Riot's mid-LCS tweaks have sown the seeds of distrust between the teams and tournament organisers. Could this be the start of even bigger problems?
A firestorm has swept across the League of Legends scene recently, burning many along its way and prying open a rift between Riot and all interested parties.
The recent 6.15 patch sparked a fierce back and forth, and has widened the divide, as players, teams and organisations make reactionary adjustments to the massive meta shift. Riot’s hardline stance has become the catalyst for a bitter struggle.
So how did this all come about?
Cast your mind back to the opening game of the NA LCS Summer semi-finals between TSM and CLG.
The match was plagued by a misfortunate visual bug which effected Huhi’s champion, Aurelion Sol. Apparently the champion’s orbs were visible, even though he wasn’t anywhere near the location.
The wrong knowledge was inferred, which in turn affected TSM’s movements around the map, and in a game where motion and positioning are critical, this skewed the game’s balance.
There were similar instances on a number of occasions, and so eventually the game was remade, and Aurelion Sol was banned for the rest of the series.
It was a burn for CLG – they were up on kills 2-0 and leading in gold – but also, Huhi’s previous 4.0 KDA on Aurelion Sol made the ban a hard pill to swallow. TSM won 3-0.
This is testament to how Riot’s untimely patches are affecting LCS and hindering the competitive scene. Players often spend months in preparation, perfecting their tactics, so a lot of strategic value is lost when game changing alterations to the meta are enforced just before a big tournament.
All hell broke loose when Andy “Reginald” Dinh, owner of TSM, spoke out and criticised Riot over the difficulties the Lane Swap Patch posed when dropped suddenly.
He pointed out that the current system doesn’t have the players’ best interests at heart, and that it doesn’t reward players for months of preparation and hard work.
He also explained how stressful it is for players, coaches and team owners when game changing alterations are put in place just before a big event; last year it was the juggernaut, again, right before Worlds.
Too much of the team’s success rides on Riot’s game balancing decisions, as relegation is a real threat. But patch issues are just the tip of the iceberg. Quickly, the issue snowballed, picking up many Riot officials, casters, teams and fans along the way.
The controversy escalated, and suddenly Riot’s general practices and management of LCS have come under fire.
Riot’s tight rules on brand involvement and sponsorships make it extremely hard for players to make revenue through other means, which puts them under a lot of pressure to succeed.
The risk of relegation also means that instability creates greater risk for investors and sponsorships. With limited scope for advertisement, and restrictions on marketing opportunities, it’s increasingly harder to justify investment – and that’s bad for everyone.
This is particularly poignant in the case of NRG eSports, who were recently relegated from the NA LCS. After the relegation, it disbanded its entire League of Legends team, leaving its players as free agents.
So what’s Riot’s stance?
Co-founder Marc “Tryndamere” Merrill fired back in response to Reginald’s criticisms, saying that the recent patch, “intentionally prioritized game health and viewer experience (cool bot lane fights and early game aggression) over the ability for teams/coaches to field ‘safer’ comps by lane swapping.”
He also stated that it had already proven to be successful, encouraging more early game aggression in the LCS Playoffs.
For viewers, yes, there’s no doubt the patch makes things a whole lot more exciting, but it does make life extremely difficult for players.
What about all their preparation? TSM players on average spend over 12 hours a day practicing, which leaves them little to no time or energy for much else.
Not only that, but a lot of teams would have built their rosters around the lane-swap meta coming into the season. And due to the roster locks, teams don’t really have the opportunity to adapt with line-up changes. Imagine the implications it has on this season’s rankings.
Tryndamere also implied that it was up to the team owners to provide stability for its players, but how feasible is this under current circumstances? After all, everyone seems to be at the mercy of Riot.
After the dispute came to a head, other team owners came out in support of Reginald’s statement. Andy Miller, co-founder of NRG eSports, H2K CEO Susan Tully, and Cloud9 owner and team manager Jack Etienne were but a few figures voicing concerns about how players and organisations are harshly limited in revenue opportunities.
And that’s just at the upper tier of the game. Attracting sponsors for a team like TSM can be problematic at times, but what about the lower bracket teams?
Prize money and merchandising are the only ways for a team to earn money, which can be paralysing if relegated. Riot could stave off these arduous circumstances if it chose to introduce some sort of revenue sharing.
HTC also found themselves amidst the firefighting when Riot threatened Reginald over a video which was released of the team playing Raw Data on the HTC Vive.
Riot demanded the video to be taken down and said it was “a [tacit] advertisement for another game” and that the “LCS isn’t a platform for other game companies to advertise on.”
Furthermore, HTC have hinted they may pull out of the LCS sponsorship entirely due to the little space they have to manoeuvre in. They are the current sponsors of TSM, Cloud9, Team Liquid and J Team.
But the biggest strike to the nervous system for the community, casters and team owners alike was Tryndamere’s denunciation, implying the mistreatment of talent, which some would argue was a bit hypocritical.
“Maybe he [Reginald] should send some more of the millions he has made/makes from League of Legends on paying them instead if investing in other eSports where he is losing money?”, Tryndamere said in a Reddit post.
Ouch. He went on: “There is still a long way to go to help get all of our owners into a better state where the balance of power between players and owners is a bit more equitable – it’s not up to us (nor should it be) to determine market pricing for players, but when owners don’t want to shell out for top talent, that’s a tricky problem.”
This left a bitter taste in many mouths. A lot of people believe Riot could and should do a lot more themselves.
With no revenue sharing, heavy sponsorship limitations, and a refusal to increase the player stipend since 2013, Riot themselves are contributing to the storm of pressure that players have to deal with. Meanwhile, seasons are much longer and schedules are more packed than ever.
Renegades co-owner Christopher “MonteCristo” Mykles weighed in on the debate releasing a video in response to Tryndamere’s comments.
He addressed the issue of players being mistreated and stated, to his knowledge, players are already getting more than the Riot-mandated minimum. Plus, with the constant threat of relegation, it makes sense for owners to invest in good players.
He also raised the issue of Riot’s unfair treatment of casters and how limited they are in comparison to other casters in eSports.
Needless to say, Riot has found itself shivering in this winter of discontent – and the discontent is palpable. A continuation of the current circumstances will only serve to put greater distance between League of Legends and serious investment. So what will come of all this, if anything?
