Talk:Lux/@comment-37518538-20181115170117/@comment-28977071-20181128043857

The "full-dmg" mentioned in the metaphor was mentioned cuz otherwise I had an impression that this was what Komogee's talking about, from their post (the "AP instead of SUPPORT" part).

I comprehended that you did not mean full, exactly from your sentence you cited. I only disagreed with the last two lines of the post that we've analysed so throughly so far, ehm. Everything else in that post and your every other post makes sense to me. And my feeling was that those two final lines were exactly what was bothering XXFeatherPawXx as well.

And as Double Slap suggested (if I got it right), the discussion seems to be somewhat pointless. We are slowly going to be drifted away from the originial topic stated by the thread's author.. Pretty dull, cuz I responded only to support XXFeatherPawXx's point of view but it eventually ended up being our conversation, while XXFeatherPawXx possibly realised exactly the same thing as Double Slap and you.. and possibly everyone.. that all the argumentation is just about a trifle. And decided to not respond more at all. Smart. And dull.

Ok, as arguing about things, that each participant agrees on, is kinda unfruitful, I'll try to put up one last nuance I believe we might not share the exactly same opinion about. A "utility" from the amount of utility, I believe. Cuz this was one of crucial arguments, measuring as subpar to other "true" supports and considering her utility to be relatively a lackluster. While I agree that despite the nature of her utility, she might be comparatively less gifted in this aspect than super-supports, I don't think that this must eventually lead to her offering less utility. I mean, why having less utility should be decisive without any treshold when utility imo has possibly diminishing returns on a high level:


 * The reason why a 's being picked with a carry on, is the synergy of their utility and dmg. A full utility team equals an obvious fail, as there won't be anyone to secure objectives. An all-dmg team, and the synergy isn't here either, it's just 5 ppl. But a team of 5 ppl with the right amount of utility (e.g. a true ) equals virtually 6, or even 7, people. Sort of a multiplication, if either of coefficients equals zero, the product does too. Hence we could expect an optimal point somewhere inbetween two extremes. This implies the diminishing returns after going beyond such a point. Having more utility could also mean having too much utility. Now this sounds actually in accordance with what you're saying as well, you can pick exactly cuz of her dmg, to not push over the optimum. But, as "true" supports can also pick less utility stuff and  can pick more utility stuff, they can end up even. We did not pick  cuz of her more dmg, but cuz of synergies and matchups. Cuz of the uniqueness of her kit and the ways it could be played. And it ended up on par with other "true" supports, cuz we weren't competiting about having most utility, but just hitting the amount optimal for the team. You get the idea.


 * There's also another one small practical reason why having too much utility can imo lead to diminishing returns. To actually be able to use it. As a, I occasionally end up in a peculiar situation with up to 6 item actives (I think we can usually not count boots, is quite rare on s). With all the active abilities and summoners, that's a lot of things to do properly in a teamfight. And it often happens to me to fail to manage them all successfully. Ergo maybe "too much" utility. Ofc this could have more to do with my incompetence personally-_- And passives clearly do not have such a problem.

The point was that maybe having less of initial utility isn't a lackluster, as a game isn't a utility race and the optimum isn't at the maximum achievable amount. Therefore even s with the greatest innate utility could eventually opt out of it a bit, allowing to "catch up".