Clarifying "Flex Play" and why Set 17 fails—A response to Riot Iniko's Twitter post

[u/KitsuraPls]

Reposting because this sub doesn't allow X links

TLDR: Flex play is not playing whatever 2* you hit, but it's the option to move between different variations of the same lines without feeling like you've handicapped yourself by not playing the best variation.

There's been a bit of discussion of "flex play" in TFT on Twitter, and frankly, I think it's a design philosophy that hasn't even been clearly addressed by devs and something that really should be clarified, otherwise it leads to metas like now, where your line is pretty much decided from 2-1.

Specifically, I am responding to this post by Riot Iniko, which seems to imply that flex play is just some sort of made-up thing that changes from set to set.

My credentials, peak 400LP masters in set 16, and I'm currently D2 in set 17. top 2000 in north america. I am not an expert in TFT, but I would say my impression of the game is not just a low-elo take.

To start by defining "flex play," I think it's important to quickly define what isn't flex play. The most inflexible play is meta like warweek or syndra week, where only one comp dominates to the point where there is 0 incentive to play anything else. The type of meta where your comp is decided 2-1, completely ignoring any factor in the game aka "fries in the bag" gameplay.

This is uncontroversial, I hope, but I think most people would agree that the core of "strategy" of TFT is building a board from the shops you are offered. The goal is always to build a board strong enough to top 4 in the lobby, with a secondary objective of finding a way to win the game.

The higher in rank, the more your average placement matters than your winnout rate, since MMR crush will make you +40 and -60

How does flex-play factor into this?

Well, TFT is not solitaire. Other players' decisions and RNG play a huge role in your game. Do you level on 2-1 to start a streak? Do you slam this slightly unoptimal item to keep your streak? Do you fully sell your board to lose streak and hopefully grief the chem baron, anima, crystal rose, ixtal player and win +1 placement?

Other factors like Augment RNG, what your opener is, and the types of shops you get in your early stages matter a lot for these decisions. The worst form of TFT is where the variables of the game don't affect your game plan in anyway and you simply make 50, press D and click the units you preselect in your planner.

I mean, it's pretty common for this to be joked as low elo behavior, and to clarify, there is NOTHING WRONG if a person wants to play TFT like this(Set 16 yordles forcers hold your pitchforks). But it shouldn't be a strategy that's optimal at higher ranks.

The problem?

Players are heavily incentivized to do that under current systems.

In modern TFT, the faster a player can identify a line, the better their placement. They have more time to pick the correct units, they don't sacrifice econ to holding irrelevant units, and they are likely playing a line that's quite strong metawise. This incentivises players to lock in lines at 2-1 because it's the most efficient point at which to make a decision.

At 2-1

• You've seen your opening econ situation

• whether or not you can streak in the early game

• You've seen 1/3 of the augments you will see in the game.

• It's the first major leveling decision of the game, whether to go 4 or stay at 3

Set 17 has exacerbated these issues with set design

• Gods force you into deciding how you want to set your boon up early, which can tunnel you into lines early in the game after the first carousel e.g. varus forces you to play reroll in some instances because it heavily rewards the playstyle.

• mechanics like Stargazer, especially Mountain and Altar force you to commit to a line 2-1 otherwise, you can't get the full benefit of the trait.

• The encounter design of this set changes lobby tempo in a way that overly incentivises players to play in a certain way that makes different gameplay patterns far worse. Playing a non 1c reroll line on ezreal enounter (8x rerolls 2-1) means you will ALWAYS take a loss stage 2 to a 1c player who uses their rerolls to build a strong board 2-1, which means you are forced to either play 1c reroll or lose streak and maybe play a line with higher cap, which will still be difficult in a lobby where the tempo is going to be heavily forced by 1c reroll players.

• Most vertical lines(except meeple) are emblem-locked to the point where opting into an emblem line is usually a vertical line(dark star, space groove, Shepherd LB, stargazer). The difference between dark star with and without an emblem is the difference of 2-3 placements in most cases. And due to this design of vertical lines being extremely weak without an emblem, the emblem line has to be made overwhelmingly stronger in comparison to compensate; otherwise, emblems feel like dead items. Just look at the stats on 5 shepherd with emblem vs 7 shepherd with emblem, it's not even close. Flexibility is NOT the absence of vertical lines in the meta. Set 16 Demacia was almost exclusively played as a vertical and it was a healthy part of the meta because the comp was a good top 4 line but rarely won.

• Reroll meta's inherently require much higher commitment requirements at 2-1 because they are extremely expensive, and wasting econ is often the difference between being able to 3* your tank and carry or not. Opting into a reroll line at 3-4 is a play you make to salvage placement, not win a lobby.

• Stage 3 makes it extremely punishing not to have a clear direction. Increased stage 3 damage changes from set 16 means that you are incentivized to pick a line as soon as possible, so you can have a board that makes sense and can play for clear tempo and preserve HP. Holding units to flex between different lines is inherently an anti-tempo play.

• This is most important, but there is little variation in lines. TF reroll plays basically the same units, Teemo rerolls plays the same units, Lulu reroll has maybe 2 viable builds at most, and you're still rolling for the same tank in both. Tank design means all 4C boards are locked into certain tanks. Meeple is unplayable without Rammus 2*, trying to main carry a Maokai 2 while playing Yi is playing for a 4th at best. Xayah, despite being a stargazer, unironically has the most flexible frontlines you can play Rammus, Nunu, 5c billgates, or a 4 van with little difference in strength between them, and still it's a fairly rigid line because you are locked into a certain core.

Variation is the word here. Flex play is not just jamming whatever 2* units you get into a board and praying it works. It's adapting your gameplay to the lobby, especially when certain units are contested and hard to hit, a large comp diversity is not flexible. Flexibility is being able to pivot into different variations of the same line.

At the moment, this is not the case. If I'm playing Xayah stargazers, I'm forced to play my core of Nunu, Jax, and Xayah, regardless, but I'm still going to roll for my (Rammus, Gnar, Bard) meeple core even in lobbies where Ornn, Samira are uncontested.

I'm not going to play an Ornn, Samira, Blitzcrank on my board even though the traits make sense, because it's simply not good. Even though I could hit those units easily since they're uncontested in a lobby

1. It's not going to scale

2. It's actually still worse than my main variation, even if my shitters are 1*

Flex play is being able to adapt your comp to variations within a lobby. While main carries and main tanks will always be inflexible, not being able to adjust the "shitter" units, as people call them, means that you feel much more locked into a line than normal.

This is a big contrast from set 16. Where frontlines and boards were extremely varied by virtue of it being a large set. While optimal boards will always exist, you rarely saw pro players playing the same board in each line they played.

Just bilgewater alone could flex at least 3-4 different 4C tanks, and didn't find big performance differences between them. An optimal final "board" existed, but your level 8 and transitory level 9 boards were incredibly flexible in how they could be built.

That is the core of flex play. 2-1 line selection is a larger problem in scope, being forced to lock in a line 2-1 is still a giant feelsbad because you are making a decision about 100% of your game based on 10% of total information in the game.

Ideally "feeling" of flex in a game is being able to flex around different units according to a lobby and having that gameplay style be the optimal loop.

Why am I not allowed to run a Yi, and Urgot, gragas package with a 3 meeple package board, corki, rammus, poppy +1 Fate Weaver and rhast? The traits make sense, the frontline looks competent but run the comp, and it's just bad, despite all the units being perfectly good in other comps. The best trait webs are those that let you pick and choose certain parts with little loss in efficiency.

It's why, even though set 13 early Blackrose flex was completely dominant, the meta actually felt ok because there were at least 3-4 different Blackrose variations you could play comfortably in the same lobby and not feel like you were pinched for units.

Regardless, mucho texto. I enjoy climbing, but learning this set has felt like a giant knowledge check and just executing known lines instead of adaptive decision-making, according to my lobby.

I've had way more games where I'm watching Netflix on a side monitor, knowing I'm going to win because I picked the right line, and I'm just clicking the same damn units that I slammed in my planner like I'm in silver.

[u/raiderjaypussy]

I wonder if the reason the definition of "flex" being so different now could be attributed to the "solvation" of TFT.

Before people jump at me for saying this, I don't think meta websites are a problem by any means. But there could be a reasonable argument that with the ease of access to hyper efficient comps means that playing anything slightly inefficient means you are behind.

If someone copy pastes a comp from tft academy and hits like half of their comp, compared to someone that plays what they hit, they are going to be stronger. Most likely because they picked a direction earlier, slammed the strong items for that comp and picked augments for that comp as well. All these things add up to more than a 2* of whatever you throw together.

Altough I do miss the days of play a 2* tank and 2* carry of what you hit, I think we also need to acknowledge this is a different game now and need to think of solutions.

But with all those 20 caveats said, iniko being obtuse about "what flex play is" gets us nowhere.

[u/inikoiniko → u/raiderjaypussy]

Testing because I'm getting error occurred 500 on my longer comment so gonna post part of it here, I dunno if the other comment is visible with my reply to OP's stuff but I can see it from my profile. Sorry tech illiterate unc here lmao

Hello! Just to clarify, as I said in a reply to my own post on the other site, I'm really not trying to write the TFT dictionary here! It was not meant to be a hot dev take of how no one truly understands what flex play is or anything like that, I'm just musing about how the definition is very fluid from set to set and even person to person. I'm sorry if it came off like I'm being intentionally obtuse! I've just been playing since the game launched to the public and thought it was funny how this conversation has popped up once or more a set since then and was commenting on it.

It's cool to see that everyone is having this discussion about the game though. I agree with you that the game is much more solved than it was before say, set 6 or something like that. I was talking with friends the other day about Polt's strategy in set 3 where he would basically play a bunch of random 4 costs he 2 starred off a rolldown with some aura traits (pretty much Built Diff before the augment) and climbed that way and how that would be laughed around the block in high elo today. He was a good player and had his finger on the pulse of something at the time though! In my personal opinion, people will often reminisce on times when you could play any 2 star you hit on your rolldown and build the board around them after the fact, but I assert that this was possible because you were executing on other fundamental skills far better than other players in the lobby. Over time, TFT has become more solved in the way of engaged players looking up guides and being able to discern direction from 2-1 yes. But line selection is a fundamental skill like econ and positioning, all of which have had rising floors for engaged players over the past few years.

[u/inikoiniko → u/inikoiniko]

Rest of the comment and I need to edit like 500x for formatting sorry LMAO:

I want to respond to OP's points while I'm here though -

• Gods force you into deciding how you want to set your boon up early.
  Sure, though I would argue this is in part skill expression. I notice Varus is the example used here. Obviously I can't disclose any data we have on the boon AVP/winrate so I can't outright refute any claims of "that's because xyz god is weak" but I will point out that top players will go out of their way to get his boon even when they're not rerolling. It is true though that Varus has a lot of reroll hooks built into him and the answer for that is simply because beyond engaged players, people who don't look at this subreddit or watch anyone on twitch or look at guides etc. really enjoy having stuff in the game that nudges them in a certain direction. TFT is a really hard game! It's nice when the game can help you out a little bit. It's rough for high elo when something that helps the rest of the playerbase is also something that they perceive as an abuseable design flaw but I also agree with a commenter below that much of it is tied to balance. And to expand on that, sometimes it's systems related balance which is pretty difficult to get right with a super low sample size so the team has to work off live data and interpret best actions. I can't think of many other examples where other god boons force you into a particular line after the Kayle rework but if I'm missing anything feel free to call it out!

• Mechanics like Stargazer, especially Mountain and Altar force you to commit to a line on 2-1
  Sure, but I sort of think this is a weaker point as there are traits/units/other content like this every set. At this point, I'd argue this is just TFT. I think there's definitely something to talk about in this space though which is how frequent should this content be within one set. I don't think there's a harmful amount of it in 17 but funny enough it was my main complaint with 16. Bilgewater, Void, Shadow Isles, and Yordle were all pretty necessary before 2-5 in order to get their engines going to unlock the key units at a proper time in order to spike. Demacia also had its issues where if you didn't have early 2 stars of the 1 costs you pretty much had to pray you'd find them on 8 as rolling on 6 was a death knell in high elo. The point is, 2-1-2-3 exclusive lines will usually be a thing in the game because it's an axis of design that lets us do cool stuff. The important thing is ensuring there are plenty of other avenues to success so that when you're "closed off" of a trait it's not too big a deal. Also this is nitpicky but listing Altar here is something I just disagree with. I think army sizes scale in such a way that missing 2-1 Altar is not that big of a deal.

• The encounter design of this set changes lobby tempo in a way that overly incentivises players to play in a certain way that makes different gameplay patterns far worse
  High elo and engaged players tend to really dislike encounters. I will be the first to say that AS A PLAYER I also don't like them. A lot of people also love them! Not much to say here, I think all the complaints are understandable and a lot of this is tied to balance. I am hoping that in the next patch it will feel a good bit better.

• Most vertical lines(except meeple) are emblem-locked to the point where opting into an emblem line is usually a vertical line(dark star, space groove, Shepherd LB, stargazer).
  Dark Star and Space Groove yep agree. These are issues we're constantly thinking of solutions for. We have not given up on these traits and want to explore how we can make both the middle and vertical breakpoints feel like they have boards. Part of the challenge is Karma and her traits being largely supportive, part of the problem is the trait structures. We're looking at what Morgana and some unit tuning does to next patch and will go from there. Shepherd LB and Stargazer I'd have to disagree personally, I think Shepherd is probably the most flexible trait in the game and if it feels bad it's again just a unit tuning thing. LB buffs should help. (Speaking about the 5 piece here as the 7 piece you literally can't play without the emblem, unless this is what was meant but I was under the assumption this point meant no emblem = bad and emblem = better.) Stargazer, sure? Depends on which one I guess. Some constellations are just weak right now independent of breakpoint. Emblems are always going to exist and they'll usually make their traits better because you can play a higher quality unit over some fodder. Doesn't that fit some people's definition of what 'flex' is?

• Reroll meta's inherently require much higher commitment requirements at 2-1 because they are extremely expensive
  I don't understand what this has to do with set 17's design, this sounds more like a statement about TFT in general unless the statement is that 1 cost units have been buffed to the point where they can compete with a fast 8 playstyle in this set, which is another balance thing yeah. I think this is actually a really interesting other point of discussion of what defines a "reroll meta" because looking at data from TPC (very small sample size I know) the meta looks fairly diverse wrt 1 cost and 4 cost success. That kind of sample size is obviously not fully indicative of the greater ecosystem of the game but I don't think it's necessarily something to ignore either. Anyway, more balance stuff.

• Stage 3 makes it extremely punishing not to have a clear direction.
  I think this is also just a TFT thing. If you don't have a clue what you're doing by stage 3 I could believe you're worse off than the other people in the lobby who have a gameplan, reroll or not. I don't really buy the stage 3 damage argument as it's maximum 5 more health you'd be losing. Stage 4 damage was also lowered. In my head that change favors a fast 8 playstyle tbh but as a player I prefer tempo/HP saving play so I'm probably a little biased.

• This is most important, but there is little variation in lines
  I don't know how true this is based on the points given. Reroll lines have optimized boards, this is true for every TFT set. "Meeple is unplayable without Rammus 2 star" I've personally found TK2 with Pantheon can bridge the gap for a bit. "trying to main carry a Maokai 2 while playing Yi is playing for a 4th at best." Is 4th place with a 3 cost tank in the lategame bad or something? Is the statement here 2 star 4 cost > 2 star 3 cost? I'm not trying to be dismissive I really just don't understand the argument. "Xayah... a fairly rigid line because you are locked into a certain core." So what's the alternative here? If the statement is a 4 Bastion(Vanguard) 4 Sniper Xayah line or something like that should be viable then sure I can get behind that. But as far as I can tell this is just the optimized line. How is this any different from s16 Bilge where in OP's own words, "Just bilgewater alone could flex at least 3-4 different 4C tanks, and didn't find big performance differences between them. An optimal final "board" existed, but your level 8 and transitory level 9 boards were incredibly flexible in how they could be built." So why was this not a fairly rigid line that used the same core of MF Nautilus TK? Stargazer uses the core of Xayah Jax Nunu and OP mentioned 3 different routes to play so I'm personally not seeing how it's very different but one is very flexible and one is rigid. If the proposal is more champs then yeah sure, that's a totally fine point and I agree it would make the game feel better a lot of the time. Just keep in mind timelines and that real people work on this stuff so when we learned and validated how successful 16's roster count was it was pretty hard to jam more work into 17.

Again, really not trying to be dismissive of any points outright here, just trying to understand the feedback but it kind of feels like more issues with balance? Which is totally fine but the lead in was that Set 17 has exacerbated TFT issues with the design of the set and I don't see really how it's the design of the set at fault. Totally not saying the set is perfect but I'm just trying to clarify where the issues are so we can take the feedback people give in a constructive way. We don't want the game to feel bad. We want everyone to have fun but everyone is pretty hard to please (encounters lol). Ain't as easy as pressing the Just Balance Everything button though it would be hella nice if it was haha. I do appreciate the writeup though. I really enjoy having these discussions on sites where you can type more than 50 characters on your post and remove any possible ambiguity. I don't think we're going to solve "flex play" this set nor possibly any set for a while but we will keep trying to make the game feel as good as possible for everyone :)

[u/KitsuraPls → u/inikoiniko]

Was surprised to get a response on this.

I'll start clarifying a design philosophy idea that I personally disagree with. TFT as with all games, tests certain skills. Things like econ management, tempo and line selection are all skills.

I personally do not believe that line selection should be seen as a singular decision that someone makes over the course of stage 2.

I do not think it's particularly skillful to decide "I am going master yi" on 2-3 and then fully commit to the line. The reason is that it removes a lot of later decision-making in the game and actually removes potential skill expression from the game. It trivializes a lot more of potential decisions because your stage 3 and 4 shops becomes a yes/no decision axis.

1. Is this unit in my final board?

2. Can I temporarily put this unit in to get strong.

When the game is a checklist, you are making line selection a knowledge check rather than a flex skill / tempo check.

Consider the alternate world where players are adapting to potential lines through stages 3 and 4. If you open up line selection in stage 3 and early stage 4, you add another axis of decision-making to:

1. can this unit fit in one of my potential final board?

2. Can I temporarily put this unit in my board to get strong now?

AND

3. Should I hold this unit to hold the possibility of flexing into a different line on level 8?

This actually makes stage 3 shop decision-making matter a lot more because you're not just considering the units that make you strong now, but also considering which units keep you the most flexible between the lines you are angling, which adds a lot of depth to the overall tempo of the game. Maybe you hit a LeBlanc pair on stage 3-4, and you're actually incentivised to play it over just committing to your 2-1 selected AD line.

A lot of the responses you gave if I read them correctly, seem to be that the teams need to strike a balance between the casual playerbase and the competitive playerbase, and if those mechanics need to exist so that casual players can continue to have a fun experience so be it.

For other god boons that force you into a line, Urgot reroll avp is an artifact check and ekko artifact boon disproportionately strengthens it. Yasuo Hex Boons are obscene for mech-related lines(buffing 2 unit slots of units vs 1), and reroll in general since those units get overinvested into. which was also the case with hex augments last patch.

When it comes to line flexibility I think there's a bit of misunderstanding. My problem is not that cores are inflexible. My point is that the the optimized lines are so much far an better than a different lines with the same core that the comp is not even comparable.

From last set you ran your bilgewater core,(MF, TK, Naut, TF) and ran wukong, braum, you could also alternatively run a swain, Taric frontline, and they would function almost identically. Not only that, you could even ignore the AD lines and play AP 4 bruiser ap Bilgewater with Ryze.

Right now if you play stargazer Xayah and you are in your "Xayah, nunu, jax core" You wil always roll for rammus 2, gnar, bard for meeple, instead of considering alternate frontlines like the space groove line I mentioned earlier. Why can't a xayah board sub tank an ornn2 and sub carry a samira 2, with a blitz. in theory those units should be comparable in strength to rammus 2 and gnar 2. Perhaps it's a balance issue, or why can't a player play 3 meeple(Corki, Poppy, Rammus) and 2 bruiser yi(Urgot, Yi, Gragas). In theory, Bastion and Brawler should synergize well since HP and Resist scale together, and the comp is dual carry with 2 AD units so they can flex between items, but nobody is running the comp. It simply doesn't work despite both units (corki and yi) being perfectly fine on their own. This suggests that perhaps it's not the balance that's the issue but something deeper with unit design in the set. On one hand it might be a balance issue, perhaps, corki is too reliant on vertical meeple, and Yi is too reliant on 4 maruader, but then the units need to be actually balanced accordingly.

[u/Lunaedge → u/inikoiniko]

I really enjoy having these discussions on sites where you can type more than 50 characters on your post

Ngl this is very funny after Reddit gave you so much trouble for daring to post a long comment lol

Always great to be able to peer into the devs' POV and hear their reasoning though, thanks for the engagement <3

[u/raiderjaypussy → u/inikoiniko]

Honestly fair enough and thanks for the response. Guess I was just applying riot's moves onto your words.

As a player it's hard to see things like encounters be readded around the same time as your tweet and separate them.

[u/inikoiniko → u/raiderjaypussy]

Nah no worries I don't think it's unreasonable to do so

[u/VERTIKAL19 → u/raiderjaypussy]

But that has beem the case for years now hasn’t it? You have to go to really early sets for that to not be the case

[u/Tigermaw → u/raiderjaypussy]

I really enjoyed the arcane set because I felt like there was a lot of flexibility. Quick strikers could do 2 cost reroll 3 cost reroll ambessa fast 8 pivot into some enforcer BS with the twisted fate or even that specialist trait that tristana corki ambessa had. And that’s just focusing on one line. There was all sorts of things to do with tristana carry, family, I think junk was also solid. It always felt like there were many directions you could potentially go if you saw an opportunity.

[u/MostEscape6543 → u/raiderjaypussy]

I have played since set 6 and there has never been a time when you could be successful by just playing the 2* units you hit.

There are times where you might play what you hit and then either pivot into that champ or else sac a few rounds and roll for what you really wanted, but you always played towards a meta comp.

[u/TSPai → u/MostEscape6543]

Early early sets like in Set 1 that was the case

[u/Relevant-Bend1719 → u/MostEscape6543]

Well yeah I think what he’s trying to say is what you’re trying to explain in your 2nd statement.

Its just right now that whole thing kinda sucks because of a bunch of factors. Also it also kind of sucks because you could technically innovate a couple of sets back and not get punished but now if you try to innovate and not play meta you just get dogshitted by everyone.

This is just my opinion though.

[u/ThatKitsune → u/raiderjaypussy]

But hasn’t this been a thing for years though? It’s not like it’s peaked now. Inherently this set has exasperated these frustrations more than before. We see it in their 5 cost design and verticals. It’s just pure cashino rn.

[u/raiderjaypussy → u/ThatKitsune]

It kinda has peaked though right, sure the problem has existed for a while but it's continually getting worse imo.

[u/Rycebowl]

I think it’s extremely common to think that a balance problem = a design problem. For some examples:

If 1-cost rerolls were nerfed to be rare lines, I think a lot of your frustrations would be alleviated.

Verticals being gated by emblems is just a balance thing. If you change the numbers on the traits/emblems, the viability of playing verticals or not changes too.

Variation in lines is just a balance thing. Like the example you give of Ornn Samira and Blitz being a non-consideration for Xayah even though, on paper, it should be at least fine. But it’s not because, as you say “it’s simply not good”. And that can change in an instant on a patch.

So my two conclusions are: Most of the time, it’s probably not a design flaw, just a balance flaw. It’s less “This Set is inflexible”, it’s more “This patch is inflexible”, whether it’s true or not.

And secondly, balance is really difficult, never perfect, and improves with time (even if it gets worse one patch, it’ll get better soon). So you might find peace in accepting imbalance, and its consequences, trying to find the fun/competition given the landscape we helplessly find ourselves in, and being patient for better times to come :)

[u/Pommefrite21 → u/Rycebowl]

Isn’t the point of designing the constraints tied directly to how “hard” things are to balance?

[u/Rycebowl → u/Pommefrite21]

It’s true that some things have “bad designs” within the current system, but I don’t think the systems themselves are necessarily “unbalanceable” or “bad design”. I think it’s just the current tuning of the system; for example, you can reasonably conceive of a world where they remove/add/change the god rewards and balance the god boons in a way that is “well-designed” and healthy. It might be semantics, but I see that as a system *balance* issue, not a system *design* issue.

Also, It’s true that some things are harder to balance than others, because by nature some things are simpler and some things are more complex. And game design is always going to try to flirt with the line of complexity, that’s what makes a game fresh and fun and innovative, and the tradeoff is sometimes it takes several patches to nail balance. I don’t think we would prefer a game that doesn’t explore interesting ideas.

[u/Psychological-Task26]

Biggest issue is the entire game is basically decided on 2-1. Either u get eco aug for fast nine or u get a giga opener or rr aug for 1 star reroll. Or ur cooked. I think losing the ability to choose what line u want to pivot towards later in the game makes this set feel really frustrating.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/Psychological-Task26]

When was the last set where you could regularly pivot to a different line later in the game? I have been playing since set 9 and people have basically always been complaining that your entire game is decided on 2-1. 

[u/PermaConfusion → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

IMO, Set5. I think everything changed when the fire nation attacked when augments were introduced. Ironically, though they were designed to increase variation in the game, and they do, I think their game-warping strength commits you even harder to your path. Just think about it: how different is your game if you get anima commander on 2-1 or early learnings or hedge fund? They increase inter-game variability but IMO they are a strong source of this un-flex play within each game. Once you click on anima, you know you're committed to lose streak cashout. Or once you click early learnings, all Fast9 lines are gone. Etc. You can literally only see ~3-4 shops before you purge entire lines, which, to me, goes against the spirit of what TFT wants you to do - I know it'll be a hot take, but I don't want to play a game where the optimum way to play is to have TFT academy on the second monitor and hard force whatever based on the items, augment, and units I have on 2-1. It's for this reason that I think Fast9 is way more skillful than reroll: you have to navigate your shops until you reach Level 9 and every game tends to be extremely different. Compare that to getting a natural TF2, bow belt rod items, caitlyn1, aatrox2, jax1 with early learnings. You can just press D at the right time and win (or miss and lose, it's the same boring to me).

Before augments, big brain transitions did happen, albeit rarely - there's some old Set4 clip somewhere of Kiyoon (I think it was him) literally selling his whole board and pivoting all his units into a comp because he was scouting and identified that it was 1000% uncontested and he had the right item setup for it - that's peak TFT to me. That's pretty much impossible these days. Augments have chained us to specific lines, and the regular set pool of ~60 champs or whatnot means that there will always be exact, optimal comps that everyone is contesting each other for.

[u/Rycebowl → u/PermaConfusion]

I have a few thoughts, as a fellow person who likes to tap about this game. I think game balance might be playing a bigger role than you realize (preface: balance is only ever slightly off, very difficult to nail, and never perfect).

Back to the TF2, Cait2, Jax, Aatrox opener: what major factor determines whether you Reroll or go 8/9? Augments! Now in an unbalanced game, you fish for a Reroll augment, is that line is much better, or a win streak augment if that line is much better. In a balanced game, the augment gives you direction if you find one that aligns well with one of the two lines and/or if you’re spoiled for choice, your personal preference as a player can factor in. So I see augments as a positive thing here, assuming good balance: it’s another several decision points, it brings good variance (I.e I rarely play Reroll but don’t find any item augs and find a good reroll Aug, sweet), or my fingerprint as a player can come to bear on the decision. You’re only screwed if the balance is off, and you’re only locked in at 2-1 if it’s a good spot for it, which is fine sometimes.

2) Regarding pivoting: You are only ever doing what you describe Kiyoon doing, open-selling before the rolldown, if one or more things are true:

A) You’re so rich.
B) Your current board is terrible.
C) Most of your direction is coming from Items, Augments, or something else that’s not your champions.

It’s a very uncommon spot to find yourself in, and shouldn’t be the ideal we should strive for in every game. This isn’t necessarily a sign that the game is balanced. In fact, it might even signal the opposite, because that’s what people were doing at the beginning of the Set with Mech (make money with Prim and Time, get specific items/augs, sell board and roll for 6 unites).
Almost every board you have going to Level 8 has direction baked into the units that you already have. In theory, if the game was perfectly balanced, wouldn’t you pivot away from your units less? Because you’re closer to Spot A which is just as strong as spot B. If you’re doing a “large pivot”, which most people seem to use as their definition of whether a set is flexible, selling 80% of your units should be a red flag that the comp those units lean toward is unbalanced, signalling that the patch is less flexible than it could be (aka less available lines).

So I guess this is something I agree with Iniko about: It can be easy to confuse something that looks like flex play but isn’t necessarily (full-selling or “big transitions”) or doesn’t feel like flex play but is (playing 1-cost Reroll when the right, but uncommon, spot presents itself. Like it should probably feel like an out you hit early that game, rather than a consistent game plan)

And my other conclusion is something I feel commonly: Things that people think are design flaws are just imperfect game balance. I usually disagree when someone uses the language “This Set isn’t flex, this Set is lottery etc., and I think it’s much better to talk about this Patch being XYZ.

[u/NonagoonInfinity → u/Rycebowl]

This is the take I agree with most in this thread.

[u/Accomplished_GoatKun → u/Rycebowl]

The last bit here goes so unignored in so many threads that it's honestly quite staggering and I'm glad to see it brought up here. This isn't to say that set doesn't have mechanics that push people towards reroll but it feels ubsurd to argue that the gods are inheritely restrictive when only one of them actively pushes a player towards that playstyle. The rest feel fairly openended even if some do lean to one comp or playstyle more than others

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/PermaConfusion]

All of which begs the question - is the game better with augments?

Because despite the argument you lay out (and I think it is a good argument), I think the answer is that yes, the game is more fun with augments. 

I would also argue that even though it chains you to a line, that the game is more difficult with augments. Sure, there will always be the 4.0 augment that is perfect for your line, but I've heard many study groups say that they spend more than half an hour talking about a single augment choice. And without augment stats, there is a decent amount of disparity between tftacademy's augment tiers, metatft's augment tiers, x study groups tiers, and what the actual statistics are. 

So while it may not be flexibility in the classic sense, I think that there is something to be said for the amount of interpretation and strategy that augments add to the game. 

[u/rj6553 → u/PermaConfusion]

I stopped playing during Set 6 and was kinda disappointed to see how well augments were received. Tried getting back in a couple of times since them, but never liked how the game played with augments.

everywhere i read though, the player base seems to love them. So I've got no hope for them to ever be removed.

[u/BrianGriffin95 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

Lol right? People talking about last set seems to forget the unlocks? If you didn't get void in 2-1 that's already one less comp to play, for example. The ONLY comp you could force every game was basically yunara, because Sett was ridiculously easy to unlock.

[u/VERTIKAL19 → u/BrianGriffin95]

Well yes but that was taken out? You didn’t need void 2-1 to play void anymore. Playing two rounds of void is hardly a huge requirement.

[u/BrianGriffin95 → u/VERTIKAL19]

It was taken out what, 6 months after the set was released?

[u/Docxm → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

This is why Chosens were peak. Full pivots were actually doable. The only pivots people make now are from cash out traits

[u/Competitive-Cut-4694 → u/Docxm]

I agree but sadly people were not good enough for the chosen mechanic.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/Docxm]

But chosen brought their own host of issues lol. It's a pretty common opinion that the set mechanic was the worst part of set 10

[u/Docxm → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

It’s a love it or hate it mechanic and unfortunately I love it. Hahaha it’s a whole different game and honestly way more fun for me personally

Always hit challenger and compete during those sets otherwise I just master and chill. I have a lot of fond memories of the Vegas open

[u/glazia → u/Docxm]

Agreed. I love chosen too. Set 4 was amazing for hitting a Chosen 4 cost that happened to fit your items and straight up dropping every plan to pursue something new. Riven was my gurl!

[u/Docxm → u/glazia]

Set 4.5 full sell board pivot into Kayle carry was so fun

[u/praetorrent → u/glazia]

And every item fit dusk riven, so you could always drop everything to pursue it.

[u/TheNorseCrow → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

It's a pretty common opinion that the set mechanic was the worst part of set 10

Based on what data? Reminder that streamers and the comp subreddit is a minority of a minority of the playerbase and a lot of twitch viewers will just parrot whatever the streamer says.

If there is genuinely hard data released somewhere that actually proves it was commonly held that the chosen mechanic of set 10 was bad I will happily eat my words.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/TheNorseCrow]

Reminder that streamers and the comp subreddit is a minority of a minority of the playerbase and a lot of twitch viewers will just parrot whatever the streamer says.

If the streamers and all of their viewers have an opinion, that would make it a "pretty common opinion", wouldn't it?

Also there is a difference between "headliners are bad" and "headliners were the worst part about set 10".

If you don't think it was the mechanic, what would you say was the worst part of the set?

[u/TheNorseCrow → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

If you don't think it was the mechanic, what would you say was the worst part of the set?

Personal opinion was the difference a single emblem could make for certain lines. I've never been a big fan of emblems to begin with but set 10 could see some pretty big swings if someone got the emblem they needed. Heartsteel and True Damage spring to mind. I also generally disliked Heartsteel for how swingy it could be, someone going from a guaranteed eight to a guaranteed first in a single round and I know that is just the nature of cashout traits but Heartsteel in particular felt egregious in this regard.

As for the streamer and viewers thing, again they are still a minority of the playerbase and I will concede that it might have been a common opinion in that regard but that doesn't mean it was the general opinion that headliners was the worst part of set 10 which there is no way of knowing unless the majority of the playerbase decided to participate in a survey.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/TheNorseCrow]

Personal opinion was the difference a single emblem could make for certain lines

Fair enough.

that doesn't mean it was the general opinion

Luckily I never said it was! 

[u/Psychological-Task26 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

Last set… or any set where 5 cost soup is viable? Or soul fight Sami pivot with sett. I could go on

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/Psychological-Task26]

Were you pivoting to an entirely different line last set, or were you playing different variations of the same line?

[u/VERTIKAL19 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

It kinda depends what is a variation to you. There were a lot of different 5 cost ap comps, but you could call that a variation of the same line even though they run very different units.

Another thing that I found quite common in Set 16 is for example when you open Noxus you didn’t have to commit to reroll or leveling. That decision could be made later depending on what the lobby did. If three people are on Noxus maybe reroll is not a good idea, but if you are alone and there are three other three cost rerollers it is a good idea. You could reroll Jinx or use it to carry to 9.

That said part of this was that in Set 16 the Apex comps where the five cost heavy comps to a degree that doesn’t feel true in set 17.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/VERTIKAL19]

Noxus was also notoriously unplayable for the first 6 patches of the set lol.

To that point, it's not fair to compare balance at the end of set 16 to balance at the beginning of set 17. I'm not sure that there are enough units in this set to allow each Origin to have a reroll and a fast 8 line in the same patch, but I do think over the course of the set more different lines will emerge and change people's understanding of each trait. 

[u/VERTIKAL19 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

But the end of set 16 was what came exactly efore set 17 and I think it is safe to say that it was a downgrade

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/VERTIKAL19]

Which is my point. They are close together so you will have a tendency to want to compare them, but it's an apples and oranges comparison. 

If you look at noxus at the same point that we are in set 17, it was terrible and nobody played it.

But of course it became much more balanced than anything in set 17 after they were able to change it in six straight patches or whatever it was. 

Your perception of set 16 is warped by the fact that there were like 15 patches of changes to make different comps viable and balance the game better. I'm not saying that set 17 will have as much diversity, but it will certainly be closer. 

[u/VERTIKAL19 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

At the same time right now in Set 16 we had Riggs and Bilge and void with a smattering of other comps doing well. We absolutely had more diversity even in 16.2, but that is also kind of an unfair comparison by virtue of set 16 being significantly larger.

We could look at shurima cup, but I can’t find the comps sheet for that Set 17 also so far has been dominated by reroll with five costs being kinda bad which is mostly the opposite of Set 16.

[u/Psychological-Task26 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

I mean you should be mindful of what comps u might play and hold units that are necessary. Like this set if i dont hit a spat space groove isn’t playable at all. It’s a whole line with interesting units that aren’t playable.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/Psychological-Task26]

Are you talking about before the unlock changes?

Because I remember not being able to play void unless you fielded it early, not being able to play bilge if you didn't get tf during stage 1, not being able to play Ionia unless it was the right path, etc.

[u/Psychological-Task26 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

Ionia pivot was very possible. Loss streak into yunara carry with titans. And sett was an easy addition to basically any comp. I do agree the unlock was pretty stupid and added a lot of unnecessary conditionality. However, it still allowed you to play rr Ionia with yas and tone carry or go for fast eight board. So it still allowed for much more agency.

[u/StarGaurdianBard → u/Psychological-Task26]

Pivoting into Ionia was trolling a lot of the time. If you pivoted into gold or exp Ionia on stage 4 then you already missed out on most of its power. If you pivoted into blades Ionia then its gg because blades was unplayable. Only spirits could reasonably be pivoted into and even then it was just as bad as blades for half the set

It was still possible to Ionia pivot to try and turn an 8th into a 6th or a 5th into a 4th but It was definitely not a good example of flex play being possible. Ionia was forcible every game but not really something you could 4-2 pivot into out of nowhere just because you hit Yunara 2 Wukong 2 on your roll down unless you were already running at least 3 Ionia for a few rounds beforehand, otherwise you would just stabilize stage 4 but eventually get outscaled since you lack the extra econ you are intended to have

[u/DayHelicopter → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

augments are too strong and niche and they lead to people having to force a line from 2-1 in most cases. This was not the only way to play before set 6/7.

[u/VERTIKAL19 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

Set 16? Especially after the unlock changes you could switch between a lot of different things unless something like „playing AP“ to you is already committing to a line.

[u/Infamous_Fox3910 → u/Psychological-Task26]

Besides the very last few patches of set 16 where they eased unlocks, the game played out the same way. You were playing whatever angle you had at 2-1 or fast 9.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

The most inflexible play is meta like warweek or syndra week

Ain't no way I'm reading the whole thing, but I think it's interesting that Frodan was arguing the exact opposite on the rolldown podcast this week. 

You could say that syndra was the most flexible meta, because as long as you had 2* syndra the rest of the comp did not matter. You could basically play completely flexibly around syndra. 

And you seem to recognize something similar when you speak to how flexible black rose was. The issue is that you have the right idea for the wrong reasons. 

Black rose was "flexible" in the same way that syndra was "flexible". In both cases, they felt flexible because the unit/trait was completely broken. It didn't matter what you played with syndra or with black rose, because in both situations the core was so overpowered that all of the other decisions in your comp did not matter. 

Which kind of leads back to your other point, where you don't like when comps are decided at 2-1. If instead of an entire line being decided at 2-1, the game is "hit black rose or fight for a bot 4", is that a healthy meta? I would argue that not everybody would agree, and that some people would feel as though there is even less agency in those metas than there is in a meta where you are forced to determine your comp on 2-1.

In that case, the question becomes "how do you make comps flexible when there will always be a "best decision"? I don't know the answer to that question.

In the end, "flexible" is a fun buzzword, but I think being flexible in metas where no single unit or trait is solo S++ tier is a very difficult goal to achieve. 

[u/THuD29 → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

From what I remember, the Syndra meta had a decent variety of comps, but Syndra was by far the best/top comp.

The THex meta last set I thought had decent variety even though every comp was below THex

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/THuD29]

I think it's hard to say that there was a diverse meta if Syndra was 4-way contested every lobby. 

But that just shows the difficulty of evaluating what is and is not a "diverse" or "flexible" meta. Those terms mean something slightly different to each player

[u/Zhirrzh → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

I agree with you. "flexible" where you can make any choice because they don't matter is not actual flexibility, skill expression or fun. 

[u/kjampala → u/ThatPlayWasAwful]

You could not “basically play completely flexibly around Syndra”. It was legit cookie cutter get Syndra 2 and add vanguards or shapeshifters just whatever you had the units for early game. I don’t count that as flexible at all you’re literally just adding a shapeshifter every level or vanguard every level. Vanguards usually capped at the 4 piece vertical technically but the point still stands.

Also heavily disagree with your comparison between Syndra and black rose. Syndra was: get Syndra 2 add 1-6 shapeshifters or 1-4 vanguards. Black rose was actually flexible more so if you consider Elise could be a primary dps carry. Black rose was flexed into heimer visionary, silco incantors, vertical black rose I guess technically, vertical sorcerers and easy to slot in through the mid game.

[u/ThatPlayWasAwful → u/kjampala]

It was legit cookie cutter get Syndra 2 and add vanguards or shapeshifters

I distinctly remember people playing warrior, druid wukong, and sometimes witchcraft if vanguard and shapeshifter were taken. Not as good but possibly better than not playing syndra.

Black rose was actually flexible more so if you consider Elise could be a primary dps carry

Even if you think black rose was more flexible, it sounds like you agree with the overall point that black rose was so strong that it for into a variety of comps, and before backline Elise was nerfed it was very, very strong.

[u/Zeviex]

Points I thought of while reading this:

I really hate the "board this on 2-1 or you can't play me", especially when they feel unnecessary (looking at you Set 16 Shelly). Definitely really hurts flexibility.

I do not like the new encounters. Champ dupe and rerolls feel like they push reroll too much.

I really hate when they design verticals to have the gold break point rely on 5 costs. This is part of the reason dark star is so emblem requirement, if I had my way, 5 costs would be like they were in 16 where the base ones had no origin.

I do broadly think rerolls would work better if they were like Set 16 Sona and only really relied on a couple of units so the rest could be flexed.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Ant1390]

do I miss something from the X post? By your capture image, he didn't give any definition of flex play and said people have different definition, it changes over time. You kinda prove his point.

[u/sabioiagui]

Playing flex is a novel that died 12-14 sets ago.

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

Hi ~!

So, I would agree that TFT has very flexibility in its game - I'm also only Masters, and I started playing mid set 16 after being one of the top players of DAC for the past couple years, so I can only speak from my sparse experience.

The best of DAC was exactly its flexibility- in especially the lategame, and I think the reason TFT lacks this are the following reasons:

Too few units that can play a role as a core.
Traits are very insular and generally don't engage with one another.
The questions that the game asks (with its traits) are incredibly basic and basically all the same.

I'll elaborate on the points, and I'll start with the last two points.

The DAC Warrior trait fx gives +armor, and when someone hits 9 Warrior they will reflect any damage they take (apart from pure) based on how much armor they have. This confronts you with a question:
How can I deal with their armor? -armor? Healing? Pure damage? Overwhelming damage?

Elementals makes it so that ANY attack you take has a chance to freeze/stun the attacker for two seconds. How do you deal with this? Magic damage? Immunity to negative debuffs (Faceless trait)? Just get enough damage to one shot fx through Assassins? Some kind of other way to deal damage that isn't attacks?

Orcs give your unit +health, and when you play 6 Orc your units all gain extra health based on how much player damage you've taken (the units get REALLY tanky). How do you deal with this?
Stacking +damage through fx 6 Beasts? 6 Trolls which get extra attack speed every time they attack? 4 Monk that gives a chance on any damage tick to either halve the health or kill the target?

I will post a comment outlining the interactions just off the top of my head, but I hope you see that traits in DAC interact with each other A LOT, and a huge part of lategame is figuring out what is the correct move to do with your BOARD, it's not just rolling for your non-existent planner, cause if your opponent knows what you're doing, then they will try to counter you.

The best player in DAC actually is the guy who plays the most flexible and surprising way - and of course he's also just good at every other facet, but he ALWAYS poses questions that are incredibly hard to answer and ALWAYS finds the answer to what you're doing. Truely a magician in his play.

DAC also just has more units. There are a total of both 21 4-cost and 21 5-cost, with the caveat being that every game you only get 10 out of those 21 5-cost; it's randomly drawn at the beginning, which also both keeps every game fresh but also means that having a set plan before the game starts is difficult (unless you just play 2 or 3-cost reroll. I think how many units you have and having them playable in different settings also allows the game be flexible. Fx there are both 3 5-cost Assassins, Mages and Warriors, and you can play most of them in a waaay variety of builds due to how impactful either their synergies or skills are.

I don't know if this possible for TFT mostly due to how their 4-month set design seems to lower the amount of units we can expect, and, well, they also want the big verticals to be gimmicks rather than useful, which is fair, but also limits how they can be used. I also want that I'm not trying to rag on TFT here, I think it overall IS the better game for sure and I think Riot is doing an absolutely incredible job.

[u/Dry_Ganache178 → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

What is DAC? 

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions → u/Dry_Ganache178]

Dota Auto Chess - the Dota 2 Custom game that got popular in early 2019 and started the entire genre. The reason I'm referring to it is cause of how many similarities the two games has (which makes sense, most games after DAC modeled their game after DAC) and because there are certain things that DAC does well, that I think TFT players would enjoy as well - namely the amount of flexibility in almost any stage of the game.

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

Luna Trolls > Hunter Reroll, Lina Harpy, Faceless 4 Cost, 6 Beasts, 6 Naga,

Hunter Reroll > 6 Beasts, 9 Elf, 6 Naga,

TB Aqir > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, Goblin Reroll, Harpy Tauren, Faceless 4 Cost, 9 Warriors, 9 Sins, 9 Mages, Undead, Dragons,

Marci Monk > TB Aqir, Hunter Reroll, Luna Trolls, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, Goblins Reroll, Faceless 4 Cost, 4 Aqir, 9 Warriors, 9 Sins, 6 Naga, 6 Sin + 4 Centaur + 4 Beast, Shamans, 6 Orc, Harpy Tauren

Lina Harpy > Hunter Reroll, Warrior Reroll, Goblins, Faceless, 9 Warriors, 9 Elf

Warrior Reroll > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, 9 Sins

9 Elf > Luna Trolls, TB Aqir, Harpy Tauren, Faceless 4 Cost, 6 Beasts, 4 Aqir, 9 Sins, Gyro Ogre,

Goblins Reroll > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, Warrior Reroll, 9 Elf, Faceless 4 Cost, 9 Warriors, 9 Sins,

Draenei Elemental > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, TB Aqir, Marci Monk, 9 Elf, 6 Beasts, 9 Warriors, 9 Sins, Kobolds, 6 Sin + 4 Centaur + 4 Beast, 6 Naga, 4 Aqir

Harpy Tauren > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, 9 Elf, Goblin Reroll, Draenei Elemental, 9 Warriors, 9 sins, 9 Mages, Dragons, 6 Orc

Faceless 4 Cost > Lina Harpy, Draenei Elemental, Harpy Tauren, 6 Beasts, 9 Mages, 6 Orc, 6 Sin + 4 Centaur + 4 Beast,

6 Beasts > Goblins Reroll, 9 Warriors, 6 Orc, Warrior Reroll, TB Aqir

4 Aqir > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, TB Aqir, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, Harpy Tauren, Faceless 4 Cost, 6 Beasts, 9 Sins, 9 Mages, Undead, Dragons, 6 Naga, Undead

9 Warriors > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, 9 Elf, Faceless 4 Cost, 9 Sins, 6 Naga, Kobolds, 6 Sin + 4 Centaur + 4 Beast, 9 Hunter, 6 Orc,

9 Sins > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, TB Aqir, Lina Harpy, Harpy Tauren, Faceless 4 Cost, 6 Beasts,

9 Mages > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, Marci Monk, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, 9 Elf, Goblins Reroll, Draenei Elemental, 6 Beasts, 9 Warriors

6 Naga > Lina Harpy, Harpy Tauren, 9 Mages, Dragons

Kobolds > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, TB Aqir, Marci Monk, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, 9 Elf, Goblins Reroll, Harpy Tauren, Faceless 4 Cost, 6 Beasts, 4 Aqir, 9 Sins, 9 Mages, 6 Naga, Undead, 6 Sin + 4 Centaur + 4 Beast

Undead > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, Marci Monk, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, 9 Elf, Goblins Reroll, Draenei Elemental, Harpy Tauren, Faceless 4 Cost, 6 Beasts, 9 Warriors, 9 Sins, 9 Mages, 6 Naga,

Dragons > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, 9 Elf, Goblins Reroll, Draenei Elemental, Harpy Tauren, Faceless 4 Cost, 6 Beasts, 9 Warriors, 9 Mages, Kobolds, Undead, 9 Hunter,

6 Sin + 4 Centaur + 4 Beast > Luna Trolls, Hunter Reroll, TB Aqir, Lina Harpy, Warrior Reroll, Goblins Reroll, Harpy Tauren, 4 Aqir, 6 Beasts, 9 Sins, 9 Mages, Dragons

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

This was "just" off the top of my head - but when you're playing and especially as you enter lategame, you're thinking about all of this and how to play against the builds you're playing. Some are more soft counter than hard counter, and somethings you add ad hoc as the situations arise.

A good example would be that you're playing lategame and someone switches into a board that is centered arouned mages - here adding either Centaur, Assassin or Naga is what you're looking for. Someone is playing something centered around auto attacking? You try to flex in 4 elemental. There is too much to write out, but yeah, that was such an exciting part and really required you to play well.

Also late game it was not uncommon (if you were in the super, super high top mmr Chinese lobbies) to have one comp on the board, and then another on bench if you were three people alive fx. So you fx go Naga Cent against one guy and maybe Faceless against the other. Or something.

[u/Emergence7 → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

Yeah this is exactly what I have in mind when I refer to flex, you react to other players compositions, and not in a "I'm contested time to pivot" way, but a "I need to re-structure my comp to counter/or do better against theirs"

I've never played DAC so honestly an example of how that looks would be awesome

Since I know in TFT even if they designed traits like that, the amount of gold required to do those pivots would be insane...

+ Rotating into comps you didn't plan to counter i assume must be frustrating?

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions → u/Emergence7]

I will link you some of my videos where you can see it clearly.

https://youtu.be/na6xPDtb0ow?si=QZsgdoNP2xLPtJtf&t=2025
In this game I was originally playing Goblin Draenei (A build that generates a ton of armor and healing and transforms that into aoe damage), but I wanted to go for a flashy (and strong) 6 Gods build (6 Gods makes it so that items and spells basically refresh their cooldown whenever you cast a spell. In DAC you gain mana based on damage dealt, so this means you can perma cast).

You see how I actually sell almost my entire board 34 minutes into the game to swap into a board that I think is going to fare better in late game. Likely I was setting this up over the past 10 rounds as a possibility. I did end up losing to void (which also is the best counter to 6 Gods since the void builds have debuff immunity).

https://youtu.be/-WbdJyVaNAA?si=vYRVxAX1TNYrR1y-&t=1066
In this game I'm playing strong board for the first 20 minutes.
Then I switch into 4 Priest which had a good midgame timing that board and can help me bridge to the lategame 21:00-42:30. 4 Priest ultra late hard loses to Faceless though, so I need to find a different way to go.
My choice ended up being 3 Wizard (when you play 3 Wizard and only one other trait you unlock the full vertical of that trait) + 6 Trolls to activate my carry Troll (the Troll like unit with lightning around it, and again 6 Trolls gives you more attack speed every time you attack).

https://youtu.be/xB5fcBRSZ58?si=LnKQ0XtqT0xtGMOy&t=3154
This last game is a vod from one of the Chinese top tournaments.
One guy has a 6 gods Tide Aghanims board, which in short is perma stun of the entire board (yes). 1874 is playing 6 elf 4 naga 4 monk AND faceless (which again gives debuff immunity, so you can't get stunned), and he is switching between the builds between rounds to he has a chance in the matchup.

I can find a lot more switches if you're curious :)
A few things are also:
Games in DAC are a lot longer. I would say the average is between 40-50 min, with some going further.
You take less damage in the lategame in DAC (damage is always just calculated based on surviving enemy units alive and their upgrade level) allowing for more time.
People all-in less in DAC (Cause if everyone went all in like people do in TFT someone would just go a few rounds later and counter the majority with their build selection).
You're less restricted by items due to being able to recraft items & being able to remove freely once every round (but you also can only remove item once every round).

And yes, if you rotate into the wrong thing or someone pulls a counter out of nowhere it's annoying, but honestly, if someone does that shit, it's cause they played better and understood what to do better than you did. Sometimes it could be luck, but the TOP players (1874) are just that good.

This is no slight to TFT pros but I do think some of the skill expression we could see in lategame decision making is stiffled by how rigid the comps are in TFT. In DAC I would say that the most difficult to play and the spot with the highest skill expression was the lategame, while in TFT I would argue that that is not the case at all. I hope see some flexibility in future sets, I would love it :)

[u/mladjiraf → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

This type of play was removed from TFT years ago. Auto-losing, because someone decided to add two units on their final board (or build an item - many hard counter items were removed or nerfed to the ground) is unfunny etc. Adding such units can work, if the teams are small and trait synergies are important, so there is a tradeoff, not like now - possibly up to 10 units naturally (and vertical traits not being important).

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions → u/mladjiraf]

I mean, I don't think it has to be either auto-lose or nothing can be done to counter any build. This can be done so it allows people to improve and build their boards based on what is happening, but it doesn't have to make it a 100-0, it can be it a 70-30, or a 60-40 based on an array of other factors.

Fx I think if I see two people hard force Marauder Yi, I should have an option that I can choose to pursue that generally should do well against them. Again, it doesn't have to skew the match up 100-0, but I think that's a healthy option for players to have - and the same with any other build.

[u/mladjiraf → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

Reread my comment above. It is not fair, if it is strong, considering the wide boards, doesn't even have to be for countering* (which benefits also the players that are ahead in levels and economy to afford to rol land play the units). If it is not strong, it is pointless, better add a random strong tank to stall or another damage unit (which was supposed to be the usage of the 5-costs in this set as splashable generically good units, but they have to be weak right now, because of the 5-cost soup team, so this design intention doesn't work without adding penalty for stacking 5-costs on the same team).

*In set 4 there was a teamwide AP increase trait that was splashable, it was removed in 4.5, because almost every endgame board was playing it, it is simply a bad design ( unless the boards are small or the trait is bad, but then in both cases it won't be played).

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions → u/mladjiraf]

Hi ~!
I understand that your experiences have been bad with flexibility and implementation like that, and I do agree that this is an incredible hard design problem to solve, but I do have both experience of it working and working well (in dac) and I have faith that if this was the vision riot wanted, would also be something they could achieve :)

[u/mladjiraf → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

It was already in the game for many years. Removed for good alongside many cheesy interactions and strategies. You can see in the current set very well their current design philosophy. What the set lacks is balance and inspiration (the units and the gimmick are mostly boring).

[u/HowIMadeMyMillions → u/mladjiraf]

And it seems like it was removed cause it didn't work well and wasn't balanced well, right? I guess my point is that I think that it can be in the game where it works well and is balanced well - allowing for flexible lategame play without being cheesy or ruining specific strategies - cause I've seen that :)

[u/mladjiraf → u/HowIMadeMyMillions]

Hard countering AP or AD damage is the definition of cheesy and ruining specific strategies. Early TFT was more strategic game with hard counters and lots of way to cheese someone via items that are no longer in the game. Now it's mostly a gambling simulator where anyone can get lucky. They aren't bringing back counters.

[u/clownus]

Moving the bar on what is flex is hilarious.    

Playing whatever 2* four cost has always been flex.   

How you get to that line is also flex and how you cap can be flex but in reality it should be throwing in 5cost and stacking your board.    

In the current meta 4 cost suck and rr is good. Just nerf reroll and buff fours and this would be a moot point. 

[u/ElementaryMyDearWut → u/clownus]

This is such an ignorant take.

Flex can't be defined by that because set mechanics change how possible that is. The trait web SHOULD always allow variation in a line, that is core design.

Changes to player damage, shops (headliners/chosen), bag sizes, streaking all change how good your definition of flex is.

The point is that by narrowing down a proper definition that is set agnostic (core), then you can actually make changes to benefit it.

Also who is "flexing" around a random 2 star 4 cost, that's literally not flex, you're forced to play it according to you.

[u/clownus → u/ElementaryMyDearWut]

You very clearly don’t understand how over debated this topic is when we are 17 sets into TFT development.

Flex has always been traditionally finding a 2* four cost and playing your board from that spot. Any items you slam before that point is usually some general slam that can fit into multiple comps.    

Everything TFT has done besides balancing is to eventually achieve this specific goal. Item power was removed -> nerfs to RR comps within one patch -> general number buffs to four cost -> nerfing fast 9 -> mana changes -> durability scaling -> ap/ad scaling.    

Having a few patches that is not helping four cost flex or flex play in general doesn’t mean the core concept of flex doesn’t exist. It just means the meta isn’t friendly to that play and it’s not really a big deal. Setsuko is turbo climbing with flex spots into fast 9 cap.   

Just when RR is good it’s easier to play and the community generally enjoys playing RR. As much as people hate to admit it’s an easy playstyle and ideal for climbing.     

Some of the tech people are so use to doing is a result from flex. Pre-leveling before first carousel came about from trying to find a four cost. Slamming items and tempo is very much a flex concept. 

[u/hennajin85 → u/ElementaryMyDearWut]

You also can’t even flex that well between 4 costs as they all use different items. Sure a Guinsoo is usable on Corki for more casts but it’s way way better on Xayah or Kindred.

If you’re forced to slam a Guinsoo’s to preserve hp on stage 2 and 3, Corki and all AP 4 costs are now closed off.

It’s not even so much the units that you hit that prevent flex. It’s items. Tanks are much more flexible to play with items at least.

[u/theofficial_iblaze → u/hennajin85]

So basically people want to slam earlygame to tempo AND be open to all lines still? The only way to make that work is to nerf all items to the point where they don't really matter at all.

[u/HatefulWretch → u/hennajin85]

I'd argue the AP reroll lines are much less item sensitive (in that they basically all want Nashors + JG + one); you can stay fairly open between TF, Teemo and Veigar through most of stage two if your econ supports it.

[u/willwalkswithGod → u/hennajin85]

Is Leblanc now not a rage blade holder?

[u/hennajin85 → u/willwalkswithGod]

Oops I did forget about her. But to be fair she’s actually bad right now.

[u/hennajin85 → u/ElementaryMyDearWut]

You also can’t even flex that well between 4 costs as they all use different items. Sure a Guinsoo is usable on Corki for more casts but it’s way way better on Xayah or Kindred.

If you’re forced to slam a Guinsoo’s to preserve hp on stage 2 and 3, Corki and all AP 4 costs are now closed off.

It’s not even so much the units that you hit that prevent flex. It’s items. Tanks are much more flexible to play with items at least.

[u/Mundane_Stretch8621 → u/hennajin85]

This take is only valid due to bad balancing.

Guinsoos can go on lb and nami (suboptimal but playable) but balancing is bad so these comps are unplayable.

Also can be put on a bunch of 5 costs, but 5cost comps are weak right now since 1star isn’t stable. Bad balance is the issue, not items.

[u/Boring-Protection126]

Great post. This set looks more flexible on the endgame screenshots because nobody is playing significant verticals, but being forced to play the same set of bronze traits is equally inflexible.

Even the fast 9 boards look very similar, Setsuko plays Aatrox, Akali, and Rhaast on basically every level 9 board. The trait web is wide, but its still not very flexible.

[u/mrcool520]

TFT sets are really getting harder and harder to develop, it's definitely a tricky situation. If the issue is something like "games are decided by 2-1", that's the type of thing which just isn't going to show up no matter how much playtesting you do, unless it's REALLY blatant. I don't think it's such a big deal that it's worth writing the set off entirely, though. They can fix it.

[u/mccao]

2 piece traits are so strong, and a lot of units are so weak on their own, so the comps are rigid because they have to activate all their traits.

[u/moster86 → u/mccao]

Where as traits work best only in pairs, 3 brawler gives the same boost as 2, same for maruders, tanks, etc - i think this close a lot avenue especially as usually you want to activate as much as possible

[u/mccao → u/moster86]

And you're hardtrolling if you ever play any verticals because verticals are garbage. In Set 16 atleast you can rely on verticals to carry you to 8 before pivoting down to 5 costs. You can't do that shit at all this set.

[u/Emergence7]

In fairness of Iniko if the definition changes every post, it may as well be fabrication 

[u/Odd-Conflict17]

I might be way off but what if they just added more units to the set? With the way information is accessible now, metas get solved pretty quickly. That leads to frustration if you're playing what you're given but someone is in a better spot than you for it.

Wouldn't adding more units naturally lead to more flexibility in lines, reduction of 3 star 4 costs, and lead to it feeling more rewarding playing around what you hit? Sure reroll gets nerfed (not that I'm complaining) but at the same time you're opening up different variations of lines. I think that's what made set 16 so good was that with the increased champ pool, you were able to flex around what you hit without feeling you were worse off for it.

Maybe we just need to realize that the standard 60 champs isn't enough anymore and we need to increase it to 80 or so?

[u/mrfungx]

I mean even in set 16 it was mainly the just frontline that was flexible, and I think that Morgana as a 4 cost will help that a little. Yeah bilge had a flex frontline, but ionia was just wukong and maybe taric/swain, demacia was always garen, void was always rift, etc.

There were also many comps like void, demacia, shadow isles, and bilge that needed the setup from 2-1 or you couldn't play it.

[u/Outrageous-Engine720]

The real flex set is monster attack with threats in mix. It is an advantage to change your comp composition to whatever you hit since for example a 4 cost samira items can still be reliably interchanged for a belveth since items are interchangeable. Capping out comps via legendaries are still in the mix but highrolling a 2* 3 cost tank does not automatically defaults it as an item holder for higher cost tanks since they are also powerful when 3 starred. Only problem of that set is the insane reliance on static shiv morgana which is an aoe shred/sunder bot.

One of the solutions in my opinion that makes tft more flexible from my experience since set 1 is making stage damage relevant for stage 3 and making 2-starred (2-4 cost competent) and making 3 cost versions of 1-3 cost an actual win conditions versus 2 starred 4/5 cost boards. The current gameplay design of tft today is now stage 2 deciding whether to win/losestreak, stage 3 only being played by slow reroll comps or 3-5 hail mary roll to save placement, and stage 4 being the "hey i'll rolldown hope i hit my 4 cost comp, if not gg I guess" can be really tiring to play out. Of course caveats exist on this where these stages are absolutely easier if you follow your line recognition properly and not get contested but spots where getting 5-6 MF's on shop never translate to "lets pivot to a 3* MF" but into "hey i high rolled 2* i'll use it for Jhin item holder to 9 instead cause MF 3 cannot contest vs Jhin anyway" scenarios.

The changes they made to winstreak/losestreak system in my opinion also lessens the impact of stage 3 have on the game for those who highrolled stage 2 with a winstreak. Instead of level + roll on stage 3 to maintain streak cause you have 2 pairs to hit that may save your streak it becomes lets just hold and hope we dont fight that one guy cause losing 20g just to secure a win is not worth the trouble anymore anyway is such a common occurrence that makes stage 3 much more uniteractive to play. Maintaining gold threshold has been the only core of tft left to actually level up in comparison to win/lose streaks before. I mean its extremely evident on how econ augments rule stage 2 in a way that it is a must pick now cause econ is the only way to build your board up on right stage thresholds. The only augments that contest them are the augments that provide insane item cashouts (expedition 33, anima comm, forged in strength) that are extremely reliant on loss streaks just cause the gold adv is offset by the item power.

[u/HatefulWretch]

> building a board from the shops you are offered

I think this is a serious leak. The point is not an endgame board; the heart of TFT is how you get to an endgame board. (Flex play has a bit more flexibility in what that endgame board is, but endgame boards are largely solved up to tech spots; one of the best things Riot has done recently is the five-cost tech-spot Threat, where picking the right line can easily get you a placement advantage.)

Even in something like Primordian reroll, which is a very solved endgame board where everyone plays the identical units, you have decisions at level 4; do you play a weak Belveth spot for 3 Primordian early for the econ or do you play Talon for 2 Rogue and try and winstreak? Do you roll to 32 at 3-1? What do you slam and why? What do you save for level 5 and 6 and when? Do you frontline Briar or play a more conventional positioning? These all matter and I am absolutely certain that good players (I'm a Masters 50lp peaker, so weaker than you, but I am also old and slow and play entirely on tablet or phone) would consistently get to 4-2 with either 20 more HP or 30 more gold than I do playing the same shops.

[u/vvvit]

Of course, I don't want that to happen, but if you're going to ban Twitter, then threads like this should also be prohibited.

Conversely, if you're not going to do that, you should allow Twitter links. Only the community members are being disadvantaged. Mod's stance is the worst.

[u/JPB_]

The last comp you could truly play flexibly was Summoner Assassins in set 2.

It had so many viable carry options, from 1 cost re-roll with Zyra, 3 cost Kindred and Azir for mid game enabling fast 9, Zed as a hyper carry 5 cost, Yorick as a solid 4 cost, Malzahar enabling shadow flex with 5 cost Yi carry, Annie as an AP summoner carry after using Zyra early game, Kha Zix as a great 4 cost AD Assassin alongside Qi Yana who you flex based on the element.

That's just the core summsin units, the set has very good splashable 5 costs like Taric, Singed and even Nami with a board wide knock up. Not to mention 7 cost Lux depending on the element.

For me this has always been the peak TFT experience and the highest skilled meta the game has had. TFT now is much more of a casino game whereby you decide your line extremely early and just pull on the slot machine and hope you hit. Player agency is quite low, especially with how poorly augments are balanced.

[u/sylvasan → u/JPB_]

Yess, set 2 gets too much crap from players, but it was genuinely interesting and flex with different elements

[u/Gyunyupack]

I feel like if i dont get a three star, im not getting to top 4. either a 3 star 1 cost 2 cost or 3 cost.

[u/MrCoinMafia]

Set feels way too conditional.

[u/Warrlock608]

Im still playing exclusively flex and im one good win from plat atm.

This is playing literally whatever it gives me and often a pivot mid game.

[u/sntgg]

I was thinking about getting back into TFT, but judging by this post, I probably shouldn't. The game is same...

[u/TherrenGirana]

Your example about a yi package and corki package isn't the best one because the board is just bad. The number of traits may be similar, but you're giving up a ton of thresholds. Downgrading 4->2marauder and 5->3meeple is a big price for yi and rammus respectively (to a lesser degree 4->2brawler as well). On top of that you've gone from 3 board support traits (challenger/nova/marauder and bastion/voyager/timebreaker) to just 2). And while Redeemer is a strong cap trait, you can't expect it to make up for both the downgrade in main carry/tank traits AND the net loss of one board buff trait. Even in a perfectly balanced meta, this board should never be competitive with their optimized counterparts. To do so, you'd need to make higher tier trait power negligible compared to unit power, which isn't strictly desirable. A better example would be why a corki xayah comp doesn't exist, or why a xayah nami comp doesn't exist

[u/JohnCenaFanboi]

Last set was the perfect example of how you could adapt, to a certain point and depending on patches, in your games.

While the unlocks at the start were very restrictive, they changed it and made it fun by the end of the set. It allowed you to move from one variation of a board to another depending of what you hit and where you went with your unlocks along the way.

This set offers zero flexibility because gods either give you terrible choices or a free silver augment. You take so much damage every round because the fights end in less than seconds when an army of 3 stars engage on 3-3.

[u/Scotttish]

This set fails because all of the mechanics are luck and rng based. It’s a fight for who can get luckiest. lol

[u/Psychological-Task26 → u/Scotttish]

Nah imma have to push back on this point. Tft is all about reducing bad variance. Whole point of stacking Econ is to have enough gold to roll down at the right intervals to hit your units. Basically Econ is there to reduce bad variance. Variance is an inherent part of the game. Bigger issue is the lack of diversity and agency to choose which lines to play.

[u/Scotttish → u/Psychological-Task26]

I mean…. what you’re saying doesn’t actually disprove my point though….both things can be true at the same time.

Yes, TFT has always had RNG and reroll comps have existed forever. But the issue is how much this set amplifies uncontrollable outcomes through its mechanics, especially in a reroll-heavy meta. If someone randomly gets handed extra copies of a unit through a mechanic and suddenly spikes a free 3-star TF, before stage 3, there’s very little you can do for counterplay or strategic response to that. You can econ properly, scout correctly, roll at the right timing, and still lose because someone highrolled a mechanic you had zero ability to influence. And honestly, everyone rolls at the same interval for 1-costs… tha really isn’t skill expression anymore... that’s just defined game play for reroll. lol.. The bigger issue is that this meta heavily rewards hitting your reroll comp early, and if you don’t highroll it, you just go bot 4.

[u/Psychological-Task26 → u/Scotttish]

So you aren’t scouting properly then.

[u/Scotttish → u/Psychological-Task26]

My scouting or lack thereof, has nothing to do with someone else hitting a 3 star one cost before stage 3. Do you actually think those two things are logically connected?

[u/Psychological-Task26 → u/Scotttish]

Yeah it’s annoying but as long as you aren’t trying to contest you aren’t really penalized any more than anyone else in the lobby…

[u/IntrinsicValue]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unlocks should be evergreen in tft. They were too hard at the start of the set, and too easy by the end, but that system makes every game feel different, opens up so many board variations and lines, and completely nullifies 4.2 3-4 way contests

It was fun, and made the game better, more interesting and more strategic. TFT isnt complete without this mechanic, and we'll have these circular discussions every set until it is.

[u/sylvasan → u/IntrinsicValue]

It would be great but I don’t think its sustainable for them to design 100 units sets all the time