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.