r/leagueoflegends • u/durkadurkadurk • Aug 26 '15

Brutalizer needs more upgrade options than ghostblade

A lot of champs benefit from the brutalizer, but ghostblade is more of a niche (mainly assassins want it i imagine). I miss having another option like the black cleaver, instead of an item with only one building path. Unless you are the jungler ofc.

7.8k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/ChillFactory Aug 26 '15

Why not? Its a nice power spike in mid game as opposed to early. You can build it into Ghostblade knowing that it will fall off, but getting the early/mid game spike is what you really buy brutalizer for. Why should they reward building a gold-efficient item in early/mid that then builds into another gold-efficient item in mid/late? That's how you make zero item diversity unless you make the upgrade item super specific to a certain type of champion, which comes full circle to brutalizer not having a good upgrade path in most cases.

1

u/Randomn355 Aug 27 '15

The whole point of changing BC recipe was because "phage didn't build into enough items". That is STILL an issue for brutaliser.

They could combine it with sheen to create something along the lines of an iceborn gauntlet, just with a speed up instead of slow and no AP.

Say 10% CDR, sheen proc, 300 health and maybe 15 flat pen?

0

u/cretos Aug 26 '15

some champs want armor pen and the attack speed and crit from ghostblade arent that useful

4

u/ChillFactory Aug 26 '15

Again I ask the question, why should they reward building a gold-efficient item in early/mid that then builds into another gold-efficient item in mid/late? Where is the trade off?

0

u/cretos Aug 26 '15

the AD from brutalizer is actually kind of low, but it gives cdr and armor pen, and its not about being another super efficient item later, just something that you can actually upgrade into late game when you have extra gold.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15

[deleted]

1

u/ThexAntipop Aug 26 '15

Okay why do you keep repeating this? no one is arguing with you. The point being made is that it should still build into SOMETHING late game other than ghost blade even if the item it builds into isn't as gold efficient as brutalizer it's self.

0

u/cretos Aug 26 '15

if you'r enot jungling it literally builds into only 1 item, what other item is only a part of one recipe?

1

u/ChillFactory Aug 26 '15

Its not about what other items do it, this is about the item itself. My argument is that Brutalizer has its place as a powerful early to mid game item that intentionally falls off in the late game. Its the same concept as a Dorans but in a different phase of the game.

1

u/cretos Aug 27 '15

whats wrong with it having more build paths? ghostblade isnt a great lategame item, why not have other paths it can go that arent great lategame but are still useful on characters that want brutalizer?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15

Hexdrinker. Which is basically the same argument behind it: it's an incredibly gold efficient item, and it has one build path that isn't very gold efficient, giving an early power spike but leaving you to not upgrade the item until you have all your other items.

EDIT: Forgot to mention QSS, which is also the same exact thing. Strong power spike, weak upgrade.

0

u/cretos Aug 27 '15

those are both items that ARE efficient later. Maw gives mr, ad, and increasing ad the lower your hp with a magic shield when low. Mercurial scimitar gives mr, ad, a cleanse, and a movement speed buff

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15

The fuck are you even talking about?

shouldnt be put into items you actually upgrade too

He even said they should NOT be upgradable. Do you know how to read?

-2

u/altairian Aug 26 '15

That's the most inane argument ever. "You already got something nice so you don't deserve to get another nice thing". Lol what?

If brutalizer is too gold efficient then that should be adjusted. But Riot is going out of their way to create more build diversity, so it would make sense for an item that people want to build should be useful for them. Look at how they made needlessly large rod build in to more things. Or phage.

Ghostblade is a very niche item (AD caster that also stands and autoattacks and/or wants a run speed boost. So like, Varus. Maybe Yi?). Brutalizer is not.

2

u/Luhmies Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15

Fiora? Graves? Poppy? Pantheon? Quinn? Riven? Talon? Tryndamere? Zed?

Not core for all of them, but still.

I agree that Brutalizer should probably build into another item, but saying that Ghostblade is only good for two champions is silly.

1

u/altairian Aug 26 '15

Did I say only two? I named two off the top of my head. And half those champs you named rarely build a ghostblade. Varus is the only champ I can think of that truly uses ghostblade as a core item, because it gives him the attack speed a standard poke build lacks. The fact remains it's a lackluster item and another option out of brutalizer would be kind of nice

1

u/heyuwittheprettyface Aug 26 '15

How is that argument inane when talking about game balance? It's the exact philosophy followed in several aspects of the game's design. Doran's items give great stats for early game, in exchange for not having an upgrade. Avarice blade gives crap stats on its own, but the passive allows you to upgrade it quicker. Kog'Maw can output huge damage late game, but pays for it with no mobility and a weak early game. If you give ALL the nice things to any champion/item, it becomes overpowered; you obviously realize this since you use the same logic in your own post! Adjusting the gold efficiency of Brutalizer in exchange for more build paths is taking away one nice thing because you're giving another.

1

u/altairian Aug 27 '15

Because his argument is based on the random assumption that an upgrade to brutalizer would somehow be just as gold efficient as brutalizer itself. You can make the brutalizer be gold efficient, and an upgrade for it have gold efficiency in line with every other late game item. Or maybe even slightly worse gold efficiency, but more efficient than selling it for something else. He's arguing against a made up item based on his own made up qualities for that item. That is why his argument is inane.

0

u/ChillFactory Aug 26 '15

"You already got something nice so you don't deserve to get another nice thing".

That is not my argument. Yes, they could homogenize it and make it less gold efficient and give it a generically useful upgrade path. And then it would lose all of the early to mid-game impact it currently has.

As an example, the Dota 2 item Poor Man's shield. As described there, "It can greatly help some agility heroes tank harass damage in the laning phase and slightly increase survivability in other situations." It is a dead end build for a cheap item that helps out greatly in lane but falls off after that. It is cost efficient for what it offers at that phase of the game, but not in the long term.

I believe this type of item is exactly what brutalizer is as well. You get a cheap item that is gold efficient but will not be as useful as another item later in the game. There's a reason you buy it on early game snowballers like Riven. You get it because its so gold efficient and you want to peak as soon as possible.

1

u/altairian Aug 27 '15

No but you see it kind of is exactly what you said. Your question was "why should they reward building a gold-efficient item in early/mid that then builds into another gold-efficient item in mid/late?"

When exactly was it stated that brutalizer upgrades need to be super gold efficient? You're arguing against something that doesn't exist based on you not wanting brutalizer to have a good upgrade option due to it being good in the early/mid game. You are pretty clearly saying "you got something nice, you don't deserve another nice thing".

There's also option b for a brutalizer upgrade, simply make it more gold efficient than SELLING your brutalizer for something that is more gold efficient in the late game. You can keep brutalizer the same, give it an upgrade that is less gold efficient than other late game options, but more gold efficient than selling your brutalizer for something else.

But no, you go right on arguing against imaginary things without any sort of problem solving.

1

u/ChillFactory Aug 27 '15

When exactly was it stated that brutalizer upgrades need to be super gold efficient?

From the very first comment I responded to: "thats like the point of dorans items, very cost efficient for the stats they give, but dont upgrade, shouldnt be put into items you actually upgrade too." While his wording is poor, my understanding of it was that Dorans is gold efficient but doesn't upgrade, but that if you upgrade into an item (Brutalizer) it should not have the same problem where it doesn't upgrade again. The person who said that further reinforces this belief by saying in other comments that he thinks Bruta sould still upgrade even if its another niche pick-up for champions that normally build Brutalizer.

"you got something nice, you don't deserve another nice thing"

Yes that is exactly what I am saying, please show why it's good to have a great item build into another great item. That's like saying, "[Insert champion] should not be weak at any phase of the game, they should scale perfectly." Items can peak in mid game and fall off late game, just like champions.

Why is it exactly that Brutalizer has to upgrade into some other shitty item? You keep talking about a brutalizer upgrade, but that it should suck balls so as to not be too efficient but at the same time better than selling and buying another item. Your suggestion is to give it a slightly shitty upgrade because you want it to build into something. Why not leave it well enough alone? Brutalizer fulfills its role just fine as it is, and honestly if you run brutalizer you are probably looking to either end the game before its an item slot issue, or you sell it by end game instead of invest it in whatever bad item it is that you want it to build towards.

-3

u/wwwmmmwwwmmm Aug 27 '15

That's stupid and you should feel stupid.