Talk:Trinity Force/@comment-8506165-20130801222403/@comment-3323227-20130804235902

No you brought up cost effectiveness between trinity and the items I mentioned. I never said the other items were cost effective. I merely said that despite it being cost effective the other items are still better. What you said below:

"1.) As long other items are not more cost-efficient, they are not....more cost-efficient. Thats contradicting itself. Neither Iceborne Gauntlet, Frozen Mallet, Lichbane, Phantom Dancers, or Statick Shivare is more cost-efficient than Trinity. Even without Passives taken into account."

Now anyway the way I see it cost effective items are only good when a champion can utilize the stats and the items are rushed and strong when rushed. Trinity is good when rushed since it is cost effective but the other items I mentioned are all slot efficient. They cost more than their value in most cases but they give the most amount of a particular or set of stats while only taking up one item slot.

That all being said cost effectiveness is an early game advantage of buying items when you have accumulated little gold while slot efficiency is a late game advantage when you have accumulated a ton of gold.

Both of these have an opportunity cost but I don't think trinity quite measures up despite it being cost effective.

I don't think Trinity needs a huge buff but rather a small change to it. The way the passive currently works suites champions with high base AD and not many of the low base AD champions because it is 150% of base AD. I think 80% to 100% of total AD would fit the item much better. There are of course many other ideas that could totally work.

I want to discuss the topic of the TF passive not the fact that the item is cost effective we know this and don't need to be reminded.