed.

Some nodes might hinder his speed like stun immunity.

Kill_Grey

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.
Most of the time AA does it faster than quake.
All of the time. It's not even a competition in regards to speed.
Some nodes might hinder his speed like stun immunity.

I'd you can heavy counter, it's not a problem. His specials also places the debuffs as well. Quake is also hampered by stun immunity, because it means less aftershocks for her.

Sarvanga1_

Bruh
Archangel is useless against bleed immune yeah. But find him a matchup that he can do and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can do it better except Quake. He'll shut down their nodes, their abilities.
Most of the time AA does it faster than quake.
All of the time. It's not even a competition in regards to speed.
Some nodes might hinder his speed like stun immunity.
I'd you can heavy counter, it's not a problem. His specials also places the debuffs as well. Quake is also hampered by stun immunity, because it means less aftershocks for her.

Ok stun immune is slower for both but glancing, debuff purification for AA is slower. This is coming from a person who hates quake.

Crcrcrc

Qualifications for being a good champ are:
1. Damage
2. Utility

3. Not Domino